Liberty reigns
No Right Turn carries the news that the US Supreme Court has found the military tribunals planned for Guantanamo detainees violate both US and international law and are unfair (BBC report here, excerpts from decision here). It goes to show that while the US may from time to time deviate from its core values, at immense cost to itself and the world, the system established by some very wise men way back in the late 18th century can still work.
This further unravels the Bush administration's ill-thought and dangerous policy of suspending all normal rules of law in relation to Guantanamo detainees. The US has already released many of the detainees, people it had previously branded as dangerous terrorists. You might assume that after these releases they are really getting down to the hard core guys - but then you'd have to explain why David Hicks is still there.
It's hard to believe that some pundits who claim to love democracy and freedom will be disappointed.
Now, an apology. NZBC was down for a day or so ending about lunchtime yesterday. Some dufus had forgotten to renew the domain. Doh!
Update "He is not king": Probably the best report I've seen so far, from the Christian Science Monitor. There's a victory for process in the UK too.
Update 2: Interesting angle here suggesting the decision could have an impact on the wiretapping debate. More on this from Forbes (AP) here.
This further unravels the Bush administration's ill-thought and dangerous policy of suspending all normal rules of law in relation to Guantanamo detainees. The US has already released many of the detainees, people it had previously branded as dangerous terrorists. You might assume that after these releases they are really getting down to the hard core guys - but then you'd have to explain why David Hicks is still there.
It's hard to believe that some pundits who claim to love democracy and freedom will be disappointed.
Now, an apology. NZBC was down for a day or so ending about lunchtime yesterday. Some dufus had forgotten to renew the domain. Doh!
Update "He is not king": Probably the best report I've seen so far, from the Christian Science Monitor. There's a victory for process in the UK too.
Update 2: Interesting angle here suggesting the decision could have an impact on the wiretapping debate. More on this from Forbes (AP) here.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 10:29 AM
8 Comments:
Wrong, as is the reporting your post is based on.
Here's a more accurate sumnation of the situation: You are a traitor to the west. You want Al Qaeda and Taleban members to go free while their organisations are at war with the West, including New Zealand and particularly the New Zealand SAS. You ultimately do this for the most venal of motivations - to reduce political support for someone you regard as a political enemy.
"you'd have to explain why David Hicks is still there", simple enough - he fought for al-Qaeda.
If one considers him to be a lawful combatant, which is the whish of many liberals, then the Geneva Conventions apply and the US is quite entilted to detain him for the duration of hostilities. And since we look to be fighting al-Qaeda for a while, liberals should not be wanting Hicks released.
Those that oppose GITMO might want to provide another solution to the problem of enemy combatants, ie the likes of al-Qaeda, which are not delt with under the Geneva Conventions.
I look forward to seeing a similar headline now that the Libertarianz are taking Liar-bour to court for buying the election with taxpayers' money.
After all, we cannot have as government rorting their way back into power as Dear Leader did with those pledge cards.
Perhaps New Zealand's democratic and judicial processes will hold up after all, having being found wanting earlier.
And here's soemthing from the Counterterrorism blog, courtesy of Michelle Malkin.
"The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. The Administration and its allies will release plenty of information on the terrorist acts committed by the detainees for which they were detained (see this great ABC News interview with the Gitmo warden). They will also release information about those terrorist acts committed by Gitmo prisoners after they were released. They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people. The Pentagon will continue to release a small number of detainees as circumstances allow. The bill will pass easily and quickly. And if the Supremes invalidate that law, we'll see another legislative response, and another, until they get it right. Just watch."
Much of what needs to be said about Guantanamo was said here: www.counterpunch.org/waite1.html, as long ago as 2002, by someone who actually understands the difference between justice and revenge.
Golly. You go out to lunch and what happens?
Far be it from me to argue with authorities like Michelle Malkin, but here's what just happened:
The US president overstepped his Consitutional powers and got slapped down by the Supreme Court. He now has to either go back to Congress to get authority to create military tribunals that the court has already declared do not meet normal standards of justice or he has to allow trial by courts martial or civil court.
Meanwhile the US electorate is wondering why they elected a total dufus as President.
Our Tel was quite prescient, Chris:
"It alarms me greatly that the prisoners' status seems to have been determined almost exclusively by the US president and his advisers. Their status should be determined by an independent tribunal. The US seems to be making up the rules as it goes along. First, it said that the appalling acts of terrorism in New York and Washington were acts of war; now it is saying that these captives are not in fact prisoners of war, that they are unlawful combatants. An independent tribunal should establish precisely what they are."
In the end it's about whether you want to sell your freedom down the river in the cause of security. I'll take the freedom our forefathers fought so hard for every time. If we are not prepared to risk the odd bombing for our freedom we don't bloody well deserve it.
This terrorist threat to "The West" has been totally exaggerated from the beginning. Most Palestinians want a free Palestine, Afghanis a free Afghanistan, Iraqis a free Iraq. Denial of and interference with those freedoms has brought out the occasional acts of desperation which terrorise us.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home