CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Up Next at GuantánamoCould it be? News spread late last week, just in time for Fourth of July barbecue discussions, that the White House is pondering how it will shutter Guantánamo, and what it will do with the remaining 265 detainees there. Tomorrow, the Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia might make the decision for them: Judge Robertson will hear arguments on whether to grant the motion brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan's attorneys to stay his trial at Gitmo, currently scheduled to begin on July 21. Robertson's decision will invariably affect all 249 habeas claims that have been filed on behalf of detainees at Guantánamo. In addition: A first order of business for the court is to determine whether to issue an injunction to stop the military tribunals at Guantánamo from proceeding.The New York Times points out: [C]ritics say an injunction barring one trial, particularly after the defeat for the administration's detention policy last month in the Supreme Court, could effectively bring the entire war-crimes system to a halt.Let's hope so. It'd be about time this illegitimate sham of a "legal" system was stopped once and for all. Meanwhile, the UK's Telegraph reports that Guantánamo base commander Mark Leary has indicated that the military might transform the base into a "rapid reaction" base for marines to deploy to nearby trouble spots in the Caribbean, Central and Latin America. When the base commander is thinking about what to do when detainees leave, and the Secretaries of State and Defense, not to mention a few other notables, have called for its closure, it's time to close it. For real.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 1 Response to "Up Next at Guantánamo" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jul 8th, 2008 at 3:52pm
The New York Times points out:
[C]ritics say an injunction barring one trial, particularly after the defeat for the administration’s detention policy last month in the Supreme Court, could effectively bring the entire war-crimes system to a halt.
Let’s hope so. It’d be about time this illegitimate sham of a "legal" system was stopped once and for all.
--------------------------------------
The terrorists use our liberties to infiltrate our securities as a Nation.
The real SHAM is the New York Times agenda to not care what happens with these terrorists when they are released and hit us again, just for a liberal agenda.
tcdaver