Five years of Guantanamo: Justice delayed is justice denied

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Fatstep

It does mention some rights may be refused in times of war.

The part of the Constitution to which I believe your referring, from the Fifth Ammendment (bolded)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

is considered by most students of the Constitution to refer to persons in the active military, not to civilians.

[Fatstep]

No, Executive Priviliege.

A president or other Executive branch official that BASICALLY says; The president does not have to disclose information to Congress if National Security is at risk.

I kind of see how it's tied in with Guantanamo, Bush cited this when questioned about Guantanamo in mid-2006. It's a legal murky topic that doesn't really go into what he must say and what he must not.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Fatstep

No, Executive Priviliege.

Unlike the enumerated powers of the Executive, and other specifically granted powers, the Consitution doesn’t specifically mention the concept of “Executive privilege”.

It's a legal murky topic that doesn't really go into what he must say and what he must not.

From what little I, as a non-specialists, have read, much of the basis of interpreting what actions are appropriate Executive privileges has to do with analysis and interpretation of what the original authors and signers of the constitution believed they should be, and what previous executives have successfully claimed them to be.

Murky, indeed.

[Fatstep]

I'm pretty sure Bush cited it for this reason; They are supposed terrorists or people who are involved in terroristic activities, if he were to give them due process there is no 'true' evidence for most of them which would lead to them being released, and possibly going on and committing an actual terrorist act. So, it is the best for national security to use executive privilege to deny their rights until war is over.
I suppose their philosophy could be;
All's fair in love and war.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But, from another angle, what if Hicks is actually guilty? What was he doing with Al Qaida in the first place?.......What I am saying, though, is that there might just be a real reason for Hicks still being there, and politicising the issue might make for cheap politics and not much else.

Do you know Boersun, that Habeas Corpus came into being to prevent king John from locking up people to rot in his dungeons without giving them a prompt and fair trial (as per due process).

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Fatstep

So, it is the best for national security to use executive privilege to deny their rights until war is over.

That might be considered OK, for the middle ages prior to 1200 or so.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Fatstep

It does mention some rights may be refused in times of war.

Bull sh*t
There are rules of war. Otherwise the Nazis have won


Re:Fraser says Govts want Hicks Guilty - Top Stories - Australian News Message Boards

Re:Fraser says Govts want Hicks Guilty Reply to this message
I'm not crying over Hicks. His guilt or innocence is not my concern. Follow closely and try to understand....
People should not be held in detention for 5 years without charges or trial. Guantanamo Bay violates the Geneva convention. The manner in which people were being held was declared illegal by the USA's own courts. Did Bush change situation to conform to the law? No. He changed the law to conform to the situation. The Australian government knows that the practices at Guantanamo Bay violate human rights. The Australian government knows that the detention of Hicks and others at Guantanamo Bay is illegal. The Australian government hung and Australian out to dry. It is only in recent days that the Australian government has started to change it's position about the detention of Hicks at Guantanamo bay. Gosh, I can't imagine that it could possibly have anything to do with the looming election and the current opinion polls. But does the Australian government really want to challenge it's American allies or are they just trying to make the Australian public think that they are doing the right thing. If people don't stand up against the abuse of human rights, the abuse will only continue and escalate. Bit by bit your rights will be eroded until you find yourself living in a dictatorship with no rights at all.

Fine. You don't care. But maybe, one day, it will be YOU held in illegal detention and hung out to dry by your own government. I wonder how much you'll care then?

Fraser says govt betrayed Hicks


February 16, 2007 - 11:24AM
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser has accused the Howard government of betraying Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

"However much the Blair (UK) government should be condemned for its participation in the Iraq war, for its encouragement of a venture doomed to failure from the very outset, it did not betray the basic legal rights of its citizens," Mr Fraser told a conference on human rights in Melbourne.

"The Australian government has."

Mr Fraser also said the military commission process that Hicks will face has been structured to produce a guilty verdict.

Fraser says govt betrayed Hicks - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Govt working for Hicks guilty verdict: Fraser. 16/02/2007. ABC News Online

[Fatstep]

When I said it's best for nat. security, I was syaing that from their P.O.V. not mine.

And I can't defend them when I don't even agree with them doing it.

One reason the Geneva Conventions don't matter a.t.m.is the Constitution is the 'Supreme Law of the Land", so to us (U.S.) it over rules the Geneva Conventions, and It was made almost 100 years before the conventions.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Fatstep

And I can't defend them when I don't even agree with them doing it.

I find that personally comforting – too many, IMHO, believe that good character requires unquestioning agreement with one’s leaders.

One reason the Geneva Conventions don't matter a.t.m. is the Constitution is the 'Supreme Law of the Land", so to us (U.S.) it over rules the Geneva Conventions, and It was made almost 100 years before the conventions.

As a signer and of the Third Geneva Convention (the one that addresses the treatment of prisoners of war), the US government has agreed to abide by its rules, and the requirement that US citizens do has the weight of US law, even though those rules are not part of the US legal code.

Though it’s difficult to obtain clear explanations from US government officials and spokespersons, my impression is that the main argument put forth is that, since the forth convention was signed and ratified (in 1949 and 1955, respectively), a new class of person, the “enemy combatant”, a person who is neither civilian nor soldier, exists, and is not addressed by the Geneva Conventions, nor the legal codes of any nation.

IMHO, this interpretation is a throwback to the idea that Executives – be they presidents or kings – should be able to act without regard to civil law. I don’t believe this interpretation is good for the People of the US or the world.

[Fatstep]

Originally Posted by CraigD

As a signer and of the Third Geneva Convention (the one that addresses the treatment of prisoners of war), the US government has agreed to abide by its rules, and the requirement that US citizens do has the weight of US law, even though those rules are not part of the US legal code.

True, but who listens to the U.N. lately, not the U.S. Also, just because we signed them doesn't mean we will be punished for breaking them, I'm sure that's how they think of it. Was it not the U.S. that made countries sign agreements saying they wouldn't do anything to the U.S.'s soldiers if they break the conventions? I may have that a little screwed up but I think you get the gist

Btw, what's IMOH mean? In My Own Head/Opinion?