RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


InvisibleBlack -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 1:17:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

However I've yet to see a response to the questions. How does a trial in US criminal court occur when the accused was never Mirandized and/or questioned without legal representation? Getting beyond that, and I don't see how that can be reconciled, the presumption of innocence will require every security agency to disclose all the information they've gathered and the sources for that information. Any confession under U. S. criminal statues that was obtained under duress will not be allowed. Whether any or all of the accused were water-boarded, the mere fact they were incarcerated, some 'kidnapped', would point to duress. The prosecutor would be free to call any and all of the accusers, including Joint Military Chief of Staff, the FBI and CIA Directors, and President Bush.


Personally, I think that trying him in a criminal court in New York City is a bad idea and will not turn out well.

It's possible that it will be impossible to convict him given U. S. Criminal law without railroading him through the trial - unless he outright confesses. Were I his attorney, I would immediately submit for a change of venue under the presumption that it will be impossible for him to obtain a fair trial before a jury made of New Yorkers. I live in New York City and regard myself as pretty fair and open-minded and I do not believe I could grant him the presumption of innocence and I would be lying to an attorney if I was empanelled for a jury and said that I could. I suspect that a semi-competent defense counsel could get a great deal of the evidence against him thrown out as it was obtained under duress, is hearsay or was inappropriately obtained.

Putting him on trial publically and then obviously ramming a guilty verdict through is counter-productive. Hand-waving and stretching obscure legal-precendents to pretend that he was actually and fully granted the rights established in the Constitution and U. S. case law is equally counter-productive if your goal is to show the "fairness" and "justice" of the U. S. legal system.

Based on what I recall from the course on Military Ethics I had back in ROTC all those years ago - even putting him on trial in the criminal system is a mistake and sets an awful precedent. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was not a U. S. Citizen and entered the U. S. under false pretenses to commit a planned act of terrorism.He was arrested in Pakistan by the Pakistan intelligence services and remanded over to the United States.

At this point, I believe that following international law, the United States should have contacted Kuwait (I think Mr. Mohammed is a Kuwaiti citizen) and requested that the Kuwaiti government agree to his extradition to the United States. I have no idea if this happened or not but I have no doubt that Kuwait would have allowed this.

The Geneva Conventions and the laws of war were initially drafted shortly after the Civil War. As such they are about 150 years old. They were revised a number of times, the most significant being in the mid-1950s. They were mostly designed to deal with classic uniformed armies fighting declared wars and to clearly lay out the rights of civilians and the rights of captured enemy soldiers. They do not deal well with how to handle terrorists.

Technically, none of these guys is an "enemy solider" nor even an "enemy combatant". To minimally qualify, even as guerilla fighter, you must don clear markings identifying yourself - this why insurgents such as Che Guevara wore the colored berets and things like bandanas or armbands. This clearly established that they were part of an organized group obeying the laws of war. You can put them on right before you start your operation and take them off right afterwards, but you cannot make yourself indistinguishable from a civilian. Since the terrorists did not (and do not) do any of these things, none of the provisions applying to enemy soldiers or enemy combatants apply to them.

That being said, the Geneva Conventions clearly spell out that certain rights apply to all "people", no matter their status. Torture is clearly forbidden. Indefinite detention without any recourse is clearly forbidden. Under the most minimal set of rights applicable to the least favored group under the Geneva Convetions (what is now referred to "illegal combatants"), a person captured during an armed conflict or as part of an armed conflict would have to be put before a military tribunal and sentenced within a reasonable time. That sentence could be death. It could be imprisonment until the end of the conflict and then release back to his or her homeland. Theoretically, it could be life imprisonment but life imprisonment isn't something I've ever heard of a military tribunal using.

Technically, someone caught on the battlefield without a uniform but with a firearm could be immediately put before three officers, convicted on the spot and then summarily shot and historically, this has happened and it would not be a violation of the Geneva Conventions nor the laws of war.

I don't think that allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the same rights and privileges as a U. S. citizen when he is clearly not and claiming that the largest terrorist incident on U. S. soil is a "crime" and not an act of terrorism is a particularly good idea. I believe that the U. N. Security Council defines terrorism as "any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act" and that according to U. S. law terrorism is defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

The U. S. legal system was not designed to function as a method of combatting or deterring terrorism nor do I believe that it will fare particualrly well if applied that way. Realistically, a new Convention needs to be held and a new set of international rules put in place to address exactly what rights and privileges need to applied to the growing number of terrorist organizations. Attempting to force frameworks intended for addressing domestic criminals or enemy soliders to handle groups which evolved specifically to operate outside of those frameworks is nonsensical.




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 1:20:59 PM)

I have addressed those issues and you have ignored them. Or went off into some pigheaded wordgame sideline that has nothing to do with nothing. You have further went on to make a fantasy annotation of the sixth amendment that wouldn't pass a shithouse lawyers test.

there isnt much more to do.

Ron




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 1:25:22 PM)

Invisible,

I should think the lawyer will ask for change of venue as well, and it would be granted.

The crime was in NYC and it is strict constitution to set it there unless the defendant waives the right to be tried at the crime scene.

And I agree with new international standards and laws, and soon, but today we have to sell whats on the cart.

Ron




luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 1:32:39 PM)

No you simply called them gay, not a response of any sort.

But everyone can see that.


and you are the one bringing up dhalmer and Iraq to derail. Its all you got.

You have to ignore the 6th to make your argument.




slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:17:01 PM)

I'm not sure if I'm correct here,and if not I would appreciate someone pointing out where I went off the rails.....but this hand wringing over whether or not these guys were mirandized is moot....Law Enforcement is required to Mirandize suspects....till these men were handed off to proper civilian authorities...their being Mirandized would not be an issue.....I am quite sure the moment the decision was made to try them in a Federal Court...the proper authorities saw to it that they were advised of their rights and assigned counsel.....as far as I know enemy combatents need not be so advised......wouldn't that have been the reason for shipping them to Gitmo in the first place and for avoiding Law Enforcement from taking custody?




popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:21:40 PM)

Gawd! This is going to be a nightmare!
Can you imagine being Obama winging your way back from China after a not so succesfull visit and being handed a fax of Buchanan's article by a sullen faced staffer on Air Force one?


Mike, you sure do have a lot of "faith" in a dysfunctional government.




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:25:48 PM)

yeah, the prez probably needs the comic relief.




slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:36:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Gawd! This is going to be a nightmare!
Can you imagine being Obama winging your way back from China after a not so succesfull visit and being handed a fax of Buchanan's article by a sullen faced staffer on Air Force one?


Mike, you sure do have a lot of "faith" in a dysfunctional government.
On what basis do you characterise the trip as "not so succesfull"....what would have qualified as sucessfull in your eyes?China declaring war on Iran?




popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:42:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Gawd! This is going to be a nightmare!
Can you imagine being Obama winging your way back from China after a not so succesfull visit and being handed a fax of Buchanan's article by a sullen faced staffer on Air Force one?


Mike, you sure do have a lot of "faith" in a dysfunctional government.
On what basis do you characterise the trip as "not so succesfull"....what would have qualified as sucessfull in your eyes?China declaring war on Iran?


Mike, well wasn't Obama after them to let their currency float in the free market?
Do you think we're going to see that anytime soon? "Rots a ruck!"
"No tickey , no shirty!"

Mike, "China declaring war on Iran?" Please explain.




luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:43:13 PM)

Quick derail this thread!! derail it now!!!


Lets get into what Popeye thinks about the presidents trip!!! lets call things "gay" whatever, lets just not talk about the issue in the thread!!!





slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:46:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Quick derail this thread!! derail it now!!!


Lets get into what Popeye thinks about the presidents trip!!! lets call things "gay" whatever, lets just not talk about the issue in the thread!!!


"Quick derail this thread"...after 11 pages I think quick as long passed....




luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:58:53 PM)

I am sure Mnot appreciates you trying to get his weak responses off the page. And I imagine he will return the favor for you soon.




slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 3:00:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

I am sure Mnot appreciates you trying to get his weak responses off the page. And I imagine he will return the favor for you soon.
Ron needs no help from me.....not on this page nor any other I have seen him involved in.....but you keep gnawing on that bone :)




Arpig -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 3:54:00 PM)

Fuck the "Five"..get them all out of there!! Try them or set them free, anything else is bullshit.




Sanity -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 5:33:26 PM)


Charles Krauthammer pointed out on The O'Reilly Factor tonight that the 9/11 terrorists could be charged with being illegal combatants, which illegal combatants have no rights. Therefore their trial could be ala carte with very minimal requirements for proof of guilt, and afterwards they may be taken out and summarily shot.




luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:17:38 PM)

No sanity, if they are charged with the civil, common crime of being an enemy combatant, they have to be given full due process: public trial, right to contest the nature of all evidence against them, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to compell testimony they feel will help them.

If they are treated as common criminals they will walk.
unless it is a kangaroo court, which Obama seems to have already admited it will be.




popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:45:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Gawd! This is going to be a nightmare!
Can you imagine being Obama winging your way back from China after a not so succesfull visit and being handed a fax of Buchanan's article by a sullen faced staffer on Air Force one?


Mike, you sure do have a lot of "faith" in a dysfunctional government.
On what basis do you characterise the trip as "not so succesfull"....what would have qualified as sucessfull in your eyes?China declaring war on Iran?



Well, earlier on the business channel tonight they said President Obama came home "empty-handed" from China.
That can't be a "good" thing.




Sanity -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 8:14:39 PM)


What rights do unlawful combatants have? None. Not under our laws, not under Geneva. And it wouldn't be hard to prov either, and thats all that would have to be proved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

No sanity, if they are charged with the civil, common crime of being an enemy combatant, they have to be given full due process: public trial, right to contest the nature of all evidence against them, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to compell testimony they feel will help them.

If they are treated as common criminals they will walk.
unless it is a kangaroo court, which Obama seems to have already admited it will be.




InvisibleBlack -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 9:18:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


What rights do unlawful combatants have? None. Not under our laws, not under Geneva. And it wouldn't be hard to prov either, and thats all that would have to be proved.



From the Third Geneva Convention - Article 5:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

So, to declare someone an "unlawful combatant", first they would have to appear before a "competent tribunal". At that point, they would not be covered by the conventions dealing with "prisoners of war" and so the fourth Geneva Convention, the one addressing treatment of civilians would apply.

From the Fourth Geneva Convention - Article 5:

"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."


Protocol I was adopted in 1977 - and it specifically forbids torture in any and all circumstances in Article 75:

"1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(i) murder;
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
(iii) corporal punishment; and
(iv) mutilation;

(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) the taking of hostages;
(d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.

4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:
(a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;
(b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;
(c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account or any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;
(d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;
(e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;
(f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;
(g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;
(i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and
(j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction or his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men's quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.

6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.

7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply:
(a) persons who are accused of such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and
(b) any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.

8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1."

However - the United States never ratified the Protocol and so, basically, it doesn't apply.

This makes the legal status of someone who is not a "prisoner of war" but is not a non-combatant a pretty dicey situation and an ugly grey area.


[Edited to add the rest of Article 75.]




luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 11:16:20 PM)

Sanity it would be impossible to prove under civilian due process. Unless we expose all our agents working on Terrorism stuff, and expose all our methods of gathering intell (and allow them to be cross examined), and exposing every local who helped us in Afghanistan.

If they are getting civilian due process, which is what common criminals get, the 6th in all its glory applies.


Of course it has never been necessary to hold a trial to hold a combatant. In absolutly no wars ever fought has that been the process. It is something created by the anti american left, and picked up on by a bunch of "usefull idiots", who can not even make a cogent argument as to why.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875