...why it is that enemy combatants shouldn't be tried by military tribunal?
Printable View
...why it is that enemy combatants shouldn't be tried by military tribunal?
... because it would be reducing trials to the standards of kangaroo courts. Shooting them when they are captured would be the next step in this progression. 'No Prisoners!' would cut out the need for trials. IMO it smacks of the kind of thing that happens in dictatorships. Would you really want to go there?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I am assuming that the quote below is some of the proposals;
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-2...ivilian-courts
Quote:
President Obama says his proposed reforms to the military commissions his predecessor established to try suspected terrorists will bring the tribunals "in line with the rule of law." But it isn't the same law that applies in U.S. courts.
Pentagon officials appoint the judges and can remove them. Military commanders choose the jurors, who can convict defendants by non-unanimous votes, except in death penalty cases. The military can monitor defense lawyers' conversations with their clients.
Prosecutors can also present evidence that would never pass muster in civilian courts. Confessions made under physical or mental pressure could be admissible, despite Obama's disavowal of torture and coercion. There's no ban on evidence from illegal searches. And defendants may be convicted on the basis of hearsay - a second hand report of an out-of-court accusation by another person, perhaps a fellow suspect, whom the defense never gets to see or question.
So then - as of, what....the Bush administration, the military tribunal is an obsolete notion, with no purpose whatsoever, in any case or circumstance?
It can be used for what it was meant for, to try their own military personnel for infringements or to settle disputes.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Ah.
So, historically speaking, how have enemy combatants' offenses been resolved when disposition for same is in the hands of the country suffering those offenses?
Don't get squishy Kev. Say what you think.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Every time I see 'tried by a military tribunal' I think, Poor sod, he/she has about as much chance of being found not guilty as I have of winning the lottery.
Shell shock = desertion = shot at dawn. with a chance of reprieve in 90 years.:(
So you think terrorists, war criminals, what have you, should be tried....where? How? By whom?
Whether they wear a uniform or not?
Should that matter or not?
Do you think a "terrorist" appearing before a civilian court in Iran would be afforded a fair trial?
Would you advocate terrorists or any other, let's call them free-lancers, or unattributed combatants, or take-your-pick, be tried before an international court, and would you vouch for the inherent fairness of such a policy?
An international or national court could try these people if there was no outside pressure from interested governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I give you the example of the Lockerbie trial. It was held in a neutral country by a court from the country where the atrocity took place.
The country concerned : Scotland.
Trial country : Holland.
Trouble was that it was not a Scottish trial. We don't have American advisors sitting in the prosecution table in Scotland. Was this to ensure that a Libyan was found guilty? Libya was the bad man in those days. America withheld vital evidence(for security reasons:whistling) that would have brought a not guilty verdict. The real bomber has been named in at least two papers. He was a Syrian.
As for uniforms. If they are in uniform they should be treated as prisoners of 'war' under the international agreement that covers such things. No uniform would mean a trial by civil courts.
The military are not to be trusted with such things. At the end of the day they are government controlled and would bring the result that the incumbent government required.
Then your answer is 'no' to military tribunals except when they try their own.
Tell me, Bob-
Given that we have (in our enlightenment) constructed such things as Geneva to accommodate the uniformed soldier fighting on behalf of signatory states, and given also that terrorists wear no uniforms and claim no state in order to circumvent the limitations Geneva presents for them, why can we not see our way clear to address this circumvention by policy, a la Geneva?
I think that there would be problems with most of the terrorists. It would appear that a lot of them are mercenaries therefore Geneva would never recognise them.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I agree, so it seems, then, the international community ought to resolve to close the loopholes terrorists exploit by virtue of this lack of...let's call it provenance.
They need to be categorized.
Why does the U.N. - the de facto authority on such things - fail to act?
Perhaps it's fans can tell us...
And we need the UN why, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
We already have a justice system in place that we are so proud of that we attempt to export it- along with democracy- to every foreign country we invade.
Why is it not capable of dealing with terrorists?
Why isn't Guantanamo capable of dealing with terrorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerAnd we need the UN why, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
We already have a justice system in place that we are so proud of that we attempt to export it- along with democracy- to every foreign country we invade.
Why is it not capable of dealing with terrorists?
Much less expense, security concerns would be almost nil...
Let 'em have a civilian trial there.
Where is it stipulated we have to do this at maximum cost and risk to the U.S.?
Guantanamo probably is capable, physically.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It is not and never will be, a part of the Federal judicial system.
Are there any civilians there?
Yeah, didn't think so.
Gee, too bad NYC isn't equipped to deal with high profile criminals and the risks associated with their trials.
Why do you think a Guantanamo trial reduces the "risks" you're so certain of?
Because it's a military base, ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerGuantanamo probably is capable, physically.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It is not and never will be, a part of the Federal judicial system.
Are there any civilians there?
Yeah, didn't think so.
Gee, too bad NYC isn't equipped to deal with high profile criminals and the risks associated with their trials.
Why do you think a Guantanamo trial reduces the "risks" you're so certain of?
Who says you can't have a civilian trial in a military setting?
Bring in the lawyers and let's have at it - if you think we're obligated to provide some token targets, I'm sure you could round up a willing contingent of civilian volunteers, too.
You neglected to address the issue of the expense, btw.
Maintaining Guantanamo is free?
In your simplistic world if the trial is held in Cuba, that's where the locus of potential terrorist attack will be, eh?
Like terrorists have a real history of logically connecting provocation to target.
Well, it certainly deprives them of the ability to kill two birds with one stone, as it were.
So, to sum up your position, we should make every effort to make a statement, and certify our relative, um, enlightenment by conducting a civilian trial in the largest and most symbolically important city in the U.S.
Hey, how about this:
Why not have it in D.C.?
I think they have a few federal facilities there.
Now, there's an idea I can get behind.
Really.
In what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
"Make a statement, certify our enlightenment"?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
How about "Attempt not to be the world's greatest hypocrites"?
Among other things, we constantly hold our judicial system up as a model for the rest of the world, so let's put our money where our mouths are and actually use it.
Sure, fine, why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I assume that this little piece of wit coincides with your belief that the trial's physical site is the most likely spot for a reprisal attack and hey, who wouldn't like to see all them damn politicians get it...right?
Ignoring for a moment that your main premise- the site of the trial will be the site of an attack- is total crap (no real surprise there- Republicans have shown a distinct lack of military awareness of late...see 9/11 = attack on Iraq), your glee in the potential destruction of the US government would have rained derision on any Democrat who dared express such a thought just four years ago.
"Good for goose, good for gander" is a concept that doesn't apply to you guys, is it?
Witness the parade of Republican legislators who decry the omnibus bailout bills while simultaneously taking credit for the money that has flown into their personal districts.
Hypocrites, all of em.