dutchboy208, I’m sorry, but you don’t RC - the UK no longer has the death penalty for high treason, hasn’t since human rights legislation across the EU was harmonized in 1998.
Thanks… I didn’t know if the ECHR addressed that.
Where is the evidence that the prisoners face inhumane treatment, as you claimed?
Humans have the right to not be executed without a fair trial? That might be the inhumane part coming into play.
No one has been executed, so what are you talking about?
None of them have been sentenced at all… the issue is that the MAY be executed.
And pigs MAY fly. So what?
They are facing inhumane treatment when they are tried in the future.
I would have thought this was obvious… but an argument over whether their rights are being violated is going to be rather academic * after they have been executed *. no?
Don’t be ridiculous. So If a law is enacted which says the police can come into your house and fuck your wife, you would not worry until they actually do it? The fact that they say they can do it is already a violation of your rights.
How does being subjected to trial = inhumane treatment?
A trial without all legal safeguards of due process seems pretty inhumane to me. That is what the OP is about. Have you read the thread?
To respond to the OP, my take on the situation is that by having the detention/trials outside the US (on a US base on Cuban soil) and treating the American citizen’s more or less constitutionally, the administration hopes to avoid all issues of constitutionality while minimizing mad (domestic) PR issues.
Historically in times of war the Supreme Court has been reluctant to rule on these sorts of cases until the end of the emergency.
This “emergency” will NOT end within these prisoners’ lifetimes, unless an extreme change in Arab attitudes toward the US takes place; the Supreme Court will have to rule on this.
What I don’t understand is why everyone assumes that a military trial can’t be fair and just. American military personel are subject to military courts, and there is not a lot of outrage there (recent Canada friendly fire case notwithstanding). If there is a friendly fire incident, for example, it doesn’t go to civilian courts, it goes to military tribunals. I’m sure (though don’t know for sure) that the British, the French, etc. all have military courts that they would contend are fair and just, and they use them accordingly and this would be one of the times they would do so.
Civilian courts are unprepared for these sorts of cases. Sure, they are not naive and they haven’t not seen everything already, but they are created for interpreting US laws and the the US constitution and how they apply to actions by civilians. To apply this interpretation to activities in foreign lands where the US law does not have jurisdiction is absurd. (though it has happened).
And you can’t have Taliban-run courts deciding on this. And the Belgians, though willing I am sure, have neither jurisdiction nor interest, they’d much rather put Colin Powell on trial for liberating Iraq from a dictator in order to highlight how sensible and cultured they are.
Now, if you can show several examples of military courts injustice and incompetency then I might be swayed. But for now opposition against it is merely driven by the pie in the sky, “capital punishment is wrong because a bunch of European countries are so much more culturally advanced than we are have abolished it so it must be wrong and how dare we put people that tried to kill our military on trial, and let’s face it the US is too powerful and deserves to be put in its place because they are not culturally worthy of being the sole superpower” hogwash that I hear every day from people I know and love but have been so brainwashed they can’t think for themselves. Give me a break.
The best part of the whole deal, is if Bill Clinton came out tomorrow in support of military trials, all this opposition would suddenly disappear.
If US law doesn’t have jurisdiction, then how exactly do US courts (military or otherwise) have it?
What law are you presuming these men are going to be tried under, if not US?
Your and istara’s political beliefs nonwithstanding, it hardly seems that a trial equates “inhumane” treatment, a term most reasonable people associate with torture and murder.
Well, there’s one BIG difference there.
An american soldier before a military court is being tried by his peers. The Guantanamo defendants will be tried by their enemies. There’s a conflict of interest here which is not normally present in military trials. The court already has a reason to hold a grudge against the defendents - because the military is itself the target of the crimes they are accused of! How can anyone be impartial in those circumstances.
Not to mention … if military justice is all fine and dandy then it should have been good enough for Lindh. There is no justification for treating any of the defendants differently from any others on the basis of where they were born.
That is odd logic. If someone killed a civilian judge (or lawyer, for that matter), is the civilian justice system suddenly unable to cope?
I really don’t believe that anyone is ever tried by his peers. It’s a convenient fiction, apparantly (AFAIC) stemming from the old idea of a jury being made up of those who hold a peerage. For example, in the United States Armed Forces, an Enlisted member very well may be tried in front of a jury which includes commissioned officers. The Enlisted member does have the option of requesting an all Enlisted jury; however, that does not negate the fact that if he doesn’t request that, the jury may have commissioned officers on it. Now onto the proof that those commissioned officers are not the peers of the Enlisted member: no Enlisted member may serve on the jury for a commissioned officer’s court-martial.
That and the kangaroo court called the Article 15 proceeding for sea-duty Sailors and Marines are the two bugaboos in the UCMJ AFAIC.