I’ve held a very simple position on this matter. Give the man a fair trial, and if he’s found guilty, lock him up behind bars for as long as possible. If he is found innocent, release him as soon as possible. That’s it. Full stop. Is that too much to ask?
For more than six years Sami was imprisoned in Guantanamo without any due process. None whatsoever. Six years, and I think it’s an utter shame. Today, he finally heads back home to his family.
Zachary Katznelson, Sami’s American lawyer has called the whole spectacle ‘un-American’ and I believe he’s right.
The Supreme Court has said that every prisoner in Guantánamo has the right to challenge his imprisonment in court. If that right is taken away, these prisoners will languish in prison for years – innocent or not. If a prisoner is abused, he will have no recourse. That goes against everything a democracy should stand for. It is un-American,” Zachary Katznelson, Senior Counsel at Reprieve stated.
On top of that, the US Supreme Court has deemed the military trials unconstitutional.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
That’s great news…
I disagree with you about trials. IMO the people in Guantamo are prisoners of war, and should be held until the war is over.
POWs are not criminals and trials are not appropriate.
The real complaint is that the US has not been following the rules for prisoners of war.
“The real complaint is that the US has not been following the rules for prisoners of war.”
But they have…
The rules say that the rules apply to certain types of participants in the war and do not apply to others. Terrorists, who fight not in uniform and attack non-military targets are NOT covered by the rules.
I think it is the rules you want to criticise, not America’s loyalty to the rules. The Geneva convention simply didn’t envision people like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
POWs are not criminals, indeed. But most of the people held in Gitmo very probably are.
So I think trials would be appropriate.
But where would you trial them? A US court seems inappropriate because the crimes alleged (and committed!) are war crimes.
An international court would be appropriate. But in this world, where do you find an international court that would actually convict mass murderers even when they call themselves “Muslims”? Let the UN human rights council handle it and I am sure they will look at the evidence (”this Saudi national was also found raping women and then stoning them for fun in Afghanistan”) and then condemn Israel for something. So what’s the point?
If we are looking for justice we first need an authority that can establish such justice. It’s not the US of A. And it’s certainly not the UN.
Should be held until the war is over seems appropriate to me. It’s not like the US (or UN) are forcing the Taliban to continue the war.
Life can’t be too bad in Gitmo. If it were, I am sure the UN would have sent people to have a look at it before condemning it. But the UN refused to have a look and condemned it anyway. That’s for me that best proof that things are not too bad.
“Should be held until the war is over seems appropriate to me.”
Yeah, but this isn’t the kind of war that has a foreseeable end in sight. They could be locked in there for the next 20-50 years.
Who knows?
It’s been six years and the United States still hasn’t solved the problem. These people should get trials, not just remain jailed indefinitely.
“They could be locked in there for the next 20-50 years.”
Yes, that’s indeed a problem.
But I am worried that this particular problem gets a lot of attention. People seem to focus on the fate of the Gitmo prisoners as if the world had no other problems.
The way I see it those people are safe. They are not being tortured (if they were, the UN wouldn’t have refused to inspect the camp) and they are being fed. They are better off than most victims of this war. (And that’s another problem.)
From Wikipedia:
“Hundreds of thousands of German Prisoners of War were kept in Soviet custody for 10 years after World War II. These were not repatriated until Konrad Adenauer went to Moscow in 1955 and urged their release. They, along with alleged German collaborators and other ethnic Germans, were imprisoned in Gulag concentration camps.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organised_persecution_of_ethnic_Germans#Soviet_Union)
I know, I know, different standards for US and Soviet Union and different times…
But judging from the Gitmo protesters, you could think that the US are committing a crime on unknown proportions here.
When I grew up in Germany the surviving POWs were neighbours. (They were not Nazis and never were. The Nazis didn’t send loyal troops to the eastern front.) Some of them had lived under terrible circumstances for ten years. See why I simply cannot worry about Gitmo too much?
Incidentally, according to the UN Gitmo is a problem and a human rights violation but the Soviet thing was fine.
To solve the Gitmo problem we first need an authority that CAN solve the problem. We don’t have such an authority.
Either the US will have to become the ruler of the world or we need the British Empire back or we need a UN that doesn’t act like an empire temporarily lacking funds for a Death Star. We need an authority that will imprison or execute war criminals even if they fought against the US or tried to kill Jews and EVEN if the war criminals claim to follow Islam.
But we don’t have such an authority. Hence there is no solution for the Gitmo problem.
But as problems go, it’s a minor one.
I am more worried about Israeli solders in Hamas’ and Hizbullah’s hands.
Everything written about Gitmo also applies to them, except the parts about someone being released and some relevant authority declaring the practice illegal.
Great news indeed.
In a “real” war, the POW’s are protected under the Geneva convention. But we all know that in WWII that the rules- which were then not yet ratified by nations nor agreed upon or made explicit- have been breached to a point where it made us wondered why we have them in the first place. The question is how can anyone “manage” or come up with rules and regulations that apply to the sole purpose of killing people for national ideological gains and territorial grabing. The examples of the deliberate POW’s death marches perpetuated by the Japanese and the famous SS death squads -without counting the rapes and summary excecutions of civilians, even in last phase of WWII when everyone understood where the dices had fallen, should keep us we mammals in the annals of the worst species that had ever lived on this face of the earth. It was after the horrors of WWI and previous wars and to some extent WWII that the Geneva conventions were ratified.
But that was then and we are here now.
The Gitmo prisoners are they really POW’s? where they really fighting a “conventional” war, as we understood from the history books. Or is their war a different sort of “permanent” was? I am asking this question because all wars had a beginning and an end. Usually the loser will accept the results and go on with life. They may try to use diplomacy to regain some points or ideas or things they may believe to have been taken from them.
I beleive that the case of Gitmo, it is the latter, which is an unconventional wars. It is not a war as we understood it. It is a guerrila wars. Thus the Gitmo prisoners are viewed as criminals not as POW’s. If this is so then, they should have been tried in a court of law. However, this does not solve the problem. A court of law (civilian) is a trial by jury. I am sure these “enemy combattants” are not going to plea “guilty”, if this is so then which Jury should the court appoint? An all american jury means a death sentence, because the high powered procecutors will “milk” 9/11 and London bombings to death until they see all of them hanged high. Of course, this is not what everybody want. This explains the perpetual inertia about the fate of these prisonners. I think they should be happy to be there (alive), because the nations of the world are trying to come to grip with the changing nature of warfare and the prisoners of these silly small type of wars.
I am however glad to see Sami as a free man. I think he paid his prison time not for what he believed or did or did not do, but for the inability of US criminal justice system to figure out what these people (gitmo prisoners) are and which category of “criminals” are they.
“In a “real” war, the POW’s are protected under the Geneva convention. ”
Only those that respect the Geneva conventions.
But the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have made it clear that they don’t. Hence the Geneva conventions don’t apply. I don’t know why people keep bringing them up? Is there an obvious double standard to be applied that I cannot see?
As I wrote before, the Soviet Union kept German POWs for ten years after WW2, and those were uniformed soldiers, fighting for a country that (at least claimed to have) acknowledged the Geneva conventions, AND they were most likely not Nazis (since they fought on the eastern front and loyal troops were not sent there).
And whenever the other side in this war captures one of us, we can be happy if they don’t behead them immediately. But why not complain about Gitmo a bit more?
“I think they should be happy to be there (alive), because the nations of the world are trying to come to grip with the changing nature of warfare and the prisoners of these silly small type of wars.”
Yes, I think that’s a good point. But “happy” is perhaps a bit strong a term. They are _safe_. I won’t worry about them. I won’t worry about the only victims of this conflict who are not losing limb and life and the only victims who face an enemy that can be beaten by lawyers.
These people indeed should have a trial - military tribunal, that’ll find them guilty of war crimes (and execute them immediately in accordance with military law) or innocent of such (and then release them to wherever they were captured).
The disgusting bleats of these ex-human monsters imprisoned in Guantanamo - even after they have walked free where they should have danced the last jig - prove the fact they were not mistreated. If these fucks were in any real prison they would have all been slowly killed, because these serial rapists and murders who use children as human shields gave up their right to live.
Mollycoddling of terrorists makes my blood boil.
Sorry for the rant… it’s memorial day for IDF’s fallen today. Every time a terrorist we could have killed but chose not to because we’re a bunch of fucking super-humane pussies murders someone I want to hang every single leader in the Western World who is not fighting this suicidal madness.
Leave a Comment