Since 9/11, the United States has held prisoners from Iraq, Afghanistan and other terror training sites at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The number of prisoners was over 700 at its highest point and now is just over 400. Many opponents of the Bush Administration in the United States and around the world believe that the continued detention of the Gitmo detainees is immoral and illegal under US and international law.
Much of the opposition regarding US law focuses on the lack of habeas corpus rights for detainees. Habeas corpus is the right to have a prisoner appear before the court and be shown why he is detained.
There are several problems with applying habeas corpus rights to the Gitmo detainees. They are not US citizens. They were not captured in the United States. They are not prisoners of civilian authorities. The detainees were captured by the US or allied military forces in a foreign country while they were fighting a war even though they were not part of an organized military unit and were not wearing military uniforms. This means that they are not subject to US civilian law and do not have the rights of US citizens. The few detainees who are US citizens would have rights under US law, especially those captured within the US.
Treatment of prisoners-of-war is regulated by the Geneva Convention. During WWII, large numbers of German and Italian prisoners were held in prison camps in the United States. None of these prisoners was given habeas corpus rights and all were held prisoner until the end of the war. Those who were found to be guilty of war crimes were given military trials.
Gitmo detainees do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention, however. Because the detainees were not part of organized military units, they would only be considered POWs in very limited circumstances. The Convention does state that “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units” are lawful combatants “provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" (Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention).
Many of the Gitmo detainees were members of paramilitary groups prior to the Coalition invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Many others later became members of militia or terrorist groups much later and had time to organize. This would exclude them from POW status under the Geneva Convention. Articles 5 and 42 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, state that unlawful combatants may be deprived of communication and interned. They may also be tried for their actions.
Some Gitmo prisoners have been paroled and released. Of these, several have been confirmed to have returned to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. If these parolees are recaptured, their rights under the Geneva Convention are forfeited.
Gitmo prisoners have alleged that while they were US prisoners they were subjected to various methods of torture and harassment. The Geneva Convention stipulates that all prisoners, whether they are lawful or unlawful combatants, should be treated humanely. Torture is also illegal under US law and any Americans who torture prisoners can be and are being prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It must be understood that captured Al Qaeda training manuals instruct captured to terrorists to complain of torture and mistreatment and engage in hunger strikes in order to win propaganda victories in the media. We should understand that when detainees claim they were tortured by US authorities, they are doing exactly as they were taught in the terrorist training camps.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2004) that the detention of unlawful combatants is legal, but that detainees can challenge their detentions. The Supreme Court also found in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2006) that the Bush Administration’s first attempt at military tribunals for the detainees was uncontitutional and that the Geneval Convention article pertaining to civil wars applied. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006 to authorize military tribunals for the detainees. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Al Odah vs. United States which seeks to apply habeas corpus rights to the detainees and give federal, not military, courts jurisdiction.
The problem with Guantanamo is the perception, due to Al Qaeda propaganda disseminated through the western media, that the detainees are innocent people who are being detained and tortured without regard to US and international law. This is not true. The US detention of prisoners at Guantanamo without habeas corpus rights is legal under US and international law. The prisoners at Guantanamo are dangerous terrorists who would return to combat against US troops if they were released. It is important to keep these prisoners confined until they no longer present a danger to the United States or its allies.
The best solution seems to be to close the prison facility at Guantanamo and house the prisoners at a less publicized location. The prisoners should also face military tribunals to confirm the danger that they pose. The results of the tribunals and the evidence against the detainees should be made public to the maximum extent possible given national security considerations. Shining a light on the process and showing the world how dangerous these terrorists really are can only help the United States retain the moral high ground necessary to win the war on terror.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp
http://www.appstate.edu/~hudnallac/pow.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0303/15.html
Showing posts with label united states. Show all posts
Showing posts with label united states. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The US Military and Relief Efforts
The primary mission of the United States armed forces is to defend the security and interests of the United States around the world. Since its inception, the US Army, followed by the Navy, Marines, and Air Force have fought for freedom around the world. Hundreds of thousands of American men and boys have died in remote corners of the world to defend their homes and the freedom of people that they have never seen.
The capabilities of the military do not end with searching out and destroying the enemies of freedom and justice, however. The same dedication and skill combined with state of the art military hardware make the military a valuable resource when it comes to aiding people in need, regardless of whether their crisis is the result of a natural disaster or a war.
In our own country, the National Guard has long been a valuable resource in domestic natural disasters. Countless victims of hurricanes and tornados have received assistance from the National Guard. It is not unusual to see National Guardsmen stacking sandbags along swollen creeks and rivers as floodwaters rise. Guard helicopters pluck survivors from the ocean and stranded hikers from backcountry trails. The National Guard has become so synonymous with disaster relief that many seem to have forgotten that it is primarily a part of the armed forces and not a charity group.
Around the world, the US military has aided numerous nations following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and famines. US Air Force cargo planes routinely airlift relief supplies and food around the world on short notice. One of the largest and most famous instances of US military humanitarian assistance is the Indonesian tsunami of 2004. Countries around the world contributed to the relief efforts, but only the US military had the ships, airplanes, and helicopters available to actually go to areas where virtually all infrastructure was destroyed.
The US military can also be effective in assisting countries recovering from war. US forces under the Marshall Plan were largely responsible for rebuilding the parts of the world devastated by World War II. This included aiding millions of people displaced and left homeless by the war.
Relief efforts can be done by the military itself or with the help of nonmilitary relief agencies. Many of these areas are still somewhat dangerous and relief agencies often rely on the military for security. Additionally, the military has the manpower and equipment to finish construction projects rapidly. US military efforts to rebuild and improve Iraqi schools and hospitals have been largely ignored by the media. A major problem in the past has been that insurgent and militia groups moved in behind US forces and often destroyed their work.
The US strategy in Iraq under General Petraeus is one of working with the Iraqi civilians. US forces now clear terrorists from an area and then stay there to keep them away. This strategy can work easily alongside aid groups who want to help Iraqi civilians as well. Aid groups and armies have worked together in the past in war torn countries such as Bosnia and Kosovo.
When considering US military assistance to war torn countries, it must be remembered that the top priority of the US military must remain the national security of the United States. The United States does not have the resources to help victims of every war and disaster around the world. The US must target its efforts to areas of greatest need and areas of its national interest.
To truly help the people of war torn countries, the most important thing is to stop the fighting. We must also remember that true peace is not merely the absence of fighting, but requires freedom and justice. The best way to ensure that the people can get the help they need is to defeat forces that thrive on terror, hunger, fear, and intimidation. When that happens, relief agencies will be able to work without fear of attack by terrorists and insurgents, and the US military will be able to devote more resources to rebuilding, rather than hunting terrorists.
The capabilities of the military do not end with searching out and destroying the enemies of freedom and justice, however. The same dedication and skill combined with state of the art military hardware make the military a valuable resource when it comes to aiding people in need, regardless of whether their crisis is the result of a natural disaster or a war.
In our own country, the National Guard has long been a valuable resource in domestic natural disasters. Countless victims of hurricanes and tornados have received assistance from the National Guard. It is not unusual to see National Guardsmen stacking sandbags along swollen creeks and rivers as floodwaters rise. Guard helicopters pluck survivors from the ocean and stranded hikers from backcountry trails. The National Guard has become so synonymous with disaster relief that many seem to have forgotten that it is primarily a part of the armed forces and not a charity group.
Around the world, the US military has aided numerous nations following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and famines. US Air Force cargo planes routinely airlift relief supplies and food around the world on short notice. One of the largest and most famous instances of US military humanitarian assistance is the Indonesian tsunami of 2004. Countries around the world contributed to the relief efforts, but only the US military had the ships, airplanes, and helicopters available to actually go to areas where virtually all infrastructure was destroyed.
The US military can also be effective in assisting countries recovering from war. US forces under the Marshall Plan were largely responsible for rebuilding the parts of the world devastated by World War II. This included aiding millions of people displaced and left homeless by the war.
Relief efforts can be done by the military itself or with the help of nonmilitary relief agencies. Many of these areas are still somewhat dangerous and relief agencies often rely on the military for security. Additionally, the military has the manpower and equipment to finish construction projects rapidly. US military efforts to rebuild and improve Iraqi schools and hospitals have been largely ignored by the media. A major problem in the past has been that insurgent and militia groups moved in behind US forces and often destroyed their work.
The US strategy in Iraq under General Petraeus is one of working with the Iraqi civilians. US forces now clear terrorists from an area and then stay there to keep them away. This strategy can work easily alongside aid groups who want to help Iraqi civilians as well. Aid groups and armies have worked together in the past in war torn countries such as Bosnia and Kosovo.
When considering US military assistance to war torn countries, it must be remembered that the top priority of the US military must remain the national security of the United States. The United States does not have the resources to help victims of every war and disaster around the world. The US must target its efforts to areas of greatest need and areas of its national interest.
To truly help the people of war torn countries, the most important thing is to stop the fighting. We must also remember that true peace is not merely the absence of fighting, but requires freedom and justice. The best way to ensure that the people can get the help they need is to defeat forces that thrive on terror, hunger, fear, and intimidation. When that happens, relief agencies will be able to work without fear of attack by terrorists and insurgents, and the US military will be able to devote more resources to rebuilding, rather than hunting terrorists.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Do Human Rights Still Exist in the US?
Human rights most definitely exist in the United States. Although it has become fashionable to decry alleged abuses of power by the government, the fact is that the United States is still the home of freedom in the world. The fact that these people are free to make such arguments is proof of their fallacy.
Those who don't believe that the US is free should look at other countries. In the United States we are free to worship as we choose, but in the majority of Muslim nations it is illegal to convert from Islam to another religion. Our press is free to criticize our government, even if they reveal classified programs in wartime, while Russian journalists who criticize Vladimir Putin sometimes end up dead and Venezuelan journalists can be jailed for insulting President Hugo Chavez. Our opposition party frets about the government's ability to wiretap conversations with terrorists in other countries. In many nations, the government is able to wiretap at will with no oversight whatsoever.
Our government, even in wartime, gives due process to criminals and terrorists who are US citizens or are captured in the US. The opposition wants to extend these rights to fighters captured under arms in foreign countries. The Guantanamo detainees that are often cited by the left are more akin to prisoners of war than criminals. Did we extend habeas corpus and access to our court system to German and Japanese prisoners of war in WWII? Certainly not! And a key difference between the detainees and POWs is that the detainees are not part of an organized army with uniforms, but are civilian irregulars. As such, they are entitled to very few rights under the Geneva Convention and none whatsoever under the US Constitution.
The fact is that US history is rife with examples of the limitations on individual rights during times of war. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, spent money without Congressional authorization, and imprisoned thousands of Confederate sympathizers including members of the Maryland legislature. Lincoln's government even prosecuted members of the anti-war Copperhead faction of the Democrats for disloyalty.
Woodrow Wilson, remembered as the author of the League of Nations, passed some of the most repressive free speech laws in American history. The Espionage Act of 1917 basically made it illegal to criticize the US government or to voice opposition to US participation in WWI. The American Protective League became a volunteer secret police for the Justice Department that informed on dissenters. The Committee on Public Information fed the public propaganda and encouraged Americans to report disloyal sentiments, especially among German and Irish immigrants.
Franklin Roosevelt also had his share of civil rights restrictions during WWII. The internment of Japanese-Americans is common knowledge. Censorship was also common during the war years, along with heavy restrictions on freedom of the press. Before the war even started, FDR had rammed legislation through Congress to pack the Supreme Court with justices friendly to his New Deal programs, short-circuiting the Constitutional checks and balances on executive power.
In contrast, the current government of the US, in spite of an ongoing war and the threat of attacks on our homeland, has not suspended habeas corpus, arrested opposition party leaders, silenced dissent, or failed to abide by court decisions. Instead, any limitations on rights have been remarkably restrained and noninvasive. Those who believe that the US is becoming a dictatorship with heavy restrictions on the Bill of Rights should go back to their history books.
Those who don't believe that the US is free should look at other countries. In the United States we are free to worship as we choose, but in the majority of Muslim nations it is illegal to convert from Islam to another religion. Our press is free to criticize our government, even if they reveal classified programs in wartime, while Russian journalists who criticize Vladimir Putin sometimes end up dead and Venezuelan journalists can be jailed for insulting President Hugo Chavez. Our opposition party frets about the government's ability to wiretap conversations with terrorists in other countries. In many nations, the government is able to wiretap at will with no oversight whatsoever.
Our government, even in wartime, gives due process to criminals and terrorists who are US citizens or are captured in the US. The opposition wants to extend these rights to fighters captured under arms in foreign countries. The Guantanamo detainees that are often cited by the left are more akin to prisoners of war than criminals. Did we extend habeas corpus and access to our court system to German and Japanese prisoners of war in WWII? Certainly not! And a key difference between the detainees and POWs is that the detainees are not part of an organized army with uniforms, but are civilian irregulars. As such, they are entitled to very few rights under the Geneva Convention and none whatsoever under the US Constitution.
The fact is that US history is rife with examples of the limitations on individual rights during times of war. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, spent money without Congressional authorization, and imprisoned thousands of Confederate sympathizers including members of the Maryland legislature. Lincoln's government even prosecuted members of the anti-war Copperhead faction of the Democrats for disloyalty.
Woodrow Wilson, remembered as the author of the League of Nations, passed some of the most repressive free speech laws in American history. The Espionage Act of 1917 basically made it illegal to criticize the US government or to voice opposition to US participation in WWI. The American Protective League became a volunteer secret police for the Justice Department that informed on dissenters. The Committee on Public Information fed the public propaganda and encouraged Americans to report disloyal sentiments, especially among German and Irish immigrants.
Franklin Roosevelt also had his share of civil rights restrictions during WWII. The internment of Japanese-Americans is common knowledge. Censorship was also common during the war years, along with heavy restrictions on freedom of the press. Before the war even started, FDR had rammed legislation through Congress to pack the Supreme Court with justices friendly to his New Deal programs, short-circuiting the Constitutional checks and balances on executive power.
In contrast, the current government of the US, in spite of an ongoing war and the threat of attacks on our homeland, has not suspended habeas corpus, arrested opposition party leaders, silenced dissent, or failed to abide by court decisions. Instead, any limitations on rights have been remarkably restrained and noninvasive. Those who believe that the US is becoming a dictatorship with heavy restrictions on the Bill of Rights should go back to their history books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)