http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=606536
"In a written decision, Judge Joyce Hens Green said Mr Bush's so-called war on terror "cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years"."
Those who are not citizens of the United States are not subject to the rights and privileges as stated in the Constitution. A judge should know better.
That being said, the US really should get the Gitmo situation taken care of. If nothing else, it's just bad ink.
there is a difference between being a lawyer and being a moral, sane human being
> Those who are not citizens of the United States are not subject to the rights and privileges as stated in the Constitution.
But they can be put in US jails anyway, you mean?
Well, if there's reason to believe they're up to no good, then yes, they should be imprisoned and interrogated. The nations of which these people are citizens may certainly interpret it as an illegal act, and may take things up with our government if they wish.
I'm not going to lie to you and say I'm 100% okay with Gitmo and what it stands for, or that imprisoning even non-citizens indefinitely is a sane way to run things. It just needs to be made clear that the US Constitution is a covenant for US citizens, so those who try to apply it to everyone in the world don't have a leg to stand on.
My point here is, if you think they fall under your laws, and thus imprison them, you can't just pick and choose WHICH laws apply. Either they all do, or none. And that includes any rights given to your own imprisoned citizens.
> you can't just pick and choose WHICH laws apply
Why not? It's their own rules.
I think the pretense of the constitutional state is that it is not up to the enforcers of the law to pick and choose which laws to apply and which to ignore.
The US constitution is not a document of global Human Rights but a set of laws applicable to US citizens.
Well, if we were following global law they wouldn't still be in prison after the war is over, now would they? The idea is that they are charged under US law, and thus US law should apply to them, should it not? All of it, not just the bits that are convenient.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm
"As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States is required to treat every detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. The United States may not pick and choose among them to decide who is entitled to decent treatment."
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/25/usint10072.htm
"Much of the Bush administration’s efforts to avoid legal restraints on its treatment of detainees have focused on the Geneva Conventions.
But the administration has also had to contend with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which prohibits torture and other mistreatment of any person, regardless of whether they are covered by the Geneva Conventions."
> every detained combatant
That's just the deal, the Guantanamo dudes aren't considered as combatants.
Yeah, they are not even humans, it seems. :/
Even not animals, apparently. Animals have laws that protect them from such treatments.
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/1.htm
"The following is a compilation by Human Rights Watch of accounts by thirty-three former detainees at Guantanamo of their experiences there[...]"
While that might be true and all, I have two questions:
For the first question, what exactly are you asking: What they, personally, were likely to expect, or what one could reasonably expect as a rational human being making that choice?
In the first case, I don't really know. In the second, death in battle or being charged under the normal anti-terrorism laws. Of course, many claim to have never done anything of the sort.
For the second question, gathering information and sidestepping both global and their own laws that would forbid them from doing this.
>What kind of treatment did those now in Guantanamo expect?
What do you mean? So far all the ones released from Gitmo that I looked up were complete innocents. Bystanders who were picked by and jailed in horrible conditions, for years. Wrong target.
>What do you think the US wants to accomplish by arranging the situation in Guantanamo like this?
Pure, blind revenge. Hitting anyone for the sake of hitting. Sex humiliation, electric shocks, German dogs, drowings, smashing fingers, punches, very cold rooms, no blankets, laying naked, lights on during the night, ridiculing the religion, drowning, anything that comes in mind as worst ever. Who cares if they are innocents. Who cares if they have confessed everything. Make them pay for the crime of some other fanatic of the same skin color. For years and years, until the blind rage subsides. Not as an example for the others, no. The CIA is currently fighting to prevent free access to the Gitmo documents. The documents which have been released have the worst tortures striked out in thick black ink. They are not proud of it. But some in the gov are. They wrote the orders, after all. Who else?
Rage based on what? An enormous arrogance. Fuck the world, we do what we want. The world is ours. Let's cancel all treaties. Let's destroy the work of generations of diplomats. They were idiots anyway. We have the strongest army. Nobody is gonna oppose us. ...What?! They did oppose us after all? Rage rage rage fit spit!! OHNOES! I couldn't have possibly been wrong! Kill maim torture bite pout!
Steady now. We don't actually know if they're innocent, but neither does the military. The legal system isn't foolproof, and has its own set of difficulties, but it's certainly a better filter than torturing someone until they'll admit anything to end the pain.
Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, we're not actually certain they're after information. If they are, they seem to be going about it the wrong way. None of the people who have appeared out of Guantanamo struck me as particularly broken despite several years of those conditions.
But the dead don't tell tales either.
> Pure, blind revenge.
That's not very strategical for high government officials, now is it?
>None of the people who have appeared out of Guantanamo struck me as particularly broken despite several years of those conditions.
Actually I read a news article yesterday about someone's life after Gitmo, the guy having constant nightmares, waking up in the night at the faint sound of someone in the street pulling out his keys, etc. I'll post the link if I see it again.
Perhaps I should stop browsing those stories for a while, it makes my blood boil too much. :/
Is this really the year 2005?
>>18
I sort of prefer that emotional version to the other scenario: it was cynically planned a long time ago by a small group of people. The gov are mere puppets to that sinister bunch. Their agenda don't include human lives, truth or liberty. It includes more power, more money and more control. Nothing else.
The Gitmo is a test bed to train and accustom the guardians to tortures, first of foreigners, then later on of US citizens. At first the bad treatments of prisoners has been mild, then it has gotten worse and worse. Desensitize, desensitize...
Then make prisons all over the US based on the same model. Throw out the Constitution, declare martial law. Throw in jail anyone who disagrees. Give them "the work". Make then good, obedient citizens. Implant them with control chips. Then sit back and profit. ~A Perfect World ~.
The End. <pre-recorded applause>
>>20
Tut, man; since when did humans need to be desensitized when it comes to giving others hell?
>What do you think the US wants to accomplish by arranging the situation in Guantanamo like this? What do you think is their motive? Think about this one for a bit before answering, please.
I think that's rather easy to answer.
You see, why should they go through the whole extremely elaborate process just to get some information? However much one might ridicule American intelligence agencies, they are more able than what Guantanamo stands for, I believe. Moreover, normally intelligence agencies or political police forces don't like attention. Guantanamo, it just shouts ATTENTION! How very unfit to extract critical information from captives.
On the other hand, rage and revenge seem awfully stupid and unprofessional. Whatever you might say about those who run Guantanamo - I can assure you they're professionals, and by Jove, they're intelligent enough to know what they're doing. Revenge might have been what went down in some places in Iraq, but even that seems somewhat far-fetched. And again, think about the dualist nature of Guantanamo: The obstinate, ostentatious kind of "secrecy" practiced there is so very well-balanced and elaborate that it seems far beyond brutish rage or pompously celebrated revenge.
And should they merely want to extract information while circumventing their own and global laws - my, there are better methods to do that. Hotel California comes to mind, or other places that aren't under oversight from the Red Cross or won't draw the world's attention to it.
I personally think it's a spectacle; or actually two (again, dualism).
For one, it's a clear signal to the 'evil tourists': "We have a secret number of unnamed insiders, and we are getting information on YOU! from them. Moreover, American justice is swift and relentless. Be afraid. Cooperate"
Secondly, it's an equally clear signal to the home front: "9/11-Death-From-Above, that catastrophic intelligence failure won't happen again. This time, we're getting all the info before something happens. Also, American justice is swift, but probate, not like we're pounding them into a bloody pulp and mass hanging them after all. See, that is what makes us better than the dictatorships we seek to oust. Democracy Freedom Stay the Course Terror Terror."