[Ylvali]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Really, a great deal of this is uncalled for.

First: No, you are factually incorrect on several fronts. There are no laws giving US citizen rights to enemy combattants.
The rights of enemy combattants and governed by things like the Geneva conventions, and other documents.

You misunderstand me a bit here. I meant that the right to a fair trial is granted by the declaration of human rights. I agree that this might differ from the rights of a US citizen, but it does include similar aspects. Like having a lawyer defending you etc...

Second: No, it has never been historically necessary to have a trial to determine that someone was an enemy combattant. Nor has it ever been established that you fly them to the United States, determine that an American Court has jurisdiction (if so, which, praytell?) and grant process the same as an American citizen.

Perhaps not. But I am talking about terrorist suspects here. The habit of calling those "enemy combattants" is very questionable. They are suspected criminals, and just like other crimes you need a trial to confirm or discard that suspicion. The problem is not whether to try them in the US or somewhere else, but to ensure that the right to fair trial is granted. It weren´t for those detained at gitmo. And it still isn´t to those detained in less famous prison camps around the world.

Third: I do agree that human rights issues need to be addressed.
I do think the situation needs to be fixed. However, they are issues because they are difficult.

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

You could start by granting them basic human rights. That is a resonable minimum standard don´t you think? Including for example the right not to be tortured or detained without trial:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

IMO these standards would suffice, if they were actually used. No need to argue about "enemy combattant" or not, as these rights apply to everyone.

Secondly, something like 40% of the detainees who were released were caught again in conflict with americans. So they as a class basis, they represent a threat to american servicemen.

Um, ok. I don´t see what you want to prove, argue for or imply with this.

Thirdly - if you are going to bring them to american courts - which court. How do you determine standing?

American courts give the defendent the ability to question his opponents. Are you going to allow enemy combattants to ability to make american soldiers appear in court - while they are involved in military action?

So lets suppose that some of these people are guilty. You've brought them to the US. Now you are going to send them to jails in the US? So you're going to take an extremist who want to blow up people - and you're going to jail them with people who might have an ax to grind. Fertile recruiting grounds, indeed.

Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.

...Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

I agree with this. It looks like it is mostly for show. My bet is that torture and summary detainment will remain one of the standard tactics for repressive systems around the world. Gitmo or not.