Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Guantanamo Bay detainees still in limbo 2 years on

HELD WITHOUT CHARGE: Slow progress toward military tribunals is being made, but the treatment of detainees and the tribunals themselves have been heavily criticized

AP , Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba

Two years after the first prisoners began arriving at Guantanamo Bay in the wake of Sept. 11, families of detainees are asking how much longer they must wait for their loved ones to be tried or released.

As the prison camp marked its second year anniversary yesterday, the US also faced criticism from foreign governments and human-rights groups, questioning why hundreds of terror suspects have been held for so long without charges or legal representation.

"It is time to get our children back or for them to be tried in an impartial court," said Khalid al-Odah, a Kuwaiti whose 26-year-old son Fawzi was one of the first to arrive at the bleak outpost. "But nobody is listening. That is the problem."

Al-Odah is hanging his hopes on his son's release or trial on the US Supreme Court, which is to hear the first appeal early this year on whether the prisoners should have access to American courts, something opposed by US President George W. Bush.

Over the past two years, US officials have released 88 people held at the detention camp in eastern Cuba -- but new ones have regularly been brought in, bringing the current number of detainees to around 660.

While Washington has promised tribunals, it also continues to expand the prison. Eventually it will have 1,100 cells, raising further questions of what the future holds for the mission.

Some US lawmakers also have raised concerns about prolonged delays in the detainees' cases. Others say holding tribunals outside the jurisdiction of US courts would make trials unfair.

Many critics say the US has abandoned its judicial principles in its zeal to prevent another terrorist attack on its soil.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/01/12/2003087348

Just my opinion.....

The Al-Queda (sp) detainees can rot in Gitmo as far as I am concerned. Regardless of the USs positions and politics Al-Queda terrorists just want to kill and terrorize. What happened on 9/11 was inexcusable and if anyong at Gitmo supported 9/11 then they should rot there.
Sorry....

Zen,

Well why hasn't the PROCESS for PROVING their guilt/innocence been used? The subversion of the RULE of LAW will NOT keep America GREAT...

ken

Sure but if they were captured in Afgahnistan holding, pointing, shooting or carrying an AK then there has to be some sort of guilt.
The attacks on the Trade Centers really pissed me off, they were just people at work not military targets but targets of terror trying to pay their bills.
I totally back the war in Afgahnistan and whatever happens to any detainee caught there.
Iraq, to me is a whole other story....
But I'm just one guy with my opinion which I don't even take seriously!!!

Ze,

Your point is easy to empathize with. I wonder, have you ever read this BOOK:
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew K. Brzezinski( http://www.csis.org/scholars/4brzez.htm)

It offers a most interesting view of the world before 9/11, in particular the importance of central ASIA which Afghanistan is key to.

Be well,

Ken

Thanks Ken, I'll check it out...

LOL He was principal foreign policy adviser to Jimmy Carter. I dont think that I would put that on my resume. Not that Im trashin Jimmy, I have met him on several occasions and found him to be a very nice guy. Just not a very good politican.

Good thing nobody can come over to the US and presume that we are all guilty if caught with guns.

Norm,

You are correct, yet bad politicians usually have good advisers. Consider he was also:

"He was also a member of the President's Chemical Warfare Commission (1985); member of the NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy (1987-1988); and member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (a presidential commission to oversee U.S. intelligence activities) (1987-1989). In 1988, he was cochairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force."


You might just browse thru the BOOK one day... and then form an OPINION...

Ken

Yeah Ken I read that, I was just making a funny. Lighten up dude.

Yeah but Jimmy is an easy target-hahahhah!

I just assumed you knew who he was COLD without reading his BIO at the linked site.

Hey is your avatar from that Ron Jeremy documentary?

ken

Why yes it is.
I agree that Jimmy is an easy target but I feel that he is a very honorable man. On the two occasions that I had a chance to speak with him, I found him to be a very down to earth kinda guy. On Jimmy Carter I can honestly say, at least he tried.

jake there are some folks here that think that just because someone has a gun they are guilty before anything else including stripping of your rights.

I feel split between this subject, i think if we do not give them their rights especially to a trial then we are no better than some of the oppressors that we have fought to stop. On the other hand those guys were trying to kill Americans and many succeeded therefore deserving of the hate we inflict on them.

Its hard for me as an American military member to make a solid stance.

They are on an island in the Carib' , some people pay a lot of money to do that !

At some point there should be a judgement-sentencing etc. They should not be held in limbo for 20 yrs. Try them in some fashion and be done with it.

The U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. Citizens

Treatment of POW's fall under the Geneva Convention (something no U.S. enemy has ever followed, btw).

I agree with mcsap though - sentence them and get it over with..

Isn't a Prisoner of War held until the end of the war? It would make no sense at all to hold an enemy combatant for, say, 90 days and then return him to his former outfit to resume actions against us. And as for a trial... That's just silly. If you are caught with enemy forces, and you are not there as a known U.S. agent infiltrating said force, you are, by default, an enemy troop, and can be held as such until the end of hostilities, at which time you are simply released... No trial, no criminal record, no emnity... Just sign an affidavit swearing not to resume hostile action.
In WW2, Japanese, German, and Italian troops were not tried... They were simply confined. At wars end, they were released.

When Al Queada formally surrenders, the P.O.W.'s should then be released... Not before.

This isn't aggrevated assault... It's WAR... Learn to deal with it.

Originally posted by Mike5166
The U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. Citizens

Treatment of POW's fall under the Geneva Convention (something no U.S. enemy has ever followed, btw).

I agree with mcsap though - sentence them and get it over with..

During WWII Germany adhered to the Geneva Conventions. Germany placed POWs in prison camps (as did the Allies who also adhered to the Geneva Conventions). Japan did not observe the Geneva Conventions and used POWs and non-combatants as slave labour.

Interestingly the U.S. Constitution applies not just to U.S. Citizens, it also applies to anyone who is in the United States. When I visit the U.S. I have more guaranteed rights and freedoms (eg a guarantee of freedom of speech) than I do back in my own country.

In terms of the subject at hand it would be good policy to put the detainees on trial and take it from there. At the moment it is not a good look.

when were the Al Qaeda prisoners declared prisoners of war? As far as I know they're classified as something different.

Originally posted by Sparkchaser
Isn't a Prisoner of War held until the end of the war? It would make no sense at all to hold an enemy combatant for, say, 90 days and then return him to his former outfit to resume actions against us. And as for a trial... That's just silly. If you are caught with enemy forces, and you are not there as a known U.S. agent infiltrating said force, you are, by default, an enemy troop, and can be held as such until the end of hostilities, at which time you are simply released... No trial, no criminal record, no emnity... Just sign an affidavit swearing not to resume hostile action.
In WW2, Japanese, German, and Italian troops were not tried... They were simply confined. At wars end, they were released.

When Al Queada formally surrenders, the P.O.W.'s should then be released... Not before.

This isn't aggrevated assault... It's WAR... Learn to deal with it.

Interesting. I never really thought about it that way, but I think you're on to something...

Originally posted by jaunt10
when were the Al Qaeda prisoners declared prisoners of war? As far as I know they're classified as something different.

Quite right. The U.S. Government refuses to classify them as Prisoners of War. The Geneva Conventions apply to Prisoners of War (and other classifications).

There is some argument that the U.S. Government is wrong in its interpretation of the Geneva Conventions and that they do apply to these people but it is moot because the U.S. Government is refusing to concede that point.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Guantanomo Bay is outside of its jurisdiction so domestic law doesn't apply and it can't intefere to grant relief.

Originally posted by oscarmitre
During WWII Germany adhered to the Geneva Conventions. Germany placed POWs in prison camps.

You know, I think I recall an interview with a WWII former POW (an American captuered by Germans then later rescued by Russians) - he said the German prison guards treated him better than the Russian "liberators" - so while they may have followed the law on treatment of prisoners, they DID consistantly break laws of war ranging from size and classification of war ships, attacks on unarmed merchant ships, use of chemical weapons, and then that whole 'final solution' thing and more...so no, they didn't follow the geneva convention...


The Geneva Convention, not the Constitution governs the treatment of POW's. As far as the prisoners in GC, are they classified as something different than POW's? I haven't heard that...

Vadep makes a good and valid point also....

There's a difference between a criminal and a POW. A POW is not necessarily a criminal, he's an enemy soldier being held so he can't kill more of our troops. If it's determined that he is a war criminal, he will get a trial. If not he'll be released when hostilities are over. That's part of war.

Originally posted by Mike5166



The Geneva Convention, not the Constitution governs the treatment of POW's. As far as the prisoners in GC, are they classified as something different than POW's? I haven't heard that...



I think the terminology being used is "unlawful combatants".

If the U.S. Government was to classify them as Prisoners of War then the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War would have to be observed and they would be sent back to where they came from as the war in Aghanistan is over.

WHY are they "unlawful combatants" if we were at WAR with them? If they were involved with 9/11 why haven't they been tried like that other guy Zacharias Moussaoui?

Just curious what your thoughts are... I'm not sure what to make of it.

ken

Originally posted by kenny J
WHY are they "unlawful combatants" if we were at WAR with them? If they were involved with 9/11 why haven't they been tried like that other guy Zacharias Moussaoui?

Just curious what your thoughts are... I'm not sure what to make of it.

ken

As I understand it these people are not connected with the attacks on the United States on 9/11. If they were then they most certainly would be on trial.

They were fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan and were captured during the fighting. The problem for the U.S. Government, which backed the insurgents (eg the Northern Alliance) was that these people were in fact fighting for the Government of Afghanistan against the insurgents. It was in essence a civil war. The insurgents handed over their prisoners to U.S. military. This presented the U.S. with a dilemma. What to do with them?

In essence the U.S. Government has sidestepped its obligations under international law, domestic law and the Geneva Conventions with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.