Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Guantanamo Bay Tribunals
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
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I mean, we do have nothing to hide, right?

Depends.

The mere fact that you really have so-and-so in your control versus him pushing up the daisies somewhere might be worthy of hiding. Especially if you’ve turned him.

 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
Legal rights: Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that detainees can contest their detention. Pentagon has reviewed the illegal-combatant status of all detainees and granted them access to private lawyers.

You probably didn’t know this either. The source was DoD. It was in a little box in USA Today with an op/ed by Donald Rumsfeld.

You’d think, given the level of rhetoric about Gitmo, that USA Today might have featured the point instead of burying it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I mean, we do have nothing to hide, right?
That’s a tough question.
Especially when the White House, for better or worse, tends to hide many things.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Your suggestion that better PR and or GITMO transparency will necessarily satisfy the Administration’s GITMO critics misses the problem of media bias. No amount of PR will overcome the MSM’s hostility to the Administration, nor will "transparency" mitigate the media’s (and the left’s) ignorance of the rules of war.

The left wants the GWOT prosecuted as a crime. This is what separates (mostly) the left, and the right—which supports the President’s efforts to defeat the al Qaeda (and their ilk) terrorists.
 
Written By: Forbes
URL: http://
I think that Forbes up above is right. There’s a loud, vocal, and influential group that are absolutely incontrovertibly convinced that the GWOT is a matter for law enforcement only. An example would be Katrina Van Den Heuvel. She said as much on the Chris Matthews program on Sunday.

My own feeling is that I wouldn’t want a law enforcement organization that would have the kinds of powers necessary to successfully prosecute the War on Terror. It would need to be supranational, well-armed, and able to move quickly. To whom would such a police force answer?
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider