Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UN expert warns over Cuban base
Guardian ^ | 3/13/03

Posted on 03/12/2003 11:50:53 PM PST by kattracks

A US court ruling that suspected Taliban and al-Qaida fighters held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba have no right to hearings in American courts could set a dangerous precedent, a UN expert said yesterday.

The UN special expert on the independence of judges and lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, said the prisoners' detention without trial offended against the first principle of the rule of law.

On Tuesday, the appeal court in the District of Columbia ruled that the men had no legal rights in the US. It was a victory for the Bush administration, which plans to hold the men indefinitely for interrogation, and then either send them home or put them before military tribunals.

If the 650 Guantanamo inmates were detained subject to the US system, they would have access to lawyers and could only be held for a short time before being charged or released.

Mr Cumaraswamy said the ruling "appears to imply that a government of a sovereign state could lease a piece of land from a neighbouring state, set up a detention camp, fully operate and control it, arrest suspects of terrorism from other jurisdictions, send them to this camp, and deny them their legal rights - including principles of due process generally granted to its own citizens - on the grounds that the camp is physically outside its jurisdiction".

"The war on terrorism cannot possibly be won by denial of legal rights, including fundamental principles of due process of those merely suspected of terrorism," Mr Cumaraswamy said.

AP, Geneva



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
...arrest suspects of terrorism from other jurisdictions

The prisoners on Guantanamo are not "suspects of terrorism". They are unlawful combatants.

1 posted on 03/12/2003 11:50:53 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
They were taken off the battlefield during combat. Suspects? Nice try!

Seriously, the United Nations is acting punch drunk these days.

2 posted on 03/12/2003 11:56:58 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Are you going Freeps Ahoy! Don't miss the boat. Er ship...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Is everyone at the UN stoned or just stupid?
3 posted on 03/12/2003 11:59:35 PM PST by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"The war on terrorism cannot possibly be won by denial of legal rights, including fundamental principles of due process of those merely suspected of terrorism."

Where was Al Queda's "due process" for the thousands of innocent civilians they murdered on 9/11? These Islamofascist cowards don't wage war in the name of any country, they are simply illegal combatants, if they didn't want to be locked up they shouldn't have fought us.

The irony is that the prisoners in Cuba are treated 100000 times better than they deserve.

One more reason to get out of the UN...

4 posted on 03/13/2003 12:00:07 AM PST by EaglesUpForever (boycott French and German products)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Since this Mr Cumaraswamy appears incapable of recognizing the elementary facts that these individuals are not only not American citizens, but are instead enemy combatants, nothing he has to say on the matter is worth considering.
5 posted on 03/13/2003 12:00:48 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
As for no legal rights in the US, they're not in the US, have never been in the US, and have no claim on the US.

They're strictly a military matter.

Were they lawful combatants, they'd be held as POWs for the duration of the war.
6 posted on 03/13/2003 12:05:25 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
I believe that these ILLEGAL combatants would have no protection under the US Constitution even if they were physically located within the territory of the United States.

I think the reason they are held outside the Unteid States is for their own good. Most Americans would want tear them limb from limb if given half a chance.
7 posted on 03/13/2003 12:13:05 AM PST by John Valentine (Writing from downtown Seoul, keeping an eye on the hills to the north.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
German prisoners were held without trial during WWII.

Our enemies are offended that we will not let our enemies use the protections of our legal system in their attempts to destroy us.
8 posted on 03/13/2003 12:16:38 AM PST by donmeaker (Time is Relative, at least in my family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Yeah, can we KILL OFF THE U.N, already, please?

I am SO tired of this pathetic, broken excuse for an institution.
9 posted on 03/13/2003 12:18:21 AM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: walden

10 posted on 03/13/2003 12:23:32 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Are you going Freeps Ahoy! Don't miss the boat. Er ship...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"The war on terrorism cannot possibly be won by denial of legal rights,

It's not- it will be won by denial of life !

Visualize bras

Breathe
relax
aim
squeeze

11 posted on 03/13/2003 12:28:18 AM PST by freepersup (And this expectation will not disappoint us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
United Nations, member, Axis of Evil since WWII.
12 posted on 03/13/2003 12:35:25 AM PST by 11B3 (.308 holes make invisible souls. Belt fed liberal eraser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Let Uncle Sam decide that!!


13 posted on 03/13/2003 12:47:31 AM PST by Nitro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The first principle rule of law? What does this hack consider that to be?

"...that man should pursue his own happiness." This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore the law of nature forbids it."

"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding all over the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority,mediately or immediately, from the original."

"But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering, what method will tend most effectually to our own substantial happiness."

There's the problem: The UN is looking to its own happiness; it wants to be king of the world, and it's willing to imperil the welfare of other people to gain supremacy over all nations in matters of law and justice. They don't give a whit about the treatment of the terrorists; it's only important that the UN is in charge of their fate. (mebbe they'll carve a chunk out of Austrailia for a Wahhabi State. "They need a sense of participation.")

These modern-day pirates have no national affiliation but that which is an accident of birth; they have chosen to operate outside the constraints of any law of nations, and they are in violation of the natural law.

Does the UN wish to become their sovereign? Yes. In the absence of other "citizens", they'll take these pirates to play with, and take from that action a token of legitimacy....it's all they got.....they'll use it.

The prisoners should be drained of information useful to us, then hung before the world as an example. That action, reasonable people will agree, will tend most effectually to our own substantial happiness. It's a matter of our life and death. And only we have the power and resolve to do the harsh, but reasonable, right thing.

14 posted on 03/13/2003 1:38:01 AM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
They should be worried about the suspects held in Saddam's camps. What precedent is the UN setting here?
15 posted on 03/13/2003 3:47:53 AM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"A ruling that al-Qaida fighters ...have no right to hearings in American courts could set a dangerous precedent."

Well, when you join the terrorists, you must accept that you are putting yourself in danger.

16 posted on 03/13/2003 4:40:35 AM PST by theDentist (So..... This is Virginia..... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson