Lawyers to sue or British daintees in Cuba

[Dr Mordrid]

1. I believe the UN charter covers people charged with crimes under a given nations criminal statutes. As such this doesn't apply since they are;

a. in military custody and

b. Supreme Court decisions going back decades and in Federal Court decisions within the last few weeks say that they are not within the US courts jurisdiction because they are being held on foreigh soil: Cuba. Therefore any of the UN's sway over our courts is moot since the courts have no authrority over these people.

2. Even so the US Code states that crimes comitted against US citizens overseas can be, but do not have to be, prosecuted HERE in Federal Court. Furthermore the US Marshalls and other Federal agencies are given the authority to go overseas and abduct them if necessary.

Also under the US Code those aiding and abetting those who do an act of terrorism are guilty of a Federal offence as well and also prime for overseas picking. Enter the Taliban.

In the case of terrorism the max penalty is death by hanging or lethal injection.

3. Since by necessity the UN has to defer to national codes on many issues I believe part of any such process would include something called "Prosecutorial Discretion", which means the UK prosecutors don't have to go after anyone if they feel the bad guys would be better punished in another jurisdiction or in a military court.

Dr. Mordrid

[dancray]

dr. mordrid, I would not bring the UN charter into things as the US has shown disregard to it on numerous occasions; like the bombing of Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc...(those were US led/ NATO actions NOT ENDORSED by the UN). The US does what it wants and when it wants. Heck, it has even openly stated that it does not accept jurisdiction of the War Crimes tribunal in Hague as applicable to ANY US citizens; and chooses whether or not to accept any rulings by the Hague regardless of the circumstatnces. How's that for integrity?

You seem to have a very clear cut, somewhat black and white interpretation of matters; quoting rules and guidelines with conviction that they will followed to the letter by the US. This is naive to the extreme; perhaps you should look at some alternative mainstream fodder; take a peek at some of Noam Chomsky's writings. If you have an openmind you may find some enlightenment there.

and one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter - moshe dayan was called a terrorist by the US gov't in the 1950s; he then became head of the Israeli military and US ally.


sincerely

dc


chomsky on mid-east

http://www.msnbc.com/news/637155.asp?cp1=1#BODY

chomsky on yug:

http://www.softmakers.com/fry/docs/chomintyug.htm

[The PIT]

Thanks Dr Morbid for that.
One or two other points. The red cross have inspected the sites and have said that the prisoners are not being mistreated. One has written to his mother (Under prisoners of war interestingly) saying that he has been well kept.
Whether they are prisoners of war or not is a different question as prevously discussed in other threads. I commented then that present coventions of warfare don't allow for terrorism which now can be spread quickly and easily across the world where prevousily it would be difficult to do so.
No doubt the members of binnies boys don't consider the struggle over and if released would go back to the planning and killing innocent people around the world. One reason why America is reluctant to release them until other countries will try them. Understandable.
As for civil liberties, if these poeple have admitted to being part binnies network, as far as I'm concerned they have removed all there own civil rights anyway.

[The PIT]

Dancray thanks for the links the guy seems to have serious problem.

[RedRed]

Actually that is not at all what I was referring to Dr Mordrid.

The British government is obliged to 'make all efforts' to secure the return of its citizens being held in another country, if that citizen has not been charged with a crime in that country.

If they are charged, the british government is also charged with ensuring that representation is made available to the prisioner, and that they are treated in the same way as a national (all of which are failed under the current situation).

The 'aiding and abetting' that the litigation has threated is to do with this, as I understan it.

Heard it on Radio 4, so it must be true!

RedRed

[Wombat]

I think that the "held on foreign soil" bit is utter crap. 99 times out of 100 US military bases are treated as US soil. Do you think Cubans can just walk in there as if it's still held by their country? I didn't think so.

[RedRed]

sorry wombat... you have picked me up wrong.

The british govt ?can?/ ?may? be sued by a national for not defending that nationals right abroad.

This stems from the fact that
(a) the country holding the british national is not applying the same rules for its own nationals so held.

(b) the national has not been charged with anything

(c) the national has not been offered access to a brief/legal assistance.

the BRITISH GOVT may be sued, NOT the US govt. Its because they have not sought the speedy processing of the prisoners at came x-ray


RedRed