| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Guantanamo Bay
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Guantanamo Bay

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Guantanamo Bay
    Posted: 25 Jun 2017 at 03:26
Can someone explain to me by what right American agents, be they military or otherwise, arrest people overseas and then fly them to Guantanamo Bay, where they are imprisoned for years without trial.

In a very recent case, one such detainee has been committed for trial, in Guantanamo Bay, on crimes committed in Indonesia (Bali) against predominantly Australian citizens. This person has been detained in Guantanamo Bay for nine years.

Even where the crimes committed are against US citizens overseas, what right does the US military have to have to bring them before a military court, at Guantanamo Bay?

The US has not formally declared war against these middle east countries, so the prisoners are not POW's.

Just asking.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2017 at 19:23
I don't know what the legal framework for imprisoning them in Git-mo is, but it is under the war on terror umbrella, and the United States probably has agreements from the countries where they were picked up.  We think of war as "war" where two or more forces and/or sides of government forces face off of each other under a declaration of hostilities.  But that is just not the case, with low intensity conflicts, guerrilla actions or terrorism.  You now have forces that are aggressive when they want to be hostile, but then often pretend to be "innocents" when the governmental forces focus upon them.  And then of course, you might have actual innocents.   But, my point is that things are way more complicated than what one would have with formal declarations of war. and we must realize that whatever the legal framework is, international law has accommodated these situations.  Whether or not it is "fair," I have no idea, but it is assumed that they are enemy combatants.

Freeing non-dangerous prisoners can be a problem.  It is not merely whether they are non-dangerous, or whether they didn't do anything.  Some Weegers (sp?) from China were accepted by a Polynesian country or Caribbean?  They had been picked up in Afghanistan, and if they had been returned to China they probably would have disappeared into its prison system, and been tortured there, regardless of what they had or had not done.  Some countries do not want prisoners back, and some want them back so they can torture them and kill them.  Likewise, information that may either 'acquit' them or 'convict' them is probably actionable intelligence which was of use to the US military and was probably also shared back to their 'host' countries.  Sharing what you know in a public court, is basically the same as sharing what you know with the terrorists.  I am not saying that they handled the thing "right," I am saying that they were trading off on problems.  There were not any terrorist attacks after 9/11 in the US until the Obama administration, part of the reason for that is probably the drastic measures that were taken after 9/11, measures that were not good for civil liberties.

Does that help at all toyomotor, or does that just make it all clear as mud?  If you want a more specific answer, you probably should study international law.  There was definitely a legal framework for all of that, whether or not it was fair, is another question.

Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2017 at 02:17
Franciscosan

The Uighers of China have been a thorn in the Chinese side for centuries.

 Thanks for your thoughts on this topic though, I was looking for a more definitive answer. I'm not entirely sure that all of the countries from which people have been "renditioned"(?) have agreed to it, but by the time they found out, it was a done deal.

I would have thought that in cases like the Bali bomber, for instance, he would have been extradited to Indonesia to be dealt with under Indonesian law, that's the usual way of things.

I also would have thought to be treated as a POW and judged by a Military Court would have requrired a Declaration of War. Anyway, neither of us knows the bones of how this is being done.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2017 at 05:19
The George W Bush administration was very careful to do everything in a legal framework.  So, according to their lawyers, their aggressive interrogation tactics were not torture.  Others of course, vehemently disagreed, but usually their disagreement was a matter of public statement in a media outlet that xyz was torture, without dealing with the administrations legal arguments.  I think that if John McCann had been elected, his declaration that such tactics were torture and should not be used (or that such techniques should not be used, regardless of whether they're torture), would have had a great weight, considering that he had been tortured as a POW in Vietnam.

Some people argue that torture should not be used because it is not effective.  That is not exactly true, if someone is not talking and if 'aggressive interrogation techniques' are used, they will usually start talking.  If you are an interrogator that can be a useful step towards getting them to "open up."  Secondly, torture should not be banned because ineffective, torture should be banned because it is torture.  
Whether sleep deprivation or Death Metal Music, or a naked in a cold cell is torture is a legal question and an ethical question.  Is torture just a matter of physical damage or do we consider it a matter of psychological damage as well?  How do we judge that?  Some people enjoy Death Metal or Black Metal 'music.'  Some people enjoy Garth Brooks.  I can't say i do, does my teenage niece's endless promotion of Lady Gaga qualify as torture, especially if I am stuck in a car with her?  I may act like it is torture....
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2017 at 15:45
"It is currently illegal to transfer Guantanamo prisoners onto American soil. Congress would need to change the law to allow this. If lawmakers refuse to do this, Obama will no doubt attempt to unilaterally empty the facility by transferring the detainees abroad. There is little recourse available to the Congress to stop that. However, they can ensure that Guantanamo Bay remains available to the next president — who, one hopes, will put American security above moral grandstanding. "

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431809/keep-guantanamo-bay-open

The article talks about the fears of radicalization if US beefed up it's supermax prisons to accommodate detainees.


One of the principal advantages to placing the detainees in Guantanamo Bay or a similar location was the legal status that non-U.S. soil provided. If the detainees weren’t in the U.S., then they wouldn’t have the same rights under American laws, the argument went. Some of these included the right to legal representation, rights of prisoners, and rights to the American legal system. One government official referred to the base as the "legal equivalent of outer space." To the Bush administration, this was an immense advantage in the consideration of long-term detention. Guantanamo was central to the Bush Administration's prevention of the judicial review of the legal status of prisoners, a position invalidated by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush.

Quote Even where the crimes committed are against US citizens overseas, what right does the US military have to have to bring them before a military court, at Guantanamo Bay?

They are enemy combatants there is a legal and military standing in that term. Home countries have refused to accept Gitmo detainees and at 70 detainees released by Obama have been recaptured for terrorist activity, as fransicosan has said.
I don't say Bali should necessarily like this business, it's been an awful situation. 

Are the family members of the Bali bomber asking for him to be sent back to Bali?



Edited by Vanuatu - 26 Jun 2017 at 15:46
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2017 at 16:03
Vanuatu
Quote
"It is currently illegal to transfer Guantanamo prisoners onto American soil. Congress would need to change the law to allow this. If lawmakers refuse to do this, Obama will no doubt attempt to unilaterally empty the facility by transferring the detainees abroad. There is little recourse available to the Congress to stop that. However, they can ensure that Guantanamo Bay remains available to the next president — who, one hopes, will put American security above moral grandstanding. "

Did you mean Trump?

Don't get me wrong, we don't want them, and I understand the technicality of them being on US soil, but isn't Guantanamo Bay technically US soil?

Yes they're Enemy Combatants but not POW's who would have protection under the Geneva Convention of 1949.

And the Renditions?

Detention without trial?

And, no, the families of the 200 Bali victims are not asking for him to be returned to Bali, they have no legal standing in this issue. It's between the Indonesian government and the US government. Indonesia wouldn,t want him back as it would inflame to spark of Jemaah Islamiyah.

My reason for asking, with my background, was pure curiosity.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2017 at 16:23
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Vanuatu
Quote
"It is currently illegal to transfer Guantanamo prisoners onto American soil. Congress would need to change the law to allow this. If lawmakers refuse to do this, Obama will no doubt attempt to unilaterally empty the facility by transferring the detainees abroad. There is little recourse available to the Congress to stop that. However, they can ensure that Guantanamo Bay remains available to the next president — who, one hopes, will put American security above moral grandstanding. "

Did you mean Trump?

Don't get me wrong, we don't want them, and I understand the technicality of them being on US soil, but isn't Guantanamo Bay technically US soil?

Yes they're Enemy Combatants but not POW's who would have protection under the Geneva Convention of 1949.

And the Renditions?

Detention without trial?

And, no, the families of the 200 Bali victims are not asking for him to be returned to Bali, they have no legal standing in this issue. It's between the Indonesian government and the US government. Indonesia wouldn,t want him back as it would inflame to spark of Jemaah Islamiyah.

My reason for asking, with my background, was pure curiosity.



Not US soil my friend. US leases the land from Cuba. The first article details the origins of that relationship.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 15:28
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Vanuatu
Quote
"It is currently illegal to transfer Guantanamo prisoners onto American soil. Congress would need to change the law to allow this. If lawmakers refuse to do this, Obama will no doubt attempt to unilaterally empty the facility by transferring the detainees abroad. There is little recourse available to the Congress to stop that. However, they can ensure that Guantanamo Bay remains available to the next president — who, one hopes, will put American security above moral grandstanding. "

Did you mean Trump?

Don't get me wrong, we don't want them, and I understand the technicality of them being on US soil, but isn't Guantanamo Bay technically US soil?

Yes they're Enemy Combatants but not POW's who would have protection under the Geneva Convention of 1949.

And the Renditions?

Detention without trial?

And, no, the families of the 200 Bali victims are not asking for him to be returned to Bali, they have no legal standing in this issue. It's between the Indonesian government and the US government. Indonesia wouldn,t want him back as it would inflame to spark of Jemaah Islamiyah.

My reason for asking, with my background, was pure curiosity.



Not US soil my friend. US leases the land from Cuba. The first article details the origins of that relationship.
Also re: Obama. The quote was from the article from just last year. I don't expect Trump to cut anyone loose from Gitmo.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.