Legal action by inmates could close Guantanamo

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Legal action by inmates could close Guantanamo - Independent Online Edition > Americas

More than 300 terror suspects still held at Guantanamo Bay began a legal battle yesterday to have their cases heard before a civilian court, in a test case that could bring about the closure of the infamous detention camp. Lawyers and human rights groups argue that if US judges rule in favour of the inmates, the Bush administration will be forced to end the controversial regime imposed at the American naval base in Cuba, opened in 2002 to house "enemy combatants" captured during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. Two test cases before the US Supreme Court challenge the removal by the US Congress of the "habeas corpus" right of detainees under the US constitution to go before a civilian court.

[Compugasm]

Well, good luck. Those rights can be suspended under a national emergency. So, since we're continually in a national emergency, they'll never get out.

[LtMisha]

You know, I hope they do close Guantanamo. And hand it back to the Cubans.

[Praxius]

If you want to charge people for illegal acts and crimes against the rule of law, then you'd think one needs to follow those same rules and laws.... if they are not getting a fair trial, then that pretty much screws the whole thing up now doesn't it.

And it doesn't matter what designation you apply to them, POW's, Enemy Combatants, Enemy Non-Combatants, Terrorists.... they're all humans and should face the same justice as everybody else.

Whether you think their actions or suspected actions were terrirost or just plain evil, we have people everyday who commit similar things against civilians in the same country by the same civilians and yet they still get the same due process.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Compugasm Well, good luck. Those rights can be suspended under a national emergency. So, since we're continually in a national emergency, they'll never get out.

"Enemy combatants" (as they've been called) are not entitled to the rights of American citizens and they are not entitled to have their cases heard in civilian courts.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius If you want to charge people for illegal acts and crimes against the rule of law, then you'd think one needs to follow those same rules and laws.... if they are not getting a fair trial, then that pretty much screws the whole thing up now doesn't it. And it doesn't matter what designation you apply to them, POW's, Enemy Combatants, Enemy Non-Combatants, Terrorists.... they're all humans and should face the same justice as everybody else. Whether you think their actions or suspected actions were terrirost or just plain evil, we have people everyday who commit similar things against civilians in the same country by the same civilians and yet they still get the same due process.

The problem here, though, is that they aren't getting a trial at all. How many of these prisoners have actually been brought before the military tribunal or whatever it was that was supposed to try these cases? While they are not entitled to the protections that American citizens have, and are not entitled to be tried in civilian courts, they should at the very least finally have a trial.

Of course, if the United States had not been butting into the internal affairs of other countries since at least the 1950s, there wouldn't be a prision in Guantanamo today.

[Praxius]

Well if the US isn't going to meet their basic human rights which are reconized by all UN members, then perhaps the US shouldn't be detaining them in the first place... or the US should pull out of the UN.... which is a different topic all together.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius Well if the US isn't going to meet their basic human rights which are reconized by all UN members, then perhaps the US shouldn't be detaining them in the first place... or the US should pull out of the UN.... which is a different topic all together.

The United States is not obligated to recognize the United Nations. Are you saying that detaining prisoners of war is a violation of so-called "human rights"?

[Praxius]

no, because prisoners of war have rights..... Bush and his hench men made up his own new rules with haven't been run by anybody else in the world to confirm ligitamacy etc... and therefore these guys are kept in the gray zone, never getting to go anywhere.... it's his own personal torture camps.... even if there isn't physical, the mental torture of being told you're going to be stuck there forever and there is no chance to get a way out by any legal standards, it's just plain sick and twisted.

And for a country in the free world, sorry "Leader of the Free World" you would think these people would know a thing about freedoms and rights for humans.

Most of the majority in there are by their own military's standards, troops/soldiers.... but they have no uniforms like the US, and they fight against them, so they are terrorists and therefore get no rights.

Does any of this ring a bell with how the British treated the US colony's militias and forces when captured?

It's the same damn thing as what's going on now.... two wars started on two countries which had nothing to do with 9/11, and they fight for their lands and way of life, and because they oppose the US forces coming into their lands and blowing the snot out of their lives and families, they are branded terrorists and stripped of all their basic human rights, and locked away indefinatly.....

That's pathetic is what it all is.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius no, because prisoners of war have rights.....

Under the Geneva Convention, yes. And it is the Convention that applies here.

Bush and his hench men made up his own new rules with haven't been run by anybody else in the world to confirm ligitamacy etc... and therefore these guys are kept in the gray zone, never getting to go anywhere.... it's his own personal torture camps.... even if there isn't physical, the mental torture of being told you're going to be stuck there forever and there is no chance to get a way out by any legal standards, it's just plain sick and twisted.

Yes, they did and it is a very dangerous thing they have done because it opens the door to even worse things that are coming in the future.

And for a country in the free world, sorry "Leader of the Free World" you would think these people would know a thing about freedoms and rights for humans.

Well, considering that the United States has been violating its own Constitution since at least the mid-late 19th century, don't count on it.

Most of the majority in there are by their own military's standards, troops/soldiers.... but they have no uniforms like the US, and they fight against them, so they are terrorists and therefore get no rights.

Hmmm, I don't know about saying they have no rights at all. At least if they're enemy combatants they have certain rights under the Geneva Convention.

Does any of this ring a bell with how the British treated the US colony's militias and forces when captured?

I wasn't there but if I remember my history correctly, colonial militiamen were treated worse.

It's the same damn thing as what's going on now.... two wars started on two countries which had nothing to do with 9/11, and they fight for their lands and way of life, and because they oppose the US forces coming into their lands and blowing the snot out of their lives and families, they are branded terrorists and stripped of all their basic human rights, and locked away indefinatly.....

Well, since Afghanistan was the base for Al Qaeda and the government there fully endorsed and supported Al Qaeda, war against Afghanistan is valid. However, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a threat to the United States (though, technically, the U. S. had the right to resume the prior Gulf War since Sadaam Hussein violated the cease fire agreement).