Okay, so, I realize I may be a little late to the party on this one, but I was just listening to this thing on the radio about the hunger strike at Guantanamo. And I thought I heard the reporter say something about how some of the detainees had been held for eleven years without a trial.
Eleven years.
"That can't be right," I thought. A little on-line digging did not reveal the eleven-year figure, but it did show that Guantanamo opened in 2002, eleven years ago. And that the prisoners are being held there without even being charged with anything. FOR YEARS.
And nobody even knows how many people are in there. Or who they are.
Am ... am I the only one who finds this a little ... troubling?
Look. Some, if not most, of them are terrorists. Bad guys. I get that. But unless and until the legal system can come up with enough evidence against them to bring them to trial, produce some concrete charges, how on earth can they be held for years and years and years? How is that okay?
I'm really hoping one of you guys can explain this to me, 'cause I ain't getting it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I recommend a book by David Cole & Jules Lobel, Less Safe, Less Free: Why America is Losing the War on Terror (New York: New Press 2007). David's a constitutional law prof who has tried (with some success) to undo the harm to OUR legal system that Guantanamo is doing. The problem is that these guys (who are a mix of people -- some are badass, some are kids, some are just people who looked like another guy that happened to be driving down the street at the wrong time) -- have all been held without charge and tortured. If they weren't bad asses before, they sure as hell are now and with good reason. So they can't turn them loose. And you can't try them because evidence produced under such coercive (and torturous) conditions are "fruits of the poisonous tree" -- no court in the US can accept it as valid. (Hell, no court in 15th century England could accept it as valid.) So we are stuck with a big illegal screwup on our hands and it's actively damaging our own legal system by in essence making the President and a few other guys the deciders of who gets this special form of injustice practiced on them.
- bridgett
You are really really late to the due process party.
But it's okay because they aren't going anywhere
I was going to say almost the exact same thing as Bridgett, especially the part about if they weren't terrorists before, they are now. At least one of them was 11 years old when incarcerated. They have released a few over the years that apparently weren't involved in any terrorist activities before, and in almost every case, once out, they joined terrorist organizations. I don't blame them.
Ask Cheney about it. I hate that man, and I rarely use the word hate.
I'm reminded of that scene in The West Wing when someone says to the Chief of Staff, "WAR is a war crime." Yes it's unconstitutional and a crime. I don't remember such sins during the War on Poverty or War on Drugs (at least none that I heard of.) But, playing Devil's advocate here, some say the constitution only applies to American citizens, everyone else is an enemy. That makes my skin crawl, but whatever. I've never been in a war.
From the dark side, the reason they are there is precisely for the reason that it is not U.S. soil. In my opinion the reason for not wanting them in U.S. courts is that the government does not want the evidence against them made public. I am not saying right or wrong here, but I do not believe the majority of people have the stomach for putting these people on trial. So it is military justice. Also, there is the thought that Gitmo is the only place that the detainees cannot be aided in an escape. Or attacked and used as a suicide bombing.
Guys, thanks for all of your insight. I'm trying to digest all of this ... I appreciate your help. I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the drawer.
I mean, the rules are the rules, right? Except, evidently, in times of terrorism, when then the rules are flexible? But, like the queen said, "due process of law." That still applies, right? I mean, shouldn't it?
I don't feel comfortable with my own government right now. That's kind of ... squirmy.
You know we have the right to free assembly ... unless you're a Nazi. The Nazi party was outlawed in '45. I guess wars trump the constitution.
So ... Ku Klux Klanners can assemble, but Nazis can't? THAT makes sense. *rolls eyes*
Post a Comment