No, but you wouldn’t choose their brother to judge the case either. You’d try to get someone who was as far removed from the case as possible, so they could be impartial.
Can someone more knowledgable about legal matters then I fill me in on the basis for why the non-US citizens are being tried by the US at all? Why cant the citizens of what are after all friendly allied states, Australia and the UK, be tried by those countries?
I think this disturbs me even more then any potential for injustice from a military tribunal.
And the ‘logic’ grows odder.
Are you saying that members of the military are incapable of impartially considering the facts, since they are ‘brothers’? (as in ‘Band of Brothers’ I presume?) Garbage. The same system that presides over the 1.3 million men and women of our armed forces (brothers in arms!) is more than capable of fairly conducting the trials of the Gitmo prisoners.
The European Court of Human Rights has recently overturned the right of the British armed forces to try their personnel using a very similar system. In future, military justice in Britain will have to allow an independent judge (not within the military command structure) and freely available independent counsel.
It is apparent to me that whereas thirty years ago the legal system in the US was probably the leader of all systems in protecting the rights of the individual against the state, increasingly it has become (through the ratcheting rightward by appointments from Reagan and Bush) a far more ‘statist’ rather than ‘individualist’ court. The European Court of Human Rights now provides a considerably more humane and individualist model.
There is no de facto basis for these men being tried by US tribunals, IF Lindh is being tried in a US court. The de jure viewpoint on the legitimacy of military trials is “to the victor go the spoils”… ie. the United States won the (undeclared) war in Afghanistan and of course has the concerned parties in its custody- thus they should be tried in the US. The United States does not really have any claim to jurisdiction- war was not declared on Afghanistan, so these men cannot be tried as POWs. So, the US has no more claim to jurisdiction than the home states of the individuals concerned, and much less than Afghanistan when a stable government and judiciary are created.
The logic does indeed grow odder. Your logic – as usual.
Think about the words conflict of interest, independent, and without prejudice, among others.
The problem people have been articulating rather successfully here, your dumb-down replies notwithstanding, is the concern that trials be as fair as possible. Military courts are not independent. They are not subject to independent review. There is no appeal. The proceedings are closed. There is no guarantee beyond that issued by the courts themselves that proceedings will be fair and impartial. There is no accountability. There is no guarantee that prejudice will be kept out of the picture, and there are reasons to believe that prejudice will play a role.
All of this has been explained in simple terms, and yet you delve into idiotic analogies and provide the stunningly foolish conclusion that the “same system that presides over the 1.3 million men and women of our armed forces … is more than capable of fairly conducting the trials of the Gitmo prisoners.” Well, gee, is it such a stretch to imagine that Colonel Mott of the US Army would be inclined to look more favourably upon Private Joe than Detainee Ali? And without indpendent or external corroboration, who is to tell?
If you were as obviously correct as you think you are, Brutus, opposition to the military courts could be argued away with a minimum of fuss, rather than bringing in your obtuse analogies. But it’s a question of how deluded a point a view you really want to have. For now, you may have to accept the simple truth that the US actions and statements regarding the detainees do pose grounds of some concern.
Capable, yes. Nobody would suggest that any court would be unable to fairly conduct a trial…
…the issue at hand is whether fairness is guaranteed or even likely, and we have yet to see even a suggestion that US military tribunals will treat foreign nationals, charged with crimes against the state that all others present at said trials have sworn to defend, as evenhandedly as their own countrymen.
Consider: exactly how many lawyers do you think the US Army has on its payroll who are fluent in Arabic, or could even read a single sentence in said language?
Because we have read the thread and the articles linked to? As has been discussed in many threads, the order establishing the military tribunals sets them up with less than full guarantees. And even if they did have full guarantees, civilian crimes should not be tried in military tribunals. The whole thing stinks and I hope the world will raise a stink if, indeed, the USA does this which seems pretty likely as facilities, including death chamber, are being built.
When China or Cuba or other countries try people with less than fair standards and full guarantees, the USA and other countries raise a stink and rightly so. I hope the entire civilised world will make their opinion heard about this inadmissible practice.
What crimes are these prisoners accused of? Doesn’t the location of the alleged crime have something to do with the trial venue?
I thought some (all?) of these guys were accused of some participation in the 9/11 attacks on the USA. If that is so, shouldn’t they be tried in the USA? (In the same way that a Spanish man who murders an American in Iowa would be tried in Iowa-- even if he was apprehended in Spain).
However, if some of these prisoners are accused of some crime commited against U.S. military forces in Afghanistan then shouldn’t they be treated as POWs? Is it illegal now to fight against an invading military force? Even if it wasn’t declared it seems like war to me.
The USA never declares war anymore, anyway. Not in Iraq (either time), Vietnam, Korea and AFAIK, Grenada and Panama too. How were NVA soldiers treated during and after Vietnam? I would guess as POWs, but I don’t know.
Someone mentioned earlier that the Supreme Court won’t get involved because we are in a time of war. Are these men accused of war crimes? What about the Geneva Convention then? But some say that doesn’t apply because the accused are civilians-- then shouldn’t they be tried as such? Just because you’re the baddest mofo on the block doesn’t mean you can have it both ways. (Or does it??) That’s why there are international laws, treaties and conventions. But the hell with that, right?
Fuck that. We impeach for a blow-job but will we impeach for gross travesties of international justice?
On a slightly related note-- there is still a war going on in Iraq. Right now. American soldiers are being killed in battle. Don’t let the Bush administration tell you our dead and injured personnel are anything other than casualties from a war that they started.
When one nation invades another nation, the invaded have every right to try to repel the invaders. Please ask yourself how you would react if foreign armies were invading YOUR country.
We here in the USA were invaded by the British a couple of centuries ago. Against a vastly superior force we fought back any way that we could. And we followed no rules of war that I know of. We were guerrillas that hid behind trees and picked off Brits without any warning. And we weren’t even a sovereign nation!
This once and future great nation better get it’s fat head out of its hypocritical ass real quick-like and join the rest of civilization on the planet Earth.
But the Spaniard in your hypothetical case would have to have an extradition hearing in Spain, at least, which would be subject to Spanish law and one would at least know what the charges were against him, as well as there needing to be sufficient evidence for the Spanish to agree to extradite him. There might also be issues related to the fact that the US has the death penalty (Spain does not). Your hypothetical “Spaniard killing American in Iowa, captured in Spain” would probably not result in extradition to the US unless the Iowa DA agreed to prosecute it as a “non-death-penalty” case. Look at the case of Ira Einhorn, in which a US citizen (Einhorn) apparently murdered another US citizen (Holly Maddux) in Philadelphia in 1979, then fled the US, ending up in France. After more than two decades, he was finally extradited to the US. In this case, however, there is a huge amount of direct evidence against Einhorn. If there is similar evidence against the Guantanamo Bay detainees, it has not been revealed to us.
Of course, the other side of the coin is the Mossad’s abduction of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina for trial (and eventual execution) in Israel on charges involving WW2 war crimes. At least in Eichmann’s case, there was a general consensus that he had commited crimes against humanity. For the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, who (outside of a select few) knows anything about the crimes that they are supposed to have commited?
Not wishing to be too nitpicky, but to which conflict do you refer? In neither 1776 nor 1812 were the British a “vastly superior force”, in numbers at least. For the War of 1812, the US was most definitely a sovereign nation. For the War of Independence, the idea that “We here in the USA were invaded by the British” would be a bizarre take on the generally-accepted historical facts. If California attempted to secede from the USA tomorrow, the Federal counter-response would not be an “Invasion by the US” by any stretch of the imagination.
Brutus et al: Would you object to being tried by a military tribunal if you were accused of trying to kill your neighbor?
it is not for us to prove the military trials are unfair, it is for you to prove first that the civilian justice system is incapable of dealing and cannot be made capable of dealing and why.
Besides, read the title of the thread: why are only US citizens allowed civilian legal representation?. They are unfair even before they start. Not to mention a bunch of other issues like no appeals etc. Yes, under these conditions the trials are not fair. Military or not, that is not justice.
I seriously doubt that the Gitmo prisoners will be charged with 'trying to kill [their] neighbor. Anyhow, the question is irrelevant, since I would not be shacking up with the enemies of America, especially following the 9/11 attacks. How dumb were these guys?
**
I am to take the title of a thread as a valid cite? Get real.
From the provided (but obviously not read) ABC cite:
Gee fucking whiz, where does it mention that only American citizens would be allowed civilian representation? Here is a hint: It doesn’t. You can go represent one of the angelic little terrorists down there, if you like.
I was referring to the American Revolution, and although I am not an expert on the subject, I maintain that the British had a vastly superior force. For example, they had a large and powerful navy against which we essentially had John Paul Jones and a few boats. The British sent a huge (by contemporary standards) amphibious force (over 30,000, I think) against the Americans. We barely had that many muskets. And then there is training and supplies. And while the Brits effort in 1775 might not have been an invasion in the sense of the Allied invasion of France in 1944, I think that it was an invasion nonetheless.
But my point was that folks don’t like it when other folks show up on their doorsteps telling them what to do. In fact, when this happens, people tend to want to repulse the people doing the bossing around and will use any means necessary to do so. We see that in Iraq today, and I don’t think anyone should be shocked or surprised that some Iraqis are still fighting.
Of course all this talk about Iraq was a hijack of the OP anyway. Sorry.
US citizens are guaranteed representation of their choice before free and fair courts (remember that Constitution thing that used to guarantee your rights before the Patriot Act and recent events). Therefore US citizens would not be at Camp Nightmare in Guantanamo- it would be illegal, hence John Lindh Walker’s trial in a regular court.
Foreign citizens (including at least two who share my nationality) are to be denied such rights:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3046064.stm
"There are a number of important differences between military tribunals and civilian courts:
Many safeguards given to defendants in civilian courts - such as protection against self-incrimination, right to the defence of one’s choice and to be told of the prosecution’s charges and evidence - do not necessarily apply.
Convictions in civilian courts must be unanimous, while military tribunals could convict by a two-thirds majority.
Different rules of evidence apply, with lower standards for admission.
Defendants are not guaranteed the right to appeal against convictions in military tribunals.
Civilian trials must be open to the public, military tribunals can be held in secret."
Additionally, there is the presumption of innocence. If your comment:
“You can go represent one of the angelic little terrorists down there, if you like.”
is anything to go by, you are quite happy to dispense with this niceity.
Or perhaps thats just for people that your government has kidnapped (illegally) and removed to a place of confinement and virtual torture without any recognized legal authority.
The more this Camp Nightmare scenario plays out, the lower will be the the esteem in which the civilized world holds the USA. The British press has been very anti the recent actions by Bush and his cronies in deciding to ‘try’ these people just in time for his potential election in 2004 (re-election would imply that he really won in 2000 
).
Let’s face it, this man is planning to intimidate two of my fellow citizens by placing them before a kangaroo court whilst building a death chamber next to them and threatening to carry out an act that is almost unanimously thought to be barbarous by the civilized world. All to help him keep the reins of power.
This won’t play well in the UK, let me tell you.
That is wrong. If it is good enough for foreigners it is good enough for Americans.
That is wrong. Civilian courts should have jurisdiction. Also, the rules of evidence are different and give the military too much latitude.
That is wrong, especially when the death sentence can be imposed. Civil juries require unanimity.
The right to appeal is a basic pillar of fair justice. These tribunals do not come even close to being fair justice and are closer to a farce like what passes for justice in China and Cuba.
sailor: The rules of evidence are different, to varying degrees, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But keep on posting irrelevancies, please. I need the entertainment.
Abe: You said above that military trials are not subject to review. That’s an incorrect generalization. We do have the Court of Military Appeals (staffed by civilian judges, btw) and the Supreme Court, both of which review cases arising in the Armed Forces. Now, the terrorism tribunals might not have judicial review, but that doesn’t mean that the military courts en toto don’t.
A little silly to suggest that sailor is posting irrelevancies when you are splitting hairs over “military courts en toto” and the terrorist tribunals; clearly, we aren’t discussing military courts en toto.
Thus the qualification, hey, dutch? You and I don’t appear to be discussing those courts en toto; however, sailor’s comment certainly implied that he is.
dutchboy208 was correct. My post quite clearly was referring exclusively to the executive order establishing the military tribunals which states
This might be a novel concept for you here, sailor, but try to be clear about what you mean. What you said then and what you say now are two different things.