Comments on: Former Gitmo prisoners remain jailed in Pakistan http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/03/30/former_gitmo_pr/ All that flavorful brownness in one savory packet Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:11:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anonymous Cow http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/03/30/former_gitmo_pr/comment-page-1/#comment-6652 Anonymous Cow Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:05:50 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=1279#comment-6652 <p>ashvin: ah yes, now I remember, that's the show I watched. I remember thinking to myself that some of the man's claims were unbelievable. But even if half the things he said were true or rooted in truth, that is still cause for concern...</p> ashvin: ah yes, now I remember, that’s the show I watched. I remember thinking to myself that some of the man’s claims were unbelievable. But even if half the things he said were true or rooted in truth, that is still cause for concern…

]]> By: Saurav http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/03/30/former_gitmo_pr/comment-page-1/#comment-6647 Saurav Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:35:10 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=1279#comment-6647 <p>This is horrible, but it's part of a bigger problem. No one ever talks about what happens to the 1,000,000 plus other people that have been deported in the past 10 years (that's a government stat). Human rights violations are horrible, but so are "ordinary" deportations of people with friends, families, etc.</p> This is horrible, but it’s part of a bigger problem. No one ever talks about what happens to the 1,000,000 plus other people that have been deported in the past 10 years (that’s a government stat). Human rights violations are horrible, but so are “ordinary” deportations of people with friends, families, etc.

]]> By: ashvin http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/03/30/former_gitmo_pr/comment-page-1/#comment-6642 ashvin Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:00:12 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=1279#comment-6642 <p>Anonymous Cow : Are you talking about the Frontline show about Abdurahman Khadr called "Son of Al Qaeda" ? It's here : <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/</a></p> <p>It's the most incredible hour of TV I've seen in a long time.</p> Anonymous Cow : Are you talking about the Frontline show about Abdurahman Khadr called “Son of Al Qaeda” ? It’s here : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/

It’s the most incredible hour of TV I’ve seen in a long time.

]]> By: Anonymous Cow http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/03/30/former_gitmo_pr/comment-page-1/#comment-6640 Anonymous Cow Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:40:09 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=1279#comment-6640 <p>I recently watched a show about Guantanamo Bay (maybe Nightline?) that revealed an interesting anecdote. Apparently, there was a cash bounty paid to whomever turned in Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan. This bounty enticed many people to turn in innocent people, whether or not they were Al-Qaeda members.</p> I recently watched a show about Guantanamo Bay (maybe Nightline?) that revealed an interesting anecdote. Apparently, there was a cash bounty paid to whomever turned in Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan. This bounty enticed many people to turn in innocent people, whether or not they were Al-Qaeda members.

]]> By: deepa http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/03/30/former_gitmo_pr/comment-page-1/#comment-6637 deepa Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:02:33 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=1279#comment-6637 <p>The Supreme Court decided three cases about the enemy combatants in June of last year. The most relevant here is Rasul v. Bush. The narrow holding of that case was that US courts have the jurisdiction to hear legal challenges to the detention of foreigners captured abroad and interned at Gitmo (i.e. habeas corpus proceedings.) This is relevant b/c even though the people involved are not American, and they were not captured or detained on American soil, the Court found that the protections of the Constitution applied. Reading the opinions together, essentially – Gitmo is an extension of the US, and the foreign nationals have been brought within the aegis of the US judicial system.</p> <p>The cynical predicted that the US would ship 'em off. The question now is: do people who have been “shipped home” to be confined there continue to have the same Constitutional rights that they had while imprisoned at Gitmo?</p> <p><a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Hamdi%20et%20al%20v.%20Rumsfeld&url=/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html">Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld</a>, <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=padilla&url=/supct/html/03-1027.ZS.html">Padilla v. Rumsfeld </a>, <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZO.html"> Rasul et al v. Bush</a> (June 28, 2004)</p> <p>-D</p> The Supreme Court decided three cases about the enemy combatants in June of last year. The most relevant here is Rasul v. Bush. The narrow holding of that case was that US courts have the jurisdiction to hear legal challenges to the detention of foreigners captured abroad and interned at Gitmo (i.e. habeas corpus proceedings.) This is relevant b/c even though the people involved are not American, and they were not captured or detained on American soil, the Court found that the protections of the Constitution applied. Reading the opinions together, essentially – Gitmo is an extension of the US, and the foreign nationals have been brought within the aegis of the US judicial system.

The cynical predicted that the US would ship ‘em off. The question now is: do people who have been “shipped home” to be confined there continue to have the same Constitutional rights that they had while imprisoned at Gitmo?

Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld, Padilla v. Rumsfeld , Rasul et al v. Bush (June 28, 2004)

-D

]]>