"You are not the master of the Earth, sir"

Uiler

Emperor
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
1,849
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050409/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees_stories

WASHINGTON - In a development the Bush administration had hoped to avoid, the stories of about 60 detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base have spilled out in court papers.

A U.S. college-educated detainee asks plaintively in one: "Is it possible to see the evidence in order to refute it?"

In another transcript, the unidentified president of a U.S. military tribunal bursts out: "I don't care about international law. I don't want to hear the words 'international law' again. We are not concerned with international law."

Expressing defiance in some instances and stoic acceptance of their fate in others, the once-nameless and still-largely faceless detainees appeared last year before tribunals that, after quick reviews, declared they were unlawful enemy combatants who could be held indefinitely.

The government is holding about 550 terrorism suspects at the Navy base in Cuba. An additional 214 have been released since the prison opened in January 2002 — some into the custody of their home governments, others freed outright.

Little information about them has been released through official channels. But stories of 60 or more are spelled out in detail in thousands of pages of transcripts filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, where lawsuits challenging their detentions have been filed.

Omar Rajab Amin, a Kuwaiti who graduated from the University of Nebraska in 1992, wanted to see the evidence. The tribunal president — the de facto judge for the proceeding — said he could review only unclassified evidence.

Some of the exchanges grew heated.

"You are not the master of the Earth, sir," Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani businessman, told a tribunal president.

Feroz Ali Abbasi was ejected from his September hearing because he repeatedly challenged the legality of his detention.

"I have the right to speak," Abbasi said.

"No, you don't," the tribunal president replied.

The tribunal found Abbasi to have been "deeply involved" in the al-Qaida terror network. Yet four months later, the government released him, saying his home country of Britain would keep an eye on him.

The Guantanamo detainees come from about 40 countries and were picked up mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The administration designate them as enemy combatants.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled last June that the detainees may challenge their imprisonment. The Pentagon responded nine days later by creating the tribunals and pushing through reviews of everyone at Guantanamo by year's end.

A military spokeswoman, Navy Capt. Beci Brenton, said Friday the Pentagon believes the tribunals allow for the review under the court ruling and that each detainee received "a fair opportunity to contest their detention."

Administration officials contend the prisoners are not entitled to the internationally accepted legal protections given prisoners of war.

In the filings, some detainees seemed stunned by the speed of the process.

"How long will it take before you decide the results of this tribunal?" one asked.

"We should have a decision today," the tribunal president replied.

The tribunals brought out previously unknown information regarding the war on terror.

In one proceeding, the government identified detainee Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dosari as an al-Qaida recruiter who persuaded six Yemeni-Americans in suburban Buffalo, N.Y., to join the terrorist group.

The tribunal also disclosed that Dosari had been questioned by Saudi Arabian authorities about the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 that killed 19 members of the U.S. Air Force.

Several detainees told the three-member tribunals they had been mistreated or tortured. They complained about the evidence, too.

"You believe anyone that gives you any information," said detainee Mohammed Mohammed Hassen, who was arrested in Pakistan. "What if that person made a mistake? Maybe that person looked at me and confused me with someone else."

The unclassified evidence against Hassen, 24, was that a senior al-Qaida lieutenant had identified his picture as that of someone he might have seen in Afghanistan.

The tribunals also had access to classified evidence that the detainees were not allowed to see, a key reason a federal judge said in January there were constitutional problems with the tribunals. An appeals court is considering that issue.

This article on Australian David Hicks gives the interesting example of the level of evidence required to be convicted of being a terrorist in these military tribunals:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1332428.htm

In 2001, a German citizen was seized in Pakistan. The United States suspected he was linked to terrorists, and he was sent to Guantanamo Bay.

Late last year, he got a day in court, appearing before a military tribunal. According to this morning's Washington Post, the tribunal found the German was a member of al-Qaeda.

The ruling was based on a short, unsupported memo filed shortly before the hearing by an unidentified US official, and ignored the fact that US and German intelligence agencies could find no evidence of terrorist links.

The case raises serious concerns about the justice being dispensed at Guantanamo Bay, and could have indirect implications for Australia's David Hicks, who's facing a military commission.

Major Michael Mori is the military lawyer assigned to defend David Hicks.

MICHAEL MORI: It raises an interesting point because there were not live witnesses used in that process and that's our biggest fear in the commission is that there won't be live witnesses used in David Hicks' case. There'll just be interrogators claiming what some other person told them.

We won't have the right to confront those witnesses and cross examine them and I think the example you just gave about that German citizen is that there's a good example of the flaws and the erroneous decisions that are made when you don't have live witnesses.

Remember, everyone. All you need is a *single* memo written by an unidentified US officer with no supporting evidence whatsoever and you can be incacreated in Guantomeno Bay as a terrorist for the rest of your natural life.
 
Very much like a secular version of the Inquisition:
Anybody can denounce you, but you won't be told who your accuser is, what evidence there is, or even exactly what the charges are.:(
 
That's despicable. Not only are they violating international law, they're often violating habeus corpus until the trial date, which apparently lasts just one day. :mad:
 
Verbose said:
Very much like a secular version of the Inquisition:
Anybody can denounce you, but you won't be told who your accuser is, what evidence there is, or even exactly what the charges are.:(

On a more modern note, it sounds a lot like the trials conducted in Communist China a few decades back described to me by older members of my family. Granted those were about who stole one of Mr Lee's chickens but the attitude of the tribunal and the entire procedure sounds very similiar. In those trials, they wouldn't even tell you what the charge against you was let alone what the evidence was. The point being they weren't real trials in the sense that we think of today. Your guilt had already been determined on evidence that you were not allowed to see, otherwise you wouldn't even be called up in the first place. The purpose of the "trial" was to give you an opportunity to "confess" so that people could see that "justice" was being done and so people cannot say that there are any doubts about your guilt ("Look, they freely confessed to the crime!"). They couldn't tell you what the charge (let alone what the evidence was) before you "confessed" because it would "taint" your "confession" and may lead to accusations that the confession was forced (shock, horror). And if you didn't confess (a common occurance considering you didn't even know what on earth you were being charged with) you were beaten until you "confessed". I'm not entirely sure whether anyone died during one of these trials. The evidence was pretty flimsy as well. Hearsay seemed to be the most common evidence for conviction. I understand a lot of grudges got settled this way.

Similarly, here, your guilt has already been determined on the basis of evidence that you are not allowed to see (at least they tell them what they are being charged with, though I guess in this case it's pretty obvious). The whole purpose of the "trial" is to present a nice pretty face to the world (and also because the US government lost a Supreme Court case) so that your "guilt" is without doubt. They've even got the torture and beatings too (though outsourced to other nations). It also seems that at least in some cases the evidence is pretty flimsy hearsay with no real substantial evidence to back it up.
 
The Inquisition would use torture. They needed a confession too. Only the inquisitors knew that confessions under torture were dodgy.

So, at that point, they would start the process of witness confrontation, taking the accused out to the site of the crime etc.

If it didn't fit then, they would conclude they had the wrong man and release their prisoner.

And the Inquisition had only the power to exact relgious penitence. Corporeal punishment had to be meeted out by the secular authorities, and these weren't always obliging.
 
Dispicable, that is the only word I can say. I don't know if this is all 100% accurate, but Habeaus Corpus shouldn't have to be pushed aside. I don't understand why these people can't be prosecuted under the normal American Judicial system. The guilty would be punished, and the innocent would go free. Plus, a lot of te innocent people might become terroists after this ordeal.
 
Damnyankee said:
Dispicable, that is the only word I can say. I don't know if this is all 100% accurate, but Habeaus Corpus shouldn't have to be pushed aside. I don't understand why these people can't be prosecuted under the normal American Judicial system. The guilty would be punished, and the innocent would go free. Plus, a lot of te innocent people might become terroists after this ordeal.
It would seem because the US govt think applying US laws on them is not in accordance with US interests in international politics, as they define it. :crazyeye:
 
rmsharpe said:
If they didn't join al Qaeda, they wouldn't be there.

Bull****. It's phoney trials, set up to take random people, and exact revenge on them for 9/11.
[edit]
Or more precisely, for DARING to OPPOSE the Americans as they invaded Afghanistan.
 
rmsharpe said:
If they didn't join al Qaeda, they wouldn't be there.
Not all of them are al Qaeda members. Many have been simply set free without an explanation. If I were in some of their positions, then I would probably consider aiding al Qaeda.
 
Verbose said:
It would seem because the US govt think applying US laws on them is not in accordance with US interests in international politics, as they define it. :crazyeye:

Insane, I know. Plus, this is not helping us, suspending Habeus corpus, it is hurting us, they will now go out and join Al-Qeada BECAUSE of the abussive treatment.
 
No-one benefits from this ridicolous system.
Try them, charge them, determine guilt, exact punishment.
Except skip the first 3...
 
rmsharpe said:
If they didn't join al Qaeda, they wouldn't be there.
Maybe they didn't?

Unless the charge is its own proof and punishment is a sign of culpability.:p
 
rmsharpe said:
If they didn't join al Qaeda, they wouldn't be there.

That's everything America stands AGAINST. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? It's set forth in the US Constitution.
 
US constitution applies within US territory, citizen or not.

All anybody ever asked was for the US to use its own laws.
 
rmsharpe said:
Since when did the U.S. Constitution apply for non-citizens?

Okay, then how about international law? What we're doing in Gitmo violates pretty much every international convention regarding prisoner treatment. Either they're entitled to protections given to captured enemy combatants, or they're entitled to the protections of US domestic law.
 
I remember a teacher saying that what happened to Japanese-Americans in WWII could never happen again. Guess again.

Due to the sensitivity of human and other intelligence sources I can partially understand keeping some information secret, but considering the horrible intelligence failures recently I seriously wonder how many are legit and how many aren't.
 
Top Bottom