Gitmo Detainees blocked by court

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Navy1960, Oct 8, 2008.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a judge's decision to immediately free 17 Chinese Muslims at Guantanamo Bay into the U.S.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the emergency stay Wednesday at the request of the Bush administration so that government lawyers can prepare an appeal.

    It comes after U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina (ur-BEE'-nuh) on Tuesday ordered the government to free the detainees by Friday. Urbina said it would be wrong for the Bush administration to continue holding the detainees, known as Uighurs (pronounced WEE'gurz), since they are no longer considered enemy combatants.

    The Associated Press: Court blocks judge's order to free Chinese Muslims

    Looks like the appeals court is not playing ball with the Supreme Court .
     
  2. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I don't think it's case of the federal appeals court not playing ball with the Supreme Court, it's more the appeals court temporarily staying the judge's direction.
     
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Diuretic, the only reason I made the comment was because of detainee's being able to have access to American Court rooms in the United States. I personally don't think even after the recent Supreme Court decision this issue is resolved. I do believe that depending on whoever wins the White House this issue will be addressed one way or the other.
     
  4. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    So we should keep people detained without cause even if they are not citizens of our country or a threat to our country. I am not a lawyer but wouldn't that be something like false imprisonment.... And Harold and Kumar were set up!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Luissa I don't know how you gathered all that from my posting, but if your seeking my opinion, what I believe is that if a combatant is picked up on the battlefield they should be accorded the rights of a P.O.W. While the Geneva convention did not clearly cover people such as terrorists on the battlefield as a nation , IMHO I think it would be do well for our country to treat these combatants as P.O.W.'s anyway. That will allow them access to the Red Cross or Red Creset and also give them some basic rights. As for access to American courts, IMO I do not think it wise to allow access to American civilian courts to an enemy combatant. I also do not think it's right to hold them forever without some recognition in their status as well. This has led a situation we are in now, where some of these combatants are held for years without charge or change in status.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    What do you propose then? If we don't allow them access to civilian courts, and you don't want them to stay in jail forever (which is what will happen, basically), then what? Military courts? Considering the absolute farce they have been so far (how often do you see prosecutors quitting because the courts are too biased towards their side?), I don't think they are much of an option.
     
  7. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    IMO when their status is changed to that of a P.O.W. as it should be in the first place, then a Military tribunal can and should process these indivduals on a case by case basis. I am not advocating they stay in jail forever, however anyone that is picked up on the battlefield in armed conflict with the United States Military has not commited a civilian offense, he and or she is a P.O.W. and should be treated as such. I do believe that a Military tribunal should allow these individuals access to counsel anytime they wish and representation from whomever they choose. The problem has been is that the Bush Administration did not apply a really simple principle to the battlefield when this war began and that was to apply the P.O.W. status to these indivuduals rather than leave them in limbo.
     
  8. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Problem with that is this:

    Guantanamo Bay military prosecutor quits over detainee case

    Maybe I'd be ok with military tribunals, if it had civilian oversight. But the way the Bush administration has been running them is completely outrageous.

    Define battlefield. The USSC defined O'hare airport as a battlefield in justifying holding Padilla. This seems, at first glance, absurd. But then when things are terrorism related, what exactly is the battlefield? Another fun fact: This can be done, with no evidence, or probable cause, to US citizens. O'Connor says this is ok as long as the government is right. That is, its ok to hold a US citizen indefinitely on terrorism related charges (charges is the wrong word really....maybe accusations), as long as the accusations are in fact right. Anyone else see the circularity of this?

    BTW...Bush also has no authorization to have such courts without Congressional approval.

    Sure, but when they can't afford lawyers (as almost all of them can't), then who do we appoint them? Military lawyers? Soon we'll run out as all of them who defend these guys and do a good job get demoted/fired/reprimanded for doing their job well.

    Well thats one of the problems, yes. But only one of many.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Article 3

    In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

    1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

    To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

    (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

    (b) Taking of hostages;

    (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

    (d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


    Thats part of what P.O.W. status brings, so to that end a person can request and be appointed a lawyer of their choosing. The Bush administration has done quite a few things that are beyond what one would consider reasonable. However, I would argue that yes, the Military can carry these courts out with civilian oversight. In a Military Court for any service member charged they have the right to cousel and that counsel can be a civilian so I so not see where it would be all that different. You can even constitute a tribunal with civilian oversight. The key though is without a status these indivduals have been stuck in limbo and IMO , that is because the Bush Administration had a desire to keep these people off the battlefield in whatever way they could. It's my opinion though they could have done this and given them P.O.W. status at the same time and this would afforded them ability to release those that were not true battlefield combatants.
     
  10. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    It's a difficult one. Wait until China asks for them to be handed back.
     

Share This Page