Justice At Last For Camp X-ray Detainees?
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Access granted to US legal system</div> <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8211606%255E421,00.html' target='_blank'>Click for great justice</a>
Read this on my local news source and was thrilled. One phrase in there really jumped out at me:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"It's finally good to see that a US court is putting the interests of justice ahead of the interests of politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Say what you will about the people detained down there, the fact is that they deserve justice. Placing these men before a secret military tribunal just doens't sound like justice, especially when the US Constitution speaks against such treatment of any criminal suspect. Allowing the detainees access to the US legal system not only gives them a chance to defend themselves, it also helps raise the image of the US in the eyes of the world. Camp X-Ray has been, quite rightly I believe, the target of much critisism for it's treatment of prisoners and their isolation from the US legal system. This ruling might go some way to undoing the negative press generated by Camp X-Ray, though until the detainees there are actually given proper housing and perhaps charged with a crime to justify their imprisonment the critisism will continue, again rightly so I believe.
If the US is so convinced that these people are guilty, why has the US government tried so hard to prevent them gaining access to the US legal system? Why have these men not been charged with a crime? On what grounds exactly are they being held? We just spent billions of dollars and quite a few lives removing a dictator who held people in jails for no just reason. Are we both, the US and Australia, nations of hypocrites? Should we not practice the justice we preach to others?
Read this on my local news source and was thrilled. One phrase in there really jumped out at me:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"It's finally good to see that a US court is putting the interests of justice ahead of the interests of politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Say what you will about the people detained down there, the fact is that they deserve justice. Placing these men before a secret military tribunal just doens't sound like justice, especially when the US Constitution speaks against such treatment of any criminal suspect. Allowing the detainees access to the US legal system not only gives them a chance to defend themselves, it also helps raise the image of the US in the eyes of the world. Camp X-Ray has been, quite rightly I believe, the target of much critisism for it's treatment of prisoners and their isolation from the US legal system. This ruling might go some way to undoing the negative press generated by Camp X-Ray, though until the detainees there are actually given proper housing and perhaps charged with a crime to justify their imprisonment the critisism will continue, again rightly so I believe.
If the US is so convinced that these people are guilty, why has the US government tried so hard to prevent them gaining access to the US legal system? Why have these men not been charged with a crime? On what grounds exactly are they being held? We just spent billions of dollars and quite a few lives removing a dictator who held people in jails for no just reason. Are we both, the US and Australia, nations of hypocrites? Should we not practice the justice we preach to others?
Comments
I know your question was more rhetorical than anything else; but we all know that notion of "upholding justice" is a joke. When it fits the nations interests, they'll dawn the mask of justice. When it doesn't, they'll whistle and look the other way. Realpolitiks, ladies and gentlemen; pragmatism > idealism.
I know it's unfair to put the blame of past issues on the Bush administration, but the idea that they're on a crusade to to bring about democracy amongst the world is silly. "If it's not US approved democracy, it's a bad mobocracy!" (i.e., <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/chile/story/0,13755,1038615,00.html' target='_blank'>US backing of Pinochet's coup</a>). I was originally intending to also list South Vietnam, and the supported overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, as well as the Sandinista-Contra conflicts as other examples of US interference in democracy, but a quick research shows that those two examples are a little bit more complicated, so I don't claim them to be other solid examples. Even though these cases occurred years before the Bush administration, do you think there would be much difference? To a lesser degree, the US government were furious when Iraqi media showed footage of POWs being interviewed, saying it went against Geneva conventions.
.
.
.
Sorry, but what exactly has USmedia been doing this whole time, and is still doing? Hypocrisy.
The last idealist of a US president was Woodrow Wilson, and if I'm not mistaken, he died quite a dissatisfied man for not being able to to get his own country into the collective security plan he constructed. Unfortunately, he was more of a professor than a president.
Edit: Confuzor, you should do more research about Woodrow Wilson and other presidents.
I'm just going to bring up the quote "Justice delayed is justice denied" which was said by Martin Luther King Jr. I wanted to bring that up so other people couldn't and look like they've somehow knocked down my argument with a pretty little quote. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> I'll comment on it tomorrow.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you can't just put aside the law whenever you feel like it. If you make a law, it has to apply all the time, otherwise it's simply not justice. Keeping these detainees in Camp X-Ray denies them the right to legal process and makes a mockery of the US legal system. How exactly can the judicial system "interfere" with gathering information: perhaps by requesting that the US government charge these men with some crime? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? A policeman might come to a house and find a man on the floor dead with his wife standing over him with a bloodied knife screaming "I killed him I killed him he deserved to die" but they don't convict the woman on the spot or say "Well it's obvious that she's guilty, let's not have a trial". No, they read the women her rights and charge her with the murder of her husband.
You also seem to assume that all these men are guilty. Now they might all be guilty, but if you're going to follow the US legal system you just can't assume that everyone, or indeed anyone, is guilty. That's what trials are for: to determine if a person is guilty of breaking a law. Until they are convicted they're innocent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To a lesser degree, the US government were furious when Iraqi media showed footage of POWs being interviewed, saying it went against Geneva conventions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And rightly so. Those POWs were not treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions and as such the US had every right to be angry. But on what grounds does the US government have the right to detain people with no charge for an indefinite period? Is it any wonder that people are annoyed about this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know it's unfair to put the blame of past issues on the Bush administration, but the idea that they're on a crusade to to bring about democracy amongst the world is silly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I personally don't believe that the US government is on a crusade of democracy. But for the past couple of months all we've heard from the Bush administration about the Iraq war is "Oh we went there to free the Iraqi people from a repressive regime". Fair enough, that's a good cause. So shouldn't the US be upholding the very democratic traditions it is trying to spread to Iraq at home? Regardless of why we went into Iraq or what the US's foreign policy is, the fact that the US is maintaining this travesty of justice in Camp X-Ray is in blatent disregard of just about everything the US stands for!
Edit: Confuzor, you should do more research about Woodrow Wilson and other presidents.
I'm just going to bring up the quote "Justice delayed is justice denied" which was said by Martin Luther King Jr. I wanted to bring that up so other people couldn't and look like they've somehow knocked down my argument with a pretty little quote. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> I'll comment on it tomorrow. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
erm.....**** the quote, how about detaining them without charge until such time as "they'll be given a fair trial when the time is right." Just who is doing the deciding?
I hate using hypotheticals, because it immediately seperates the reader from reality, but consider:
You are on holiday in (for the sake of the example) France. A man asks you for a light in a crowded street. 2 seconds later, both he and you are bundled into a van by gasmasked officers of the state. He is a known terrorist. You have just been seen "consorting" with him. You are then placed in solitary confinement, without access to your family, friends or any legal representation. You are kept in a cage for 2 years, only being let out to be interrogated.
You are branded a terrorist on international television. Everyone who's been close to you is investigated. The court decides that since you are not co-operating, you are to be denied a fair trial "until the time is right".
Ok, its not likely to happen, and its very unlikely that any of the prisoners in Guantanamo was a tourist... I was trying to convey the feeling of isolation and unfairness.
I don't want to start the whole legality debate again, but this is not the way a civilised nation should behave. (please also note I am not necessarily holding my nation above yours ethically)
/me patiently waits... until he's cutoff by the sun going supernova 4 billion years later.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I am glad that the decision was made to error on the side of caution and civil-rights in the case of Jose Padilla. He is certainly under the protection of the US Constitution as he is a citizen. For the rest of these guys, keep on with business as usual. They have no legal rights to protection under US law.
i have only one question about this. why is it non-citizens under US protection are treated different from citizens of teh united states? doesn't the declaration state that "ALL men are created equal" unless "all" has recently changed meaning to "citizens of the United States", why shouldn't the rest be treated equally under the law? i mean, civil rights don't end at borders...
Edit: Added clarification. Not enough coffee yet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
All men may be created equal, but that doesn't mean they will all be treated as US citizens. Citizenship has to mean something! Many of the judicial rights citizens get are solely for citizens. Foreign nationals do not get those rights. They do, however, have other rights... But that has to do with treaties and other international agreements. But those things do not apply here... The guys down in Cuba are being held as enemy combatants. A very real term and a very accurate term. They do not deserve the same judicial treatment that a US citizen gets. They do not have the same rights, in the US, that a US citizen has. They do have rights... But those generally fall under the "Human Rights" category. Their "Human Rights" are not being violated. Even though they are in a prison, they are being treated quite well. They are probably living better in Cuba than they would in Afghanistan... Whether they were free or in jail there as well. These people are enemy combatants... That is why they will be tried by a military tribunal. There is no other way to do it. The regular US justice system is not the proper venue for such trials. If you want to argue that a military tribunal is not right, you must first argue against the "enemy combatant" issue. Otherwise you cannot win the military tribunal argument. The problem with the regular US justice system is that it views everything as criminal acts... This would put the actions of terrorrists at the same level of serial killers or other social criminals. Combatting terrorrism is not a police action.... Especially international terrorrism. It is a military action.
The Ninth Court is a sham anyways... Its decision will most likely be reversed by the US Supreme Court. There is actually already another case that the Supreme Court will be hearing that is remarkably similar to this one. Any court other than the Ninth would've just waited until the Supreme Court made its ruling... But not the Ninth. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Ninth is the most heavily overruled and reversed court in the nation.
And Monse, remeber that this is being appealed. The US could still be sliding down the slope towards police state.
<Sarcasm>
Wow, you're absolutely right! Why, we shouldn't give any criminals constitutional rights! It would only prolong the process after all!
</Sarcasm>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Interesting... so all this time that people was saying the US was now a hopeless police state and there was no chance of justice ever being served are going to say 'whoops, I guess I was wrong'?
/me patiently waits... until he's cutoff by the sun going supernova 4 billion years later.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Monse, if the detainees at Camp X-Ray are actually given legal rights and perhaps charged with a crime, then yeah, the US is actually doing an ok job. Until then though, seeing as you fully support holding people on no charge and without legal representation, I can hardly see how you can claim to be on the side of the law. Unless of course that law is "We have the biggest guns so we can do whatever the hell we want"
Yeah, they don't have rights under the US Constitution and I never said they did. What I was trying to point out was that it seems unimaginably hypocritical to on one hand say "Innocent until proven guilty" and on the other say "Unless you're a suspected terrorist in which case you are human scum and should rot for all eternity". On what grounds does the US hold these men captive? On what legal grounds are any of these men locked up in Camp X-Ray?
I simply can't believe that in differant threads, I see the same people supporting Camp X-Ray harping on about how the US just freed millions of Iraqis from injustice, and as such the US is great. Justice for some, detention without charge, trial or legal representation for others? If you took any of the Founding Fathers to Camp X-Ray today, they would choke at what the nation they created now supports.
The thing about justice is that it's about proving someone to have done a criminal act. They can't be criminals if you can't prove it in a fair manner. So we have to convict them with our judicial system so we can be *sure* they are absolutely who we think they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nem0+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nem0)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, let's go through this step by step. Guantanamo Bay and X-Ray violate the Declaration of Human Rights, which has been nothing less than the most basic fundament of international intercourse for the last 60 years, in the following points:
Article 2.
QUOTE
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
The great majority of prisoners in the camps are Arab men of Islamic faith. In many cases, this, and their country of origin is the only grounds on which they are held captitive.
Article 3.
QUOTE
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Seeing that the inmates are - I'll have to repeat it again - not considered prisoners of war in the sense of the Geneva Convention, they're held captive as simple civilians, thus depriving them from their right to liberty and security of person.
Article 6.
QUOTE
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
The inmates in the camp are not allowed a lawyer, nor are they put in front of a public trial. They are refused the recognition in front of American law.
Article 7.
QUOTE
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 7 is an elaboration of Article 2 and 6 - it is broken for the reasons already stated.
Article 8.
QUOTE
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Lawyers tried this in a number of cases of American inmates and won in front of several public trials - the administration refuses to recognize these incidents.
Article 9.
QUOTE
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
The conditions of the camps is a prime example for arbitrary arrest.
Article 10.
QUOTE
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
The government of the United States refuses to recognize any ruling by any public trial - regardless of which country - on the subject of the inmates.
And the most important one:
Article 11.
QUOTE
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No inmate of Guantanamo Bay nor X-Ray has been found guilty in front of an orderly trial as of yet.
I could go on, but I guess you get the idea. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=51024&st=0' target='_blank'>Read this thread. Now.</a>
Article 3 - These people are NOT civilians. The Geneva Convention clearly defines what a POW is. Neither group fulfills the requirements. Thus, making them unlawful combatants.
Article 6 - They are recognized as unlawful combatants before the law. They are recognized. That does not mean they are entitled to a lawyer though. They won't just be summarily found guilty... They will go up in front of a military tribunal as unlawful combatants.
Article 7 - The laws that cover them are not being broken. They have not been treated poorly. They are treated quite well actually. Comparing the laws that govern unlawful combatants to those that govern US citizens is the first mistake people make. Don't do this. US domestic laws do not apply here. As such, there is not discrimination occurring.
Article 8 - Their fundamental rights are not being violated. They have no rights under the constitution if they are considered unlawful combatants. They have all the rights afforded them as unlawful combatants though. Again... This is no where near the same rights a US citizen would have.
Article 9 - How are the conditions of the camps a prime example of arbitrary arrest? These people were not captured on a whim or by chance. They were captured during military operations. Their caputre and detainment is in no way arbitrary.
Article 10 - No other country has any authority to order the US government to do anything in regards to the unlawful combatants. Their trials mean nothing as they have no jurisdiction. These unlawful combatants will face a tribunal... I'll be surprised if it is public though... I have faith that the tribunal will however, be fair. It'll be hard to find someone that is independent however, even in these other countries that seem to think their courts have some power over the US government in this case.... They don't.
Article 11 - They have not been charged with anything. They are being held as unlawful combatants. In many regards, it is similar to detaining POWs, except these people are not POWs. They are not civilians though, and these laws apply to civilians.