POLL: How should we exterminate the Evil Doers held at Guantenemo Bay?

Candle,

despite all your attacks I LOVE PUSSY.

 

Kennedy: repatriate terror suspects

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Friday July 11, 2003

Charles Kennedy today added his voice to the pressure on the prime minister to bring two British Guantanamo Bay detainees home for trial.

The Liberal Democrat leader said Mr Blair should use his "feted" status in America during a trip to the US next week to lobby President George Bush to repatriate the men for a UK trial.

His comments come after a 200-strong petition from MPs, a barrage of hostile questioning at PMQs and pressure from the media produced a small u-turn from the government.

Until last night, Downing Street had played a "softly softly" approach to the cases of Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, held for the past 18 months at the US military base in Cuba, but now the government have agreed to call for negotiations on repatriation.

This morning Mr Kennedy told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Mr Blair is going to have a very high-profile visit next week to the US. He is the most feted international politician outside the US. He has considerable sway over American public opinion.

"I hope he brings that to bear with the domestic audience as well as the international audience.

"I think there is considerable opinion to be won in the US which itself is considerably uneasy about the state of affairs."

If Mr Blair is unable to persuade the US president to return the men, he should lobby European and other allies and international bodies to put pressure on America for fair trials, Mr Kennedy argued.

"All the prodigious political energy which our PM can expend on certain issues - like prosecuting what begins to look increasingly like a dubious proposition for war in Iraq - should now be applied to our American colleagues where the rights of individuals and the right to an independent fair trial and justice is concerned," he said.

"Mr Blair has got to point out that this is not a personal favour or something that represents the interests of his government, but this is an affront to over 200 MPs of all parties who have signed a motion in the House of Commons and a huge cross-section of legal opinion in the House of Lords.

"It strikes very, very badly indeed at a time when the world order needs to see countries, in particular like the US alongside Britain, once again valuing international institutions and the international rule of law."

Former attorney general, Lord Morris, said that the legal framework existed for British detainees to receive a fair trial in the UK.

He told Today: "I would have thought the more heinous the allegations, the greater the need that we should all heed the precept that justice should be seen to be done and should actually be done.

"We are bound in this country by the European convention on human rights and the charter of the UN on human rights and I would have thought that there is no precedent in democratic society for the kind of tribunals that we have read about.

"No government can guarantee what will happen in a British court, but I know one thing - it will be a fair trial.

"If these people were being held in custody in the US proper, as opposed to Cuba, I suspect that they would be entitled to due process, and that would not include military tribunals where the evidence is not disclosed and you don't have the choice of your own lawyer."

Mr Abbasi and Mr Begg are among six Britons held at the US base on Cuba who face death penalties if convicted by US military commissions.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said this morning: "The process in respect of the two individuals is moving forward in terms of the contacts between ourselves and the US.

"Various options are being discussed. One of those is repatriation, but we shouldn't move from the idea that a discussion about an option means that a decision has been taken.

"This is a complex situation, not least because the allegations against these individuals are that they were engaged in supporting al-Qaida and Taliban in a conflict situation in Afghanistan against coalition forces."

Stephen Jakobi, of campaign group Fair Trials Abroad, said: "It is nice to know they are looking at alternatives but as far as one can see the matter does not seem to have progressed that much."

 

Force them to flame trolls until they die.

 

Fighting Terrorism

Unjust, unwise, unAmerican
The Economist

Thursday 10 July 2003

America's plan to set up military commissions for the trials of terrorist suspects is a big mistake

You are taken prisoner in Afghanistan, bound and gagged, flown to the other side of the world and then imprisoned for months in solitary confinement punctuated by interrogations during which you have no legal advice. Finally, you are told what is to be your fate: a trial before a panel of military officers. Your defence lawyer will also be a military officer, and anything you say to him can be recorded. Your trial might be held in secret. You might not be told all the evidence against you. You might be sentenced to death. If you are convicted, you can appeal, but only to yet another panel of military officers. Your ultimate right of appeal is not to a judge but to politicians who have already called everyone in the prison where you are held “killers” and the “worst of the worst”. Even if you are acquitted, or if your appeal against conviction succeeds, you might not go free. Instead you could be returned to your cell and held indefinitely as an “enemy combatant”.

Sad to say, that is America's latest innovation in its war against terrorism: justice by “military commission”. Over-reaction to the scourge of terrorism is nothing new, even in established democracies. The British “interned” Catholics in Northern Ireland without trial; Israel still bulldozes the homes of families of suicide bombers. Given the barbarism of September 11th, it is not surprising that America should demand retribution—particularly against people caught fighting for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

This newspaper firmly supported George Bush's battles against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We also believe that in some areas, such as domestic intelligence gathering (see article), his government should nudge the line between liberty and security towards the latter. But the military commissions the Bush administration has set up to try al-Qaeda suspects are still wrong—illiberal, unjust and likely to be counter-productive for the war against terrorism.

A Question of Integrity

The day before America's Independence Day celebrations last week, the Pentagon quietly announced that Mr Bush had identified six “enemy combatants” as eligible for trials before military commissions, which are to be set up outside America's civilian and military court systems. The Pentagon did not release the names of the accused, or any charges against them, but the families of two British prisoners and one Australian held at the American naval base at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay were told by their governments that their sons were among the six deemed eligible for trial.

The Australian government's failure to protest about this has caused protests (see article). British ministers have expressed “strong reservations” about the commissions. In the past, they have asked for British citizens caught in Afghanistan to be sent home for trial in British courts—just as Mr Bush allowed John Walker Lindh, a (white, middle-class Californian) member of the Taliban, to be tried in American courts.

American officials insist that the commissions will provide fair trials. The regulations published by the Pentagon stipulate that the accused will be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he cannot be compelled to testify against himself, and that the trials should be open to the press and public if possible.

The problem is that every procedural privilege the defendant is awarded in the regulations is provisional, a gift of the panel which is judging him. The regulations explicitly deny him any enforceable rights of the sort that criminal defendants won as long ago as the Middle Ages. Moreover, the planned commissions lack the one element indispensable to any genuinely fair proceeding—an independent judiciary, both for the trial itself and for any appeal against a conviction. The military officers sitting as judges belong to a single chain of command reporting to the secretary of defence and the president, who will designate any accused for trial before the commissions and will also hear any final appeals. For years, America has rightly condemned the use of similar military courts in other countries for denying due process.

Why dispense with such basic rules of justice? Mr Bush's officials say they must balance the demand for fair trials with the need to gather intelligence to fend off further terrorist attacks. Nobody denies that fighting terrorism puts justice systems under extraordinary strain. But this dilemma has frequently been faced by others without resorting to military trials. The established procedure is to pass special anti-terrorism laws, altering trial rules somewhat to handle terrorist cases, but not abandoning established court systems, and trying to retain the basic rights of those accused as far as possible. Britain and Spain have done this. There is no reason why America's own civilian courts, which have successfully tried plenty of domestic and foreign terrorists (including Mr Lindh), could not be adapted to this purpose.

Since the 2001 attacks, the Bush administration has avoided America's own courts repeatedly. Soon after the attacks, Mr Bush issued his executive order permitting military commissions outside the purview of the courts. Since then, his administration has imprisoned some 680 people at Guantanamo Bay precisely because it believed that the naval base, held on a perpetual lease, is outside the reach of anyone's courts, including America's. It has also claimed the right to arrest American citizens, even on American soil, as “enemy combatants” and to imprison them without charge until the war on terrorism is over. Appeals by civil libertarians to America's court system have been resisted at every stage.

Mr Bush could have asked Congress to pass new anti-terrorism laws. Instead, he is setting up a shadow court system outside the reach of either Congress or America's judiciary, and answerable only to himself. Such a system is the antithesis of the rule of law which the United States was founded to uphold. In a speech on July 4th, Mr Bush rightly noted that American ideals have been a beacon of hope to others around the world. In compromising those ideals in this matter, Mr Bush is not only dismaying America's friends but also blunting one of America's most powerful weapons against terrorism.

 

I agree that some of the security measures undertaken since 9/11 at least raise questions of balancing security against due process. I don't think the objections regarding the prisoners at Guantanamo reach that level however.

These men are not charged with crimes under the US criminal code. Thus the idea that they are somehow entitled to a trial in US Federal Court with all the due process guarantees that entails, does not impress me.

The other possible options are not very appealing. Returning them to the UK to stand trial is not reasonable for exactly the same reason they should not be charged in a domestic US court. The special UN war crimes tribunals have mostly been spectacular failures, with all the waste and abuse typical of anything the UN does. In any event they are not set up to handle hundreds of cases. Leaving these prisoners to the mercies of the various Afghan groups, such as the Northern Alliance, was probably not a good idea either. Some would have been summarily executed while others may have been able to buy their way out.

There is no reason the military tribunals cannot provide justice. If they ae good enough for US service men, they should be adequate for terrorist suspects caught more or less red-handed.

I find the British objections more than a little hypocritical. Without judging the reasonableness of their actions, I would note they took harsh measures for decades in Northern Ireland. Finally, the JOhn Walker Lindnn case was significantly different. He is a US citizen charged under the federal criminal code with taking up arms against his country. Such a case is appropriate for US court. It certainly had nothing to do with his race, as one of the articles above odiously implies.

 

evildoers ... eh .. do You mean specifically the army or do You ean the captives .... ?



ttrader

 

Good question... in this thread I refer to the captives, not to the soldiers carrying out American policy...

 

I wonder what the legal debates will be like as soon as the Bush crowd starts getting handed indictments for lying about WMD evidence. They won't be able to block those indictments, just like Cheney has run out of luck recently in avoiding energy-related indictments (a judge recently ruled that the white house can no longer protect cheney http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43102-2002Oct17).

I doubt they'll hang or even go to trial for the whole Iraq thing, but what will the effects be on foreign policy with the US??? It's clear to most of the world that "we" can no longer be trusted...but will our tremendous financial power be enough to keep us in the world arena???

And what about Blair??? He can't be protected like the Bush crowd can....I wonder if he will be the only one who will stand trial in the netherlands or belgium for the war...?

I feel really bad for Blair -- I think he had the best of intentions for his country by following the US into this war. He clearly knew that improved relations with the US would only be a good thing for his country, but I think he just got sucked into a vortex and couldn't get out...the poor bastard. :eek:

 

International Criminal Court

Historical introduction

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998, when 120 States participating in the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" adopted the Statute. This is the first ever permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

The Statute sets out the Court's jurisdiction, structure and functions and it provides for its entry into force 60 days after 60 States have ratified or acceded to it. The 60th instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary General on 11 April 2002, when 10 countries simultaneously deposited their instruments of ratification. Accordingly, the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. Anyone who commits any of the crimes under the Statute after this date will be liable for prosecution by the Court.

Seat

The seat of the Court is The Hague in The Netherlands. The Court will be temporarily housed at "de Arc" on the outskirts of The Hague before moving to its permanent premises at the Alexanderkazerne. It is envisaged that the permanent premises will be ready for occupation between 2007 and 2009.

Establishment

Even though the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, it will take some time before the Court begins its operations. A number of statutory measures and practical steps still have to be taken before the Court becomes operational. Whereas the two ad hoc Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda could be set up within the framework of the United Nations, the ICC will have to be set up as a completely new international organisation.

With the coming into force of the Rome Treaty, the Advance Team for the International Criminal Court began work on 1st July 2002. Its mandate ceased at the end of October.

The Team consisted of eight technical experts in, amongst other things, human resources, finance, building and facilities management, information technology, legal matters, and security. With the Host State, the Team was doing preparatory ground work to enable the Court to start recruiting and commence its basic operations when it formally begins its work.

In addition, the Advance Team acted as a custodian for all information addressed to the Court. Systems were put in place to allow the Team to take possession of such material, register it in accordance with international standards, and store it in a safe place until it can be given to the Prosecutor when he or she takes up office, which is expected to be early in 2003.

On 14 October 2002, the Director of the Division of Common Services appointed by the Assembly of States Parties took his office at the seat of the Court. Pending to the election of the Registrar, the Director will perform the functions of the Registrar.

Relationship with United Nations

The International Criminal Court is an independent international organisation. In accordance with article 2 of the Rome Statute, the relationship with the United Nations system is governed by an agreement that has been approved by the Assembly of States Parties and will be concluded by the President of the Court on its behalf.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=history

 

Am I voting then for both, first the army and then the captives or what (don't understand the poll, a little bit like Aerican presidential election )
?


ttrader