So has any cheeky monkey tried suing in Cuba?

I think it's time to start demanding that the prisoners be moved to the mainland. It's the only way to get the justice system to take responsibility.

Apart from calling it Devil's Island, I'm wondering what we can DO about this. Write congress critters? Yep, been there, done that, and mine emailed back about how much she thinks it sucks (Zoe Lofgren, who had to deal with the Clinton Impeachment). Any other suggestions.

"If you think this is nothing to worry about, that it will never affect you or those you love, the nicest thing I can think to say about you is that you are a fool"

would you care to expand on this, is someone who thinks this a fool because this is part of a plan that will be expanded to include everyone, are they a fool because these kinds of things have widening repercussions which will have secondary effects?

I would argue that this is the sort of thing one does not ignore simply because it will never affect one. But I think it is likely that it will not come to affect a large number of people inside the U.S. Of course I'm outside the U.S, in Denmark, one citizen of which is currently confined in Guante1namo.

I am a citizen of the UK. The current Home Secretary has recently signed away my right not to be extradited by the United States unless the US can show evidence before a British court that I deserve to be extradited. From now on, until we get a British government with enough backbone to repeal this poodlish* legislation, all the US has to do is show proof that I am "Yonmei", and that they want to arrest "Yonmei"... and the UK then has to hand me over. There are 9 British citizens, and two British legal residents, held in the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

*Actually, poodles are dogs of great dignity. However, Blair and Blunkett are poodles with bad training and bad haircuts.

And some people still naively believe that there will be free elections in the United States next year.

Jon Meltzer wrote:
And some people still naively believe that there will be free elections in the United States next year.

Jon, I'm always puzzled when I hear things like that from people who aren't, like, manning the barricades and raising armed insurrection against the government.

If you genuinely believe that the 2004 elections won't occur, or will be so rigged that to believe in their honesty is "naive," what are you doing about it? Why aren't you gathering a resistance movement?

Rivka, so if he was, would you think that was great, or would you think it was bad.

What if he can't gather a resistance movement, so he decides to stop paying taxes and run around robbing banks as a way of not supporting the system? Would that be okay, I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm wondering what sorts of resistance are okay.

bryan, the expansion is simple: Guantanamo is legally part of/not part of the US, as the government wills. It is part of the US in that the US government has dominion over it, and can take people there at will, once the government has custody of that person. It isn't part of the US in that the administration is freed from the constitution (and other laws) of the US - it's a zone of unrestrained executive branch power.

So far, the US government hasn't been removing US citizens from the US to there, but that's probably only a matter of time. The administration is known to have already deprived two (?) US citizens of their rights, through the mechanism of the executive branch declaring them 'enemy combatants [confession - I haven't kept track of things well, so this is subject to correction].

Under the current government of the US, only American citizens who have the wrong religion and the wrong skin colour need fear being deprived of their legal rights, either within the US as currently, or by being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

Under future governments, now that the principle has been established, who knows?

What is the latest on the enemy combatant business, anyway? Has anyone been following it? It dropped off the screens some time ago, and I've been wondering.

-l.

A scan of news.google says that for Jose Padilla (and Yaser Esam Hamdi) the story is still exactly what it was: they are imprisoned as "enemy combatants" in South Carolina.

Possibly the most dangerous long-term aspect of the prison camps in Guantanamo Bay, and the two US citizens held in SC, is that there is a tendency from Bush downwards (or do I mean upwards?) to presume that because these people have been arrested and imprisoned that means they're guilty. You do not want this attitude loose in your legal system...

Laura, for constant updates on "the enemy combatant business" and other issues of law and justice, I recommend Denver attorney and activist Jeralyn Merritt's outstanding weblog TalkLeft.

As for whether there will be free elections in the US, etc., I don't think we've fallen into the abyss yet. As I've said before, I think most of the despairing oh-woe, game-over stuff I see posted by online friends of mine is overstated and unhelpful.

Our current circumstance is that big chunks of our government are controlled by people with bad intent, who play much more roughly than we're used to in recent American history. It has been by no means established that they can't be fought off.

To me the most important thing to look at is not just what is actually happening, but what powers are being held in reserve which have not been used yet. There's a kind of extraordinarily cheap, stupid realism that says "What are you worried about? You're acting like they're monitoring the library books you're reading, but they're simply not doing that. Take a deep breath."

It's really hard to say how stupid that is. All civil liberties awareness involves looking at the powers government has, rather than simply the government's acts. The question to ask is, in case of a declared state of emergency (etc.) or political unrest, what restraints are there on the police? Starting with Reagan and also under Clinton and Bush II (not sure about I), there have been major increases in police powers, combined with the loosening of restraints and oversight on the police and also a relaxing of the rules prohibiting the use of the military in domestic policing.

And we always have to worry that a "state of emergency" (not the correct legal term) can be declared by administrative fiat and might be as trumped-up as the WMD claims.

To say nothing about the fct that Ashcroft will be in the drivers' seat.

The black-helicopter people went over the top, they were insanely hostile to the Clintons, and were otherwise a pretty unappetizing bunch, but some of what they were saying was valid. Clinton's civil liberties instincts were very poor.

*strangled noise* Isn't a US military base anywhere in the world by definition US territory? Isn't that the idea?

*more strangled noises* I think I have go to write to my Congress creatures, cursed be their names, and ask that question. And maybe a letter to the editor. God, how do you *deal* with crap like that?

"There's a kind of extraordinarily cheap, stupid realism that says "What are you worried about? You're acting like they're monitoring the library books you're reading, but they're simply not doing that. Take a deep breath."

Yes.

There is the situation you have when they are shooting people.

And then there is the situation you have when people are going around saying "at least they are not shooting people". Which is the same situation where other people are going around saying "it's not like they are shooting people."

I should prefer the situation where people are saying, very rarely, because it doesn't come up much, "of course they are not shooting people. What in Hell would they be shooting people for?"

I dunno. Anymore, I have a crisis of conscience every time I cross the border. We picked a Hell of a decade in which to have a US citizen as a partner, that's all I'm saying.

Slightly off the topic of prison camps, but related to the disenfranchisement of voters, NPR reported this morning that Bush, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, et. al. receive 80% of their donations from people giving $200 or more. Dean and Clark received 54% of their donations from people giving $200 or LESS. That's really saying something considering that Dean has raised ~$12 million this way (~$25 million total), primarily on the internet.

Tell that to the internet whiners.

See politicalmoneyline.com for full contribution totals for all candidates.

I grew up in the military. I don't understand. I was under the impression that, de facto, ALL military bases ANYWHERE were "American soil."

WTF?

I just had a 1984 moment. Is this for real, or bad reporting?

They are not the same as diplomatic enclaves. The U.S. may run them, but bases overseas belong (technically, but it is a legal technicality we are discussing) to the host Gov't. In theory the same sort of trick could be done in Germany, Japan, etc., but the local Gov't might not be so willing to accomodate us.

The glory (if such there be) to Cuba is that we have no diplomatic relations with them (Gitmo is ours by arm-twisting and the threat of force) so we can ignore them. There is not Standard Of Forces Agreement with them, so we can make up the rules as we go along.

The more frightening thing is the "enemy combatant issue" which seems to raise the spector of enclaves in the U.S. proper where we can create our own ranks of the, "disappeared."

For those who doubt this could happen, recall that Ried was held from March until June before we were told of his arrest.

Terry K.

"I should prefer the situation where people are saying, very rarely, because it doesn't come up much, "of course they are not shooting people. What in Hell would they be shooting people for?"

Addendum; I fell into a habit there which I abhor and consider dangerous: the IDEAL construction is "Of course WE are not shooting people."

The notion that government is something that happens to people is IMO one of the most dangerous ones one can wilfully propogate in a representative democracy, as it simultaneously makes us feel helpless and allows us to feel blameless. I try hard not to do it

They are not the same as diplomatic enclaves. The U.S. may run them, but bases overseas belong (technically, but it is a legal technicality we are discussing) to the host Gov't. In theory the same sort of trick could be done in Germany, Japan, etc., but the local Gov't might not be so willing to accomodate us.

US Air Force bases in Britain hide behind a legal figleaf of supposedly belonging to the RAF (RAF Lakenheath, RAF Fairford, etc.). And, as you say, a Guantanamo-style prison camp (detainees being neither prisoners of war nor criminal suspects, total lack of judicial oversight) would be illegal in Germany or Britain. That said, here in Britain we've revived internment, so we can't complain about the indefinite detention bit...

The Guantanamo situation always bugs me. One of the things that has nagged at me since the beginning is, why is it that when we bring up proposed/potential/actual violations of prisoners' civil rights, we're told "This is war; they're prisoners of war, not common criminals, so the rules of our civil justice system shouldn't apply." Then, when we comment on how captured enemy fighters are treated, we're told "The Geneva Convention doesn't apply, because they're not soldiers, they're criminals."

I'm not sure if both explanations have ever been applied to any one case, but it sure feels like they want it both ways.

And I just, against my better judgment, replied to a Usenet post in which someone argued, essentially, that "it could be worse--if some other country were doing this, would they let the prisoners exercise their religion?"

So I noted that, depending on which other country, and which religion, they might--and that, more to the point, being told "we may imprison you without charges or notifying anyone, for as long as we like, but we'll let you exercise your religion" does not make me feel any more comfortable than if it didn't have the bit about religion in it. Yes, I'm an unbeliever--but many of my friends and loved ones are religious, and I don't think the presence, at camp X-ray, of kosher food, or access to priests/ministers/rabbis/imams of the appropriate religion makes up for what else is being done there.

Hey, no one has mentioned the domestic unlawful combatants, two of whom just happen to be American citizens, held in camera in military custody without charge, trial or even counsel. The government needn't even use the fiction of "Cuban soil" to pull this off. HABEAS CORPUS HAS ALREADY BEEN SUSPENDED AT THE SOLE WHIM OF THE PRESIDENT. And so far, at least, the courts that have dealt with this have more or less said "o.k.-- the President has... um... WAR POWERS-- yeah that's it." Well, the fuck he does. There's been no declaration of war-- other than by him.

I will repeat my offer to anyone who wants to be the lead plaintiff on this: the only challenge I see concerns PAYING for Gitmo-- a taxpayer standing suit under a case called Flast v. Cohen, on the theory that Congress may not spend money for something blatantly unconstitutional (pursuant to its spending power) and a taxpayer has standing to bring such a suit. Well, running a tropical fantasy concentration camp in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other treaty obligations where the rules of law don't apply IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I volunteer to prepare the appropriate papers for such a lawsuit, for anyone interested.

The courts have jurisdiction over CONGRESS and its spending of money, even if they insist on the fiction of not having jurisdiction over Bush and Rumsfeld, who are in the United States, in their operation of the fantasy camp.

"it could be worse--if some other country were doing this, would they let the prisoners exercise their religion?"

Let.

Let?

LET??!!

OK. It could be worse. I hear people saying this. Um, how exactly? Note that I am neither a US citizen nor even a US resident and therefore "they could be doing it to citizens" (or "to citizens who were born here") does not actually meet my criteria for "worse."

Signatories of the Genva Convention do not LET prisoners practice their religion. They recognise their right to do so.

You know, promptly every time that Amnesty International releases their human rights abuses data, the US comes out poorly. Not worst by any stretch, but much worse than they ought to.

And promptly every time, commentators jump all over this AS EVIDENCE OF EXTREME POLITICAL BIAS WITHIN AMNESTY.

I know. No one here has expressed or implied such things. I do not mean to imply that they have.

To pick at nits (from wounded pride) I did mention those citizens being held, and that, were it not for some political need we would only know of one.

That, as much (perhaps more) as Gitmo, is what gives me shivers when I think of it.

There are other things about Gitmo which give me shivers. I happen to think we are violating Geneva, the Constitution and the souls of those we are sending to interrogate the prisoners there.

That those people are (in many cases) friends of mine, does not make me rest easier, if anything it makes the disturbing thoughts in the middle of the night even grimmer.

Torture, even so mild a torture as we are using (and, not to mince words, the "sleep modification,", the "stress positions," &c, being used there are forms of torture) affect the torturer more than the torturee.

That similar things are being done in Afghanistan makes it worse. People who leave Gitmo have added that set of tools to the bag and will drag it out when need seems to demand them.

I have seen a growing callousness toward the humanity of prisoners, and it disturbs me, angers me and pains me, since I am afraid my students will go out and do likewise.

Terry K.