Spring Break
Unlawful or Lawful; Detainees at Guantanamo Bay
Sam Sheffield
Issue date: 2/4/08 Section: News
That brought about the question of whether the detainees at Guantanamo should be given the rights enemy combatants are given as according to the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration said no, that Al Qaeda members are not lawful enemy combatants because they pledge no allegiance to a foreign government, and they are not part of a regular armed force and should therefore not be treated as combatants as put down by the guidelines of the Geneva Convention.
Lt. Commander Swift said he thought otherwise, and in November 2004, he decided to bring Hamdan's case before the District of Columbia's District Court. They had some success when the court found the Commission violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
But President Bush appealed the decision, and, in July 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned Hamdan's appeal, saying the Geneva Convention does not apply to members of Al Qaeda.
In 2006, Swift, along with Neal Katyal, professor of law at Georgetown University, and the Seattle, Wash. law firm of Perkins Coie brought Hamdan's case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
The court agreed with Swift, and said President Bush did not have the authority to set up military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, because they violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.
On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, authorizing military commissions for violations of the law of war. It severely limited a captive's access to Habeas corpus, which allows a person to seek relief from unlawful detention.
The men at Guantanamo Bay though, were confirmed as lawful enemy combatants after the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Now they could not be tried in military commissions because the Military Commissions Act only gave authority to try unlawful enemy combatants.
Charges against Hamdan were dropped on June 4, 2007 due to his new status as a lawful enemy combatant.
Swift said there are many at Guantanamo Bay who deserve justice, and deserve to be there.
"If [we] dispense the justice in this system, if [we] do not admit the mistakes and wrong-doings, [we] will make martyrs out of them," Swift said. "The worst scenario is to take a Sheikh Khalid Mohammed to a military commission, where he can claim the evidence of his torture was suppressed, or he can claim the mantle-hood of martyrdom."
Swift said a trial system "worthy of America" would ultimately provide justice.
ssheffield@unews.com
Lt. Commander Swift said he thought otherwise, and in November 2004, he decided to bring Hamdan's case before the District of Columbia's District Court. They had some success when the court found the Commission violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
But President Bush appealed the decision, and, in July 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned Hamdan's appeal, saying the Geneva Convention does not apply to members of Al Qaeda.
In 2006, Swift, along with Neal Katyal, professor of law at Georgetown University, and the Seattle, Wash. law firm of Perkins Coie brought Hamdan's case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
The court agreed with Swift, and said President Bush did not have the authority to set up military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, because they violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.
On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, authorizing military commissions for violations of the law of war. It severely limited a captive's access to Habeas corpus, which allows a person to seek relief from unlawful detention.
The men at Guantanamo Bay though, were confirmed as lawful enemy combatants after the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Now they could not be tried in military commissions because the Military Commissions Act only gave authority to try unlawful enemy combatants.
Charges against Hamdan were dropped on June 4, 2007 due to his new status as a lawful enemy combatant.
Swift said there are many at Guantanamo Bay who deserve justice, and deserve to be there.
"If [we] dispense the justice in this system, if [we] do not admit the mistakes and wrong-doings, [we] will make martyrs out of them," Swift said. "The worst scenario is to take a Sheikh Khalid Mohammed to a military commission, where he can claim the evidence of his torture was suppressed, or he can claim the mantle-hood of martyrdom."
Swift said a trial system "worthy of America" would ultimately provide justice.
ssheffield@unews.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 3
Hiram Abiff
posted 2/04/08 @ 10:39 PM CST
Has this guy ever read the law? He is completely wrong when he said: "For instance, the defendant is not allowed self-representation, not because of lack of knowledge of law, Swift said" The Military Commissions Act allows for self-representation. (Continued…)
Vegetarian
posted 2/09/08 @ 6:18 AM CST
By going against the Geneva convention makes us like others that have gone against it like Adolf Hitler. He followed the philosophy that the ends justifies the means. (Continued…)
Post a Comment