Unjust, unwise, unAmerican.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

America's plan to set up military commissions for the trials of terrorist suspects is a big mistake
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1908281

 

[epicstruggle]

Dont most of the "terrorist" consider themselves to be soldiers of god. I can see where having the trials run by civilians can be harmful. Leaking info about what the govermnent knows to the terrorists still out. I dont have too much sympathy to these people. They want to kill americans/[people who believe in freedom], then they have to pay the piper.

later,

 

[Evildeus]

Terrorist are in war against america, aren't they? Anyway, they need to be judge and put in jail whatever is the court if the defense available and possible.

 

[Geo]

Turns out this is not so un-American as you'd think.<g> See the American Civil War, particularly Missouri, which I know a bit about.

Best. Geo Rule www.civilwarstlouis.com

 

[Natoma]

I would have an issue with having these tribunals in private sessions merely because, as we have seen, our intelligence, and/or the application of that intelligence, can be flawed.

I would hate for someone to be sentenced to death, or locked away for the rest of their lives, and there is no due process given to them, if they're innocent. My gut tells me to keep these trials secret and let them do what they do in order to protect america. But my head is telling me that we should abide by our justice system.

Non-Americans should be tried in Military tribunals. Americans should be tried in civil courts. While some guilty terrorists may go free, at least the possibility of some innocents going free exists as well. It's the same reason I don't support the death penalty. One innocent found guilty without any chance for a stay of their sentence is one innocent too many. Death is irreversible. So is a lifetime sentence in a secret tribunal.

 

[Geo]

Non-Americans should be tried in Military tribunals. Americans should be tried in civil courts. While some guilty terrorists may go free, at least the possibility of some innocents going free exists as well. It's the same reason I don't support the death penalty. One innocent found guilty without any chance for a stay of their sentence is one innocent too many. Death is irreversible. So is a lifetime sentence in a secret tribunal.

I agree with this, btw. My comments above weren't aimed at whether it was a good idea or not, but just whether there was precedent for it in American history; and there sure as heck is --but it is a mostly ugly one.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Non-Americans should be tried in Military tribunals. Americans should be tried in civil courts.

Just curious... why the distinction? If an American chooses to leave America, join the enemy, and fight against our troops, that person has in my estimation equal rights to the people he fights along side. What is "just" for them is just for him.

Many people have a problem with Military tribunals in general, and the quoted article definitely makes inferences along those lines. That's a perfectly valid argument to make. But if the idea of secret Military trials isn't in and of itself unjust or unfair, then I see no reason for traitor citizens not to be treated as such.

 

[Natoma]

Non-Americans should be tried in Military tribunals. Americans should be tried in civil courts.

Just curious... why the distinction? If an American chooses to leave America, join the enemy, and fight against our troops, that person has in my estimation equal rights to the people he fights along side. What is "just" for them is just for him.

Many people have a problem with Military tribunals in general, and the quoted article definitely makes inferences along those lines. That's a perfectly valid argument to make. But if the idea of secret Military trials isn't in and of itself unjust or unfair, then I see no reason for traitor citizens not to be treated as such.

This is of course making the supposition that american citizens are indeed subject to due process and are innocent until proven guilty. Under that premise, american citizens should be tried in civil courts. Non-Americans, however, do not have such protections, and should be tried in military courts.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

If our laws don't expicitly state that treasonous acts result in the forfeiture of rights granted to US citizens, then they should.

 

[Geo]

If our laws don't expicitly state that treasonous acts result in the forfeiture of rights granted to US citizens, then they should.

Uh. . that's kind of a catch 22, don't you think? How will you determine that "treasonous acts" were committed without some kind of judicial process first?

Interesting enuf, one of the premier cases on this, ex parte Milligan (1866), the gentleman was very, very guilty ON THE FACTS. Yes, that's my opinion, but I've spent some time on it. It was reversed by the Supremes because the civil courts were open in Indiana at the time, so they ruled there should have been no military commission.

But that's a technicality --he was guilty of what he was accused. And he was *really* saved by presidential intervention (Johnson), not the Supremes. Then when the Supremes ruled the public attitude had changed to one of "geez, let the war be over already", so there was never an attempt to try the case again.

Sorry, it isn't often that on B3D I get to talk about something I actually know about.<g>

 

[Saem]

Dont most of the "terrorist" consider themselves to be soldiers of god. I can see where having the trials run by civilians can be harmful. Leaking info about what the govermnent knows to the terrorists still out. I dont have too much sympathy to these people. They want to kill americans/[people who believe in freedom], then they have to pay the piper.

I guess this is how the proceedings will take place. They already KNOW they're terrorists. So what's the point when they're already guilty?

According to your statements: American's don't seem to believe in freedom, rather they believe in freedom for themselves.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

hmm... you're right, definitely a catch-22. I suppose the reasoning is that when caught in what appears to be a treasonous act (firing a gun at US troops, perhaps), then the judicial jurisdiction will fall to the military. Interesting problem, to be sure.

 

[Legion]

Saem:

Much like everyone else?

 

[Geo]

I guess this is how the proceedings will take place. They already KNOW they're terrorists. So what's the point when they're already guilty?

According to your statements: American's don't seem to believe in freedom, rather they believe in freedom for themselves.

American military trials are not inherently unfair. The point would be to protect "national technical means" and such on the source of some evidence. There should be a way to accomplish this and still have much or most of the proceedings be public.

It really is a serious problem, though. During the cold war many spies were not prosecuted because it was deemed more damaging to reveal the source of the evidence in court than to prosecute the spy (which, since we knew about that person we could neutralize their ability to do more damage). But there are 3,000 American civilians dead (more or less) this time because of these people; not prosecuting is not an option.

I suppose we could just give them to the Saudi's and allow them to cut their heads off in a stadium full of people.

 

[Mariner]

The question is, how many of these people held in the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay are actually terrorists? I thought that most of them were supporters of the Taliban who fought during the invasion of Afghanistan? I doubt that many of them had anything to do with the 2001 attacks on the US.

How can these people be classified as terrorists? They should certainly be seen as POWs. The only problem is, I'd guess, that if they were treated as such they'd have been released back into Afghanistan/Pakistan/wherever where some of them would now be causing mischief.

 

[Dave H]

The question is, how many of these people held in the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay are actually terrorists? I thought that most of them were supporters of the Taliban who fought during the invasion of Afghanistan? I doubt that many of them had anything to do with the 2001 attacks on the US.

How can these people be classified as terrorists? They should certainly be seen as POWs. The only problem is, I'd guess, that if they were treated as such they'd have been released back into Afghanistan/Pakistan/wherever where some of them would now be causing mischief.

The technical legal answer to this is that, since they were not fighting under the rules of the Geneva Convention (in particular, wearing uniforms as part of a regular standing army), they are not entitled to its protections (in particular, getting released as soon as the war is over). As far as I can tell, this is a correct interpretation of international law. But it is also pretty nitpicky, on a subject where we could do some good by going beyond the letter of the law.

The US has been releasing Taliban prisoners once it has ascertained that they pose no terrorist threat nor can provide any new relevant information. But it would be a lot better IMO if the process were formalized and sped up, as it would have to be if they were being accorded full POW status under the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Gubbi]

The question is, how many of these people held in the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay are actually terrorists? I thought that most of them were supporters of the Taliban who fought during the invasion of Afghanistan? I doubt that many of them had anything to do with the 2001 attacks on the US.

How can these people be classified as terrorists? They should certainly be seen as POWs. The only problem is, I'd guess, that if they were treated as such they'd have been released back into Afghanistan/Pakistan/wherever where some of them would now be causing mischief.

The technical legal answer to this is that, since they were not fighting under the rules of the Geneva Convention (in particular, wearing uniforms as part of a regular standing army), they are not entitled to its protections (in particular, getting released as soon as the war is over).

Then they should be tried as war criminals.. But -oh wait..

nevermind

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[DeanoC]

Why do Americans get treated differently?

A man of country A travels to country B and does something, that person is then forcible moved to a prison that is in a legal no man's land and then tried under a military tribunal by a country C. Why do you get treated differently if A = C?

E.G.
One of the British citizens currently up for trial (one of the first 6). He was born and bred in the U.K. was captured in Pakistan (where he claimed to be teaching) and transported to the prison camp. Why doesn't he get treated the same way as the Californian? Why doesn't he stand trial in a US civil court?

If the US finds him guilty in a civil court, you have my blessing to do whatever you like to him. Whatever he has done, he should expect (as any citizen of a free country should) to be tried and punished for his crimes in the normal legal process.

Imagine the reverse, an American travels to Pakistan, is forcible removed by the UK for being a known IRA supporter, the American is sentenced to death by a military tribune. Would you say thats a fair trial?

If the US doesn't believe in its own legal system, then the terrorists have won. For isn't the stated aim of the terrorists, to end the western way of life and the right to free trial is the founding principle and if that is gone then so has the western way of life.

I don't really mind what the US does, as long as its fair and as you have already tried a US citizen in the US civil courts, I expect the same treatment of my countries citizens. Especially when my country has been your closest ally and has lost men to help you fight wars to stop terrorism.

 

[Gubbi]

If the US doesn't believe in its own legal system, then the terrorists have won. For isn't the stated aim of the terrorists, to end the western way of life and the right to free trial is the founding principle and if that is gone then so has the western way of life.

Indeed.

The land of the brave and the free becoming the land of the fearful and shackled, - by their own device.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[nutball]

If the US doesn't believe in its own legal system, then the terrorists have won. For isn't the stated aim of the terrorists, to end the western way of life and the right to free trial is the founding principle and if that is gone then so has the western way of life.

***applause***

I don't really mind what the US does, as long as its fair and as you have already tried a US citizen in the US civil courts, I expect the same treatment of my countries citizens. Especially when my country has been your closest ally and has lost men to help you fight wars to stop terrorism.

***even louder applause***

Well said that man.