U.S. says Iraqis may still be held without charge

[Joanne98]

Source: Reuters


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Some prisoners held indefinitely without charge by U.S. forces in Iraq may not be freed or given trials, even though U.S. forces lost the authority to hold them at the beginning of this year, a U.S. military spokesman said.

Iraqi legal experts said the plans -- which would apply to prisoners U.S. forces believe are dangerous or of intelligence value but have not been charged with a crime -- might violate Iraqi law by placing detainees beyond the reach of the courts.

U.S. forces are holding 15,000 prisoners, most of whom have been detained without charge under the authority of a U.N. Security Council resolution which expired on December 31.

Under the terms of a bilateral pact which took effect on January 1, Washington agreed that all its prisoners would either be transferred to Iraqi custody under arrest warrants from Iraqi judges, or freed "in a safe and orderly manner."



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5082HI20090109

[Demeter]

1. One Has To Wonder About BFEE

WHY do they need to keep people indefinitely locked up? Was some anonymous 3rd world goatherd in possession of information that would put Poppy in jail, or something? Or is it reflexive machismo? Or is it sloth? Or a bribe from some 3rd world dictator? Or just sadism writ large? Or projecting how the BFEE would like to lock all of us up, after robbing us of the means to live at all?

[pattmarty]

2. All of the above.

[kpete]

3. U.S. says Iraqis may still be held without charge

Source: MSNBC

U.S. says Iraqis may still be held without charge
updated 11:13 a.m. PT, Fri., Jan. 9, 2009

BAGHDAD - By Peter Graff and Ahmed Rasheed

Some prisoners held indefinitely without charge by U.S. forces in Iraq may not be freed or given trials, even though U.S. forces lost the authority to hold them at the beginning of this year, a U.S. military spokesman said.

Iraqi legal experts said the plans -- which would apply to prisoners U.S. forces believe are dangerous or of intelligence value but have not been charged with a crime -- might violate Iraqi law by placing detainees beyond the reach of the courts.

U.S. forces are holding 15,000 prisoners, most of whom have been detained without charge under the authority of a U.N. Security Council resolution which expired on December 31.

Under the terms of a bilateral pact which took effect on January 1, Washington agreed that all its prisoners would either be transferred to Iraqi custody under arrest warrants from Iraqi judges, or freed "in a safe and orderly manner."

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28575104/

[Solly Mack]

4. I think that just put me over...

I'm officially overloaded...

[pinto]

5. Geez. I *really* want to see the rule of law re-established here and there

ASAP after 1/20. Y'know, that foundation of a civilized society thing.

:banghead:

[struggle4progress]

6. Remember when we "completed the Iraq sovereignty handover" back in 2004?

There was a date in the summer of 2004, and there were news stories about the upcoming ceremony -- and then Bremer got up one morning several days before the scheduled ceremony, decided he was hauling his scuzzy butt out of Iraq pronto, arranged to get his picture taken with Allawi, released a story that sovereignty had been transferred, and left Iraq that very same day

It turned out that the 2004 "transfer of sovereignty" did not mean that the Iraqis gained any control over the foreign occupiers or over the prisoners the occupation force held: the attack on Fallujah occurred later that year, while the US renamed Abu-Ghraib (but retained control over it)

[gratuitous]

7. So what's the difference between the U.S. military and a band of kidnappers?

The snappy uniforms, I guess.

Fifteen thousand prisoners held without charge. I'm so old, I remember when the U.S. used to battle totalitarian regimes that practiced wholesale incarceration without respect to universal human rights. Now we is one! God bless the U.S.A.