Recommendation to the President I recommend that Abu bin Al-Baghdadi should be tried at a federal court in the U.S. Military commissions which were set by the administration of George W. Bush have been criticized for lacking accountability and fair trial processes to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people tend to think that indefinite detention at the facility is fair enough due to legal, political, and economic constraints that prevent transfer of detainees at the military facility to face justice in the U.S. One fundamental factor in detaining the likes of Al-Baghdadi at the prison is because they are suspects of war crimes and terrorism which led to the deaths of many innocent civilians and America’s service men and women. Families …show more content…
The international condemnation of the U.S. because of her treatment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees is a challenge that America must rise to encounter be ensuring fairness and respect to the rule of law that the U.S. has defended since the nation was founded. When Al-Baghdadi is held indefinitely at the prison facility, it becomes quite certain that America shall have deemed him guilty of his alleged criminal activities. However, full impact of the rule of law requires persons like Al-Baghdadi to either be convicted or acquitted based on the principles of fair trial as the law requires. On the hand, his continual stay at the prison could subject him to possible inhumane treatment at the hands of military personnel who are manning the facility. As at present, the military commission which tries the detainees at Guantanamo Bay operates in isolation from the regulations on trial procedures which are expected of the civil courts within the U.S. For example, judicial review and/or chances of appealing decisions of the military commissions are technically nonexistent. These are plausible reasons which make Al-Baghdadi’s transfer into the U.S. for …show more content…
Following his conviction by a jury in New York, Preet Bharara, the Southern District attorney in the State lauded the trial as a sure indicator that civil courts have the capacity to try terror suspects. Mostafa was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (Inside Story team). The conviction of the terror suspect in the U.S. was an indicator that possible loopholes in law that inform critics’ opinions against trial of foreigners in the U.S. are not plausible enough. A new policy framework should also include conditions under which foreign nationals who are detained at the military facility in Guantanamo Bay could be tried in the U.S. One condition would include grounds that their trials in the U.S. is warranted by ongoing wars and possibility of sectarian war outbreaks in any case high profile terror suspects are repatriated to their native
This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.
The torture of captured suspects is contrarian to the values of the American legal system because generally captured suspects are supposed to entitled to due process, according to Amendment V of the United States Constitution: “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Guantanamo Bay”. Terrorist which are held captive by the American government are presumed guilty but are not being given a fair chance to seek representation in a court of law or have fall range access to their attorneys once they find themselves in a conflict. In my opinion, terrorists should have the opportunity to have their cases reviewed and be given a fighting chance instead of being held for an indefinite amount of time without due process or trial. The U.S
Along with this, with the issue being brought to public attention, the Guantánamo Bay system is coming under heavy criticism due to its lack of actual convictions. Despite this, President Trump has actually not only decided to keep the controversial prison open, but to continue sending more prisoners there as well. In actuality, this is only worsening the problem, as the current cases have all ground to a halt, all lasting much longer than anticipated. For example, the Nashiri case, which started in 2011, as well as cases for those accused with plotting the September 11 attacks, are all still being drawn out. On top of this, the judge, Colonel Vance Spath, of the case says that there will not be a jury for the hearing until December. To try to alleviate some of these problems, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has replaced both the top official supervising the cases, Harvey Rishikof, along with his chief of staff in the hopes that the new leadership will speed things along (Philipps, par.
Guantanamo Bay, though started with good intentions, only highlights America’s negative side. Marine Major General Michael Lehnert, who played a significant role in the opening of Guantanamo, has drastically changed his opinion and said that it, “Validates every negative perception of the U.S.” (Sutton 1). One example of this occurred in 2006, when President Bush justified the use of “physical coercion” (torture) during interrogations (Fetini 1). Some of these torture methods include isolation, beatings, sleep deprivation, and general abuse. Other tactics such as disrespect for Islamic symbols or sexual provocation are used to encourage stress in detainees (Bloche 1). These immoral methods led to an international outcry. It was later remarked that the Cuban territory upon which Guantanamo is located is being used as a “concentration camp” of sorts (Fetini 1). Guantanamo and its unethical values are being recognized by nations around the world, displaying America in a bad light.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, again, to review whether or not the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba may file a writ of habeas corpus giving those prisoners the power to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement. It is highly unusual for the Supreme Court to revisit such a decision once a case is rejected so the move created quite a buzz in the world of politics. In the article Primer: Guantanamo Detainees’ Rights, Ann Hawke explains the history behind this issue and provides clarity about its intentions.
Every person has the right to undergo a judicial hearing to avoid illegal detention. However, if that person poses threat to the society and the state, there are instances that the said right is overseen where these types of people are quickly detained after capturing. The writ of Habeas Corpus gives the rights to the captured people to undergo judicial trial. But there is also an article in the U.S. Constitution that states that the writ of Habeas Corpus can only be lifted if the people being questioned in involved in a rebellion or pose a threat to the safety of the public. That is why the administration of the previous U.S. President Bush detained all of the people whom they tagged as terrorist and were captured in the war on Afghanistan in 2001. The question now is to what extend must be the actions of an individual in order to undergo proper trial hearing or to just be put in imprisonment without any hearings or trials done? The purpose of this paper is to review issues within Habeas Corpus and GITMO, discuss how policies changing over time affect the dynamic state of United States, and how these changes can make a big impact to the future law making and practice of the country that is why this issue must be evaluated and examined.
Analyze the relevance of habeas corpus to the contemporary U.S. situation during the war on terror, especially with respect to persons characterized by as enemy
Rendition continues today but has reduced in frequency under the Obama administration. Now most targets are abducted, interrogated and taken to the US for trial (Wikipedia contributors, 2015). Bush’s administration gave the CIA legal authorization for new interrogation techniques which including sleep deprivation,waterboarding, and forced nudity. People are starting to ask whether this authorization bracks U.S. laws prohibiting torture (Amel Ahmed, 2014). The CIA interrogations its prisoners in secret places called blacks which are often overseas. In 2006 the 4th Circuit Court rejected extraterritoriality argument in the United States v. Pessaro case. This case was the only one of its kind in which a person with the CIA was convicted in connection to the war on terrorism. CIA contractor David Passaro was charged with assault due to the death of Abdul Wali while in the custody of U.S. The court found that two laws broke the territorial jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, allowing criminal prosecution of torture acts committed overseas (Amel Ahmed, 2014). The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 allows federal district court jurisdiction on civilians accompanying armed forces
The Mearsheimer and Walt article criticizes this administration’s focus on Saddam as a major threat to the United Stated. I find their arguments flawed in and they depict an incomplete picture of the Iraq and Saddam. I believe that Saddam remains a major threat to the United States, and I advocate that you continue to your plan of action against Saddam.
Through Langbein’s discussion of the history of torture, it is evident that throughout history we have made grave mistakes but thought that in that moment they were correct. His essay shows that with time and growth, those choices once made may not have been the best possible choice at that time. This could be applied to the issues surrounding Guantanamo Bay and the torture of suspected terrorist detainees. Most Americans may not mind the idea of torturing someone who has killed so many citizens if it means saving many lives. While this utilitarian approach has its benefits, it is not a decision that should be made so hastily. The use of torture to gain information may have had its moments of effectiveness, but with the few who have been tortured for years and have yet to talk, it begs the question, is this really
“Don’t Try Terrorists” Professor of Law at Harvard University states that some terrorists can’t be prosecuted because of how they aggressively the prisoner to confess (Goldsmith). In conclusion we should detain terrorists and for the love of our country stop sending drones to do our dirty work. Detainees that get released almost always return to the fight. The “fight” is the war on terrorism the reason for this entire paper. Terrorists are making their way into our country and will soon be hurting us. If our protectors can’t legally detain them before they become known terrorists then it may be too late. I have a right to life, they have a right to a fair trial. Both of the accusations are true. Terrorists are sent here to do us harm. If we aren’t allowed to detain the people we think are terrorists our world could forever
Over the past, several decades direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising (DTCPA) has rapidly grown. DTCPA is now the most common type of health communication that the public faces. Drug advertising is regulated by the FDA, but it is argued that FDA regulations are too relaxed and not always enforced. Limited research has been conducted on DTCPA, the research that does exist shows that DTCPA is both valuable and harmful to public health. The arguments on both sides of the DTCPA debate are fairly balanced, both sides can be supported by evidence. They want to limit or ban drug advertisements have been compromised to maximise the benefits and minimize the negative risks associated with the advertisements.
Omar Ahmed Algredr Khadr a Canadian citizen, born September 19, 1986 was convicted of murder after being accused of throwing a grenade; that blinded one soldier and killed another during an American firefight in Afghanistan 13 years ago. Nonetheless, later into the investigation, Omar admitted that in fact he threw the grenade; however, he was unsure whether or not it killed the soldier. After being extremely injured, he was captured by American soldiers, and was eventually held at the Guantanamo Bay prison for 10 years. Due to the extensive measures of torture this detention camp made Omar endure, he pled guilty to murder in October 2010 to numerous claimed war crimes. Soon after he was tried by the criminal courts run by the United States
Today, I will seek to prove that not only does the United States have a history of torturing terrorism suspects by methods including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and threats to the self or the family, but also that the use of such torture is illegal according to United States and international law. I will also argue that the United States is guilty of the illegal extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects. Further, I will argue that current standards for investigating terrorism suspects jeopardizes civil liberties under section 215 of the USA Patriot Act.
The research will try to address the below questions in a sequential manner in order to assess actual impact: