NO PERSON SHALL...be deprived of liberty, without due process of LAW

[jillian]

Hello jillian, here is the question, are Military Tribunals considered due process. in my mind because of the long history of case law in such matters it is. Also as you know, in Article 131 of the Geneva Convention POW's are to tried by the detaining military power. So again Military Tribinals are wholly consistant with that as well as was the case with the International Military Tribunals for those at end of WW2. In my opinion, I see nothing at all wrong with having such trials in a Military setting and as such do not eleminate the constitution when it comes to such trials.

Hi Navy. My problem is less their thinking that military tribunals give them due process, it's their claim that giving them trials is somehow wrong. These same people think that it would have been a travesty to give these people

Why they assume that U.S. citizens haven't been detained at Gitmo when there's been absolutely no accountability is beyond me. These are the same people who won't take an H1N1 vaccine because they "don't trust their governement" since Glen Beck told them not to. But they'll trust their government with coerced confessions and detention without charges?

Something is really butt backward in these people...

not you... you aren't outraged that there's going to be a trial... you just think a military tribunal would have been at least equally appropriate, if i'm reading you correctly.

I find these people who are hoping for another terrorist attack on this country or an acquittal of people who crashed planes into NYC just for their own political gain to be incomprehensible. To me they're sick and anti-American.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hello jillian, here is the question, are Military Tribunals considered due process. in my mind because of the long history of case law in such matters it is. Also as you know, in Article 131 of the Geneva Convention POW's are to tried by the detaining military power. So again Military Tribinals are wholly consistant with that as well as was the case with the International Military Tribunals for those at end of WW2. In my opinion, I see nothing at all wrong with having such trials in a Military setting and as such do not eleminate the constitution when it comes to such trials.

Hi Navy. My problem is less their thinking that military tribunals give them due process, it's their claim that giving them trials is somehow wrong. These same people think that it would have been a travesty to give these people

Why they assume that U.S. citizens haven't been detained at Gitmo when there's been absolutely no accountability is beyond me. These are the same people who won't take an H1N1 vaccine because they "don't trust their governement" since Glen Beck told them not to. But they'll trust their government with coerced confessions and detention without charges?

Something is really butt backward in these people...

not you... you aren't outraged that there's going to be a trial... you just think a military tribunal would have been at least equally appropriate, if i'm reading you correctly.

I find these people who are hoping for another terrorist attack on this country or an acquittal of people who crashed planes into NYC just for their own political gain to be incomprehensible. To me they're sick and anti-American.

And yet we had it all settled BY THE SUPREME COURT. Military Tribunals were oked and in fact had started when Obama stopped them for this crap. And I guess you missed the announcement that even if acquitted in these supposed fair trials the Government will simply hold these men anyway?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

The terrorists that attacked the Cole are getting Military Tribunals.

So why is Holder/Obama giving KSM and the others a trial here?


The answer is, as is usual with these dopey libs, political. Political grandstanding and a chance to prosecute Bush policy.

Get your frogmarch boots on and meet me under the big tent. The circus is about to begin.

The USS Cole was attacked inside Yemeni territorial waters.

The bomber's target was a military target.

Uhm hum.

And the Pentagon was a civilian target?

The USS Cole was attacked inside Yemeni territorial waters.

Is the Pentagon in Yemen?

You just really can't breathe and walk at the same time, can you?

 

[Intense]

Face it "C", there are those in our country who would have been extremely comfortable in the Soviet system, and their familiy, "friends," and neighbors would have suffered mightily for it.

The irony meter just fucking exploded.

The thing contessa nonetoosharpa and confusedatious just "criticized" is EXACTLY what is happening by virtue of the show-type-trials being foisted on us by the Obama Administration /Holder tag team idiocy team.

YOU liberoidals are the ones setting up this silly "trial." But in DOING so your fearless leaders are "assuring" the public by TELLING the world in effect that there is no danger the "trial" will be fair.

How DO we "showcase" our genuinely superior judicial process by promising NOT to dare use it?

I dunno.

Ask Eric Fucking Douchebag Holder.

We shall see how much of a show trial it is. Journalists from around the world will be invited to sit in. If the trial is a sham, we will find out soon enough.

The US Judicial system is on trial as much as the terrorists.

I sincerely hope You are Right. I will keep my camera and my big stick handy though, just in case. The Tone of the Judge will be very important. Demonstrations probably won't stay peaceful long.

 

[Intense]

The USS Cole was attacked inside Yemeni territorial waters.

The bomber's target was a military target.

Uhm hum.

And the Pentagon was a civilian target?

The USS Cole was attacked inside Yemeni territorial waters.

Is the Pentagon in Yemen?

You just really can't breathe and walk at the same time, can you?

Contessa_Sharra, In all fairness do You distinguish between Combatant and Non Combatant, A Legal (Privileged) Combatant, and an Illegal (Unprivileged) Combatant. Each has a Legal meaning with different Laws that Govern. They are not comparable.

Non-combatant is a military and legal term describing civilians not engaged in combat. It also includes (Geneva Conventions Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) persons, such as medical personnel and chaplains (who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their function) and soldiers who are hors de combat.

Combatant:A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Privileged combatants
2 Unprivileged combatants
3 See also
4 References
5 External links


[edit] Privileged combatants
The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

[edit] Unprivileged combatants
Main article: unprivileged combatant
There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:

Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.
Combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Non-Combatant: Article 50 in Chapter II: "Civilians and Civilian Population" of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions defines that a civilian is not a privileged combatant. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to civilians (unless they are unprivileged combatants) and civilian populations. Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also prohibits attacks directed against civilians. Not all states have ratified Protocol I or the Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.
Non-combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rozman]

First I want to start off by saying I want this to be a nice polite response.
Second I want to say that most people that do not want this trial and I am want of those want their fate to be decided by a military tribunal because that is all the decency they deserve.If you want to kiss the asses of these guys and that makes you feel superior to the neanderthal conservatives who want justice then knock your self out. Have a nice day.

I can't wait to see the line of liberals waiting to be character witnesses for these guys.

See I said I was going to be nice.

 

[Dr Grump]

First I want to start off by saying I want this to be a nice polite response.
Second I want to say that most people that do not want this trial and I am want of those want their fate to be decided by a military tribunal because that is all the decency they deserve.If you want to kiss the asses of these guys and that makes you feel superior to the neanderthal conservatives who want justice then knock your self out. Have a nice day.

I can't wait to see the line of liberals waiting to be character witnesses for these guys.

See I said I was going to be nice.

Can you please repost...I don't think you used enough generalisations....

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Uhm hum.

And the Pentagon was a civilian target?

The USS Cole was attacked inside Yemeni territorial waters.

Is the Pentagon in Yemen?

You just really can't breathe and walk at the same time, can you?

Contessa_Sharra, In all fairness do You distinguish between Combatant and Non Combatant, A Legal (Privileged) Combatant, and an Illegal (Unprivileged) Combatant. Each has a Legal meaning with different Laws that Govern. They are not comparable.

Non-combatant is a military and legal term describing civilians not engaged in combat. It also includes (Geneva Conventions Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) persons, such as medical personnel and chaplains (who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their function) and soldiers who are hors de combat.

Combatant:A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Privileged combatants
2 Unprivileged combatants
3 See also
4 References
5 External links


[edit] Privileged combatants
The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

[edit] Unprivileged combatants
Main article: unprivileged combatant
There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:

Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.
Combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Non-Combatant: Article 50 in Chapter II: "Civilians and Civilian Population" of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions defines that a civilian is not a privileged combatant. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to civilians (unless they are unprivileged combatants) and civilian populations. Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also prohibits attacks directed against civilians. Not all states have ratified Protocol I or the Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.
Non-combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am going back to a "Founding Fathers" issue here, and as a matter of principle believe that the "illegal combatant" concept is not a legitimate term.

Our Founding Fathers were freedom fighters but also were terrorists, treason committing rebels against their legitimate government, until they won that war, and the other one in 1812, and considering who was helping the south in the Civil War, that war, too, and our sovereignty was fully recognised. If one could ask King George et al the answers would have been both unequivocal, and no doubt vituperative, no doubt full of invective. But, we won.

I believe that all people living in a country, no matter what country, have the right to try to push attackers into the nearest ocean, volcano caldera, or off a cliff, whatever it takes to get them gone. I do not believe that the US of A has any moral right to abritrarily and unilaterally decide that this country or that are all "illegal (unlawful) combatants." I find it terribly hypocritical that so many here in the US of A are out for blood for the WTC, and yet think that others have no right to oppose us when we attack them. It all seems to be based on them not having "uniforms." Did the Resistance and Partisans of WWII have uniforms?

We, along with various other Northwestern Europeans have been engaged in the worst sorts of abuses of the rest of the world for about a thousand years starting with the Crusades! Before that it was Romans, and Macedonians, and Darius of Troy, and then in the close Middle East, it was the descendants of Abraham committing the genocides, and there were littler wars in smaller places. We were real tail end charlies in Vietnam, their war with China started a hundred or so years before the birth of the Christian Jesus. They spent 2000 years trying to throw invaders out, and are finally their own people, running their own business. The Ottomans took over a lot of territory. No one leaves anyone else alone. I am worn out with the hypocrisy of it all. On all sides. I am tired of the Imperialism of religion, too.

Not so long ago the mujahideen (مجاهدين)were being called "freedom fighters." They were called that by us. And so on... it goes on.

You should read [ame="http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179"]All the Shah's Men by Kinzer[/ame], as well as some of the other history of that area.

Then Oil History in Iraq.

Over and over, same old thing. The problem for us now is that we overstepped. We made too many enemies thinking we could never be brought down.

No such thing as an illegal/unlawful combatant in the fight for freedom, ours, theirs, anyone's. And I don't care about whatever "convenient rules of the moment" any other comes up with.

 

[concept]

thats not true...illegal aliens....and it depends on terrorists, where they are caught and what circumstances etc....

due process for spies is questioning, a last meal, a blindfold, and a smoke....before they are shot at dawn.....

And you KNOW those folks are "enemy combatants" how?

.

you're kidding right?

 

[concept]

Face it "C", there are those in our country who would have been extremely comfortable in the Soviet system, and their familiy, "friends," and neighbors would have suffered mightily for it.

The irony meter just fucking exploded.

The thing contessa nonetoosharpa and confusedatious just "criticized" is EXACTLY what is happening by virtue of the show-type-trials being foisted on us by the Obama Administration /Holder tag team idiocy team.

YOU liberoidals are the ones setting up this silly "trial." But in DOING so your fearless leaders are "assuring" the public by TELLING the world in effect that there is no danger the "trial" will be fair.

How DO we "showcase" our genuinely superior judicial process by promising NOT to dare use it?

I dunno.

Ask Eric Fucking Douchebag Holder.

The only thing truthful about your posts (and you) are that LIABILITY is your operative principal.

Liabilities are NEGATIVES, so as far as I am concerned, worth nothing. Fortunately for me, you are a speck of fly shit on a message board, and other than being cyber-shit, you do not impact my world. You have no particular power, you cannot change a thing, least of all thinking people's considered opinions. You are incapable of anything but but bigotry. You want to waste your time ranting and shit dropping, feel free, but you have no credence, are just another POS whose opinion does not matter.

bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bigot

Translation: Liability, you win, I got nuthin'...

 

[oreo]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the fucktards who claim that the "islamofascists" have no right to be tried in US Courts should read the Fifth Amendment until they fucking memorize the same.

The Amendment says NO PERSON , it doesn't say NO US CITIZEN....

.

Want to look up the constitution when it regards "enemies of WAR" & whom are NOT citizens of the United States -

Liberals just get dumber every day---

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

The irony meter just fucking exploded.

The thing contessa nonetoosharpa and confusedatious just "criticized" is EXACTLY what is happening by virtue of the show-type-trials being foisted on us by the Obama Administration /Holder tag team idiocy team.

YOU liberoidals are the ones setting up this silly "trial." But in DOING so your fearless leaders are "assuring" the public by TELLING the world in effect that there is no danger the "trial" will be fair.

How DO we "showcase" our genuinely superior judicial process by promising NOT to dare use it?

I dunno.

Ask Eric Fucking Douchebag Holder.

The only thing truthful about your posts (and you) are that LIABILITY is your operative principal.

Liabilities are NEGATIVES, so as far as I am concerned, worth nothing. Fortunately for me, you are a speck of fly shit on a message board, and other than being cyber-shit, you do not impact my world. You have no particular power, you cannot change a thing, least of all thinking people's considered opinions. You are incapable of anything but but bigotry. You want to waste your time ranting and shit dropping, feel free, but you have no credence, are just another POS whose opinion does not matter.

bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bigot

Translation: Liability, you win, I got nuthin'...

No, weezer, what it means is that in the great scheme of things if liability was on fire I would not pour out a pot of piss to save his life, 'cause he just doesn't matter to me. However, he can take comfort in having you around to rub his butt when he is feelin' down, LOL...

 

[Liability]

The only thing truthful about your posts (and you) are that LIABILITY is your operative principal.

Liabilities are NEGATIVES, so as far as I am concerned, worth nothing. Fortunately for me, you are a speck of fly shit on a message board, and other than being cyber-shit, you do not impact my world. You have no particular power, you cannot change a thing, least of all thinking people's considered opinions. You are incapable of anything but but bigotry. You want to waste your time ranting and shit dropping, feel free, but you have no credence, are just another POS whose opinion does not matter.

bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bigot

Translation: Liability, you win, I got nuthin'...

No, weezer, what it means is that in the great scheme of things if liability was on fire I would not pour out a pot of piss to save his life, 'cause he just doesn't matter to me. However, he can take comfort in having you around to rub his butt when he is feelin' down, LOL...

cuntessa nonetoosharpa has nothing. It shows. And I am unquestionably in her little pinhead. I feel almost bad for that poor fucked-up useless little bitch.

 

[oreo]

The only thing truthful about your posts (and you) are that LIABILITY is your operative principal.

Liabilities are NEGATIVES, so as far as I am concerned, worth nothing. Fortunately for me, you are a speck of fly shit on a message board, and other than being cyber-shit, you do not impact my world. You have no particular power, you cannot change a thing, least of all thinking people's considered opinions. You are incapable of anything but but bigotry. You want to waste your time ranting and shit dropping, feel free, but you have no credence, are just another POS whose opinion does not matter.

bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\

Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bigot

Translation: Liability, you win, I got nuthin'...

No, weezer, what it means is that in the great scheme of things if liability was on fire I would not pour out a pot of piss to save his life, 'cause he just doesn't matter to me. However, he can take comfort in having you around to rub his butt when he is feelin' down, LOL...

The entire point is --this liberal dumbass just qouted the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR AN AMERICAN CITIZEN--not a foreign ENEMY COMBATANT.







Da--Duh--Da Duh--Da Duh

 

[Liability]

Face it "C", there are those in our country who would have been extremely comfortable in the Soviet system, and their familiy, "friends," and neighbors would have suffered mightily for it.

The irony meter just fucking exploded.

The thing contessa nonetoosharpa and confusedatious just "criticized" is EXACTLY what is happening by virtue of the show-type-trials being foisted on us by the Obama Administration /Holder tag team idiocy team.

YOU liberoidals are the ones setting up this silly "trial." But in DOING so your fearless leaders are "assuring" the public by TELLING the world in effect that there is no danger the "trial" will be fair.

How DO we "showcase" our genuinely superior judicial process by promising NOT to dare use it?

I dunno.

Ask Eric Fucking Douchebag Holder.

We shall see how much of a show trial it is. Journalists from around the world will be invited to sit in. If the trial is a sham, we will find out soon enough.

The US Judicial system is on trial as much as the terrorists.

We SHALL indeed see. Let's see, also, how honestly you liberoidals keep score.

Do the attorneys for these alleged "criminal" defendants get their motions to suppress the OBVIOUSLY coerced statements tossed out on any or all of the numerous VALID grounds that now exist? If not, then it's a bullshit show trial.

On the other hand, if the statments DO get suppressed, the hope continues that it might be something other than a fraudulent trial.

Then, of course, the motions to dismiss on speedy trial grounds....

Will such motions get denied summarily or given actual consideration? For if they were detained as criminal defendants, then the LENGTH of pre-trial delay before they even got CHARGED is long enough to make "pre-trial delay "a compelling issue, at the very least. Will the attorney's be given a fair hearing on that application (which WILL be coming) or is it just a bogus show trial? If the trial continues after that, then there's the issue of DISCOVERY.

Will the judge give these allegedly "criminal" defendants the same kind of discovery rights that normal criminal defendants get in our criminal justice system? Or are they going to be subjected to some "different" set of rules?

And of course, IF they DO get a "fair trial" pursuant to the RULES already in place for mere CRIMINAL defendants, then there's the question of what happens to these 'defendants" after a possible acquittal.... If they are NOT going to be released from custody upon an acquittal, then the whole trial will be revealed to have been a farce from inception.

The thing the world will be seeing is not just the trial and the calling of witnesses and the taking of testimony and the playing of some tapes, etc. The whole procedure will itself be on trial. And of course, being honest, what the scumbag AG is ACTUALLY doing is hardly a secret: He is putting the BUSH Admnistration "on trial" .... Will that be his agenda when his prosecutors nominally "try" the defendants?

Let's see how honestly you liberoidals mark-up the score cards along the way....

 

[Rozman]

The President and the Attorney General both stated that these guys will be tried and executed after a fair trial. I thought that the purpose of this thing besides paying back the George Soros' of the world and that whole fringe radical left. And to play nicey nice with the French and their European buddies was to give these guys a fair trial.
The President and the Attorney General are both on record saying that these guys will be executed. You libs can't have it both ways. you're yelling and screaming that these guys deserve justice and then we get the two highest American officials in the country prejudging this case.If I'm a defense attorney I'm ready to declare mistrial and have my guys released.

 

[Navy1960]

Hello jillian, here is the question, are Military Tribunals considered due process. in my mind because of the long history of case law in such matters it is. Also as you know, in Article 131 of the Geneva Convention POW's are to tried by the detaining military power. So again Military Tribinals are wholly consistant with that as well as was the case with the International Military Tribunals for those at end of WW2. In my opinion, I see nothing at all wrong with having such trials in a Military setting and as such do not eleminate the constitution when it comes to such trials.

Hi Navy. My problem is less their thinking that military tribunals give them due process, it's their claim that giving them trials is somehow wrong. These same people think that it would have been a travesty to give these people

Why they assume that U.S. citizens haven't been detained at Gitmo when there's been absolutely no accountability is beyond me. These are the same people who won't take an H1N1 vaccine because they "don't trust their governement" since Glen Beck told them not to. But they'll trust their government with coerced confessions and detention without charges?

Something is really butt backward in these people...

not you... you aren't outraged that there's going to be a trial... you just think a military tribunal would have been at least equally appropriate, if i'm reading you correctly.

I find these people who are hoping for another terrorist attack on this country or an acquittal of people who crashed planes into NYC just for their own political gain to be incomprehensible. To me they're sick and anti-American.

Jillian, in my opinion holding trial(s) for these individuals that have comiitted acts of war should be done in a Military setting for several reasons, one is it ls consistant with existing case law, it is consistant with tradition, and it is also within the bounds set down by at least 3 decisions that I know of by the USSC. That said, the key here is in the "status" of the individual. If say the person, is accused of a domestic act of terror of course that person should be accorded a trial. However, seperating that individual from an Act of War, (combatant and non-combatant) at least to me is a very important as to where the trial should take place and it's very clear that someone like KSM meets the criteria for having committed an act of war. There is also something else to consider here as well, and that is discovery, and chain of evidence, is completely different in the 2 different settings and in my opinion when someone is accused of an act of war the best setting for that is a setting where the chain of evidence and discovery will not expose Americans in the field to harm. My feelings are that a trial in a Military Tribunal do meet the constitutional standard and these Tribunals are subservient to the Supreme Court. The real mistake make with these prisoners is not granting them this "status" and allowing for this issue to linger as long as it has. I do agree however, that if a person can be tried in Federal system and by reading the these matters it's a clear matter of this status and how the President along with Congressional constitutional guidelines chooses to dispose of it. Even though as mentioned my feelings are Military Tribunals are a much better and traditional way to process such matters and as you well know no trial should ever be held in any venue for any reason based on how much good will it will bring.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, my 2 Cents on the matter:

1: Wether a military court is valid for these kind of people (who are by no means homogenous) would depend a) on the court and b) on the "suspect" in question.
Military courts can be "due process", the Nuremberg trials could be considered as an example of that. However, the Bush admininsation system of "Military tribunals" did not appear to be granting "due process". The defendands in Gitmo had by far less rights than the defenders in Nuremberg (noone got the idea to Waterboard Goering), something that was vividly discussed in at least Germany.

Basically, my first issue is not with military courts per se, it is with the military tribunals as desinged by the previous administration.
Secondly, the historical example for the "unlawfull combatant", the Eisentraeger case was a clear example of Victors justice (to the credit of the US, the detainees were "pardoned" relativly quickly afterwards).
Eisentraeger et. al. were far eastern based members of the German military who continued to fight/provide intelligence (iirc it was a data decryption unit) under Japanese command after Germanys surrender. If Eisenträger was a war criminal because of that, the US would have had its hands full with imprisoning every single member of the Free French forces or Dutch pacific forces, since those troops also fought on (by themself in the case of the free french, under Australian, British or UK command in the case of the dutch) after their nation surrendered.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again retard the SUPREME COURT approved the use of Military tribunals for them, what part of that are you incapable of understanding?

One might object to an activist supreme court making a decision based on political expedience and not the rule of law as explcitly stated in the Constitution (if one were objective and not a partisan).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the fucktards who claim that the "islamofascists" have no right to be tried in US Courts should read the Fifth Amendment until they fucking memorize the same.

The Amendment says NO PERSON , it doesn't say NO US CITIZEN....

.

Want to look up the constitution when it regards "enemies of WAR" & whom are NOT citizens of the United States -

Liberals just get dumber every day---

Where in the Constitution does it discuss "enemies of war & whom are NOT citizens"?