Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, June 20, 2005 One of my longstanding beefs with the Bush administration has been their utter ineptitude at presenting their own case. Today, via Michelle Malkin, we find evidence that the ineptitude has plumbed new depths. Just days after Bill Clinton, in a fair and cogent analysis of the problem, notes that Gitmo "either needs to be closed down or cleaned up", we find that—oh did we forget to mention this—the required POW status Tribunals have been going on... The Department of Defense, working through the National Security Council interagency process, established procedures that would provide appropriate legal process to these detainees, procedures that go beyond what is required even under the Geneva Conventions. These included combatant status review tribunals to confirm that, in fact, each individual is, in fact, an unlawful enemy combatant. Every detainee currently at Guantanamo has received such a hearing. As a result, some 38 individuals were released.Something you think they might have mentioned these past few years. Repeatedly. In Hamdan V Rumsfeld, the Judge ruled that "the government must convene a competent tribunal (or address a competent tribunal already convened) and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions. Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has an must be accorded the full protections of a prisoner-of-war." A description of the CSRT (combatant status review tribunal) procedures can be read here. More here. It seems to me to be generally consistent with Geneva Convention requirements, albeit a couple years too late and lacking in some transparency I'd like to see. Others disagree, believing "the new hearings fail to satisfy the Supreme Court’s rulings, and are otherwise inadequate to meet basic requirements of national and international law". Well, perhaps. But the interesting thing is that tribunals have occurred, even as critics demanded due process for the prisoners. All of which leaves me wondering whether we need (1) much better administration PR, (2) more transparency at Guantanamo Bay and other US military prisons, or (3) both (1) and (2). It occurs to me that many Republicans think we just need more of (1), while Democrats are most anxious for (2). For my part, I'd be happiest if the Bush administration would be more transparent about abiding by the law...and then trumpet it loudly, at every opportunity. That might require some actual transparency at military prisons, but so long as we're abiding by the law, then we have no reason to cloak our military prisons from international observation. Indeed, if we are fulfilling our Geneva Convention obligations, then we must provide that transparency. All of which is not a problem if we have nothing to hide. I mean, we do have nothing to hide, right? |
||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
