David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

[Darth Rotor]

Doubt it...this law is the progeny of a SCOTUS decision in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. In it they pretty much deferred to Congressional review. Hence we have this act voted into law by Congress.

Sure we now have a new Congress...but do you really think any of that group is going to go to bat for Gitmo terrorist detainees in a presidential election season?

Fat chance.
-z

Rik, I look at this case and wonder if Mr Hicks' attorney will suggest a problem with him being subject to an ex post facto law. That's right out of Section 9 of Article 1. Granted, this guy isn't a US citizen, but since SCOTUS agreed to review the case, it seems an avenue his side might pursue.

The passage of the law that meets SCOTUS' requirements well after he was taken seems to beg for this appeal.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Last time I checked, holding prisoners without charges for years at a time was a bad thing no matter how despicable the prisoner is.

Yeah! When will France learn? The voices of protest against the French practice of imprisoning people for years without charges will be heard!





chirp chirp

 

[fishbob]

OK, I read it. Hicks admits training w/ al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, Hicks was captured and can be held for the duration of the war - and doesn't ever have to be charged w/ anything. And this is the way it's always been done in warfare, and is not illegal in the US. Does Australia typically appoint enemies captured in a war lawyers and trry them? I doubt it. If so, could you provide examples?

To summarize:
On the one hand, we have the rule of law - and I notice a whole bunch of scrambling to re-write the law, and on the other hand we have
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yeah! When will France learn? The voices of protest against the French practice of imprisoning people for years without charges will be heard!





chirp chirp

All mistreatment of prisoners is wrong. However, we're presently discussing a specific individual in American custody. If you'd like to return to the conversation, feel free.

 

[rikzilla]

Rik, I look at this case and wonder if Mr Hicks' attorney will suggest a problem with him being subject to an ex post facto law. That's right out of Section 9 of Article 1. Granted, this guy isn't a US citizen, but since SCOTUS agreed to review the case, it seems an avenue his side might pursue.

The passage of the law that meets SCOTUS' requirements well after he was taken seems to beg for this appeal.

DR

The Nuremburg example is still apt. It was a military trial for war crimes which were only defined as crimes after their war was lost. Therefore the Nuremburg convictions were also ex-post facto. Believe me, I do know how controversial ex-post facto laws are...but they do seem to have their place in history. It could also be said that Saddam's trial was based on ex-post facto law as well.

-z

 

[Darth Rotor]

It could also be said that Saddam's trial was based on ex-post facto law as well.

-z

I don't think so, given the Nuremberg precedent and some of the language in the UN Charter.

Nuremberg was "victor's justice," although it was a formally administered version of that practice. "We are gonna hang you, but we'll give you a fair trial first." However, it wasn't a total lynch mob scene.

Karl Doenitz 10 Years in Prison (You can get a longer sentence on a drug rap these days. Hmmmmmmm)

Hans Frank Sentenced to Hang

Wilhelm Frick Sentenced to Hang

Hans Fritzsche Acquitted

Walter Funk Sentenced to Life in Prison

Hermann Goering Sentenced to Hang

Rudolf Hess Sentenced to Life in Prison

Alfred Jodl Sentenced to Hang

Ernst Kaltenbrunner Sentenced to Hang

Wilhelm Keitel Sentenced to Hang

Erich Raeder Sentenced to Life in Prison

Alfred Rosenberg Sentenced to Hang

Fritz Sauckel Sentenced to Hang

Hjalmar Schacht Acquitted

Artur Seyss-Inquart Sentenced to Hang

Albert Speer 20 Years in Prison (His Inside the Third Reich was a good book)

Julius Streicher Sentenced to Hang

Constantin Von Neurath 15 Years in Prison

Franz Von Papen Acquitted

Joachim von Ribbentrop Sentenced to Hang

Baldur Von Schirach 20 Years in Prison

DR

 

[Cleon]

Apparently in the case of this act it simply doesn't matter. It's retroactive...ex-post facto. It's pretty rare and controversial...but it is legal.

So that bit in the Constitution where it says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" is what, then? A suggestion?

What amazes me about this whole thing is not people trying to end-runs around the constitution, looking for excuses to hold people without trial, torture, pass ex-post facto legislation...People have been doing that since John Adams signed the Alien & Sedition Acts.

What surprises me is that the same people who are looking for any justification for the above are the same ones who will turn around a minute later and declare their unwavering support for "small government."

 

[a_unique_person]

Creating factories of death in Nazi Germany similarly broke no extant German law. This did not stop the Nuremburg convictions and executions. When you live by the sword it is rather unseemly to cry when facing the sword yourself. I have no sympathy for this terrorist. None.

-z

How do you know he's a terrorist? There's been no trial, no evidence presented and tested. How do you know he is not just like one of the German troops, who were not convicted or tried? Nuremberg went for the ring leaders and killers. Hicks hasn't killed anyone.

 

[WildCat]

To summarize:
On the one hand, we have the rule of law - and I notice a whole bunch of scrambling to re-write the law, and on the other hand we have
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges."

The re-write was to try him, I was responding to the "being held w/o charges" part. Do you agree he can be held until the end of the war (which in this case is as long as al Qaeda exists and they war against us) for the simple fact that he is a wartime enemy and was captured? this is hardly a re-write of any law, it's the way its been done for the entire history of the US.

Why does al Qaeda deserve rights no other captured enemy soldier has enjoyed in the entire history of the US?

 

[WildCat]

Lawyers were assigned to the trails for both the German and Japanese high command.

How about soldiers?

No offense wildcat, but what's up with 'w/' instead of 'with'? I had to read that a couple of times before it made sense

It's a common shorthand, been a habit of mine since taking handwritten notes in middle school.

 

[fishbob]

Do you agree he can be held until the end of the war (which in this case is as long as al Qaeda exists and they war against us) for the simple fact that he is a wartime enemy and was captured? this is hardly a re-write of any law, it's the way its been done for the entire history of the US.

Why does al Qaeda deserve rights no other captured enemy soldier has enjoyed in the entire history of the US?

No, I do not agree.

Legitimate war has always been reserved for combat between nations. Al Qaeda is more like the Mafia.
Since about 12 Sept 2001, I have been of the opinion that a large-scale police action would have been the appropriate response to Al Qaeda, not some trumped up rhetorical use of the word 'war'. These are not enemy soldiers. These are criminals.

 

[a_unique_person]

The re-write was to try him, I was responding to the "being held w/o charges" part. Do you agree he can be held until the end of the war (which in this case is as long as al Qaeda exists and they war against us) for the simple fact that he is a wartime enemy and was captured? this is hardly a re-write of any law, it's the way its been done for the entire history of the US.

Why does al Qaeda deserve rights no other captured enemy soldier has enjoyed in the entire history of the US?

He doesn't get that either. He has been tortured, raped, interrogated, psychologically manipulated and confined in conditions that don't meet those required to hold wartime prisoners.

 

[quixotecoyote]

We need to pick a set of rules:
Are they criminals or are they soldiers?

If crimimals, try them in the court system via the rule of law with all protections in place.

If soldiers, hold them until the end of the war in accordance with how we treat all soldiers with the protections in place for them.

I think the obvious choice is criminals, because most of them don't meet the criteria for soldiers while there are many similaries to mafia types, which someone mentioned earlier.

 

[The Fool]

OK...this is how this is going to run. (I'll apply for the million later)

The US and Australian administration must save face. There is no way this guy is going to walk away. They will ask him if he wants to plead guilty to farting in church or some other low grade offence. This is required to justify putting him in a box for 5 years.

After pleading guilty he will be released to Australia and it will be determined that the time already served is sufficient for the crime of farting in church. He will be given some wonderful new restrictions that the government of australia awarded themselves the power to apply....He will be banned from telephoning Osama bin laden....Osama will not mind as he always thought David was a whinger...

He won't be able to get a visa to America so attending the superbowl is not an option.

Gitmo will remain a black page in American history and future Americans will have trouble understanding how it was allowed to happened. The current crop of cheerleaders and apologists will quietly forget that they enabled it to happen by falling over themselves to applaud the throwing in the gutter of the principles that made thier Nation great. They probably will never be ashamed because they probably will never comprehend...

Close the place down guys....you can achieve it if you try.

 

[SimonD]

How about soldiers?

All soldiers facing a trail are entitled to legal resprestation

 

[SimonD]

We need to pick a set of rules:
Are they criminals or are they soldiers?

If crimimals, try them in the court system via the rule of law with all protections in place.

If soldiers, hold them until the end of the war in accordance with how we treat all soldiers with the protections in place for them.

I think the obvious choice is criminals, because most of them don't meet the criteria for soldiers while there are many similaries to mafia types, which someone mentioned earlier.

I agree. Either way he is not being treated as a POW or as a criminal. It is a distrubing that any person would be treated as such, regardless of their crimes.

 

[SimonD]

OK...this is how this is going to run. (I'll apply for the million later)

The US and Australian administration must save face. There is no way this guy is going to walk away. They will ask him if he wants to plead guilty to farting in church or some other low grade offence. This is required to justify putting him in a box for 5 years.

After pleading guilty he will be released to Australia and it will be determined that the time already served is sufficient for the crime of farting in church. He will be given some wonderful new restrictions that the government of australia awarded themselves the power to apply....He will be banned from telephoning Osama bin laden....Osama will not mind as he always thought David was a whinger...

He won't be able to get a visa to America so attending the superbowl is not an option.

Gitmo will remain a black page in American history and future Americans will have trouble understanding how it was allowed to happened. The current crop of cheerleaders and apologists will quietly forget that they enabled it to happen by falling over themselves to applaud the throwing in the gutter of the principles that made thier Nation great. They probably will never be ashamed because they probably will never comprehend...

Close the place down guys....you can achieve it if you try.

Ain't nothing foolish about you! Well said

 

[WildCat]

No, I do not agree.

Legitimate war has always been reserved for combat between nations. Al Qaeda is more like the Mafia.
Since about 12 Sept 2001, I have been of the opinion that a large-scale police action would have been the appropriate response to Al Qaeda, not some trumped up rhetorical use of the word 'war'. These are not enemy soldiers. These are criminals.

Wow! So al Qaeda fighters deserve more protections than a captured soldier? Amazing!

It's clear that you don't think we are at war, and that this is the basis for your thinking. Perhaps we should just pull our soldiers, marines, and sailors out of Afghanistan and send in the FBI instead?

Treating al Qaeda as a criminal, rather than a military, problem is the kind of thinking that led to 9/11 in the first place.

 

[WildCat]

All soldiers facing a trail are entitled to legal resprestation

If it was up to me I'd keep him locked up until al Qaeda no longer exists, wouldn't even bother w/ charges or a trial. Is this acceptable to you?

 

[SimonD]

If it was up to me I'd keep him locked up until al Qaeda no longer exists, wouldn't even bother w/ charges or a trial. Is this acceptable to you?

My point is that no person should be treated as badly as Hicks has been.

If he is a criminal then he should be given a civil trial.
If he is a soldier then he should be held according to the Genova Convention (no trial necessary).