I think it will be interesting to see if this ends up being another major embarassment when we can't demonstrate the 600 prisoners are all there for good reason (of course maybe they're ALL really bad people).
What do you think, minor setback in the war on terror, or potential black eye for the administration?
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither. This will have zero effect on the election, because the plight of the prisoners has already been played out in the media. The fight has been about getting them access to a hearing; now they've got that. It might cause a lot of smoke and noise, but little in the way of changing anyone's mind.
posted
I don't think we should be able to hold folks indefinitely unless we are at war with their country. So maybe terrorists don't have a country per se. I think that after 2 1/2 years if there isn't some evidence of an individual's link to a terrorist organization, it becomes a human rights violation to still detain them. I'd actually say a month is too long...
But as far as this impacts the election, I don't think the public can pay attention to a single topic for more than a couple of weeks. This will eventually get filed under "another reason to vote against Bush" or "evidence that the media is conspiring against the administration" in folks minds. Depending on how they lean. Given that it is a judicial thing, and Bush is having trouble getting judges appointed, "spinning" it could backfire. Still, I think what service the information is to either party is a mercenary matter.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How long have the prisoners been there? And why were they locked up? Stupid questions, but I have no clue about what's going on with that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Guantonamo prisoners almost all (or entirely all) come from Afghanistan, and I believe are all alleged al-Queda members being held as "enemy combatants." I believe Taliban were treated as prisoners of war and mostly turned over to Afghan authorities.
Hamdi was an American citizen caught in Afghanistan, and held as an enemy combatant. Prisoners so designated have not been given a hearing to challenge their designation.
There are two issues: 1) who has final say over the designation? 2) Once legally designated as an enemy combatant, what can they do with them?
posted
By the way, here's why this matters. Imagine if every Iraqi soldier who surrendered could demand access to the U.S. courts for a hearing on whether he was really a prisoner of war. It just wouldn't work - the Military couldn't prosecute a war under those conditions. That's why standards for handling prisoners of war exist. The Geneva Convention does recognize other classes of prisoners (such as spies) who do not receive the protections.
Now, we've had 2.5 years to handle 600 people, and what was done to Padilla was inexcusable. (Padilla was picked up in the U.S., and instead of being charged with trying to set off a dirty bomb, he was held as part of the "war" with al-Queda). But be aware of the context against which these opinions are being handed down.
posted
i guess my way of looking at this is that the public has been very leniant (IMHO) with the administration regarding this Guantanamo Bay thing because we have had faith that people would not be there if they didn't deserve to be, that they are being kept from the courts because of national security issues, and maybe to avoid being released on technicalities. ie, they are all guilty and deserve to be there.
i suppose there are those who would argue that if they are providing "actionable" intelligence, that justifies their incarceration but that's not really worth discussing...
anyway, i brought this up in the context of the election because it seems like this is an issue which would affect the level of trust the nation as a whole has in the President. If the majority of these people turn out to be very dangerous people who probably should be kept in a very deep, dark hole, than it (again, IMHO) goes a long way in justifying both the questionable nature of their detainment in the first place, but also other activities of the administration which have curtailed our civil rights under the argument that "this is war", and as such we must trust our leaders and give them the liberty to protect us as they see fit.
if, on the other hand, the majority of these people turn out to be random afghanis who got caught up in the invasion (as i believe the Red Cross has alleged in the case of Abu Graib), then i would have to agree with you Dag, it is fairly unimportant. that would basically be a continuation of the steady stream of dissapointments which have come out of this war, and would probably not have much effect on anyone's opinion.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the right set of circumstances, there may be fodder for new embarrassments relating to Guantanamo. There have been worriesome allegations about mistreatment at that facility, without the documentation that came out of Abu Ghraib.
About a week ago, there was an interesting news story that surfaced but didn't get a lot of attention - at least not that I noticed. But it's the kind of thing that could lead one to believe there may be some unpleasant disclosures down the road:
quote:WASHINGTON -- Three months after a get-tough general took command of the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, prisoners began a flurry of suicide attempts, according to military records.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller took over as commander at Guantanamo in November 2002 after interrogators criticized his predecessor for being too solicitous for the detainees' welfare.
Between January and March 2003, 14 prisoners at Guantanamo tried to kill themselves, according to Pentagon figures. That's more than 40 percent of the 34 suicide attempts by 21 inmates since the prison was opened in January 2002.
Miller is now in charge of all military-run U.S. prisons in Iraq, a job he took after news broke of beatings and sexual humiliations last fall at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
Miller had visited Abu Ghraib in August and September and recommended interrogation techniques that military lawyers said had to be modified to comply with the Geneva Conventions on treating prisoners of war.
Human rights groups say the suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay may be evidence that conditions there amounted to torture.
posted
barring some extremely graphic images, probably so. people are tired of hearing about prison abuse, and i at least assume that if it happened at Abu Ghraib, it probably happened at Guantanamo. Finding that out for sure wouldn't surprise me, it would just confirm what i already suspect.
i've been astounded at how nobody seems to care about this issue. everyone seems to just write it off as unimportant or justified or whatever. i personally thing it's an atrocious embarassment to the nation (it's one of the first things people would comment on when i was talking to non-americans) which tramples most of the principles of our legal system.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the attention span of the American public is so short that barring a complete lack of anything newsworthy in the next 5 months (hah) this will be old news in two weeks. If this race is still close come the end of October, it's whatever hits the fan right before the elections that will make the determination for the sheep. I mean masses. So few of us are actually well informed and cultivating opinions on policital issues that discussing this stuff amounts to nothing more than brain-ercise.
posted
One interesting decision will be what evidence can be used in these hearings. Under U.S. criminal law, evidence obtained as the result of an illegal seizure is generally not admissible. So when evaluation whether the seizure is admissible, evidence gathered during interrogation can't be used. Will the court enforce this rule in these cases?
are those rules (regarding evidence and all) the same in military courts? i suspect most of these people will be tried in military courts like the 3 in that USAToday article, and i really don't know what is different.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
