NationStates Jolt Archive

Guantanamo inmates 'have rights'
Guantanamo's Camp Delta detention compound on 6 June
Guantanamo's Camp Delta compound has housed prisoners since 2002

Foreign suspects held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, the US Supreme Court has ruled.

It overturned by five to four a ruling that upheld a 2006 law that took away the rights of suspects to seek full judicial review of their detention.

It is not clear if the ruling will lead to prompt hearings for the detainees.

Some 270 men are held at the US naval base, on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

The court said the detainees "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus".

Justice Anthony Kennedy said: "The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

This is the Bush administration's third setback at the highest US court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charge at the base in Cuba.

The court has ruled twice previously that Guantanamo inmates could go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention.

But each time, the Bush administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to keep the detainees out of civilian courts.

Last week, five detainees, including key suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, appeared before a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dismissed the trial as an "inquisition".

Source
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7451139.stm)

A step in the right direction at last?

Works for those who haven't already been charged - they'll have to be charged with something or released.

As for the ones who have been charged - it's already been ruled that the revised military tribunals are just fine.

Well.....good.

:D Kudos to Harold and Kumar for making this change possible!

Of course they have rights - being a person before the law and having a right to equal protection of the law and a remedy before competent tribunals for violations of these rights and full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him - those are all fundamental human rights. Don't hold your breath for the USA to respect them, though, as they are known to violate them in the rapist sense. "But each time, the Bush administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to keep the detainees out of civilian courts."

the people in Gitmo have the right to tell us where other terrorist are. other then that they have to right to a firing squad.

They are not US citizens thus they don't have the same rights as American citizens. Also they are not uniformed enemy combatants. When they capture American military personel or civilians they torture and kill them. I say we kill them all american style. High cholesterol, fatty foods for the rest of their lives

They are not US citizens thus they don't have the same rights as American citizens.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Where does it refer to America citizens?

the people in Gitmo have the right to tell us where other terrorist are. other then that they have to right to a firing squad.

They are not US citizens thus they don't have the same rights as American citizens. Also they are not uniformed enemy combatants. When they capture American military personel or civilians they torture and kill them. I say we kill them all american style. High cholesterol, fatty foods for the rest of their lives

...how unlucky you are to have me as your opponent...

***Dealt from the bottom of the deck, spoken with words of poison! Subject, verb, object, modifier! Uncover the falsehoods beneath this claim, and shed, upon them, the seventh LIGHT!***

***7th Flush***

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you're acting like the terrorists you claim to be against.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll be legitimizing them and galvanizing the terrorists.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll catch innocent people in the net, innocent people that WILL want revenge.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll waste time and resources holding them indefinitely.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll become like the KKK, Stalin, and all the other people you claim to be against.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, Americans will be that much less safe against being treated the same way.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll be allowing your government to make the same claim about YOU.

...your hands, sirs?

the people in Gitmo have the right to tell us where other terrorist are. other then that they have to right to a firing squad.

And if they don't know where other terrorists are? What...they make it up?

And if they don't know where other terrorists are? What...they make it up?

They say the white house, duh.

And if they don't know where other terrorists are? What...they make it up?

They say what they think the torturers want to hear, get the torturers to waste time and resources, and watch as this makes the country that caught them and called them terrorists WITHOUT any proof less and less safe. And less human, too.

the people in Gitmo have the right to tell us where other terrorist are. other then that they have to right to a firing squad.

What if they are un-aware of the location of other terrorists being that they are not one themselfs?

What if they are un-aware of the location of other terrorists being that they are not one themselfs?

Then they torture to feel good and exercise their power upon their victims.

You know, like rapists do.

Those who would oppose the content of this ruling on the grounds that it will allow guilty prisoners an easier path to being released due to the heightened protections of the US court system are off-base in their assertions. The rulings today (anybody know their names, by the way?), from what I've read, would only allow for prisoners to challenge the status of their detentions; in other words, judges would simply decide if there is a reasonable amount of suspicion to hold the people in question. Unless someone is being held indefinitely simply due to a case of "he said, she said," with nothing to back it up, then I can't see courts letting people with potentially valuable information go free. Furthermore, US judges are American citizens as well, so they have just as much of an interest in protecting the national security of this country as do the members of the Executive Branch and the military. So, I can't see judges happily letting prisoners go free without considering just how much is at stake for their own lives.

other then that they have to right to a firing squad.No, they don't. Otherwise many of them would have had themselves shot already; especially the actual terrorists among them.

Breaking the rules can come back to haunt you! Look at the OJ trial.

that right comes after they tell us where their terrorist buddies are.

Who says they even have terrorist buddies?

that right comes after they tell us where their terrorist buddies are.

You're here. Will you answer my response to you or acquiesce to my claims?

No, they don't. Otherwise many of them would have had themselves shot already; especially the actual terrorists among them.

that right comes after they tell us where their terrorist buddies are.

that right comes after they tell us where their terrorist buddies are.Well, even if they had known that at the time they were arrested, I don't think this many years later those buddies will still be waiting where they were.

that right comes after they tell us where their terrorist buddies are.
that right comes after you convince me every single person in there has terrorist buddies.

Typing that hurt my head. I have to repeat exactly what you say to make the point. The grammar their is horrible. Normally I'd apologise in case English is your second language, but it's not just the grammar that makes you look foolish, it's the content.

I think that these prisoners are POWs, and have all the accompanying rights, unless evidence emerges that they attempted to harm American civilians. Actually, I have an idea regarding how we can interrogate these people without violating the Geneva Convention. Rather than torture them, provide them with positive incentives.

Specifically, any prisoner may volunteer information, in return for having a reasonable request fulfilled. The request is only fulfilled if the information turns out to be useful, of course. Here are some examples of a reasonable request:

- To have a radio in his cell (though they might be disappointed with the local music selection)
- To have a meal of the prisoner's choice (shipped in from the US in all probability)
- To display a film of the prisoner's choice
- To meet with a civilian imam for an extended time period
- To have some kind of communication with his family (the amount of effort the US spends on contacting the family is proportional to the value of the information. Giving the location of a weapons cache in Afghanistan might be worth a ten-minute phone call to Saudi Arabia. Exposing a cell in the United States might be worth tracking down a family in Pakistan and arranging a two-hour videoconference. Four, if the plot involved WMDs.)
- To arrange a room swap of some kind, depending on how cells are set up at Guantanamo. This could involve moving to another block - or, if there is more than one prisoner per cell, having a cellmate transferred to another block.

See, breaking the true fanatics will be difficult to impossible. Our best hope is to focus on those who are in doubt, or have even lost hope entirely. They will be susceptible to incentives. The location of that weapons cache might be worth a falafel spread. Or having "Abu Dung Heap" transferred to the other side of the prison.

Who says they even have terrorist buddies?

we determine if they have terrorist buddies after we do those interrogations on them

we determine if they have terrorist buddies after we do those interrogations on them

And if they don't, do they get to rightly punish you for torturing them?

I think that these prisoners are POWs, and have all the accompanying rights, unless evidence emerges that they attempted to harm American civilians.

I didn't think the definition of POW mentioned anything about harming civilians.

Source
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7451139.stm)

A step in the right direction at last?

Nice to know that somewhere there are people who still understand the Constitution. What is fucked up, however, is that it was 5-4. Shouldn't have been that close.

Though I support the ruling, I question its legitimacy within the framework of the Constitution. After all, weren't the fifth and sixth amendments drafted to apply to domestic criminal cases? That, and has there ever been a case in history where national security matters were left to the discretion of criminal courts, outside of questions of law (i.e. how does the Constitution apply, etc.)?

As for the ones who have been charged - it's already been ruled that the revised military tribunals are just fine.

By who? A military tribunal...?

By who? A military tribunal...?

The Supreme Court already ruled on the military tribunals. They had to make some changes to make them legal.

There's also been a sea change in treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan. Most of the time now, there just aren't any.

If you call for an airstrike on insurgents, there aren't any to bring back. There's a lot of pursue and destroy now, instead of letting them run away.

If we do manage to catch any, they go to an Afghan prison, which no one really cares about. People only get world wide press angst if the US captures them.

Honestly, they're better off in a US prison.

But most of them end up dead. I mean, when a Hellfire comes in through your window when you're sharing a meal with your fellow insurgents, there isn't much to take anywhere.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the military tribunals. They had to make some changes to make them legal.
.

Thats great. And of course the fact of 4-5 years detention, torture etc before any military tribunal even opens won't affect the trial one bit. My faith in the system is restored.

Thats great. And of course the fact of 4-5 years detention, torture etc before any military tribunal even opens won't affect the trial one bit. My faith in the system is restored.

I believe the phrase is, "A fair trial, followed by a first-class hanging..."

I would have rathered, in hindsight, merely to have refused their surrenders on the battlefield. It's been a lot of bad press to have handled them at all, and no end of public grief.

It would have been legal and untraceable. See those guys on the hillside there who were shooting at us a few minutes ago? Call for an airstrike on their position. Problem solved.

Unless someone is being held indefinitely simply due to a case of "he said, she said," with nothing to back it up...
That is exactly how they are being held.

I would have rathered, in hindsight, merely to have refused their surrenders on the battlefield.
They were not captured on any "battlefield". They were rounded based on anonymous denunciations from their neighbors, who were paid to give names of "insurgents", and nobody enquires whether the neighbors just had a grudge or were picking names at random.

They were not captured on any "battlefield". They were rounded based on anonymous denunciations from their neighbors, who were paid to give names of "insurgents", and nobody enquires whether the neighbors just had a grudge or were picking names at random.

Not all of them, by far. Certainly not some of the al-Q ringleaders who are going to be on trial.

Plenty were picked up on the battlefield. Hundreds were released after arriving at Guantanamo, a point often missed by critics. A lot of those were the ones rounded up as you say.

There seems to be some idea you have that no one ever reviewed how these people were caught, and that all are somehow gathered up as you say.

Many were caught on the battlefield.

That is exactly how they are being held.

Which is why this ruling is a good thing.

Many were caught on the battlefield.
Really? I'm sure you don't have a source for that, since Gitmo doesn't really release much of any information at all.

On this subject, can any of the lawyers or other knowledgeable people here point me to the decision that first established due process rights for non-citizens? I need to win an argument elsewhere. ;)

A step in the right direction, which even Fass managed to grudgingly admit in his own sarcastic way.

Now let's keep it going. Let's get those people released and compensated for the shit we've thrown at them!(Undoubtably one of the few things we didn't actually do to them...)

I am almost surprised that there's any sanity left.

I congratulate SCOTUS on the judgement, but I'm not happy about the 5-4 split.

On this subject, can any of the lawyers or other knowledgeable people here point me to the decision that first established due process rights for non-citizens? I need to win an argument elsewhere. ;)
There was a batch of cases called collectively the "Insular Cases" that were big issues in the 1900 Presidential campaign, concerning whether the US Constitution applied in the Phillippines and Puerto Rico after we took them from Spain; the catchphrase in the editorial page was "Does the Constitution follow the Flag?" The Supreme Court hemmed and hawed and ruled that some of the rights did apply and some of the rights didn't; "the Constitution follows the Flag, but it doesn't quite catch up", Elihu Root summarized it.

Weems v. U.S., 217 U.S. 349 (1910) was the first case to hold more explicitly that due process rights hold for non-citizens.

They were not captured on any "battlefield". They were rounded based on anonymous denunciations from their neighbors, who were paid to give names of "insurgents", and nobody enquires whether the neighbors just had a grudge or were picking names at random.

...like Murat Kurnaz, "captured" in Pakistan, and held at Guantanamo for five years, four of them after being determined innocent, before he was released. Innocent (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0522/p01s06-woeu.html).

And Sami al-Hajj, captured in Pakistan in December 2001, on his way to Afghanistan. Released on May 1st 2008, the Al Jazeera cameraman has never been charged. Innocent. Caused Sudan (!) to condemn the lack of respect for human rights by the US, and justifiably so.

Just two named examples.

And if they don't, do they get to rightly punish you for torturing them?

you say torture, I say tohrtuhre
either way I think they are something different.
Besides even if it hurts a little they should be happy that their sacrifices are keeping the US safe.
Only the real terrorist would be angry about having information extracted form them.

I would have rathered, in hindsight, merely to have refused their surrenders on the battlefield.

Plenty were picked up on the battlefield.

Many were caught on the battlefield. .

...those of them that were captured on the battlefield, you mean. Only 5% were captured by US forces and only 8% overall were deemed "fighters". 55% 'committed no hostile act' against US and allied forces. A rather large 86% were actually seized in Pakistan, for rewards offered for 'enemy combatants'.

Of course the real dilemma here now is whether you forgot that all this came out (courtesy of US defence Dept Info), never knew, or are just lying.....You being you, I'd say its the latter.

Besides even if it hurts a little they should be happy that their sacrifices are keeping the US safe.

The US are not worth the sacrifices of ANYONE outside it. It's not your place to demand anyone else's sacrifice but your own.

Then again, I'm assuming at this point that you're trolling, joking or insane.

The US are not worth the sacrifices of ANYONE outside it. It's not your place to demand anyone else's sacrifice but your own.

Then again, I'm assuming at this point that you're trolling, joking or insane.

funny thing is your the first one to guess I am joking. You win teh internet.

This ruling makes things simple,do not take terroists prisoner,you shoot them in the fucking head on the battlefield,after a drumhead trial.

problem solved.


I really hate Lawyers,bottom feeding scumbags.

funny thing is your the first one to guess I am joking. You win teh internet.

Considering the number of absolute loons we have here that argue the same position in all seriousness, how the hell was anyone supposed to guess?

I really hate Lawyers,bottom feeding scumbags.

Yeah, fucking lawyers!

This ruling makes things simple,do not take Americans prisoner,you shoot them in the fucking head on the battlefield,after a drumhead trial.

problem solved.


Turnabout is fair play no?

Turnabout is fair play no?

They already do that don't they?

Considering the number of absolute loons we have here that argue the same position in all seriousness, how the hell was anyone supposed to guess?

My attempts to type in the Bush dialect should have been a big hint.

They already do that don't they?

Not in most conflicts. And the US administration likes to make a lot of noise about "treatment according to the Geneva convention" when it's their troops being held.

Not in most conflicts. And the US administration likes to make a lot of noise about "treatment according to the Geneva convention" when it's their troops being held.

I am curious, is there an equivalent to Gitmo somewhere that we have soldiers being held? Is there a court system hearing our soldiers cases?

I haven't finished reading, but this is my take:

Terrorists, from my limited experience/exposure to them, operate in cells. This is logical, because cells are made up of very few people, which means there's very little information to give. They can't tell you where there are others, because they probably have NO CLUE WHERE ANOTHER CELL MIGHT BE.

Sorry again if this has already been said.

The people in the Bay have rights as well, and torture is never an option when trying to attain information, because enough torture will lead to false information. They'll tell you what you wanna hear. That's it. Not only that, but how can America take the "moral high ground" and say "we're better than you" to those against America if they're doing the exact same things?

I am curious, is there an equivalent to Gitmo somewhere that we have soldiers being held? Is there a court system hearing our soldiers cases?

well some have speculated in Vietnam. but once we opened relations with them it seemed very unlikely.

Guantanamo prisinors had many rights to choose to attack the enemy (U.S et al.,) and they decided to attack. Releasing many of these inmates will just allow them to go and join the terrorists again.

Releasing them is far too expensive. It would be much easier if they could just be killed instead.

Stop having a bleeding heart for the terrorists and give a dam about the huge numbers they terrorized and killed before hand

I am curious, is there an equivalent to Gitmo somewhere that we have soldiers being held? Is there a court system hearing our soldiers cases?

They did when a US Apache was shot down and its crew taken prisoner back in the opening stages of the second Gulf War.

Guantanamo prisinors had many rights to choose to attack the enemy (U.S et al.,) and they decided to attack. Releasing many of these inmates will just allow them to go and join the terrorists again.

Releasing them is far too expensive. It would be much easier if they could just be killed instead.

Stop having a bleeding heart for the terrorists and give a dam about the huge numbers they terrorized and killed before hand

The point is we'd probably be killing a lot of innocents, because we can't be completely sure. I don't know much about the Guantanimo situation right now though so I can't accurately comment on who's innocent or how many there are. I'd rather not have a mass murder-done-execution-style all over the world news making America look worse.

funny thing is your the first one to guess I am joking. You win teh internet.

Well, to be fair, I said "trolling, joking or insane"... :p

Well, to be fair, I said "trolling, joking or insane"... :p

haha, it was still in there though Heikoku, so I'd say you still win

Guantanamo prisinors had many rights to choose to attack the enemy (U.S et al.,) and they decided to attack. Releasing many of these inmates will just allow them to go and join the terrorists again.

Releasing them is far too expensive. It would be much easier if they could just be killed instead.

Stop having a bleeding heart for the terrorists and give a dam about the huge numbers they terrorized and killed before hand

This ruling makes things simple,do not take terroists prisoner,you shoot them in the fucking head on the battlefield,after a drumhead trial.

problem solved.


I really hate Lawyers,bottom feeding scumbags.

...well, since you two are so willing to use such careless moves, with me around no less, I'll be forced to repeat myself...

***Dealt from the bottom of the deck, spoken with words of poison! Subject, verb, object, modifier! Uncover the falsehoods beneath this claim, and shed, upon them, the seventh LIGHT!***

***7th Flush***

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you're acting like the terrorists you claim to be against.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll be legitimizing them and galvanizing the terrorists.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll catch innocent people in the net, innocent people that WILL want revenge.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll waste time and resources holding them indefinitely.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll become like the KKK, Stalin, and all the other people you claim to be against.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, Americans will be that much less safe against being treated the same way.

If you make the claim that certain people have no rights, you'll be allowing your government to make the same claim about YOU.

...your hands, sirs?

Scalia pointed out in his dissent that there is a distinction between citizens and aliens and the Constitution doesn't create juridical relation between the two. It's unfortunate the court stepped in especially when Justice Roberts pointed out other means were not exhausted including the detainee treatment act.

They did when a US Apache was shot down and its crew taken prisoner back in the opening stages of the second Gulf War.


But that is Saddam, he took prisoners right? Are those the prisoners he paraded on tv for propaganda purposes? His prisoners are not what is in Gitmo. They have been returned when he was defeated, iirc.

I am asking is there an equivalent Gitmo regarding prisoners taken by Al Q terrorists? Are there trials held for our soldiers taken by them? Or are they just killed and there are no prisoners held by Al Q?

well some have speculated in Vietnam. but once we opened relations with them it seemed very unlikely.

I was really wanting to know in reference to the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan presently. Does Al Queda conduct trials and hold our soldiers prisoners? Do they have a Gitmo type facility? Sorry I wasn't very clear in my question.

I was really wanting to know in reference to the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan presently. Does Al Queda conduct trials and hold our soldiers prisoners? Do they have a Gitmo type facility? Sorry I wasn't very clear in my question.
No.
they just video tape cutting their heads off.

No.
they just video tape cutting their heads off.

Oh lovely. :(

You know I really am having a difficult time feeling generous when thinking on this situation.

Oh lovely. :(

You know I really am having a difficult time feeling generous when thinking on this situation.

funny thing is the terrorist don't know the difference between US soldiers and European Aid workers. I think most of the beheadings have been European Aid workers.

funny thing is the terrorist don't know the difference between US soldiers and European Aid workers. I think most of the beheadings have been European Aid workers.

I have to wonder if they even care if there is a difference. I have my doubts.

I have to wonder if they even care if there is a difference. I have my doubts.

They do... Terrorists are basically sniviling cowards. They mostly snag the aid workers as they are "soft targets". Not armed, no defense.

When you are a lowly, belly dragging jackal, why mess with sheepdogs, when sheep are plentiful?

They do... Terrorists are basically sniviling cowards. They mostly snag the aid workers as they are "soft targets". Not armed, no defense.

When you are a lowly, belly dragging jackal, why mess with sheepdogs, when sheep are plentiful?

Cowards? I doubt that - it must take a lot of guts to strap explosives to your chest and go out hunting infidels - knowing full well that you won't survive it...

Aid workers are nice targets, not because they're soft but because it's that kind of attacks that result in headlines. Do the newspapers even bother write about the soldiers that die these days? "Oh, just another marine in a bodybag - no big deal". It'll get a small notice in the back of the paper - if it even get a notice at all. But behead an aid worker and the world media will go into a frenzy...