It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: U.S Considering Allowing Detainees More Rights

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
The Us defense department is discussing changes in a 232 page draft manual that will allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay more rights. The draft which is circulating among Pentagon lawyers strengthens the rights of defendants and will establish more independant judges to oversee the panels and also barr confessions by torture. This move comes about after reports of a broken jaw on a detainee, brought about by torture methods by the US questioners.
 



News Source
The proposed changes, many of which are detailed in a 232-page draft manual for the tribunals that has been circulating among Pentagon lawyers, come after widespread criticism from the federal courts, foreign governments and human rights groups.

Military officials said the draft, which is modeled after the Manual for Courts-Martial, was written under the auspices of the Pentagon official in charge of the tribunals, Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., who is now retired. The proposals gained momentum after high-level discussions late last year that included officials at the Pentagon, the office of the White House Counsel and the National Security Council.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The draft has renewed debate within the Bush administration and between civilian lawyers who are attempting to overhaul the tribunals and officials who have insisted that the terrorists housed in Cuba are not entitled to basic rights granted to defendents in American courts.

The draft proposal would move the panels, known as military commissions more into line with judicial standards applied to members of the military during court marshal proceeedings.

Officials have used the current process and the presidents 'war powers' to push ahead with trials that under the judicial system would be harder to bring to trial and convict.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-3-2005 by Mayet]

[edit on 26-3-2005 by Mayet]

[edit on 26-3-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Please provide a link inside the source report.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
oops........................done sorry



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
No problem.. Let the voting continue.

Good Article by the way



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I agree, nice article


I have to add that taken in consideration, all the problems we are having with the Guantanamo detainees allegations of abuse, I think this has been and issue that needed more attention and prompt action.

Anything in regard of the rights of this people is better than nothing, perhaps our international image will benefit in the process also.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
We are talking about enemy combatants. Should we set them up in a penthouse? These are people that would gladly fly an airplane into a building in the US killing thousands and people are concerned with their well being. I do not get it.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Well the problem is that most of them if not all of them have not been charge with anything.

I believe that if they are guilty they should be charge and deal with it. But keeping this people indefinitely make no sense at all.


Even animals have more rights that they do. Charge them find them guilty and that's it, but just don't leave them there and abuse them too.

[edit on 26-3-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
How nice! Did they suddenly have some change of heart, or could it be the world demonstrations of hate are beginning to sink in?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Where nazi or japanese prisoners ever charged with a crime. Do we have to charge everyone that engages in combat with the US? Do any other countries charge prisoners of war with crimes other than leaders at the end of the war?

If we were to charge these prisoners of war I guess we should then give them a trial in court? How much money is that going to cost? Are you willing to pitch in for their legal fund? Why don't we just keep them where they are to keep US citizens safe for the time being. We have released a few in the past only to capture them again fighting us.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Where nazi or japanese prisoners ever charged with a crime. Do we have to charge everyone that engages in combat with the US? Do any other countries charge prisoners of war with crimes other than leaders at the end of the war?

If we were to charge these prisoners of war I guess we should then give them a trial in court? How much money is that going to cost? Are you willing to pitch in for their legal fund? Why don't we just keep them where they are to keep US citizens safe for the time being. We have released a few in the past only to capture them again fighting us.


The point is, as you are unaware, is that they are not all combatants as you put it.

If these people are so terrible, why have they not been charged? Surely to imprison someone they have to have done someting to deserve it. If they have this evidence, which is why they were imprisoned, why have they not been charged.

They deserve to be treid, if not guilty released and compensated, if guilty imprisoned.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
As a stated before has any other POW’s been charged by any country other than the leaders at the end of that particular war? Do you propose that the US charge everyone that wages war on the US and then spend millions upon millions to try them even though they are not US citizens? Do you really want to open up that can of worms? Do you want to further restrict the ability of the US to fight its enemies by having to consider the fact that they would have to try in court everyone that they capture whether it is in battle or not? We are at war, have you forgotten? You also state that you want to compensate people that would be found not guilty in court is outrageous. If American soldiers are captured there trial is a beheading. We already treat POW better than most other countries.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Let me clarify something, war was never declared and the "no combatant" name was establish by our administration to do just exactly and purposely what US is doing to the detainees in Guantanamo.

To strips them of any humanity or human Rights.

Now again, all the US has to do is charge them, find them guilty and put the rest of the world and the citizens of the US to rest.


What part the government can not understant.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
If war was not declared then what was 9-11? What was Afghanistan? What is Iraq? How do you formally declare war against a group of people that have no country. A group of people that are located in almost every country on this planet.

Talk about stripping someone of their human rights what about the people that were murdered on 9-11?

As I asked you before Marg6043 would you be willing to kick in some of your money in order to charge POW's and then try them in court? Would you have a CIA agent spend months in court instead of working to win this war? Think about the whole process and then ask yourself if this would be a wise use of resources? I want my country to win this war, not lose it.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
If war was not declared then what was 9-11? What was Afghanistan? What is Iraq? How do you formally declare war against a group of people that have no country. A group of people that are located in almost every country on this planet.



Bingo, you got the point, "terror" and "terrorist" is a "group" that follow an ideology.

They have not borders, nations or country and they follow not government.

So, what you think? US can not go around gathering people because they "think" they have ties to terror and then have them incarcerated for ever "with not charges"

Do you understand what is going on, now. It's very simple, charge them find them guilty and then sentence them plain and simple.


Its not debate here, you either do what you have to do and stop looking guilty while not doing anything about it.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I need to correct myself on using the term POW As it does not apply in this case. The legal definition is enemy combatant not POW. Sorry for the error.

I understand what is going on. There are people out there that will kill me if they get the chance. I would rather error on the side of false imprisonment than not. It only took 19 to kill over 3,000.

Would you be willing to spend your own money for legal representation for the Enemy Combatants? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

Have you written your Congressional leaders about this issue?

What I am against are the US citizens that are being held without trial. And I have written my Congressional leaders.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Let me ask a question. Lets say trials are held and some of the Enemy Combatants are set free. Now lets say that one of them got into the United States and managed to explode a gas truck in a school killing 100 kids. Would you be one of the first people to condemn the government for setting them free or would you say it was good we set him free? Why take the chance?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Let me ask a question. Lets say trials are held and some of the Enemy Combatants are set free. Now lets say that one of them got into the United States and managed to explode a gas truck in a school killing 100 kids. Would you be one of the first people to condemn the government for setting them free or would you say it was good we set him free? Why take the chance?


I do understand what you are saying. But, you are still missing the point. Many of the people held are non-combatants, taken prisoner in non-combat zones.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
What exactly is a non-combatant. Are we talking about the planners of terrorist acts, the money raisers, simple errand boys? They all have a part in their organization if you want to think of it that way. What is the difference between the guy that flew the plane into one of the towers or the guy that raised the money to for the operation.

Please define non-combatant for me, I am not sure I know what you mean.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
What exactly is a non-combatant. Are we talking about the planners of terrorist acts, the money raisers, simple errand boys? They all have a part in their organization if you want to think of it that way. What is the difference between the guy that flew the plane into one of the towers or the guy that raised the money to for the operation.

Please define non-combatant for me, I am not sure I know what you mean.


Someone that has not ever been involved in combat. Is English your first language?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
What I mean is what I said earlier there are people that are in support type positions that might not be considered combat positions but they are just as deadly to the US as someone pulling the trigger such as money raisers, planners etc... So what non-combatans are in prison that do not deserve to be there? Were they just sitting on a park bench and taken from Afghanastan and put in prison in Cuba? Do you understand what I am asking?




top topics



 
0

log in

join