Justice American style

by Zep 26 Replies latest social current

• 

  Englishman

  Looks like there's around 10 Brits at Guantanamo. There's been a lot of shouting about the way that they should be released back into British custody. But...

  However, the truth of the matter is that the UK government simply doesn't want them back here because they believe that they ARE guilty but haven't enough info to prosecute them. They know that if they are sent back they'll have to be released for lack of hard evidence and that this will simply mean putting 10 AlQeda members back on the streets.

  Englishman.
• 

  Abaddon

  My stance on this is that if a gang of American Mercinaries were captured in, say, Sierra Leone, and were imprisoned without public trial on an island off the coast which was technically not Sierra Leonian soil and thus free of any Sierra Leonian laws which would provide the detainees with standard legal rights, America would send an aircraft carrier in to ensure justice?.

  CZAR:

  Oh, yes, the troubles of captured enemy soldiers are WAY up on my list of concerns...

  Well, I suppose that works from a very simplistic worldview. But as my example shows above, the American stance on Guantanamo Bay is deeply hypocritical. I would think that if the detention of anyone by the United States violated legal principles many Americans have fought long and hard for, you might be concerned, but apparently not. Is that because the standard legal principles applied to detainees in the USA are too good for non-Americans, or is there some slightly less offensive reason?

  Englishman:

  There's a world of difference between 'knowing someone is guilty' and proving it in a court of law. The minute we decide that we can hold people because we 'know they are guilty', even if we can't prove it in a court of law, is a tragedy for justice. The minute a country allows another country to do this by proxy is the minute that country becomes just as reprehensible as the country actually holding the prisoners.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Smack,

  A) the war isn't over

  B) these guys ain't POW's they are battlefield detainees

  C) some US citizens are getting military tribunals

  D) why isn't a military tribunal a fair trial? The Nazis in Germany didn't get a fair trial at Nurnberg?
• 

  smack

  Yeru,

  He was captured in Afghanistan, I thought that war was over. Iraq is a different war. The war on terror may be still going, but terror isn't a country.

  As I said, I don't know much about it, cept that the guy was born and raised in Aus and is now being held, without charges or a trial for over 2 years.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  The war on terror may be still going, but terror isn't a country.

  And the Ausi being held isn't an Afghani....so he's not a POW...if...as the government claims...he is a terrorist...and if....as you state above, the war on terror isn't over yet...then I fail to see the problem. If your government thought these guys were innocent they'd be pushing Bush to have them released...which hasn't happened yet. Eventually...all these guys will get a trial...and again...what's wrong with a military tribunal?
• 

  Panda

  The war in Afganistan is not over. Military tribunals have been used for more than a century to bring war criminals (in this case terrorist supporters) to trial. It's war, the military criminals should be detained until the war is over. Or maybe just let 'em go? That way they would fight and kill more coalition soldiers. (notice I didn't say Americans)

  Someone mentioned "it's not fair" oh boo hoo. No one should expect life to be fair. If you really want to know how the war is going why don't you just go sign up for the marines. That way you'll find out the "Truth."
• 

  smack

  Our gumbermint push for his release??? Thast a joke. You know what the latest name for our Prime Miniature is? It's Bonzai.

  Because he's a little bush.

  As I said, I'm not totally up on the case, but 2 years in solitary for something you believe in. I think it's time they tried him.

  Steve
• 

  Yerusalyim

  As I said, I'm not totally up on the case, but 2 years in solitary for something you believe in. I think it's time they tried him.

  Why? These guys are still being pumped for intelligence...solitary??? Not from what I'm being told...not solitary like here in the States anyhow.

  It's not just something he "believed" in...it's something he killed for...or was willing to kill for...I have ZERO sympathy for the guys out at GTMO.
• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Yeru;

  I'm a prophet: I KNEW you'd respond to this one.

  8-)

  A) the war isn't over

  Yeah, and the end is nigh. You're a nice bloke Yeru, but not having had quite the same experience as many of us I don't think you understand the loaded language thing. In 'the war isn't over' what do YOU mean exactly by 'war'? It's like what do I mean by 'end' in 'the end is nigh'? What do the Jehovah's mean by 'generation'.

  Although undoubtedly full-scale operations in Afghanistan are over, there will be sufficient mop-up activity from now until the US withdraws to say the 'war' isn't over, and even when operations in Afghanistan cease, one can use the 'War on Terrorism' defence, as in 'the war on terrorism isn't over'. This sounds very noble and may be in inception, but in practice is being used to justify actions which would otherwise be unacceptable, such as what we're talking about.

  B) these guys ain't POW's they are battlefield detainees

  Loaded language. Where are most prisoners of war detained? On the battlefield. If a prisoner of war is a battlefield detainee, why is a battlefield detainee not a prisoner of war? You admit yourself that war is being waged - the war on terrorism. In answering, I'd love you to comment on the similarities between the German's who that term was originally applied to in WWII and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And also, how come 'battlefield detainees' are being deliberately held in a legalistic loophole which flies against the spirit, if not the letter, of the freedoms given people by your great country? Isn't that "do what we say not what we do"?

  C) some US citizens are getting military tribunals

  Yes. This is why people feel it is hypocritical AND discriminatory.

  D) why isn't a military tribunal a fair trial? The Nazis in Germany didn't get a fair trial at Nurnberg?

  Public accountability, come on, do I really have to explain about that?

  But anyway, asides that... I'd like your answer to this;

  My stance on this is that if a gang of American Mercinaries were captured in, say, Sierra Leone, and were imprisoned without public trial on an island off the coast which was technically not Sierra Leonian soil and thus free of any Sierra Leonian laws which would provide the detainees with standard legal rights, America would send an aircraft carrier in to ensure justice?.

  Am I right or am I wrong?
• 

  Englishman

  There's a world of difference between 'knowing someone is guilty' and proving it in a court of law. The minute we decide that we can hold people because we 'know they are guilty', even if we can't prove it in a court of law, is a tragedy for justice. The minute a country allows another country to do this by proxy is the minute that country becomes just as reprehensible as the country actually holding the prisoners.

  Oh yes. Agreed.

  My point is that the actions of the US are saving the UK from having to make such a moral decision. It's very convenient. Tony Blair can make token noises, but nothing will convince me that the UK really wants these guys back.

  Englishman.