Analysis Of Guantanamo Bay

analytic cogitateing Of Guantanamo true laurelGuantanamo verbalises detainment center is a f only in States operated detainment facility find on the s stunnedhern tip of Cuba. It became primarily naturalsworthy run 9/11 when m both Ameri privys felt threatened by the uncertainty of terrorism. Guantanamo request has been sharply criticized by human rights activists such as absolution outside and the debate includes some very major(ip) political figures. Although it was brought to the devil together States tyrannical Court recently, almost major political figures hurt historic all toldy attended to rate a port from the subject due to its contr everyplacesial nature. The major topic which I forget discuss in this paper is the legal sovereignty of Guantanamo verbalise and the fine railway line the unify States political sympathies walks between national guarantor and civil liberties. From the acquisition of Guantanamo to the current legal standing to the variou s positions from major political figures do of importwide, basically every aspect of this douse remains debated and super controversial. I will attempt in my paper to present an unbiased, genuine account of Guantanamo call for and its current world standing.The get together States first acquired Guantanamo Bay in 1898 when it intervened against Spain to assist Cuba in their indep oddmentence. Ironically, the United States stepped in to assist Cuba with their turn on for independence from Spain exclusively ended up playing a part very similar to Spains role. Since the United States historically was non major world play it needed Cuba and the Spanish-the Statesn struggle to secure its own impact on Latin America and it subsequently became a major impact on every Cuban conclusion for the next sixty long clock. In 1901, the U.S government signed into law the Platt Amendment which was an amendment added to the 1901 Army Appropriations Act. This amendment outlined the condit ions of future Cuban- U.S relations and gave the United States the legal rights to, among other things, Guantanamo Bay.1The agreement between the United States and Cuba statesTo enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or remove to the United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain contract points, to be agreed upon with the chairwoman of the United States.2Although this was signed by the electric chair of Cuba and the prexy of the United States in 1903, the legality has since been called into question. The United States diplomatic pressure, approve by array occupation at the time was a spacious impact on the agreement in question. Although the United States agreed to redress a nominal rent of 3,386.25 per year to Cuba, the agreement was largely in regard of the U.S government. In 1960, when Fidel Castro came into power he imme diately ref dod to accept any further payment and publically bashed the United States occupation of Guantanamo Bay. According to hold 52 of the 1969 Vienna Law of Treaties, A conformity is void if its mop up has been procured by the threat or use of force in usurpation of the principles of internationalist law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.3At the time Cuba agreed to lease Guantanamo Bay to the United States, the U.S had just aided them in gaining their independence from Spain and was subdued a huge influence in their government. Cuba was non in the position to itemise them no, computeless of Cubas preference on the matter. However, the United States has argued that according to Article 4,Without prejudice to the application of any rules come forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under(a) international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which argon discernment by States afterwards the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.4the treated is still in burden and should be honored. Since Cuba still does not rescue the force or military capability to advert the United States leave, the United States is still occupying Guantanamo. The topic befuddle further tutelage post 9/11 with President pubic hairs War on Terrorism. At this point, no one really k freshly where Guantanamo Bay fell in term of ultimate sovereignty and whos rules applied to the base. Also, since the military was in charge of the use of the land, there was very little transp atomic number 18ncy about what was actually passing game on there. Finally in June of 2004, the United States independent Court command in Rasul v. Bush, that U.S Courts do pass on the jurisdiction to handle cases involving foreign nationals wrongfully held in Guantanamo Bay saying that to determine the legality of the Executives potentially one(prenominal) detention of individuals who cla im to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing. After to a greater extent decades, detainees, or enemy combatants as they were originly known, had the right and access to argufy the legality of their detention.5Guantanamo Bays detention facility is a heavy topic that spans crossways all levels of government. Former President Bush and the current president, Barack Obama take a leak both been very vocal about their opinions on the subject. The Bush plaque and the justice Department carefully prepared the legal groundwork for Guantanamo Bay post 9/11. They claimed that the Republic of Cuba has ultimate sovereignty over Guantanamo. As a result of this, they had no obligation to uphold the United States constitution and the detainees had no legal rights in U.S courts. However, they withal argued that Cuban law has no effect in Guantanamo, so the area in effect was basically lawless.President Obama on the other hand, took a completely different position on Guantanamo Bay. Within his first weeks as President he vowed to shut pot Guantanamo Bay inwardly the year.In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice,6Although it has been over a year, the Obama administration maintains that it is still their designing to shut down the detention center. They also progenyd a long expect new rule book for the Obama-era war court that put an end to pre-confinement detention counting toward post Guantanamo sentences(to avoid statuss like Salim Hamdan which I will discuss later)7.The legislative branch does not seem to play virtually as large as a role as the administrator and judicial branch in this scenario. However, Attorney General Eric Holder junior blamed recounting for not coming to a consensus on where a replacement facility for Guantanamo should be and for not approving funding for the new detention center in a timely manner. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have by to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not inbred to our national security.8Although their role is not as significant, they by all odds make a pickle of voters question the Obama Administration and his promise to close Guantanamo Bay within one year of his presidency.In a major rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the administration the millions it desire to close the prison. The 90-6 Senate vote-paired with similar House action last week-was a swooning sign to Obama that he faces a tough fight getting the Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with his plans to shut dow n the detention center and move the 240 detainees.9The main problem they face is that forty-eight detainees left still need to be held indefinitely and they have nowhere to put them if they leave Cuba. We have to have an option, and that will require congressional support for the funding request we have made, Holder said.10The judicial branch, as seen in Rasul v. Bush, has chosen to hear a some Guantanamo Bay cases although, historically most cases were heard by military courts. Although Rasul v. Bush was a huge landmark case, there were a few other decisions inflexible around this time period that gave rights to the prisoners in Guantanamo as well. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which was actually decided on the same day, June 28, 2004 (although argued a week after) as Rasul v. Bush, ruled on the legality of holding a United States citizen indefinitely as an enemy combatant. The dictatorial Court ruled that although Hamdis detention was authorized, the fifth part Amendments due make for p ass waters all citizens the right to challenge their detention. This cased differed from umpteen of the Guantanamo Bay cases because Hamdi was actually a U.S citizen instead of a foreign national. Bourmediene v. Bush was another landmark case for Guantanamo Bays detainees and was decided recently in 2008. The dictatorial Court decided in Bourmediene v. Bush that ALL detainees at Guantanamo Bay should have a right to challenge their detention through U.S federal official Courts.11Navi Pillay who is the United Nations High deputationer for Human Rights was extremely happy about Obamas decision to close Guantanamo Bay. The fact that President Barack Obama has placed such a last priority on closing Guantnamo and set in motion a system to safeguard the fundamental rights of the detainees there is extremely encouraging, she stated. The High Commission for Human Rights also wants the United States to change its approach on maneuver used to detain individuals abroad. Pillay even went fa r enough to raise the issue of compensation for those judged to be innocent and called for a thorough investigation into allegations of single-foot at the Guantnamo centre.12Although the United Nations does not have any physical way to enforce their recommendations, they are an extremely influential organization and hold a lot of weight internationally. They are expected to be unbiased with their recommendations and are portrayed as an international law and human rights peace keeper to facilitate achieving world peace.The last major players in this controversial situation are human rights interest groups such as acquittal world(prenominal). Amnesty International has been a huge, non-governmental player in the debate and was notably quoted for craft Guantanamo Bay a human rights scandal. They actually have an entire parting on their website dedicated to Guantanamo Bay and quotes from various officials and organizations describing the torture and speaking out about the legality of Guantanamo.The war on terror does not prune violations of international human rights law. The Counter Terror with Justice campaign deeds to stop torture close Guantnamo end illegal U.S. detentions stop exceptional rendition restore fair trials and habeas corpus and hold accountable all those who authorized and implemented these human rights abuses.13Even though Amnesty International is only a non-governmental organization, they have an incredible standing worldwide and they are consistently setting the standard for other human rights organizations.14They also have a huge following internationally and receive a lot of volunteer and monetary support. Although they have had a lot of success and received the noneel Peace Prize for their campaign against torture, they have also been criticized by galore(postnominal) political figures and even religious organizations such as the Catholic Church. They have also lately been mixed up with alleged ties to a former Guantanamo Bay detai nee and his pro-jihad group which forced a senior Amnesty International official to resign her position because of her disappointment in the organization.15Rumsfeld, plot of land still the U.S Secretary of Defense, was quoted by saying the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were the most dangerous, trump out-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth. Although this is clearly biased because the Bush administration was very pro-keeping Guantanamo Bay open, Rumsfeld does make a valid point. While doing my research, I noticed a time line that the Washington Post make on Guantanamo Bay. Salim Hamdan, who was allegedly Osama bin Ladens driver and very active in the planning of various terrorist activities, was released to Yemen from Guantanamo in November of 2008 and was to be tried for his crimes by the Yemen courts. He ended up getting only five and a fractional years confinement and a little over five years was credited because of his previous imprisonment in Guantanamo and vario us U.S custody locations. He was actually released a little over a month after his transfer to Yemen and was guiltless to do whatever he wanted. I also read a lot on Yemen and their position on the War on Terrorism. When the United States offered to return prisoners to Yemen last year, Yemen officials demanded money for a reformation center. The Yemeni government uses terrorism and fighting terrorism as a tool to get political and financial benefit, said Khaled Alansi. They did not have anything to market themselves to the world, especially the United States, except fighting terrorism.16Prior to all my research on Guantanamo Bay, I thought the idea behind the detention center was completely ridiculous. It was basically a lawless black topical anestheticisation where the United States government could do whatever they wanted. In addition, very few reports were issued by the government because of confidentiality and the nature of their crimes so it was very hard to tell what was r eally going on there. From what I read, there had been suicides by tenfold prisoners and even reports of guards defacing the Muslim holy book, the Quran. Although my opinion is still in favor of shutting down Guantanamo, I do understand the severity of the issue at hand a little better now. I think the biggest factor that changed my opinion was the example of Hamdan(which I discussed earlier) and Yemens position on the matter. I am afraid that once released, many prisoners will walk free with an even deeper hatred for the United States and a greater passion for wakeless us.Torture and abuse cost American livesI learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in IraqHow anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me unless you dont count American soldiers as Americans.17In one sense, Guantanamo Bay is a catch 22. If we keep the prisoners locked outside(a) in Guantanamo we wont have to worry about prisoners being releases and jump to plan terrorist attacks again. However, if we dont release them we are alienating so many in the Middle East that we will eventually have many new threats.Regardless of national security, laws are in place for a reason and what we have been doing in Guantanamo seems to be highly unethical and should be illegal. Since the United States does have complete control over the territory, I believe that U.S laws should definitely apply. The United States is a country that has always prided itself on human rights and our legal system and there should not be a loophole created when the government deems it necessary.Although the process is slow, the courts have seemed to be regulating the United States militarys full control over Guantanamo. Like I discussed previously, the Obama administration has actually pledged to shut down Guantanamo Bay anyway so the pro blem is not nearly grievous as it was under the Bush, more conservative, administration. So much of the previous information we have on Guantanamos sovereignty and who has complete control seems to be disoriented in translation. A sensible policy for future use would be to either put Guantanamo under our constitutions regulation or possibly picture new legislation for the area.Also, in regards to possession of Guantanamo, I believe the United States should set a time period by which they pledge to give Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba. The grounds in which the United States was given Guantanamo Bay was shaky as it was since Cuba were still under U.S rule and it does not seem right to allow a country to make a treaty with itself. Since the primary purpose of Guantanamo post cold-war has been to detain suspected terrorist and the Obama Administration decided to no longer use it for that purpose, it is not nearly as great anymore for the U.S military. In addition, it was a perfect locat ion in the informant of the 1900s since we wanted to expand into South America and exert our dominance but global positioning is no longer a primary goal. and so again, during the Cold War, Guantanamo was a prime strategic location if we were to go to war with Cuba but we are no longer at the brink of nuclear war and if we felt the need to intervene in South America (I hope not) we would not necessarily need Cuba.Although I do not plan to get involved in this situation, I believe the best way to fix an issue such as this would be through the legal system. Since I have always been extremely interested in law, I read part of Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power by Joseph Margulies. Margulies was the lead council in Rasul v. Bush and talked about his experiences throughout most of the book. any year, the Supreme Court agrees to review only a tiny fraction of the cases clamoring for its attention. For that reason, many lawyers believe, not without reason, that the most impor tant document in a case is the one that asks the court to accept review, call the appeal for writ of certiorari. The petition in Rasul, drafted in the summer of 2003, went through more than dozen drafts, and in the final product, my colleagues and I tried to capture not simply the legal reasons for review, but the moral consequences if the Court were to remain silent. My great fear was that the Bush Administration would simply forget about the prisoners, in the vain hope the world would too.18Margulies describes in detail how much time and thought went into this brief. Not only was it almost impossible to get the Supreme Court to recognize the issue and the case but also it was not like a typical writ of certiorari. It was drafted more than a dozen times and contained not only the legal grounds as to wherefore it should be heard but the ethical and moral justifications as well. This is not a law suit that anyone can get through to the Supreme Court. I think the main way I could personally get involved, a side from getting my law degree and going into international civil rights law, is spreading awareness. I could try writing to my local senator or possibly even get published in a local newspaper or magazine. The President and Congresss main goal is to get reelected so theyll ultimately do what is important to the voters.