The detention center (or whatever euphemism the US government uses) at Guantanmo Bay has long been the focus of criticism. Mainly since many detainees are held there without trial for as long as the government fees like it. Perhaps the SUSPECTS are indeed guilty of some crime. It's hard to say since the government can hold doesn't ncessarily have to prove that they are a threat of any kind and the detainees aren't necessarily given a chance to answer charges, since charges don't have to be brought. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is because evidence against some detainees wouldn't have a chance in Hades of standing up in anything vaguely resembling a normal court setup.
For example, four British men who were held at Gitmo were sent back to Britain. There was a deal between Washington, who insists the four remain a threat, and London, who agreed to monitor the four's activities. Shortly after the four returned to the UK, they were questioned by British police and released without charge.
It's worth noting, they weren't acquitted of any crime by a judge or jury. They weren't acquitted because it never had a chance to get that far. The suspects, or perhaps they should be called hostages, were released because the authorities didn't have enough evidence to even bring them to trial in the first place. In other words, once the suspects/hostages were subject to the rule of law and the normal legal proceedings of a civilized country, they were released almost instantly.
Isn't that the 'freedom' and 'liberty' President Bush speaks so breathless about? Or perhaps that only applies when convenient for the president's rhetoric.
Update (1 Feb.): Related article -- Federal judge faults government on trial without due process, International Herald Tribune
No comments:
Post a Comment