# Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees



## moodywop

The recent US Supreme Court ruling in _Hamdan v. Rumsfeld _has once again focused attention on the legal status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

What do you think of this quote from a recent issue of _Time?_

"The Supreme Court made it clear that the Geneva conventions afford Gitmo detainees certain trial rights. Less certain is whether Geneva rights should now extend to cover interrogations at the camp. The White House has held that unlawful combatants are to be treated humanely but are not covered by Geneva, which prohibits "humiliating and degrading treatment". Some techniques, like shackling prisoners for 24 hours and leaving them in their own excrement, are known to have been used at Gitmo and would certainly fall under that definition"

Do you think that the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay should fully comply with the provisions of the Geneva conventions?


----------



## ireney

Didn't the President of the US say that they (or is it we?) are at war? Wasn't that one of the reasons that Iraq was invaded (an otherwise hostile act)?

Anyway, Geneva convention or not, since this is supposedly a war of civilisations etc etc blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda, treating the 'detainees' in a less than humane way reflects badly -to say the least- on Western civilisation.


----------



## french4beth

moodywop said:
			
		

> Do you think that the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay should fully comply with the provisions of the Geneva conventions?


Absolutely


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> Didn't the President of the US say that they (or is it we?) are at war? Wasn't that one of the reasons that Iraq was invaded (an otherwise hostile act)?



Pardon an outsider sticking his nose in here, but I thought that those incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay (please don't euphemise it with the risible _Gitmo_!) were not from Iraq, but were non-military "battlefield detainees" from Afghanistan and Pakistan?


----------



## moodywop

Tony

Here there is a list of Guantanamo Bay detainees grouped by nationality.

By the way, I had never seen the word "Gitmo" before reading the Time article.


----------



## french4beth

moodywop said:
			
		

> Do you think that the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay should fully comply with the provisions of the Geneva conventions?


Absolutely - after all, the US is supposed to be a 'civilized' society...



> Didn't the President of the US say that they (or is it we?) are at war? Wasn't that one of the reasons that Iraq was invaded (an otherwise hostile act)?


Didn't we all see Bush on the aircraft carrier, proudly declaring the "The war is over"? Here is more info on that incident. 2500 dead service people later...


----------



## Miguelillo 87

First of all i disagree with the prision on territory thst's not american if us want to keep prision why do they have to do it miles and miles awy from its terrirory, What do they scare? And about the treatmnt of the prisioners I have to say that Bush said taht he's the Jesus of the new era and he is the represant of freedom, Oh my gosh that's bulls...t I think they have to judgethem well and treat them as normal prisionars mor if the war has "over" 'cause I'm almost sure that there shoulb be a lot of innocent persons.


----------



## moura

Hi Carlo, 
Yes, Geneva treaty was to be applied here, without any doubt.

Guantanamo Bay prison is one of the most prepotent, cruel and insanous situation all over the world. It shows how powerless the ONU is to deal with this and other situations. And shows who is rulling the world. The society is dealling with this subject with gloves and plucks.

If Guantanamo was rulled by a weak, defenseless nation, not only it had no prisioners, but it must have been destroyed by now by a massive thousands troops atack.


----------



## maxiogee

moodywop said:
			
		

> Here there is a list of Guantanamo Bay detainees grouped by nationality.



Thanks Carlo, but my point was not about their nationality, it was about where they were 'arrested'. As that page indicates at the beginning… (the highlighting is mine)

"The Pentagon has declined to identify the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan during and after the 2001 war there. Below is the largest list of names made public thus far, encompassing: 367 men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites and in legal documents."

I was alluding to the implication in ireney's post that they were connected with the war in Iraq. They're not.


----------



## moodywop

Three points to be taken into account:

1. "A Seton Hall University study culled from the government's own data found that only 8% of the camp's prisoners were actually fighters for al-Qaeda. More than half were not determined to have committed any hostile act against Americans or their allies" (link)

2. By passing the Detainee Treatment Act last December Congress barred judges from ruling on habeas corpus appeals filed by lawyers on behalf of Guantanamo detainees

3. The Supreme Court limited itself to ruling that if the Administration wants to try terrorism suspects in special military tribunals it can't simply declare them legal but it has to work with other branches of goverment to make them so


----------



## .   1

moodywop said:
			
		

> Do you think that the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay should fully comply with the provisions of the Geneva conventions?


 
I think that the detainees would be happy enough to be afforded the rights associated with the R.S.P.C.A. but I definitely think that The Geneva Convention should apply and not be set aside just because U.S.America finds the rules inconvenient.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Whilst I am appaled at the treatment meted out to these people, 
the fact remains that they are *not* enemy soldiers - whether 
they are prisoners of war is a moot point. 
(There were many among the IRA who would have been more than happy to have been called "prisoners of war" or "enemy combatants".)
The detainees do not meet the stated criteria for Prisoners of War contained in the Geneva Convention.


----------



## moodywop

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The detainees do not meet the stated criteria for Prisoners of War contained in the Geneva Convention.


 
Well...but the Administration painted them all with the same brush and labelled them as "unlawful combatants" precisely in order to circumvent the provisions of the Geneva conventions. What about the Seton Hall University study (*culled from the government's own data*) which concluded that "only 8% of the camp's prisoners were actually fighters for al-Qaeda. More than half were not determined to have committed any hostile act against Americans or their allies"?

Anyway it would appear that the Bush administration has now changed its policy to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. I've just read this:

"The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.
The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said"
(_Washington Post, July 12, 2006)_
link


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Whilst I am appaled at the treatment meted out to these people,
> the fact remains that they are *not* enemy soldiers - whether
> they are prisoners of war is a moot point.
> (There were many among the IRA who would have been more than happy to have been called "prisoners of war" or "enemy combatants".)
> The detainees do not meet the stated criteria for Prisoners of War contained in the Geneva Convention.


The Geneva Convention*s* do not concern themselves with enemy combatants only. There are also provisions for non-combatant prisoners. You are either the former, or the latter. Unfortunately, the White House drew an unattested third category of "detainee" out of its hat.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the White House drew an unattested third category of "detainee" out of its hat.



I would substitute part of the anatomy for "its hat".

Many of those formerly imprisoned at Guatanamo were not captured on or near any battlefield.  The entire detention operation is repugnant.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I would substitute part of the anatomy for "its hat".
> 
> Many of those formerly imprisoned at Guatanamo were not captured on or near any battlefield. The entire detention operation is repugnant.


I am in utter agreement and would like to comment that the part of the anatomy to which cuchuflete refers generally receives little direct sunlight.

.,,


----------



## cubaMania

1.  The use of an the offshore location is a ploy by the current administration lead by G.W. Bush to avoid conforming with the laws of the United States.
2.  The detainees at Guantanamo are clearly a mix of the innocent and the guilty.  Once swept into the hands of the U.S. military, an Afghan chicken farmer denounced by his neighbor who wants to steal his land is as likely as a guerilla fighter to end up rotting for years in prison.
3.  The entire system at Guantanamo, as well as at other prisons around the world currently being used by the U.S. military, is an embarrassment, a shame, a blot, a hideous stain on my country.  I do not know whether my country will ever recover from the damage being done to our traditional systems of justice and our democratic principles by the current administration.

It is a small ray of light that our Supreme Court, and also at least a few of our Senators and Representatives in Washington are finally starting to try to put at least some limits on the illegal acts of the current administration of G.W. Bush.


----------



## .   1

cubaMania said:
			
		

> The detainees at Guantanamo are clearly a mix of the innocent and the guilty. Once swept into the hands of the U.S. military, an Afghan chicken farmer denounced by his neighbor who wants to steal his land is as likely as a guerilla fighter to end up rotting for years in prison.


 
This ploy has been employed since Ancient Greece and the so called Death Lists of Classical Rome testify to the continued use and sadly history is repeating again for too many poor sods.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

What I would really like to know is this.

Supposing that some detainee in Guantanamo Bay has held out under interrogation until now, and decides today to reveal what he knows about whatever - what earthly use would that information be to anyone?

Suppose that the guy in the cell next door has been tortured - whether in Guantanamo Bay or in Saudi Arabia or wherever those illegal, "extraordinary rendition" flights passing through Shannon Airport were taking those guys - how valuable to anyone wolud that information be? It is well known that interrogation lets a prisoner work out what those doing the interrogation want to know, and once torture begins the subject is likely to tell them what they want to know - whether what the subject is saying is true or not. Torture provides useless "information".

The military of all countries lies to protect itself - they claim "security" reasons for non-disclosure. Those who break ranks are dealt with swiftly and branded as malcontents and disappointed by failure to be promoted. When absolutely necessary, a very junior person will carry the can. That young woman from the Abu Ghraib scandal springs to mind.

The sooner there is a change of administration in the US, to one with a willingness to clean house thoroughly in this matter, the better. But, the US military being what it is, a mighty monolith backed by the CIA, I don't see that coming anytime soon.


----------



## moura

So many things were already been said in the past years about Guantanamo and things remain almost the same. Perhaps the situation will only change  with a future election of a different Administration in USA, but that only the American people can decide and they decided so far to keep Bush.
That doesn't mean giving up. This is my small contribute for the issue:


in New York Yimes (web page)
Published: June 5, 2004 
*Beating Specialist Baker*
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Specialist Baker, 37, is an American, and he was a proud U.S. soldier. (...) Then in January 2003, an officer in Guantánamo asked him to pretend to be a prisoner in a training drill. (...)The five U.S. soldiers in the reaction force were told that he was a genuine detainee who had already assaulted a sergeant. (...) he earlier told a Kentucky television station what happened next:"They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he — the same individual — reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was `red.' . . . That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: `I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.' "

in New York Times (web page)
*Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo*
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: November 30, 2004
_WASHINGTON__, Nov. 29 - The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba._


in Público_ (Portuguese newspaper) (_web page_)_ 
March 6, 2006
by U.S. Ambassador Alfred Hoffman, Jr.

*The Truth About Guantanamo*
(...) The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has full, unfettered access to every detainee at Guantanamo Bay, just as it would have to prisoners of war. (...) The ICRC provides the United States with recommendations, and follows up to see whether they have been implemented. ICRC rules prevent us from disclosing their reports or recommendations, but we believe it fair to say that both parties are satisfied with the manner in which we are cooperating concerning Guantanamo.


----------



## cirrus

Is not the issue that the White House is making it up as it goes along on this and so many matters?  It refuses to sign any international conventions about human rights - for example accepting the proposals for a world court - on the grounds that it might impinge on its room for manoeuvre.  What this means is the US reserves the right to torture murder and imprison with no come back whatever.  

Q Why can the US get away with this? 
A Because the US is currently the world's only superpower.  

Q Why is Guantanamo not part of the US? 
A Because it is a base in Cuba.  

Q Why is there a US base in Cuba?
A See answer above. 

Meanwhile human rights abuses all over the world get put on the back burner because if the US can make it up as it goes along, why can't everyone else.


----------



## moura

Perhaps I'm missing some data, but how can the USA have a base in Cuba, when both countries have no diplomatic relations and there is an USA embargo to Cuba? This kind of base occupation isn't usually allowed by the host country?

P:s. After sending this post, I searched and discovered how this situation is also possible in this XXI century.


----------



## djchak

cirrus said:
			
		

> Is not the issue that the White House is making it up as it goes along on this and so many matters?  It refuses to sign any international conventions about human rights - for example accepting the proposals for a world court - on the grounds that it might impinge on its room for manoeuvre.  What this means is the US reserves the right to torture murder and imprison with no come back whatever.
> 
> Q Why can the US get away with this?
> A Because the US is currently the world's only superpower.
> 
> Q Why is Guantanamo not part of the US?
> A Because it is a base in Cuba.
> 
> Q Why is there a US base in Cuba?
> A See answer above.
> 
> Meanwhile human rights abuses all over the world get put on the back burner because if the US can make it up as it goes along, why can't everyone else.



Just an FYI on certain things.

Guantanamo Bay is leased from Cuba. We pay Cuba for it, although Fidel refuses to cash the checks.

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

We are signatories to the ICJ in the Hague. "Camp X ray" was a huge mistake, it should have never been allowed to happen, when we could have just done everything at the Hague.

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

The comments on the ICC are intresting.
For the sake of the discussion, here are some reasons why the US doesn't want to join.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#U.S._objections



But my opinion is: Why should we join the ICC when we have the ICJ?

They are both "world courts".


----------



## maxiogee

Why does America refuse to sign anything which would allow American service personnel to be tried for war crimes, should the need arise?
For a state which sees itself as a world policeman it should allow itself to be seen to be above suspicion. _Quis custodiet ipsos custodes_ as is said!


----------



## djchak

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why does America refuse to sign anything which would allow American service personnel to be tried for war crimes, should the need arise?
> For a state which sees itself as a world policeman it should allow itself to be seen to be above suspicion. _Quis custodiet ipsos custodes_ as is said!



Are you saying that the ICJ cannot charge american soldiers with war crimes?

I would really appreciate a legal reference that states that.

Could it be that the (foolish, IMHO) decision to open camp X ray would be to avoid the legal authority that the ICJ would have if there was a scandal of some sort?


----------



## .   1

djchak said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the ICJ cannot charge american soldiers with war crimes?
> 
> I would really appreciate a legal reference that states that.
> 
> Could it be that the (foolish, IMHO) decision to open camp X ray would be to avoid the legal authority that the ICJ would have if there was a scandal of some sort?


I can not supply a legal reference but I can say that it was widly reported at the time of the invasion that no U.S.American soldiers would be tried for war crimes.

All of the disgusting events in the military prison resulted in no war crimes being tested just some minor disclipline for junior ranks.

.,,


----------



## caravaggio

ningun acto de violecia es justificable, ni de privación de la libertad, y menos para proteger la paz y la libertad de otros.

translate by website (sorry)

No act of violecia is justifiable, not of privation of the freedom, and less to protect the peace and the freedom from others.


----------



## ireney

Either my sarcastic comment about the war was misinterpreted or I am too dizzy to make up from down (either is equally possible).

I was referring to the war on terrorism than G.B. has 'declared' (that's why I was wondering if it's our war too; weren't we all to decide if we are with him or with terrorists?).

If you declare a war and you apprehend some people during this war these people are prisoners of war. I think _this_ 'war' is supposedly still ongoing.


----------



## djchak

. said:
			
		

> I can not supply a legal reference but I can say that it was widly reported at the time of the invasion that no U.S.American soldiers would be tried for war crimes.
> 
> All of the disgusting events in the military prison resulted in no war crimes being tested just some minor disclipline for junior ranks.
> 
> .,,



That's the thing...who would they "not be tried by"?

(I am refering to Afghanistan)

The ICJ? The U.S. Government? 

Was it just American soldiers? This was a multi -national operation. There are other soldiers of other nationalities too....

Which incident are you talking about?


----------



## caravaggio

I am peruvian, my country lived for 20 year a war with terrorist, and died around 25,000 person. At this time FUJIMORI , worked like Bush and decide the terrorist war is a conventional war, making suffer a lot innocence person. Today, then 10 year , all our sistem is reviewing all this terrorist act, and judge the terrorist act and the terrorist act of the goverment. 

It s very difficult for a society to admit that act commits criminals to survive, but with the time it will be something that they will have to recognize, because the struggle against the terrorism is not a war convecional, if it is not a war of ideological resentments which must be bordered. The only way of stopping(detaining) the terrorist acts is acting on the reasons that produce it, because any act of violence or illegal that is committed to eradicate the only thing that it will do is to confirm it


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:
			
		

> (I am refering to Afghanistan)


You may be referring to Afghanistan, but I take the reference to "All of the disgusting events in the military prison" to refer to Abu Ghraib, PFC English(?) and the _soi-disant_ civilian interrogators. Don't tell me that there are enough disgusting events in military prisons to confuse you.




> That's the thing...who would they "not be tried by"?


A tribunal such as the one the Allies established at Nuremburg would be a start. But America declines to sign up to such a concept for it's military to be answerable to any outside inquiry.



> Was it just American soldiers? This was a multi -national operation. There are other soldiers of other nationalities too....


No, it wasn't just American soldiers - all combatants need to be held liable for illegal acts.


----------



## djchak

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But America declines to sign up to such a concept for it's military to be answerable to any outside inquiry.



We are already signatories to the ICJ > How many times do I have to point this out?

And some questionable things have happened within Afghanistan also.


----------

