trials over

trials over (Full Version)

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

Message

philosophy -> trials over (8/8/2008 12:14:14 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080808/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_bin_laden_s_driver ...so, we've had a trial of one of these 'unlawful combatents', a phrase which at its very heart speaks of justice and observence of the law. Something that jumped out at me from the linked story is the idea that when, in a few months the man finishes his time, he may not be released. Should the sentence he's been given be respected or ought the authorities that hold him ignore the decision of a court?

hisannabelle -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 1:30:46 AM)
greetings philosophy, as much as i often disagree with sentencing decisions, we have a responsibility to only hold prisoners to the sentence the court has handed down (unless it's taken to a higher court), or else i believe we've rendered the courts invalid. if we allow prisoners of ANY kind, whether they be held in guantanamo bay or leon county jail, to be punished above and beyond the punishment our own justice system has given, then in my mind, we might as well just get rid of that justice system altogether. respectfully, a'ishah.

JulieorSarah -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 2:24:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle ... to be punished above and beyond the punishment our own justice system has given, then in my mind, we might as well just get rid of that justice system altogether. respectfully, a'ishah. yeah ... wat she said!

L8bloomer -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 2:52:21 AM)
I agree that the court judgement should prevail. It will be interesting to see if he is released or not. Bush has done an outstanding job of giving the American government a reputation of being torturers. Hopefully the next administration will change that. It is surreal to see a country based on freedom with a government that sanctions such practises.

Rule -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 2:58:49 AM)
The prosecutors attempted to put away for an extremely long time a lowly driver of a CIA operative. What are the important beans about that CIA operative that he might spill to the public that they tried to keep from the public for that extremely long time? He is likely to be murdered in prison or shortly after he is released, to prevent him from making public some odd little facts that he may know.

amenableboy -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 3:10:25 AM)
Then again, this guy was a driver for OBL. I suppose we might overlook the fact that he was present when OBL was planning the operation that would kill, ultimately, upwards of 4000 people. It's easy, I know, it was so long ago. The guy admitted to the fact that he belonged to AQ. He was sentenced and given a term that will expire in 5 months. You can rail against Bush all you'd like, but this is still a guy who wanted you dead. I find it odd, in the extreme, that in our passion to condemn Bush, we forget the simple fact that there are people out there who want to kill us. They existed before Bush, and they will exist after Bush. And here we are, conflating our hatred of the man with the cause of an admitted terrorist. Who participated, however indirectly, in the deaths of everyone who was in the World Trade Center on that day. Remember the people jumping from the windows 100 stories up to avoid the flames? I do. As such, I am not sure this particular gentleman deserves much sympathy. He was there in the planning stages, after all. Ok, hate Bush. So many people here do, though I wonder if they might be able to either fully articulate that hatred, and, more importantly, defend their viewpoint. Be that as it may: what has that got to do with the verdict handed down by the military tribunal at Gitmo? Before you spout on and on about due process, you may wish to review the facts. This was a gentleman providing material support to a terrorist, the likes of which has never been seen before. Furthermore, he wore no uniform, he concentrated his efforts on killing civilians, and thus foresook the protections of the Geneva Convention (look it up). And yet, here I see some defending this gentleman in order to denigrate the President. You may wish to get your priorities in order, ladies and gentlemen. I am no fan of Bush, but I am a fan of our great country. Your intellectually lazy criticisms do you, and our country, no favors.

L8bloomer -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 3:26:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amenableboy Then again, this guy was a driver for OBL. I suppose we might overlook the fact that he was present when OBL was planning the operation that would kill, ultimately, upwards of 4000 people. It's easy, I know, it was so long ago. The guy admitted to the fact that he belonged to AQ. He was sentenced and given a term that will expire in 5 months. You can rail against Bush all you'd like, but this is still a guy who wanted you dead. I find it odd, in the extreme, that in our passion to condemn Bush, we forget the simple fact that there are people out there who want to kill us. They existed before Bush, and they will exist after Bush. And here we are, conflating our hatred of the man with the cause of an admitted terrorist. Who participated, however indirectly, in the deaths of everyone who was in the World Trade Center on that day. Remember the people jumping from the windows 100 stories up to avoid the flames? I do. As such, I am not sure this particular gentleman deserves much sympathy. He was there in the planning stages, after all. Ok, hate Bush. So many people here do, though I wonder if they might be able to either fully articulate that hatred, and, more importantly, defend their viewpoint. Be that as it may: what has that got to do with the verdict handed down by the military tribunal at Gitmo? Before you spout on and on about due process, you may wish to review the facts. This was a gentleman providing material support to a terrorist, the likes of which has never been seen before. Furthermore, he wore no uniform, he concentrated his efforts on killing civilians, and thus foresook the protections of the Geneva Convention (look it up). And yet, here I see some defending this gentleman in order to denigrate the President. You may wish to get your priorities in order, ladies and gentlemen. I am no fan of Bush, but I am a fan of our great country. Your intellectually lazy criticisms do you, and our country, no favors. So you're essentially saying the end justifies the means? Regardless of who wants me dead or what hatred may be directed towards infidels, it doesn't justify Bush's actions. I truly believe there are/were innocent people who were locked up in Guantanamo. That was the point I associated with this case. I didn't say I had sympathy for someone who was in league with bin Laden. I don't. But how people were rounded up and sent to Guantanamo is really scary and doesn't reflect well on America. As for this guy admitting to being part of Al Queda, was that a freely given admission or one divulged after torture? I'm not saying I know one way or the other because I don't. But I think it's a possibility to consider.

L8bloomer -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 3:33:18 AM)
P.S. to amenableboy Where did I or anyone else in this thread so far, defend Salim Hamdan? When I heard about this trial, I couldn't help think "this is the best they can do, the driver for Osama bin Laden? Sort of like impeaching Clinton because he lied about getting a blow job from a White House intern."

amenableboy -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 3:39:27 AM)
quote: o you're essentially saying the end justifies the means? Regardless of who wants me dead or what hatred may be directed towards infidels, it doesn't justify Bush's actions. I truly believe there are/were innocent people who were locked up in Guantanamo. That was the point I associated with this case. I didn't say I had sympathy for someone who was in league with bin Laden. I don't. But how people were rounded up and sent to Guantanamo is really scary and doesn't reflect well on America. Actually, what I was saying applies to this one case. You seem to want to argue a broader topic. If so, I am game, for debate is the lifeblood of the body politic. To kick of said debate, how exactly were people rounded up and sent to Gitmo? Were they detained on a battlefield in Iraq or the Ghanny? Or, were they detained in Detroit, crossing the street? That might be an important distinction to make before we begin our debate. I do not now, or will ever, claim that everyone in Gitmo is there for a good reason. I do not like the perogatives taken by our government in locking people up without a key. I worry about due process, and how American citizens might be effected by this policy. However, I do not worry so much about gentlemen, and that is a loose definition of the word, detained on the battlefield. In such cases, I see nothing wrong with detention at Gitmo. They wore no uniforms, and fought for no state. As such, they are not legally afforded protections under the Geneva Convention. Certainly, we as free citizens may protest such treatment, such as you are doing now (even though Bush is in office!), but legally there is nothing so wrong with what is happening now. If there is, someone please point out the relevant portions of international law that proscribe such treatment and we shall further our debate from that point.

amenableboy -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 3:41:51 AM)
And, might I add, the Gitmo military tribunals is not only Bush's actions, but the actions of your democratically elected Congress, and your Supreme Court, both of whom have validated this approach. So, if you want to tar someone over this, better have a bigger brush.

amenableboy -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 3:52:13 AM)
>The prosecutors attempted to put away for an extremely long time a lowly driver of a CIA operative. This does not qualify as a defense of the man? Not even a little bit of a defense for the man? Really? In the interest of honesty, you may wish to concede this point now.

Thadius -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 3:57:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: L8bloomer So you're essentially saying the end justifies the means? Regardless of who wants me dead or what hatred may be directed towards infidels, it doesn't justify Bush's actions. I truly believe there are/were innocent people who were locked up in Guantanamo. That was the point I associated with this case. I didn't say I had sympathy for someone who was in league with bin Laden. I don't. But how people were rounded up and sent to Guantanamo is really scary and doesn't reflect well on America. As for this guy admitting to being part of Al Queda, was that a freely given admission or one divulged after torture? I'm not saying I know one way or the other because I don't. But I think it's a possibility to consider. I would say that the car he was driving when arrested is a pretty good piece of intelligence... seeing as it had surface to air missiles in it. Although perhaps, the ACLU's position on this is the right one... the sentence is excessive, he should only get probation, perhaps he can serve that probation over in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and in between driving whomever to whatever meetings, or blowing stuff up he can find time to report in once a month to his probation officer..... People complain because they aren't being tried, then they complain after a trial is held. This poor lowly driver was railroaded... hell his sentence is less than some folks convicted on drug charges. Bah...

farglebargle -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 5:00:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080808/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_bin_laden_s_driver ...so, we've had a trial of one of these 'unlawful combatents', a phrase which at its very heart speaks of justice and observence of the law. Something that jumped out at me from the linked story is the idea that when, in a few months the man finishes his time, he may not be released. Should the sentence he's been given be respected or ought the authorities that hold him ignore the decision of a court? I think the Loyal Bushie's strategy here is VERY INTERESTING. Notice how he's only going to serve 6 more months? I wonder how long the Military Trib. appeal process takes, because Hamdan needs to wait until that's over BEFORE he can go to US Federal Court for a Habeas hearing to see if his detainment is lawful in the FIRST PLACE... So, he'll be out before they get around to seeing if he's lawfully held in the first place -- and the Loyal Bushies avoid getting bitch-slapped AGAIN but the USSC.

farglebargle -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 5:03:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule The prosecutors attempted to put away for an extremely long time a lowly driver of a CIA operative. What are the important beans about that CIA operative that he might spill to the public that they tried to keep from the public for that extremely long time? He is likely to be murdered in prison or shortly after he is released, to prevent him from making public some odd little facts that he may know. OR suing for unlawful arrest. Remember -- HE HASN'T HAD 'His Day In Court' yet. He needs to go through the show-appeal process, and THEN he can go to a REAL COURT for a Habeas Corpus hearing. We don't even KNOW if there's any reason to be holding this guy yet. There's a Criminal Procedure process for a reason.

peterK50 -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 5:21:11 AM)
When does the trial of Bin Ladens dry-cleaner start? There used to be great somber doccumentarys about the Nazi's & WW II & a grim voice over would say "How could the German people allow this to happen?" Now we know.

Rule -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 5:46:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: peterK50 When does the trial of Bin Ladens dry-cleaner start? LOL!

kittinSol -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 6:01:53 AM)
Yep... years of holding detainees in legal limbo. Years of imprisonning people without charge, without trial, without evidence provided to a court of law. Years of torture, abductions and locking up a few minors, just for good measure. Years of making up its own rules, attempting to rewrite the law, ignoring the treaties of which it is a signatory, and of being judge and jury at the same time, and the U.S. Government comes up with... the conviction of bin Laden's DRIVER. For driving people around and for being a member of Al Quaida. Well, is it completely embarrassing, or what?! It's a really poor show. We should demand our money back: this farce has got to stop. Charge those people, or release them.

thishereboi -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 6:17:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: peterK50 When does the trial of Bin Ladens dry-cleaner start? When he tries to kill someone or helps plan to kill someone. There used to be great somber doccumentarys about the Nazi's & WW II & a grim voice over would say "How could the German people allow this to happen?" Now we know. You really think this trial compairs to Hitler killing Jews? Oh come on, no one is that stupid.

bipolarber -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 6:37:56 AM)
I found the decision somewhat encouraging. Bush did everything he could think of to stack the deck, rewriting the rules, tossing out Hebeas Corpus, changing judges to ones he thought were more in his corner mid-trial, torturing the suspect... So now the guy has served seven years of a five and a half year sentance. Lewis Caroll couldn't have come up with a better trial in "Alice."

DarkSteven -> RE: trials over (8/8/2008 6:50:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Should the sentence he's been given be respected or ought the authorities that hold him ignore the decision of a court? For God's sake, PLEASE don't even joke about not honoring the verdict. There are two bodies of law, one for our own citizens, and one for citizens of other nations. The administration for whatever reason decided that two bodies of law were not enough and created a third category, that of "unlawful combatant" and deliberately stashed those people in Gitmo which is sort-of-not US territory and in secret locations in other countries. The Bushies, with typical confidence, assumed that the new body of law would meet their purposes more than existing ones. The natural result has been that the laws have been made up as the game played out. Meanwhile, we are holding men and boys while determing what can and should be done with them.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02