military force and since they do not follow the rules of law, enemy combatants may be held indefinitely without a trial. Unfortunately, this new definition gave the U.S. Government the ability to seize “suspects” from all over the globe. The consequences of broadening the definition of enemy combatant are extensive. The United States is setting a precedent that they can hold a suspect indefinitely which violates the Fifth Amendment of due process as well as the Sixth Amendment which guarantees a speedy and public trial. It could also be inferred that the U.S. would like to continue to try terror suspects in private military tribunals as opposed to public courts. Consequently, the War on Terror and its “hostilities” has no end date. Therefore …show more content…
As a result of being out of jurisdiction of the law, the prison has fewer restrictions on leaders’ actions and treatment of the prisoners. This was no coincidence, the government deliberately knew they could get around the rules by having the prison in Guantanamo. Proven in the “Legal memoranda from 2002 reveal[s] that the White House and the Department of Defense wanted to know how far they could legally go in interrogating alleged terrorists” (Report on Torture 9). The government knew that Guantanamo was the ideal location to test their limits on interrogation. The prisoners at Guantanamo have been deprived of sleep, and held in solitary confinement and waterboarded. In a lawsuit brought to the State Supreme Court, A human rights group has brought claims against Dr. John Frances Leo, a psychologist who was head of the abusive interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The New York Times reports that, …show more content…
Well, I think the prison should be closed. Anyone accused of a war crime should be tried, in the US, and if convicted sentenced. But you need to understand that almost no one in the prison has been charged with any crime. All such people should be sent home. If they cannot be sent home, because the homeland is unsafe, then, absent a criminal charge, they should be released into the US pending deportation. There were many difficult experiences. I would say the most wrenching ones occurred during 2007, when our clients had been shifted into solitary confinement, which is unimaginably cruel on a psychological level. Seeing them in that state was very disturbing. Most frustrating about Washington was how politics overwhelmed and rational or legal conversation about what to do with a particular prisoner. Habeas corpus is a privilege, secured under our constitution, and protected from "suspension" by a clause in the first Article of the contitution. It runs at least to all persons on US controlled territory (and in my view it should follow the flag). I fear, however, that it will be an empty right, so long as the decision in our own case, Kiyemba v. Obama, continues to control. That was the decision that barred release in the US. Since a court cannot order release in a foreign country, the lack of remedy effectively gutted the habeas writ of its core