I Pit the First Gitmo Kangaroo Court Verdict

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=threemae]
Well, if it’s any consolation, in one more year we ought to have a decent idea about what Mr. Hicks suffered in terms of his detention.
[/QUOTE]

The one year is odd, isn’t it? If there are legitimate reasons for needing him to be quiet, I could understand. But what is it that needs Hicks’ silence now, but doesn’t need it in one year? I mean, the war on terror won’t be over by then.

Of course, the next Australian election will be over within one year. But that’s just a complete co-incidence, I’m sure.

42

[QUOTE=Pjen]
A Nasty smell of hypocrisy

…snip…

All of this smells of a hypocritical cover-up of US activities and an attempt to avoid any fallout- books, interviews, law-suits etc.

And I predict that every single court case will similarly smell of rank hypocrisy and extra-judicial considerations.

A kangaroo court is a kangaroo court.

Isn’t it fortunate for we ironists that the first person to be subjected to this process was a Kangaroo Skinner!
[/QUOTE]

Please post proof that a military tribunal is a kangaroo court. Other than your deep-seated, burning desire that it be one, of course.

43

[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Please post proof that a military tribunal is a kangaroo court. Other than your deep-seated, burning desire that it be one, of course.
[/QUOTE]

  1. This particular form of military tribunal is a kangaroo court because the defendant was denied due process of law, including effective assistance of counsel, and because he was convicted of violating a statute that did not exist when he was arrested, making his conviction unconstitutional under the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws.

  2. Your presence is required here, lameass. And you’ve just provided one more example of a content-free drive-by post.

44

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

  1. This particular form of military tribunal is a kangaroo court because the defendant was denied due process of law, including effective assistance of counsel, and because he was convicted of violating a statute that did not exist when he was arrested, making his conviction unconstitutional under the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws.
    [/QUOTE]

Not to hijack, but wouldn’t that make the post-WWII war crimes tribunals also illegal? And what about when Israel brought one war criminal to trial? Israel didn’t even exist as a country at the time, so there’s no way they had any laws in effect at the time.

Note: I’m not in favor of the Nazis. I think the Nürnberg trials did well.

45

[QUOTE=Monty]
Not to hijack, but wouldn’t that make the post-WWII war crimes tribunals also illegal? And what about when Israel brought one war criminal to trial? Israel didn’t even exist as a country at the time, so there’s no way they had any laws in effect at the time.

Note: I’m not in favor of the Nazis. I think the Nürnberg trials did well.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a lawyer of any kind, but at the time of the Nuremburg trials I and many of those around me thought they were highly questionable. I still think that.

46

[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Please post proof that a military tribunal is a kangaroo court. Other than your deep-seated, burning desire that it be one, of course.
[/QUOTE]

A whole pile of evidence here regarding the conduct of Combatant Status Review Tribunals. (CSRT)

The most striking of which is the case of one detainee, who in spite of the process being totally stacked against him, was found by the tribunal NOT to be an enemy combatant. So the Defense department ordered a second tribunal, which the detainee was not allowed to address, but nonetheless AGREED with the first decision. So a THIRD tribunal was conducted (again in absentia) which finally decided the matter to DoD satisfaction, reversing the previous two decisions.

[QUOTE=from link above]
14. In three of the 102 CSRT returns reviewed, the Tribunal found the detainee to be not/no-longer an enemy combatant. In each case, the Defense Department ordered a new Tribunal convened, and the detainee was then found to be an enemy combatant. In one instance, a detainee was found to no longer be an enemy combatant by two Tribunals, before a third Tribunal was convened which then found the detainee to be an enemy combatant.

  1. When a detainee was initially found not/no-longer to be an enemy combatant:

a. The detainee was not told of his favorable decision;
b. There is no indication that the detainee was informed of or participated in the second (or third) hearings;
c. The record of the decision finding the detainee not/no-longer to be an enemy combatant is incomplete.
[/QUOTE]

The Hearings are conducted by the Department of Defense, which is headed by Robert Gates.

Here is a BBC article explaining his views on the Gitmo situation.

[QUOTE=From link above]

He said how to move the “hard core” detainees while ensuring they do not have access to a legal system where they might be released was “an area where frankly I think there needs to be some dialogue between the Congress and the administration.”
[/QUOTE]

<bolding mine>
I can see no way to interpret the bolded text as NOT being synonymous with due process. So in fact, the fellow in charge of the hearings sees any possibility that a detainee might be found innocent as a problem to be worked around.

I do agree with you to a point though. Labeling this pathetic lip-service to the notion of justice a “Kangaroo Court” is in fact a smear against those noble marsupials.

47

[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Please post proof that a military tribunal is a kangaroo court.
[/QUOTE]
With the caveat that we’re talking about this particular proceeding and not some arbitrary hypothetical trial, the proof goes like this:

  1. You think it isn’t a kangaroo court.

  2. You’re wrong about absolutely everything.

  3. Ergo, it is.
    Quod Erat Kiss My Scrotum.

48

I suspect the first mistake is in the choice of phrase ‘kangaroo court’.

There’s about as much equivalence between these tribunals and a ‘court’ as there is between so-called ‘international law (sic) and a national criminal code and i.e. the equivalence extends as far as the gullibility and ignorance of those the phrase is intended to impress.

49

[QUOTE=Monty]
Not to hijack, but wouldn’t that make the post-WWII war crimes tribunals also illegal?
[/quote]

No. IIRC, the Nazis were accorded due process, and they were charged with violating the international laws of war, among other things. And some were acquitted.

[QUOTE=Monty]
And what about when Israel brought one war criminal to trial?
[/QUOTE]

That was illegal and every Israeli should be ashamed of it.

50

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That was illegal and every Israeli should be ashamed of it.
[/QUOTE]

Illegal… sure, but I’ll disagree about the shameful aspect, since doing an illegal but just thing is sometimes necessary.

51

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Wouldn’t an Australian court have to rule on this issue? And couldn’t it (shouldn’t it?) void the sentence on the basis that there was nohing ressembling to due process leading to it?
[/QUOTE]

In order to be returned to the US from Australia for breaking any of the conditions of his release, Mr Hicks would need to be extradited. That process involves Australian courts, and I can think of a variety of issues that could be raised under Austraian constitutional and common law by Mr Hicks’ lawyers. If necessary, the matters could be taken as far as the High Court.

I don’t think any government of Australia would want to be embarrassed in that way (since the executive would need to participate in the extradition process), and I think that the Howard government would just be hoping that Mr Hicks would not want to risk his freedom in that way before the next federal election.

52

Just out of curiosity, when does Mr. Howard’s job come up for redistribution?

53

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Just out of curiosity, when does Mr. Howard’s job come up for redistribution?
[/QUOTE]
The last federal election was in October 2004, so the next election will be October this year, at the latest. Like in many countries where the Westminster system of parliament operates, Howard can dissolve parliament and call an election early if he wants to, so it’s possible that we could see the next election earlier than October.

As an aside, i think that allowing early elections is stupid, and that the government should serve out the complete term. This not only prevents the additional expense of excessively frequent elections, it also prevents the government from calling an election at a time that is politically advantageous to itself. I think the term should also be increased from three years to four.
[/steps of soapbox]

54

Regarding the Nuremberg trials – at least the Nazis got trials. Churchill wanted to classify them as “outlaws” and hang them without trial.