4 Guantanomo Enemy Combatants to Be Arraigned

[Annie]

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3393360

Excerpt:

9:48am (UK)
Guantanamo Set for Terror Suspect Hearings

Four suspected al-Qaida fighters will be formally charged with war crimes this week as the US military opens the first legal hearings for foreign prisoners held at the US Navy base Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The four terror suspects to be arraigned are an alleged al-Qaida accountant, a poet who is accused of crafting terrorist propaganda, a man who drove and protected Osama bin Laden, and an Australian who fought with Afghanistan’s ousted Taliban.

The four prisoners will be arraigned in preliminary hearings this week before their cases go to military commissions, or trials, in an unprecedented judicial process that foreign governments, lawyers and human rights groups have criticised.

 

[8236]

Is anyone else here confused with the charges?
War crimes? Assisting the enemy? War and enemy are two words that I very much associate with fighting in a military situation.

Come on America this is farcical! You can't have it both ways! Either they are soldiers in which case fine, or they are illegal combatants in which case stick to charges like 'attempted murder'!

Also confused with: How can an Australian be charged by America with 'assisting the enemy' when he is not American???

And can somebody explain why being someone's (even Bin Laden's) chauffeur or body guard makes one guilty of war crimes (Hitler's were never charged with this), whereas those involved in Abu Ghraib or the Vienam My Lai massacre have not been charged with 'war crimes'!

Surely I must have fallen through the looking glass into wonderland!
Help me I must be going mad!

 

[5stringJeff]

First, these are military tribunals, not civilian courts. There is precedent for this stemming from WWII.

Second, LT Carrey, the platoon leader from My Lai, was charged and convicted over My Lai.

Third, they are all being charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, which IMO is a great charge for terrorists to be tried under, since purposefully killing innocent civilians (as most terrorist acts do) is a war crime.

Anything else?

 

[Johnney]

Third, they are all being charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, which IMO is a great charge for terrorists to be tried under, since purposefully killing innocent civilians (as most terrorist acts do) is a war crime.

Anything else?

its kind of like art 134 of the UCMJ. its where "everything else" falls into when they dont have a charge to cover something.

 

[8236]

Plenty else old chap!

First, these are military tribunals, not civilian courts. There is precedent for this stemming from WWII.

1st: Military tribunals involved, as far as I was aware..... eh..... actions carried out by military personnel, i.e. soldiers. Military law does not apply to civilians. If I murder/harm a soldier as a civilian I go civilian court. Therefore the 4 in question must be soldiers and hence subject to Geneva convention. Oh.... but not in America. The law is officially an ass there now.

2nd: Nuremburg was not a military tribunal because it was staffed by civilian judges. AND IT WAS NOT HELD IN SECRET. And although this 'military' tribunal's jurisdiction included civilians in the Nazi party, those civilians could be identified CLEARLY as such from membership records. Al Quaida (now that would be stupid of them) doesn't have membership records. So anyone you want is a member. Like the Afghan taxi driver in Guantanamo who happend to have a wanted man as a passenger in his cab!

Second, LT Carrey, the platoon leader from My Lai, was charged and convicted over My Lai.

3rd: Sorry I'm forgetful, would you care to remind us all of his ultimate sentence and what he was charged with?

Third, they are all being charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, which IMO is a great charge for terrorists to be tried under, since purposefully killing innocent civilians (as most terrorist acts do) is a war crime.

4th: Purposely killing innocent civilians!!!!!!! Now you are making me laugh. What the F*** is carpet bombing, dropping nuclear weapons or any act of war for that matter. Oh, sorry its called collateral damage! In that case, maybe the 3000 who died in the WTC/Planes and Pentagon were collateral damage in Al Quaida's attempt to undermine America's "military and economic ability to wage war".... I'm sure I've heard something like that before from respected western politicians, past and present. Show me a war where no civilians have died! They always do, and so to make war is to purposely kill innocent civilians and hence must be a war crime.

At the end of the day, the whole war on terror has become an excuse for Bush and friends to stay in power and make lots of money. And, it's not them that's doing the dying.

 

[jimnyc]

At the end of the day, the whole war on terror has become an excuse for Bush and friends to stay in power and make lots of money. And, it's not them that's doing the dying.

We've heard this load of crap countless times from the foaming liberals right here in the USA, we don't need the clueless from other countries spouting this rubbish here.

Terrorists struck the USA. Now them and their ilk, and those that support them, are paying the price. And has happened so many times before, our brave soldiers will lay their lives on the line for freedom. As usual, the USA will prevail in the end. I'm quite proud of the actions of our CIC and our soldiers, even if it doesn't meet your approval.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Plenty else old chap!

1st: Military tribunals involved, as far as I was aware..... eh..... actions carried out by military personnel, i.e. soldiers. Military law does not apply to civilians. If I murder/harm a soldier as a civilian I go civilian court. Therefore the 4 in question must be soldiers and hence subject to Geneva convention. Oh.... but not in America. The law is officially an ass there now.

Since Al-Quada is not an army of a sovereign nation, they are enemy combatants. We should have got what ever info we could have out of them, took em out back and shot them

2nd: Nuremburg was not a military tribunal because it was staffed by civilian judges. AND IT WAS NOT HELD IN SECRET. And although this 'military' tribunal's jurisdiction included civilians in the Nazi party, those civilians could be identified CLEARLY as such from membership records. Al Quaida (now that would be stupid of them) doesn't have membership records. So anyone you want is a member. Like the Afghan taxi driver in Guantanamo who happend to have a wanted man as a passenger in his cab!

Proof from a reputable source on your cabbie?

3rd: Sorry I'm forgetful, would you care to remind us all of his ultimate sentence and what he was charged with?



4th: Purposely killing innocent civilians!!!!!!! Now you are making me laugh. What the F*** is carpet bombing, dropping nuclear weapons or any act of war for that matter. Oh, sorry its called collateral damage! In that case, maybe the 3000 who died in the WTC/Planes and Pentagon were collateral damage in Al Quaida's attempt to undermine America's "military and economic ability to wage war".... I'm sure I've heard something like that before from respected western politicians, past and present.

At the end of the day, the whole war on terror has become an excuse for Bush and friends to stay in power and make lots of money. And, it's not them that's doing the dying.

So the WTC victims are collateral damage? You are a sick bastard indeed. Do the world a favor and go commit suicide you asshole. :fu2:

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

BRAVO JIMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!BRAVO JIHADTHIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:clap1: :hail:

 

[5stringJeff]

So the WTC victims are collateral damage? You are a sick bastard indeed. Do the world a favor and go commit suicide you asshole. :fu2:

 

[5stringJeff]

4th: Purposely killing innocent civilians!!!!!!! Now you are making me laugh. What the F*** is carpet bombing, dropping nuclear weapons or any act of war for that matter. Oh, sorry its called collateral damage! In that case, maybe the 3000 who died in the WTC/Planes and Pentagon were collateral damage in Al Quaida's attempt to undermine America's "military and economic ability to wage war".... I'm sure I've heard something like that before from respected western politicians, past and present. Show me a war where no civilians have died! They always do, and so to make war is to purposely kill innocent civilians and hence must be a war crime.

At the end of the day, the whole war on terror has become an excuse for Bush and friends to stay in power and make lots of money. And, it's not them that's doing the dying.

So your true colors come out: all war is evil. Should we just roll over and let the terrorists have their way with us?? Or would these people more adequately represent your views?