*A Briton detained at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claimed military police had sex in front of him, tried to feed him pork and misled him into praying toward America instead of Mecca, Pentagon documents released Friday showed.
…
The British government negotiated his release in January 2005, and British police freed him a day later, saying the only information against him was confidential intelligence.
…
Abbasi was not allowed to see that classified evidence during his hearing, where he tried repeatedly to explain that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out refused.
"“Mr. Abbasi your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words International Law again. We are not concerned about international law,” the colonel insisted before having Abbasi removed."*
So now we know what a military’Judge’ thinks of the law and how it should be applied to a British Citizen.
I say that this one sentence means that any tribunal finding must be seen as completely outside the law.
If a real judge said this they would be disbarred and removed from their position.
But its par for the course in a kangaroo court in a detention/torture facility.
What level has US justice sunk to for this admission to be made in open court by a supposed judge.
I pit the entire US Justice system for allowing this to happen.
Again, unless there is something missing from the article (which I’m sure there is) the way I read this is that this is Abbasi’s account of an encounter with the tribunal. Why should I believe he is credible?
Yes, and US courts are not set up to enforce “international law”. To the extent that they would consider documents such as the GC, that is because the US is a signatory to that treaty, thus incorporating its provisions into US law. I don’t know how a US court could concern itself with international law (whateve that is) even if it wanted to.
a bit off topic, but:
WOW- look at those painful torture methods being used by those savage Americans!!!
(yes, I know that there are lots of really serious ethical issues with the whole concept of the Guantanmo prison–but this ain’t GD).
A persons testimony is only as credible as the person giving it. As I quoted twice already, this is Abbasi’s HANDWRITTEN TESTIMONY. These are not COURT TRANSCRIPTS.
Anybody can SAY anything happened. That doesn’t mean they should be believed. I certainly have no reason whatsoever to believe an individual who ADMITTED to training in a terrorist (sorry, militant) training camp but that’s OK because he SAYS he’s not involved in Al Quaida.
I understand the point you are trying to make, if the AF Colonel said those words, then I can understand why it would irk someone. I think it’s pretty damn short sighted to just assume that this extremist is telling thr truth just because he’s making those claims against US Military.
This was a record of Abbasi’ testimony which included the claims about pork, mecca a screwing soldiers.
The record also showed that the Colonel said those exact words:
““Mr. Abbasi your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words International Law again. We are not concerned about international law,” the colonel insisted before having Abbasi removed.”
as is explained in the previous paragraph of the report:
Abbasi was not allowed to see that classified evidence during his hearing, where he tried repeatedly to explain that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out refused.
The above quote is not part of Abbasi’s testimony, much as you would like it to be, but is part of the transcript of what was actually said in court.
Now how do you feel about it? Was the Judge well out of order?
Well, as I explained above, that’s not the same thing. To be honest, I can see where this judge might have been acting like a prick if he was just arguing semantics with the guy. It’s one thing for us to that here, but in a court I think it’s not too much to ask for the judge to cut the guy some slack. That is, if the guy was honestly trying to make an appeal to the GC, and not just trying to cause a ruckus.
But let’s for the moment assume that the GC = international law. Which provision of the GC was applicable? I assume you mean the part about classification of POWs. What evidence do you have that this guy should be classified as a POW?
Surely when, as in this case, the prisoner is a foreign national with whom the US has strong ties, international law could indeed be applicable? Or, at the very least, something to consider, rather than to reject out of hand?
Depends on what he wanted to rely on “international law” for, really. Maybe he was going on about “international law says you have to do this! International Law says you can’t do this to me!” If I were the judge, I’d be using pretty strong language, too.
Also, “International law” doesn’t really apply to domestic issues. I’m not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK, “international law” (Treaties like the GC) are only part of domestic law if Parliament makes a law that says so. Even then, it is what Parliament says, and not what the treaty says, that the courts follow.
Think about it, what is a treaty? A treaty is simply an agreement between two governments. Nothing to do with law at all. In fact, there was a case in the UK where the courts explicitly said that the government could act contrary to their international obligations, and the courts could do nothing, because they only apply “the law”, and “the law” only refers to Parliament. The court is not bound by treaties.
I expect similar considerations apply to the US courts.
It depends. If a UK national goes to the US and kills someone, the US would naturally prosecute under US law, and UK law would be irrelevant. If the UK national flees to the UK, then whether he could be prosecuted in the US depends on extradition treaties (which have been implemented by the UK Parliament). If there is no such extradition treaty implemented, the UK courts would then refuse to extradite, and apply UK law. NOT US law, even though the crime was committed in the US. The courts have no reason to take notice of anything not from Parliament. And certainly not a mix of both.
Notice that the bare treaty itself does not matter. Many of you somehow think that the courts are supposed to come up with the “just” outcome, taking into account whatever is necessary. That’s not true. They are constrained by statue and precedent, and can’t simply take whatever they want into consideration. The only things they can take into consideration are Statues and Cases, as sources of law. Strictly speaking, there is “law that relates to international subject matter”, not “international law”.
Tabby_Cat: It’s similar in the US, but there is one difference. The US Constitution explicitly states that treaties ratified by Congress are the Supreme law of the land. I’m not sure if a court would uphold a law that clearly violated a treaty. Maybe one of our legal experts will come into this thread and comment.
Still, the GC doesn’t require all enemy combatants that are captured to be classified as POWs. It’s clear that al-Qaeda fighters do not need to be classified thusly. Taliban fighters may or may not be, depending on if they fit the GC definition:
2d and 6 in Section A give a lot wiggle room to the US, since they require that the fighters act in accodance with “the laws and customs of war”. I’m not sure if those laws and customs are defined anywhere.
Having said all that, I don’t like the way this whole Gitmo thing has been handled. Bush seems to think he just hold anyone he wants indefinitely without even charging them. The tribunal process seems unecesarily slow, and the guys who are just “suspects” can’t have much useful information anymore-- at least not the ones we captured years ago.
