Full Version: Prosecuting Terrorists
Does anyone know how suspected terrorists stand under domestic and / or international law. Are they entitled to the same legal rights as other suspected criminals?
EDIT: Oops - I seem to have posted this in the wrong forum. I meant to put it in the Trials and legal cases forum. Could a kindly moderator move it for me please...?
EDIT: Oops - I seem to have posted this in the wrong forum. I meant to put it in the Trials and legal cases forum. Could a kindly moderator move it for me please...?
It depends. The ones in Camp Delta are treated as non-uniformed POWs who are not subject to the Geneva Convention, since they were not following the "conduct of war" when they were caught.
They will probably never be charged with a crime, and eventually released when the "conflict" is over.
Top Al-Qaeda operatives have actually been indicted in US federal court, and will probably be tried on various charges of conspiracy, murder, etc. One good example would be KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED who is on the FBI's most wanted list. Once he gets into custody in the US, I would assume he would have full protection of the law.
They will probably never be charged with a crime, and eventually released when the "conflict" is over.
Top Al-Qaeda operatives have actually been indicted in US federal court, and will probably be tried on various charges of conspiracy, murder, etc. One good example would be KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED who is on the FBI's most wanted list. Once he gets into custody in the US, I would assume he would have full protection of the law.
QUOTE(JonBon @ Apr 14 2003, 08:25 AM)
EDIT: Oops - I seem to have posted this in the wrong forum. I meant to put it in the Trials and legal cases forum. Could a kindly moderator move it for me please...?
Nope, I moved it here. Big Trials & Legal cases is reserved for ACTUAL pending trials and cases.
QUOTE
Once he gets into custody in the US, I would assume he would have full protection of the law.
Just like the American citizens and legal immigrants who are receiving full protection of the law being arrested and held without charges in solitary confinement with treatment violating their basic human rights.
It was just a week or two ago, I believe, that the New York judge overseeing the Zacarias Moussaoui trial criticized the FBI for their handling of the prosecution.
Judge criticizes veil of secrecy
QUOTE
US District Judge Leona Brinkema issued written comments saying she was disturbed by the "shroud of secrecy" being drawn around the case of Zacarias Moussaoui.
She said that so many of the case's documents had been classified as secret that she agreed with Mr Moussaoui's scepticism about whether he could receive a fair trial in open court.
She said that so many of the case's documents had been classified as secret that she agreed with Mr Moussaoui's scepticism about whether he could receive a fair trial in open court.
If this trial and the treatment of detained "suspects" is to give us any indication, suspected terrorists are not, and will not, be entitled to the same legal rights as others in the United States. Whether the federal government works through the Foreign Intelligence Security Courts or through military tribunals, it seems there will be a great deal of secrecy surrounding each trial, with legal rights and justice having little or no role.
QUOTE(amlord @ Apr 14 2003, 02:01 PM)
It depends. The ones in Camp Delta are treated as non-uniformed POWs who are not subject to the Geneva Convention, since they were not following the "conduct of war" when they were caught.
This is confusing. How can they be treated as POW's if they were not wearing uniforms? Amd how is it that the Geneva Convention need not apply even though they are viewed as POW's? Do you have any more information on the 'Conduct of War'? amd whether anyone has actually adhered to it during the 'War on Terror'?
those at camp X-ray as classified as "enemy combatant" not "non-uniformed POWs" they are not allowed access to a lawyer, and will soon be subject to secret military tribunals (I may be wrong on the tribunals, but I heard they were preparing a special court for those at X-ray)
according to amnesty international, if the status of a prisoner is in question, they are to treated as POWs and granted full rights of POWs until their status is determined by a competant tribunal (I believe according to the geneva conventions) bush, rumsfeld, cheny, and ashcroft don't constitute a competant tribunal BTW.
according to amnesty international, if the status of a prisoner is in question, they are to treated as POWs and granted full rights of POWs until their status is determined by a competant tribunal (I believe according to the geneva conventions) bush, rumsfeld, cheny, and ashcroft don't constitute a competant tribunal BTW.
"Guantanamo Bay is what one US official has called the 'legal equivalent of outer space.'"
Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: "Lost in Space"
The administration is dancing through all kinds of loopholes regarding the "enemy combatants." We can't decide whether they're criminals or not and we can't decide if we have jurisdiction over our own bases...
But the rights of these prisoners actually extends beyond the Geneva Convention and the standard laws applicable in the United States. There are also laws pertaining to Human Rights. And the right to a fair trial should be a given, whenever they eventually stand trial. But...
"Even if defendants are acquitted by the military commissions, the executive reserves the right to continue to detain them indefinitely.
Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: "Lost in Space"
QUOTE
If they were recognised as POWS, then the Third Geneva Convention, which outlines the rights and protections entitled to prisoners of war, would apply.
On the other hand, if they were recognised as criminals, they would be entitled to the standard due process rights granted to ordinary citizens in the United States.
Such rights include the right to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury, the right of representation by an attorney, and the right to be told of the crime being charged.
So the status and rights of these men remains controversial - there is no provision for it under international law.
They have been called 'unlawful enemy combatants,' by US president George W. Bush.
...Although Guantanamo Bay is on Cuban soil, under an existing treaty, the US has controlled the base there for over 90 years.
However, when lawyers of some of the detainees filed petitions asking US federal courts to assert jurisdiction over their cases, the courts responded that US courts have no jurisdiction over non-US citizens in Guantanamo because the military base is on Cuban soil and not under US sovereignty.
On the other hand, if they were recognised as criminals, they would be entitled to the standard due process rights granted to ordinary citizens in the United States.
Such rights include the right to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury, the right of representation by an attorney, and the right to be told of the crime being charged.
So the status and rights of these men remains controversial - there is no provision for it under international law.
They have been called 'unlawful enemy combatants,' by US president George W. Bush.
...Although Guantanamo Bay is on Cuban soil, under an existing treaty, the US has controlled the base there for over 90 years.
However, when lawyers of some of the detainees filed petitions asking US federal courts to assert jurisdiction over their cases, the courts responded that US courts have no jurisdiction over non-US citizens in Guantanamo because the military base is on Cuban soil and not under US sovereignty.
The administration is dancing through all kinds of loopholes regarding the "enemy combatants." We can't decide whether they're criminals or not and we can't decide if we have jurisdiction over our own bases...
But the rights of these prisoners actually extends beyond the Geneva Convention and the standard laws applicable in the United States. There are also laws pertaining to Human Rights. And the right to a fair trial should be a given, whenever they eventually stand trial. But...
QUOTE
The right to a fair and public trial by an independent tribunal is granted to every human being under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent international human rights conventions.
However, none of the foreign nationals in US custody in Afghanistan or Guantanamo has been granted access to legal counsel.
The Bush administration has dismissed the idea of trying the Guantanamo detainees in front of international tribunals, US federal courts, or even traditional American military courts. Instead, it favours using non-public 'military commissions.' Unlike the latter bodies, military commissions are not fully independent from the executive. The President decides who will be sent before them, as well as which evidence can be withheld from the commission and defendant.
Although they are not courts of law, military commissions have the power to convict based on hearsay, authorise indefinite detention without trial, and hand down death sentences without the right to appeal to a more independent and impartial court.
However, none of the foreign nationals in US custody in Afghanistan or Guantanamo has been granted access to legal counsel.
The Bush administration has dismissed the idea of trying the Guantanamo detainees in front of international tribunals, US federal courts, or even traditional American military courts. Instead, it favours using non-public 'military commissions.' Unlike the latter bodies, military commissions are not fully independent from the executive. The President decides who will be sent before them, as well as which evidence can be withheld from the commission and defendant.
Although they are not courts of law, military commissions have the power to convict based on hearsay, authorise indefinite detention without trial, and hand down death sentences without the right to appeal to a more independent and impartial court.
"Even if defendants are acquitted by the military commissions, the executive reserves the right to continue to detain them indefinitely.
Abs:
Geneva Convention
These people are, in principle, POWs. They were captured in combat, by soliders. They were not, however, uniformed soldiers themselves.
Their situation is only tricky because although they are (unofficially) POWs, they may have information that can help us track down and eliminate OBL and Al Qaeda.
As POWs, we would be able to hold them until hostilities end, and then decide their disposition. POWs, however, cannot be asked for more information than name, rank, and serial number.
As criminals, they would have the right to a speedy trial, lawyers, etc. They have not really broken any American laws (per se) and so this does not apply. Only the POW aspect really applies.
As the situation stands, we have 2 options.
1. Declare hostilities in Afghanistan at an end and release all POWs captured there. Military action contines in Afghanistan right now, so this wouldn't be immediate, but should be soon.
2. Continue to hold them, since hostilities in Afghanistan continue. When hostiltilities end, they must be released.
I think, by this time, these POWs no longer have pertinent information and should be released at the end of the conflict.
Geneva Convention
These people are, in principle, POWs. They were captured in combat, by soliders. They were not, however, uniformed soldiers themselves.
Their situation is only tricky because although they are (unofficially) POWs, they may have information that can help us track down and eliminate OBL and Al Qaeda.
As POWs, we would be able to hold them until hostilities end, and then decide their disposition. POWs, however, cannot be asked for more information than name, rank, and serial number.
QUOTE
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
As criminals, they would have the right to a speedy trial, lawyers, etc. They have not really broken any American laws (per se) and so this does not apply. Only the POW aspect really applies.
QUOTE
RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES
Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
As the situation stands, we have 2 options.
1. Declare hostilities in Afghanistan at an end and release all POWs captured there. Military action contines in Afghanistan right now, so this wouldn't be immediate, but should be soon.
2. Continue to hold them, since hostilities in Afghanistan continue. When hostiltilities end, they must be released.
I think, by this time, these POWs no longer have pertinent information and should be released at the end of the conflict.
Dancing around what their status is or should be isn't restoring their legal rights, whether from the Geneva Convention or the United States. The fact remains that under this status of "enemy combatants" they are being denied specific legal rights that should be granted to any person being held in imprisonment. And this isn't even taking into account the accusations of torture and deportation to nations reputed for their use of torture in interrogation.
Applying this to the question at hand...
As I see it, from the information I and others have provided, the answer is no.
Beyond their being held without legal rights, the administration here certainly doesn't seem to plan giving them any more rights when it comes time to charge and try them of any crimes. This was indicated, I feel, in the report highlighting the desire for trials to be held in "military commissions."
Applying this to the question at hand...
QUOTE
Does anyone know how suspected terrorists stand under domestic and / or international law. Are they entitled to the same legal rights as other suspected criminals?
As I see it, from the information I and others have provided, the answer is no.
Beyond their being held without legal rights, the administration here certainly doesn't seem to plan giving them any more rights when it comes time to charge and try them of any crimes. This was indicated, I feel, in the report highlighting the desire for trials to be held in "military commissions."
QUOTE
Although they are not courts of law, military commissions have the power to convict based on hearsay, authorise indefinite detention without trial, and hand down death sentences without the right to appeal to a more independent and impartial court.
QUOTE(JonBon @ Apr 14 2003, 08:25 AM)
Does anyone know how suspected terrorists stand under domestic and / or international law. Are they entitled to the same legal rights as other suspected criminals?
A recent Supreme Court decision not to hear a lower court case regarding keeping immigrant deportation hearings secret would show that they are not entitled to the same rights as US citizens:
Court Allows Secret Deportation Hearings.Here is a copy of the actual release from the US Department of State (scroll to the last paragraph that starts "Detainees"):
Supreme Court Review, 05/27/03 Release
QUOTE(amlord @ Apr 14 2003, 08:01 AM)
Top Al-Qaeda operatives have actually been indicted in US federal court, and will probably be tried on various charges of conspiracy, murder, etc. One good example would be KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED who is on the FBI's most wanted list. Once he gets into custody in the US, I would assume he would have full protection of the law.
I would have to agree with you that higher up al-queda members will be tried in a court of law on charges of conspricay to committ murder, murder, etc.
Some would be KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED, Whalid ba Attash, also known as Tawfiq bin Attash or Khallad (the USS COLE bombing mastermind), Abu Zubaydah, who was shot & captured near the afghan/paki border, who plotted the foiled millennium bombings in LA & Jordan, etc
The little guys would be released when they were figured to have no more intel
Something a little disturbing is quietly happening to the well established International Law system.
Both the following are from the Amnesty International site and worth a glance.
Below concerning war prisoners rights.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAM...TRIES%CUSA?Open Document&of=COUNTRIES%5CUSA
Below concerning US citizens rights.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGIO...open&of=ENG-USA
I am in no way suggesting that Amnesty International is correct in its assumptions or suggestions.
Nor am I suggesting or assuming they are wrong.
They are simply attempting to be a conscience jog for those who own one.
Regards.........Alan
Both the following are from the Amnesty International site and worth a glance.
Below concerning war prisoners rights.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAM...TRIES%CUSA?Open Document&of=COUNTRIES%5CUSA
Below concerning US citizens rights.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGIO...open&of=ENG-USA
I am in no way suggesting that Amnesty International is correct in its assumptions or suggestions.
Nor am I suggesting or assuming they are wrong.
They are simply attempting to be a conscience jog for those who own one.
Regards.........Alan
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.