Guantanamo Bay Just Preventative Detention of Terrorist or a Fundamental Violation of Due Process (original) (raw)
Related papers
Lawfare and torture at Guantanamo Bay : a comparison of the Bush and Obama administrations
2018
Guantanamo Bay is commonly referred to as a 'legal black hole' where the United States violated the international prohibitions of torture in the years following the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration justified these violations through its creation of the 'unlawful enemy combatant' category and other legal tactics. This justification through legal means and an evasion of international law has been defined in academia as a form of 'lawfare', which refers to the use of law, international and domestic, as a tool that seeks to permit prohibited acts. While many analyses examine statements made by Bush administration officials, the infamous 'torture memos' and US legislation, this essay examines the US' dialogue with the United Nations Committee Against Torture through an analysis of reports submitted by, and to, the Bush and Obama administrations. This essay allows for an additional perspective on how the US, which has committed to torture prevention through ratifying anti-torture conventions, engaged in lawfare, to varying degrees, under the Bush and Obama administrations.
Guantanamo and the United States War on Terror - its impact on International Human Rights
The situation faced by states during the War on Terror has been stark with citizens experiencing significant violence and many deaths at the hands of terrorist organisations. The United States experienced for the first time a significant external terrorist atrocity within its borders and saw its global security interests threatened. Other States principally in the Global South experienced a security threat that frequently caused significant casualties and engineered a developing sense of political insecurity. The War on Terror saw the emergence of a new paradigm for the codification of humanitarian law and human rights initially in the United States and later the United Kingdom and other States. This challenged the universalism of human rights in that it categorized a group of people who were to exist outside the legal framework of humanitarian and human rights law. Facilities outside state territory set-up to interrogate prisoners were used to torture and inflict inhuman treatment on detainees. To avoid jurisdiction and due process, prisoners were to be tried in Military Tribunals. The United States administration during the War on Terror actively undermined the Constitution and their obligations towards international law. Governments in the European Union including the United Kingdom, turned a blind eye to rendition, evidence emerged, suggesting that security services might be complicit in accommodating the torture of citizens or residents by other actors. Human rights organisations, international institutions holding the mandate to maintain international treaty obligations, together with state judicial bodies challenged this new paradigm and in some cases, through the vehicles of the United States constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights were to degrees successful. There is concern that the paradigm of torture and inhuman treatment has become business as usual in the Global South were oversight is limited and the War on Terror is used as the excuse for crushing political opposition. Academic institutions and liberal political circles have challenged the idea that security and human rights are not partners in confronting terrorism, holding that values sustain society during periods of threat and derogation from normative behaviour is seen as fueling the organisations that engage in terrorism. This paper describes the damage that has been caused to established norms of behaviour and to institutions supporting humanitarian and human rights. Considerable effort has been made to correct this, restoring notions of justice and this has to some extent been successful and continues to make progress in the Global North. However this is not so apparent in societies of the Global South were there is a growing institutional setback in making progress towards the universalism of human rights.
Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2023
The military detention facility at the Guantánamo Bay naval base is the most enduring manifestation of the US “war on terror.” It is also materially and symbolically central to US torture, war crimes, and other egregious violations of law in the post-9/11 era. Since the first detainees arrived in 2002, Guantánamo has been the subject of controversy and debate, as well as a key setting for legal challenges to government policies. This article traces the legacy of the prison and the military commissions across four administrations. It demonstrates that the lack of a common understanding or shared narrative about what Guantánamo means or has meant is a product of entrenched partisanship that characterizes contemporary US politics more broadly. Guantánamo’s confounding legacy reflects the lack of a national consensus about the role of laws and courts as guarantors of even the most basic rights.
The Case of the Guantanamo Bay Detainees In United States (and Other) Courts
2004
The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian government 1 11 (n 2) s 1(a) and (b). 12 (n 2) s 1(d). 13 (n 2) s 1(e). 14 (n 2) s 1(f). 15 (n 2) s 2(a) 16 (n 2) s 3. 17 (n 2) s 7(b). 18 (n 2) s 7(c).
The 'War on Terror' Slippery Slope Policy: Guantanamo Bay and the Abuse of Executive Power
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2007
Plato, The Republic Greek author & philosopher in Athens (427 BC-347 BC) [v. 15 "WAR ON TERROR" SLIPPERY SLOPE POLICY historically been subject to Chinese Authorities' oppressive treatment. 4 Second, letting them on to U.S. soil seemed to be out of the question, not only for the fact that they had been detained and may have been influenced in Guantanamo bay, but also because of the stigma associated with Uighurs. They have been labeled as "Turkic Terrorists" by the Chinese Government. 5 In response to the U.S. Government's failure to release them, the Uighurs filed a habeas petition challenging their further detention. Before Judge Robertson in the Federal District Court for the D.C. Circuit, the detainees' writ of habeas corpus was denied. 6 This order was likely on its way to appeal to determine whether they would be removed from Guatanamo Bay or held there indefinitely. However, before the matter 4 Amnesty International has been intimately involved in the Uighurs' struggle in Guantanamo Bay. This entity has not only explored the legitimacy of U.S. grounds for the detention, but also questioned China's ongoing political crackdown on what is known as "three evil forces" of "separatists, terrorists and religious extremists."
One of the USA’s tactics or strategies, which is the detention of terrorist suspects without trial.
This study discusses one of the USA’s tactics or strategies, which is the detention of terrorist suspects without charge or trial. In the 21st century, the USA has faced a new form of terrorism which had not been seen before. In particular, when the Al Qaida terrorist group attacked the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, which were primary US symbols of power, on 11 September 2001. Then the USA created a new strategy to respond to them by addressing the 'war on terror', which involved a widespread series of counter-terrorist tactics, including the detention of terrorist suspects without charge or trial. First, I will try to explain how ‘old’ terrorism transformed into ‘new’ terrorism, according to their structures, aims and methods, as well as the situation before 11 September 2001, which relates to a change in the world’s political system especially after the end of the Cold War, after which the Soviet Union collapsed and the USA tried to spread the democratic system to all parts of the world. Moreover, this study will discuss different reasons that affected the failure of the tactic or strategy used by the USA government in the war on terror, as well as showing the division between international laws and provisions which are mentioned in international human rights law and in international humanitarian law. In addition, this paper will focus on whether the performance of the process of detaining terrorist suspects without trial is legal or illegal. The paper will also examine a case study of Guantanamo Bay Prison and how that system deals with detainees. Furthermore, this study will try to explain non-governmental organizations’ (NGO) attitudes, as these have played an important role in the failure of the USA’s tactic. For this study, both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were selected and their reports based on the situation in USA prisons of indefinite detention without charge or trial in general and, specifically, at Guantanamo Bay.
how to restore the credibility of a country whose foundations and self-understanding are based on the universality of freedom and human rights, but that has violated precisely those rights by practicing torture in guantánamo and other prisons around the world? the image of the united states as a role model of liberal democracy has suffered tremendously over the last eight years. in the name of the global war on terror, former President bush suspended the law for those detained as possible terrorists. even though President Obama's promise to close guantánamo is recognized by the international community as a first step towards restoring u.s. credibility, several problems require comprehensive policy solutions: how to proceed with detainees that are considered to be dangerous? What to do with detainees who are cleared of suspicion, but might face torture in their country of origin? how to cope with evidence that is derived from torture? thomas c. hilde outlines several post-guantánamo detainee policy proposals -and their difficulties -that address these distinctive sets of issues, such as military commission trials, continued preventive detention, a national security court or u.s. criminal court trials. in the long run, however, restoring credibility through a reformed detainee policy is only one component of post-guantánamo credibility; the second indispensable element is accountability. Prof. hilde discusses the functions of different forms of accountability in the process of reestablishing u.s. credibility on human rights. Whereas legal accountability requires the formal investigations of human rights violations, public-moral and pragmatic accountability refer to the need to address the norms on which international society is based. Moreover, a public discourse is needed that confronts the stories of those who have suffered human rights violations and the empathetic aspect of human rights. A more comprehensive form of accountability can serve as both a means towards regaining u.s. credibility and a strengthening of human rights culture.