RE: trials over (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

farglebargle -> RE: trials over (8/9/2008 3:46:11 PM)

quote:

If the authorities then start ignoring the court system they set up then that is an enormous problem.


They're ALREADY ignoring the Federal Courts which have jurisdiction.




DomDolf -> RE: trials over (8/9/2008 5:13:48 PM)

Philosophy, I agree one percent is too much. I am fairly certain we need assistance in the "wrongful imprisonment" area in our local, state and federal systems. Though I am not perfect and will never achieve perfection I strive every day to become more so. I hope others are doing the same.

Dolf



amenableboy -> RE: trials over (8/9/2008 7:31:43 PM)

quote:

They're ALREADY ignoring the Federal Courts which have jurisdiction.


I am curious which federal courts have jurisdiction here. Can you name which ones?



amenableboy -> RE: trials over (8/9/2008 7:33:57 PM)

quote:

.i think, as Archer has pointed out, that the fog of war can confuse things. A conservative estimate of those wrongly sent to Gitmo hovers around the 27% mark.[\quote]

That doesn't seem like a "conservative" estimate to me. It seems rather, ah, generous, to one side of the debate. You may have a resource for this, though, so I will wait until I am able to read through it myself to pass judgement. Care to share?



Vendaval -> RE: trials over (8/10/2008 1:05:49 AM)

Right, the bickering adding more complications to an already difficult and time consuming situation.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

On top of the valid point you raise Archer, there are other reasons some of these prisoners are still in Gitmo.

quote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/141513

The largest block of Gitmo prisoners—nearly 100 of the remaining 270—hail from Yemen, a country that so far has resisted taking back detainees because of U.S. demands that they be put on trial back home (or, at least, that the Yemenis pledge to keep a close eye on them). "Of course, we want our citizens back," says Abdulwahab al-Hajjri, Yemen's ambassador to the United States. "But [the United States] has these conditions, so this is taking time." Other prisoners come from countries that allegedly engage in torture, such as Syria, Libya and China. Attempts to find countries in Europe willing to take them have hit a brick wall.




Thadius -> RE: trials over (8/10/2008 1:26:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amenableboy

quote:

They're ALREADY ignoring the Federal Courts which have jurisdiction.


I am curious which federal courts have jurisdiction here. Can you name which ones?



They don't, Congress gave such jurisdiction to the military tribunals.



philosophy -> RE: trials over (8/10/2008 9:45:34 AM)

...i don't have a link. i was going along with what Archer posted in post 29 this thread. Apparently it was a West Point report.



philosophy -> RE: trials over (8/10/2008 9:47:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomDolf
Though I am not perfect and will never achieve perfection I strive every day to become more so. I hope others are doing the same.



....no-one can ask for more.



Archer -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 5:04:55 AM)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gitmo.html

This is the best article I have found citing the study I mentioned.
I called it a conservative estimate because if there is any bias in the study I would have to guess it would be towards the conservative side of the argument.





Owner59 -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 9:45:27 AM)

"men who had experience with explosives, sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, it said."




hmmm, That can be said for just about every man and boy in Afghanistan and means nothing.

That right there,shows the lack of sophistication the war on terror has right now.

Debockles like these(and there`s dozens),are what`s losing us the battle for hearts and minds.This kinda thing does the opposite in fact and the lack of concern over it,is telling.



popeye1250 -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 10:06:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


Driver gets 5 and a 1/2 years.

That is one hell of a traffic ticket.[8|]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was supposed to be a big show with fireworks and evil~doers get`n justice.

What happened?

The government had every advantage and had dirty tricks made legal.All the time money and resources and people to try the guy and they got zilch.

This is a direct result of how the bushies mis-handled the trails,evidence and prisoners.

This is one more example of the utter failure of the neo-cons to prosecute the war on terror.They`re fuck-ups, on every level.

They can`t even win a shame trail.

Note to neo-patriots:they have to be more than brown people from and "over there",......to qualify as a bad guy.

Letting OBL get away, was their greatest failure.(however one member here, actually thinks letting him go is a good idea,so there you have it)


LOL, Owner, I thought Illegal Aliens were "brown people?"
Now me, I'm a "green person" being of Irish descent.
What special favors do I get?
If our Troops were acting under the Geneva Conventions we wouldn't have any prisoners in GTMO.
They'd be questioned and then shot as spies.
I've said all along that this is a Military matter, not a matter for any court!
What's a court going to do, issue an "arrest warrant" for Bin Laden?
That's rediculous.



Owner59 -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 10:10:13 AM)

Hey Popeye,

We`ll put you in charge of the winning hearts and minds effort.[;)]



philosophy -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 10:48:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gitmo.html

This is the best article I have found citing the study I mentioned.
I called it a conservative estimate because if there is any bias in the study I would have to guess it would be towards the conservative side of the argument.






...thanks for finding that Archer. It certainly isn't the result of an anti-wars groups fundraising. i was intrigued by the estimate of  those seen as a 'potential threat'. This is basically the grey area, where intel leading to these people being detained in less reliable than we would all like.
Basically we are told that 73% are a proven threat, 22% are a potential threat and therefore 5% are being held needlessly.
Let's make an assumption that the intel leading to the arrest of the 22% was two thirds accurate. Some would see that as optimistic, but what they hey......that leaves us with around another 7% to add to the being held needlessly pyramid.

So, from a Pentagon report designed to rebuff the more colourful claims of the guilt/innocene of those at Gitmo, we can fairly admit to roughly a 10% error rate. Actually, it's not bad, but it should not be ignored and must be acted on. Great people have no problem admitting mistakes, it's one of the best ways to learn how to be greater.



Thadius -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 11:01:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gitmo.html

This is the best article I have found citing the study I mentioned.
I called it a conservative estimate because if there is any bias in the study I would have to guess it would be towards the conservative side of the argument.






...thanks for finding that Archer. It certainly isn't the result of an anti-wars groups fundraising. i was intrigued by the estimate of  those seen as a 'potential threat'. This is basically the grey area, where intel leading to these people being detained in less reliable than we would all like.
Basically we are told that 73% are a proven threat, 22% are a potential threat and therefore 5% are being held needlessly.
Let's make an assumption that the intel leading to the arrest of the 22% was two thirds accurate. Some would see that as optimistic, but what they hey......that leaves us with around another 7% to add to the being held needlessly pyramid.

So, from a Pentagon report designed to rebuff the more colourful claims of the guilt/innocene of those at Gitmo, we can fairly admit to roughly a 10% error rate. Actually, it's not bad, but it should not be ignored and must be acted on. Great people have no problem admitting mistakes, it's one of the best ways to learn how to be greater.


The only trouble with that is assuming that none of these folks have been released.  Many of the folks that try to scream about the number that were sent to Gitmo, refuse to acknowledge that folks have been released, and the other issue I brought up, their home countries don't want them back.  I would suggest that the current situation in Gitmo is a much better process than we had during past wars/conflicts.  Internment camps and POW camps come to mind.  I would also suggest that it beats the hell out of the alternative, a bullet to the head of any suspected enemy combatant/supporter.

Just my thoughts,
Thadius



Archer -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 11:09:57 AM)

I agree philosophy, although I read the article as they figure 27% error rate  which is higher than acceptable even to me a pretty hawkish guy. I read it as 73% that were rightly held, and 27% as being held unreasonably.

10% would be reasonable maybe during an actual conflict time but still have room or improvement.

As Hawkish as I am I still find the numbers to be unacceptable and the time taken to get from capture to status hearing as unreasonably long.

I offered the study up as another source countering the study that concluded only 5% were any real threat. (offered up by a Sutton Hall Group if I recall correctly).

Truth is most likely between the two at something closer to 35-40 % guys who pose little threat and 60-65% guys who would pose even a small threat should they be released. (of the total number of folks who have been sent to GITMO) (note: more than half of the folks who have been sent to GITMO have been released.)

Overall though that's a nice side item,again the real item here is
The Military was accused of not being able to provide anything more than a kangaroo court (even a recently as this post) yet the officers placed on the jury found ths guy guilty of less than half the charges and not the most serious of them.
Thus I submit the idea that the officers in the military placed on juries have been much more fair than so many (mostly on the left of the spectrum) gave them credit for.



Owner59 -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 12:05:33 PM)

 

If they found him guilty on all counts,it would have been no less a kangaroo court.

I think the guy is as guilty as sin and would have been found so,in an American court.This was OBL`s driver for god's sake.

This extraordinary ,unconstitutional,outside of normal rules and bounds approach, was a total gamble by Bush and Gonzalez,which they lost.We lost.

American prestige and respect was lost too,and for what gain?

I think even McCain said he`d close the camp right away,as president.That was last year, though.Today?.......Wtf knows?



Archer -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 12:21:25 PM)

He likely got a more fair trial in the military court than he would have in a civilian one. Process leading up to the trial is not in the question here, just the courtroom aspects alone. Guilty men hav gotten off before because a trial was fair and innocent men have been convicted in fair trials. Even with all the things that were reported as stacked against the man they couldn't convince a jury of military officers that the man was guilty of the other charges. To me the end shows that the system of military courts is not as stacked as those on the fringes would have us believe.

Hell it's a jury consisteing of all college graduates (with rare exeptions), when was the last civilian trial you heard of with such an educated jury.





Owner59 -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 12:37:22 PM)

 
When the SCOTUS ruled that detainees had habeas corpus rights,were they also part "fringes",trying make good folks believe things that weren`t true?

Most of the not so good things I heard about the trails came from the military lawyers and some of the military judges.Fringe? 



Thadius -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 12:40:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


When the SCOTUS ruled that detainees had habeas corpus rights,were they also part "fringes",trying make good folks believe things that weren`t true?


Even with the SCOTUS ruling on the detainees having certain rights, they are not the body that gets to decide jurisdiction... as far as I know the constitution still gives that right/responsibility solely to Congress to decide, who decided that military tribunals were the proper place to handle these cases.



Archer -> RE: trials over (8/11/2008 1:06:41 PM)

LOL still tying to make a silk purse outta that sows ear Owner? nothing if not persistant

The FRINGE charge was leveled at those who claimed the military tribunals couldn't be fair and they were legion. (PERIOD FULL STOP) you trying to carry it over into the habius corpus argument is a strawman argument and you know it. Habius Corpus has nothing to do with if a military tribunal can be fair. The fact that you cite military folks as sources argueing that the rest of the situation outside what the military courts did (all the politics) reinforces my argument that the military tribunals have shown that they canbe fair in spite of the politics. A point you seem to want to skip right over in your zeal to lob another round at Bush.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.699707E-02