[QUOTE=Bricker]
I ahve avoided answering that question, because I believe that once that answer is given, people will believe it’s an outrageous crime against basic human rights…
[/QUOTE]
A bit pre-emptive, don’t you think? And there is room for some flex there. Its a crime against basic human rights when practiced upon the guilty, when that guilt has yet to be determined. Its an outrageous crime when visited upon the innocent.
Some of them are likely innocent, right, friend Bricker? Or no?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Look. If you are arrested by a cop today, the cop has to go before a judge and lay out probable cause to hold you. That’s it. While criminal defendents have access to bail, indigent defendents do not.
So it seems to me that you can claim either:
or
True?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but weren’t you at considerable pains to disabuse us of any silly notions like comparing this stuff with standard criminal procedures?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
A bit pre-emptive, don’t you think? And there is room for some flex there. Its a crime against basic human rights when practiced upon the guilty, when that guilt has yet to be determined. Its an outrageous crime when visited upon the innocent.
Some of them are likely innocent, right, friend Bricker? Or no?
[/QUOTE]
Of course. Just as some people arrested by Officer Flatfoot are innocent.
But we do not leap from that fact to removing Officer F’s ability to lock up people.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
or
True?
[/QUOTE]
There is a third option: that the time frames that an indigent accused faces for geing held without trial are unreasonable.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
I’m sorry, but weren’t you at considerable pains to disabuse us of any silly notions like comparing this stuff with standard criminal procedures?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Because the situations are very different. But it’s clear to me that the protections afforded to detained combatants should not be GREATER than those offered to domestic accused criminals. if you don’t agree with that proposition, then I am absolutely at a loss.
So we cannot use the criminal justice system to fashion equivalents. But we can use it as an upper limit.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
There is a third option: that the time frames that an indigent accused faces for geing held without trial are unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]
True enough.
That is a third option. But then my question becomes – where was your outrage for the past fifty years at that situation? Why has it only now surfaced when this situation arose?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
OK, fair enough. As I said before: I think 5 yrears is outrageous, but I don’t think 6 months is unreasonable. If you said it was 2 years, I don’t know how I’d react-- I’d have to see how that compares with other detention times.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting that you’re the ONLY PERSON here to actually offer up an opinion on this question.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Of course. Just as some people arrested by Officer Flatfoot are innocent.
But we do not leap from that fact to removing Officer F’s ability to lock up people.
[/QUOTE]
We don’t have to, we have habeas. Further, I have considerable doubt whether even the guilty could be found guilty in any reasonable court of law. Aside from confession, what evidence could be brought? The defendents Taliban enlistment papers? Local newspapers? Testimony?
Confessions, no doubt, but that opens up a whole different can of vipers.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
True enough.
That is a third option. But then my question becomes – where was your outrage for the past fifty years at that situation? Why has it only now surfaced when this situation arose?
[/QUOTE]
I hope this is the general “you”, as that was my first post in the thread and I have yet to show any outrage. I’m still reading the bill (it takes a while to read 94 pages of legalese in a foreign language) in order to know what I’m outraged about.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
I hope this is the general “you”, as that was my first post in the thread and I have yet to show any outrage. I’m still reading the bill (it takes a while to read 94 pages of legalese in a foreign language) in order to know what I’m outraged about.
[/QUOTE]
Of course; I used the pronoun in its indefinite sense.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
True enough.
That is a third option. But then my question becomes – where was your outrage for the past fifty years at that situation? Why has it only now surfaced when this situation arose?
[/QUOTE]
Even if Priceguy’s outrage is self-serving or even hypocritical, it has no bearing on whether or not his outrage is justified.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
We don’t have to, we have habeas. Further, I have considerable doubt whether even the guilty could be found guilty in any reasonable court of law. Aside from confession, what evidence could be brought? The defendents Taliban enlistment papers? Local newspapers? Testimony?
Confessions, no doubt, but that opens up a whole different can of vipers.
[/QUOTE]
sigh
What habeas issue does a pre-trial criminal defendent present? All the state has to show is that there is probable cause for his arrest. That’s the testimony of the arresting officer. That’s an exact analogy here to the sworn statement requirement of Sec. 948q.
So what facts could a pre-trial criminal defendent present in his habeas petition to be set free that a Gitmo detainee could also use, if only he were granted habeas acecss?
Bricker
If it would help, I could put on a fruit hat and dance like Carmen Miranda if it will get you to pay any attention to my posts.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Even if Priceguy’s outrage is self-serving or even hypocritical, it has no bearing on whether or not his outrage is justified.
[/QUOTE]
sigh redux
I begin from the position that the criminal process guarantees defendents face in this country are presumptively reasonable.
If you wish to debate that, start another thread.
Does any American citizen (or alien, for that matter) in any court but the one we are discussing, have even the remotest potential to be accused and subsequently detained indefinitely without even a preliminary hearing and without even the opportunity to have the charges dismissed on prima fascie grounds (e.g. one is accused of being a pickpocket when they have no arms)?
Those who help themselves…since I can get no substantive answer, Wikipedia must suffice for now. On the right to a “speedy trial”. Quite disturbingly, it’s quite easily circumvented.
It does appear, however, that at least some amount of legal wrangling is required to do so. One might at least have to have some sort of a hearing to use as a delay tactic, which, so far as I can tell, is not required for alleged “enemy combatants” in The War Against Terror.
I must concede, even for myself, that the “right to a speedy trial” I thought I enjoyed is a pretty flimsy-looking one. Sucks to be the innocent guy who can’t post bail if they’ve got unscrupulous prosecutors after them.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
The military commission hearing the case, or the tribunal first evaluating the detainee, requires it of the detainers.
[/quote]
Not to point out that your argument is circular or anything, but when??
Please point out where it says that.
I’m sorry, but didn’t you say you were a lawyer?
What 948c says is that aliens may be tried.
It does not say only aliens may be tried. It is simply silent on the subject.
It does not say “no part of the Military Commissions Act applies to citizens of the United States of America.”
It says nothing about who may be detained. But the definition of UEC doesn’t exclude citizens, and I believe it’s already established that UECs may be detained.
I’m assuming that UECs may be detained.
So far, so good.
No, it doesn’t. You may be a lawyer, Bricker, but that’s a definition, not a statement of scope of the law. All it says is that alien UECs may be tried by the commissions. No more, no less. All else is reading in.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Yet that system is already in place for UCMJ trials. Where was your outrage when the UCMJ was created?
This is nothing new - why is it suddenyl so outrageous?
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. I’m supposed to be omniscient, now. Why, thank you, but I’m not.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I want to hear what you believe reasonable time frames are. Surely you see the relevance of that question.
[/QUOTE]
I see that there is some connection, but hardly a direct one.
Believe it or not, I do have a life, and as it is, this thread’s taken up a lot more time over the past day than I would have expected. If you want to go asking questions that appear to me to be a digression, I’ll answer them if I feel like it. I don’t feel like answering this one.
If I’m obviously dodging an essential point of the argument by not answering, then that’s a completely different matter. But I don’t see that here. Your move.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Yet that system is already in place for UCMJ trials. Where was your outrage when the UCMJ was created?
This is nothing new - why is it suddenyl so outrageous?
[/QUOTE]
Of course, no one claims that the military is a representative republic form of organization with freedom and justice for all. It is authoritarian in the extreme and is designed to be top down. The intelligent high ranks will always seek the counsel of those below them who cactually have to carry out operations but there is no lrequirement for them to do so.
I’ve already stated my doubts about the justice of the military justice system. The only thing that saves it is the good will of the people running it. I think it is for things of that sort that the operating priinciple at West Point is Duty, Honor, Country. Do your duty honorably for the country. JAGs, even non Academy grads have so far upheld that pretty well. That’s to their credit. However when there is the example of a 4 star general like Shinseki being thrown off the ship for saying that more troops in Iraq will be required, what is a JAG to do if his career is threatened from higher up?