NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN1L457092

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba, Jan 21 (Reuters) - Hours after taking office, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered military prosecutors in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals to ask for a 120-day halt in all pending cases and a judge granted the request on Wednesday in the case against a young Canadian.

When defense lawyers did not oppose the move, a judge froze the proceedings against Canadian Omar Khadr, who was captured at age 15 and is accused of murdering a U.S. soldier with a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan.

Another judge was expected to rule as early as Wednesday in the death penalty case against five prisoners accused of plotting the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Obama's order to the prosecutors was issued several hours after his swearing-in on Tuesday and if all the continuances are granted it would halt proceedings against 21 prisoners.

I have class in fifteen minutes, so Ill leave a proper comment later, but it looks like hes already starting to work on closing it down. And just a few hours after being sworn in.

What does NSG think?

Good for him.

Wait how can someone murder a soldier on the opposing side during wartime during an actual battle?

Wait how can someone murder a soldier on the opposing side during wartime during an actual battle?

Technically, under the Geneva Conventions; the insurgents we have been fighting are not actual soldiers in an actual legal military recognized by the world at large. Any soldier they kill is considered a murder by international law.

Technically, under the Geneva Conventions; the insurgents we have been fighting are not actual soldiers in an actual legal military recognized by the world at large. Any soldier they kill is considered a murder by international law.

That's kind of a weird rule.

We don't actually have more than a handful of cases in Gitmo of people who "killed soldiers on a battlefield". Most were grabbed out of their homes, based on anonymous denunciations by neighbors who had a grudge or were seeking a reward.

Technically, under the Geneva Conventions; the insurgents we have been fighting are not actual soldiers in an actual legal military recognized by the world at large. Any soldier they kill is considered a murder by international law.

If they shoot me, collateral damage. I shoot back, MURDER!


Fucking yay.

If they shoot me, collateral damage. I shoot back, MURDER!


Fucking yay.

I'm pretty sure that international law recognizes that you might have to shoot back...

By the Geneva Convention a Military force is defined by
1. Having a chain of command
2. Wearing a uniform or some sort fixed or distinctive sign
3. Carrying their arms openly
4. Conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

The insurgents do not meet those criteria and so fortunately or not they can be charged as murderers by International Law.

I'm pretty sure that international law recognizes that you might have to shoot back...

Yes, but if you shoot first you are an illegal combatant.

Yes, but if you shoot first you are an illegal combatant.

I've always been a fan of ask questions, shoot later.

So, no right to trial for a 120 days? Sounds progressive.

So, no right to trial for a 120 days? Sounds progressive.
Um...I believe they are called continuances, and they are a part of legal procedure.

Um...I believe they are called continuances, and they are a part of legal procedure.

Well as long as its legal...

Sorry if I don't buy it. Just sounds like either a stall or a stunt to appease until he can get settled into the job (fair enough). Granted, I can appreciate Obama wanting to show the nation/world he is ready on day one, but I hope there is substantive action to follow.

So, no right to trial for a 120 days? Sounds progressive.

actually if you read the article, he ordered federal prosecutors to request a continuance and defense counsel did not object. If they had, it probably would have been a whole different matter, but I see no reason why they would, given the nature of things.

Well as long as its legal...

Sorry if I don't buy it. Just sounds like either a stall or a stunt to appease until he can get settled into the job (fair enough). Granted, I can appreciate Obama wanting to show the nation/world he is ready on day one, but I hope there is substantive action to follow.
Stall until he can settled into the job to what end? He doesn't have to run the trials himself, so he doesn't need to be settled in for anything in regards to them, unless he's planning to do something with GITMO, which he does control, that will have a major effect on the proceedings -- such as changing venue to US civilian courts, or changing the status of the prisoners and, thus, potentially, the charges against them. In both cases, suspension and/or continuance of the proceedings is entirely appropriate. EDIT: He could also be taking 120 days to review the remaining cases to determine whether correct charges were brought against them, or whether any charges should be brought against them, or whether any of the prisoners should be released immediately without further action. Suspension/continuance would also be appropriate in that case.

Well as long as its legal...

Sorry if I don't buy it. Just sounds like either a stall or a stunt to appease until he can get settled into the job (fair enough). Granted, I can appreciate Obama wanting to show the nation/world he is ready on day one, but I hope there is substantive action to follow.

You didn't seriously expect the buses to show up on the 21st, did you?

I can't wait to see how the Tories deal with Khadr! I'm just going to read the news and laugh my ass off because now the Tories HAVE to do something other than leave him to rot in the depths of Gitmo. All those who didn't want him back will now have to deal with the reality. CIVILIZATION WILL FALL TO ITS KNEES! ...and I shall laugh as Ottawa burns! uhm...metaphorically of course...*cough*

...*ahem* Sorry, I needed to get that out of my system, but I will be truly curious, bound by some morbid desire to see the reaction here now that it's becoming more and more likely that the Canadian government will actually have to do something with this Khadr kid whom they've neglected since he was caught.

How come that in some cases that suit the U.S., International Law is referred to, yet in other cases (like the Iraq war, waging a war of aggression) International Law is completely disregarded? Strange that...

Besides, International Law and the Geneva Convention are two things... Even if your opponent disregards the GC, you would still be bound by it - and had to follow IL.

Stall until he can settled into the job to what end? He doesn't have to run the trials himself, so he doesn't need to be settled in for anything in regards to them, unless he's planning to do something with GITMO, which he does control, that will have a major effect on the proceedings -- such as changing venue to US civilian courts, or changing the status of the prisoners and, thus, potentially, the charges against them. In both cases, suspension and/or continuance of the proceedings is entirely appropriate. EDIT: He could also be taking 120 days to review the remaining cases to determine whether correct charges were brought against them, or whether any charges should be brought against them, or whether any of the prisoners should be released immediately without further action. Suspension/continuance would also be appropriate in that case.

You state that he is not running the trials, but later in your edit you state he may want to review the nature of the charges or whether they are even warranted? I am no legal scholar but that sounds like a judges job to me.

Anyways, I am not arguing for or against his actions, merely stating that it comes across as a stunt. Excuse my skepticism. I tend to view everything that way.

By the way they are ready to release aprox. 60 prisoners immediately but no country wants to take them.

You didn't seriously expect the buses to show up on the 21st, did you?

No.

What I didn't expect was a "Hey, look everybody I am doing something about GITMO, but give me a 120 days to fully decide" move. Doing something without actually doing anything is kind of 'politics as usual'.

How come that in some cases that suit the U.S., International Law is referred to, yet in other cases (like the Iraq war, waging a war of aggression) International Law is completely disregarded? Strange that...

The answer to your question is in the question itself. Because in this particular case, it suits American interests. It's self-serving.

I'm sure there are many small scale examples where a person would follow the law if it suited their interests but then ignoring it when it seems to run contrary to their beliefs. I.E.: A driver ignores a stop sign and cuts you off; you'd want police action taken against them, yet later on, you're driving alone and going 10 over the limit, as if the limit doesn't apply to you, and you'd be pissed at the officer because you don't want the speed law to apply to you.

I can't wait to see how the Tories deal with Khadr! I'm just going to read the news and laugh my ass off because now the Tories HAVE to do something other than leave him to rot in the depths of Gitmo. All those who didn't want him back will now have to deal with the reality. CIVILIZATION WILL FALL TO ITS KNEES! ...and I shall laugh as Ottawa burns! uhm...metaphorically of course...*cough*


I like you.

There is no such thing as international law since we live in a realist universe.

How come that in some cases that suit the U.S., International Law is referred to, yet in other cases (like the Iraq war, waging a war of aggression) International Law is completely disregarded? Strange that...

Besides, International Law and the Geneva Convention are two things... Even if your opponent disregards the GC, you would still be bound by it - and had to follow IL.

And in the case of the US, due to the constitutional proviosions, the Geneva Protocols are the law.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Note that it's been made quite clear that either Protocol 3 or 4 apply -there's no "gap" allowed to deny "unlawful enemy combatants" proper treatment as has been done at Gitmo - they're either military POWs or civilians.

You state that he is not running the trials, but later in your edit you state he may want to review the nature of the charges or whether they are even warranted? I am no legal scholar but that sounds like a judges job to me.

It's also the job of the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. And as these are federal charges, the chief prosecutor is the United States Attorney General, who works for...the President.

No.

What I didn't expect was a "Hey, look everybody I am doing something about GITMO, but give me a 120 days to fully decide" move. Doing something without actually doing anything is kind of 'politics as usual'.

Well, he did actually do something. People will now recieve the trials they deserve, rather then military trials (since we keep insisting their not soldiers).


Plus, he has to review everything, to decide who is getting tried as a civillian in US courts and who is going to be tried as a solider. This is the first step to shutting it down IMO.

No.

What I didn't expect was a "Hey, look everybody I am doing something about GITMO, but give me a 120 days to fully decide" move. Doing something without actually doing anything is kind of 'politics as usual'.

it's not surprising. Keep in mind that he wasn't president until yesterday. As such, he didn't have access to any of the information he'd need to make such a decision until...yesterday. He only JUST got authorized to review the case files. Prior to his innauguration, he didn't have it, and one can't expect him to make an informed decision in 24 hours.

it's not surprising. Keep in mind that he wasn't president until yesterday. As such, he didn't have access to any of the information he'd need to make such a decision until...yesterday. He only JUST got authorized to review the case files. Prior to his innauguration, he didn't have it, and one can't expect him to make an informed decision in 24 hours.

Correct, true and as previously admitted-fair. And also precisely why this announcement doesn't say much to me accept that he is analyzing the situation.

That and I am just 'hype-weary'.

You state that he is not running the trials, but later in your edit you state he may want to review the nature of the charges or whether they are even warranted? I am no legal scholar but that sounds like a judges job to me.
No. He is, in a way, the chief warden of the prison at GITMO. If he shuts down the prison, then that will necessitate time to sort out releasable prisoners from keepers, and then relocate the keepers. He is also the chief supervisor of the prosecutors, and it is up to the prosecutors to decide who gets what charges, or any charges, and what kind of court to bring a case before. Reviewing the cases to make such changes will also require time.

None of that has anything to do with the function of the judges in the trials.

That is why he had to file a request for a continuance with the trial judges. If they say yes, then he gets his 120 days to reorganize the cases or drop them. If they say no, then the trial continues, regardless of what he wants.

That's how I understand it.

Anyways, I am not arguing for or against his actions, merely stating that it comes across as a stunt. Excuse my skepticism. I tend to view everything that way.
I think your skepticism has blinded you to reality in this case. The 120 day request tells us nothing at all about what he's going to do about GITMO. It is merely a not very unusual legal action for a president who wants to review the cases his Justice Department is handling.

By the way they are ready to release aprox. 60 prisoners immediately but no country wants to take them.
According to MSNBC this morning, that is being worked on right now. I expect we will see those prisoners trickling out in dribs and drabs.

The 120 day request tells us nothing at all about what he's going to do about GITMO.

Exactly.

Exactly.
Exactly. So then you meant...what, exactly, when you said this:
So, no right to trial for a 120 days? Sounds progressive.
?

Exactly. So then you meant...what, exactly, when you said this:?

That its not news, was said merely to placate, all while having no real substance. You know, progressive. :p

Everything isn't 100% different yet! Obama lied!

That its not news, was said merely to placate, all while having no real substance. You know, progressive. :p
That's not what "progressive" means.

The answer to your question is in the question itself. Because in this particular case, it suits American interests. It's self-serving.
I know, I know. Yet sometimes I feel like I even need to state the obvious.
I'm sure there are many small scale examples where a person would follow the law if it suited their interests but then ignoring it when it seems to run contrary to their beliefs. I.E.: A driver ignores a stop sign and cuts you off; you'd want police action taken against them, yet later on, you're driving alone and going 10 over the limit, as if the limit doesn't apply to you, and you'd be pissed at the officer because you don't want the speed law to apply to you.
Only that your example misses that in the case of the U.S. speeding, there's no officer to write them a ticket...
And in the case of the US, due to the constitutional proviosions, the Geneva Protocols are the law.
Note that it's been made quite clear that either Protocol 3 or 4 apply -there's no "gap" allowed to deny "unlawful enemy combatants" proper treatment as has been done at Gitmo - they're either military POWs or civilians.
Wonferdul!

It is heart warming to see that Obama is taking a giant step forward in addressing human rights issues!! Hopefully, he will build upon this gesture of goodwill.

That's not what "progressive" means.

:eek2: Really?

Damn, and I thought that finishing that last statement with a ':p' gave me a free pass from having to actually know anything--while at the same time playfully pointing out that 'progressives' are sometimes characterized as being full of well intentioned ideas but.....oh, forget it--nevermind.

Perhaps my expectation of that smiley was unrealistic. Please forgive my 'forum-speak' illiteracy...:$

No more Gitmo (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Terrorism/story?id=6693079&page=) in a year.
President Barack Obama will sign three executive orders Thursday, to close the detainee camp at the Guantanamo Bay military facility within a year and to establish new rules and guidelines on interrogation methods and the treatment of detainees, sources who have seen a draft of the orders tell ABC News.

No more Gitmo (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Terrorism/story?id=6693079&page=) in a year.

YAY!!! :D

No more Stalag Bushco!!

By the Geneva Convention a Military force is defined by
1. Having a chain of command
2. Wearing a uniform or some sort fixed or distinctive sign
3. Carrying their arms openly
4. Conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

The insurgents do not meet those criteria and so fortunately or not they can be charged as murderers by International Law.

By this definition, a whole bunch of irregular SpecForce would be treated as terrorists methinks.

By this definition, a whole bunch of irregular SpecForce would be treated as terrorists methinks.

Special Forces Soldiers wear uniforms the same as other soldiers. If they are doing missions with no uniform and are captured they are considered enemy spies.