User avatar
PA110
Topic Author
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:30 am

Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:41 pm

The Supreme Court just ruled that GWB overstepped his authority in holding military tribunals at Guantanamo. Finally, we see the principles of justice at work. Don't get me wrong - I don't view this as aid or comfort to the enemy. Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law. Otherwise, the ideals we espouse are simply meaningless if we don't live up to them ourselves.

edited for spelling

[Edited 2006-06-29 16:43:02]
It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:45 pm

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
The Supreme Court just ruled that GWB overstepped his authority in holding military tribunals at Guantanamo. Finally, we see the principals of justice at work. Don't get me wrong - I don't view this as aid or comfort to the enemy. Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law. Otherwise, the ideals we espouse are simply meaningless if we don't live up to them ourselves.

You mean the "principles" of justice, right?  biggrin 

I haven't read the decision yet, but according to the press reports, it sounds like the Court reached the correct result.

"The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional act," said Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority. The tribunals, he said, "must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law."

"In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive (Bush) is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Stevens said
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:49 pm

Finally the Supreme Court got one right. Hopefully a wake up call for the President that he needs to follow the law, and not issue executive orders to justify his actions.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:55 pm

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law.

Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Finally the Supreme Court got one right.

meaning you agree with them?

I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

[Edited 2006-06-29 16:56:30]
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12391
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:00 am

Finally some sanity. Yes, there would have been advantages to military tribunals, but with this ruling with a significant 5-3 vote of the justices and authored by Justice Stevens,(Roberts, CJ, didn't participate as he was involved in the Court of Appeals decision the subject to this case) a clear message was made - don't trample on the consitiution Mr. President. It tells the world we do have a system of checks and balances to correct serious wrongs that develop in our system of government, that we respect the rule of law and international treaties (such as the Geneva Conventions). It means they have to be tried in the regular federal court system with all it's protections for the Defendant's, including access to proper lawyers, access to appeals, access to accussory information.
Of course, how long it will take and in what form regular Federal courts will be set up to conduct these trials will be interesting. I am quite sure the Bush Administration, will drag it's feet for years if possible and probably go after those with the best cases against them to set a pattern and to make it look good. Some may be released as the cases against them have weak evidence per Court rules and Federal Laws on Evidence.I am also quite sure that access to the information to be used to proscute these detainees will be extremely difficult for the defendant's to access.
Still, it is a good day in America, one we can all be proud of.
 
nateDAL
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:38 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:32 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Hopefully a wake up call for the President that he needs to follow the law, and not issue executive orders to justify his actions.

Does it not trouble you that the Supreme Court refused to follow the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which was passed last year and stripped ALL courts of jurisdiction from hearing habeas petitions from Guantanimo? This case should have never been decided.

This court is out of control.
Set Love Free
 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

Because we're supposed to be respecting the rule of law. We don't discard it when it becomes inconvenient. That's the thrust of the ruling.

Charles, SJ
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:46 am

If we're going to hold detainees on American-controlled soil, they must either be classified as a POW or given a trial. The SCOTUS has done the right thing.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that.

What about those who were rounded up and never charged? Simply held for a few years then returned to their country of citizenship and not charged there, either? If they're guilty of something, either make them a POW or give them a speedy trial.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

I know I have.
International Homo of Mystery
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:05 am

Quoting NateDAL (Reply 5):
This court is out of control.

DId you think it was in control when it stopped the Recount in 2000?

Guess your feeling as to whether a court is out of control depends on which side of ths issue you are standing on...

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
maury
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:27 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:07 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

Goodness no! If courts rule opposite of Our Way, we rant and speechify about how "activist judges" are not following our clearly-defined guidance, reminisce fondly about the days when the Constitution was interpreted just as it was written in the Bible, and then pass laws that make our wacky agenda-items legal. Oh wait, no, that's more how the neo-con Modern Day Republican thing works...sorry! So easily confused. Guess we'll all just have to learn to live with this whole "liberty" thing.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:07 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that.

True enough.
That's assuming that they are indeed terrorists.
Remember its trial first, verdict later. Not the other way around.
Your outburst against the baddies is justified, but our search for terrorists has turned out to be a random catch. Along with the tuna, we've caught all those dolphins, and no one should torture a dolphin.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:18 am

Quoting NateDAL (Reply 5):
This court is out of control.

The only thing that's out of control is the anti-civil liberties GOP. What used to make this country great is now hanging by a thread on the steps of the Supreme Court. This GOP currently sounds a lot like the EARLY stages of the Nazi party to my ears. No joke.


The GOP are just one more appointment away from
turning America into the land of ultimate hypocrisy.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us.

We need a constitutional ammendment that the protections under the bill of rights etc. only apply to US citizens. Granted we would also need a foreigners bill of rights so we don't look like total assholes, but it could be 'lowered' to international standards.
This space intentionally left blank
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

Then you become no better than that which you seek to stop.

If America abandons the priciples upon which it was founded it will do nothing but give fodder to those who seek to destroy it.

It is in these times that America (and countries that share like-minded principles) must not give in to the base emotions that Al Queda, their ilk and their actions evoke and must, instead, rise above that and hold fast to those priciples which they cherish most.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:13 am

Quoting NateDAL (Reply 5):
Does it not trouble you that the Supreme Court refused to follow the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which was passed last year and stripped ALL courts of jurisdiction from hearing habeas petitions from Guantanimo? This case should have never been decided.

That isn't what the Court did. They properly interpreted the DTA and rejected the government's argument based on the DTA.

The government argued that the DTA stripped the courts of the ability to hear cases like Hamdan's. The SC rejected their argument using the "ordinary prinicples of statutory construction."

During the drafting process of the DTA, Congress considered and rejected proposals which would have indeed supported the government's motion to dismiss in this case. Since Congress had the opportunity to explicitly bar the courts from hearing an appeal like Hamdan's - and did not - the SC reached the correct result.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
If they're guilty of something, either make them a POW

Just to clarify one thing: Prisoners of War are NOT criminals, and the only thing they can be guilty of is fighting for their own country (regardless of wether that fight is seen as right or wrong). The Geneva Convention was created with that whole purpose in mind.

Wether the people held are actual POWs, criminals or neither is another discussion.

BTW AeroWesty, this is not an attack on you (I agree with the content of your post).

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Since Congress had the opportunity to explicitly bar the courts from hearing an appeal like Hamdan's - and did not - the SC reached the correct result.

Would that even be constitutional?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:48 am

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
Just to clarify one thing: Prisoners of War are NOT criminals

A good and technically correct correction. My intent was to separate the detainees into either POW or eligible for trial. Good catch!
International Homo of Mystery
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:57 am

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Since Congress had the opportunity to explicitly bar the courts from hearing an appeal like Hamdan's - and did not - the SC reached the correct result.

Would that even be constitutional?

Good question. In the immigration arena, in 1996 Congress passed legislation as part of an overhaul of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that limited the courts to hear certain kinds of appeals of the decisions of immigration judges, and it has withstood challenge at the SC. Don't know if it would have worked in this context.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:54 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 10):
Along with the tuna, we've caught all those dolphins, and no one should torture a dolphin.

My question is how do you know? What about the ones we caught in the fields of Afghanistan fighting against us? I've got issues with the conference of US citizens rights to foreign nationals trying to kill us.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 13):
Then you become no better than that which you seek to stop.

Then what about the German soldiers executed after a military tribunal found them guilty of murder in POW camps during WWII? Both here and in Canada? Was that making us no better than them?

The need for secrecy will prevent us from being able to make an open legal case against many terrorists when we're trying to clean them off the face of the world while chasing their leaders and sponsors. We cannot make public the mechanisms or intents of our intelligence operations without making them worthless.

If the problem is that we've brought them to US controlled soil then perhaps we really don't need to bring them back here where they can use our legal protections and system to get released so they can jump right back into the battle. It's already happened, and it'll happen again if we can't prosecute them for violating US law overseas when they weren't subject to US law.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:13 am

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Don't get me wrong - I don't view this as aid or comfort to the enemy.


Unfortunately that's exactly what it is.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Finally the Supreme Court got one right. Hopefully a wake up call for the President that he needs to follow the law, and not issue executive orders to justify his actions.

Then he does not enjoy the same privileges in assigning military tribunals that former Presidents like FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, and Washington had.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
It means they have to be tried in the regular federal court system with all it's protections for the Defendant's, including access to proper lawyers, access to appeals, access to accussory information.



Quoting Ctbarnes (Reply 6):
Because we're supposed to be respecting the rule of law. We don't discard it when it becomes inconvenient. That's the thrust of the ruling.

You two did not read the ruling then. It does not change how they are being held in gitmo. According the to court the only thing the Administration did not do, that it can still do, is go back to Congress and get authorization to hold the military tribunals. Think he'll have any trouble? What idiot from the DNC is going to stand up and throw their job away defending terrorists?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
I don't agree with this but I'll accept their ruling since that's how our country works. Do you do the same when they rule opposite of the way you want them to?

 checkmark 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:17 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
if we can't prosecute them for violating US law overseas when they weren't subject to US law.

Could you expand your thoughts on this one?
International Homo of Mystery
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:06 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 19):
Unfortunately that's exactly what it is.

So let me get this straight. The five supreme court justices who voted for this were aiding and abetting the enemy. Doesn't that make them traitors?
NO URLS in signature
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:10 am

I haven't looked at the opinion and have only had mild exposure to some of the talking heads on the news about it. From what I hear, it may be open to Congress to de-legalize the Geneva Convention, in whole or in part, as pertains to treatment of the kind of (nonuniformed) combatant at Guantanamo Bay. If this is so, it is said that an appropriate revision of federal law would comply with the Supreme Court decision and at the same time permit trial of the detainees at that facility by military tribunals by removing any bar of illegality based on the Geneva Convention. (The Convention, as I understand it, may not be self-executing.)

If, by statutory law as thus revised, the Geneva Convention no longer applies to those at Guantanamo Bay, it is said, then the Supreme Court's requirement that the Executive Branch must not violate statutory law by holding military trials of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners would stand respected, and yet no violation of law, as revised, could then be found.

(Query, however, as to whether this would be unconstitutional as ex post facto law, or even on the basis of the principle behind the bar against bills of attainder.)

[Edited 2006-06-29 22:14:39]
What's fair is fair.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:18 am

Okay... so now we can't give them trials.. and by extension possibly find them not guilty and be set free.

Well, guess we just get to keep them indefinately then.

hmm... Kinda not really a bad thing after all..
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:45 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 22):
nonuniformed

That is something that has always bugged me about the Geneva Convention, the reference to "nonuniformed" - it always sounded to me as aiding the better equipped troops against the ones with the less resources.

And what exactly does that mean? Does it mean they have to belong to a "regular army"? Who exactly defines if an army is regular or irregular? If they were all wearing jeans and a matching t-shirt, would that make them uniformed?

These might sound as stupid questions but I am actually serious about them - I would appreciate it if someone with a deeper knowledge of the Geneva Convention could help me here.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:00 am

Well, giving these guys the opportunity to walk out is out of the question. I say that Bush needs to ask for an official declaration of war (retroactive, perhaps) and declare them prisoners of war. The U.S. would lose the possibility of coerced interrogation, but that's a fair trade for keeping them inside.

As POWs, the U.S. would be permitted by the Geneva Conventions to keep them in custody, no lawyers, no trials, for the duration of the war against Al Qaeda and all associated groups and supportive governments (the wording would have to be carefully laid out). That should keep them out of circulation for at least 20-30 years.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:42 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 25):
That should keep them out of circulation for at least 20-30 years.

So you're saying we would be at war for 20-30 years? Is that what we as the United States should strive to be doing? What about taking care of our own citizens first?

And if we have an official declaration of war, who would it be against? You can't have an official declaration of war against terrorism.
NO URLS in signature
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:11 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
During the drafting process of the DTA, Congress considered and rejected proposals which would have indeed supported the government's motion to dismiss in this case. Since Congress had the opportunity to explicitly bar the courts from hearing an appeal like Hamdan's - and did not - the SC reached the correct result.

And all that is needed is a simple congressional fix.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:05 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law.

Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

Interested in the facts?

i) Only a handful of the 300-400 'detainees' held for the last 3 or 4 years at Guantanemo Bay have ever been charged with anything. Neither the US nor the inmates home countries have any evidence against them and in most cases they have just been rounded up in a region where there had been trouble. (No evidence, no charges, no trials; still held)
ii) The US has abandoned the Geneva Convention and its own military justice to do these things. What model of civilization are we supposed to learn about from this action?
iii) Of course terrorists must be captured and neutralized, but if not according to the rule of law then they have succeded in their primary mission: distruction of the values of Western civilization.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 12):
We need a constitutional ammendment that the protections under the bill of rights etc. only apply to US citizens. Granted we would also need a foreigners bill of rights so we don't look like total assholes,

That won't be enough, given your attitude.

Quote:


but it could be 'lowered' to international standards.

All I will say is, you need to get out more.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:14 pm

THIS WILL BACKFIRE on the left.
THIS WILL BACKFIRE on the left.
THIS WILL BACKFIRE on the left.

Just wait.

If you didn't see it the first time...

THIS WILL BACKFIRE on the left.

I'll remind you of this post when it does...
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:27 pm

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 21):
The five supreme court justices who voted for this were aiding and abetting the enemy. Doesn't that make them traitors?



Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Finally, we see the principles of justice at work. Don't get me wrong - I don't view this as aid or comfort to the enemy.

You changed the quote. Other than that yes it is aid a comfort for it tells the terrorists that you can attack us as viciously as you wish with wanton disregard to any and all international treaties and conventions and we will tie our leaders hands behind their backs to help you out. These are not U.S. citizens and what they did was not done on U.S. soil. Why they should even be granted a hearing in a U.S. court is beyond me. This should be purely a military matter. Fortunately the Supreme Court left open a simple remedy. The administration has to return to Congress and get their permission to hold military tribunals for these individuals. If they can get it done before January perhaps this will all sort itself out in short order.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:43 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 30):
. The administration has to return to Congress and get their permission to hold military tribunals for these individuals. If they can get it done before January perhaps this will all sort itself out in short order.

It would appear that at lesat one other commentator I've seen on the news (I've forgotten who, exactly), agrees with that position, as I mentioned in my last post in this thread.
What's fair is fair.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:55 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 31):
It would appear that at lesat one other commentator I've seen on the news (I've forgotten who, exactly), agrees with that position

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/..._go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_trials

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a side opinion, said that Bush could fix some of the problems by going to Congress and that "judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our nation's ability to deal with danger."


Late Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., filed legislation authorizing the president to create military tribunals and providing due process guidelines for trials of terrorist combatants. The Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee plan hearings over the summer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ld/la-062906scotus,0,2082455.story

Members of Congress who favor military tribunals quickly joined in. Republican Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, citing Breyer's language, said in a statement: "Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:56 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 30):
You changed the quote.

Answer my question. If they are "aiding and comforting" the enemy, doesn't that make them traitors?
NO URLS in signature
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:07 pm

Great citations, Gilligan. Thank you for providing them.

In principle, I disagree somewhat with the opinion that the President must consult with Congress in most matters relating to his authority as Commander in Chief. Not having read the opinion, I wonder if the basis for the conclusion that there is, however, some need for consultation arises from the weighing of the principles behind the Congressional power to declare war, and the President's sole authority as Commander in Chief, respectively. If so, the reconciliation between these two powers is one that would be most interesting to read.

I think that there could be a feeling on the part of the Court that this war against terror may be qualitatively different from other wars we've had in the past, and particularly different from World War II. In this respect, World War II may be an important reference point because it was the last war, before the current one, in which the United States was directly attacked, and one, like this one, of global reach, continuing battles, and multiple fronts against a variety of enemies united by ideologies and conviction that permitted infiltration into American society.

There is a saying that the life of the law is in experience; the Supreme Court is made of Justices who are very much a part of the general daily happenings of life. They read the newspapers in the same way as anyone else; they watch the daily television accounts of the war; they can compare the intensity of warfare today to their knowledge -- for some, personal -- of the historic circumstances of a war such as World War II. And some of the Justices might very well have come to the conclusion that while the warfare in which we must engage is real, the solution is not to deem the current circumstances one in which the President has quite the degree of freedom that Presidents Lincoln or Roosevelt had during their respective wars.

If so, I can see the validity in that reasoning; the law is not a mechanistic thing, and, likewise, there aren't equations or quantifications to which the most abstract interplays of justice and law can be reduced. In balancing between the prerogatives of the President as Commander-in-Chief, and the Congress as the sole holder of the power to declare war, the Court might have reached the conclusion that while there is urgency in this war, it is not so urgent that the President cannot be required to coordinate his actions in this particular matter with the Congress. If so, the decision could very well be seen as a reasonable balance.

I will have to read the opinion to see if my impressions in this matter are in any way supported.

In any event, I am please to see that the Chief Justice indeed recused himself as expected because of his previous ruling on this matter as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeal.

[Edited 2006-06-30 06:31:32]
What's fair is fair.
 
pbottenb
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:57 pm

Quoting Ozglobal (Reply 28):
i) Only a handful of the 300-400 'detainees' held for the last 3 or 4 years at Guantanemo Bay have ever been charged with anything. Neither the US nor the inmates home countries have any evidence against them and in most cases they have just been rounded up in a region where there had been trouble. (No evidence, no charges, no trials; still held)

Source please - and I mean incontravertble facts, not hyperbole...

Quoting Ozglobal (Reply 28):
ii) The US has abandoned the Geneva Convention and its own military justice to do these things. What model of civilization are we supposed to learn about from this action?

Not true....and take whatever model you want

Quoting Ozglobal (Reply 28):
iii) Of course terrorists must be captured and neutralized, but if not according to the rule of law then they have succeded in their primary mission: distruction of the values of Western civilization.

war is hell - General Tecumseh Sherman
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5175
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:58 pm

Just get on with putting these people to trial, i think the rest of the civilized world is sick to death with this bullshit, if your not going to try them then release them..if you are, then get the hell on with it...funny that only 2 countries agree that the military commission is an appropriate court for the hearing, the one i live in with our little bigott PM and the USA. The supreme court ruling just comes off as rubbish, it says the tribunals are not legal but it says go to congress, sort it out then go have them...what's the point of the case in the first place when with a few tweeks and adjustments the tribunals will be allowed to take place.

pathetic...US created the gitmo mess so hurry up and fix it and if you can't sort it then release the prisoners...funny thing is that less then a dozen people have been charged...all these so called "terrorists" and "enemy combatants" but not alot of charges have been laid, especially with over 500 detainees...
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:13 pm

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 33):
Answer my question. If they are "aiding and comforting"

By one definition no.

treason
2 entries found for treason.
To select an entry, click on it.
treasonhigh treason

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

By the other yes.

treason

SYLLABICATION: trea·son
PRONUNCIATION: trzn
NOUN: 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

But since they did not actively go out and purposely aid our enemies they would not be considered "traitors". Their job requires that they come to some decision, even if, IMO in this case based on precedence, it is the wrong one.

Remember Jane Fonda aided and abetted our enemies and she was never charged either.

[Edited 2006-06-30 07:13:56]

[Edited 2006-06-30 07:14:39]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:28 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):

Why? If they've gone to war against us and we have to extend our laws protection to them then they're using our system to protect them while they work to destroy us. The terrorists deserve less than that. I say that the solution to this is to ensure double taps on the bastards when they resist capture when overseas and fighting our military from now on. We also don't bring them back to US controlled soil. Let them rot in some foreign country where we just get to interrogate them and don't have to worry about what to do with them.

And how many have been found innocent? If we try your ideas, we become just as bad as those who are truly guilty.....our forefathers built our society to abolish these things which were happening in the "Motherland"..i.e.-England..

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
What about those who were rounded up and never charged? Simply held for a few years then returned to their country of citizenship and not charged there, either? If they're guilty of something, either make them a POW or give them a speedy trial.

 checkmark ...I actually agree with you on something... Wow!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
Then what about the German soldiers executed after a military tribunal found them guilty of murder in POW camps during WWII? Both here and in Canada? Was that making us no better than them?

as you stated..they were enemy soldiers..fighting for a particular country to which the United States was at war with...."terrorists" don't have loyalty to any particular country....not to metion, GWB hasn't declared war on anyone/anything...so technically they can't be POW's....

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):
Well, guess we just get to keep them indefinately then.

hmm... Kinda not really a bad thing after all..

great..I'm glad to know the United States Govt. would be excited about indefinitely detaining innocent people.... sarcastic 

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 25):
As POWs, the U.S. would be permitted by the Geneva Conventions to keep them in custody, no lawyers, no trials, for the duration of the war against Al Qaeda and all associated groups and supportive governments (the wording would have to be carefully laid out). That should keep them out of circulation for at least 20-30 years.

great....that would set some great precedence...keep detainees for 20-30 years, even though most have done absolutely nothing.. sarcastic ..

I'm glad people of your ilk don't run free democratic governments...

Quoting Ozglobal (Reply 28):

i) Only a handful of the 300-400 'detainees' held for the last 3 or 4 years at Guantanemo Bay have ever been charged with anything. Neither the US nor the inmates home countries have any evidence against them and in most cases they have just been rounded up in a region where there had been trouble. (No evidence, no charges, no trials; still held)
ii) The US has abandoned the Geneva Convention and its own military justice to do these things. What model of civilization are we supposed to learn about from this action?
iii) Of course terrorists must be captured and neutralized, but if not according to the rule of law then they have succeded in their primary mission: distruction of the values of Western civilization.

 checkmark ..the United States feels like it has the right to violate international laws when it wants to..yet invades Iraq because it was "violating" international law...go figure.. sarcastic 

Quoting Ozglobal (Reply 28):
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 12):
We need a constitutional ammendment that the protections under the bill of rights etc. only apply to US citizens. Granted we would also need a foreigners bill of rights so we don't look like total assholes,

That won't be enough, given your attitude.

 checkmark 
"Up the Irons!"
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:33 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 12):
We need a constitutional ammendment that the protections under the bill of rights etc. only apply to US citizens. Granted we would also need a foreigners bill of rights so we don't look like total assholes, but it could be 'lowered' to international standards.

I suspect that that view is held by quite a few people in the USA. And, IMO, it couldn't be a more short-sighted or dangerous philosophy.

TedTAce, all the Supreme Court has said is that the Gitmo detainees are entitled to a public trial and the traditional presumption of innocence. And that while awaiting trial they are entitled (under international as well as US law) to humane treatment. And that there was no need to set up 'kangaroo courts' like the 'military tribunals' Bush proposed; the Federal courts could hear the cases (as in the case of Moussaoui), or alternatively normal military courts-martial would suffice.

In any case, what you are saying is that the Head of the Executive should be able to deny accused people a fair trial, and ignore the provisions of things like the Geneva Convention (to which the USA is a signatory), without any authorization from the Legislature or any interference by the Judiciary. Just so long as the people concerned are 'foreigners'.

Firstly, if you deny people from overseas ordinary human rights, you will have no right to complain if other countries retaliate by treating YOUR citizens the same way. Secondly, and probably more important, if you allow the president to deny those rights to 'foreigners' it is only a matter of time before he gets round to denying them to YOU.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:34 pm

My comments first - before reading the thread . . .

So, the Supreme Court decides that Military Tribunals are a no go. Where does that leave these folks in Gitmo? The Geneva Convention does NOT apply - please see Article 4. These detainees are not subject to trial in a US court - IMO - as they have not committed a crime in the US and are therefore not subject to US laws.

If they cannot be released and cannot be tried by Tribunal and cannot be tried under US law, what now? The President will have to go to Congress to get permission to conduct the tribunals. WIll he do that? Will Congress grant the permission?

The Supreme Court has - effectively - continued the stalemate.

I disagree with the decision the Supreme Court made, but they are the Supreme Court and I'll respect their judgement.

. . . . . . .

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Terrorists need to hunted down, tried and punished, but in a court of law.

But in what court? A US court? Why? They've broken no law inside the US. And why would the US give Constitutional Protections to these detainees that haven't committed a crime on US soil? Why provide these detainees with the same rights given a Prisoner of War or anyone else afforded protection under the US Constitution.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Finally the Supreme Court got one right.

Would you be so quick to concur had the decision gone the other way?

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
but with this ruling with a significant 5-3 vote of the justices and authored by Justice Stevens,(Roberts, CJ, didn't participate as he was involved in the Court of Appeals decision the subject to this case) a clear message was made - don't trample on the consitiution Mr. President

I don't think so . . . how does the US Constitution apply to the Gitmo detainees that haven't ever been to the US and never committed a crime in the US? They are not subject to the same protections afforded you and I.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
It means they have to be tried in the regular federal court system with all it's protections for the Defendant's, including access to proper lawyers, access to appeals, access to accussory information.

Nothing of what the Supreme Court said today said this. The Supreme Court said International Law - they said nothing of the Federal Court system.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
they must either be classified as a POW or given a trial.

They don't fit the description of Prisoner of War . . . the Geneva Convention is fairly clear on that, pretty unambiguous. Would not classifying them as POWs be as subjective as classifying them "Enemy Combatants".

Quoting Maury (Reply 9):
If courts rule opposite of Our Way, we rant and speechify about how "activist judges" are not following our clearly-defined guidance, reminisce fondly about the days when the Constitution was interpreted just as it was written in the Bible, and then pass laws that make our wacky agenda-items legal.

Finally got one right, didn't ya Maury.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
My intent was to separate the detainees into either POW or eligible for trial.

Doing this how? They are not POWs, nor are they, technically, eligible to be classed as such. And, how do we try a person with "no status"? Under what law of what land?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 24):

That is something that has always bugged me about the Geneva Convention, the reference to "nonuniformed" - it always sounded to me as aiding the better equipped troops against the ones with the less resources.

NonUniformed is but one of the qualifiers/disqualifiers as regards these Gitmo detainees.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4
Para 2, Article 4 of the Convention (Specifically 2(c) and 2(d)) are critical when classifying these detainees.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 25):
I say that Bush needs to ask for an official declaration of war (retroactive, perhaps) and declare them prisoners of war.

Against whom?

And IF - for the sake of discussion - the US Congress declares WAR against Al Queda" and one (or more) of these datainees in Gitmo is NOT and never has been related in any way to Al Queda, where does that leave them? They are not part of the "enemy". They are therefore now POWs. The Convention does not, therefore, apple. Square 1.

Quoting Ozglobal (Reply 28):
ii) The US has abandoned the Geneva Convention and its own military justice to do these things. What model of civilization are we supposed to learn about from this action?

Horsehockey. The Geneva Convention does NOT apply here, never has, it's a fact, period. Go read it. Actually, the only parts you REALLY need to read are Article 4 and 5. The US has not abandoned it, nor has it abandoned military justice. This is pure hogwash.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:46 pm

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 26):
So you're saying we would be at war for 20-30 years? Is that what we as the United States should strive to be doing? What about taking care of our own citizens first?

We will be at war for at least that long. A few years ago here, I predicted 50 years. I still stand by that.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:49 pm

The Court's findings contradict both your points, ANCFlyer. The proposed military tribunals would have defied both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 3 of the relevant Geneva Convention:-:-

"Additionally, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a provision that guarantees "minimum" protections for detainees, applies to the war against al-Qaeda, and is thus a part of the "law of war," Stevens wrote.

"This means that terrorism suspects benefit from Common Article 3's prohibition against trials by anything other than "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

"Because they were not properly authorized by Congress and do not match court-martial rules, Bush's military commissions do not qualify, Stevens wrote.

"The court's opinion embraced a role for international humanitarian law that the administration has repeatedly rejected."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../2006/06/29/AR2006062900928_2.html
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:52 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 40):
how does the US Constitution apply to the Gitmo detainees that haven't ever been to the US and never committed a crime in the US? They are not subject to the same protections afforded you and I.

There've already been rulings that Federal Courts have jurisdiction over Gitmo detainees.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 40):
They don't fit the description of Prisoner of War . . . the Geneva Convention is fairly clear on that, pretty unambiguous. Would not classifying them as POWs be as subjective as classifying them "Enemy Combatants".

We brought them here. We put them on soil controlled by the U.S. They didn't choose to go to Gitmo. Once we move them to soil under our control, we must do something with them, or admit we run gulags.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 40):
They don't fit the description of Prisoner of War . . . the Geneva Convention is fairly clear on that, pretty unambiguous. Would not classifying them as POWs be as subjective as classifying them "Enemy Combatants".

They fit "a description", or they wouldn't have been captured and brought to Gitmo. Define their description, decide what we're going to do with them, then do it. All we've done for the last few years is wonder if they're a little pregnant.
International Homo of Mystery
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:08 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
Uniform Code of Military Justice

Persons not in the US Military are NOT subject to the UCMJ.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
The Court's findings contradict both your points, ANCFlyer.

I already said I disagree with the Courts findings.

I do not see where Article 3 applies:

ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.



The particular passage in Art 3 to which Justice Stevens referres is here:
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples


I submit, that it's irrelevent since Article 4 does not apply.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
There've already been rulings that Federal Courts have jurisdiction over Gitmo detainees.

And once again, I disagree with the ruling. That'd be like putting me on trial in Anchorage for committing a crime in Turkey. How does a US Court get jurisdiction over a crime committed outside US jurisdiction . . .

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
We brought them here. We put them on soil controlled by the U.S. They didn't choose to go to Gitmo. Once we move them to soil under our control, we must do something with them, or admit we run gulags.

First, I concur, they need to be adjudicated and either jailed or released.

That said: They still have not committed a crime on US soil.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
They fit "a description", or they wouldn't have been captured and brought to Gitmo. Define their description, decide what we're going to do with them, then do it

Yes, they do . . . "Enemy Combatants". Now what exactly does one do with an Enemy Combatant?

I believe the process we're dealing with at the moment - the SCotUS ruling today, etc - is defining that process. It is, I concur, moving along at a snails pace, but it is nontheless moving.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:15 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 44):
How does a US Court get jurisdiction over a crime committed outside US jurisdiction . . .

Congress does it. Just like the law that says if you were caught in bed with a 14-year-old in Thailand, you could be prosecuted under U.S. law.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 44):
First, I concur, they need to be adjudicated and either jailed or released.

That said: They still have not committed a crime on US soil.

There's the conundrum. But since we brought them here, we brought them here for a reason. Gotta decide what that was, and what to do with them eventually other than "whatever we want".

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 44):
I believe the process we're dealing with at the moment - the SCotUS ruling today, etc - is defining that process. It is, I concur, moving along at a snails pace, but it is nontheless moving.

 checkmark  (I suspect that what it'll do is just drive TPTB to hold any future detainees as far from U.S. territory as possible.)
International Homo of Mystery
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:25 pm

I'd like to take the opportunity of this thread to express my thanks to, and admiration for, Major Michael Mori, United States Marine Corps, who has been ably and tirelessly representing David Hicks, an Australian (and British) citizen currently in his fifth year of detention at Gitmo.

Major Mori has never deviated from his view that Gitmo detainees should be afforded speedy fair trials. And he speaks out very plainly on the subject (as in a radio interview this morning):-

"MICHAEL MORI: Obviously I'm very pleased that finally someone in authority has come out and agreed with us that the military commission systems are unfair.

"I mean, obviously it wasn't much of a surprise, considering every other legal body in the world has condemned the commissions except for the Australian Government.

"MICHAEL ROWLAND: What options are now available to the US Government? Where does it go from here?

"MICHAEL MORI: I mean, you really would need to ask them what the plan is. Clearly, they would have to do exactly what was asked for two and a half years ago, which was that provide David a fair trial with all the basic fundamental protections that you'd find in a criminal justice system.

"You know, if there's not credible evidence, that doesn't justify rigging the system.

"And that's unfortunately what's gone on here is you have the system of justice has been created by those only with a vested interest in convictions.

"MICHAEL ROWLAND: If for instance the US Government now decided to put David Hicks before a traditional court martial, would that be acceptable to you?

"MICHAEL MORI: No, not four and a half years later. They should have done it two and a half years ago when they were pushing for it.

"Now just to… Now they've delayed and taken four and a half years of his life.

"And they won't do it, because we'll get an acquittal, because David hasn't violated the law of war. He hasn't done anything.

"Look, Australia said all along he hasn't violated Australian law. And he hasn't violated any law of war.

"It's time for him to go home and be given back to his dad, Terry. Let him get on with his life and get back getting his education."


http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1675387.htm

Thanks for all your efforts, Major Mori. And in particular, thanks for your straight talk.

[Edited 2006-06-30 08:26:53]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:27 pm

Somehow the whole concept of "military justice" is quite strange in my eyes - either an act is against the law, or it is not.

Personally, I think the system in place in this country is the only one that makes any sense: members of the military are, legally, seen as "citizens in uniform". Whatever they do must comply with the same laws as if they were not wearing uniforms.

And, based on that same principle, there is no military tribunal - whatever a military tribunal would handle in other countries, a regular court would handle here; not a court staffed with members of the military, but the same court that would hear your case if you'd have been accused of violating laws as a "regular citizen".

That way, no-one can try to weasel out of the legal, and moral, obligations that they should be facing.

Keeping a person in jail for an indefinite time without a trial and, often enough, without proof... what a great precedent the United States is setting here...  Yeah sure
Smile - it confuses people!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:35 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 44):
First, I concur, they need to be adjudicated and either jailed or released.

Don't see what we're arguing about, then, ANCFlyer.  Smile

As to whether they are covered by Artlces 3/4, I'm afraid that I have to quote Article 5 to you:-

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

Since, in over four years, no-one at Gitmo has had their status determined by ANY kind of tribunal, competent or otherwise, the protections of the Conventions apply.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Supremes Rule Against Military Tribunals!

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:42 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 48):
Don't see what we're arguing about, then, ANCFlyer

No Argument - but great conversation . . .  thumbsup 

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 48):
As to whether they are covered by Artlces 3/4, I'm afraid that I have to quote Article 5 to you:-

Yup, and said tribunal can't occur - the SCotUS won't let it now. Should have happened a while back though . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airtechy, Baidu [Spider] and 35 guests