And Monty should know- he has proven to my satisfaction that in matters of Military law he knows his shit.
I do have had some experience with the JAGs office, and they seem pretty professional to me.
But “death camps”? Come on now. :rolleyes:
Let me see…We are going to try these men in a court on American land in Cuba.
They will be allowed to mount a defense.
They are from a country 6k miles away.
Any or all evidence would be located in said country.
So why not send them back to be tried in said country?
Why try them in Cuba?
Simple.
It will be a kangaroo court.
That is the most fallaciouis logic ever tried on these boards, Reeder. And that’s saying something, what with the current fun inthe “lekatt” threads.
Not all of the evidence is still located in those countries. There are alleged participants in the alleged crimes who just so happen to be right there in Cuba also.
The said country just might not want them back until after trial.
It’s the procedure, not the locale, that defines a kangaroo court. See my comment above about the shipboard Captain’s Mast (Article 15). In that procedure:
[list=1][li]The rules of evidence do not apply.[/li][li]There is no right to demand trial by court-martial in lieu of Article 15.[/li][li]There is no appeal of the verdict, merely of the severity of the punishment.[/li][li]The accused is not guaranteed the right to confront his accusers. Nor is he even guaranteed the right to hear what they said to the commanding officer.[/list=1][/li]THAT’S a kangaroo court.
Thanks, DrDeth.
So, according to you Monty. All the evidence or coraberating testimony they need is right there in the camp with them?
Simple definition of a kangaroo court. The definition most people use…
The end is pre-ordained. Regardless of the evidence.
Reeder:
Maybe because we prefer to keep them on a small island where we can more easily track them, should they escape, in a military institution much more secure than any jail in the US? Just a hunch. Really, why does it matter whether they’re tried on an island off the US coast, or in DC, or in a Hard Rock Cafe in Vegas? Does the continental US emit “legitimacy waves” that aren’t present in G.B.?
DrDeth:
Good point regarding the juries. Hadn’t thought about that.
Spavined Gelding:
An “unlawful combatant” is, in layman’s terms, someone who has effectively declared war on the US without obeying the rules of war. Two big no-no’s are you don’t deliberalty attack civilians, and you don’t wear civilian clothing. The terrorists did (or conspired to do) both.
Jeff
This from the BBC:
The US Supreme Court defined the terms “enemy combatant” and “unlawful combatant” in the case Ex Parte Quirin. The case centered on eight Nazi saboteurs who had crossed the Atlantic and arrived in the US, where they were planning to blow up bridges and power plants, etc. They were caught by American law enforcement authorities, who turned them over to the military. The military promptly tried them, and sentenced them to death.
Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court confirmed that Congress and the President have authority to try Nazi terrorists operating in the US, and that the trials can be before military commissions. The United States was able to execute the saboteurs because they were not deemed to be prisoners of war but unlawful combatants.
No. The Bush administration initially treated all the soldeirs captured in Afghanistan as unlawful combatants, but later gave POW status to the members of the Taliban military.
Other than Ex parte Quirin, I’m not aware of any. But we’re getting out of my league here. Maybe Monty could answer this one.
I applaud this. It’s about time. They’ve been there far too long, at least something is finally being done. I was starting to think they’d just keep them detained until they all died of old age !
This is what I’ve been wanting for a long time. Charge them, try them, sort out their status and their innocence or guilt. Don’t just hold them for a lengthy yet indeterminate time. There will be enough publicity about the tribunals that I’m not concerned about a gross miscarriage of justice here. The gross miscarriage was keeping them detained for 15 months without ascertaining their status sooner, IMO.
The only thing about this that disgusts me, are the leaders of the countries who don’t want their citizens back. I don’t believe it’s just to pick and choose which citizens are worthy of the protection of governmental interest. John Howard, you disgust me for not looking out for all your citizens. You should’ve been pushing the US to do this sooner. I have to follow the laws of the land and pay taxes, the least I expect in return is my government to act on my behalf if I was detained by another nation without being charged. Once they’re charged it’s another matter entirely.
And we know that these people are unlawful combatants … how?
Because they’re being held in the Guantanamo Bay facility, and the Guantanamo Bay facility is for holding unlawful combatants, so therefore they must be unlawful combatants?
Forgive me for my emotional outburst. This particular travesty, for some reason, put me over the top. I’ll withdraw the comment about advocating the violent overthrow of the government. After reading the ‘fer’s’ and ‘agins’ so far, I think I’ll leave the rest stand.
I’d have to scrutinize the details of the tribunal tirals carefully before weighing in fully. However, there does need to be some sort of disposition of these folks. I do hope we put a legal process in place that stand up to reasonable scrutiny. I don’t think there is much to fear from giving these guys a fair trail in the eyes of the world. There is much room for debate about what constitutes a fair trial in this instance, but I’d like to see the administration err a bit more on the cautious side than they seem to have done so far. (“Cautious side” meaning more like a std state-side trial or internationally accepted prisoner of war type trial.)
I do have to say, though, that calling these “death camps” is not only a play to emotionalism, but a huge insult to those people who suffered and died in the real death camps of Germnay, the USSR, Cambodia, etc. The Guantanimo facilitiies are no more “death camps” than is any maximum security prison found in the US.
Kabong: I salute your retraction (about “violent overthrow”). That is a rare event on this board!
DrDeth:
For my sincere edification, what law would this be? Thanks in advance.
**
U.S. Military men can be subjected to a death sentence without possibility of appeal?
Funny, I thought you said they were only alleged terrorists.
Great- the old logic of “a criminal like him doesn’t deserve a fair trial!” The day I have to spell out why that’s fallacious is the day it’s no longer worthwhile for me to post in GD.
That’s not even close to what I said. Try addressing what I actually said insterad
Simple definition of a kangaroo court. The definition most people use…
The end is pre-ordained. Regardless of the evidence.
[/QUOTE]
That would be the procedure to which I referred earlier, now wouldn’t it?
No. Even in the military, a trial (other than the aforementioned seagoing article 15), there’s an avenue of appeal. Article 15 punishments cannot include death, though.
Article 15 punishments are not even judicial. There is no court involved. It’s just you and your commanding officer.
Been there done that.
In case anybody really wants to know the legal reason these guys do not fall within the scope of the Geneva Convention, there’s some analysis in this GQ thread. Also note that while a tribunal/court is supposed to resolve any questions of a prisoner’s status under the Convention, (a) somebody’s gotta raise some facts capable of getting these guys within the Convention’s definition of POW, and most of these guys don’t come anywhere near those requirements, and (b) there’s no requirement that any particular tribunal resolve the question, so it would undoubtedly be just another U.S. military court.
Maybe I missed some retraction in the news stories. The claim I read was that the Guantanamo tribunals will be able to sentence people to death without possibility of appeal.
Have I misread it?
Can anyone find the original article this was sourced from? The Mail on Sunday has to post their articles somewhere, right? This might be their website, but nothing there.
A few comments, now that my initial explosion of outrage has passed and I’m just simmering rather than boiling over:
Yes, “death camp” is a rather inflammatory term, and even if Bush does his worst, will probably not be a relevant analogy in this situation.
I did not mean to malign the integrity of any individual member of the JAG corps, but let’s just say the situation here is such that the deck would be quite stacked against any defense counsel, no matter how competent. What is the standard of proof in a case like this? Is it guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or something less strict like preponderance of the evidence? If the latter, how is any defendant going to come up with exculpatory evidence with the kind of time and geographical and logistical restrictions placed on a detainee?
First the POW issue needs to be decided. Otherwise, how can you even determine what kind of trial they will undergo?
For the umpteenth time, there has been no independent determination made as to whether they are unlawful combatants, or even an independent agreement of what the term “unlawful combatant” means or its ramifications under international law.
[I corrected your spelling for you.] The ICRC may deliver letters here and there, but a) AFAIK they do not divulge information about the internees to outside organizations, so any information they have collected is pretty useless for shedding light on the nature and transparency of camp conditions; and b) they are not in the business of making determinations of guilt or innocence, or whether the people they serve are or are not Al-Qaeda members or “unlawful combatants.”
[quote]
answer to Eva’s long post quoting sections of the Geneva Conventions (doubtless out of context, there are over a hundred treaties making up the body of law, and no one here is qualified to quote a few sections and make an informed opinion)**
IANAL, and I never claimed to be an expert in international law. However, I do have some work-related familiarity with some of the Geneva Conventions. I used to work in Immigration Court, and one of my jobs was to liaise with the State Dept. and make sure they issued advisory opinions in political asylum cases. Plus I have served as an interpreter in hundreds of political asylum cases, a situation in which international law is referenced quite frequently, and it’s hard to be a good interpreter if you don’t know what’s going on. I always got superior ratings from all parties on my interpreting skills; many of those folks were also bilingual, and so believe me, they would have called me on it if I’d rendered anything inaccurately. I kept my ears open in my years in Immigration Court, and I learned stuff, from lawyers for both sides and from the judges. Try keeping an open mind; you might learn something.
There are numerous Geneva Conventions, but the one I linked is the main one that deals with prisoners of war and related issues. Since I so conveniently provided a link in the other thread to the specific treaty that addresses the treatment of enemy forces captured in wartime, please feel free to show me how I may have quoted anything out of context. If you’re too lazy to read the damn treaty, then stop accusing me of warping the facts.
[P.S. My search bar at home is kaput, so if anyone would link to the treaty here, I’d appreciate it. There is actually lots more detail about required treatment of POWs, but I think I got the main points relevant to this discussion.]
FWIW, I don’t necessarily think a jury trial is the way to go here, either; how the hell would you select a jury? But the proposed system seems to have little to no oversight. It worries me.
For arguments about whether the detainees qualify as POWs, see the other thread.