Obama Orders Halt To Gitmo Tribunals

ponderingturtle said:
And if he had been cought out of uniform, as several were that the germans put ashore by U boat, he would have been tried and hung.
Click to expand...

But not, you will notice, he would still be given a trial (no deprivation of liberty without due process). Similarly, if he were in uniform, he would still have been given a status hearing (as demanded by the Geneva Conventions) and offered a chance to prove that he wasn't a Wehrmacht agent, but an idiot on his way to a costume party?

If I recall, Casablanca was released in 1942 and featured several characters in full Nazi/Wehrmacht regalia. Would it have been fair, legal, or reasonable for Federal Agents to barge onto the set and arrest Conrad Veidt for the costume he was wearing? If that had happened, should Mr. Veidt be given any opportunity to protest his treatment and to petition the government for release?

Common sense says "yes."
The Geneva Conventions say "yes."
The Constitution of the United States says "yes."
The SCOTUS says "yes."

.... but Bush said, and as far as I can tell, continues to say, "no."
 
drkitten said:
But not, you will notice, he would still be given a trial (no deprivation of liberty without due process). Similarly, if he were in uniform, he would still have been given a status hearing (as demanded by the Geneva Conventions) and offered a chance to prove that he wasn't a Wehrmacht agent, but an idiot on his way to a costume party?
Click to expand...
And as it turns out everyone in Gitmo received a status hearing!

If I recall, Casablanca was released in 1942 and featured several characters in full Nazi/Wehrmacht regalia. Would it have been fair, legal, or reasonable for Federal Agents to barge onto the set and arrest Conrad Veidt for the costume he was wearing? If that had happened, should Mr. Veidt be given any opportunity to protest his treatment and to petition the government for release?
Click to expand...
Too stupid for comment.
 
Texas said:
As to his claims of "torture" that is the standard mantra from all of the terroists' defense attorneys. It is like Every person you meet in prison that says they were railroaded. It means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it means absolutely nothing. link

Torture, failure to organize evidence and ethical lapses have led some prosecutors -- including the facility's former chief prosecutor, Col. Morris D. Davis -- to resign in disgust or refuse to bring prosecutions. At least two of those prosecutors, including Davis, later testified for the defense.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone in prison says he was railroaded, but in the U.S. criminal justice system, it is absurdly rare for a prosecutor to resign and then testify for the defense. When military prosecutors cannot stomach the treatment of prisoners and the treatment of evidence (including withholding of exculpatory evidence), it is time to investigate what is going on rather than simply dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
And as it turns out everyone in Gitmo received a status hearing!
Click to expand...

The rub is how the status hearings are run. If the detainee is a US citizen, he'd better have some habeus corpus rights... or else, in a nice catch-22, he could be entitled to a civil trial but lack the right to prove it.

If it seems that civil libertarians hawk on this it is an exercise of vigilance to avoid a gaping loophole. I understand the need to handle combatants differently than civilians. However, if there are shortcuts that allow the government to clasisfy someone as a combatant by assertion only, or by a status process without sufficient safeguards, that is a tool for abuse.
 
Travis,

What are the odds that the Gitmo detainees end up in another facility largely identical to Gitmo with no civilian trials in the forthcoming future?
Click to expand...

That has occurred to me...
 
Excuse me WildCat, can you please tell me when the last time the United States of America was in a state of war, as clearly defined in the Constitution of the United States, a definition that has not be amended in over two centuries?
 
WildCat said:
All of what you said would make sense if we had been treating this as a criminal matter and sent the FBI to arrest them.

Problem is, we declared war on them.
Click to expand...
No we didn't.

If we had, then they would be prisoners of war, and guaranteed a great many rights and protections that were denied them.
 
drkitten said:
But not, you will notice, he would still be given a trial (no deprivation of liberty without due process). Similarly, if he were in uniform, he would still have been given a status hearing (as demanded by the Geneva Conventions) and offered a chance to prove that he wasn't a Wehrmacht agent, but an idiot on his way to a costume party?

If I recall, Casablanca was released in 1942 and featured several characters in full Nazi/Wehrmacht regalia. Would it have been fair, legal, or reasonable for Federal Agents to barge onto the set and arrest Conrad Veidt for the costume he was wearing? If that had happened, should Mr. Veidt be given any opportunity to protest his treatment and to petition the government for release?

Common sense says "yes."
The Geneva Conventions say "yes."
The Constitution of the United States says "yes."
The SCOTUS says "yes."

.... but Bush said, and as far as I can tell, continues to say, "no."
Click to expand...
Excellent post, Dr. K!

Which one of these guys in the Bush admin was it that said something to the effect that these are seriously bad guys and not just guilty of overdue library books? The problem is, without due process, that's just begging the question. We're supposed to take the word of every bounty hunter that turns in a so-called terrorist?
 
gnome said:
The rub is how the status hearings are run. If the detainee is a US citizen, he'd better have some habeus corpus rights... or else, in a nice catch-22, he could be entitled to a civil trial but lack the right to prove it.

If it seems that civil libertarians hawk on this it is an exercise of vigilance to avoid a gaping loophole. I understand the need to handle combatants differently than civilians. However, if there are shortcuts that allow the government to clasisfy someone as a combatant by assertion only, or by a status process without sufficient safeguards, that is a tool for abuse.
Click to expand...
If you want to see how these status tribunals are conducted go to this link and click on any name and shows the transcripts of the hearings. A large number of them refused to participate:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/list.html
 
This is going to be amusing to watch.

Y'all keep it up, it's like I really need the popcorn, what with putting on a few pounds now that I quit smoking.

Scarrooooooooooooed, my diet plans are.

DR
 
Travis said:
What are the odds that the Gitmo detainees end up in another facility largely identical to Gitmo with no civilian trials in the forthcoming future?
Click to expand...
Ask Jack Murtha, who has offered to put them into a prison facility in Pennsylvania.

He may have an idea.

Or not.

DR
 
David Wong said:
This is the single most utterly retarded thing ever typed on the internet.

Wow.


That's just... I'm awestruck. Wow.

You have absolutely zero knowledge on this subject, or any other.


Wow.
Click to expand...

I have seen Conspiracy Theorists say far stupider things. Or do they not count since they are clearly insane?
 
GreyICE said:
Excuse me WildCat, can you please tell me when the last time the United States of America was in a state of war, as clearly defined in the Constitution of the United States, a definition that has not be amended in over two centuries?
Click to expand...

Though it does not directly answer the question, the last time Congress has invoked their Article I; Section 8 power to declare war was October 16, 2002. Of course, a state of war is not a requisite condition - a simple case of armed conflict works quite nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom