- Banned
- #81
I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.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.
Here it is:
Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.
Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.
Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid
Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.
Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.
Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.
Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.
Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.
Step 9: Claim you are victorious.
Step 10: Assorted smileys.
Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.
Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".
And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.
Last edited: