US judge rules against new Guantanamo detainee search policy

[webfact]

US judge rules against new Guantanamo detainee search policy

WASHINGTON: -- A US judge invalidated a new military policy dealing with searches of detainees at Guantanamo Bay before and after their meetings or phone calls with attorneys.

Judge Royce Lamberth of the US District Court in Washington, said the search procedures, in place since May, "actively discourage petitioners from taking phone calls or meeting with counsel".

The US military holds 166 foreign captives at the detention camp on the Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base in Cuba.

The searches, which include frisking of the groin and anal areas, are conducted on detainees before they are taken from their cells to buildings for meetings or phone calls with their lawyers, and after they return.

Previously, a less invasive search procedure was used to avoid appearing disrespectful toward the detainees' cultural or religious sensitivities, the judge said.

Detainees Mahmoud al Shubati, Fadhel Hussein Saleh Hentif and Saeed Mohammed Saleh Hatim had all complained about the policy, saying it unlawfully inhibited their right to speak with their lawyers.

Lamberth agreed, noting that detainees have said they are searched up to four times during the process.

Full story: http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_12/US-judge-rules-against-new-guantanamo-detainee-search-policy-4026/

Voice of Russia, Reuters

-- THE VOICE OF RUSSIA 2013-07-12

[Fantastic5]

What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.

[Scott]

There are a number of links about the history of the Guantanamo bay, here's one to get you started on your sojourn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base

[ronrat]

If a USA citizen was put in jail without trial for 12 years the yanks would be all over it.

[NeverSure]

What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.

If a USA citizen was put in jail without trial for 12 years the yanks would be all over it.

First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.

Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.

In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.

[simple1]

What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.

If a USA citizen was put in jail without trial for 12 years the yanks would be all over it.

First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.

Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.

In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.

Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that could compromise US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.

Edited July 13, 2013 by simple1

[jbrain]

What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.

If a USA citizen was put in jail without trial for 12 years the yanks would be all over it.

First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.

Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.

In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.

Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that comprises US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.

It's just an another example of the US putting themselves above the law.

[NeverSure]

What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.

If a USA citizen was put in jail without trial for 12 years the yanks would be all over it.

First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.

Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.

In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.

Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that comprises US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

[jbrain]

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

My understandingof international law is that they would get a fair and quick trial.

How many have had a trial yet?

[NeverSure]

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

My understandingof international law is that they would get a fair and quick trial.

How many have had a trial yet?

Link please?

I'm not asking you to agree with how the US handles terrorists. It is obviously hard nosed about it.

But unlawful foreign enemy combatants aren't entitled to anything beyond "humane treatment" and you are welcome to define that for yourself.

LINK

[jbrain]

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

My understandingof international law is that they would get a fair and quick trial.

How many have had a trial yet?

Link please?

I'm not asking you to agree with how the US handles terrorists. It is obviously hard nosed about it.

But unlawful foreign enemy combatants aren't entitled to anything beyond "humane treatment" and you are welcome to define that for yourself.

LINK

From your own link

the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.

And I'm out of here before I say things that will be deleted anyway

[simple1]

What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.

First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.

Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.

In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.

Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that comprises US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

When have Muslims in the US rioted when alledged terrorists have attended trial in US courts? As you say the regulators have come up with the term "unlawful combatants". This is covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention that states such prisoners must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

[NeverSure]

First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.

Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.

In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.

Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that comprises US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

When have Muslims in the US rioted when alledged terrorists have attended trial in US courts? As you say the regulators have come up with the term "unlawful combatants". This is covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention that states such prisoners must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

"In case of trial" doesn't guarantee a trial. It says on that "in case of trial" the trial shall be fair and regular.

Let's get something, OK? No nation is claiming that what is happening in Gitmo is illegal, other than some Muslim nations. The US has been careful to follow international law. The few times when perhaps law wasn't followed it was corrected.

I don't object to anyone disagreeing with even the existence of Gitmo. To each his own. But what the US is doing is legal internationally, and the US will always be seen as hard nosed regarding terrorists by some.

I accept that. I happen to like it. If you are a US citizen and can vote, then do so.

[simple1]

@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.

I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?

[NeverSure]

@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.

I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?

First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.

Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.

There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.

So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.

Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link

[simple1]

@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.

I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?

First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.

Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.

There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.

So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.

Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link

On Friday 5 April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, declared “we must be clear about this: the United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold." Pillay further remarked that the Guantanamo regime “severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere.”

http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/1050/

For me the unlawful combatant ruling was a legal construct used by the US for domestic political purposes. Not a 100% sure, but do not believe any other nation has used this tool as a means for indefinite detention. Do agree with the last sentence in the above.

We can debate this endlessly without reaching an agreeable conclusion, so let's end it

[chuckd]

First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.

Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.

In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.

Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that comprises US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

When have Muslims in the US rioted when alledged terrorists have attended trial in US courts? As you say the regulators have come up with the term "unlawful combatants". This is covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention that states such prisoners must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

They were not "Uniformed combatants", therefore are not eligible for Geneva Convention rights.

[GentlemanJim]

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

There might also be justice!

First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.

Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.

There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.

So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.

Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link

Every country in the world complained and are sick of complaining so they have given up. The USA's ears were closed to everyone.

You say nobody in Gitmo deserves a fair trial or any Human rights, yet you then go on to say that most of the prisoners in Gitmo have been released. Many of those prisoners did between 6-10 years in Gitmo...why were they released....because they were innocent and there was zero evidence to support any criminal charges. Was it fair to keep those "bastards" in jail for 10 years? Now of the 165 prisoners that are left only 9 yes that is NINE have been charged in 12 years (and after 10 years in solitary confinement in a cage without reason or information you would be happy to sign a piece of paper saying your Mother was the wife of Satan himself). What of the other 156 inmates that have no evidence against them apart from confessions extracted under torture? Do they deserve justice? Like the Doctor that was plucked from his home because he shared the same name as an alleged terrorist. he spent 8 years inside Gitmo before the Americans admitted he was innocent. He was released without any form of recourse against the United States. If that is American justice then please build a 100ft wall around the entire US border and keep the rest of us out and keep yourselves to yourselves. The world really would be a better place I assure you.

[jbrain]

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

Do you agree that US prisoners of war in Iraq and Afghanistan would be treated similar ?

Edited July 14, 2013 by jbrain

[NeverSure]

@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.

I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?

First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.

Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.

There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.

So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.

Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link

On Friday 5 April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, declared “we must be clear about this: the United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold." Pillay further remarked that the Guantanamo regime “severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere.”

http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/1050/

For me the unlawful combatant ruling was a legal construct used by the US for domestic political purposes. Not a 100% sure, but do not believe any other nation has used this tool as a means for indefinite detention. Do agree with the last sentence in the above.

We can debate this endlessly without reaching an agreeable conclusion, so let's end it

Oh yes, That woman from South Africa who is also doing battle with Canada over its treatment of students. That same woman who was nominated by Nelson Mandela.

NOW please quote me the law she is referring to????

[NeverSure]

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

There might also be justice!

First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.

Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.

There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.

So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.

Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link

Every country in the world complained and are sick of complaining so they have given up. The USA's ears were closed to everyone.

You say nobody in Gitmo deserves a fair trial or any Human rights, yet you then go on to say that most of the prisoners in Gitmo have been released. Many of those prisoners did between 6-10 years in Gitmo...why were they released....because they were innocent and there was zero evidence to support any criminal charges. Was it fair to keep those "bastards" in jail for 10 years? Now of the 165 prisoners that are left only 9 yes that is NINE have been charged in 12 years (and after 10 years in solitary confinement in a cage without reason or information you would be happy to sign a piece of paper saying your Mother was the wife of Satan himself). What of the other 156 inmates that have no evidence against them apart from confessions extracted under torture? Do they deserve justice? Like the Doctor that was plucked from his home because he shared the same name as an alleged terrorist. he spent 8 years inside Gitmo before the Americans admitted he was innocent. He was released without any form of recourse against the United States. If that is American justice then please build a 100ft wall around the entire US border and keep the rest of us out and keep yourselves to yourselves. The world really would be a better place I assure you.

War is hell. I recommend avoiding it. I especially recommend not starting it by attacking the US on its own soil as in 9/11 and before.

WE NEVER QUIT HUNTING PEOPLE DOWN.

Can no one quote me a law the US is violating?

Edited July 14, 2013 by NeverSure

[Credo]

Any of those who are complaining are welcome to contact their gov't and see if they will offer to take these people and provide them with a fair trial and incarceration.

[Scott]

This topic is about a judge ruling about searches.

Stay on topic please.

[Credo]

I am confident that once the war on terror is over, they will be released.

[GentlemanJim]

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

When have Muslims in the US rioted when alledged terrorists have attended trial in US courts? As you say the regulators have come up with the term "unlawful combatants". This is covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention that states such prisoners must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

They were not "Uniformed combatants", therefore are not eligible for Geneva Convention rights.

That is an interpretation made by US lawyers on the 3rd Geneva Convention nothing else and if it was considered correct then they ARE entitled to rights under the 4th Geneva Convention.

[GentlemanJim]

Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.

If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.

Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.

There might also be justice!

First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.

Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.

There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.

So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.

Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link

Every country in the world complained and are sick of complaining so they have given up. The USA's ears were closed to everyone.

You say nobody in Gitmo deserves a fair trial or any Human rights, yet you then go on to say that most of the prisoners in Gitmo have been released. Many of those prisoners did between 6-10 years in Gitmo...why were they released....because they were innocent and there was zero evidence to support any criminal charges. Was it fair to keep those "bastards" in jail for 10 years? Now of the 165 prisoners that are left only 9 yes that is NINE have been charged in 12 years (and after 10 years in solitary confinement in a cage without reason or information you would be happy to sign a piece of paper saying your Mother was the wife of Satan himself). What of the other 156 inmates that have no evidence against them apart from confessions extracted under torture? Do they deserve justice? Like the Doctor that was plucked from his home because he shared the same name as an alleged terrorist. he spent 8 years inside Gitmo before the Americans admitted he was innocent. He was released without any form of recourse against the United States. If that is American justice then please build a 100ft wall around the entire US border and keep the rest of us out and keep yourselves to yourselves. The world really would be a better place I assure you.

War is hell. I recommend avoiding it. I especially recommend not starting it by attacking the US on its own soil as in 9/11 and before.

WE NEVER QUIT HUNTING PEOPLE DOWN.

Can no one quote me a law the US is violating?

You seem to never quit being obnoxious either. Why don't you get your own fat lardy fingers to type in about the Geneva convention and look up about it yourself instead of displaying the ultimate in computer lazyness and the fall back tactic of the intellectually challenged. The USA is in breach of its obligations concerning the Geneva convention where it specifically states that these people held in Gitmo have the right to 'fair and regular trials'.

As much as you seem to like to demonize everyone it turns out that hundreds of people detained were innocent and it is likely there are at least 165 more that currently languish in jail. Perhaps part of the master plan to ensure the USA never runs out of terrorists to fight as for sure when these guys are released they will have been nurtured into budding killers. The fact that these guys have rectal examinations four times if they want to phone their lawyers is a little OTT don't ya think ? and the US Judges think it is also. There is enough evidence out there to persuade intelligent rational people that what is going on in Gitmo is wrong, so I guess if you want to belong to that particular group of humans, to quote one of your role models "you are either with us or against us". The very thrust of your arguments are why we banned the addition of flouride in the tap water in Europe 30+ years ago, something some US citizens need to waken up to if they can ever snap out of it's effects.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been deleted.

[simple1]

@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.

I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?

First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.

Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.

There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.

So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.

Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link

On Friday 5 April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, declared “we must be clear about this: the United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold." Pillay further remarked that the Guantanamo regime “severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere.”

http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/1050/

For me the unlawful combatant ruling was a legal construct used by the US for domestic political purposes. Not a 100% sure, but do not believe any other nation has used this tool as a means for indefinite detention. Do agree with the last sentence in the above.

We can debate this endlessly without reaching an agreeable conclusion, so let's end it

Oh yes, That woman from South Africa who is also doing battle with Canada over its treatment of students. That same woman who was nominated by Nelson Mandela.

NOW please quote me the law she is referring to????

Great that you dismiss the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who would have many legal experts on international law to guide UN policy statements.

To answer your question I understand indefinite detention, without trial, is in contravention of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights., which the US ratified in 1992. Reviewed in depth at:

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_857_zayas.pdf

[jamhar]

Guantanamo is under military jurisdiction I thought.

So does a US judge have any jurisdiction over Guantanamo?

[jbrain]

Any of those who are complaining are welcome to contact their gov't and see if they will offer to take these people and provide them with a fair trial and incarceration.

Why would my government, or any other for that matter, set up a trtial for people who have no charges brought against them after a decade incarceration and which are detainded because of a witch hunt by the US government ?