Gitmo, what to do and why?

[Aliantha]

The big issue to me are the people who've been picked up under suspicion of terrorism etc when they're not actively doing any fighting what so ever.

For these people to firstly be detained is one thing. I accept there must be a reason authorities identified said person, however, the issue is that these people are not always found to be guilty of any crime what so ever. There have been two Australians detained in gitmo, both of whom were later released. One after a trial which took over 4 years to happen, and the other before any formal charges were laid, but after nearly a year of detention. He's been back in Oz for several years now and so far hasn't blown anyone up. I guess that's a good sign.

If nothing else, there should be time limits imposed so that people who are not guilty of any crime shouldn't be left rotting and being abused. If there's one thing that I could criticize the US on, it's the way they've treated these Australian citizens. Citizens of a country which has always been a staunch partner.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Australia was itself a pioneer in the extra-judicial detention of foreigners in concentration camps, and the use of concentration camps in far-flung parts of its empire not technically part of its home jurisdiction. In fact, Australia's 'Pacific Solution' was the pioneering exercise in offshore mass imprisonment, taking place from September 2001, significantly before the US opened Gitmo. In both cases, the purpose was to manouevre around the constraints of both domestic law and the law of third countries, by creating a legal-territorial limbo.

Update: Today's suicides at Gitmo of course also recapitulate events in Australian detention. That it has taken so much longer for suicide to eventuate (assuming these were indeed suicides . . .) in this situation may, I think, be attributed to two factors: the religiosity of the inmates, who were imprisoned because they were fervently Muslim, and whose religion forbids suicide, and the much closer monitoring of inmates. That deaths are now occuring correlates with the loss of value of these inmates' lives to the state which is imprisoning them, which once viewed them as assets of a sort, where in Australia refugees lives were never accorded intrinsic value.
That said, I was going to say that the fresh revelations about Australians being detained by DIMA had some specific meaning, in that DIMA somehow has extraordinary powers in this. But really it's powers are not that surprising. While imprisonment in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' concentration camps is determined by bureaucratic fiat, and this is something extraordinary, in that it can mark anyone without any kind of due process, the difference between this and a far wider problem, that of remand imprisonment, is relatively minor. Every year, tens of thousands of (not just 26) Australian citizens who haven't actually been proven guilty of anything, thousands of whom are, like the victims of Australia and America's concentration camps, never proven to have done anything wrong, are imprisoned in the brutal regular prison system in Australia on remand. While they are accorded a bail hearing prior to this, these hearings themselves are cursory, and generally have outcomes based on the feelings of the prosecution. The real lesson is that those without the means or wit to defend themselves, namely the poor and immigrants, which two categories have a large overlap, are in Australia frequently subjected to Kafkaesque treatment at the hands of the state, and by token of the lack of connections to the establishment which allows this to happen to them, we are unlikely to hear about it.

More.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If nothing else, there should be time limits imposed so that people who are not guilty of any crime shouldn't be left rotting and being abused.

It is called the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; also called the Bill of Rights. That law exists which demonstrates how much wacko extremists have pervert American legal principles. Even Terry Schivo could not be left alone because wackos must pervert laws for their poltiical agenda. The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ... to be confronted by with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his defense.

Notice the word "all". Gitmo prisoners were denied all these right including right to counsel which is a question only now being asked by the Supreme Court.

To deny almost 800 prisoners 'all' rights, George Jr administration put them in Guantanamo, claimed prisoners in Gitmo are not subject to any American laws , and then invented a category called illegal enemy combatant to further deny these people their Constitutional rights. Yes, everyone in America has Constitutional rights. Some have more rights when also citizens. But all have Constitutional rights.

Worse, many Americans so hated America as to agree with George Jr's extremism.

Meanwhile, George Jr has been signing 'Findings' whereby he secretly declares he is exempt from some laws that were passed by Congress and signed by him. IOW George Jr's respect for American principles of law are that perverted. Often these 'Findings' are signed as soon as he signs the bill into law. But even worse, others approve of this subversion of the American Constitution. There is no Constitutional definition for 'Findings'. It is how a president can violate the law and do it secretly.

They are wacko extremists whose political agenda even justified torture and international kidnapping of any non-American. Justifies presidental violation of American law. Also amazing are the number of non-American Cellar dwellers who remained quiet when they can be kidnapped by America at any time - and this is called legal.

Guantanamo is clearly a violation of the US Constitution AND of American principles. Others deny due to their politics. We must subvert the Constitution because 800 people might be enemies. We must torture them long before considering any Constitutional principles. After all, they must be enemies because they are in Guantanamo and therefore must be evil.

In military tribunals, prisoners are denied counsel. The person who represents them is also obligated to report to military authorities everything their 'client' tells them. These representatives can also deny the prisoner any information that might prove his innocence. Even Judges cannot be trusted to know secrets (such as the identity of a CIA agent named Plame) in this tribunal framework. Only the accussers can be trusted can know such secrets. American wackos call this fair because everyone in Guantanamo must be evil. American law has been that viciously perverted because something approaching one in three Americans is that wacko extremist.

Aliantha's question was answered over 200 years ago - the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. American laws define such 'time limits'. Constitutional rights are now routinely perverted for a wacko extremist political agenda - including wiretapping. As demonstrated in the Cellar, many Americans approved of these perversions. The propaganda and hate preached by Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, etc is that alive and well in America. Even the Sixth Amendment is perverted in the name of a new wacko extremist political agenda.

[ZenGum]

Hiya Bruce!
A large number of Australians object to the mandatory detention of asylum seekers either within Australia or under the "Pacific solution" (awfully Nazi-sounding name isn't it?) of paying Nauru to house them in a camp in their country rather than in Australia. I am one of the objectors.
Conditions are reported to be, well, like a prison. Not so harsh as Gitmo, and no interrogations (as far as I know), but even children would be locked up in this way.
That said, the prison camps had a procedure for assessing asylum claims, and the very large majority were eventually granted.

As for the remand point - don't all countries do that? Does the USA? Assess at the bail hearing, if the person is apparently dangerous or a flight risk, they are held (not, as your quote states, in the "regular" prison system, but in remand centers, which are very prison like).