Supreme Court to Hear Guantanamo Appeals

It's about time:

The Supreme Court will hear its first cases arising from
the government's anti-terrorism campaign following the Sept. 11
attacks, agreeing Monday to consider whether foreigners held at a U.S.
Navy base in Cuba should have access to American courts. The appeals
came from British, Australian and Kuwaiti citizens held with more than
600 others suspected of being Taliban or al-Qaida foot soldiers. The
court combined the appeals and will hear the consolidated case sometime
next year.
"The United States has created a prison on Guantanamo Bay that operates
entirely outside the law," lawyers for British and Australian detainees
argued in asking the high court to take the case. "Within the walls of
this prison, foreign nationals may be held indefinitely, without
charges or evidence of wrongdoing, without access to family, friends or
legal counsel, and with no opportunity to establish their innocence,"
they maintained.
The men whose names are on that case do not even know about the
lawsuit, lawyers from the New York-based Center for Constitutional
Rights told the court.

While we're on the topic, here's a bit about life in a Guantanamo cell:

Human Rights Watch described the 1.8m by 2.4m open-sided
wire cells in which the men are being held as "a scandal". There was
also concern that the detainees were seen handcuffed, blindfolded and
masked. Later images showed them being manacled and clamped into leg
irons on trolleys to be wheeled to interrogation huts. The US says
these restraints are only used during transit. They also say that with
three meals a day, medical care and pens to write home with, the
prisoners are living in better conditions than they did before they
were captured.

I hate to be a stickler about this but if conditions are so much better
than before they were captured, why do the detainees keep trying to kill themselves?

The
media has reported 32 suicide attempts by detainees in the past year.
On Oct. 8, according to an Associated Press story, Richard Bourke, an
Australian lawyer representing a few Guant�namo detainees, told
Australian radio that U.S. military officials were using "good,
old-fashioned torture" to force confessions out of prisoners. Bourke
said his assertions are based on reports leaked by U.S. military
personnel and from descriptions by some detainees that have been
released.
"One of the detainees had described being taken out and tied to a post
and having rubber bullets fired at them," Bourke reported. "They were
being made to kneel cruciform in the sun until they collapsed."

From the same excellent IHT article:

Both Afghanistan and the United States signed the Geneva
conventions. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention requires
countries at war to grant POW status to all captured members of a
government's regular armed forces - whether the government is
diplomatically recognized or not. Thus, the Third Geneva Convention
requires the United States to grant POW status to all captured Taliban
soldiers who were members of Afghanistan's armed forces.
POW status means a captive has due process rights. POWs accused of war
crimes must, according to the Geneva conventions, be tried before "the
same courts according to the same procedures as in the case of members
of the armed forces of the Detaining Power" - meaning military courts.
The White House fact sheet on the status of detainees at Guant�namo
attempts to wheedle around the Third Geneva Convention. It states, in
part: "Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate
Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the
President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the
Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the
Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs."
Bush administration officials have also asserted that "regular armed
forces" means having a responsible command, wearing fixed insignia,
carrying arms openly, and conducting operations in accordance to the
laws of war - therefore, the Taliban do not qualify. Factually, Article
4 of the Third Geneva Convention contains no such requirements.
Bush administration officials have also asserted that "regular armed
forces" means having a responsible command, wearing fixed insignia,
carrying arms openly, and conducting operations in accordance to the
laws of war - therefore, the Taliban do not qualify. Factually, Article
4 of the Third Geneva Convention contains no such requirements.

Not quite Club Med, is it?

Posted by flow Frazao on November 10, 2003 at 10:53 AM | Permalink