Guantanamo Bay (1 Viewer)

[David Eagar]

So you'll petition your leaders to take them? (I didn't think so...)

BTW: How the heck did we (the US) end up with a pc of the island to begin with?

I take no pride in the fct that the Australain Government (mercifully booted out of office last week) were willing allies of this scandal

If they are Proven Guilty and they have had a FAIR trial, glad to take them

 

[Rich]

So you'll petition your leaders to take them? (I didn't think so...)

Christ I knew just how ignorant Americans were, but even I didn't realise just how bad it was!
The last bunch of "terrorists" sent back here were released without trial because there wasn't a scrap of evidence to detain or put them on trial for any offence, even a trumped up Yankee one

 

[statsman]

The prisoners at Gitmo ae being held under US Federal Law. The "Patriot Act" to be precise.
Under US Federal Law, a person must be brought before a federal magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest to be arraigned (Charges read and plea entered) and to discuss bail UNLESS YOU'RE CHARGED UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT. Then you a) aren't officially charged with anything, b)you don't enter a plea (until it suits the government) and c) you are automatically denied bail.
The Patriot Act is astonishingly unconstitutional but nobody in the US has the guts to take it before a Federal Court.

Gitmo was a British base until 1940. It was "traded" to the US as part of the deal for those 50 destroyers.

The last time I checked, being a thug was nasty but not illegal.

 

[Rich]

Somebody should have sent Bush there when it first opened and then thrown away the key, Bliar could have kept him company

 

[KenHigg]

Gitmo was a British base until 1940. It was "traded" to the US as part of the deal for those 50 destroyers...

I did some poking around and couldn't find anything about this - ?

 

[bentheaker]

Everyone from every other country in the world apart from America knows that holding prisoners indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo is totally illegal and these actions put America in the same league as dictator led states.
The current US Government is a disgrace which has seriously damaged the reputation of America as a nation and led to wide scale resentment of the American people. I find it hard to believe that people from the so called 'land of the free' can write statements such as:

I would assume that if the military picked them up and shipped them way over there they probably weren't selling ice cream on the corner would you?

Surely one of the cornerstones to any democracy is the right to a fair trial?
If there is evidence against these prisoners then fine, put them in a court and if they are found guilty they deserve to rot in Jail.

However, I don't think we should give all Americans a hard time over this. Like in the UK where there was strong opposition to our involvement in Iraq a lot of Americans who recognize their once proud democracy is being eroded in to a fundamentalist Christian Theocracy are just as outraged about Guantanamo as the rest of the world is so don't tar all of them with the same brush.

 

[KenHigg]

Everyone from every other country in the world ...

Not even close. Maybe the more more developed countries, but those aren't the one's with the issues to begin with now are they?

I find it hard to believe that people from the so called 'land of the free' can write statements such as:

One of the guys being 'detained' admitted to crossing a border with a gang of trouble makers armed with a machine gun, but claimed he personally wasn't up to no good... (my spin)

He had then moved to Jalalabad, where he had stayed with another family, who had given him an AK-47 assault rifle to protect himself, Mr Odah said.

He had then joined other people crossing the mountains to Pakistan, where he had handed himself in to the border guards, he added.

Handed his self over - ? Whatever

 

[msp]

Ken,

The point is that, you cannot hold people indefinably without charge at some point they need to be charged and found guilty of something or released.

Just because they may be dodgy does not mean they are guilty. The only reason that they cannot be held on American soil is because they would then be given due process. This has been sidestepped by putting them in Cuba. If we are serious about spreading "freedom" around the would we cannot ignore basic freedom (such as a fair trial) because it is inconvenient.

Or are you happy that anyone from around the world can be grabbed of the streets and put in detention because someone in the US government does not agree with them..

carrying a AK 47 around in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan is rather like you carrying around you credit card..

 

[bentheaker]

ken, with respect all the quotes you have put are just that, quotes from the press. I am quite happy to beleive they are accurate but are quotes from the press enough to convict you of a crime?

No, the only way to be convicted of a crime is by being put on trial and these men have been denied the right to that trial. Ever heard of the principal of innocent until proven guilty?

I want no special treatment for these guys, if they are proved in a court of law to be terrorists then thorw the book at them, but they deserve the same right to a fair trial as you and I

 

[KenHigg]

I agree that the whole 'put them in Cuba thing to side step 'legal' issues is a farce. And I agree that they should have some resolution. It all seems to be a product of a hundreds of years of treaty with this country and treaty with that country, UN babble, etc, etc... It's all such a mess no one could ever untangle it all...

But in the midst of trying to defeat a bunch of terrorist that proclaim they're out to kill us, why would we release these people only to have them shoot back at us some day? The places where they appear to go and the people they associate with have no desire to abide by any treaty or international edicts…

 

[Pauldohert]

I did some poking around and couldn't find anything about this - ?

Yes - it was started in 1756 by Captain Pugwash, assisted by Master Bates and Seaman Staines.

 

[msp]

But in the midst of trying to defeat a bunch of terrorist that proclaim they're out to kill us, why would we release these people only to have them shoot back at us some day? The places where they appear to go and the people they associate with have no desire to abide by any treaty or international edicts…

There appaers to be no proof that these indivuduals are terrorist, if he have no proof that indivuduals are terrorists we should be willing to release them. if we can prove that they are terrorists then throw the book at them..

 

[Alc]

There appaers to be no proof that these indivuduals are terrorist, if he have no proof that indivuduals are terrorists we should be willing to release them. if we can prove that they are terrorists then throw the book at them..

Agree totally. If there's enough evidence to charge them with anything at all, do it. If there isn't, how can there be any justification for arresting them?

I also can't help thinking that if I were willing to arrest someone without evidence, due to the fact that I personally was sure that the person was involved with planning an attempt to kill people, it would be more practical to 'vanish' them altogether, without anyone finding out who did it, rather than go through the hassle of detaining them in the public eye.

 

[Rabbie]

I suspect the original reason for shipping the suspects to Guantanamo Bay was so they could be interrogated without US law applying.

 

[Alc]

I suspect the original reason for shipping the suspects to Guantanamo Bay was so they could be interrogated without US law applying.

Why couldn't that happen wherever they were taken from? I mean, if their 'rights' aren't a concern, surely two or three determined guys in an isolated basement somewhere could be just as convincing as they are in a well-publicised location?

 

[Rabbie]

Why couldn't that happen wherever they were taken from? I mean, if their 'rights' aren't a concern, surely two or three determined guys in an isolated basement somewhere could be just as convincing as they are in a well-publicised location?

It could have but I suspect Cuba was more convenient for the interrogators than Afghanistan. Quicker to pop home after work They probably didnt think it would last so long.

 

[Rich]

The two biggest terrorists on the planet are now posing as peace makers in the middle east, what a joke!

 

[KenHigg]

It could have but I suspect Cuba was more convenient for the interrogators than Afghanistan. Quicker to pop home after work They probably didnt think it would last so long.

I'm guessing some 2 bit military advisor thought he found a loophole and got caught -

 

[msp]

I'm guessing some 2 bit military advisor thought he found a loophole and got caught -

I guess the loophole was good in the sort term, but now how do they release guys they have held for 5/6 years, and say we have nothing to charge them with, you are free to go without answering why they have been held for so long. My impression is that once you are there, there is no process to release you.

 

[Sum Guy]

The two biggest terrorists on the planet are now posing as peace makers in the middle east, what a joke!

What if they succeed ?