Senators want to know -- 'ghost' detainees

POSTED BY: Honey
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 21:22
VIEWED: 8255
PAGE 5 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5

RUE

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 7:45 PM

And right below that is says:

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

As I gather, since the US is a party to the Geneva Conventions it is obligated to follow them, BOTH as an actor in a war (declared or otherwise) AND as an occupying power, whether or not the other side is a signatory. Individuals caught in the act of, or under STRONG suspicion of sabotage may be held incommunicado to protect security, but are granted the other Geneva protections.

And I haven't specifically looked up whether or not it is legal to maintain UNLISTED prisoners, but that is clearly a different issue than being held incommunicado.

RUE

Sunday, August 1, 2004 9:22 PM

Here is a miscellaneous question sort-of along this line that I hope someone can help me out with: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/politics/31gitmo.html?th

Quote:
The Justice Department said in a federal court filing on Friday that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who were seeking to file petitions challenging their detentions were not entitled to access to their lawyers to do so.

Now I realize the Supreme Court Decision was pretty weak-kneed - it basically said you have to have a habeus corpus hearing but didn't specify the venue, process etc.
But even the GITMO honchos say only about 10% of the prisoners - oh, pardon me - detainees - have any credible link to terrorism.
So why is the Admin hanging on to the whole lot like a croc with it's jaws clamped shut?
I don't get it.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5