Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Review, GITMO, and Projected Thesis

Brian J. Foley discusses Guantanamo in his article, Guantanamo and Beyond: Dangers of Rigging the Rules. In this article Foley argues the negative aspects of prisoner's rights including the rigging of the CSRT rules which loosely define what an “enemy combatant” is, the restriction of appeals and Habeas Corpus, the unfair representation of the detainee and lack thereof, unreliable evidence and testimonies (or, again, lack thereof), and hindrance in cross-examinations due to lack of present witnesses, language barriers, etc. Foley also points out that there is also no protection from Double Jeopardy. “If a prisoner wins at one tribunal, that successful defense may be ignored. He may simple be tried again,until the government wins”. (Foley, 2008, p. 26) There is no fair rights given to the prisoner who may not even be an enemy combatant or terrorist threat at all. Foley also brings to light the threats of national security, the danger risks of ineffective investigations, especially those who are falsely identified as terrorists. Foley concludes with a proposal to rewrite the rules to make interrogations and investigations of prisoner's more accurate and effective. I generally understood the author's points in this article and didn't really have any questions regarding those points. My question to Foley's proposal is: Is rewriting the rules really what is necessary to correcting problems of Guantanamo? I also wonder if Guantanamo is really necessary in the overall spectrum of things.

I believe the thesis of my final paper will be as follows: “The U.S. Constitution needs to be better incorporated into the Guantanamo procedures to give fair rights to prisoners regardless of citizenship and more humane ways of investigating possible “enemy combatants” to fairly determine whether or not they really should be considered terrorist threats.”

Works Cited

Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1009-10069. Document ID: 1466824931. Retrieved from ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.