A blast from the recent past. I've been diverted lateley from bringing you doucmentation of the reality we actually live in, as opposed to the "reality" the Bushreich believes it lives in . . . . .
Getting back on the ball.
Blue Ibis
****************************************************************
A Legal Question
After six years in power, the Bush gang have been able to put their pathocratic cronies into positions on the Supreme Court, as well into many seats in the Appeals Court system. In so doing, they have been able to subvert even the weak protection of rights for the poor and dispossessed in the United States, as well as being able to successfully create a parallel 'legal' system for individuals the US wishes to make disappear from the world.
From Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, through secret prisons in Europe, and on to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the US has created a network where its opponents, after being kidnapped, can be 'safely' stashed outside of the eyes of the world. There is no protection from the Red Cross, no honouring of the rights of the Geneva Convention. If the horrors of Abu Ghraib could occur under the eyes of the world, then what horrors are being perpetrated in these other prisons where secrecy reigns and the officals and guards are accountable to no one but their conscienceless superiors in Washington?
Truly, they believe that can get away with anything.
Evidence of this comes in the following report on the legal status of the people being held prisoner by the United States in Guantanemo Bay.
No day in American court
Guantanamo Bay detainees do not have right to plead their innocence in U.S., appeals court rules
BY DAVID G. SAVAGE
Los Angeles Times
February 21, 2007
WASHINGTON - In a victory for the White House, a U.S. appeals court yesterday threw out the legal claims brought on behalf of the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and ruled that they do not have a right to plead their innocence in an American court.
By this sleight of hand, anyone the US so chooses can be held indefinitely at Guantanamo, with no rights: no right to a lawyer, no right to know what charges are being brought against them, no right to a trial. By classifying the prisoners as "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war", the US claims the legal justification for withholding their rights under the Geneva Convention.
But look for a moment at the logic used by the good judge Randolph and his colleagues. They argued that the US Constitution does not extend the right of "habeas corpus" to noncitizens who are held outside the sovereign territory of this United States. And to top it off, they suggest that "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay".
One question for the learned judges: If "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Gauntanamo Bay", does that mean that Cuba can decide whether or not the "terrorists" being held illegally there by the United States can go free?
If "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Gauntanamo Bay", then would not these poor individuals, held with no rights for so many years, be subject to Cuban law?
And if they are not subject to Cuban law and if Cuba cannot decide their fate, then, why not? If "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Gauntanamo Bay""?
* Arthur Raymond Randolph: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit. Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 8, 1990, to a seat vacated by Spottswood W. Robinson, III; Confirmed by the Senate on July 13, 1990, and received commission on July 16, 1990.
Randolph was also the judge who wrote the ruling dismissing a suit against Dick Cheney for his secret energy policy task force.
Getting back on the ball.
Blue Ibis
****************************************************************
A Legal Question
Henry See
Signs of the Times
Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:18 EST
©AFP
Guards escort a prisoner in the ubiquitous orange suit at Guantanamo Bay.
Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:18 EST
©AFP
Guards escort a prisoner in the ubiquitous orange suit at Guantanamo Bay.
After six years in power, the Bush gang have been able to put their pathocratic cronies into positions on the Supreme Court, as well into many seats in the Appeals Court system. In so doing, they have been able to subvert even the weak protection of rights for the poor and dispossessed in the United States, as well as being able to successfully create a parallel 'legal' system for individuals the US wishes to make disappear from the world.
From Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, through secret prisons in Europe, and on to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the US has created a network where its opponents, after being kidnapped, can be 'safely' stashed outside of the eyes of the world. There is no protection from the Red Cross, no honouring of the rights of the Geneva Convention. If the horrors of Abu Ghraib could occur under the eyes of the world, then what horrors are being perpetrated in these other prisons where secrecy reigns and the officals and guards are accountable to no one but their conscienceless superiors in Washington?
Truly, they believe that can get away with anything.
Evidence of this comes in the following report on the legal status of the people being held prisoner by the United States in Guantanemo Bay.
No day in American court
Guantanamo Bay detainees do not have right to plead their innocence in U.S., appeals court rules
BY DAVID G. SAVAGE
Los Angeles Times
February 21, 2007
WASHINGTON - In a victory for the White House, a U.S. appeals court yesterday threw out the legal claims brought on behalf of the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and ruled that they do not have a right to plead their innocence in an American court.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges said the Constitution does not extend the right of "habeas corpus" to noncitizens who are held outside the sovereign territory of this country. "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay," wrote Judge Raymond Randolph*. [...]
By this sleight of hand, anyone the US so chooses can be held indefinitely at Guantanamo, with no rights: no right to a lawyer, no right to know what charges are being brought against them, no right to a trial. By classifying the prisoners as "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war", the US claims the legal justification for withholding their rights under the Geneva Convention.
But look for a moment at the logic used by the good judge Randolph and his colleagues. They argued that the US Constitution does not extend the right of "habeas corpus" to noncitizens who are held outside the sovereign territory of this United States. And to top it off, they suggest that "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay".
One question for the learned judges: If "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Gauntanamo Bay", does that mean that Cuba can decide whether or not the "terrorists" being held illegally there by the United States can go free?
If "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Gauntanamo Bay", then would not these poor individuals, held with no rights for so many years, be subject to Cuban law?
And if they are not subject to Cuban law and if Cuba cannot decide their fate, then, why not? If "Cuba - not the United States - has sovereignty over Gauntanamo Bay""?
* Arthur Raymond Randolph: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit. Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 8, 1990, to a seat vacated by Spottswood W. Robinson, III; Confirmed by the Senate on July 13, 1990, and received commission on July 16, 1990.
Randolph was also the judge who wrote the ruling dismissing a suit against Dick Cheney for his secret energy policy task force.
No comments:
Post a Comment