Despite Ruling, Detainee Cases Facing Delays

‘The right to defend yourself’, one of the general principles we can find in the Belgium judicial system, is in my opinion and I think of many other people, not always present in The US. An example is of course the detainees at Guantánamo in Cuba. Although the Supreme Court ruled that they would have the right to challenge their detention, untill now none of the detainees already had a court hearing as it should be, knowing that the decision was made in June. The ‘Bush administration’ gives several reasons why there haven’t been hearings yet. According to them it’s difficult to decide which cases would be held in secret, which detainees can be present on their hearing and also which level of proof will justify detention. An other problem is that only military officals and not federal judges have the power to make decisions in military detentions and there is a shortage of Justice Department lawyers. The Government Adminstration self find that they are moving rapidly. Those are some of the ‘reasons’ why there is a delay. Of should we call it ‘pretexts’ ? In my vieuw are these more pretexts than reasons. Everybody should have the right to defend yourself. Sitting in prison for more than 4 years without a ‘fair trial’ can’t be possible. The supreme Court said that the hearings would be prompt, where ‘prompt’ was open to interpretation. I can only conclude that 4 years isn’t really prompt. The waiting must be terrible for the detainees.
Further in the article, written by William Glaberson published on October 5, 2008 in The New York Times, they make a link to the Bush administration. Bush will be in office untill January. The first full court hearing is for October 27, where only 6 detainees are involved. For all other detainees is there no date of hearing determined. This means that not all detainees will have their hearing by January, when the citizens choose a new president and so a different policy about terrorism and criminal law. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to make decisions when you actually know that you can’t fulfil them. Like Mr. Padmanbhan said, we better leave this case to the next president.

By Hanne Snoeck

Source: New York Times, William Glaberson, October 5, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/05gitmo.html?_r=1&sq=cases&st=cse&scp=…