And here is why you don't civilian trial terrorists from Gitmo

[Mini 14]

Judge Kaplan was appointed by Bill Clinton.

What did you expect?

 

[Liability]

* * * *

A US military base on leased soil has been subject to US jurisdiction and considered US soil for all applicable purposes of the law for almost 100 years, Liability.

You are intent on reveling on the trivial.

Who cares?

The point is NOT whether the fuckers have landed on American soil (and, btw, Gitmo is NOT American soil). The POINT is that they are TREATED as individuals imbued with OUR Constitutional Rights as mere criminals -- and they shouldn't be. Not based on whether (or not) they happen to be on "American soil," and not based on any other rational principle.

They are entitled to "due process," and damn little else. And what process is "due" to them under THESE circumstances is not a simple matter resolved by resort to the intonation of the phrase "due process."

What process is due?

Until and unless you coherently answer THAT very question, your argument remains fatuous. And my prior post illustrates part of why this is so. In a real criminal trial, evidence might get suppressed if obtained in a manner that is no problem at all in the context of a military tribunal.

 

[Liability]

Judge Kaplan was appointed by Bill Clinton.

What did you expect?

In my humble opinion, Judge Kaplan shouldn't be faulted here.

If the case weren't being treated as a mere criminal matter in a civilian court of law, he wouldn't be in the position of having to make rulings like this -- one way or the other. But the case IS here (due to hideously terrible decision-making by President Obama and Attorney General Holder) and IS a "criminal" proceeding. That's not the Judge's fault. He is, however, now bound to treat it as such.

Under THOSE circumstances, as much as it might gall me, if I were the Federal Judge, I might have made the very same determination. In fact, I'm not sure any other determination would be legally proper under THOSE precise circumstances.

 

[Liability]

10 U.S.C. § 949(b)(2)(C) states that “[a] statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title.” Section 948r, while excluding evidence obtained by torture, permits the admission of statements where the existence or degree of coercion is in dispute based on findings of reliability and probative value, and where such admission is warranted in the interests of justice.

-- excerpted from a Response of the Government in a different enemy combatant case: http://www.defense.gov/news/D-094_Khadr_Response_to_Motion_to_Suppress.pdf

The entire Response* is worth wading through, but the excerpt does substantiate my point that the process "due" to one of these fuckers is dependent on things like WHETHER or not they are in a Court of LAW of in a military tribunal.

__________________
* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. OMAR KHADR

Government Response
To the Defense’s Motion to
Suppress Statements Allegedly Procured
Using Torture, Coercion and Cruel,
Inhumane and Degrading Treatment

12 December 2008

Of course it does. Because a military tribunal already has different rules and requirements under the COTUS and the UCMJ. Those are the pre-existing rules I was talking about previously.

But where does it state the mere labeling of an individual as an "Enemy Combatant" changes those rules?

The case is not there merely because the accused got "labeled" an enemy combatant.

In fact, the Khadr case is not even remotely ambiguous. The fucker was captured in Afghanistan after a battle in which he killed an American serviceman. Later, tapes of him (wearing civilian clothing) were discovered and the tapes show him and his comrades planting roadside bombs which he later said were planted to kill American servicemen.

 

[bodecea]

I don't know why we don't just shot or gas them all and get it over with.

 

[Liability]

I don't know why we don't just shot or gas them all and get it over with.

Because not everyone is a fucking moron like you.

 

[goldcatt]

* * * *

A US military base on leased soil has been subject to US jurisdiction and considered US soil for all applicable purposes of the law for almost 100 years, Liability.

You are intent on reveling on the trivial.

Who cares?

The point is NOT whether the fuckers have landed on American soil (and, btw, Gitmo is NOT American soil). The POINT is that they are TREATED as individuals imbued with OUR Constitutional Rights as mere criminals -- and they shouldn't be. Not based on whether (or not) they happen to be on "American soil," and not based on any other rational principle.

They are entitled to "due process," and damn little else. And what process is "due" to them under THESE circumstances is not a simple matter resolved by resort to the intonation of the phrase "due process."

What process is due?

Until and unless you coherently answer THAT very question, your argument remains fatuous. And my prior post illustrates part of why this is so. In a real criminal trial, evidence might get suppressed if obtained in a manner that is no problem at all in the context of a military tribunal.

In case you missed it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rial-terrorists-from-gitmo-3.html#post2813861

By all means, send them to a military tribunal if that's your plan. Although what makes you think a tribunal isn't a "real criminal trial" is beyond me. But no special treatment, the trial goes on under the pre-existing rules and conforms to the same level of DP as any other defendant's trial. That would be fair. IMO, it would also end up with the same or very similar result as the civilian trial. There's a reason, actually several reasons, the military screamed long and loud for interrogation to follow the UCMJ.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

A US military base on leased soil has been subject to US jurisdiction and considered US soil for all applicable purposes of the law for almost 100 years, Liability.

You are intent on reveling on the trivial.

Who cares?

The point is NOT whether the fuckers have landed on American soil (and, btw, Gitmo is NOT American soil). The POINT is that they are TREATED as individuals imbued with OUR Constitutional Rights as mere criminals -- and they shouldn't be. Not based on whether (or not) they happen to be on "American soil," and not based on any other rational principle.

They are entitled to "due process," and damn little else. And what process is "due" to them under THESE circumstances is not a simple matter resolved by resort to the intonation of the phrase "due process."

What process is due?

Until and unless you coherently answer THAT very question, your argument remains fatuous. And my prior post illustrates part of why this is so. In a real criminal trial, evidence might get suppressed if obtained in a manner that is no problem at all in the context of a military tribunal.

In case you missed it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rial-terrorists-from-gitmo-3.html#post2813861

By all means, send them to a military tribunal if that's your plan. Although what makes you think a tribunal isn't a "real criminal trial" is beyond me. But no special treatment, the trial goes on under the pre-existing rules and conforms to the same level of DP as any other defendant's trial. That would be fair. IMO, it would also end up with the same or very similar result as the civilian trial. There's a reason, actually several reasons, the military screamed long and loud for interrogation to follow the UCMJ.

You clearly DID miss it.

Here. I'll reiterate it JUST for you, GC.

10 U.S.C. § 949(b)(2)(C) states that “[a] statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title.” Section 948r, while excluding evidence obtained by torture, permits the admission of statements where the existence or degree of coercion is in dispute based on findings of reliability and probative value, and where such admission is warranted in the interests of justice.

Due process in both instances, yet not delivered in exactly the same way.

And there's a reason for that.

 

[ConHog]

Don't say that "yet". The day that happens is the day I really do pack my bags and head for the northern border. I don't think the system is that irretrievably broken though....yet.

We're already seeing the beginning stages. We actually have people calling for special lawless trials for people designated by the President to be "enemy combatants," because certainly we can't follow the rule of law for these evil evil people. We have torture, we have rendition, we have indefinite detention without a trial, and it's the natural of tendency for government to grow. It's a sad state of affairs.

Thankfully those idiots aren't the ones calling the shots. Did you read the comments on that article from the link in the OP?

I agree with them that's it's dangerous to release these people, but they can't stay locked up forever without trial either, and you can't try them without Due Process - which was violated the moment the CIA deviated from the UCMJ.

Like I said, lose-lose. I wish I had an answer, but I'm just not sure there is one.

Just so you know, the UCMJ has NOTHING to do with the way the CIA , or for that matter the military , treats prisoners of war, the Geneva Convention does, and even THAT can be argued since the terrorists are not a signing party. Personally I would say that is the litmus test for these jokers though, were they treated to anything not permitted under the Geneva convention? Which I'll remind you allows much harsher treatment than either the COTUS or the UCMJ, neither of which apply to terrorists.

 

[ConHog]

Judge bans key witness from detainee's NY trial - Yahoo! News

The Judge barred the key witness. Not because he was not going to tell the truth, but because they learned of him from harsh interrogation methods.

The Terrorist was not captured by civilian forces, he was not captured in the United States. He is an enemy combatant. The Judge has no choice but to throw out most of the Governments case. And that is EXACTLY why these cases do not belong in Federal Courts.

Absolutely right. We don't need those 4th/5th/6th amendment rights....they just get in the way of REAL Justice.

Hey whack job, the COTUS does not apply to terrorists.

 

[ConHog]

* * * *

A US military base on leased soil has been subject to US jurisdiction and considered US soil for all applicable purposes of the law for almost 100 years, Liability.

You are intent on reveling on the trivial.

Who cares?

The point is NOT whether the fuckers have landed on American soil (and, btw, Gitmo is NOT American soil). The POINT is that they are TREATED as individuals imbued with OUR Constitutional Rights as mere criminals -- and they shouldn't be. Not based on whether (or not) they happen to be on "American soil," and not based on any other rational principle.

They are entitled to "due process," and damn little else. And what process is "due" to them under THESE circumstances is not a simple matter resolved by resort to the intonation of the phrase "due process."

What process is due?

Until and unless you coherently answer THAT very question, your argument remains fatuous. And my prior post illustrates part of why this is so. In a real criminal trial, evidence might get suppressed if obtained in a manner that is no problem at all in the context of a military tribunal.

Actually, Gitmo IS sovereign US property. Just the same as any long term military base or Embassy.

 

[ConHog]

* * * *

A US military base on leased soil has been subject to US jurisdiction and considered US soil for all applicable purposes of the law for almost 100 years, Liability.

You are intent on reveling on the trivial.

Who cares?

The point is NOT whether the fuckers have landed on American soil (and, btw, Gitmo is NOT American soil). The POINT is that they are TREATED as individuals imbued with OUR Constitutional Rights as mere criminals -- and they shouldn't be. Not based on whether (or not) they happen to be on "American soil," and not based on any other rational principle.

They are entitled to "due process," and damn little else. And what process is "due" to them under THESE circumstances is not a simple matter resolved by resort to the intonation of the phrase "due process."

What process is due?

Until and unless you coherently answer THAT very question, your argument remains fatuous. And my prior post illustrates part of why this is so. In a real criminal trial, evidence might get suppressed if obtained in a manner that is no problem at all in the context of a military tribunal.

In case you missed it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rial-terrorists-from-gitmo-3.html#post2813861

By all means, send them to a military tribunal if that's your plan. Although what makes you think a tribunal isn't a "real criminal trial" is beyond me. But no special treatment, the trial goes on under the pre-existing rules and conforms to the same level of DP as any other defendant's trial. That would be fair. IMO, it would also end up with the same or very similar result as the civilian trial. There's a reason, actually several reasons, the military screamed long and loud for interrogation to follow the UCMJ.

Yep, chief among them being that since the US military waterboards their own recruits for training purposes it can hardly be called torture. Not to mention you have no right to remain silent, etc etc.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

A US military base on leased soil has been subject to US jurisdiction and considered US soil for all applicable purposes of the law for almost 100 years, Liability.

You are intent on reveling on the trivial.

Who cares?

The point is NOT whether the fuckers have landed on American soil (and, btw, Gitmo is NOT American soil). The POINT is that they are TREATED as individuals imbued with OUR Constitutional Rights as mere criminals -- and they shouldn't be. Not based on whether (or not) they happen to be on "American soil," and not based on any other rational principle.

They are entitled to "due process," and damn little else. And what process is "due" to them under THESE circumstances is not a simple matter resolved by resort to the intonation of the phrase "due process."

What process is due?

Until and unless you coherently answer THAT very question, your argument remains fatuous. And my prior post illustrates part of why this is so. In a real criminal trial, evidence might get suppressed if obtained in a manner that is no problem at all in the context of a military tribunal.

Actually, Gitmo IS sovereign US property. Just the same as any long term military base or Embassy.

Not exactly. But even if (like an embassy) it was considered (fully) to BE U.S. soil, that still wouldn't change the fact that the "rights" to which these captured illegal enemy combatants are entitled do not flow from our criminal justice system. The thrust of why they are being held is NOT even remotely a "criminal" matter. Information which might be obtained from them as a matter of military need should not be confused with "evidence" or "evidence gathering" issues related to criminal procedure. That mistake is too dangerous for us.

 

[kwc57]

You are not exactly what we like to call "correct."

We do not know what "methods" were used to extract the information from this "criminal defendant." Maybe it was waterboarding in which case it isn't fucking "torture," in which case nothing done by the Bush Administration is any part of the problem.

But the fact that the "defendant" is being subjected to our civilian justice system as a mere "criminal" is in and of itself sufficient to disprove your contention.

Judge Kaplan is not "wrong," nonetheless. As long as the "defendant" is being tried as a mere criminal in our civilian court of justice, he is entitled AS a matter of LAW to the protections we accord to those accused of crimes.

Also, it was noted earlier that even a military tribunal would have to accord to the accused some "due process." While that is certainly true, the question is not resolved with that neat little phrase. The question becomes "what process IS due to this guy, under the circumstances, in the proper forum?" It may not entail depriving the government of the use of the information he gave to the government, for example, for a variety of reasons.

You missed my point. Bush could have settled all of this during his term. He took a pass and left for someone else to solve. That someone else is Obama. Most Americans could read the writng on the wall......after Bush, a conservative would not be sitting in the Whitehouse for at least four more years. The folks around him should have insisted on getting the ball rolling on how to handle the Gitmo folks instead of leaving it to their opposition.......unless they did it to stick it to the opposition when they took power. In which case it was smart, unethical, but smart.

You repeat your empty claim but again fail to say whatever it is you seem to imagine you mean.

President Bush did not pass anything on to his successor that he could have "settled." That is an absolutely meaningless assertion you make.

What are you talking about?

President Bush dealt with the mess created by al qaeda. It is true that he did not -- in the last seven and 3/4 years of his terms of Office -- eradicate al qaeda. But that's just the nature of that enemy. Gee. Awfully sorry they weren't obliging enough to lay down and fucking just die.

Again, I'll have to call bullshit at you speaking to things other than my point. The question of what to do with all of our detained enemy combatants and how to try them originated almost as quickly as we started capturing them. Refresh our memory on how many had a military tribunal or court trial. It got talked about, but Bush was happy to sit it out and pass it on. Each person sitting in Gitmo could have been thru the process long before Bush left office. Why weren't they?

 

[Annie]

Thank you George W. Bush for this clusterfuck.

If I've called you a troll, I don't remember it. In fact, your posts often make me laugh. This one though? Really deserves neg, but I won't.

 

[Liability]

You missed my point. Bush could have settled all of this during his term. He took a pass and left for someone else to solve. That someone else is Obama. Most Americans could read the writng on the wall......after Bush, a conservative would not be sitting in the Whitehouse for at least four more years. The folks around him should have insisted on getting the ball rolling on how to handle the Gitmo folks instead of leaving it to their opposition.......unless they did it to stick it to the opposition when they took power. In which case it was smart, unethical, but smart.

You repeat your empty claim but again fail to say whatever it is you seem to imagine you mean.

President Bush did not pass anything on to his successor that he could have "settled." That is an absolutely meaningless assertion you make.

What are you talking about?

President Bush dealt with the mess created by al qaeda. It is true that he did not -- in the last seven and 3/4 years of his terms of Office -- eradicate al qaeda. But that's just the nature of that enemy. Gee. Awfully sorry they weren't obliging enough to lay down and fucking just die.

Again, I'll have to call bullshit at you speaking to things other than my point. The question of what to do with all of our detained enemy combatants and how to try them originated almost as quickly as we started capturing them. Refresh our memory on how many had a military tribunal or court trial. It got talked about, but Bush was happy to sit it out and pass it on. Each person sitting in Gitmo could have been thru the process long before Bush left office. Why weren't they?

It might just be unavoidable to speak to things other than your "point" when you can't coherently MAKE or STATE your alleged "point."

There WAS no question as to what to do with the fucking captured illegal enemy combatants UNTIL the Court interjected itself (improperly) into the equation and contrary to established precedent. Each time the Judicial system screwed the pooch in that manner, the Bush Administration reacted appropriately. Short of tossing up his hands and saying, "Why YES! Yes, in fact, we SHOULD of course treat these bastards as mere criminals and warmly receive them into OUR land and into our CRIMINAL Justice system as mere alleged violators of the law" there was nothing else rational that President Bush COULD do beyond what he DID.

The IRRATIONAL behavior since President Obama took over is what has caused the problem (compounding the fuck-up imposed on us all by the invalidly meddling judicial system).

And no. Each person sitting in fucking Gitmo could NOT be "thru" the system already. That is another of your baseless statements.

There was no fucking rush and there should have been no rush. Those bastards COULD sit there forever and there'd be no problem with it. Well, there might be a problem for THEM, but they could have been summarily executed, instead, so they have little to be heard to bitch about. And frankly, their bitching is of no interest anyway.

So, you can call bullshit on anything you want, but the one here who is full of bullshit and spouting it is you.

 

[Ravi]

Thank you George W. Bush for this clusterfuck.

If I've called you a troll, I don't remember it. In fact, your posts often make me laugh. This one though? Really deserves neg, but I won't.

It is most certainly the fault of the Bush administration that these people were never charged, released or executed.

 

[Annie]

Thank you George W. Bush for this clusterfuck.

If I've called you a troll, I don't remember it. In fact, your posts often make me laugh. This one though? Really deserves neg, but I won't.

It is most certainly the fault of the Bush administration that these people were never charged, released or executed.

Only because of the problems caused regarding how to charge and in what venue. He was a wimp in that regard, in that we agree. Obama is less than better. Holder, intolerable.

 

[bodecea]

I don't know why we don't just shot or gas them all and get it over with.

Because not everyone is a fucking moron like you.

So, you talk the talk but won't walk the walk, eh? We all know they are guilty....what's the point of rights? What's the point of trials? Seriously people....just execute them. Saves us all a ton of trouble.

 

[Annie]

I don't know why we don't just shot or gas them all and get it over with.

Because not everyone is a fucking moron like you.

So, you talk the talk but won't walk the walk, eh? We all know they are guilty....what's the point of rights? What's the point of trials? Seriously people....just execute them. Saves us all a ton of trouble.

You know you spout tripe, yet you try to let it pass for an intelligent reply. Begone.