US judge rules against new Guantanamo detainee search policy

[GentlemanJim]

Guantanamo is under military jurisdiction I thought.

So does a US judge have any jurisdiction over Guantanamo?

The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.

[simple1]

Guantanamo is under military jurisdiction I thought.

So does a US judge have any jurisdiction over Guantanamo?

The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.

A quote from the original article; “A Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Todd Breasseale, said the military is reviewing the decision, we will of course continue to follow the law” My interpretation is it looks like it is not compulsory for the military to immediately comply with the ruling and may appeal the decision.

[GentlemanJim]

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 ?

Oh, so your country won't give them a trial either?

How hypocritical.

Credo

Responsibility lies 100% with the country that incarcerated the individuals based on whatever evidence they came up with, nobody else! How could it.

[jamhar]

Guantanamo is under military jurisdiction I thought.

So does a US judge have any jurisdiction over Guantanamo?

The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.

Thats a nice general statement.

My question was more on jurisdiction.

Guantanamo is a US military base on foreign land, and we are holding foreign captives.

Guantanamo was chosen for that reason.

So how much jurisdiction does any US judge over a military base on foreign land with non US citizens?

[jbrain]

Guantanamo is under military jurisdiction I thought.

So does a US judge have any jurisdiction over Guantanamo?

The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.

Thats a nice general statement.

My question was more on jurisdiction.

Guantanamo is a US military base on foreign land, and we are holding foreign captives.

Guantanamo was chosen for that reason.

So how much jurisdiction does any US judge over a military base on foreign land with non US citizens?

I guess this link provides enough proof about their jurisdiction

[jamhar]

Guantanamo is under military jurisdiction I thought.

So does a US judge have any jurisdiction over Guantanamo?

The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.

Thats a nice general statement.

My question was more on jurisdiction.

Guantanamo is a US military base on foreign land, and we are holding foreign captives.

Guantanamo was chosen for that reason.

So how much jurisdiction does any US judge over a military base on foreign land with non US citizens?

I guess this link provides enough proof about their jurisdiction

You gave me an article from "the voice of russia" as proof?

[simple1]

The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.

Thats a nice general statement.

My question was more on jurisdiction.

Guantanamo is a US military base on foreign land, and we are holding foreign captives.

Guantanamo was chosen for that reason.

So how much jurisdiction does any US judge over a military base on foreign land with non US citizens?

I guess this link provides enough proof about their jurisdiction

You gave me an article from "the voice of russia" as proof?

Whether you like it or not this topic is based on the Voice of Russia article and is a media source for TV news content upon which many TV OP's are based. Voice of Russia is the Russian government's international broadcasting service via the internet & radio. An article on the creditability of Voice of Russia from the Uni of Southern California at:

http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/voice_of_russia_breaking_from_the_past_to_inform_americans1/

EDIT: Ooops looks like I was wrong in this specific instance and was based upon a Reuters report as the source

Edited July 14, 2013 by simple1

[Scott]

Off-topic posts about the sources of information have been deleted.

Please stay on the topic.

[OzMick]

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.

You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?

[harrry]

@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

Best just end the detention.

[jamhar]

Best just end the detention.

And the reason for that is.....?

[simple1]

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.

You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?

I understand your sentiments, but as already said I concur with the statement made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , "severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere".

Interestingly I recently noticed the UK has similar view and implementation to the US regards indefinite detention (alleged foreign nationality terrorists only), the legal position "a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation"

Edited July 15, 2013 by simple1

[OzMick]

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.

You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?

I understand your sentiments, but as already said I concur with the statement made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , "severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere".

Interestingly I recently noticed the UK has similar view and implementation to the US regards indefinite detention of alleged terrorists, the legal position "a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation"

That the US is not video-taping terrorists having their head sawed off shows they are allowing some rights, it comes down to a matter of degree. Still, prisoners claim that their religious and cultural sensitivities are being offended (I am nearly crying over this) while they have exhibited a total disregard for the sensitivities/rights of others. I have news for them, Guantanamo was never intended to be Club Med.

[Sing_Sling]

You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?

I understand your sentiments, but as already said I concur with the statement made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , "severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere".

Interestingly I recently noticed the UK has similar view and implementation to the US regards indefinite detention of alleged terrorists, the legal position "a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation"

That the US is not video-taping terrorists having their head sawed off shows they are allowing some rights, it comes down to a matter of degree. Still, prisoners claim that their religious and cultural sensitivities are being offended (I am nearly crying over this) while they have exhibited a total disregard for the sensitivities/rights of others. I have news for them, Guantanamo was never intended to be Club Med.

I'm happy that the US has set its standards so high. I guess everything else that is done to a captured US soldier is a-ok by the powers that be.

It's also a unique method of circumventing any discussion vis-a-vis the legality, or illegality as it were, of these detentions

[OzMick]

That the US is not video-taping terrorists having their head sawed off shows they are allowing some rights, it comes down to a matter of degree. Still, prisoners claim that their religious and cultural sensitivities are being offended (I am nearly crying over this) while they have exhibited a total disregard for the sensitivities/rights of others. I have news for them, Guantanamo was never intended to be Club Med.

I'm happy that the US has set its standards so high. I guess everything else that is done to a captured US soldier is a-ok by the powers that be.

It's also a unique method of circumventing any discussion vis-a-vis the legality, or illegality as it were, of these detentions

Well yes, cutting their heads of would stop them from whining. Would that it could be applied to those non-prisoners whining about the rights of persons who have no such respect for the rights, including that to life, of those not sharing their perverted views.

Perhaps summary execution should be offered as an alternative to illegal detention, if only to see how deprived of rights their detention may be.

But these were personal views and in no way reflect that of the USA or its citizens.

BTW I was taught that an enemy's weaknesses should be exploited, and that very much includes his "cultural and religious sensitivities".

Edited July 15, 2013 by OzMick

[Sing_Sling]

All fine and good, but wouldn't it be a good start to determine if the people in GB are actually enemy combatants/prisoners of war or whatever other terminology can be created to skirt international law?

[geriatrickid]

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.

You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?

The USA states that it is a nation of laws etc. If so, then the USA should ensure that it engages in appropriate conduct.

The multiple anal cavity searches undertaken on bound detainees who are escorted by several guards to a confined room to make a phone call and observed through reinforced glass during the process was harassment and intended to intimidate the prisoners and to discourage discussing their respective cases with their legal counsel.

The forced feeding of the prisoners is another example of the squashing of the fundamental human rights of the detainees.

[jamhar]

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.

You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?

The USA states that it is a nation of laws etc. If so, then the USA should ensure that it engages in appropriate conduct.

The multiple anal cavity searches undertaken on bound detainees who are escorted by several guards to a confined room to make a phone call and observed through reinforced glass during the process was harassment and intended to intimidate the prisoners and to discourage discussing their respective cases with their legal counsel.

The forced feeding of the prisoners is another example of the squashing of the fundamental human rights of the detainees.

I dont know that this is true for enemy combatants in captivity, on a military base.

I'm not an expert on military law, or any law

Any sources you have would be greatly appreciated.

[OzMick]

All fine and good, but wouldn't it be a good start to determine if the people in GB are actually enemy combatants/prisoners of war or whatever other terminology can be created to skirt international law?

Yes. But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others.

So should they get the water-boards out first thing and sort the wheat from the chaff?

[OzMick]

You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?

The USA states that it is a nation of laws etc. If so, then the USA should ensure that it engages in appropriate conduct.

The multiple anal cavity searches undertaken on bound detainees who are escorted by several guards to a confined room to make a phone call and observed through reinforced glass during the process was harassment and intended to intimidate the prisoners and to discourage discussing their respective cases with their legal counsel.

The forced feeding of the prisoners is another example of the squashing of the fundamental human rights of the detainees.

I'm sure the USA can sort this without my input. I was expressing my own views on what I see as some sort of anthropomorphism where the rights of US citizens are somehow projected onto people who, if they have any concept of those rights, reject completely offering them to their own people or prisoners, but now wish to claim for themselves.

BTW why would you allow a prisoner who may have valuable information to starve himself to death so as to deny you access to it?

[simple1]

All fine and good, but wouldn't it be a good start to determine if the people in GB are actually enemy combatants/prisoners of war or whatever other terminology can be created to skirt international law?

Yes. But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others.

So should they get the water-boards out first thing and sort the wheat from the chaff?

forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the reasons that they are held at Gitmo so the detainess do not have access to US constitution rights?

[OzMick]

forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the reasons that they are held at Gitmo so the detainess do not have access to US constitution rights?

Obviously. My question is why should they be entitled to them - they are not US citizens, they don't claim those rights in their own country, and they don't extend those rights to others.

In fact they reject many of the rights of US citizens, but now wish to cherry-pick those that would have them released or their detention made more comfortable.

[Sing_Sling]

All fine and good, but wouldn't it be a good start to determine if the people in GB are actually enemy combatants/prisoners of war or whatever other terminology can be created to skirt international law?

Yes. But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others.

So should they get the water-boards out first thing and sort the wheat from the chaff?

It's been a decade in jail for many . . . and as, mentioned, they don't have the same rights like in a civil court, i.e. the 5th etc...

It is a debacle and takes away any moral highground they ever had . . . and we complain about our attitude vis-a-vis asylum seekers

[OzMick]

All fine and good, but wouldn't it be a good start to determine if the people in GB are actually enemy combatants/prisoners of war or whatever other terminology can be created to skirt international law?

Yes. But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others.

So should they get the water-boards out first thing and sort the wheat from the chaff?

It's been a decade in jail for many . . . and as, mentioned, they don't have the same rights like in a civil court, i.e. the 5th etc...

It is a debacle and takes away any moral highground they ever had . . . and we complain about our attitude vis-a-vis asylum seekers

Most would prefer a decade in jail to summary execution, which is the proscribed penalty under the Geneva Convention for many of the actions of terrorists.

Before you start declaring debacle, you should ask yourself where you got the right to assign the rights of US citizens to enemy combatants. And leave discussion of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to a different forum, where I am sure we will also have quite different attitudes.

[simple1]

All fine and good, but wouldn't it be a good start to determine if the people in GB are actually enemy combatants/prisoners of war or whatever other terminology can be created to skirt international law?

Yes. But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others.

So should they get the water-boards out first thing and sort the wheat from the chaff?

It's been a decade in jail for many . . . and as, mentioned, they don't have the same rights like in a civil court, i.e. the 5th etc...

It is a debacle and takes away any moral highground they ever had . . . and we complain about our attitude vis-a-vis asylum seekers

Most would prefer a decade in jail to summary execution, which is the proscribed penalty under the Geneva Convention for many of the actions of terrorists.

Before you start declaring debacle, you should ask yourself where you got the right to assign the rights of US citizens to enemy combatants. And leave discussion of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to a different forum, where I am sure we will also have quite different attitudes.

86 of the present 166 Guantanamo detainees, have been cleared to go to their home country or another country willing to accept them, remain there, and have not been convicted of any offence. As has already been mentioned only 9 of the remaining 166 have been charged or convicted for offences, that leaves 71 detainees. After many years of detention and torture their is insufficient evidence to charge the remaining 71 who are subject to indefinite detention, as I understand from a legal interpretation based upon "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation".

UK government, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" I agree & the 71 should have access to trial.

Edited July 16, 2013 by simple1

[jamhar]

86 of the present 166 Guantanamo detainees, have been cleared to go to their home country or another country willing to accept them, remain there, and have not been convicted of any offence. As has already been mentioned only 9 of the remaining 166 have been charged or convicted for offences, that leaves 71 detainees. After many years of detention and torture their is insufficient evidence to charge the remaining 71 who are subject to indefinite detention, as I understand from a legal interpretation based upon "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation".

UK government, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" I agree & the 71 should have access to trial.

S1, Have the countries of the detainees made any specific request to have a detainee released?

[Credo]

<Snipped>

UK government, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" I agree & the 71 should have access to trial.

These prisoners aren't in the UK, but if you want them, I am sure something can be worked out.

I understand there is a council flat available, recently vacated by someone who went to Jordan.

[Sing_Sling]

Most would prefer a decade in jail to summary execution, which is the proscribed penalty under the Geneva Convention for many of the actions of terrorists.

Before you start declaring debacle, you should ask yourself where you got the right to assign the rights of US citizens to enemy combatants. And leave discussion of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to a different forum, where I am sure we will also have quite different attitudes.

Why would you summarily execute someone whom you can't link to any crimes? Your position is getting more and more difficult to understand . . . and it wasn't me who 'gave' these people the rights afforded citizens, it was you who brought it up when you alluded to "But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others."

Added to which, what rights do these prisoners 'deny their own people and others'?

The asylum seeker/immigrant issue highlights our attitude and is, therefore, germane as a sidenote.

Have a look at Simple1's post . . .

Most would prefer a decade in jail to summary execution, which is the proscribed penalty under the Geneva Convention for many of the actions of terrorists.

Before you start declaring debacle, you should ask yourself where you got the right to assign the rights of US citizens to enemy combatants. And leave discussion of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to a different forum, where I am sure we will also have quite different attitudes.

86 of the present 166 Guantanamo detainees, have been cleared to go to their home country or another country willing to accept them, remain there, and have not been convicted of any offence. As has already been mentioned only 9 of the remaining 166 have been charged or convicted for offences, that leaves 71 detainees. After many years of detention and torture their is insufficient evidence to charge the remaining 71 who are subject to indefinite detention, as I understand from a legal interpretation based upon "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation".

UK government, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" I agree & the 71 should have access to trial.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[simple1]

<Snipped>

UK government, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" I agree & the 71 should have access to trial.

These prisoners aren't in the UK, but if you want them, I am sure something can be worked out.

I understand there is a council flat available, recently vacated by someone who went to Jordan.

It's not about the UK, but internationally recognised standards of behaviour by government. However their was an appeal on behalf of alledged terrorists indefinately detained without charge in the UK. It was declined based upon the principal of "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation". Not a lawyer, but understand the same principal has been utilised by the US.

[OzMick]

It's been a decade in jail for many . . . and as, mentioned, they don't have the same rights like in a civil court, i.e. the 5th etc...

It is a debacle and takes away any moral highground they ever had . . . and we complain about our attitude vis-a-vis asylum seekers

Most would prefer a decade in jail to summary execution, which is the proscribed penalty under the Geneva Convention for many of the actions of terrorists.

Before you start declaring debacle, you should ask yourself where you got the right to assign the rights of US citizens to enemy combatants. And leave discussion of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to a different forum, where I am sure we will also have quite different attitudes.

86 of the present 166 Guantanamo detainees, have been cleared to go to their home country or another country willing to accept them, remain there, and have not been convicted of any offence. As has already been mentioned only 9 of the remaining 166 have been charged or convicted for offences, that leaves 71 detainees. After many years of detention and torture their is insufficient evidence to charge the remaining 71 who are subject to indefinite detention, as I understand from a legal interpretation based upon "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation".

UK government, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" I agree & the 71 should have access to trial.

Why are the 86 detained - perhaps because nobody is willing to accept them?

Step back from your legalistic and moral viewpoint and try to understand that collateral damage occurs in war, undeclared or not. These detainees by their actions or association have caused suspicion that they are involved in terrorism, leading to their capture and incarceration involving considerable effort and expense. But attempting to position them in a historical legal framework when this engagement is rapidly evolving new tactics is counter-productive. Your "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation" appears to be an attempt to modify the legal framework. If so, why would it have any less legitimacy than prior laws?

I have no doubt collateral damage will occur, but I would much rather it happen amongst terrorists, their supporters, camp-followers and hangers-on than their targets, people who have done nothing wrong except live in a different and more liberal culture. The numbers involved are quite small when compared to those killed in terrorist attacks.