Hi all... I'm new!
I can see both sides of the argument here. For one there is no legal precedent that states we must treat these inmates like we would domestic citizens, and because Guantanamo conveniently finds itself outside of stipulations of the Geneva Convention, we should therefore not be complaining about prisoners rights. From a strictly legal standpoint, this is a valid argument. The U.S. setup Guantanamo knowing full well that it fell outside of the jurisdiction of laws it agreed to sign with the UN pertaining to torture and detainment.
The main beef being raised is the inherent social and humanitarian hypocrisy of such an action. The world in its nature is an anarchy and countries do what they do in order to protect their security and power status in the world, and thus the U.S. gov, as one of those actors, is simply exercising its abilities to do so. The problem is that in signing the Geneva Convention, the U.S. did so in good faith with other nations. By stepping outside of the jurisdiction of that document, it appears diplomatically deceitful to the rest of the world. In one hand, the U.S. maintains the ideas of freedom and democracy for all (whatever that is supposed to mean, at this point), yet goes and detains people without recourse, many of them underaged combattants.
So yes, the U.S., in the anarchic world of sovereign states, can really do whatever it wants, especially if it technically didn't sign anything saying it wouldn't. Yet, if it wishes to project a certain diplomatic image to other nations, it is somewhat obligated to honour its word.
The world, and a lot of observers within the U.S., are mostly annoyed at the hypocrisy, and not necessarily the legal implications. As well, since the U.S. is a Democratic Republic, Congress people can be swayed via public opinion to take recourse in this matter. No, Guantanamo does not fall under domestic jurisdiction, but the U.S. as a nation does, and therefore its actions are rightfully monitored by public input. I believe that domestic court decisions are a reflection of that. The military has some independent jurisdiction, but it is ultimately controlled by Congress, who is elected by who? And which judical process checks and balances Congress? The Supreme Court.
If SCOTUS thinks that more details about the detainees should be released, along with the impetus for those detainees to have a fair trial, along with public incentive influencing Congress to endorse this process, then I'm not really interested in whether or not these people were "combattants", or if they were captured in a real war or not. The fact is, a U.S. facility, funded by taxpayer dollars, is in existence outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The whole reason why this issue has been supressed until now is because the Bush Admin knows full well that the public will drive this matter to its closure.
You repress the truth long enough, it comes up some other way.
P.S. I've been observing this forum for a few weeks now and it's very interesting!
