The San Franciso Chronicle reports that judge Hogan stated that the trials against detainees in Guantanamo Bay should receive priority over the other cases that are heard in the USA Courts. Considering that some of these detainees have been imprisoned for over 6 years without a trial, I would say that's reasonable. Even though judge Hogan is considering whether the detainees are being held lawfully in Guantanamo Bay, we all know as a fact that in most of those cases, the USA Government does not have a legal standard case against most of the detainees. Most of the evidence is based on hearsay from unidentifiable sources and unconstitutionally obtained evidence, which was obtained via torturing and other despicable means.
I still sometimes wonder what the Bush Administration actually intended to do with these detainees. Was it their plan just to keep them in Guantanamo Bay forever or until a new President would take over and deal with them? I have to admit, George Bush Jnr seems to have shown more nature of a populist leader, instead of one upholding human rights. Populist in the sense that he wanted to show the American nation that his administration is making progress in the war against terrorism after 9/11. Even though this populist tendancies came at the violation of many people's human rights.
My ultimate question still remains. What happens if no legally admittable evidence can be found against a particular detainee? Will he just be deported to the country the Bush Administration decides? What about compensation? Compensation for: (1) being unlawfully detained; (2) the trauma associated with being detained without a trial; (3) Loss of income for work the detainee would have done had he not been detained; (4) Loss of income to provide for his family; (5) the trauma of the family not having contact with the detainee; etc. The detainees should rightfully be able to bring a civil law suit under the USA Tort Laws for unlawful detention.
Another legal question that arises out of these facts are: Was the detention without trial so grave that there is no way possible that the detainee can receive a fair trial, even by a USA recognised court? In other words, was the constitutional violation of a right to a fair trial so grave that it would even illiminate any charges against an accused, even though there might probable evidence that the detainee had links to terrorism? Has the Bush Administration thus dig a hole for themselves by not allowing any court appearances to the detainees, 6 years after being captured? That is the next question up for debate!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment