PDA

View Full Version : Guantanamo men seek release



Ray
04 Jul 04,, 08:13
Guantanamo men seek release
Lawyers have filed petitions in a US court on behalf of nine prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

The petitions are the first to be filed since a US Supreme Court ruling earlier this week said they could challenge their detention in US courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which is part of the legal action, says the petitions concern nine detainees out of nearly 600 still at Guantanamo.

The petitions say the detention is illegal and demand the men's release.

The detainees named include two Britons, Moazzem Begg from Birmingham and Feroz Abassi from Croydon in London, three French citizens and a Turk, two Arabs from Jordan and Iraq and a Canadian.

The petitions come hours after the Bush administration said it might release some of the prisoners.

BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says it is increasingly clear that the administration was caught off-guard by Monday's ruling.

Pentagon review

By a margin of six to three, the court decided that the nearly 600 prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay did have a legal right to challenge their captivity.

The ruling passes no judgement on the guilt or innocence of those being held.

Moazzem Begg's father Azmat welcomed the news, saying he was very worried about his son's wellbeing after two-and-a-half years in detention.

He said: "He should be medically and physically examined and if he has done anything wrong, all right, take him to the court.

"If he has not done anything wrong, he should be released. I do not know why they are keeping him there.

"He must be immediately released and our government should take full useful force to take him back rather than delay it."

The Pentagon spokesman noted that the US has already been setting up an annual review process for the nearly 600 prisoners being held at the US naval base on Cuba.

Under the system - due to begin soon - a panel of three military officers will carry-out case-by-case reviews to determine whether prisoners no longer pose a security threat and can be released.

The Pentagon has already released more than 130 prisoners. But the reviews have been criticised by campaigners because the prisoners will continue to be refused access to lawyers.

The Supreme Court ruling is being seen as the biggest legal setback to President George W Bush since his war on terrorism began following the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Detainees from 40 countries are currently being held at the Cuba base. Most of them were captured in Afghanistan in late 2001 during the US-led invasion to oust the Taleban regime.

Many have spent more than two years in captivity without being charged.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/3862209.stm

Published: 2004/07/03 06:12:55 GMT

BBC MMIV

Confed999
04 Jul 04,, 15:36
I hope none who don't deserve to be released are released. Then we will have to hear about how the evil Americans just let terrorists go.

Ray
04 Jul 04,, 16:25
I read about two days before the US Supreme Court's verdict which was a narrow one. Normally the support Bush and therefore, I was a wee bit surprised. How is the wind blowing out there?

I also read another article from Maimi (your place) and it was scathing in its content about the whole War with Iraq. I thought it would interest you, but then I felt what the heck.....!

Confed999
04 Jul 04,, 17:14
Normally the support Bush
I can't think of any votes by the Supreme Court that have supported Bush. Have there been any? I know most people would say the decision to allow Florida's election rules to stand was a decision for Bush, but it was a decision for states rights.

How is the wind blowing out there?
That's politics for ya. ;)

ChrisF202
06 Jul 04,, 15:42
I can't think of any votes by the Supreme Court that have supported Bush. Have there been any? I know most people would say the decision to allow Florida's election rules to stand was a decision for Bush, but it was a decision for states rights.

That's politics for ya. ;)
IMO the USSC seems to be split. Remember how the one guy went hunting with Cheny before some vote on Halliburton or something and the liberals went wild as a USSC judge was spending personal time with the "the evil Dick Cheney".

Confed999
07 Jul 04,, 03:16
IMO the USSC seems to be split. Remember how the one guy went hunting with Cheny before some vote on Halliburton or something and the liberals went wild as a USSC judge was spending personal time with the "the evil Dick Cheney".
I still can't name one truly Republican decision, and utterly NO politically conservative decisions.

ChrisF202
08 Jul 04,, 02:24
I still can't name one truly Republican decision, and utterly NO politically conservative decisions.
True. I no longer reconigze the USSC as the supreme law in the land. Years of crap, PC and BS have gotten to me. Affirmative Action was the last straw for me, the Plege of Alligence case was also a major factor. Its dicusting that if a black kid who failed every class and an asian kid who got 90's in everything apply to the same school that the black kid wins when the asian is mroe qualified in this case or that kids cant be forced to say the pledge, I thaught we were trying to install pride, im really worried about the future of our country and my generation as a whole.

Ray
08 Jul 04,, 12:42
I still can't name one truly Republican decision, and utterly NO politically conservative decisions.

Confed,

There is a big stink in our country over three judges getting membership of an exclusive golf club when there was a case pending in their Court regrading the Club.

To be frank justice must not aonly be fair, but must appear to be fair. That is why they take a fat pay and perks!

Aryan
08 Jul 04,, 16:20
True. I no longer reconigze the USSC as the supreme law in the land. Years of crap, PC and BS have gotten to me. Affirmative Action was the last straw for me, the Plege of Alligence case was also a major factor. Its dicusting that if a black kid who failed every class and an asian kid who got 90's in everything apply to the same school that the black kid wins when the asian is mroe qualified in this case or that kids cant be forced to say the pledge, I thaught we were trying to install pride, im really worried about the future of our country and my generation as a whole.

I totally agree 100% with what you said about positive discrimination.

Ray
08 Jul 04,, 18:03
I too endorse that there should be no advantage because of race, colour, religion, social, economic status or any factor that differentiate a human from another.

Only Merit should matter.

Ray
08 Jul 04,, 18:09
No terrorist who has been confirmed a terrorist (even if there is a little doubt), should be freed. They should be treated within legal parametres and if that is not feasible, new laws should be passed for such case and the handling of such cases like they have done in Iraq.

I find no reason why anyone should be apologetic if such a law is in force.

Aryan
10 Jul 04,, 18:00
I don't see the point of taking people across half the world and sticking them in a camp in Cuba. If they were directly linked to terrorism interogate them and then shoot them or sentence them, if not then let them go.

Gitmo was bound to be a PR disaster from the start.

Confed999
10 Jul 04,, 18:38
if a black kid who failed every class and an asian kid who got 90's in everything apply to the same school that the black kid wins when the asian is mroe qualified in this case
Sad thing is this part is easily fixable. Use student numbers on applications. They don't need to know your name, country of origin, skin color or sex, to read an application. I don't like descrimination in any form, except for romantic situations when a lady must be treated as such. ;)

To be frank justice must not aonly be fair, but must appear to be fair. That is why they take a fat pay and perks!
Agreed. Judges really need to be neutral, and to make their decisions based on the laws, or whatever, that make up their jurisdiction.

Only Merit should matter.
It seems dumb to hate someone based only on what is immediately visible anyway.

I don't see the point of taking people across half the world and sticking them in a camp in Cuba.
It provides a secure location to interrogate the suspects for extended periods of time. It's off of US soil to keep local US jurisdictions from interfering.

If they were directly linked to terrorism interogate them and then shoot them or sentence them, if not then let them go.

Gitmo was bound to be a PR disaster from the start.
If you think it's a PR disaster now, imagine the Liberals screaming about executions.