Slashdot Mirror
Alleged British Hacker Fears Guantanamo
Magnifico writes "The BBC is reporting that Gary McKinnon, a British man accused of breaking into the U.S. government computer networks, could end up at Guantanamo Bay. His lawyer is fighting his extradition to the United States arguing, 'The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were.'"
The problem is that the people held at Guantanamo Bay weren't simply captured on "the field of battle". According to information released under court order last month, fewer than half of the detainees were actually captured in battle against US forces. The majority were turned over by Pakistan, often for a cash bounty.
Few of these "combatants" are even accused of having fought; most simply lived in a house or worked for a charity associated with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. And you would propose that we have the right to indefinitely detain these people, held only on the grounds of a suspicion, without a fair trial? What, again, are these freedoms and principles that we are fighting so hard to defend in this "war on terror"?
Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that one.
Unless you call three squares a day and 5 prayer breaks torture.
Sorry, but Amnesty International disagrees with you. OK, maybe I exaggerated, Guantanamo isn't one of the worst prisons in the world. It's one of the worst AMERICAN prisons in the world. According to Amnesty Intl, "Guantánamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration's 'war on terror'. It must be closed down".
There, happy now?
Not true. BBC has a few good podcasts that I subscribe to, and if what they're reporting on is any indication of British public sentiment, they most definitely do believe it. There have been several stories in the last few weeks that seem to have been tipped off by a BBC reporter posing as a lawyer to get into Gitmo to interview one of these "detainees", who told stories about conditions there and forced feeding tantamount to torture. The Brits seem very concerned about it, to the point of getting Condi and ... some State Dept official whose name I forget on the BBC Today interview program and grilling them on it. (Not American media softball throwing, either. Real calling bullshit and holding feet to fire.) It represents an end-around bypassing due process, speedy and public trial, and probably a couple other Amendments. Frankly, they can't understand why Americans aren't as concerned as they are.
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
The fact that the U.S. of A. even has to make such a promise, puts them out of step with regards to the human rights most other 1st world countries take for granted. I'm not saying that people don't get dissappeared in other countries, just that the option isn't official public policy.
I read another article about the guy off that site, and found this bit of information very interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4721183.stm
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
No you are only not entitled to being a protected person, who is granted additional rights to a mere civilian.
So if you're a combatant, but you don't follow the laws and customs of war or you don't identify yourself as the enemy, then you don't get Geneva protection.
Which again, makes you a mere civilian, or more specifically, a civilian criminal.
That's what "unlawful combatants" are.
See above. That would make them criminals to be tried in a civilian court, and afforded all the same rights as any other civilian accused of a crime.
They're people who are participating in an armed conflict who aren't eligible for Geneva protection because of how they are conducting their combat operations.
That only removes their "protected persons" status, not their rights as civilians.
Your argument is based on two key concepts:
...". Any changes of heart by various members of Congress afterward does not change the fact that they authorized these actions.
1)the false premise that the President made a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, against the wishes of the US Congress but the 'Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' was passed by both the House and the Senate in 2002.
and
2)that the United States can take no military action without a formal declaration of war. That argument is ridiculous on it's face, as it would require a formal declaration of war any time that NATO or the UN or any of the many countries America has some mutual defense pact with, were in need of military assistance.
No matter how you try to spin it, this was not a case of the President's 'circumvention of Congress', this was a clear cut case of a President following the accepted method to take military action against a perceived threat to the United States. People may not like the result but the fact of the matter is Congress gave him their blessing and as you said, "If it looks like a duck
And from my understanding, the originalists interpretation of the constitution is to not read into it additional powers and protections that are not clearly stated (the right to privacy, 'seperation' of Church and State, etc..). According to the originalist view of the Constitution any rights or powers not directly assigned to or protected by the Federal government by the Constitution are the domain of the individual States, a view I happen to hold.
Either way, I wouldn't see this as a violation of that interpretation as the President did indeed request Congress's approval before taking action, how they chose to give it is left up to them. By adding a stipulation that a formal declaration of war be made every time a military action is taken it is you that is creating a new requirement under the Constitution where none previously existed, in clear opposition of the originalist philosophy.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!