Gitmo, what to do and why?

Someone is going to have to deal with this issue sooner or later, share your thoughts.

My vote was to send them home and let their country of origin deal with them. I don't necessarily think it'd be a case of turning out the lights though. I believe if the prisoner was 'captured' by the US, they'd have a certain responsibility to follow through with the trial part and providing evidence as to why they were locked up in the first place etc.

Aliantha;414618 wrote:

My vote was to send them home and let their country of origin deal with them.

The first 400 that were already released to their countries were set free. Why? They were guilty of nothing. Most all Gitmo prisioners were simply turned in by bounty hunters on rumors. The US imprisioned them mostly because bounty hunters said they were guilty - nothing more.

There is no reason for Gitmo. Anyone who is guilty will be found so in a court of law. Move them all to the US to stand trial. Trial as any decent Amerian patriot would demand and that Nazi like extremists in America fear. Oh. But with almost all prisoners not guilty of anything - we must proclaim the evidence against them as top secret? That is what the wackos are doing to maintain their lies.

Don't fool yourself for one minute. Gitmo exists because the president lies repeatedly. The president even fears the American principles of law. As Cheney said, the Presidency does not have enough power. Stalin had the same ideas.

There are maybe 14 and probably no more than 40 prisoners in Gitmo that are guilty.

Close Gitmo because it is no different than a Nazi concentration camp. Notice how easy it has been for Americans to deny we run concentration camps as the Germans also did in WWII.

Put the guilty on trial as was once called the American way. Time is now to stop making more enemies AND to prosecute wacko extremists in the CIA who did not stand up to and say no to White House wacko extremists. We have many in government who should be on trial including Major General Miller.

Numerous American criminals being protected by George Jr. Time is now to restore the American principles of law. Closing Gitmo should be obvious to everyone as nothing more than a Nazi concentration camp. it existed so that George Jr could decided without judicial review who was evil.

I didn't vote because by dropping a tactical nuke on the place after pulling out all the US troops and letting them meet their maker would also involve others in the vacinity who were blameless.

The wrong people are there. O.K., there may be a few who were involved in 9/11 but the remainder represent a fraction of people who are opposed to U.S. policies around the world. And why shouldn't they be? The U.S. reserves the right to be opposed to any country, let alone a regime that doesn't fall in line with American thinking.

And complaining that these people kill Americans doesn't resolve the problem of Americans killing others. The bombing of Iraq is indescriminate and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a land of delusion or is a believer in the Bush propaganda machine.

Just ask yourself this question: If as people claim, a numberplate can be read from space why cannot moving images filmed by satellite be run backwards to discover the origin of an IAD for example.

Although I may have strayed away from the subject my contention is that nothing can be believed because this administration has no morals.

Close it completely, right now, or make United States laws and the US Constitution applicable there. They can't have it both ways. Not when they use that as a way to break laws, to torture, to hold indefinitely.

Expand it and lock up all the Cubans too.

xoxoxoBruce;414711 wrote:

Expand it and lock up all the Cubans too.

Don't stop there. Stuff in all the Venezuelans. That will solve a lot more problems. Then the King of Spain need not tell anyone to, "just shut up".

If they are being held by the military due to being "enemy combatants", it only makes sense in my mind to try them according to our military law.

But when the military is fighting a civillian militia organization, and has the power to declare anyone they want to be enemy combatants, that entire idea is useless.
When the military gets to call anybody an enemy combatant, and enemy combatants have no rights, then as far as the military is concerned nobody has any rights.

Isn't that pretty much how the military works? I see your point about treating these "civilian combatants" as civilians in the US Civilian System, but they are combatants also and therefore should be treated as such by the military. I do hope they do something though and stop this nonsense. Guess well just have to wait till '09.

I'm not saying the military has categorized them correctly. I'm saying that if that's what they want to call these people, then they should treat them as such.

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.

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.

Aliantha;414882 wrote:

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.

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. :mad2:
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).

Naru is not so bad Zen. In fact, the 'prisoners' there pretty much have the run of the island. It's an interesting situation really. australia has security guards etc there, but that's mostly to protect the compound and it's accessories from theft rather than making sure the prisoners are detained. The situation is basically that there's nowhere to go anyway, so there's really quite a lot of freedom in comparison to somewhere like villawood as an example.

Did you also know that the new detention centre they're building in NT will have a playstation in every room? They'll also have basketball courts and football fields along with computers etc.

While being detained would certainly not be a holiday, there are certain myths surrounding them and the purpose they serve is valuable in many ways.

When boat people etc arrive in Australia, there should be a way of containing them while their health is checked and in most cases treated. Their status as a refugee needs to be confirmed. Also, the items they're carrying need to be assessed.

Did you know that Australian fishermen in the gulf regularly encounter Indonesian camps on the coastline, complete with small crops growing, and poultry and other farm animals in pens, and sometimes not contained at all? This is not a desirable situation and these fisherpeople are clearly breaking many laws, the least of which, to name a couple are illegal fishing and entering the country without a visa, along with endangering native wildlife while breaking any number of quarantine laws. It's quite frightening really.

Here is a list of recreational items going into the upgraded detention centre in NT.

Furniture, Fittings and Equipment
109. A range of equipment will be purchased to increase and improve amenities for
detainees. Items may include:
• televisions
• dvd players
• sound systems, karaoke systems
• table tennis tables
• gym equipment
• pool tables
• play stations
• soccer and cricket sets
• tables and chairs for recreation facilities
• couches, and
• office furniture.

There will also be disabled facilities, although considering most of the detainees at the NT centre are fishermen and crews, one would wonder how many disabled detainees there will be.

This information comes from this report which you might find interesting.

Seems a lot different to Gitmo to me.

Aliantha;415124 wrote:

Seems a lot different to Gitmo to me.

A bigger difference than the amenities is how they got there. They are illegal immigrants. Gitmo detainees are foreigners snatched up in foreign countries. If Australia were grabbing people out of Indonesia and dropping them in Nauru, there might be a stronger Gitmo comparison.

A better comparison might be to our illegal immigrant holding pens, where Australia wins on the amenities, but the kafkaesqueness is probably a draw.

That's true HM.

Like Zen, I'm opposed to the way some of the refugees and illegal immigrants are treated, but on the other hand, there has to be a way to absorb them into society and one of the biggest problems Australia faces is our lack of legal population if that makes any sense. We have large numbers of what are referred to as 'boat people' arrive here every year, and the community at large has to foot the bill. While I don't have a problem with this as such, it does put a strain on the economy. That being said, we're a rich nation so I think we can afford it.

It's a tight rope the government walks. I'm hoping our new regimen will do something about the situation in some of the other detention centres around the country.

Ali, true points, and I didn't know about the new facility in the Top End. I was thinking about Villawood and Baxter detention center in S.A.. The latter is designed and built like a prison.
Certainly some processing of all arrival is necessary. Temporary housing of Indonesian fisherman who were never going to stay is quite a different matter from processing asylum seekers.
But did you know, that most of the people who are in Australia illegally arrived legally on tourist or work visas and never left? Boat people - a few hundred to a few thousand per year - are relatively scarce.
I'd like to see some more Sudanese refugees. The really tall ones. They should make good fast bowlers and ruckmen. ;) And some more Islanders - the Wallabies' tight five aren't up to scratch.

That's true. Places like Villawood are terrible and there needs to be some action there. Personally, I'm thinking of booking myself into the one up north after it's done though. Seems like it'll be pretty nice.

One thing I'd say about the illegal fishermen is that from some perspectives, the crime they're committing is worse than overstaying a visa. They are litterally stealing from the Australian fishermen who are trying to earn a living under often very difficult circumstances.

My father is married to a Phillipina and her nephew comes over most xmas's and every time he comes, my father has to put down $10k against him overstaying his visa. I was surprised when I learned that. Apparently people from the Phillipines in particular are very good at missing their planes.

We don't need more islanders. The ones we have cause enough trouble. I'd go along with the Sudanese though. They're generally very good athletes. Might help out with basketball too.

Why does anyone think noncitizens, captured on foreign fields in far wars, should be tried in civilian courts? These are in effect if perhaps not the letter of the law prisoners of war. No responsible government tries enemy prisoners of war, whether they've been annoying to it or not.

That some think this is the right way to proceed has been made plain. Why they think that way, well, there's where the explanation runs thin. What does it look like?

The try-them faction seems to be following a defeat-America agenda. This is treason, as the Constitution defines it, and no yelling about not saying treason aloud should be allowed or contemplated. Traitors, of course, will do exactly the thing they should not. It's the sort of thing that persuades me they are either not democrats, or else possessed only of summer-day IQ's.

YES THES PPL SHUD B IMPRISONED ON NO CHARG 4EVER CUZ YR A TRAITOR

Great example, Ibbie; how very obliging of you. :p But Undertoad doesn't want me to have confirmation bias.

Urbane Guerrilla;415609 wrote:

Why does anyone think noncitizens, captured on foreign fields in far wars, should be tried in civilian courts? These are in effect if perhaps not the letter of the law prisoners of war. No responsible government tries enemy prisoners of war, whether they've been annoying to it or not.

We've gone out of our way to deny that they are POWs, and to assert their criminality. POWs don't get tried, but criminals do.

I think if we re-classified some of them as POW's it might help deal with the fodder. Some are truely terrorists and should remain in status as criminals.

yes but how do you tell the difference if you don't have a trial?

Dismantle the whole thing and if you actually have evidence against people, use it, or stuff it!!

Don't worry, we're going to call it anything but what it was....A bunch of abductions. That's what I call it when you hold people without charges on "suspicion". (suspicion) is not an actual charge.

Pinochet!! lol!!