And I am sorry that you connect the undisputed need for justice with the unjustified lack of judicial control and transparency in Gitmo. Fair trials for criminals are the basics of our western world... or shall I say "were"??
Sure, if they're American citizens or UNIFORMED soldiers.
If not a uniformed soldier, they fall under the wartime dealings with spies and 'undeclared combatants'.
Terrorists have no rights under the law.
Right there is your problem Michael. The people being held in Gitmo are there because they are TERRORISTS not CRIMINALS and there's a big difference. As a terrorist they have no right of due process.
We just happen to be highly compassionate people- so it does exist.
I think you have missed the discussion of Americas military capabilities.
Or don't they teach that at you little German high school?
Not criminals.. Captured on the battle field. Unlawful combatants.
Terrorists not jaw walkers.
There is your problem. They are NOT criminals. The modern Terrorists are not the same as the terrorist gangs Europe dealt with in the 1970s. The scope, organization and reach of the Al Qeda is more on the lines of a nation then an old style terrorist gang.Where the old terrorist gangs consisted of a few hundred members, Al Qeda has 10s of thousands. Were EU terrorists had target limited to national political issues, Al Qeda is a GLOBAL organization with GLOBAL targets. Thus you have a situation where there is no nation state to declare war on but you are fighting an entity that has global reach and power.
Europe's problem is they are acting like ostriches. They feel they can just hid their head in the sand and pretend nothing has changed. Everything changed on 9-11. There has NEVER been a terrorist movement like Al Qeda. Europe COULD be part of coming up with the new structures and methods of dealing with them IF it would admit the problem exists.
For example, the terrorist were captured waging acts of war against the USA without being members of a uniformed military. What crime do we charge them with? What court do we try them in? Who has jurisdiction over them? If convicted, who punishes them? What rules of evidence govern their trial? Which legal structure do we try them under? Very easy to demand simplistic approaches such as "treat them like criminals" vastly harder to put that simplistic answer into practice.
Like the speedy trial of Milosevic at the Hague? It's no where near a fair trial, it's a political sham. I can understand why Bush wants no part of it, and why the EU signs on to it shows how manipulative self interest can be.
I think this is the core of your misunderstanding. Terrorists are not "criminals", in the legal sense of the word. In a war, you don't arrest your enemy and put them on trial. You fight them and kill them. You take them prisoner so they can't fight and kill you. You do your best to avoid killing innocent people and you hold your troops accountable for their actions, within the proper context.
No country in the world fights a war by giving their enemy criminal trials. Why do you expect the USA to do that? Do you honestly think that the right thing to do is arrest terrorists as we come across them and put them on the court docket for a criminal trial sometime in the next year or two? Any country that attempts to fight a war in this way will be destroyed quickly.
These terrorists are enemy combatants in a war, not criminals with the right to a trial. We cannot treat them as criminals and expect our nation to survive.