françois yves le gal

Guantánamo Bay: a human rights scandal

Despite a major international outcry and expert condemnation of US
government policy, hundreds of people of around 40 different nationalities
remain held without charge or trial at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay
in Cuba, without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits. Denied
their rights under international law and held in conditions which may amount
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the detainees face severe
psychological distress. There have been numerous suicide attempts.

Many of those held were captured during the international conflict in
Afghanistan, from where transfers to the Naval Base began in January 2002
under harsh conditions of transportation. Others were arrested elsewhere and
handed over to the US authorities. Sporadic transfers to, and releases from,
the base continue, but the precise numbers, identities and nationalities of
those held has never been made public.

"Remember, these are – the ones in Guantánamo Bay are killers. They don't
share the same values we share"
President Bush, 20 March 2002.

Presumption of guilt

None of the detainees have been granted prisoner of war status or brought
before a "competent tribunal" to determine his status, as required by
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. The US government refuses to
clarify their legal status, despite calls from the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) to do so. Instead, the US government labels them
"enemy combatants" or "terrorists", flouting their right to be presumed
innocent and illegally presuming justification for the denial of many of
their most basic human rights. Further information

US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has repeatedly referred to those
held at Guantánamo as "hard core, well-trained terrorists", and "among the
most dangerous, best-trained vicious killers on the face of the earth" and
has linked them directly to the attacks of 11 September 2001.Vice President
**** Cheney has also labelled the detainees as "the worst of a very bad lot.
They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans."
Despite these blanket allegations, several detainees have been released from
the base without charge. No compensation has been offered for the many
months they were illegally detained at Guantánamo.

In April 2002 the detainees were transferred from the small wire-mesh cages
at the temporary Camp X-Ray to the confines of Camp Delta where the majority
are held in maximum security blocks in cells even smaller than before,
sometimes for up to 24 hours a day and with very little out-of-cell exercise
time. The detainees are also subjected to repeated interrogations sometimes
for hours at a time and without the presence of a lawyer, raising fears that
statements may be extracted under coercion. The ICRC is the only
non-governmental organization allowed access to the detainees. Further
information

With no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and the
prospect of indefinite detention without trial in such conditions, the
potential psychological impact upon those held is a major concern. The ICRC
delegation has stated that it has observed a "worrying deterioration" in the
mental health of a large number of the detainees, and that their
psychological condition has become a "major problem". Efforts to obtain
justice in the US courts have so far been unsuccessful, with the courts
holding that they do not have jurisdiction over the detainees, because they
are foreign nationals held outside US sovereign territory

In November 2001, President Bush signed a Military Order establishing trials
by military commission which have the power to hand down death sentences and
against whose decisions there will be no right of appeal to any court.

Six foreign nationals held at Guantánamo have since been named as the first
to be tried under the Military Order, amid mounting international concern
that any trial before the military commissions would be intrinsically
unfair. In addition to the lack of right to appeal, the commissions will
lack independence and will restrict the right of defendants to choose their
own counsel and to an effective defence. The commissions will also accept a
lower standard of evidence than in ordinary courts. This could include
evidence extracted under torture or coercion. Lord Steyn, a judge from the
UK's highest court had said that such trials would be "a stain on United
States justice".

Whilst Amnesty International has been calling for, and would welcome,
releases of detainees from the base, there are also serious concerns that
some may face serious human rights violations, including torture and
execution, if returned to their countries. Such countries include China,
Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Amnesty International has called for the voluntary repatriation of all those
detained as combatants during the international armed conflict in
Afghanistan, as required under the Geneva Conventions, unless they are to be
charged with criminal offences or would face serious human rights abuses if
returned to their country. Any other of the Guantánamo detainees should be
charged with recognizably criminal offences and tried within a reasonable
time, or released, but not returned to any country where they would be at
risk of torture, execution or other serious human rights abuses."

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

miss elaine eos

Ok, I'll bite -- what the hell is "expert condemnation", and how do I
get a job doing it?! <G>

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
Lots of good cigar info, the ASC Birthday page, FAQs, vendors and more at
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/Cigars/>

miss elaine eos

A US Military base is not "US sovereign territory"? So, if someone were
to bomb the base, it would not be an attack on US sovereign territory?
Is it Cuban sovereign territory? Who's sovereign territory is it? If
nobody owns it, can I claim it?

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
Lots of good cigar info, the ASC Birthday page, FAQs, vendors and more at
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/Cigars/>

françois yves le gal

If you ask...

françois yves le gal

It's not when located outside the US of A.


Yes it is. It has been "leased" to the US of A.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3641899.stm

timl

In article <ufa2a05pevt3lsf4i8hbl5vd90tpdc6gqb@4ax.com>,
flegal@aingeal.com stated...


I love the USA!
--
TimL

dave hitt

Based on the questions they were asking, it looks like this is the
nit-pick The Supremes will be using to decide this case.

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass about any of them. Let them stay
there until they die of boredom.

The to American Citizen cases, OTOH, are important, and I'm watching
them closely. One was a citizen in name only - he left the country
when he was young and was captured on the battlefield fighting the US,
but the other has been held for two+ years on what appears to be
pretty scanty evidence. THAT I find very scary.

Dave Hitt
----
If it kills so many people, why can't they name three of them?
http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html

miss elaine eos

When someone steps into the French Embassy in the US, they are "in
French territory" or "on French soil" (so goes the urban legend, anyway
-- *I* always believed it!) Similarly, when one steps onto the US
Embassy in Japan, etc.

Is this part, at least, right?

Somehow, I got it into my head that military bases worked similarly.
When you're on a US Naval base in Germany, you're "in the U.S. of A.",
whether or you're civilian or military, US citizen or not.

Is *THIS* not the case?

So, ok -- we're leasing the land at Guatanamo Bay -- fine. But it IS a
US Military base, so are people who are there not "on U.S. soil"?

I don't mean to say this as a statement -- I'm asking because I don't
know.

Thanks!

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
Lots of good cigar info, the ASC Birthday page, FAQs, vendors and more at
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/Cigars/>

marc j. schneiderman

Didn't that group break up?
CigarBaron

marc j. schneiderman

Didn't that group break up?
CigarBaron