Where would innocent Gitmo Detainees go after trial?

2009-05-23 18:57:55

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6849|San Diego, CA, USA

NYTimes wrote:
He said there would be no danger in transferring detainees to “highly secure prisons” in this country, and pledged to seek trials for many in civilianor military courts. But he also said he would move to “construct a legitimate legal framework” to justify the detention of dangerous terrorism suspects who could not be tried or released, a proposal that is creating unease among human rights advocates who are among his staunchest backers.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/po … .html?_r=1

So if Gitmo detainees are found innocent by these cvilian or military courts where would they go if their country of orgin won't let them back into their own country?

2009-05-23 19:03:49

#2

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6706|North Carolina

I suppose we'd have to take care of them. It's not gonna be pretty.

2009-05-23 19:08:57

#3

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6856

They'd have to seek asylum in another country or America would have to pick up the tab.

2009-05-23 19:30:48

#4

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7017

they will probably end up on a reality show with Blago and Danny Bonaduce...

Love is the answer

2009-05-23 20:43:47

#5

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6484|Ireland

Disneyland!

2009-05-23 21:27:51

#6

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6902|132 and Bush

Cuba

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-05-23 21:36:27

#7

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6976|Canberra, AUS

If they're innocent, who cares?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-05-23 21:46:43

#8

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7069

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
they will probably end up on a reality show with Blago and Danny Bonaduce...

or One Tree Hill

2009-05-23 22:07:19

#9

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5912|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Harmor wrote:
NYTimes wrote:
He said there would be no danger in transferring detainees to “highly secure prisons” in this country, and pledged to seek trials for many in civilianor military courts. But he also said he would move to “construct a legitimate legal framework” to justify the detention of dangerous terrorism suspects who could not be tried or released, a proposal that is creating unease among human rights advocates who are among his staunchest backers.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/po … .html?_r=1

So if Gitmo detainees are found innocent by these cvilian or military courts where would they go if their country of orgin won't let them back into their own country?

They should not be able to be tried in civilian court, as they are not citizens, they were picked up fighting against the US military, so they should be tried in military court. They really do not deserve even this, as they fight under no uniform or flag, so they are nationless combatants who are not even protected under International laws.

They could have been executed, but that is not gonna happen.

Knowing our country and our current leadership, they will be given residence in the US, as well as some sort of payment for their troubles, maybe even granted citizenship. That would not surprise me in the least.

2009-05-24 00:36:25

#10

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6947

Spark wrote:
If they're innocent, who cares?

Innocent doesn't always mean innocent. It often means "not enough evidence".

2009-05-24 01:52:32

#11

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6454|what

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Spark wrote:
If they're innocent, who cares?
Innocent doesn't always mean innocent. It often means "not enough evidence".

You mean presumed innocent until proved otherwise "beyond any reasonable doubt".

2009-05-24 01:58:46

#12

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7063

Spark wrote:
If they're innocent, who cares?

well i wonder why they are fearful to go back to their home countries then? being innocent and all.

2009-05-24 02:27:41

#13

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6966|NT, like Mick Dundee

usmarine wrote:
Spark wrote:
If they're innocent, who cares?
well i wonder why they are fearful to go back to their home countries then? being innocent and all.

Wasn't the problem that the countries like Albania wouldn't take them back?

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-05-24 02:28:43

#14

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6976|Canberra, AUS

usmarine wrote:
Spark wrote:
If they're innocent, who cares?
well i wonder why they are fearful to go back to their home countries then? being innocent and all.

That's a matter for the government, not me (no, I don't know why)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-05-24 02:30:52

#15

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6950

BN wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
they will probably end up on a reality show with Blago and Danny Bonaduce...
or One Tree Hill

2009-05-24 05:31:38

#16

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6407|eXtreme to the maX

California - lets try cane toad theory on the gangs.

Fuck Israel

2009-05-24 06:10:35

#17

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6966|NT, like Mick Dundee

Dilbert_X wrote:
California - lets try cane toad theory on the gangs.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-05-25 04:47:19

#18

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6712|'Murka

Flecco wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Spark wrote:
If they're innocent, who cares?
well i wonder why they are fearful to go back to their home countries then? being innocent and all.
Wasn't the problem that the countries like Albania wouldn't take them back?

Makes you wonder why those countries wouldn't take them back if they're found "not guilty" (as opposed to "innocent"). I mean, many of those countries screamed that they should get due process and whatnot. In the future, if found not guilty: "Well...they've got it. They're yours now."

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-05-25 08:21:48

#19

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6882|SE London

nickb64 wrote:
Harmor wrote:
NYTimes wrote:
He said there would be no danger in transferring detainees to “highly secure prisons” in this country, and pledged to seek trials for many in civilianor military courts. But he also said he would move to “construct a legitimate legal framework” to justify the detention of dangerous terrorism suspects who could not be tried or released, a proposal that is creating unease among human rights advocates who are among his staunchest backers.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/po … .html?_r=1

So if Gitmo detainees are found innocent by these cvilian or military courts where would they go if their country of orgin won't let them back into their own country?
They should not be able to be tried in civilian court, as they are not citizens, they were picked up fighting against the US military, so they should be tried in military court. They really do not deserve even this, as they fight under no uniform or flag, so they are nationless combatants who are not even protected under International laws.

That's not true....

They may not have full protections under the Geneva Conventions, but they do have loads of rights protected by various international laws and treaties that the US is signed up to - such as the UDHR.

2009-05-25 08:24:09

#20

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7063

oh jeez. war supersedes stupid ass treaties that dont mean a damn thing and that only one side usually follows anyway. that crap was signed during a different era.

2009-05-25 08:24:44

#21

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6706|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
Flecco wrote:
usmarine wrote:

well i wonder why they are fearful to go back to their home countries then? being innocent and all.
Wasn't the problem that the countries like Albania wouldn't take them back?
Makes you wonder why those countries wouldn't take them back if they're found "not guilty" (as opposed to "innocent"). I mean, many of those countries screamed that they should get due process and whatnot. In the future, if found not guilty: "Well...they've got it. They're yours now."

Exactly. On the one hand, what we're doing isn't exactly reputable, but on the other hand, these other countries are full of shit.

Nobody really cares about these people when it comes to actually doing anything for them.

2009-05-25 08:26:19

#22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6706|North Carolina

usmarine wrote:
oh jeez. war supersedes stupid ass treaties that dont mean a damn thing and that only one side usually follows anyway. that crap was signed during a different era.

Well, one thing people seem to be missing is that not all of these people were picked up on the battlefield.

Some were the result of renditions.

Either way, we need to convict people before we keep them in prison for the long term.

2009-05-25 08:38:17

#23

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6882|SE London

usmarine wrote:
oh jeez. war supersedes stupid ass treaties that dont mean a damn thing and that only one side usually follows anyway. that crap was signed during a different era.

He's claiming they don't have rights under law - they clearly do.

Anyway, what war?

2009-05-25 08:40:13

#24

TSI: Cholera in the time of love; +247|6282|Toronto

usmarine wrote:
oh jeez. war supersedes stupid ass treaties that dont mean a damn thing and that only one side usually follows anyway. that crap was signed during a different era.

No. War doesn't supersede them. Have you heard of jus in bello? It stipulates that you have to conduct war under the principles of compassion and chivalry.

Violators of these constructs, such as the stateless combatants the US picked up, must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial" (Fourth Geneva Convention (in force 1950), article 5). As the ICTY demonstrated in the Celebici case, these people do exist. The US has set up "courts" to try them, but hasn't respected its own laws in doing so. Problem, no?

These people, although they've violated International Humanitarian Law, are still to be treated with respect. Worse still, the US has tortured many of them (illegal) and has not all are found guilty either. Essentially then, the US is violating the GC.

Now, for your second bit. These treaties form the backbone of international law. If the US unilaterally decides that they no longer apply because they don't want it to, then the US has sunk to the level of Al-Qaeda. "They did it so we did it" negates its moral standing. I don't think that would be in the US' interest.

You also say "different era". How so? Asymmetrical conflicts began in the 1950s, and that's part of the reason why they were signed. In fact, I'd say they are more relevant now than ever.

Last edited by TSI (2009-05-25 08:41:01)

I like pie.

2009-05-25 08:40:24

#25

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7063

Bertster7 wrote:
Anyway, what war?

battlefield 2

BF2S Forums Where would innocent Gitmo Detainees go after trial?

NYTimes wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Harmor wrote:

NYTimes wrote:

Spark wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

BN wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flecco wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Harmor wrote:

NYTimes wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Flecco wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Board footer