Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
CHILDREN HELD AT CAMP X-RAY
The US authorities were shamed into admitting three inmates are teenagers, following an expose by an Australian TV station. But they refused to disclose the age of the youngest detainee.
CHILDREN HELD AT CAMP X-RAY
Apr 24 2003
By Mark Ellis
Daily Mirror
April 24, 2003
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12883794&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=CHILDREN%20HELD%20AT%20CAMP%20X%2DRAY
THREE of the terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay are aged just 16 and younger, America admitted yesterday.
Human rights groups criticised them for holding "captured children" without charge or access to lawyers in the top-security Camp X-ray in Cuba.
The US authorities were shamed into admitting three inmates are teenagers, following an expose by an Australian TV station.
But they refused to disclose the age of the youngest detainee.
Spokesman Lt Col Barry Johnson said the number of teenagers was "very few" and they were being held in a "communal setting" away from adult captives.
But he added that they had been "captured as active combatants against US forces" and were considered as enemy combatants.
The news brought fresh criticism from human rights groups opposed to the indefinite detention of the 660 men from 42 countries suspected of links to al-Qaeda.
Alistair Hodgett, of Amnesty International, said: "That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights."
James Ross, of the New York Human Rights Watch, said: "Detaining youths reflects our broader concerns that the US never properly determined the legal status of those held in the conflict.''
The age of the youngest inmates was discovered during routine medicals and screenings.
Last September, Canadian officials reported that a 15-year-old Canadian had been captured on July 27 after being badly wounded in a firefight in eastern Afghanistan.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12883794&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=CHILDREN%20HELD%20AT%20CAMP%20X%2DRAY
Apr 24 2003
By Mark Ellis
Daily Mirror
April 24, 2003
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12883794&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=CHILDREN%20HELD%20AT%20CAMP%20X%2DRAY
THREE of the terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay are aged just 16 and younger, America admitted yesterday.
Human rights groups criticised them for holding "captured children" without charge or access to lawyers in the top-security Camp X-ray in Cuba.
The US authorities were shamed into admitting three inmates are teenagers, following an expose by an Australian TV station.
But they refused to disclose the age of the youngest detainee.
Spokesman Lt Col Barry Johnson said the number of teenagers was "very few" and they were being held in a "communal setting" away from adult captives.
But he added that they had been "captured as active combatants against US forces" and were considered as enemy combatants.
The news brought fresh criticism from human rights groups opposed to the indefinite detention of the 660 men from 42 countries suspected of links to al-Qaeda.
Alistair Hodgett, of Amnesty International, said: "That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights."
James Ross, of the New York Human Rights Watch, said: "Detaining youths reflects our broader concerns that the US never properly determined the legal status of those held in the conflict.''
The age of the youngest inmates was discovered during routine medicals and screenings.
Last September, Canadian officials reported that a 15-year-old Canadian had been captured on July 27 after being badly wounded in a firefight in eastern Afghanistan.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12883794&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=CHILDREN%20HELD%20AT%20CAMP%20X%2DRAY
For more information:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page....
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
There are killers in American prisons too that are under the age of 16, what's the big deal? The terrorist pigs deserve to be there!
Sixteen year olds and younger in prisons in the US have been brought before a Court and had a trial (or at least we can only hope they did). The so=called "terrorists" at Camp X-ray have not been charged with anything, much less convicted. What a gross miscarriage of justice.
This is truely outrageous. These terrorists are indoctrining children this young, training them as mindless religious fanatic killers and then sending them into battle where they get wounded or killed.
What kind of sick people are these AQ 'leaders'. I think IMC is right in condemning these people.
What kind of sick people are these AQ 'leaders'. I think IMC is right in condemning these people.
These boys were captured while fighting against U.S. troops. That makes them combatants. They need to be held unitl it is determined that they no longer pose a threat. It is a military matter not a criminal matter.
They aren't terrorists. The are Afghan patriots who were captured while defending their country from foreign invaders. If your country was invaded, would you not do the same?
This is the kind of mindless dribble that the Bush administration continues to carry on about.
People who are defending their country from savage invaders are not terrorists. Strange how fighting to save one's homeland is an act of terrorism if it happens outside the US?
And not only that but no one in the Bush administration has taken the time to define its definition of terrorism.. Certainly the attack on Iraq can, and should, be viewd as a terrorist attack. It can be classified as nothing else but.
And this is the same government that yelled breach of the Geneva Convention when US and British soldiers were shown on Iraq television.
Double standard? I'd say. It's high time the international community said enough is enough. You either charge these people or release them. I daresay the reason they have not been charged with an offence is because there has been none committed.
People who are defending their country from savage invaders are not terrorists. Strange how fighting to save one's homeland is an act of terrorism if it happens outside the US?
And not only that but no one in the Bush administration has taken the time to define its definition of terrorism.. Certainly the attack on Iraq can, and should, be viewd as a terrorist attack. It can be classified as nothing else but.
And this is the same government that yelled breach of the Geneva Convention when US and British soldiers were shown on Iraq television.
Double standard? I'd say. It's high time the international community said enough is enough. You either charge these people or release them. I daresay the reason they have not been charged with an offence is because there has been none committed.
International law prohibits the intentional targeting of civilians. A civilian who then takes up arms against a military force forfeits that protection. The detainees are not necessarily being held as criminals but as combatants. They are being questioned for any useful information and can and will be held until such time as they are deemed to pose no further threat.
As far as a claim of a double putting POW's on display is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Holding them until the end of a conflict and a negotiated settlement is not.
These men chose their path and now must face the consequences for their actions.
As far as a claim of a double putting POW's on display is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Holding them until the end of a conflict and a negotiated settlement is not.
These men chose their path and now must face the consequences for their actions.
And this "threat" ends when?
Already there have been several suicides there, and as the outside world has no access to these "combatants" (not their lawyers or anyone else), it begs the question when will it end?
Certainly while international law prevents targeting civlilians, this has not caused the US to avoid civilians in Iraq, in Afghanistan, nor does it bother Israel either when daily we hear of yet another youngster being shot, or a journalist, or a peace activist. Guess international law only applies when the US wants it to.
At least the attack on Iraq explains why the US has refused to acknowledge the International Court of Justice, and why it blackmailed the United Nations re withdrawiing its troops from peacekeeping roles last year.
Already there have been several suicides there, and as the outside world has no access to these "combatants" (not their lawyers or anyone else), it begs the question when will it end?
Certainly while international law prevents targeting civlilians, this has not caused the US to avoid civilians in Iraq, in Afghanistan, nor does it bother Israel either when daily we hear of yet another youngster being shot, or a journalist, or a peace activist. Guess international law only applies when the US wants it to.
At least the attack on Iraq explains why the US has refused to acknowledge the International Court of Justice, and why it blackmailed the United Nations re withdrawiing its troops from peacekeeping roles last year.
Certainly while international law prevents targeting civlilians, this has not caused the US to avoid civilians in Iraq, in Afghanistan, nor does it bother Israel either when daily we hear of yet another youngster being shot, or a journalist, or a peace activist.
- Yes it does bother them - that is why you hear of it in the media. Have you heard of killings in southern china lately? or in Ivory coast or many many other countries? that is because they are NOT bothered by targeting civilians.
Go pick a fight with the peopel who arent OBVIOUSLY going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties..
If I need to state it again Angie, it is obviosu that Israel could crush the palistinians OR Iraq within a couple of days with its weapons. But it doesnt.. SO IT MUST CARE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW!!!! Same applies to USA
why the US has refused to acknowledge the International Court of Justice,
- law is only as good as those who enforce it. For example imagine if I invented a law and said "Angie has to report to me to make sure that she is doing everything morally" That would obviously not be acceptible to you because you dont know what I define as moral. The US basically does not trust the Court of justice to be better than the USA because the USA is one of the better countries in the world. It would be stupid for them to submit to justice from a bunch of despotic countries that ignore human rights.
- Yes it does bother them - that is why you hear of it in the media. Have you heard of killings in southern china lately? or in Ivory coast or many many other countries? that is because they are NOT bothered by targeting civilians.
Go pick a fight with the peopel who arent OBVIOUSLY going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties..
If I need to state it again Angie, it is obviosu that Israel could crush the palistinians OR Iraq within a couple of days with its weapons. But it doesnt.. SO IT MUST CARE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW!!!! Same applies to USA
why the US has refused to acknowledge the International Court of Justice,
- law is only as good as those who enforce it. For example imagine if I invented a law and said "Angie has to report to me to make sure that she is doing everything morally" That would obviously not be acceptible to you because you dont know what I define as moral. The US basically does not trust the Court of justice to be better than the USA because the USA is one of the better countries in the world. It would be stupid for them to submit to justice from a bunch of despotic countries that ignore human rights.
Your discourse was welcome, and I thank you.
However, I disagree with your comment re despots with no regards to human rights.
Canada is a member of the International Court of Justice, as are numerous countries of the world where human rights have never been an issue.
The idea that the US feels its soldiers et al should be immune to any International Court of Justice, from where I sit, is the heights of arrogance, and leaves the impression that the US feels it can do whatever it wants with scant regard for the international community, which, of course, this Administration has been doing.
What makes the US military any less capable of violating human conduct than, say, the UK military? Or any other civilized nation?
Certainly it would be more advantageous to everyone if countries were to work together to make the world a better place for us to live, have an international voice as opposed to the world v. the US stance.
However, I disagree with your comment re despots with no regards to human rights.
Canada is a member of the International Court of Justice, as are numerous countries of the world where human rights have never been an issue.
The idea that the US feels its soldiers et al should be immune to any International Court of Justice, from where I sit, is the heights of arrogance, and leaves the impression that the US feels it can do whatever it wants with scant regard for the international community, which, of course, this Administration has been doing.
What makes the US military any less capable of violating human conduct than, say, the UK military? Or any other civilized nation?
Certainly it would be more advantageous to everyone if countries were to work together to make the world a better place for us to live, have an international voice as opposed to the world v. the US stance.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. The US can not enter into a treaty that would allow a higher court.
Most civilized, and some not so civilized, countries in the world have a Supreme Court, and it is the highest court in the land for THAT country..
We are not talking domestic laws here. We are dealing with international rules of conduct. If a US military were to commit atrocities in some other nation, are you saying that he/she should be brought before the courts in the US even though it is a crime committed, say, in Japan? Or vice versa?
I was under the impression that war crimes fall under international jurisdiction. If there is anyone with international law expertise out there, perhaps you could verify this or not as the case may be.
We are not talking domestic laws here. We are dealing with international rules of conduct. If a US military were to commit atrocities in some other nation, are you saying that he/she should be brought before the courts in the US even though it is a crime committed, say, in Japan? Or vice versa?
I was under the impression that war crimes fall under international jurisdiction. If there is anyone with international law expertise out there, perhaps you could verify this or not as the case may be.
"... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"
Article III, Section 2
Article III, Section 2
1O year olds POW's, what next?
If a soldier commits a crime while stationed in peacetime deployment I believe that the host nation should have jurisdiction. If the crime takes place during hostilities he should be under US jurisdiction.
As far as other nations choosing to allow the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction that is their choice. I believe that there is a strong potential for abuse in any super-national body.
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
As far as other nations choosing to allow the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction that is their choice. I believe that there is a strong potential for abuse in any super-national body.
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Appreciate the info. Thanks!
It is not very hard to corrupt a court. You just stack it with peopel that believe in the same things you do and then they start creating laws that support your world view.
The international court of justice is jsut another of these courts. Unless there are VERY strict controls over their interpretation I am very wary of them. However I do see the need for such a body.. (as well as the one world government) if it was possible to have a just one. I suggest that the International court and the UN at the moment have a lower moral than the USA.
from where I sit, is the heights of arrogance,
- yes the US is morally arogant. It arogantly expects other coutries to pay lip service to human rights etc.
you might think that is sarcasm but actually the argument against human rights is not so easy to counter. If china becomes the next super power you will see that argument in its full glory.
What makes the US military any less capable of violating human conduct than, say, the UK military? Or any other civilized nation?
Yes it is capable of violating international law.. but what makes international law more "moral" than US law?
the world v. the US stance.
Tht is the burden of the Hegemon and why you probably cant remain a super power for ever.
The international court of justice is jsut another of these courts. Unless there are VERY strict controls over their interpretation I am very wary of them. However I do see the need for such a body.. (as well as the one world government) if it was possible to have a just one. I suggest that the International court and the UN at the moment have a lower moral than the USA.
from where I sit, is the heights of arrogance,
- yes the US is morally arogant. It arogantly expects other coutries to pay lip service to human rights etc.
you might think that is sarcasm but actually the argument against human rights is not so easy to counter. If china becomes the next super power you will see that argument in its full glory.
What makes the US military any less capable of violating human conduct than, say, the UK military? Or any other civilized nation?
Yes it is capable of violating international law.. but what makes international law more "moral" than US law?
the world v. the US stance.
Tht is the burden of the Hegemon and why you probably cant remain a super power for ever.
You "forgot" to include Article iii, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I didn't forget it. It means that case covered by this clause go directly to the Supreme Court bypassing lower courts. In all other cases the Supreme Court is a court of appeals.
"In all other cases the Supreme Court is a court of appeals."
In a very few cases (e.g., those involving lawsuits between ambassadors) the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. But in almost all cases, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. And that jurisdiction comes with the proviso "with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make".
This means that if Congress wants to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction and give it to another court (e.g., the International Criminal Court) that Congress can do so. It can even strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction without setting up another court at all. See Ex Parte McCardle in which a Civil War journalist was left imprisoned without charge because Congress had denied jurisdiction to the entire judicial system to hear such cases under the "Habeas Corpus Act".
So if Congress wants to authorize the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction in war crimes cases, it has the power to do so.
Of course, the likelihood of Congress actually doing so is akin to the likelihood that Bush will join the Democratic Party, so this is academic. It merely means that Article III cannot properly be used as a rationalization for it.
In a very few cases (e.g., those involving lawsuits between ambassadors) the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. But in almost all cases, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. And that jurisdiction comes with the proviso "with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make".
This means that if Congress wants to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction and give it to another court (e.g., the International Criminal Court) that Congress can do so. It can even strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction without setting up another court at all. See Ex Parte McCardle in which a Civil War journalist was left imprisoned without charge because Congress had denied jurisdiction to the entire judicial system to hear such cases under the "Habeas Corpus Act".
So if Congress wants to authorize the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction in war crimes cases, it has the power to do so.
Of course, the likelihood of Congress actually doing so is akin to the likelihood that Bush will join the Democratic Party, so this is academic. It merely means that Article III cannot properly be used as a rationalization for it.
Congress has the power to make inferior courts. Congress can move those cases that have original jurisdiction to a lower court if it decides. If it moved cases to a court "higher" than the Supreme Court it would be exceed it authority. Since one would not be able to apeal a decision of the Internaltional Criminal Court to the Supreme Court it would then be a higher court.
"Since one would not be able to apeal a decision of the Internaltional Criminal Court to the Supreme Court it would then be a higher court."
See:
"... the Supreme Court may not review a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which had refused to grant a petition for review."
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa103000e.htm
See:
"... the Supreme Court may not review a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which had refused to grant a petition for review."
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa103000e.htm
For more information:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network