Judge blasts US for 'monstrous failure of justice'

[BoredShirtless]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/ ... 47413.html

Judge blasts US for 'monstrous failure of justice'
November 26, 2003 - 11:20AM


One of Britain's most senior judges today condemned the US for its "monstrous failure of justice" in holding prisoners at the US base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Law Lord Johan Steyn will say in a speech in London, released to Channel 4 news, that the prisoners are being held illegally.

"The purpose of holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was and is to put them beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts, and at the mercy of victors," Steyn will say.

Nine Britons and two Australians - David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib - are among 660 detainees being held without charge at Guantanamo Bay as "enemy combatants".

Their treatment has appalled human rights groups who believe the prisoners will be deprived of a fair trial.

"The procedural rules do not prohibit the use of force to coerce prisoners to confess," Steyn's speech said.

"The blanket presidential order deprives them all of any rights whatsoever. As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice, I would have to say that I regard this as a monstrous failure of justice."

The prison was set up in January 2002 to hold combatants captured in Afghanistan and also houses others suspected of association with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, accused by Washington of carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and a host of other bombings.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush failed last week to reach an agreement on the treatment of the British citizens.

There had been speculation Bush would use his three-day state visit to London to announce that Britons, mostly seized in Afghanistan, would be repatriated for trial.

But the two leaders said discussions would continue, with Bush adding that the prisoners were being treated in a humane fashion.

The detainees have no access to lawyers or to family members, and their long incarceration in legal limbo has outraged many.

A US federal judge has ruled that foreign detainees are not entitled to appeal in US courts against their detention without trial or charges because the base is not US territory, although the US Supreme Court is to hear an appeal on this.

Australia's Attorney General Philip Ruddock yesterday announced that the US had agreed to a range of Australian requests for any trials of Hicks and Habib.

Key agreements included open trials, a presumption of innocence, a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt and that prisoners would have the right to remain silent.

They would be represented by US military officers, but could have an Australian lawyer - subject to security clearance - as a consultant.

If sentenced to jail, arrangements were being worked out for them to serve their time in Australia.

This really boils my blood. What kind of FUCKING hypocrisy is this? The day the US government brings "freedom" into Iraq will come as soon as they get the fuck out. The US government is nothing more then a bunch of lying hypocritical self serving invading scum bag pieces of shit.

[Patrick Degan]

A US federal judge has ruled that foreign detainees are not entitled to appeal in US courts against their detention without trial or charges because the base is not US territory, although the US Supreme Court is to hear an appeal on this.

Guantanamo is indeed US territory by definition —it is in posession of the United States, under the control of Congress. According to every definition in American and international law, it is American soil. As is any military base, embassy, or legation in any foreign land.

[Vympel]

I wonder what view SCOTUS will take- hopefully the correct one. Gitmo stinks to high heaven of injustice.

(waits for the inevitable cacaphony of "they're all terrorists!" as if they have any way of possibly knowing that ...)

[Tsyroc]

A US federal judge has ruled that foreign detainees are not entitled to appeal in US courts against their detention without trial or charges because the base is not US territory, although the US Supreme Court is to hear an appeal on this.

Iwould like to know how a US Military base could not be considered US territory. Crimes committed on the base would fall under US Military jurisdiction unless it's something they chose to turn over to the locals.

I would think that the detainees on the Guantonimo base should at least be able to argue that they should fall under the UCMJ, either that or Cuban law since that seems to be what the judge is implying by his "not US territory" statement.

The judge is probably right on the appeal not being possible unless the people were charged or on trial.

So, what are we planning on doing with these people. Detaining them in Guantaonimo until our lease runs out?

[CJvR]

The legal status of the Gitmo prisoners is somewhat unclear. They do not fulfil the treaty requirements to be PoWs and they most certainly are not civilians so the US definition of Illegal combatants is accurate. The problem is that it is a neutral third party who should make that ruling not the US. Once the US have that ruling it will however be perfectly legal to line up the scum against the nearest wall and machinegun the lot!

Geneva Convention (III)

[Vympel]

The legal status of the Gitmo prisoners is somewhat unclear. They do not fulfil the treaty requirements to be PoWs and they most certainly are not civilians so the US definition of Illegal combatants is accurate. The problem is that it is a neutral third party who should make that ruling not the US. Once the US have that ruling it will however be perfectly legal to line up the scum against the nearest wall and machinegun the lot!

Geneva Convention (III)

The Geneva Convention does not provide for 'illegal combatants'- as it is, this is a 'War on Terror' or something, it follows that terrorists are prisoners of that war, if you want to get pedantic ...

[Col. Crackpot]

to qualify as lawful combatants, persons who fight in a 'millitia' or civilian resistance may be from other countries but must:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

If they dont do what is specified here, they are considered unlawful combatants...at least that what i take from it.

[Vympel]

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

EDIT: and again, the Geneva Convention says nothing of "unlawful combatants"- Rumsfeld's use of the term is erroneous, considering it was applied to a group of eight German spies caught in the US in 1942- a US case. Unlawful combatants are people who sneak into opposing territory to wreak havoc. A key requirement is uniform, which is pretty useless for Afghanistan, considering standard combat gear of all forces in the several decades of war was robes and turbans. When Taliban forces surrendered to Northern Alliance forces, and then agreed to fight with them, they changed the colour of their turbans from white to brown. This says "uniform" to me- i.e. an identifying mark. And it'd be quite ridiculous to argue that a combatant fighting an invader is crossing any US lines. The US was doing the line crossing- if there have been any 'lines' at all in that conflict.

[Col. Crackpot]

i don't really like the whole 'unlawful combatant' concept anyway. If the shoe was on the other foot and there were hoardes of taliban wandering and shooting up the US i'd be an unlawful combat as well blowing the brains out of invaders who threatened my family. The problem is that most of the detainees at Gitmo are the radical militant fundies who would shoot you as soon as look at you. But really, lets look at their situation, they get 3 culturally sensitive meals a day, acess to medical and religious services, shelter, and they get to bathe whenever they want. They really have their physiological needs met better, in Gimo, than they did at home, still they are imprisioned indefinately. What exactly do we do with them? If they are released, they will regroup, and kill people, we can't keep them prisioner forever, and we can't just shoot them.... sigh. it's a no-win situation, imho.

[buzz_knox]

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Queda operates in a cell structure without a central leader directly responsible for each subordinate; and both the Taliban and Al Queda failed to comply with the "laws and customs of war." So, they don't meet the legal definition to fall within prisoner of war status. But properly, they shouldn't be held in Gitmo. Instead, they should have remained in Afghanistan where they were captured. Of course, there they would have been tortured for any information they had and then promptly executed, notwithstanding the possiblity of their innocence. That is, of course, assuming that Afghans didn't just let them starve to death as they've done with other prisoners.

[RedImperator]

In the beginning, I had no problem with Gitmo as a temporary holding pen for whatever Al Qaeda and high ranking Taliban we managed to bag up in Afghanistan. However, leaving them sitting there for more than a year without trial and without any public disclosure of why they're there is unacceptable.

[Col. Crackpot]

In the beginning, I had no problem with Gitmo as a temporary holding pen for whatever Al Qaeda and high ranking Taliban we managed to bag up in Afghanistan. However, leaving them sitting there for more than a year without trial and without any public disclosure of why they're there is unacceptable.

i agree, but what the fuck do we do with them?

[Col. Crackpot]

oh, and just a tidbit about Gitmo detention center, that you may not know. At one point the CO was a newly promoted one-star from the RI National Guard. What happened was the guy was ordered back to Camp Fogarty in RI, busted back down to Colonel and discharged. The Army never disclosed why this happened....makes you wonder.

[RedImperator]

In the beginning, I had no problem with Gitmo as a temporary holding pen for whatever Al Qaeda and high ranking Taliban we managed to bag up in Afghanistan. However, leaving them sitting there for more than a year without trial and without any public disclosure of why they're there is unacceptable.

i agree, but what the fuck do we do with them?

Beats the shit out of me. For starters, though, the government could at least try to make a better case for keeping them there. Some of them are undoubtedly senior Al Qaeda types who could be charged with conspiracy to destroy the WTC under US law--it would be more satisfying to see them convicted in Federal court and packed off to Leavenworth (a win-win situation--either they go to gen-pop where armed robbers and drug dealers can demonstrate their patriotism or they're put in "protective custody" in solitary confinement indefinitely) for the rest of their sorry lives than relaxing in Cuba until the hippies scream loud enough to get them sent back to Afghanistan.

[Knife]

I agree. I also had no problem with Camp Delta (or what ever it is called) in Gitmo. But I think it is high time to start proccessing these guys through the system. Perferable the Military Tribunals instead of civilian court.

[Howedar]

Fuck no. They committed public crimes against the people of the United States, not crimes against the military.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Exactly. But average joes not part of the command structure or ordering/inciting attacks should be sent over to PoW camps in Kabul and eventually released.

[Chris OFarrell]

I realy do not like the whole idea of just sitting them indefinently at Camp X-Ray. As a temp holding area, ok. But holding them for over a year without trial? What in the name of God is going on here? What happened to all those lofty ideals the USA stood for, liberty and *justice* for all? You know, the stuff that went right out the window when it wasn't convenient?

I mean if you belive you have a case, bloody TRY them for it and you'll get a conviction if your case is good. But holding them for that long wihtout any kind of resolution is just nuts.

Not to mention the US keeping such a veil of secrecy over the camp is not helpful. Like when that BBC crew went in. Not allowed to carry cameras of course then after mearly saying hello to an inmate, they were kicked out of the whole camp. Thats just a little insane me thinks. And not to mention stupid if your trying to present an open and honest camp to the world with nothing to hide.

[Knife]

Fuck no. They committed public crimes against the people of the United States, not crimes against the military.

Well, 19 or so of them did. Any way, the military caught them (most of them) let the military deal with them. They want to pretend that their soldiers of God, let them be tried as soldiers by the military.

I've lost faith in our over-litigationized society to put these asshats in civil court. Especially with hoards of lawyers dying to get the job to become the next 'dream team'.

Give the fuckers in Gitmo a trial, military trial. They get rights, they get a lawyer, and there will be less of a media circus to post on and use the smilely.