Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo prisoners [Archive]

Fade

11-10-2008, 11:59 AM

Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo prisoners
Nov 10 12:18 PM US/Eastern
By MATT APUZZO and LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

Story continued....
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94C5VI81&show_article=1&catnum=0)

Jobu

11-10-2008, 12:50 PM

Obama's new lawsuit on terror is sure to succeed where Clinton's failed. :cantbeli:

XShipRider

11-10-2008, 01:20 PM

I'm projecting we'll be closing Gitmo completely, turning it over to Cuba.

Mundzos

11-10-2008, 01:23 PM

Finally a president that makes rational decisons....

Weasel

11-10-2008, 01:30 PM

Track back to legality.

achilles

11-10-2008, 02:24 PM

Finally a president that makes rational decisons....

Quoted for truth. After 8 years of a neo-con mess, though, he still has a very long way to go.

XShipRider

11-10-2008, 02:36 PM

I wonder if the term "neo-Dem" will come in vogue now that there's going to be a new sheriff in town.

Rudolph

11-10-2008, 03:16 PM

That prison hasn't yielded any results, other than cause many more people to hate America...

Parx400

11-10-2008, 04:59 PM

Trail Lawyers will be lined up around the block to make a name for themselves by getting these guys off. The crew of High end Lawyers these guys will have is going to make OJ's team look like a high school mock Trial club.

Ordie

11-10-2008, 05:13 PM

Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. So it comes to no surprise that he's restoring our Constitutional rights.

Here's a link to the Presidential Transistional Team Org Chart to give you a clue on who's in charge.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2008_government_manual&docid=214669tx_xxx-3.pdf

sp2c

11-10-2008, 05:18 PM

Mordecai

11-10-2008, 05:54 PM

...So it comes to no surprise that he's restoring our Constitutional rights...

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts...

I am not sure about restoring ours, but it looks as though the detainees will be getting some of the same rights. :roll:

I am pretty sure the US Judicial System is backed up as it is without adding this circus... Not to mention they have a hard enough time prosecuting and giving just sentences to those who are found guilty.

Personally I dont have much of a problem with Gitmo and truly care less what other countries think of how we are prosecuting the GWOT...

Crip

Sanat-e-naft

11-10-2008, 05:57 PM

sounds like correcting a mistake by another mistake

should've just called these guys Prisoners of War from the start
means no trial and no release untill the end of the war (war on terror is going to last quite some time ;))

But then they would need to be provided with the protections of the Geneva Conventions etc. And we were not wanting to give them any rights....because we are the beacon of freedom and justice.

Calanen

11-10-2008, 06:00 PM

LineDoggie

11-10-2008, 06:06 PM

But then they would need to be provided with the protections of the Geneva Conventions etc. And we were not wanting to give them any rights....because we are the beacon of freedom and justice.

Simple question to all handwringing over these poor deprived souls at GITMO - Did PFC's Tucker & Menchaca , SSG Maupin get Geneva conventions protections? Yes or No?

Sanat-e-naft

11-10-2008, 06:11 PM

Simple question to all handwringing over these poor deprived souls at GITMO - Did PFC's Tucker & Menchaca , SSG Maupin get Geneva conventions protections? Yes or No?

No, they did not, since they were captured by criminal elements or terrorist elements, whom are not a Military, and not obliged to comport with the Laws of War. But it is terrible that these young Americans were murdered. However, we (the USA) are a state actor, using a defined military and thus bound by the laws. The law is not an eye for an eye system. (P.S.- the murderers of Maupin, at least, were executed after trial in Iraq).

LineDoggie

11-10-2008, 06:18 PM

Sanat-e-naft

11-10-2008, 06:23 PM

So the ones captured in Civilian Clothes, wearing no indentifiable insignia, etc. (basically meeting all the requirements of the Illegal Combatant, "Francs-Tireur" are suddenly Soldiers to be afforded every right?

Under international law "Unlawful Combatant" is a made up term. Either you are a lawful combatant, or committing murder, or attemped murder etc. and are tried as such by either the jurisdiction it occurs or based on other factors it could be a trial in the US or EU etc. And they would be afforded the rights afforded to all civilians who are held for a crime. (I.E. - right to trial, right not to be subjected to cruel punishment etc.)

Jobu

11-10-2008, 06:34 PM

Obama's gonna win the War on Terror by releasing terrorists back into the general public.
That'll show 'em he means business!

Ordie

11-10-2008, 06:35 PM

What happened in 9/11 is tragic.
What happened in reaction to 9/11 is scary.

We are more of a danger to ourselves than AQ.

Ordie

11-10-2008, 06:38 PM

Obama's gonna win the War on Terror by releasing terrorists back into the general public.
That'll show 'em he means business!

If we abandon our Constitution, the terrorist have won.

Jobu

11-10-2008, 06:46 PM

If we abandon our Constitution, the terrorist have won.

Bullcrap.
If we lose our will to see this fight through to a successful conclusion, the terrorists have won. Temporary discomforts can always be reversed once the threat has subsided.

Examples:

-Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, shut down dissenting press, and instituted martial law, does that mean the Confederacy won?
-FDR made 1/4 of the country a restricted military zone, does that mean the NAZIs won?
-Dissenters were locked up under the Espionage Act during WWI, does that mean the Kaiser won?
-etc.

Compared to those actions, what's going on today is rather insignificant.

Calanen

11-10-2008, 06:46 PM

Simple question to all handwringing over these poor deprived souls at GITMO - Did PFC's Tucker & Menchaca , SSG Maupin get Geneva conventions protections? Yes or No?

So we are using those guys as our moral standard now? It's not about them, it's about US. Because barbarians behave like barbarians, does not give us the license to behave appallingly or depart from our own values, not only do we hold as personal beliefs but which are enshrined in the US constitution and are applicable as a matter of international law.

What makes the West a great place is you do get a speedy trial, you do get a lawyer, you do get due process. But for us to throw all of that away for these scumbags, just demonstrates to onlookers around the world that we are waving the flag of freedom as a mere flag of convenience.

Jobu

11-10-2008, 06:48 PM

So we are using those guys as our moral standard now? It's not about them, it's about US. Because barbarians behave like barbarians, does not give us the license to behave appallingly or depart from our own values, not only we hold as personal beliefs but which are enshrined in the US constitution.

As others have said before, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

Sometimes you need to stop worrying so much about your values and start worrying about your ass first.

Calanen

11-10-2008, 06:56 PM

As others have said before, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

Sometimes you need to stop worrying so much about your values and start worrying about your ass first.

I think the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich were more of a worry for our collective asses than the people at Gitmo. And even the sabateurs captured during WW2 got a fair trial. That's what all these people should get, and it wont mean that the USA falls over as a result.

Ordie

11-10-2008, 07:11 PM

Temporary discomforts can always be reversed once the threat has subsided.

Temporary solutions usually become permanent.

LineDoggie

11-10-2008, 07:25 PM

Temporary solutions usually become permanent.
Really, I guess the Nisei are still in camps like Manzanar to this day? :roll:

Ordie

11-10-2008, 07:31 PM

Really, I guess the Nisei are still in camps like Manzanar to this day? :roll:

Much worst, many of the Japanese American Concentration Camp victims never regained thier homes, businesses and dignity.

Mordecai

11-10-2008, 07:31 PM

If we abandon our Constitution, the terrorist have won.

What part of our Constitution would we be abandoning? I cant seem to find anything in it that says anything about rights for enemies of the US.

Crip

IMTT

11-10-2008, 07:47 PM

Perfect; and so it begins! Firstly the Federal prison system is not equipted to hold these types of persons based on my experience and knowledge. This is a wind-fall for the prisoners from a recuritement stand point. The Feds systems is generally very open and contact with other prisoners is easy. The Isreali model of how to handle these types of persons is the one we should look at strongly and adopt. The due process of these persons is not my concern nor is it the real issue here to me. If up to me they would have NOT been brought to Gitmo in the first place and let us us say "disappeared" on some desert plain never to be heard of again. I know some of the granola eaters are upset about now...sorry. I'm very concerned about confining these persons on US soil. If allowed and not strictly isolated these individuals will create Terror cells within the prison system that will arrive on the streets of America at a later time. I would rather send these persons freeded, drop all charges, wash our hands of them and sent back to thier nation of orgin then have them in our prisons on US soil. As I see it the next problem will be release under Obama to their country of orgin. It is likely that some will seek asyslum under US law to take up residence here. My hope is that Bush sends these Saracens back to their orginal nation, hands them over to their Police and military for judgement at the local level. This needs to be done before this naive idiot Obama can assist them and further thier goals of Terror on US soil.

Ordie

11-10-2008, 07:52 PM

What part of our Constitution would we be abandoning? I cant seem to find anything in it that says anything about rights for enemies of the US.

Crip

Inter arma enim silent leges
-Cicero

Mordecai

11-10-2008, 08:01 PM

Inter arma enim silent leges
-Cicero

I am familiar with how it applies to the laws that serve citizens of the US. I am still unsure how it has anything to do with those individuals (detainees at Gitmo) who arent protected under the US constitution.

Crip

Sanat-e-naft

11-10-2008, 08:02 PM

Obama's gonna win the War on Terror by releasing terrorists back into the general public.
That'll show 'em he means business!

Dude, I am willing to bet that if the State could make any kind of case against these people for Terrorism Charges or any Charge for that matter they would. Its not like anyone LIKES losing face. Anyone whom we actually release would have had to have stood trial first. It is not like the order will go out..."ok boys, free'em". It just means that now we will need to give them a trial, not hold them forever like we have (shamefully) been doing. Give them a change to prove their innocence... is that bad?

Sanat-e-naft

11-10-2008, 08:05 PM

What part of our Constitution would we be abandoning? I cant seem to find anything in it that says anything about rights for enemies of the US.

Crip

The constitution does not just protect US citizens, it also protects people living in the US, people in our care..etc. Since we brought them to our turf....they get the protection of law.

budgie

11-10-2008, 08:07 PM

So the ones captured in Civilian Clothes, wearing no indentifiable insignia, etc. (basically meeting all the requirements of the Illegal Combatant, "Francs-Tireur" are suddenly Soldiers to be afforded every right?

The Geneva convention states that any partizan or other ununiformed combatant is to be subject to criminal laws of their own country. Most countries also have anti-terror laws that could be used thus. There's nothing saying they have no rights whatsoever and can be spirited away to the other side of the world and held for years without trial. It's a convenient Neocon myth that international law does not cover these guys at all and they fall into some kind of grey area. There's no such area. They're either POWs or criminals but not somewhere in between. Gonzales himself called the conventions "quaint", signalling an intention to undermine them.

IMTT

11-10-2008, 08:17 PM

Prisoners of War is the term Sir(s). Not accused US Citizen criminals entitled to the protection of the US constitution. Try them as POWs at Gitmo and or release them home to answer for crimes there. Why would you want them on our soil? This totally confuses and complicates this issue and opens many other doors. They win, air time on TV to express their beliefs, sympathizers, defense lawers making a show and the list goes on and on.

This would and will set a very danagerous precident. Obama is a Lawer and this may well be a hallmark for him to express his beliefs in something other than US security.

Ordie

11-10-2008, 08:33 PM

Prisoners of War is the term Sir(s). Not accused US Citizen criminals entitled to the protection of the US constitution. Try them as POWs at Gitmo and or release them home to answer for crimes there. Why would you want them on our soil? This totally confuses and complicates this issue and opens many other doors. They win, air time on TV to express their beliefs, sympathizers, defense lawers making a show and the list goes on and on.

You are right, we've should have never made exceptions to the US Constitution and Geneva Conventions in regards to this matter.

You don't need TV to win air time, if you have Youtube.

I say let the prisoners have due process and a fair trial. If they are innocent, release them to thier home countries. If they are found guilty, sentence them.

It is for the courts, not us to decide who's guilty or not.

LineDoggie

11-10-2008, 08:34 PM

Bia

11-10-2008, 08:37 PM

Simple question to all handwringing over these poor deprived souls at GITMO - Did PFC's Tucker & Menchaca , SSG Maupin get Geneva conventions protections? Yes or No?No. You advocate two wrongs make a right?

So the ones captured in Civilian Clothes, wearing no indentifiable insignia, etc. (basically meeting all the requirements of the Illegal Combatant, "Francs-Tireur" are suddenly Soldiers to be afforded every right?All humans... deserve due process. End of debate.

F_ck it then. lets release them all back to their countries of Origin, and give them Reparations for Inconveniencing them. We can oufit them with new Suits and Ipods and send them on their Merry

Problem solvedEmo

California Joe

11-10-2008, 08:43 PM

IMTT, thank you for finally figuring out that whole "paragraph" thing. :)

I honestly don't know what should be done with these jokers. I guess if the plan was just to lock them up in Cuba forever we should have just shot them all in the first place.

I have no idea how much intel has been gathered from them but it does seem from outward appearances that we have simply sentenced them to life in prison with no trial or due process. Sentencing before trial.

Personally I'd like to hear what the f*ck these pricks were involved in that got them sent there in the first place. But that would probably all be covered under National Security issues. These trials certainly wouldn't be the OJ trial on Court TV. Without a trial however there is always the chance that some of them are innocent of what they're accused of.

They are not an "honorable" enemy in the traditional sense of combatants on the losing side of a war, that get released and go home and try to rebuild their country. Most of these guys no doubt have an even greater hatred of us than ever before and have no intentions of going away peacefully if released. That's the rub. But we are America afterall and this type of behavior seems to be stooping to their level instead of upholding our ideals.

Just some thoughts...

Mordecai

11-10-2008, 08:49 PM

...All humans... deserve due process...

I am not so sure about that...

I am a bit torn on the issue as it applies to those found on the battlefield. Those individuals should be thankful to be breathing at this point.

Those that are US citizens have Constitutional rights to include a trial. If found guilty, of crimes against the US, they deserve to be shot in the head; no prison time at all. Those that are not US citizens same if found guilty. Those who are found not to be guilty should be sent back from whence they came.

I agree with IMTT in regards to detaining them in US prisons.

Crip

Calanen

11-10-2008, 08:49 PM

I am familiar with how it applies to the laws that serve citizens of the US. I am still unsure how it has anything to do with those individuals (detainees at Gitmo) who arent protected under the US constitution.

Crip

Maybe enrol in a pre-law course, and find out.

Until then, you aren't really qualified to say.

LineDoggie

11-10-2008, 08:52 PM

No. You advocate two wrongs make a right? You tell me, are we beheading anyone at GITMO? Disemboweling them?

All humans... deserve due process. End of debate. Sorry, your majesty didnt realize you decide our opinions. Maybe when, or if you ever face these people when their armed and about you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Emo Whatever thats supposed to mean, I dont care, if thats the best you can do, fire away.

Mordecai

11-10-2008, 09:01 PM

Maybe enrol in a pre-law course, and find out...

Prelaw... Sorry too busy shooting these asshats in their faces where I find them (saving the taxpayers money and the judicial system time as a byproduct.)

...Until then, you aren't really qualified to say.And that would be why I was asking Ordie in the first place. I understand WTF "Inter arma enim silent leges" is referring to with regards to US laws and how the US Constitution applies or diesnt during such times.

The Constitution begins with "We the People (citizens) of the United States," with the exception of the few US citizens who are being held I dont see how the remainder deserve protection under the USC. I cant even believe its an issue to be honest. Next thing you know the cases will be dismissed because the unlawful combatants and terrorists were not read their Miranda warning (under the 5th amendment) prior to being questioned....

Crip

IMTT

11-10-2008, 09:03 PM

F_ck it then. lets release them all back to their countries of Origin, and give them Reparations for Inconveniencing them. We can oufit them with new Suits and Ipods and send them on their Merry

Problem solved

My fear is this is what will happen. This may seem out of the realm of possiblity but this could very well happen next as well as granting them US Citizenship. Think about it for a moment under the thought process at work here if we allow them to go home they are in grave danager of execution even if we find them innocent. They could and will claim we now need to protect them and allow them to stay. If I was their attorney that is exactly what I would argue. I say conduct whatever needs to be done at Gitmo but don't allow them on US Soil. Handing these persons over to the locals is better than allowing a mockery of us on the world stage while they profess their cause and garner sympathy.

P.S. CJ; thanks

Bia

11-10-2008, 09:11 PM

IMTT... we could assume fantastic senerios all day.

Why not let our law... handle it?

budgie

11-10-2008, 09:13 PM

This may seem out of the realm of possiblity but this could very well happen next as well as granting them US Citizenship.

Correct. It is out of the realm of possibility. This idea smacks of rabid fear of 'liberal political correctness.' They will not get US citizenship.

I say conduct whatever needs to be done at Gitmo but don't allow them on US Soil. Handing these persons over to the locals is better than allowing a mockery of us on the world stage while they profess their cause and garner sympathy.

I kind of agree. If there are going to be military tribunals, wrap them up quick and shut the place down. Those that can be repatriated should - unfortunately to whatever fate awaits them in their homelands. half of them are probably wanted there already.

Chulo

11-10-2008, 09:13 PM

If we abandon our Constitution, the terrorist have won.
yup.. and since the constitution is "broken" obama is going to fix it

California Joe

11-10-2008, 09:15 PM

Sorry too busy shooting these asshats in their faces where I find them (saving the taxpayers money and the judicial system time as a byproduct.)

Crip, maybe if you were a better shot there'd be less of them to try. p-)

Mordecai

11-10-2008, 09:22 PM

Crip, maybe if you were a better shot there'd be less of them to try. p-)

Its not me brother I assure you. :)

Crip

Sanat-e-naft

11-10-2008, 09:32 PM

IMTT

11-10-2008, 09:34 PM

Bia,

My direct personal knowledge / experience over the last 25 years in regard to the Justice system in California and dealing with the Federal Corrections authorities makes every scenerio I have outlined very feasible and plausable. Yes the liberal politically correct justice system is beyond belief more than you will ever know or want to know. That is exactly why I have written the foreseable possibilties as I see them and have seen them. Get it done qwick and overwith, move on and bulldoze Gitmo. Next time call on the men of the night to snuff these pukes out or have the locals do it and wash our hands...not that that has ever happened.

sp2c

11-10-2008, 10:24 PM

But then they would need to be provided with the protections of the Geneva Conventions etc. And we were not wanting to give them any rights....because we are the beacon of freedom and justice.

I don't really care

contrary to popular believe, the rules for prisoners of war arent describing some kind of paradise, it's a prison

Sanat-e-naft

11-10-2008, 10:59 PM

I don't really care

contrary to popular believe, the rules for prisoners of war arent describing some kind of paradise, it's a prison

I am not talking about creating some kind of prison paradise, we are talking about fundemental rights to trial, avoidance of cruel and unusual punishments, degrading treatment etc. Get with the program, yo.

P.S.- If they were POW's we wouldnt be having this talk, so try keeping up with the terms. No offense.

NicNZ

11-10-2008, 11:59 PM

My two cents:

1. This will always be a divisive issue; but

2. Indefinitely locking people away -- especially people seized from other countries -- without charge or trial is no way for the US to conduct itself.

Calanen

11-11-2008, 12:23 AM

Prelaw... Sorry too busy shooting these asshats in their faces where I find them (saving the taxpayers money and the judicial system time as a byproduct.)

I don't disagree there. If these guys can be killed lawfully saves us all a lot of trouble.

The constitution does not just apply to citizens, it applies to bind the US government as well. While US citizens have more rights than regular humans straying within jurisdiction, the US government can only act within the restraints of the constitution.

For example, an illegal immigrant still gets due process if charged with a crime, even though not a US citizen.

The other source of law is the Geneva Convention, which binds the US government. There has been a fair amount of disinformation peddled by Rummies crew, although quite cleverly playing on old myths and half-truths, such as these guys weren't in a uniform therefore we can do whatever we like with them etc etc.

There is the possibility at least, that people were identified for Gitmo treatment to settle old scores in Afghanistan, and were wrongly arrested. That must be a possibility. With no due process, there is no way of clearing yourself. Everyone should have their day in court, even these guys.

Erik2a4

11-11-2008, 04:19 AM

Maybe enrol in a pre-law course, and find out.

Until then, you aren't really qualified to say.

Maybe learn to spell. Until then, you aren't really qualified to say.p-)

Less ad-hominem, more productive discussion would be nice in this thread.

Erik2a4

11-11-2008, 04:58 AM

Um, there are a whole lot of half-baked conclusions as to the applicability of the US Constitution to persons we imprisoned in Gitmo. The protections of the consitution are not limited to only US citizens. Think Habeus Corpus....Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Off the top of my head...and I don't know for sure...but wasn't it implied by a plurality that the detainees either had Habeus Corpus (US Criminal System) OR could be tried under either the Geneva Conventions or Article I UCMJ as long as there was an impartial arbiter?

Hmmm...I'm actually curious...

achilles

11-11-2008, 05:34 AM

Obama's gonna win the War on Terror by releasing terrorists back into the general public.
That'll show 'em he means business!

G.W. Bush has really gotten into you, huh?

"Terror", "Terrorism", "They against us", "They win", "We loose".....get a grip on yourself...

Policía Loco

11-11-2008, 05:55 AM

I think trials would be a waste for a majority of them. There is not a sufficient amount of evidence to incarcerate them for any length of time, if at all. If they are tried and convicted our wonderful court system would probably sentence them to time served. For they higher level ones, by all means, have at it!

sp2c

11-11-2008, 05:57 AM

I am not talking about creating some kind of prison paradise, we are talking about fundemental rights to trial, avoidance of cruel and unusual punishments, degrading treatment etc.

triy them for what exactly?

it's not really against the law to try and fight off invading armies. You could perhaps pin some warcrimes (attacks against civilian targets) on them but that'll be hard to prove

they'll all get released and some will be back in the fight in a matter of weeks

you could maybe get the Afghans themselves to try them for treason or something but I don't think their institutions are there quite yet

Get with the program, yo.

are you a child?

P.S.- If they were POW's we wouldnt be having this talk, so try keeping up with the terms. No offense.

are you trying to act smart?

sounds like correcting a mistake by another mistake

SHOULD'VE just called these guys Prisoners of War from the start
means no trial and no release untill the end of the war (war on terror is going to last quite some time ;))

fail?

Mordecai

11-11-2008, 09:02 AM

..."Terror", "Terrorism", "They against us", "They win", "We loose"....

These knuckle heads trying to kill us is what has brought most of us to the place of believing what I quoted above. It has nothing to do with President Bush or the other Neo-Cons

It is a win or lose situation. There is no middle ground here and its thinking otherwise which is one of the things hindering the war.

Crip

LineDoggie

11-11-2008, 09:08 AM

These knuckle heads trying to kill us is what has brought most of us to the place of believing what I quoted above. It has nothing to do with President Bush or the other Neo-Cons

It is a win or lose situation. There is no middle ground here and its thinking otherwise which is one of the things hindering the war.

Crip

Achilles isnt American, he's a Greek, he sees us all as Neo-Cons

Macs.

11-11-2008, 09:30 AM

Erik2a4

11-11-2008, 09:57 AM

Over 7 years into the "Global War on Terror" and they still don't know what really to do with these prisoners, yeah it's really working out nicely. Seems like there was some good planning before acting.

Actually, there was, then it was challenged, then it was changed, etc.

This is the American system of government; it's a not-always-efficient producer of policy. There are competing interests not only in world-view but also partisan politics.

Doesn't mean that there originally wasn't a plan, just means that the system of checks and balances works, and the President's original plan got shot down.

Connaught Ranger

11-11-2008, 10:32 AM

. . . . . planning US trials . . . . . . a proposal . . . . . . . a plan that would make good. . . . . would be. . . . .

Boy its full of facts isn't it?

LineDoggie

11-11-2008, 10:50 AM

Jobu

11-11-2008, 10:53 AM

Dude, I am willing to bet that if the State could make any kind of case against these people for Terrorism Charges or any Charge for that matter they would. Its not like anyone LIKES losing face. Anyone whom we actually release would have had to have stood trial first. It is not like the order will go out..."ok boys, free'em". It just means that now we will need to give them a trial, not hold them forever like we have (shamefully) been doing. Give them a change to prove their innocence... is that bad?

So are we in the midst of a lawsuit or a war?

Macs.

11-11-2008, 10:53 AM

What, Were we suppposed to have a Wansee conference first? Hohoho... :roll:

One should think that a topic that has eaten Billions and Billions of your Tax money and has been the main focus of politics for you should have gotten so much attention that one has a clear legal plan of what to do with your enemies or those suspected to be.

Erik2a4

11-11-2008, 10:55 AM

So are we in the midst of a lawsuit or a war?

That seems to be the million-dollar question.

Jobu

11-11-2008, 10:56 AM

Hohoho... :roll:

One should thing that a topic that has eaten Billions and Billions of your Tax money and has been the main focus of politics for you should have gotten so much attention that one has a clear legal plan of what to do with your enemies or those suspected to be.

You mean like lock 'em up at Gitmo, away from America's civilian courts?

That sure sounds like a clear plan.

SBL

11-11-2008, 11:08 AM

Hohoho... :roll:

One should think that a topic that has eaten Billions and Billions of your Tax money and has been the main focus of politics for you should have gotten so much attention that one has a clear legal plan of what to do with your enemies or those suspected to be.
Well, I think the consensus was that people would 'go with it', as had been done in conflicts past. The level of public resistance to certain policies was really unforeseen, imo, and I can't really say I blame them for not having the finer points ironed out.

Sanat-e-naft

11-11-2008, 01:02 PM

Off the top of my head...and I don't know for sure...but wasn't it implied by a plurality that the detainees either had Habeus Corpus (US Criminal System) OR could be tried under either the Geneva Conventions or Article I UCMJ as long as there was an impartial arbiter?

Hmmm...I'm actually curious...

I may be wrong, but it was my understanding that that was the plurality holding in Hamdanm, not Hamdi. But I have not reviewed either case since Con Law. :-)

Sanat-e-naft

11-11-2008, 01:07 PM

triy them for what exactly?

it's not really against the law to try and fight off invading armies. You could perhaps pin some warcrimes (attacks against civilian targets) on them but that'll be hard to prove

It actually is against the law to take up arms and fight if you are not a member of the armed forces etc. International Law is very concerned with Lawful combatants. Their actions, if the killed anyone would be murder, not a war crime. And no I am not trying to act smart, I'm trying to explain this stuff.

sp2c

11-11-2008, 01:29 PM

It actually is against the law to take up arms and fight if you are not a member of the armed forces etc. International Law is very concerned with Lawful combatants.

except we attacked them, not the other way around
the Taliban where in charge and they are still fighting us

Their actions, if the killed anyone would be murder, not a war crime.

how in the hell is the US going to charge someone for murdering someone in Afghanistan???

I don't think that'll work well

And no I am not trying to act smart, I'm trying to explain this stuff.

you weren't not doing very well there

I know they are not POW's and I know (believe rather) that we wouldn't be having this talk if that was the case.
That's why I said that we should've called them POW's and lock them up untill we don't feel like it anymore and that is what you responded.

if you then a couple of posts later tell me to get with the programme and realize that they are not POW's then I'm not so impressed by your abilities to explain this stuff

Sanat-e-naft

11-11-2008, 01:39 PM

Jobu

11-11-2008, 01:46 PM

Also, they can be tried here for Murder of US troops in Afghanistan btw.

Were they read their Miranda rights when they were "arrested" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or wherever they were picked up?

Did they receive their one phone call and access to a court-appointed attorney before answering any questions?

etc.

If you're going to fight a war by prosecuting the enemy as common civilian criminals, you're going to lose that war.

California Joe

11-11-2008, 01:51 PM

Agreed, but what the hell do we do with them? In most cases they weren't simply shot during the firefight because of intel potential. It's still a tenuous position for our "Nation of Laws" to be in.

Jobu

11-11-2008, 01:52 PM

SBL

11-11-2008, 01:54 PM

Send them back along with a very public 'thank you' for their invaluable cooperation in the War on Terror.

California Joe

11-11-2008, 01:56 PM

Sanat-e-naft

11-11-2008, 01:57 PM

Were they read their Miranda rights when they were "arrested" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or wherever they were picked up?

Did they receive their one phone call and access to a court-appointed attorney before answering any questions?

etc.

If you're going to fight a war by prosecuting the enemy as common civilian criminals, you're going to lose that war.

The phone call is a myth, most of the time the only reason the Cop gives you a call is either because they are being nice or they think it is the law as well. Additionally, there are rules governing how to try a foreign national (criminal) whom is forcibly abducted and rendered to the US. However I am pretty sure setting them forth would take longer than 10 mins of my time, and nobody would really care, so...

Additionally, if by fighting a war we lose our scruples just to win, then we bacame the enemy and lost anyway.

Bia

11-11-2008, 02:15 PM

The phone call is a myth.Yep...that 1 phone call instantly upon station arrival is pure BS.... people watch too much TV that's for sure.

LineDoggie

11-11-2008, 02:18 PM

Send them back along with a very public 'thank you' for their invaluable cooperation in the War on Terror. Thats Genius really, It's like the French Intelligence Service's "Fifth Bureau" in Algeria did.

They tricked "Col." Ait Hamouda ("Arimouche the Terrible") into Purging his Wilaya 3 of the ALN. The Purge he inflicted on those he thought were disloyal was described as Hideous.

Love it p-)

sp2c

11-11-2008, 02:33 PM

You cannot just arbitrarily name someone a POW. There are requirements of what they must have, command and control, uniform, etc. I think this is where the problem is, we dont get to just say something is, and it is. The law has rules and such that relate to these issues.

the Geneva conventions do not cover just government forces but also armed government alligned militia and volunteer corps

what you are afraid of is exactly what happened here, 'we' invented a special status for these people for a reason that to me is still unclear. I think it's been more trouble then it's worth

Also, they can be tried here for Murder of US troops in Afghanistan btw.

they'll all claim selfdefence and nothing will happen

sp2c

11-11-2008, 02:40 PM

Agreed, but what the hell do we do with them? In most cases they weren't simply shot during the firefight because of intel potential. It's still a tenuous position for our "Nation of Laws" to be in.

I still think they should be in POW camps untill they can be traded for something usefull, the Afghan government is strong and confident to start reintegrating these individuals or they die of old age

the intelligence that can be gained from them is obviously important in country but by the time they reached Guantanemo most of it will probably useless and then you'd still have to work your way past all the 'I not speaking to you you infidel pigdog!'

Erik2a4

11-11-2008, 02:55 PM

I may be wrong, but it was my understanding that that was the plurality holding in Hamdanm, not Hamdi. But I have not reviewed either case since Con Law. :-)

You are correct, it was Hamdan, not Hamdi.

Sanat-e-naft

11-11-2008, 03:19 PM

the Geneva conventions do not cover just government forces but also armed government alligned militia and volunteer corps

what you are afraid of is exactly what happened here, 'we' invented a special status for these people for a reason that to me is still unclear. I think it's been more trouble then it's worth

they'll all claim selfdefence and nothing will happen

In order to be a recognized militia or volunteer force the parties must prove that:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In order to be under the protections of the GC. IF they dont fulfill this then they are not covered as combatants. And are civilians, which means they are criminal.

Calanen

11-11-2008, 03:25 PM

We make new rules.

Retrospectively make actions become a crime? Yeah the Supreme Court would love that for a theory of criminal law. How can you obey the law, if it did not exist at the time of your actions? The Defendant then had to be prescient enough to guess in advance that actions which at the time were not criminal, would become so by legislation yet to be passed.

Can't see that flying.

Mordecai

11-11-2008, 03:27 PM

So are we in the midst of a lawsuit or a war?

Depends on if you are asking a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine or if you are asking a politician, peace nut, or otherwise a armchair general who has an opinion on the matter... :roll:

Crip

Calanen

11-11-2008, 03:37 PM

In order to be a recognized militia or volunteer force the parties must prove that:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In order to be under the protections of the GC. IF they dont fulfill this then they are not covered as combatants. And are civilians, which means they are criminal.

Have a read of my post here:

Further to the above, there is no such thing as an 'unlawful enemy combatant', in international law. That was just something that Rummy's spin team made up. You are either a POW, or you are a civilian detained. That means either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to you.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/part3B.htm (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/part3B.htm)
Similarly, the Trial Chamber is not convinced that the Bosnian Serb detainees constituted a levée en masse. This concept refers to a situation where territory has not yet been occupied, but is being invaded by an external force, and the local inhabitants of areas in the line of this invasion take up arms to resist and defend their homes. It is difficult to fit the circumstances of the present case, as described in Section II above, into this categorisation. The authorities in the Konjic municipality were clearly not an invading force from which the residents of certain towns and villages were compelled to resist and defend themselves. In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;

[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.29 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/foot.htm#296)
This position is confirmed by article 50 of Additional Protocol I which regards as civilians all persons who are not combatants as defined in article 4(A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention, and article 43 of the Protocol itself.

The Prosecution has further argued that article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention required that, where there was some doubt about the status of the Celebici detainees, they had to be granted the protections of the Convention until that status was determined by a competent tribunal297 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/foot.htm#297).

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3072628&postcount=21

sp2c

11-11-2008, 03:56 PM

Sanat-e-naft

11-11-2008, 04:02 PM

There's a war on, they were captured fighting it
to me that's a Prisoner of War

It is not up to you or I to call someone a POW, the statutory provisions make someone a POW or not. Our personal feeling a whims are not what counts.

sp2c

11-11-2008, 04:08 PM

it's not up to me to play soccer matches either but I still comment on them when I watch them ... it's called an opinion

We seem to be crawling through hoops to not be able to call them POW's and I just don't see the point

Calanen

11-11-2008, 04:16 PM

Maybe learn to spell. Until then, you aren't really qualified to say.p-)

Less ad-hominem, more productive discussion would be nice in this thread.

I am qualified to say. And there were no spelling mistakes in that sentence.

You have to learn that not everyone spells things the same way you do. I usually use Australian English to spell words, unless it is a US specific document that I am creating. No need to though on here one would have thought.

It's not ad hominem to say that difficult legal questions usually require someone with the appropriate qualifications to answer the question, no more than I would attempt to lecture an artillery soldier about the best way to 'fire for effect' because I have played some online game.

If practising law was really that easy, everyone would represent themselves.

achilles

11-11-2008, 04:17 PM

Achilles isnt American, he's a Greek, he sees us all as Neo-Cons

Even if that was true, the latest election proved me wrong and i am so glad about it

IMTT

11-11-2008, 05:44 PM

Calanen

11-11-2008, 06:00 PM

It is not up to you or I to call someone a POW, the statutory provisions make someone a POW or not. Our personal feeling a whims are not what counts.

International law decides who is a POW or not, not statutory provisions.

NicNZ

11-11-2008, 06:37 PM

... keeping them in Cuba or Saudi Arabia... to skirt our own laws is a thinly veiled attempt to pretend we're still always the good guys while doing bad things.

Bingo.

12345

Sanat-e-naft

11-11-2008, 07:11 PM

International law decides who is a POW or not, not statutory provisions.

By statutory law I mean the Geneva Convention, ICTY Statute, ICTR Statute, ICC Statute, UN Charter, Hague...etc for example. From these statutes one can glean what international law means.

DS73

11-11-2008, 08:03 PM

By statutory law I mean the Geneva Convention, ICTY Statute, ICTR Statute, ICC Statute, UN Charter, Hague...etc for example. From these statutes one can glean what international law means.

Until this post I was enjoying this thread, now I've became very suspicious of your agenda.
You pulled a bunch of familiar names apparently right out of your ass, as I really cann't see what highlighted institution has to do with the international law understood in US.
And what the hell means "Hague" there?

Calanen

11-11-2008, 08:46 PM

By statutory law I mean the Geneva Convention, ICTY Statute, ICTR Statute, ICC Statute, UN Charter, Hague...etc for example. From these statutes one can glean what international law means.

Ok, I thought you were referring to local statutes, which have some effect, but have to be made in accordance with the treaties that the US is signatory to.

Here is my opinion - most of the people captured will walk. It's not an offence to be part of a 'levee en masse' even if not in uniform, and shooting at US troops. That means, people come out of their houses, see foreign troops and start shooting at them. That is perfectly legal, even though they are on the other side. And protected by the Geneva Convention. You can go postal Wolverine style if your country is invaded by foreign troops, and NOT in uniform and it is your right to do so. That's not a war crime.

Its interesting the old 'no uniform equals shot as spy' chestnut keeps appearing. The Northern Alliance and indeed our CIA operatives were not real big on uniforms. CIA guys were wandering around in LL Bean type gear with sat phones calling in airstrikes in Afghanistan.

The laws of war are designed to prevent the victor from just machine gunning everyone on the other side after they have won. You may hate the enemy, but you cant just blow him away once you win, or, indeed, keep him locked up forever or charge him with firearms offences etc.

More importantly, what subject matter jurisdiction do US Federal Courts have over armed people in Afghanistan? That would be the first motion I'd file, to dismiss for lack of juridiction. Assuming that they do have jurisdiction - what is the offence? you can charge them with war crimes, if they have committed any. Which I doubt.

So its likely they will be charged with some retrospective offence - materially supporting terrorism etc, which has its own problems. They will just threaten to keep these guys detained and in custody pending all of their appeals, and offer them plea bargains to be convicted of something before they let them out.

Connaught Ranger

11-12-2008, 05:48 AM

My hopes are that Bush makes this go away in the middle of the night and sends them back to where they came from takign it out of Husseins hands. This is going to get really ugly if it gets in our courts to judge with our laws for common criminals. The precident will be extremely damaging for future conflicts we are faced with and will tie our hands even more. Now lets stop a moment, aren't we now allowing the locals to judge our citizens operating in their countries as contractors? Let's apply the same rule and ship them for judgement in their nations.

Dream on buddy,:roll:

by the way is the use of the word Hussein in your post supposed to make us consider that President elect Obahma is a bogey man with sympathies to the free worlds enemy's?

As your "contractors" are not legitimate combatants, as the term is understood by most laws governing combatants, and not even governed by the Rules of War or the US Military Code of Justice, why then should they not be tried in the country by the legal Government of the people on who they are alleged to have committed crimes?

While most of the gentlemen held in Gitmo were captured in combat, or while armed or in a combat zone. So therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the US Military System.

Even if sent back you are probably leaving the door open for civil suite to be presented against the government of the USA for detaining them in Gitmo, without trial for X times years, and another major bill to paid by the U.S. taxpayer.

Connaught Ranger.:)

non

11-12-2008, 05:53 AM

Calanen:

Here is my opinion - most of the people captured will walk. It's not an offence to be part of a 'levee en masse' even if not in uniform, and shooting at US troops.
Was that how they were all captured? They took pot shots, then threw down their weapons and surrendered when the authorities rolled in? It would be really Disney if that described the entire detainee population at Guantanamo. What gives you the certitude that there is any proof that many of them were even what you've described as not being guilty of an offence.

Its interesting the old 'no uniform equals shot as spy' chestnut keeps appearing.
Actually, quite a few other things have appeared as well. Tribal politics, more 'modern' politics, and human greed, for example...maybe, offering a reward/bounty with less than stringent particularities in a broke ass country wasn't the most humanitarian or in-freakin-telligent thing to do(since, we're talking 'intelligence').

Your entire post is a strange admission that it's just a little f'd up, yet still an apologia(late latin, thought you'd appreciate) for the reasons it's f'd up. Atleast, somebody's 'lawyered up', apparently.

Erik2a4

11-12-2008, 06:29 AM

I am qualified to say. And there were no spelling mistakes in that sentence.

You have to learn that not everyone spells things the same way you do. I usually use Australian English to spell words, unless it is a US specific document that I am creating. No need to though on here one would have thought.

It's not ad hominem to say that difficult legal questions usually require someone with the appropriate qualifications to answer the question, no more than I would attempt to lecture an artillery soldier about the best way to 'fire for effect' because I have played some online game.

If practising law was really that easy, everyone would represent themselves.

Ah, I apologize. I thought you were being an arrogant prick who couldn't spell, and now I see that you were being a condescending prick who can...in Australia. p-)

The SC has said that all Congress has to do is pass legislation and the Military Tribunals would be legal.

It is certainly Ad Hominem to attack someone's qualification to comment on a topic instead of their logic used to create an argument. While the law is a profession, it is not a technical craft such as engineering. It doesn't operate off a set of immutable laws such as gravity and physics. The law is ever changing, is often conflicting, sometimes ignored, and is created by human beings with certain interests and agendas.

Argument by analogy?

Sad thing is, I actually agree with a lot of what you say...You just have poor *******. Since you are dealing with a non-professional group of people I'd ask you to be less dismissive, even in the face of blatant illogical argumentation, and more willing to win the hearts and minds.

Erik2a4

11-12-2008, 06:46 AM

Try the Taliban in courts-martial and AQ and others in US Criminal Court?

The levee-en-mass is interesting... I had forgotten about that.

Honestly, I don't think the key to all of this is going to be found in the courts, but in Congress. A lot of how these cases go will depend upon the ability of the US to create appropriate legislation.

It seems that there needs to be a new Geneva convention regarding international conflict.

Non-military personnel in Afghanistan have a different legal status than US military personnel.

IMTT

11-12-2008, 08:16 AM

Dream on buddy,:roll:

by the way is the use of the word Hussein in your post supposed to make us consider that President elect Obahma is a bogey man with sympathies to the free worlds enemy's?

As your "contractors" are not legitimate combatants, as the term is understood by most laws governing combatants, and not even governed by the Rules of War or the US Military Code of Justice, why then should they not be tried in the country by the legal Government of the people on who they are alleged to have committed crimes?

While most of the gentlemen held in Gitmo were captured in combat, or while armed or in a combat zone. So therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the US Military System.

Even if sent back you are probably leaving the door open for civil suite to be presented against the government of the USA for detaining them in Gitmo, without trial for X times years, and another major bill to paid by the U.S. taxpayer.

Connaught Ranger.:)

I believe them to be military combatants, (POWs) we agree! As for the contractors, agreed! Mr. Obama agreed!

Make it go away rapdily is the point here and I hope Bush does something to rip this from grasp of King Hussein.

JMcCulloch

11-12-2008, 08:43 AM

I love it when people say stuff like "restoring our rights". It's an empty phrase that sounds noble and makes the utterer sound more educated than he/she really is. What rights have 'we" beendeprived of? None I have noticed.

Know why Gitmo is there? because of the 1960s ruling that says if an aien is on US soil they get FULL US civil protections (inc. schools, legal defense, some welfare etc.).

Very few people in the USA suffer from civil rights deprivations as they waddle off to the mall.Where they do its usually because of a bad cop, an unusual situation or extreme poverty.

This is going to cost BILLIONs of dollars as the inmates get a full defense, jury trial, appeals, jail health and welfare (lots of room for civil suits there too), etc. etc.. The ABA estimated that the legal defense etc. of all Gitmo detainees in the USA would cost @ 11 BILLION dollars, including civil suits and that was in 2005. With GM and Ford about to file for bankruptcy in 2009, I'm sure all those people living in homeless shelters or boxes on the streets of Detroit will sleep a little sounder knowing that a terrorist's rights were fully protected. I estimate 11% unemployment by the end of 2009 and @ 10%+ inflation in 2011.
That might be a permanent situation, just like Europe's.

But while millions are out of work-and stay that way permanently- "don't blame me it's the system", type lawyers will have lots to do at $175 an hour.

Oh and we'll get a GREAT look at secret spying techniques, on the ground combat, lots of mistrials because witnesses can't be located, or Miranda rights weren't read in the proper dialect of Pushtun etc. etc... endless appeals based upon flawed/lack of evidence etc. etc..

One more step closer to US national bankruptcy.

Take a look at what the UK had to do in Ulster to deal with terrorism: Diplock Courts, Supergrasses, no jury trials....endless "civil rights grievances" for the IRA to exploit and discredit the UK government.

"Tortagedden" is part of any decent Terrorist strategy is to drain the Treasury. Osam Bin Laden even stated as such in his vindication/celebration "tape from the mountains" @ 4 years ago. Look it up-if you can find it.

JMcCulloch

11-12-2008, 08:50 AM

It is not up to you or I to call someone a POW, the statutory provisions make someone a POW or not. Our personal feeling a whims are not what counts.

A typical, "don't blame me, I am only an officer of the law" response.

Sanitizing and DIRECTLY and exactly analogous to "I was only following orders" (morally too).

It is true,sadly, but most of us real criminal lawyers know that the law is an ass and often and usually (if skillfully manipulated) allows bad people to do bad things to innocent people and get away with it with a bit of inconvenience.
Some hard core criminals I have known, including murderers likened jail and court time as 'part of the cost of doing business".

Breakfast in Vegas

11-12-2008, 09:23 AM

I love it when people say stuff like "restoring our rights". It's an empty phrase that sounds noble and makes the utterer sound more educated than he/she really is. What rights have 'we" beendeprived of? None I have noticed.

Know why Gitmo is there? because of the 1960s ruling that says if an aien is on US soil they get FULL US civil protections (inc. schools, legal defense, some welfare etc.).

Very few people in the USA suffer from civil rights deprivations as they waddle off to the mall.Where they do its usually because of a bad cop, an unusual situation or extreme poverty.

This is going to cost BILLIONs of dollars as the inmates get a full defense, jury trial, appeals, jail health and welfare (lots of room for civil suits there too), etc. etc.. The ABA estimated that the legal defense etc. of all Gitmo detainees in the USA would cost @ 11 BILLION dollars, including civil suits and that was in 2005. With GM and Ford about to file for bankruptcy in 2009, I'm sure all those people living in homeless shelters or boxes on the streets of Detroit will sleep a little sounder knowing that a terrorist's rights were fully protected. I estimate 11% unemployment by the end of 2009 and @ 10%+ inflation in 2011.
That might be a permanent situation, just like Europes.

But while millions are out of work-and stay that way permanently- "don't blame me it's the system", type lawyers will have lots to do at $175 an hour.

Oh and we'll get a GREAT look at secret spying techniques, on the ground combat, lots of mistrials because witnesses can't be located, or Miranda rights weren't read in the peoper dialect of Pushtun etc. etc... endless appeals based upon flawed/lack of evidence etc. etc..

One more step closer to US national bankruptcy.

Take a look at what the UK had to do in Ulster to deal with terrorism: Diplock Courts, Supergrasses, no jury trials....endless "civil rights grievances" for the IRA to exploit and discredit the UK government.

"Tortagedden" is part of any decent Terrorist strategy is to drain the Treasury. Osam Bin Laden even stated as such in his vindication/celebration "tape from the mountains" @ 4 years ago. Look it up-if you can find it.Makes sense... but what alternatives do you see? Holding them in Guantanamo "forever" without trial, also at considerable financial cost not to mention a continued erosion of America's international image and political clout on human rights issues?

Calanen

11-12-2008, 09:35 AM

A typical, "don't blame me, I am only an officer of the law" response.

Sanitizing and DIRECTLY and exactly analogous to "I was only following orders" (morally too).

It is true,sadly, but most of us real criminal lawyers know that the law is an ass and often and usually (if skillfully manipulated) allows bad people to do bad things to innocent people and get away with it with a bit of inconvenience.
Some hard core criminals I have known, including murderers likened jail and court time as 'par of the cost of doing business".

I actually find that most guilty people charged go to jail, most that is, but most of the guilty people around the place are never charged.

Calanen

11-12-2008, 09:59 AM

But while millions are out of work-and stay that way permanently- "don't blame me it's the system", type lawyers will have lots to do at $175 an hour.

Are you sure you are a criminal lawyer? The rate for Federal court appointed counsel ranges from $90 to $125 per hour on capital cases.

http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/form/courtforms/fed/cir/c4/ca4000012.pdf

Not a lot compared to what you get for commercial cases. Seems to me that a US criminal lawyer would know that.

JMcCulloch

11-12-2008, 10:01 AM

yup-most never get charged because of "lack or "faulty" evidence, or the threat of a trial that's too expensive. Even the murder non-clearance rate is nudging upwards and that is where the most of the emphasis is. In my quiet jurisdiction we reckon 20% of all deadly crimes never clear and that's up from 10% @ 8 years ago. That's without the chaos that is attendant with a terror trial. I've sat in on two in the UK.

Alternatives?
1. I don't care about US International prestige. It doesn't equal one dime of increased business or a better life for anyone in the USA.

My attitude changed when Europe allowed/sponsored the Bosnian war with their Montessori School diplomacy and "hands off" approach. Also, their ignoring of Darfur and a host of other world situations shows their limits: much talk, little action. (The UK and a few others are the exception).

Who cares about our clout on Human Rights issues? Some well paid staffer at Amnesty International who thinks that all Americans are crude, dull, poorly educated "cowboys" and that the GDR wasn't that bad a place really? That won't employ ONE laid off auto worker.

Bottom line is that the USA gives enormous amounts of aid, comfort and assistance to everyone else for almost 80 years. We pay for NATO. We pay for most of the UN and its' corrupt and bloated agencies. We underwrite an enormous number of charities, here hither and yon.
On a personal basis I personally support a number of kids via the CCF. I'm willing to bet very few others on this board, especially the "our rights have been eroded" crowd do.

Gitmo is a POW camp. It should be treated as one, although allowing free congregation and association can and will lead to BIG troubles. Remember the Great Escape" film?

These people are not uniformed militias, they are terrorists, who wear civilian clothing, hide within the population and do not follow a central command. They aim to spread terror and chaos and kill the innocent in front of t.v. cameras so as to spread terror world wide. They know that if they are a huge pain in the ass and can keep killing for long enough, eventually they will be brought to the table and pardoned.
The PIRA kept their war going for thirty + years (some of them are still at it) within the confines of "uncivilized" British legal structures.
If AQ gets a bomb, they will use it, they've said so.... -and one day they will (Because All things come to those who wait).

Oh and Calanen-we are due a raise. :)
Most lawyers get @$150-depends upon the state payments too.
The lower the rate, then the more hours that are 'worked". It seems to average out somehow. I have seen some of my brethren double bill and magically work a 40 hour day because they traveled and did research at the same time and this is allowed.

Also, I get more because I am good (and old).

Guess who was a friend of mine in Law school too?
Hint-he was the review Editor.

Calanen

11-12-2008, 10:02 AM

Was that how they were all captured? They took pot shots, then threw down their weapons and surrendered when the authorities rolled in? It would be really Disney if that described the entire detainee population at Guantanamo. What gives you the certitude that there is any proof that many of them were even what you've described as not being guilty of an offence.

Who knows? Not me. But if that is the extent of their 'crimes', then they are probably going to walk.

Your entire post is a strange admission that it's just a little f'd up, yet still an apologia(late latin, thought you'd appreciate) for the reasons it's f'd up. Atleast, somebody's 'lawyered up', apparently

There have been loads of threads where I have castigated the whole system, you'd probably need to have seen those to know that my view is about as dark as it can be as to the way this has been handled.

Calanen

11-12-2008, 10:06 AM

These people are not uniformed militias, they are terrorists, who wear civilian clothing, hide within the population and do not follow a central command.

Well we don't know what they are yet, because nobody has had a trial. There is at least the possibility that members of the Taliban's army were captured, and are POWs rather than 'terrorists', although, what this in fact means under the Geneva Conventions I am not sure. Indeed, one such person at Gitmo went before the Military Commission and was told in his Article 5 hearing that, the Military Commission would have designated him a POW, if it could, but Rummy made Article 5 hearings on the basis that they could only rule that you werent a POW, never that you were. So it said, we would have found you were a POW, but dont have the power to make anyone a POW. How's that for a kangaroo court?

Calanen

11-12-2008, 10:29 AM

One other thing. The trials might be derailed because the government has said it will destroy evidence, and may have done so already. The detainees were videoed when they were interrogated, but they have never released the tapes and have said that they may destroy them. That sort of misconduct in a trial by the government would normally get you a stay.

Camp X-RAY SOPs are on the web, which was referred to by the media en masse about a year ago, and which confirms the interrogations were videoed.

Sanat-e-naft

11-12-2008, 10:51 AM

Until this post I was enjoying this thread, now I've became very suspicious of your agenda.
You pulled a bunch of familiar names apparently right out of your ass, as I really cann't see what highlighted institution has to do with the international law understood in US.
And what the hell means "Hague" there?

The post was for Calanen to show what I mean when I say statute, and how a statute can in fact represent international law. Dont get hung up on the ICC, we arent part of it, yet.

Jobu

11-12-2008, 11:03 AM

Apparently we already have in a lot of cases. But the fact remains, it is a new kind of war and these are new kinds of enemies. Executing all of them isn't something that's going to happen and using bullsh*t semantics by keeping them in Cuba or Saudi Arabia or some other non CONUS place to skirt our own laws is a thinly veiled attempt to pretend we're still always the good guys while doing bad things.

Sorry but I think that's a bunch of baloney.

Were we "pretending" to be the good guys when we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo?
Were we "pretending" to be the good guys when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
etc.

Locking up a few dozen terrorists is insignificant by comparison. It's not the end of our "nation of laws", not even close. It's not even a hair in our cereal bowl.

Connaught Ranger

11-12-2008, 11:10 AM

p-)How much do the "lawyers" engaged in Taliban Trials or Insurgent Trials regarding "enemy (Allied) combatants" and to be generous I will include captured civilian contractors not to be confused with Backwater employees, get?

Oh! silly me:cantbeli: they get nothing, as they judge all to be guilty without a trial.

Connaught Ranger:)

California Joe

11-12-2008, 11:15 AM

Calanen

11-12-2008, 11:16 AM

Also, I get more because I am good (and old).

Guess who was a friend of mine in Law school too?
Hint-he was the review Editor.

Not sure, Obama?

I'm a weird one. One of the few Australians that have passed the Cali bar, and used to live in Cali. I may go back, time will tell.

Macs.

11-12-2008, 11:41 AM

This is going to cost BILLIONs of dollars as the inmates get a full defense, jury trial, appeals, jail health and welfare (lots of room for civil suits there too), etc. etc.. The ABA estimated that the legal defense etc. of all Gitmo detainees in the USA would cost @ 11 BILLION dollars, including civil suits and that was in 2005.

How is that even possible ?

The latest numbers I found speak of around 500 Prisoners:

$11.000.000.000 / 500 = $22.000.000

Even with the best health care, luxury welfare and big trials, how are you gonna waste 22 Million Dollar on each prisoner ?

Jobu

11-12-2008, 11:42 AM

Jobu, I really don't care about these terrorists. I think surgicalcric should have shot them all right then and there. Fact is, we caught them. Now we can't shoot them. So we have to do something with them sooner or later.

I'm talking about public policy and international perceptions. Like it or not they are taken into consideration when policy is made.

You know goddamned well what Americas image is supposed to represent.

I really don't think we get any return on investment by worrying what our image is supposed to represent to others. They all have their own delusions, biases, and ideas about what America is supposed to be.

The same Europeans who applaud how we let the terrorists off in our civilian courts will be the first to express their false sympathy when those same terrorists are emboldened by our weakness, again, and attack us, again. We've already tried the Lawsuit on Terror in the 1990's. It failed. It did not create good will for us among the world for being a nation of laws. All it did was convince everybody that we were weak, and we were.

And it appears we will be sening that same message again very soon. Attack Americans and all you'll get is a few years locked up in the sun. What a message we send.

Macs.

11-12-2008, 11:48 AM

These people are not uniformed militias, they are terrorists, who wear civilian clothing, hide within the population and do not follow a central command. They aim to spread terror and chaos and kill the innocent in front of t.v. cameras so as to spread terror world wide.

Are you sure you are a lawyer ?

Are you aware of the fact that there have been people in GITMO who were obviously "caught in the system" without any base ? Are you aware that some of them have been arrested because some Pakistani (Example) border guard got a bad day and the transfer of prisoners to the USA got them alot of money ?

Baboonass

11-12-2008, 12:15 PM

Jobu, I really don't care about these terrorists. I think surgicalcric should have shot them all right then and there. Fact is, we caught them. Now we can't shoot them. So we have to do something with them sooner or later.

I'm talking about public policy and international perceptions. Like it or not they are taken into consideration when policy is made.

You know goddamned well what Americas image is supposed to represent.

When they become irrelevent or their organization is completely irrelevent, they will most likely be released, sort of.

At the time of their capture, the country of origen had no system in place to deal with them. This was a logical and only viable solution. When countries of origen stabilize and become functional (A-Stan for example), they will likely be re-deployed there to stand trial.

Or not.

Having these guys rot in a cell on a small island isn't such a bad option. Certainly a formal investigation of who they are and how they got there should be/has been conducted. If they are more or less insignificant to their organiziation, then they'll filter out eventually.

Keep in mind, there are not combatants under the flag of a nation, nor are they entitled to the privleges of a POW status.

IMTT

11-12-2008, 05:29 PM

Ugly is the only word I can think of here. There exsists no good way to solve this in the short term other than making it disappear over night. My personal perfered options are not acceptable to the Ameircan public nor should they the public be privy to what should happen to these terrorists. Prisoners what prisoner???

Bia

11-12-2008, 05:54 PM

Keep in mind, there are not combatants under the flag of a nation, nor are they entitled to the privleges of a POW status.Lets play what if...

What if the USA were invaded and I... a reg non military civilian took up arms or methods to resist and were caught by the invaders. Would you then call out for me to be treated diff by our common enemy than say a US soldier captured too? Or same applys if I had a Canadian cousin that believed in Democracy and came here to the USA to help resist and fight. Should we be treated not as well as a US soldier by our captors?

Anyone feel free to chime in... I have no clear answer other than it's my opinion... we treat these people the same as if they were regular Iraqi army. And yeah if they died on a battlefield... I would shed no tear.... however that is rendered academic now.... and if we carry a flag of freedom and democracy.... we need to set examples.

Klatuu

11-12-2008, 06:19 PM

Wait until the first one gets loose and kills some kids.

The troops will just kill them in the field now, and any that might have been actual "in the wrong place at the wrong time" will be dead. Innocent people will die that might not have otherwise, and intelligence opportunities that might have saved Americans will be lost.

DS73

11-12-2008, 06:29 PM

The post was for Calanen to show what I mean when I say statute,

What is statute, and how it can apply to american militaries or, even more interesting, paramilitaries (some 10000+ who've visited A'stan last years)?

and how a statute can in fact represent international law. Dont get hung up on the ICC, we arent part of it, yet.ICC goes against basic principle of American diplomacy: protection of American citizens by "all costs".
I recommend you to check agreements americans make before installing mil. bases on a foreign soil. They do "respect local laws", but americans apply them using american judges and on american soil. Something that won't be available if ICC rules are applied. And I am not speaking about danger for existing ROE and american generals.
US won't sign current ICC treaty. It is an obvious fact.

As I understand right now Guanto is "illegal" in a sense that it cann't be handled directly by US legal system. Any attempt to include it in would be catastrophic with many inpredictable results (what about Cuban suverenity for example, how they will react on an application of american laws on cuban soil?).
But somehow I doubt next administration will be any slower or more insightful than previous ones.

LineDoggie

11-12-2008, 07:30 PM

budgie

11-12-2008, 09:40 PM

Checklist:

"Fixed Distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" (Y/N)?
Volksturm in 1945 handled this by using an Armband ("Im Dienst der Deutchen Wehrmacht"), they recieved POW status

"Carrying arms openly" (Y/N)?
Cant hide behind Civilians......

"Conducting your operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" (Y/N)?
Cant Behead and Disembowel, Emasculate, Incinerate, Captured Soldiers, Civilians

Source; IIRC Article 4.1.2 of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, My JAG/ROE Briefs in Theater & at MOB station(2004-2005).

http://ww2army.com/images/1-999/791/791.php Service Armband

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/th_achtungpictures20192.jpg (http://s65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/?action=view&current=achtungpictures20192.jpg)

Volksturm Armband

I think whatever crimes each individual at Gitmo is or is not guilty of is up to the courts - military or civilian depending on Justice dept rulings - to decide. There seems to be an assumption here that everyone held there is a terrorist but some have already been proven innocent. Some of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and holding them all indefinitely without trial is not going to determine who's who in a hurry. There can be any amount of hand-wringing over what shape and form these trials are taking and should take in the future but there are no grounds in local, international and US law to hold them forever without determining their status.

Therefore, any move to effectively determine their status and hold trials where necessary is a step in the right direction. There is no crack in international law that these guys fall through - as Linedoggie has stated, they fall under one or another definition in the Geneva Conventions regardless. Therefore, they should be dealt with accordingly. The assertion of the Bush administration that they have no rights at all is as foolsih as their opinion that the provisions of international law are "quaint".

JMcCulloch

11-12-2008, 09:55 PM

How is that even possible ?

The latest numbers I found speak of around 500 Prisoners:

$11.000.000.000 / 500 = $22.000.000

Even with the best health care, luxury welfare and big trials, how are you gonna waste 22 Million Dollar on each prisoner ?

I was going on memory (faulty mayhap, I am older) that we had over 4,000-6,000 prisoners here, hither and yon.
Perhaps we've stashed some in Iraq and near Kabul.....
One thing though, since we now have extended jurisdiction for civil and criminal trials to almost absurd lengths, allowing lawsuits in Virginia for conduct that occurred entirely in Africa with almost no nexus whatsoever with the US courts' geographic location, opening the doors to trials means civil suits against the "unlimited" US government coffers.

JMcCulloch

11-12-2008, 10:01 PM

Are you sure you are a lawyer ?

Are you aware of the fact that there have been people in GITMO who were obviously "caught in the system" without any base ? Are you aware that some of them have been arrested because some Pakistani (Example) border guard got a bad day and the transfer of prisoners to the USA got them a lot of money ?

Yup, dead certain: three states (not including D.C.), federal, appelate and one Supreme Court case to my name too. Working on numer two in adverse possession.
Nope- and I'd like to see evidence thereof. Sounds plausible though in a few instances. However, I do know that a number of GITMO detainees have been released and then gone back to fight Allied troops, killing a number of them. This information I have from AQ websites linked via Al J. (when they stay up for more than 2 hours) and the Iranian veteran's forum.

Erik2a4

11-13-2008, 06:31 AM

Lets play what if...

What if the USA were invaded...

Logical fallacy. It's not a valid argument. I know your intent, and I admire your goals, but quite honestly you have to argue it a different way if you're going to convince anyone.

You can play "what if" to explore, you can't play it to convince.

Erik2a4

11-13-2008, 06:35 AM

Yup, dead certain: three states (not including D.C.), federal, appelate and one Supreme Court case to my name too. Working on numer two in adverse possession.
Nope- and I'd like to see evidence thereof. Sounds plausible though in a few instances. However, I do know that a number of GITMO detainees have been released and then gone back to fight Allied troops, killing a number of them. This information I have from AQ websites linked via Al J. (when they stay up for more than 2 hours) and the Iranian veteran's forum.

Allied troops?

Appelate?

You speak Farsi and Arabic?

I'm sorry, but please elaborate.

Baboonass

11-13-2008, 11:20 AM

Lets play what if...

What if the USA were invaded and I... a reg non military civilian took up arms or methods to resist and were caught by the invaders. Would you then call out for me to be treated diff by our common enemy than say a US soldier captured too? Or same applys if I had a Canadian cousin that believed in Democracy and came here to the USA to help resist and fight. Should we be treated not as well as a US soldier by our captors?

Anyone feel free to chime in... I have no clear answer other than it's my opinion... we treat these people the same as if they were regular Iraqi army. And yeah if they died on a battlefield... I would shed no tear.... however that is rendered academic now.... and if we carry a flag of freedom and democracy.... we need to set examples.

Yes.

The rules of war and enemy combatants, non-combatants, insurectionists, spys, etc.. are already layed out and defined.

A uniformed member of the armed serivces are entitled to a specified treatment under the Geneva Convention if captured.

Partisons, insurectionsits, sabotures, etc.. are not entitled to this treatment. Depending on the severity of their crimes, or how high up in the food chain they are, their treatment varies as the host country, or occuping country sees fit. I do not have the specifics for how the US has this layed out, but other coutries had an interigation/execution policy.

Spys, when captured, are generally executed after an intensive interigation, or they are traded for other captured spys.

When you sign up to serve your nation, you take an oath to fight all enemies both foriegn and domestic. You do not have a say in who you fight, you do not have a stake in the politics of the nation you serve. You fight under the lawfull orders of the officers and elected officials above your paygrade.

There's the difference.

Uniformed services have specific rules and laws (UCMJ) they fall under. They have to abide by these rules or suffer legal consiquences, some quite severe.

Civilians who choose to fight an invading military are not under any rules or laws for their actions, nor are they under orders from a higher, recognized authority that is accountable for their actions. They are essencially criminals, outlaws operating outside of the scope of any authority. Even if these partison groups are under the "guidance" of an outside or indigenous national force, (i.e. OSS training the French resistance, SF training the Northern Aliance, etc), they are still not classified as uniformed service, but still considered an "unlawfull enemy combatant".

If the resistance wins, your fight was justifed and you will be a hero of your country. If you loose, you are a criminal that will be hunted down and likely killed.

I hope this helps expain the situation a bit more.