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

[goldcatt]

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.

Where's sec 948r and the supporting case law outlining the standards applied in this balancing test where coercion is disputed?

Not that it matters, the rules are the rules and process is process. If these are civilians captured on the field of battle a military tribunal according to standard rules and standard process is appropriate just as much as a civil court. The important part is not venue, but that the appropriate process for that venue is followed - no special dispensations for special tactics or circumstances.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

You're missing my point here though. The UCMJ follows interrogation methods that will allow evidence obtained to be admitted in military courts. One of the reasons the military wanted control of interrogations and didn't like the fact that CIA was taking them over is because they knew the methods being used would not produce admissible evidence. It wasn't the only reason, but it was one of them. Then when evidence gets tossed out of their tribunals and the fuckers walk, the military is the one looking like assholes - when they were the ones who were right all along.

 

[Liability]

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.

Ravi merely reiterates the mindless lib view that these assholes should be treated as mere criminals.

Since libs who "think" along such lines are flatly wrong, ignorant and stupid, there is little hope that they will learn the lesson of history.

This is not now and never was a matter of criminal justice.

To treat it in that way is absurd and dangerous. Thus, this President is doing EXACTLY the wrong thing.

These folks can be held indefinitely without being charged and without a need for summary execution.

Now note this: They are not properly classifiable as POWs. But if they got TREATED along similar lines (since we bend over backwards to be civilized), they would get held until the cessation of hostilities. If that takes 100 years, they can blame their masters over in the caves of fucking Afghanistan.

What would be "wrong" with that, exactly?

 

[ConHog]

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.

Butch wouldn't know an intelligent reply if it hit her in the nose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good point. Law enforcement doesn't, military doesn't, but this guy and most of the others went through CIA - which apparently does, or at least did.

But now what do you do with the people for whom it's too late?

You follow the rule of law, like what was done in this case. It's a shame, because many of them probably are terrorists, but that doesn't change the law.

Ultimately you're probably right - on both counts. It wouldn't matter where they're tried, the end result would be the same. We simply do not have a special CIA court that is allowed to make evidentiary exceptions for "special" CIA methods. But what a mess, it's lose-lose for us no matter what we do with it.

You people are clueless, a Military tribunal has entirely different rules of evidence. There would be no problem with the witness in a military tribunal.

 

[Sallow]

NYC Courts just convicted an avowed terrorist after gleaning useful intelligence from him without breaking the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Gosh..the system works most of the time..why break it?

 

[goldcatt]

You follow the rule of law, like what was done in this case. It's a shame, because many of them probably are terrorists, but that doesn't change the law.

Ultimately you're probably right - on both counts. It wouldn't matter where they're tried, the end result would be the same. We simply do not have a special CIA court that is allowed to make evidentiary exceptions for "special" CIA methods. But what a mess, it's lose-lose for us no matter what we do with it.

You people are clueless, a Military tribunal has entirely different rules of evidence. There would be no problem with the witness in a military tribunal.

According to what Liability posted there is a balancing test for admissibility where there is a possibility of coercion that is in dispute. Problem is if it was thrown out of a civil court it is already proven through the hearing process, not really what you could call disputed. Nor do we have any information on the test applied to speculate on the outcome if there were in fact a dispute. What else you got on admissibility of evidence obtained though either torture or coercion short of torture?

 

[Liability]

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.

Where's sec 948r and the supporting case law outlining the standards applied in this balancing test where coercion is disputed?

Not that it matters, the rules are the rules and process is process. If these are civilians captured on the field of battle a military tribunal according to standard rules and standard process is appropriate just as much as a civil court. The important part is not venue, but that the appropriate process for that venue is followed - no special dispensations for special tactics or circumstances.

Do you always require spoon feeding?

Look it up.

And no. The rules don't exist in that way. Rules for the Courts of Law are different, as I showed you, than they are for proceedings under the UCMJ. The question remains (even if you persist in ducking it!) GC:

What process is due? Be specific. Or, go ahead and duck it again. That's ok.

If you could obtain suppression of certain evidence in a court of Law under civilian rules of procedure and notions of due process, but you might not necessarily get that same evidence suppressed in a military commission proceeding conducted under the UCMJ, the "process" and the rules and the procedures are obviously different. The outcomes are different. That doesn't mean that anybody has been denied justice OR due process.

 

[Liability]

NYC Courts just convicted an avowed terrorist after gleaning useful intelligence from him without breaking the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Gosh..the system works most of the time..why break it?

NICE use of fallacy.

Merely because that case didn't require the revelation of military intelligence that could have thwarted the ability of the government to try the case does not mean that ALL cases will come with such fortuitous circumstances.

The system does work. Mere criminals get fair trials and due process under rules of procedure and evidence properly suited for civilian courts of justice. But that does not mean (and it should not mean) that captured enemy combatants are deserving of being treated like mere criminals or that they should be entitled to our civilian courts of (criminal) justice. Different concerns are at stake.

 

[goldcatt]

You clearly DID miss it.

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



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

And there's a reason for that.

Where's sec 948r and the supporting case law outlining the standards applied in this balancing test where coercion is disputed?

Not that it matters, the rules are the rules and process is process. If these are civilians captured on the field of battle a military tribunal according to standard rules and standard process is appropriate just as much as a civil court. The important part is not venue, but that the appropriate process for that venue is followed - no special dispensations for special tactics or circumstances.

Do you always require spoon feeding?

Look it up.

And no. The rules don't exist in that way. Rules for the Courts of Law are different, as I showed you, than they are for proceedings under the UCMJ. The question remains (even if you persist in ducking it!) GC:

What process is due? Be specific. Or, go ahead and duck it again. That's ok.

If you could obtain suppression of certain evidence in a court of Law under civilian rules of procedure and notions of due process, but you might not necessarily get that same evidence suppressed in a military commission proceeding conducted under the UCMJ, the "process" and the rules and the procedures are obviously different. The outcomes are different. That doesn't mean that anybody has been denied justice OR due process.

So the rules for military courts are different than for civilian ones. No shit.

Read my lips: Military rules are fine so long as the standard pre-existing rules are followed. Whatever those are, they would not exist if they did not afford the level of process due the forum. There must be no special rules, exceptions or dispensations because of the identity or status of the individual defendants. End of story.

As to whether evidence would be excluded under these rules, I have stated several times that I am not intimately familiar with the UCMJ evidentiary rules -but Due Process itself exists in large part to discourage coercion. And while the military has a different standard of process due, it does not dispense with due process altogether. You still can't use coercion without at minimum showing the reliability of the evidence through objective means.

You posted a snippet of statute regarding admission of evidence where coercion may be involved, but is in dispute - not necessarily the facts in the Gitmo cases - and one that cross referenced a separate section for the actual balancing test and gave but a brief summary with no factors, weights or supporting precedent with which to make a determination. You make the claim using this specific statute that evidence "would" or "may" not be excluded, yet you fail to support your claim with the test and analysis that makes it so.

'Tain't my claim, counselor. I'm willing to accept the pre-existing rules wholesale so long as no special changes are made for these particular evuldoers, you're the one picking nits and whipping out incomplete snippets of code to make whatever your point is.

Quack all you like, I'm on to you.

 

[Liability]

Where's sec 948r and the supporting case law outlining the standards applied in this balancing test where coercion is disputed?

Not that it matters, the rules are the rules and process is process. If these are civilians captured on the field of battle a military tribunal according to standard rules and standard process is appropriate just as much as a civil court. The important part is not venue, but that the appropriate process for that venue is followed - no special dispensations for special tactics or circumstances.

Do you always require spoon feeding?

Look it up.

And no. The rules don't exist in that way. Rules for the Courts of Law are different, as I showed you, than they are for proceedings under the UCMJ. The question remains (even if you persist in ducking it!) GC:

What process is due? Be specific. Or, go ahead and duck it again. That's ok.

If you could obtain suppression of certain evidence in a court of Law under civilian rules of procedure and notions of due process, but you might not necessarily get that same evidence suppressed in a military commission proceeding conducted under the UCMJ, the "process" and the rules and the procedures are obviously different. The outcomes are different. That doesn't mean that anybody has been denied justice OR due process.

So the rules for military courts are different than for civilian ones. No shit.

Read my lips: Military rules are fine so long as the standard pre-existing rules are followed.

Read my lips. WHAT standard pre-existing rules are you worried about? The ones that you and some others incorrectly IMAGINE apply because those rules are the ones used in civilian courts? Or the ACTUAL rules?

For until and unless the day ever comes where you identify an alleged violation of the ACTUAL rules applicable in these matters, you are wetting yourself quite needlessly and your "complaints" have no merit whatsoever.

Obtaining information from a CRIMINAL (civilian) suspect might lead to suppression of that evidence IF the manner in which it is obtained violates our regular vanilla understandings of the rules (the ones applicable to us civilians). BUT, and here's the thing you don't know, obtaining that information from a captured al qaeda piece of shit for purposes of protecting soldiers and civilians, etc., might not lead to suppression at all.

I KNOW you are not familiar with the rules. So you admittedly have NO BASIS whatsoever to be worrying about the alleged (possible, hypothetical, potential, fantastical) violations of these rules. And, again, until you do, your expressions of "concern" are pointless and kind of laughable.

Parroting -- as you do -- the phrase "Due process <<squawk!!>> Due Process!" is totally uninformative by the way. But don't let that slow you down. Here. I'll help: DUE PROCESS!!!!!



Kid, I'm totally on to you and your act and I decline your kind invitation to let you get away with it.

 

[goldcatt]

All right, back to first principles here. What is Due Process and why does it exist?

Yes, seriously.

 

[Liability]

All right, back to first principles here. What is Due Process and why does it exist?

Yes, seriously.

I have repeatedly ASKED you the question and you imagine, now, that you can "answer" it by asking the very same question in another way?



No no. Here. I shall just put AGAIN to you the SAME question I already asked of you several times:

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE? Be specific.

Bonus question (new): Why is it "due?"

I'll give you the 20 second liberal clock.

Go!

 

[goldcatt]

Do you always require spoon feeding?

Look it up.

And no. The rules don't exist in that way. Rules for the Courts of Law are different, as I showed you, than they are for proceedings under the UCMJ. The question remains (even if you persist in ducking it!) GC:

What process is due? Be specific. Or, go ahead and duck it again. That's ok.

If you could obtain suppression of certain evidence in a court of Law under civilian rules of procedure and notions of due process, but you might not necessarily get that same evidence suppressed in a military commission proceeding conducted under the UCMJ, the "process" and the rules and the procedures are obviously different. The outcomes are different. That doesn't mean that anybody has been denied justice OR due process.

So the rules for military courts are different than for civilian ones. No shit.

Read my lips: Military rules are fine so long as the standard pre-existing rules are followed.

Read my lips. WHAT standard pre-existing rules are you worried about? The ones that you and some others incorrectly IMAGINE apply because those rules are the ones used in civilian courts? Or the ACTUAL rules?

For until and unless the day ever comes where you identify an alleged violation of the ACTUAL rules applicable in these matters, you are wetting yourself quite needlessly and your "complaints" have no merit whatsoever.

Obtaining information from a CRIMINAL (civilian) suspect might lead to suppression of that evidence IF the manner in which it is obtained violates our regular vanilla understandings of the rules (the ones applicable to us civilians). BUT, and here's the thing you don't know, obtaining that information from a captured al qaeda piece of shit for purposes of protecting soldiers and civilians, etc., might not lead to suppression at all.

I KNOW you are not familiar with the rules. So you admittedly have NO BASIS whatsoever to be worrying about the alleged (possible, hypothetical, potential, fantastical) violations of these rules. And, again, until you do, your expressions of "concern" are pointless and kind of laughable.

Parroting -- as you do -- the phrase "Due process <<squawk!!>> Due Process!" is totally uninformative by the way. But don't let that slow you down. Here. I'll help: DUE PROCESS!!!!!



Kid, I'm totally on to you and your act and I decline your kind invitation to let you get away with it.

BTW...nobody's complaining. If your name were Literacy perhaps you'd have been able to determine through every single one of my posts on the subject that military tribunals are perfectly fine with me, so long as the rules are followed to the letter.

But because of the purpose and nature of process, I suspect the outcome as far as evidence obtained through coercive methods would be the same or similar. Beating false confessions out of military personnel and using that information to railroad them because you don't like them is as large a violation as doing the same to civilians, and is at the heart of the idea of due process in the courts. Reliability of the information used against the defendant is at the heart of any criminal matter, whether you believe a military court is a "real" criminal court or not.

Hence, my question to determine if you understand the fundamental concept of Due Process and how and why it functions in US courts in general. If you don't understand and can't apply first principles, the details and analysis are meaningless.

 

[Trajan]

NYC Courts just convicted an avowed terrorist after gleaning useful intelligence from him without breaking the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Gosh..the system works most of the time..why break it?

ask KSM or the other 2 who got water boarded who might(did) have had intel a tad more actionable and valuable?...ffs.


and btw what is up with the KSM thing? Or is this in Obamas pocket till 12?

 

[Liability]

So the rules for military courts are different than for civilian ones. No shit.

Read my lips: Military rules are fine so long as the standard pre-existing rules are followed.

Read my lips. WHAT standard pre-existing rules are you worried about? The ones that you and some others incorrectly IMAGINE apply because those rules are the ones used in civilian courts? Or the ACTUAL rules?

For until and unless the day ever comes where you identify an alleged violation of the ACTUAL rules applicable in these matters, you are wetting yourself quite needlessly and your "complaints" have no merit whatsoever.

Obtaining information from a CRIMINAL (civilian) suspect might lead to suppression of that evidence IF the manner in which it is obtained violates our regular vanilla understandings of the rules (the ones applicable to us civilians). BUT, and here's the thing you don't know, obtaining that information from a captured al qaeda piece of shit for purposes of protecting soldiers and civilians, etc., might not lead to suppression at all.

I KNOW you are not familiar with the rules. So you admittedly have NO BASIS whatsoever to be worrying about the alleged (possible, hypothetical, potential, fantastical) violations of these rules. And, again, until you do, your expressions of "concern" are pointless and kind of laughable.

Parroting -- as you do -- the phrase "Due process <<squawk!!>> Due Process!" is totally uninformative by the way. But don't let that slow you down. Here. I'll help: DUE PROCESS!!!!!



Kid, I'm totally on to you and your act and I decline your kind invitation to let you get away with it.

BTW...nobody's complaining. If your name were Literacy perhaps you'd have been able to determine through every single one of my posts on the subject that military tribunals are perfectly fine with me, so long as the rules are followed to the letter.

But because of the purpose and nature of process, I suspect the outcome as far as evidence obtained through coercive methods would be the same or similar. Beating false confessions out of military personnel and using that information to railroad them because you don't like them is as large a violation as doing the same to civilians, and is at the heart of the idea of due process in the courts. Reliability of the information used against the defendant is at the heart of any criminal matter, whether you believe a military court is a "real" criminal court or not.

Hence, my question to determine if you understand the fundamental concept of Due Process and how and why it functions in US courts in general. If you don't understand and can't apply first principles, the details and analysis are meaningless.

Perhaps if you'd stop complaining long enough you'd realize that repeatedly expressing your "concern" is complaining. True story!

I have time and time again put the question to you, GC, because your posts seem to suggest that you don't have the first freakin' clue as to the issue.

So, even if it serves merely to underscore that, I'll ask you yet AGAIN:

What process is due?

I'll even reset the clock for you.

Go!

 

[goldcatt]

All right, back to first principles here. What is Due Process and why does it exist?

Yes, seriously.

I have repeatedly ASKED you the question and you imagine, now, that you can "answer" it by asking the very same question in another way?



No no. Here. I shall just put AGAIN to you the SAME question I already asked of you several times:

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE? Be specific.

Bonus question (new): Why is it "due?"

I'll give you the 20 second liberal clock.

Go!

No, no, no. Not procedure. Not details on different levels for different individuals. Process as a concept. What is the core principle of due process, the reason it exists and the thing it safeguards, and why does it apply to the courts in the first place?

What makes our courts different from places where they just point a finger at somebody, take him out back and shoot him? Why do we have mandated trials, juries, rules of evidence at all? What are they protecting? What is fundamental here?

Good lord, it's like talking to a wall with you sometimes.

 

[Liability]

All right, back to first principles here. What is Due Process and why does it exist?

Yes, seriously.

I have repeatedly ASKED you the question and you imagine, now, that you can "answer" it by asking the very same question in another way?



No no. Here. I shall just put AGAIN to you the SAME question I already asked of you several times:

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE? Be specific.

Bonus question (new): Why is it "due?"

I'll give you the 20 second liberal clock.

Go!

No, no, no. Not procedure. Not details on different levels for different individuals. Process as a concept. What is the core principle of due process, the reason it exists and the thing it safeguards, and why does it apply to the courts in the first place?

What makes our courts different from places where they just point a finger at somebody, take him out back and shoot him? Why do we have mandated trials, juries, rules of evidence at all? What are they protecting? What is fundamental here?

Good lord, it's like talking to a wall with you sometimes.

No no. Stop ducking. I asked you. Now you are pretending to ask me.

Stick with the program, GC.

What process is due?

I can keep asking.

by the way, I'm also one helpful compassionate conservative (redundant though that phrase is). So, I deign to assist you in some small ways.

First up:

Due Process is a [guarantee] against arbitrariness on the part of the government whether committed by the legislature, the executive or the judiciary.

excerpted from:
The Beginning, origin, evolution and Meaning of Due Process of Law

Secondly: You may wish to address the distinction (rationally) between procedural due process and substantive due process.

I not only now again re-set the clock for you (since you seem determined to evade this), but I magnanimously grant you additional time.

Make it 40 seconds.

GO!

 

[goldcatt]

Read my lips. WHAT standard pre-existing rules are you worried about? The ones that you and some others incorrectly IMAGINE apply because those rules are the ones used in civilian courts? Or the ACTUAL rules?

For until and unless the day ever comes where you identify an alleged violation of the ACTUAL rules applicable in these matters, you are wetting yourself quite needlessly and your "complaints" have no merit whatsoever.

Obtaining information from a CRIMINAL (civilian) suspect might lead to suppression of that evidence IF the manner in which it is obtained violates our regular vanilla understandings of the rules (the ones applicable to us civilians). BUT, and here's the thing you don't know, obtaining that information from a captured al qaeda piece of shit for purposes of protecting soldiers and civilians, etc., might not lead to suppression at all.

I KNOW you are not familiar with the rules. So you admittedly have NO BASIS whatsoever to be worrying about the alleged (possible, hypothetical, potential, fantastical) violations of these rules. And, again, until you do, your expressions of "concern" are pointless and kind of laughable.

Parroting -- as you do -- the phrase "Due process <<squawk!!>> Due Process!" is totally uninformative by the way. But don't let that slow you down. Here. I'll help: DUE PROCESS!!!!!



Kid, I'm totally on to you and your act and I decline your kind invitation to let you get away with it.

BTW...nobody's complaining. If your name were Literacy perhaps you'd have been able to determine through every single one of my posts on the subject that military tribunals are perfectly fine with me, so long as the rules are followed to the letter.

But because of the purpose and nature of process, I suspect the outcome as far as evidence obtained through coercive methods would be the same or similar. Beating false confessions out of military personnel and using that information to railroad them because you don't like them is as large a violation as doing the same to civilians, and is at the heart of the idea of due process in the courts. Reliability of the information used against the defendant is at the heart of any criminal matter, whether you believe a military court is a "real" criminal court or not.

Hence, my question to determine if you understand the fundamental concept of Due Process and how and why it functions in US courts in general. If you don't understand and can't apply first principles, the details and analysis are meaningless.

Perhaps if you'd stop complaining long enough you'd realize that repeatedly expressing your "concern" is complaining. True story!

I have time and time again put the question to you, GC, because your posts seem to suggest that you don't have the first freakin' clue as to the issue.

So, even if it serves merely to underscore that, I'll ask you yet AGAIN:

What process is due?

I'll even reset the clock for you.

Go!

You have no clue, do you?

You're so wrapped up in what specific procedures these specific defendants should or should not be entitled to because of who they are and what they are alleged to have done, you can't see the forest.

These defendants are due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period.

Those who were captured on the field of battle should be given either a military trial or a civilian one. If they have no connection to military operations, they should have a civilian trial. If they have been declared "Enemy Combatants", it would be reasonable to assume they all fall under the former. In either case, the evidence used against them needs to conform to the existing rules of that venue. It could be traffic court for all I care, so long as the venue is appropriate to the charge and the existing rules are followed to the letter without regard for the identity of the defendant. End of story.

Holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, granting special exemptions to government prosecutors for evidence obtained through coercion, forming special courts either in or out of the public view to deal with them, or any other lowering of the bar for these particular defendants because of their status or identity can not be tolerated.

And again, because of the nature and function of Due Process the outcome for admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion will be either the same or similar across venues. Why? Because the main reason due process exists in the Courts is in order to make sure defendants are not coerced and railroaded. (ETA: Your link says "arbitrary", that's fine. We'll go with that. So it makes sure decisions are not made arbitrarily, but according to reliable information and by standard procedures. In other words, not railroaded.) You don't have to be either a rocket scientist or versed in the details to know that primary function of DP will be followed across all venues, military or civilian, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Is that clear enough for you yet, or do you need something like braille? Smoke signals, maybe? Skywriting is a little beyond my capabilities at the moment, I'm afraid. Check back next week.

 

[Liability]

BTW...nobody's complaining. If your name were Literacy perhaps you'd have been able to determine through every single one of my posts on the subject that military tribunals are perfectly fine with me, so long as the rules are followed to the letter.

But because of the purpose and nature of process, I suspect the outcome as far as evidence obtained through coercive methods would be the same or similar. Beating false confessions out of military personnel and using that information to railroad them because you don't like them is as large a violation as doing the same to civilians, and is at the heart of the idea of due process in the courts. Reliability of the information used against the defendant is at the heart of any criminal matter, whether you believe a military court is a "real" criminal court or not.

Hence, my question to determine if you understand the fundamental concept of Due Process and how and why it functions in US courts in general. If you don't understand and can't apply first principles, the details and analysis are meaningless.

Perhaps if you'd stop complaining long enough you'd realize that repeatedly expressing your "concern" is complaining. True story!

I have time and time again put the question to you, GC, because your posts seem to suggest that you don't have the first freakin' clue as to the issue.

So, even if it serves merely to underscore that, I'll ask you yet AGAIN:

What process is due?

I'll even reset the clock for you.

Go!

You have no clue, do you?

You're so wrapped up in what specific procedures these specific defendants should or should not be entitled to because of who they are and what they are alleged to have done, you can't see the forest.

These defendants are due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period.

Those who were captured on the field of battle should be given either a military trial or a civilian one. If they have no connection to military operations, they should have a civilian trial. If they have been declared "Enemy Combatants", it would be reasonable to assume they all fall under the former. In either case, the evidence used against them needs to conform to the existing rules of that venue. It could be traffic court for all I care, so long as the venue is appropriate to the charge and the existing rules are followed to the letter without regard for the identity of the defendant. End of story.

Holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, granting special exemptions to government prosecutors for evidence obtained through coercion, forming special courts either in or out of the public view to deal with them, or any other lowering of the bar for these particular defendants because of their status or identity can not be tolerated.

And again, because of the nature and function of Due Process the outcome for admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion will be either the same or similar across venues. Why? Because the main reason due process exists in the Courts is in order to make sure defendants are not coerced and railroaded. (ETA: Your link says "arbitrary", that's fine. We'll go with that. So it makes sure decisions are not made arbitrarily, but according to reliable information and by standard procedures. In other words, not railroaded.) You don't have to be either a rocket scientist or versed in the details to know that primary function of DP will be followed across all venues, military or civilian, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Is that clear enough for you yet, or do you need something like braille? Smoke signals, maybe? Skywriting is a little beyond my capabilities at the moment, I'm afraid. Check back next week.

No kid. I am the one (of the two of us) who DOES get it. Your myopia is staggering.

I have tried (patiently, since you libs need to be handled with kid gloves) to persuade you to tell the class what process is due for a reason. Your studious insistence on ducking that question is telling. Sad. But telling.

Since the issue of "due process" IS intimately involved with properly defining "what process is due," your unsupported CONTENTION that these fuckers are allegedly ". . . due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period." is silly. Adding your "period" to the assertion doesn't make it any less silly.

And that's a real problem you have. For your contention IS silly.

By WHAT claim of right can an illegal enemy combatant (who could have been summarily executed) be heard to complain that he may not be held without a "trial?" Does the fucker cite to the now infamous " GOLDCATT pronouncement?" ("It is true because GOLDCATT says so, that's why! Period. Amen!") Sorry, child, but the fact that you make grandiose pronouncements doesn't qualify as self-supporting.

Try something a little more novel: Back that shit up.

But you won't. You can't.