Another source:

Supreme Court will hear first appeals involving Guantanamo detainees

My questions for debate are:

Should Gitmo detainees have access to American courts? Should they be tried in military tribunals?

Should we ever set them free?

Yes, they should either be tried or released. If they were picked up by the military for acts during or involving war, then yes, a military tribunal is probably the most reasonable course of action.

Why? Because to be on the side of "good and just and right", we must adhere to our principles of innocent until proven guilty. Holding them without trial and without some end to their non-sentence goes completely against our principles as Americans. And doesn't improve our standing in the Arab world (well, except with the despots, but they just want our money anyway).

If they are found "not guilty" of their charges, absolutely set them free... with a chip embedded in their body so we can track their movements

Why don't they just call them "Concentration camps"? That's exactly what they are. These are nothing but people turned over by the Pakistan government to receive their money for doing so. The more people they handed over, the more money they get. Just as long as they have a beard and a sandy complexion.

wm009, do you have any facts or links to share with us pertaining to your conclusion?

Of course they should have access to the court system. They are on US soil, after all. That's where the government messed up, I think. If they had been maintained at, say, a camp in Afghanistan, by American soldiers, no problem. This quote is from the story you linked to:


But they were brought to a US military installation, and regardless of what country it's in, that base is considered US property, as long as the provisions of the lease are maintained. This, from a history of Gitmo.

That means that they are entitled to the same kind of protections that everyone else in this country have. Those who had knowledge of, and participated in terrorist attacks, should be tried, post-haste. The government has said that their interrogations have yielded plenty of information. Fine. There should be plenty to charge them and convict them in trials, then. If not, they should be released.

The other, more troubling thing, is that we are not doing this just to non-citizens, but to US citizens, as well. Again, from your story link:



Just how long does it take to work out the guidelines for having a trial in this country? I thought that we had a pretty good handle on it myself, seeing as we have been doing it for over 200 years... Apparently not

The scariest part of all though, is that under the Patriot Act, the Justice Department and the President can basically do this to anyone in this country they want. From the Cato Institute:


Either charge them and try them, or release them. Surely no more timely, relevant information can be hed from most of these people. Those that we have information against can be tried in military tribunals, if we must, to protect intelligence measures. But to continue holding them without charging them or realising them, is a violation of the Constitution.

Presence on American soil is not an automatic entitlement to access to the American court system. The Fifth Amendment requires indictment by a grand jury, but specifically excepted from that requirement are "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." These people were detained during time of public danger. They are therefore entitled to no more protection than any member of our own military would receive. They are entitled to a military tribunal. There is a historical precedent for this....

The Supreme Court in the 1942 case of Ex Parte Quirin, when it upheld President Roosevelt’s decision to try by military tribunal rather than civilian court German saboteurs who had come ashore from a German submarine. Also, one of the men tried had been a naturalized United States citizen since childhood, yet that did not alter the fact that he was giving aid to the enemy of the United States and was thus subject to trial by military tribunal.

Article 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Congress authorized the President to try anyone acting as a spy by a general court-martial or by a military commission, and in Article 104 has authorized trial by court-martial or military commission of "Any person who aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly."


I agree with your last sentiments. This should not be a reflex reaction in which any person could be subjected to a military tribunal at any time, on any grounds. Only the most compelling and condemning of circumstances should apply. The prisoner should always be entitled to a speedy trial and counsel, and should not be held if no charges are presented. That absolutely spits at the face of our constitution, and offers some downright frightening potentialities.

Perhaps "court system" was the wrong wordage. They are entitled to the same protections as any other person in this country.

The right to representation, the right to have the charges presented, and the right to a trial. Even in a military tribunal, or courts martial. These are things that these people are not getting. They have no communication with family or legal counsel. They have yet to be charged with any crime, even after being held for over two years. There are no trials even scheduled, and it's not certain that there ever will be.

This is the "American Way"?

These people need to be tried, one way or the other.

I think they have been locked up for long enough that the sensitivity of any information they may have is at an end. If there is no case against them, they should be released. If there is evidence, they should be tried (probably via military tribunal).

I believe what has been done here is legal. But it is time to end the long drawn out process of bringing them to justice. Justice should be served and these people need to be moved to a regular prison (if convicted). Their presence in Gitmo is no longer serving a useful purpose.

I agree that the people that have been detained as suspects in the war on terror need to be given a status beyond persona non grata. It has been 18 months since the Guantanamo detentions started, and the administration should not be the only voice on the status of these people.

There needs to be a clarification and a system of due process put in place. The people at Gitmo and other detention centers need to be classified and made aware of their status. They should get access to legal representation. The proceedings should be made as public as possible (with exceptions to be made for the safety of the prisoners and the security of our classified information). But this is not an acceptable (to me of course ) system of detention and I had hoped that the administration would have started sorting these people out and releasing or trying them by now.

I think it is a good thing that the Supreme Court is hearing this case, this should be an issue that becomes a more audible part of the national debate. Holding people merely as suspects for two years is a serious thing. Imagine what would happen to your life if you disappeared from contact with anyone for two years.

They should have access to some kind of justice system. We as a country are either going to try them or let them go. Primarily if U.S. citizens were being held we would be demanding a trial or to let our people go. Basically these people have been imprisoned without an opportunity to defend themselves. Which is not a proper manner to go about.

Until you visit Guantanamo, Please dont tell me that we should just call them "concentration camps". It's a prison which detains known-terrorists, not regular everday people, as you would say that we will end up, because we are so called "thought criminals".

Pakistani authoritys are just doing there jobs, which may be very little, reason being that they really dont have much control withing the northwest region of Pakistan.

Useful information is being giving to us. Pakistan is doing what every nation should do, all though i doubt they are really doing enough.

Ah, but Jimbo, how do we know who is at Guantanamo. How do we know that all of the detainees are "known-terrrorists"?

Who else would be detained there? Of course different Taliban commanders and such.

Dont you think it is the reason we do have Guantanamo overseas, and not in our own nation? That is why the only detainees that would really be detained there would be known-terrorists.

There is no way to know that for sure of course without knowing who exactly is there. Even then, without all the information, it would be difficult to know. However, we have been told that is the case by quite a few people who are in the loop.

If that is not the case as Eeyore suggests, one must ask who they are then? Did the US Military just run around the countryside of Afghanistan, picking up stray shepards wandering around and ship them off to Gitmo for fun? What would be the purpose in doing that? That makes no sense at all.

I think part of the problem here is that most of these people are probably part of some terrorist organization, but because of the extra-national nature of terrorist combatants, whom do you contact?

If we were currently at war with Djibouti (I never liked them... ) and in some military battle we captured a cadre of Djiboutans, then the protocol would be normal. We'd question them, jail them, and eventually hand them over to the Djiboutan government.

Since we might not know where these people come from, or even necessarily their importance in the terrorist command structure, I think that might justify their incarceration until we do know. If nothing else, they should be fingerprinted and handed over to governments that will try them in a court of law.

These combatants are from countries like Syria, Saudi, Pakistan, Iran, etc., countries that are allowing insurgents to cross Iraqi borders now and conduct terrorist attacks. If we allow them to go back to their country, who is to say they won't be allowed to cross the boarder and continue their crusade.

Oops, did I say crusade?

Some are, yes. Maybe even most. But not all. Unless of course you consider the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Russia, and Bosnia "insurgent" countries. And those are only the non-Arab countries we know about. These so-called combatants are claimed by the Red Cross and other International rights groups to be from at least 39 different countries, although the US has never provided a listing of names or even where these people are from.

And what about the children we are still holding. Last month, the US admited they have "at least" 3 persons, aged 13 to 15, in custody. That means they were even younger when they were captured. I can understand trying these kids, if they were actually shooting at our soldiers. Maybe. But what possible strategic, military intelligence could these kids have that would justify their continued interrogation, and being held without charges?

They are also from Britain, Bush’s bestest buddy. (and as an Englishman I can tell you that their detention without trial and without charge absolutely disgusts me)

Part of the problem for Bush is that their treatment has been so appalling that if they are released back to Britain for trial the case won’t even get to court. The information gained from them will be considered to have been under duress and as such inadmissible. Detention without trial, especially for that long is illegal so they'd be walking the streets that day. Personally I think this is exactly what should happen.



I didn't know they were holding children as well - for shame.

He's right, though there is one problem. You say that most of these prisoners are from countries such as :syria, Pakistan, etc?

What about the other countries. Countries such as Britain, France, Germany and Austrailia, Many Terrorists that are also prisoners being held at Guantanamo.

Point taken gentlemen. I should have been clearer in my post. Let me rephrase:

Those combatants who were active in fighting against the US, who are from countries that are allowing, perhaps encouraging men to cross the border into Iraq and blow up innocents - should we send them back to those countries?

You stated in your last post:
"countries that are allowing or perhaps encourageing men to cross the border into Iraq and blowing up the innocent"

And your question was:

should we send them back to those countries?

Why would we send them back to those countries that encourage men to cross the borders into Iraq and terrorize the innocent?

Even if those such countries didnt encourage these known-terrorists to harm the innocent, if we hand them over to the other governments, they wont be tried accordingly, theyll be tortured.

American courts. There would be less scrutiny from their nation of orgin if we don't give them a free and fair trial.



Yes. BUT only if their country is not on the State Department's list of terrorist supporting nations. For example, if it is a Syrian national, no...because that person will get a slap on the wrist and go to Iraq to fight us as a terrorist. But if it is form a country, say, Australia, then yes

I'm going to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one and presume they have good reason for detaining these people. There are how many thousands of other folks of similar origin in the US? How many are actually at Gitmo? They know the ramifications and long term political impact of needlessly holding people without cause. I think we just don't have all the facts to formulate a valid opinion on it at this time. It's not like a middle-easterner is walking down the street one day and the military is driving around in a tank with spotlights saying "Ohhhh! Look another one grab him and ship him to Cuba!"

Well, the one advantage of not sending them back tot heir national origin is because if there are warnings or signs of warnings of terrorist attacks, we can get some info about it from them. Though they might not have the info, why take that risk?

Yeah I agree.

Why take that risk? If you believe in the Declaration of Independence and the founders of your country then you must know that all men are born with "inalienable" human rights to dignity and freedom. Taking that risk is a horrible violation of those rights and it amazes me that as an American you can so callously disregard that.

GA, your post makes no sense whatsoever to me.

These people have been held for almost two years now. You think that by now, the terrorists haven't thought that maybe the US would get info from these detainees, and change their plans? Or, come up with all new ones? What possible information could these people have that they haven't already given to interrogators, that would still be relevant?

And what about the kids we are holding over there? You really think that that a twelve or fourteen year old is going to be made privvy to the strategic secrets of a major terrorist organization?


No, actually we do that to our own citizens. Jose Padilla was seen in a meeting with Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan concerning bulding bombs, and upon his arrival back home in Chicago, he was detained as soon as he departed the plane. They found no bomb making materials at his residence, no weapons of any kind. Yet he is currently in Guantanamo, again, with no charges filed, no access to legal counsel, and no idea of when he may be released.

If he has committed a crime (and I think he has in terms of conspiracy to commit a crime), he needs to be charged, and tried, convicted if possible, and sentenced. But holding him indefinately as an "illegal combatant" is a violation of his civil rights as a US citizen.

I understand that part of the reason we were holding these men was to gain information about future terrorist attacks and perhaps gain insight into the operations of a terrorist organization.

But, that wasn't the only reason we are holding them. These men, and children for that matter, are enemy combatants. The main reason they were taken into custody was because they were fighting for the enemy.

With that said, I too believe some action has to take place on these combatants - militray tribunals preferrably and the sooner the better.

These people are foreign combatants, if they want the same rights as Americans then they shouldn't be fighting us. If these people can legitimately be deemed as security threats, then they should be held until A: They are proven otherwise or B: There has been enough evidence gathered against them to be tried.

CP

The people at Gitmo are "prisoners of war". We are at war with Terrorism, and when you are at war you take prisoners and you hold them until the war is over. This war is not over. I agree they need to have military tribunals, but not before we see the end of this conflict.

If you want to consider them prisoners of war then you must respect the Geneva Convention regarding said prisoners; which the U.S. has refused to do. So which is it?

They are prisoners taken during the war, but were not uniformed enemy combatants at the time of capture.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them (this has been discussed before, I am sure...)

As I said before, they should do something with these detainees relatively soon. You can certainly make the case that freeing these people will simply give the enemy a few more recruits to fight us with, however. Since that is the case, we should make sure we have solid cases against all of them. We will, in all likelihood, still hold onto these guys for awhile longer.

Surely the issue is one of pragmatism. The current US stance lessens the chances of extradition of suspects to the US. No EU state (including the UK) could legally extradite anyone to the US if it was thought that he would end up in Guantanamo.

A lot of lawyers seem very sceptical of the legality of the GITMO position (which certainly doesn't seem convincing to me). I read earlier today the following, about a very senior Brit lawyer (who very rarely speak out about anything contentious politically and almost never on foreign issues) who has spoken out against Camp X-Ray. More here, for anybody interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3238624.stm

What too many people here are missing entirely is that in the big picture it is entirely irrelevent what some minute niceties in US and/or international law says should happen to the detainees. What really matters is how Guantanamo Bay is seen by the Muslim World - you know where hundreds of thousands of coalition troops are.

The Muslim world sees it as an abomination. An example of hypocrisy of the highest order. It took the US army 18 months to release boys captured at 16. The fact is it is already too late to protect the US's proclaimed reputation as a country of human rights and the rule of law. The outside world (which what will affect the course of this bogus war more than anything else) do not buy any of these excuses for storing 600 people in permanent light (no lights out at night) without contact with the outside world or information as when they will be assess as to their status. These are not "enemy combatants". Several have been released as just there at the wrong time (after a year of confinement). "Enemy combatants" is a made-up phrase anyway. The geneva convention demands that any prisoners caught in combat have a swift tribunal to determine what they are under the convention. The Geneva convention says that until this assessment/tribunal is carried out they must be treated as normal prisoners of war. This is not happening.

You are manifestly not a terrorist if you are shooting at US soldiers trying to kill you in the middle of the Afghani desert. Who are you terrorising? How do they prove you are not a Taliban (i.e. a government soldier) or just some farmer scared witless by hundreds of troops coming at you? Is a person who resists invasion by fightin invading troops a terrorist? Or simply a "government reservist"?

These questions are not being answered and have not been answered for two full years. It is a scandal, and has already dragged the US firmly from it's moral pedestal in the Muslim World's (and the rest of the world's) eyes. It has been a collosal own goal by the US administration. But not as big as Iraq.

The war with the Taliban is over, and the war on terrorism is not an official war. It is more like the war on drugs or the war on poverty in that it is a campaign to change a condition in society, in this case the world society.

We should firm up some policies including giving a clear definition of 'terrorism' what a 'rogue nation' is, and what happens to a country that is a "state-sponsor" of terrorism. We should also develop a clear policy on WMDs.

Are war on terror should be transformed into new international law in regards to terrorism. We should not be exploiting this lack of defined international law to stick people into black holes and lock them away indefinitely at our discretion.

I think this statement is premature.

The Taliban may not be in power, but they never really "surrendered". Like the Iraqi Republican Guard, they just melted into the woodwork. And like the R-Guard, they will fight a guerrilla war for as long as it takes. They plan to be in the region longer than we do.

In fact, if you remember history, this is where the Taliban was when the Soviets were propping up the Afghan government. Except, back then, we were the ones supplying them with munitions.

My point was not that the work is done but that we are not engaged in a war there. We have an occupation had military operations there now, but we are not officially at war with the Taliban.

The war has never ended. The US is still spending $1bn a month in the country.

The Taliban have retaken some towns in the South. The Taliban are still around and still powerful. And still fighting the US and Afghan military. And Bin Laden hasn't been found.

Schooly

I'm sure our Army buddies over there who have to worry about sniper fire and being bombed every now and then will be happy to hear that.

And I'm sure the Taliban doesn't think it's over. They're still out there inciting folks to go after us.

If we think it's over just because our attention is diverted to Iraq, we're just fooling ourselves.