International consensus includes most governments of Western nations, the United Nations, and NGOs such as the Red Cross.
Indeed, there is much criticism of the legality of the camp within the legal and judicial fraternity within the United States.
Our illustrious Prime Minister John Howard, however, has been unwavering in his support for American foreign policy. In an incredibly narrow minded attack on Hicks, he puts the blame of being held without trial on Hicks himself. He states:
“The circumstance delaying his trial by military commission is a legal action in the American courts… Until that is resolved the military commission trial can't go ahead… We do not want him to come back to Australia until he's been tried before the military commission.”
Howard’s argument is that Hicks is responsible for his own continued detention as he does not want to go through a biased show trial, one that has been condemned internationally as fundamentally lacking in fairness.
States Hicks’ excellent military lawyer, Major Michael Mori:
“If the military commission process was fair as [Mr Howard] likes to say it is, then the US courts would not entertain any legal challenges.”
There is a difference between a friend and a toady. I believe that Australia is a friend to the United States. Real friends, however, should stop each other from committing atrocities. John Howard is morally bankrupt, a toady lapping at the reflected glory of the power of the United States.
From: Sydney Morning Herald
10 comments:
I am not familiar with the specifics of the Hicks case. I am aware however that some of those released from Gitmo have resumed militant actions against American forces.
Perhaps America should release Hicks if he, and Australia, agrees to limit his travel to the confines of Australia for a period of time? Therefor if he resumes militant actions perhaps it would only be the Australians who would suffer?
Just how benevolent do you want to be?
Wake up. There are bad guys out there. Bad guys who will fly jet liners into skyscrapers. It is difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Those who will only listen to the preachings of the "evil" mullahs and then act, from those who will be motivated to travel to a foreign country to listen but will examine their own conscience and refuse to act.
I realize Gitmo is wrong. However I do not think everyone detained at Gitmo is wrongfully detained. The guilty are detained there along with the innocent. Just because someone is detained at Gitmo does not mean they are automatically innocent.
I am aware however that some of those released from Gitmo have resumed militant actions against American forces.
Of the hundreds of people who have been detained and released, please name these people. Where is your proof?
Wake up. There are bad guys out there. Bad guys who will fly jet liners into skyscrapers. It is difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Well, then, go catch the "bad guys" and put them in a fair trial for criminal conspiracy. Holding a group of people indefinitely, dubbing them as "bad guys" and not giving them a trial is completely immoral.
I realize Gitmo is wrong. However I do not think everyone detained at Gitmo is wrongfully detained. The guilty are detained there along with the innocent. Just because someone is detained at Gitmo does not mean they are automatically innocent.
No, everyone there is wrongfully detained if they are not afforded their rights under international law. "Just because some is detained does not mean they are automatically innocent?" Wow. There goes the principle of "innocent until proved guilty".
And just because there are a few "bad people" justifies holding the vast majority of other innocent people there?
There is a serious erosion of what is considered reasonable civil rights in the minds of the American people.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I put forth that the detainees only have the right to be treated as Prisoner's Of War and do not have to be given full access to the courts.
They should not be detained as criminals, they should be detained as Prisoners of War in accordance with international law.
As for the names of those who have resumed hostilities after being released, sorry, I have not seen any names. I have only read the numerous reports of this happening. (See here) one such article that reports "At least 12 of those released so far on the grounds that they no longer posed a threat have been involved in anti-coalition attacks, including an Afghan who was fitted with a prosthetic limb while being held at Guantanamo."
Since those released have been those deemed least threat and those still detained are those deemed most threat, if everyone was released I am sure larger percentages would resume hostilities.
There is a war going on. America has the right to detain Prisoners Of War.
I put forth that the detainees only have the right to be treated as Prisoners Of War and do not have to be given full access to the courts.
I can agree with that and I believe that the rest of the world would be satisfied with that as well. That, however, is not the reality.
At least 12 of those released so far on the grounds that they no longer posed a threat have been involved in anti-coalition attacks, including an Afghan who was fitted with a prosthetic limb while being held at Guantanamo.
Again, no names and no evidence.
As before, if they are dangerous and they can be proved as such, then it should be trivial to bring them before a fair trial with evidence. Holding people without charge indefinitely because they are "dangerous" is nonsense.
As for "war", exactly what "war" is the US fighting right now? The US has won the Afghani war and has won Gulf War II. The "war" on terror? That is as much a "war" as a "war" on crime or a "war" on drugs and is qualitatitively different from the usual usage of the term. The "war" on terror does not and should not give your president "wartime powers" though people seem to have forgotten this.
Regards,
Michael Tam
The Taleban and Al Qaeda have not sued for peace in Afghanistan. A condition of war still exists in Afghanistan.
Prisoners of War do not have the rights of ordinary citizens. They do have some rights under international law, but not the rights of ordinary citizens. It is ludicrous to expect America to release all combatants so that they can again take up arms and fight again.
Are some of those detained wrongfully detained? Yes I would imagine that is true. But I bet there are those held in American civilian prisons (and Australian prisons) that are interned even after access to the courts.
My objection to Gitmo is that those detained are not treated as Prisoners of War and instead are treated as "illegal combatants". I think the consensus you cite would erode if America only treated them as genuine Prisoners of War.
You will only be satisfied with names? OK, here is one.
Abdul Ghaffar.
I can probably come up with more names for you if you are too lazy to look for yourself.
Abdul Ghaffar
Great, one in hundreds. And how many of those released from Gitmo had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict at all?
Furthermore, how many convicted criminals released from American gaols re-offend?
The point is that the argument that "these people may potentially act as combatants against the United States" on release is not particularly persuasive.
As per your own assertion, they should be treated as prisoners of war. If there is insufficient evidence after 4 years of detention, then surely they should be released. Yes, they may be "bad men" in their secret heart but you wouldn't find it very acceptable if the police locked YOU and all your neighbours up because there was a "terrorist" living in your neighbourhood.
Regards,
Michael Tam
If they are treated as Prisoners of War it is correct for the US to detain them until the end of hostilities. There is no time limit that POW's can only be held for a limited number of years.
Please note that just because I supplied only one name does not mean only one returned to hostilities. The article I linked to claimed that "at least" 12 have resumed hostilities. These are the known individuals. That does not mean others have not joined in again while remaining undetected.
Again I will state that at least twelve from those the US deemed to be least threat resumed hostilities. Percentages are apt to be higher for those who, for the most part (there are exceptions) are those the US deems to be the most threat and continues to detain.
As before, this this a tired argument.
"Threat" is a meaningless word unless it is proven. Continued detention can only be justified if charges and a fair trial is brought upon those detained.
As for "end of hostilities", the Taliban has fallen as has the government of Saddam Hussein. The war is over. There is little reason for these people to not be repatriated back into the custody of the "new" governments of both these countries.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Oh, so you stand with those who think Dubyah Bush was correct to declare "mission accomplished" on the deck of that aircraft carrier then? Sorry, I stand in the other crowd and I think I stand with the majority.
Sorry, the war(s) is(/are) not over. Our opponents have not given up only because they have been kicked out of the former seats of government. Hostilities continue, go read the newspapers.
As for your statement: "Continued detention can only be justified if charges and a fair trial is brought upon those detained." That would be true if the detainees were criminals, however it is not true if they are considered Prisoners of War. They are not released during hostilities because of the danger of them resuming hostilities. At the end of hostilities a determination is made as to whether they fought honorably, and are then released, or if they are guilty of war crimes, at which time they are put on trial.
As for your opening statement: "As before, this is a tired argument." I am in agreement with you. Your argument is getting to be a little tiresome. Grin.
Post a Comment