Someone remind me again...

[j2k4]

...why it is that enemy combatants shouldn't be tried by military tribunal?

[bigboab]

...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?

I am assuming that the quote below is some of the proposals;

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-2...ivilian-courts

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.

[j2k4]

So then - as of, what....the Bush administration, the military tribunal is an obsolete notion, with no purpose whatsoever, in any case or circumstance?

[bigboab]

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.

[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?

[bigboab]

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.

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.

[j2k4]

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?

[bigboab]

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.

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) 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.

[j2k4]

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?

[bigboab]

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.