7 years and counting

[Alisa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08detain.html

So exactly how long IS it okay to detain innocent civilians?

I think America can definitely qualify for number 1 on THIS one!

 

[redneckgeek]

We wanted to release them in 2004, but we didn't have anywhere to send them.

I wonder if this will set a precedent for someone to sue for the release of EVERYONE there. There's really a blurry line on this one. I don't think federal judges have jurisdiction over the actions of the US Military outside of US soil. If they do, they shouldn't.

 

[Alisa]

Why can't they come here? Don't we USUALLY grant political asylum to immigrants who will be killed if they return home? Don't you think that "we don't have anywhere to send them" is a really convenient excuse for not releasing them?

 

[redneckgeek]

The article doesn't say WHY we picked them up in Afghanistan, but that they were considered enemey combatants at the time. They've since been cleared of suspicion - but that doesn't mean we have to trust them enough to turn them loose on the streets of America. Send them back to Afghanistan.

 

[GaryPanic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08detain.html

So exactly how long IS it okay to detain innocent civilians?

I think America can definitely qualify for number 1 on THIS one!

Hmm - South Africa did quite well Nelson Mandella

However the Judge in the article seems to be right on the nail -
it woudl be great if he actual held the president responisble for their care and was accountable for any action that the federal authorities took

nice to see a Judge take a lead in what is a unpleasant and awkward case
respect toth e judge - shame on the authorities in stalling his request..


Redneck - that half the problem - why are they not imprison in the US ?- reason to ensure that they have no legal rights in any court ..
We aren't talking about harden terrorist here we are talking about people who are suspect or people who the goverment want spirted away

 

[MSAccessRookie]

We wanted to release them in 2004, but we didn't have anywhere to send them.

I wonder if this will set a precedent for someone to sue for the release of EVERYONE there. There's really a blurry line on this one. I don't think federal judges have jurisdiction over the actions of the US Military outside of US soil. If they do, they shouldn't.

A more important point is whether or not a person who is identified as an enemy combatant would/should have any rights under the US Constitution at all.

 

[Alisa]

I feel so much safer now that those suspicious people that haven't done anything wrong and have never been charged with any crime won't be set loose in American

 

[Alisa]

A more important point is whether or not a person who is identified as an enemy combatant would/should have any rights under the US Constitution at all.

A MORE important point is what qualifies someone to be an "enemy combatant". Are you aware that you and I could both be classified as enemy combatants right now if the government felt like it? There is no standard whatsoever. Given that completely innocent people can be declared enemy combatants at the drop of a hat, I would hope that they are afforded all rights granted in the Constitution.

 

[redneckgeek]

A more important point is whether or not a person who is identified as an enemy combatant would/should have any rights under the US Constitution at all.

That's exactly why we don't bring them to American soil. It helps prevent the question from even being raised. Once you put them in say... Fort Bragg, you've opened a big ol' can of worms.

 

[GaryPanic]

A more important point is whether or not a person who is identified as an enemy combatant would/should have any rights under the US Constitution at all.

2nd world war comes to mind here - a few german prisoners of war were granted US citizenship - even thought they had been at war with the US (notably those involved inthe V1 and V2 projects) - i know its an extreem example - but if you have rules ... stick to them

 

[Alisa]

if you have rules ... stick to them

Rules like in the constitution? Which guarentees the presumption of innocence and a fair trial? When are we going to start sticking to those again?

 

[GaryPanic]

Rules like in the constitution? Which guarentees the presumption of innocence and a fair trial? When are we going to start sticking to those again?

yeap.. i know terrorism wasn't considered in the constitution - but a fair trail in a timely manner would resolve this issue ..
The US has got itself in a muddle on this one - it cannot win the argument on logic
because you could equally say what right does the US to hold anyone in Cuba - there is a argument here for kidnapping - been held against the detainees wishies - which would be a human rights concern - and not giving the detainees the rights of POW is also against human rights (there is provision in the Human rights for soldiers not to wear uniforms)

The US needs to stand up and do the decent thing - send them back to where they were caputerd from might be one answer ...

 

[Banana]

Erm... to clear up some stuff....

The term 'enemy combatant' is rooted in various Geneva conventions, of which not all US are party to. (I can't remember which particular convention deals with identification of enemy combatants, non-combatants, etc.... My mind says 1947, but I'm not 100% sure).

Most of issues with detaining aliens in Gitmo bay are, AFAIK, outside of US Constitution, and mainly deals with international treaties (of which we are parties to... historically, US has refused to sign several treaties on the pretext of sovereign, and this continues to be true but to a lesser extent, unfortunately).

Furthermore, there's a saying my International Laws teacher was fond of saying: "Spies die." There is no provision whatsoever for anyone labeled a spy, and thus can be dealt with as whatever the government pleases. Shooting the feller without a trail is certainly an option. This is a reason why espionage are sometime committed by diplomatic so they can hide under the immunity (but that is not a guarantee. The only guarantee is whether the offended country prefers not to have their diplomats shot as well). As for covert ops, they are usually considered to be state-less and thus without any privileges usually given to uniformed soliders, prisoners of wars, or noncombatants.

It also helps to keep in mind that international laws aren't laws in a statutory sense as historically, a condition of statehood is sovereign, and one can hardly be sovereign if they were subject to a body of law higher than them? Rather, international laws are based on quid pro quo or conventions; if they abide by so and so, the other countries is more likely (but not guaranteed) to abide by the same. Of course, it would be folly to propose that compliance by honors is perfect (indeed, several states has been fond of pointing out others' violations while glossing over their own violations), but the ultimate restraint lies in the fact that if state wants to be given respect by other states, it will have to follow the conventions, even ones that they may not be party to.

Anyway, just some tidbits to keep in mind.

 

[KenHigg]

Why can't they come here? Don't we USUALLY grant political asylum to immigrants who will be killed if they return home? Don't you think that "we don't have anywhere to send them" is a really convenient excuse for not releasing them?

Good idea - Give them your phone number and let them sleep on your couch until they get on their feet

 

[Rich]

They've since been cleared of suspicion - but that doesn't mean we have to trust them enough to turn them loose on the streets of America. Send them back to Afghanistan.

Good idea, send Bush, Chenny and the rest of the rotten bunch along with them too, after all according to them the world is much safer for Americans now

 

[Rich]

2nd world war comes to mind here - a few german prisoners of war were granted US citizenship - even thought they had been at war with the US (notably those involved inthe V1 and V2 projects) - i know its an extreem example - but if you have rules ... stick to them

It's not extreme Gary, it shows the sheer hyprocrisy of the United States

 

[statsman]

I forget the name of the case which came before the US Supreme Court but it goes back to the 1970's. It states:
The manner in which an accused is brought before a court of competant juristiction be it a federal court for a violation of federal law or a state court for a violation of state law is not relevant.
Once brought before this court, the accused, regardless of the court or the statute allegedly violated or the citizenship of the accused, will have the same rights as any other defendant including the right to legal counsel.
And this my friends is why the courts-martial are moving so slowly. The US has no evidence in the vast majority of these cases. But they don't want to turn them loose either.