News and Opinion for Democrats Against Bush -- Part II
What Is the Legal Status of Guantanamo "Detainees"?
BUSH and the MEDIA
-- Gay Rights
-- The Real Deficit
---- Deficit Lies
-- International Debt
---- Children Will Pay
-- Tax Cut Con Game
---- Tax-Cut Lies
------ to Small Business
---- Phony Benefits
---- Hurting States
---- Why Accepted?
---- Cuts Will Backfire
-- Low-Tax Mania
-- Move toward Flat Tax
-- Corp. Tax Dodgers
-- Corporate Welfare
---- Halliburton
-- The SUV Boondoggle
-- Unemploym't Worse
------ Comp. Denied
---- Jobs Not Created
-- Widespread Poverty
-- False Recovery
-- Stock Market
-- Texas Sch. Scandals
-- Broken Promises
-- Abandoned Youth
-- College Aid Cut
-- Aid to Rich Colleges
-- Textbooks Censored
-- Acad. Freedom Denied
ELECTRONIC VOTING -- --- A Crucial Issue
-- Monstrous Bill
---- Allows Blackouts
---- Bi-Part. Oppos'n
-- New Energy Bill
-- Bush's "Eco-Speak"
---- How to Tell Lies
-- Crimes v. Nature
---- Air Pollution
---- Global Warming
---- Ozone Depletion
---- Chemical Hazards
---- Loss of Wildlife
-- States Combat Bush
---- Power Plant Suits
-- Pension Funds, Too
-- Worker Safety
-- Real Jobless Stats
-- Overtime in Danger
-- Poor Ranking
-- Privatized Socialism
-- Health Insurance
---- The Uninsured
------ Middle Class
-- Cost of Drugs
-- Medicare
---- A Cynical Bill
---- Favoring HMOs
---- $$ to Drug Co.s
---- Bait and Switch
---- AARP Sells Out
---- Bullying to Win
---- Australian Critique
---- Some Good News
-- Chill on Research
-- Amtrak
-- Mars vs. Amtrak
-- Use of Language
--'Enemy Combatants'
-- Ultra-Secret Trials
-- Homeland Insecurity
---- Funds Miss Needs
-- FBI Prying Grows
---- Targeting Protests
------ & Anti-Bush Talk
-- Computer Privacy
-- Patriot Act
---- Excesses
------ Cure - SAFE Act
---- Dangers
---- Author's Fear
---- Librarians' Warning
--"Patriot Act II"
---- Death for Protest?
---- Sneak Enactments
---- GAO Criticisms
---- EFF Concerns
-- Guantanamo
---- Conditions
---- Legal Status
---- UK Judge's Blast
-- Torture Condoned
---- Canadian's Ordeal
-- Yousef Yee
-- Scientists Accuse
---- Admin. Can't Deny
-- Abortion Truths
-- Notorious Photo

BBC News
Q&A: Guantanamo Bay detainees
US officials insist the 600 detainees in Cuba are not prisoners-of-war under the Geneva conventions. News Online looks at their legal status.
The complete article is currently (4/5/04) available on the BBC News website at--
Why are the detainees in Cuba?

In the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan in 2001, about 660 people from 42 countries were sent to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation and detention.

The detainees were taken to a place outside US territory to minimise the application of legal constraints that might otherwise apply. ...

What is their status?

The US considers them to be "enemy combatants", but "unlawful" ones, outside the normal legal framework. They are being held indefinitely without trial or access to lawyers, though the US goverrment says that military tribunals are planned for at least some of them.

The concept of "unlawful combatant" comes from a case during the Second World War in which German saboteurs were caught in the United States wearing civilian clothes. ...

What does their status mean for the detainees?

If the detainees are not legally prisoners of war, then they are not entitled to various protections provided by the Geneva conventions.

Also, certain restrictions on interrogation of prisoners-of-war, contained in the Geneva conventions, will not apply.

Human Rights Watch says that the prisoners are in a "legal black hole."

What is the attitude of the US courts?

A US Appeals Court rejected a claim by a number of prisoners for a writ of habeas corpus. This is an ancient right in English law and was put into the US constitution. Under it a prisoner may petition to be brought to a court and have the legality of his imprisonment examined. ...

However, the US Supreme Court has now decided to examine the issue itself and is expected to make a ruling sometime in the first half of next year.

What legal opposition has there been?

Many lawyers in the United States have criticised the refusal of the US courts to claim jurisdiction. So have former judges and diplomats. Many of them put their arguments to the US Supreme Court.

The British Court of Appeal rejected a petition by a British detainee for a judicial review of the British government's position. But it found his indefinite detention "objectionable" and said that it "surprising" that the US courts had refused to intervene. ...

Do they have any safeguards?

Yes. The detainees are protected by the general international law of human rights. This requires humane conditions of detention and fair trials in the event of prosecutions.

The US Government has said that it is treating the detainees in accordance with the principles of the Geneva conventions. It also allows visits to the prisoners by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

What sort of trial do they face?

The Pentagon has said that military tribunals will be used and that they will be fair.

Human rights groups argue that they would not give the defendants proper protection. For example, an accused or his lawyer would not be able to see all the evidence against him. ...

What happens to those found guilty?

Those found guilty in military tribunals will be sentenced by military judges. If there are any criminal trials, they would be sentenced in the ordinary manner.

Depending on the particular charges, the death penalty may be available.

From convictions by military commissions, there is an appeal process but it goes through the Defence Secretary to the President, not to the civilian courts unlike US courts martial.

Why are US citizens not held in Cuba?

Because they have rights under the US constitution not available to others. One prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, Yasser Hamdi, was found to have been born in the US, though he grew up in Saudi Arabia, and was therefore a US citizen. He was transferred to a military prison in the US. ...


  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.