The U.S. government is looking for a European country willing to take on our Guantanamo detainees.Guantanamo has many detainees who are not terrorists or enemy combatants and should not be there (as the courts have said). The Bush administration has already admitted that some of them are innocent, but they still wouldn’t quit: they were trying to rush detainees through a trial while hiding exculpatory evidence, shifting from terror charges to silly stuff like credit card fraud, and/or dropping the charges and seeking other forms of evasive action.
Something people miss is that it can happen right here in the U.S. The Bush administration arrested a grad student in Illinois on suspicion of terrorism; they had to knock their case down to credit fraud, and even that fell apart. Then they declared him an enemy combatant who had been “removed from the battlefield” – Illinois. He didn’t see his family for years.
The Supreme Court position is that the detainees don’t necessarily get POW status, but they do get the protection of habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention, which says among other things that Geneva protection can only be waived by a competent tribunal (the Court said Bush’s Military Tribunals don’t qualify). The Court would also probably frown upon depriving Red Cross access as an intimidation tactics, and possibly on the secret prisons in Europe.
Obama said he wanted Guantánamo captives tried either as alleged terrorists in federal court (we already have rules on using classified evidence) or as accused war criminals in courts martial. Obama could set up a special court to review tricky cases, possibly seeking passage of a law defining who can be held and setting up a panel of federal judges.
Legally, I think they can be held for the duration of the conflict, unless Obama decides to try them or free them (or deport them). Could they also be brought to the U.S. to be held? And is a declaration of war needed? What happens in the case of a “war” that is indefinite? Portugal has offered to take some of the Guantanamo detainees, but that is still only a temporary solution. So there are still some thorny questions.
Also, the Bush administration’s actions on the torture issue have hurt our image badly, and not just on Abu Ghuraib and Haditha. What did the world think when a senior State official argued in favour of waterboarding even when it is used against U.S. citizens by foreign intelligence officers? When the military and the CIA were both caught trying to harass whistleblowers in torture cases? When Secretary Rice admitted the Bush gang botched the case of the engineer who was deported to Syria and tortured? Even Republican lawmakers called for an apology. The guy still can’t reenter the U.S. And all of that was before the recent revelations about the torture.
Something people miss is that it can happen right here in the U.S. The Bush administration arrested a grad student in Illinois on suspicion of terrorism; they had to knock their case down to credit fraud, and even that fell apart. Then they declared him an enemy combatant who had been “removed from the battlefield” – Illinois. He didn’t see his family for years.
The Supreme Court position is that the detainees don’t necessarily get POW status, but they do get the protection of habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention, which says among other things that Geneva protection can only be waived by a competent tribunal (the Court said Bush’s Military Tribunals don’t qualify). The Court would also probably frown upon depriving Red Cross access as an intimidation tactics, and possibly on the secret prisons in Europe.
Obama said he wanted Guantánamo captives tried either as alleged terrorists in federal court (we already have rules on using classified evidence) or as accused war criminals in courts martial. Obama could set up a special court to review tricky cases, possibly seeking passage of a law defining who can be held and setting up a panel of federal judges.
Legally, I think they can be held for the duration of the conflict, unless Obama decides to try them or free them (or deport them). Could they also be brought to the U.S. to be held? And is a declaration of war needed? What happens in the case of a “war” that is indefinite? Portugal has offered to take some of the Guantanamo detainees, but that is still only a temporary solution. So there are still some thorny questions.
Also, the Bush administration’s actions on the torture issue have hurt our image badly, and not just on Abu Ghuraib and Haditha. What did the world think when a senior State official argued in favour of waterboarding even when it is used against U.S. citizens by foreign intelligence officers? When the military and the CIA were both caught trying to harass whistleblowers in torture cases? When Secretary Rice admitted the Bush gang botched the case of the engineer who was deported to Syria and tortured? Even Republican lawmakers called for an apology. The guy still can’t reenter the U.S. And all of that was before the recent revelations about the torture.
See also http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/2009/04/youre-all-wrong-about-torture-issue.html ...on the torture issue.
2 comments:
Who is the guy from Illinois?
Maher Arar.
Actually it's the other guy from Illinois. That's what I get for rushing.
Post a Comment