Sure, he said that in another post after I’d replied. I’m not psychic.
I didn’t say he had unlimited power to subvert the trials process. But he’s sure tried as best as his position will allow, hasn’t he? That’s concern enough, is it not?
As was pointed out a few posts back, the concern - which is being expressed by folks in the know - is that if the Administration farks this up, half-assed “Trials” could result in dismissals and screwups of the most colossal order.
Well, let’s take the “worst case” scenario, lets just say that the onerous restrictions imposed by LAJ (Liberal Activist Judges) result in verdicts of acquittal.
Imagine the look on the faces of our various and sundry enemies (who you can be sure will be predicting a kangaroo court…). Imagine the support this would offer to those moderates who might very well like to defend us, but have no ground to stand on. Imagine an America that means what it says about justice, and the rule of law, the rights of even the lowest and meanest of us to fair trial.
Besides which, we turn them loose…then what? Where do they go but to their respective nations of origin, to face whatever proceedings await them there. The comrades in arms won’t trust them, they will want to know what they said, what they revealed, to get such cushy treatment, because they will never, ever believe that the acquittals are a result of our judicial virtue.
And if we release those we cannot prove guilty and keep the one’s we can, wouldn’t that strengthen our position that they are, in fact, guilty? And wouldn’t this mean that persons who might be inclined to offer us information would have tangible assurance that they are doing the right thing?
If we play strictly fair and kosher, we may very well lose the battle, but go a long, long way to winning the war.
Umm, sorry, dude, but I think that schoolbusses full of kids bombed to terrorize jurors is the “worst case scenario”. By far.
I also agree that it’s really too much to ask of ordinary civilians to serve on juries of “ordinary” murderous gangsters. However, the Constitution gives us no choice in that matter. Apparently we can try the suspected terrorists in Military Courts however- perfectly legally within US and Int’l law. Thus, in order to protect the jurors and their families we should do so.
I do not agree to any “special tribunals” however.
No? Perhaps not. For myself, I could predict exactly where he was going with that…and so am not surprised by his 90% prediction. Maybe I’m more familiar with him than you are though. 
Oh, I have no doubt he WANTS to do so. I have no doubt that in his own inept way he’s given it the old college try too. What I doubt is his potential to do so…especially in the current national climate.
No doubt. Again though, I think its about potential. They have already been twarted on this by the courts, and while they can appeal, in the end they aren’t going to get their way, no matter how much Bush wants it.
-XT
Can anyone explain why these people are being given trials at all, military or otherwise? It’s a pure farce. Confessions based on torture, standards of evidence that the defense cannot know about, let alone rebut, and other insane nonsense. If these go through, they will make a mockery of military justice. The reality is that none of these people have been treated according to any sensible legal or treaty standard, and as such, there’s no sensible way to start doing so.
This whole thing is a political gambit: yet more highly important foriegn policy turned into a rushed vote for the benefit of elections. What a fantastic way to make policy this has been!
Was that a distinction you felt compelled to make? To what end?
No, I think a far worse scenario is for the US to invade a country in search of terrorists, when that other country was not associated with terrorist activity in the US, and then be stuck in that country with no way out, because, bad as the situation is after the invasion, getting out would only make it worse.
Didn’t you post this “Well, let’s take the “worst case” scenario, lets just say that the onerous restrictions imposed by LAJ (Liberal Activist Judges) result in verdicts of acquittal…”? 
To me, that sez that the 'worst case scenario= verdicts of acquital", where I beleive that the families of the jury members being killed to terrorize the jury into acquital is a *far * worse scenario.
Thank you, Cervaise for putting clearly and succintly why I think the ordinary criminal court system should be used, and also pointing out that the administration is going unnecessarily batshit about this whole thing.
I think the administration has given itself (and the country) a huge problem by going batshit over terrorism and not treating the terrorists with basic criminal defense (really human) rights.
Well, how about them all bending a knee to thier new Satanic Insect Overlords, that would be a worse scenario, huh? Gotcha there, don’t I?
I fail to see what point you think you establish, but hey! freak freely, I always say.
If they could do that and wanted to they would, trial or no trial. Since they haven’t, they can’t or aren’t interested in terrorism on American soil. They largely blew their wad and got lucky on 9-11, and really have less than no reason to try again. We are doing far more damage to ourselves than they could, and another such attack would just pull us together; it makes much more sense to let us self destruct. If they want to kill Americans, they can do it in Iraq.
There’s also the question of why they would bother to terrorise the courts. If the prisoners are innocent, we make ourselves look bad by imprisoning, torturing and railroading them. If they are guilty, we martyr them by imprisoning or executing them. They win either way, so there’s no reason to bother blowing up anything to coerce some jury.
As well, I doubt they believe it would make a difference anyway; we’ve already blown the possibility of the terrorists or most anyone else outside this country believing in a fair trial. They won’t bother to coerce a jury if they don’t think the jury is really making the decision, anyway.
Finally, it’s not like we haven’t already killed whole schools’ worth of children in the name of the “War on Terror”; let’s not pretend we care. Unless, of course it’s the thought of American children being killed, instead of subhuman foreigners that qualifies it as a “worst case” to you.
Accused terroists.
Damn, Der, have you ever seen the top without going straight over?
Fair point.
I don’t think we’ve totally “blown the possibility of the terrorists or most anyone else outside this country believing in a fair trial.” I think if we can hold trials that appear to be open, public and fair based on traditional American and international standards of justice, we will convince much of the world (including the Islamic world) that we have treated the accused terrorists properly. I think this can best be acheived in the context of an existing court system, like the civilian criminal courts or even courts-martial applying the UCMJ. I think this will be extremely difficult to do with military tribunals that are partially secret.
It’s law.
It’s criminal law.
Bricker won’t post to it.
That tells you about all you need to know.
However as an added bonus, the other relevant fact is that the ‘charges’ or ‘offenses’ were forumulated after and with complete reference to the arrest and interrogation. IOW, collect evidence, interrogate then gussy up something that can pass muster as legal before the lower 50% of the educational curve. Clinton impeachment all over again really.
Doesn’t there need to be a shred of some evidence, or even an some detail of what crime specifically the person is accused of, to get a judge to write a warrant in normal cases?
I don’t understand why the suspected terrorists should be tried in military courts if they aren’t military. If they are enemy POWs (in which case they should have been held according to the Geneva convention, not tortured at secret CIA prisons), they might belong in front of a military court. But in the case of the many people living in the US and arrested in the dead of the night, why shouldn’t they be tried in normal court like the right-wing terrorists (McVeigh and others) or organized crime? Because they are muslims?
Cervaise’s post was quite good.
I’d also like to add that in those instances where accused prisoners are from other countries - were they caught during the Afghanistan or Iraq war/occupation? Then they should be POWs and belong in front of a (proper) military court, I guess.
If they were simply abducted somewhere (or, as the CIA has also done, secretly handed over to countries where torture is known to be practised, to get info without getting their own hands guilty) - then they should be released, because it’s against the law to do so.
In case of European countries, release the prisoners so they can be tried there. And just because there is no “Jury” system doesn’t mean we don’t have fair courts. A judge can also have a just trial.
In case of Muslim countries, this might be more difficult, to either get them tried there, or, to follow procedure in the future, to get an extradition. But that problem has been encountered before.
BTW, one of the terrorists, who was arrested in Germany, his trial was largely sabotaged because the CIA didn’t want to hand over the evidence against him, and when they did, most of it was blacked out or couldn’t be used because it had been obtained by torture. So the CIA sabotaged due process of law and fair trial themselves.
So, in 56 posts, we’ve come up with two reasons not to bring these people to a proper trial:
Am I characterizing this debate correctly? I’m amazed that anybody defending these accused feels they have a leg to stand on now that those two airtight arguments have been made.
**Bricker[/]b is on record as being vehemently opposed to the tribunals in the form proposed by Bush. Apparently you can take the lawyer out of the public defender’s office, but you can’t take the public defender out of the lawyer. 
Well, military courts also have juries.
That’s US military courts, I presume – and also presumably members of the juries are serving members of the military, not civilians. I didn’t know that. But it doesn’t take away the problem that these guys are not military (and the US does not consider them to be military, because it does not treat them as POWs). And it doesn’t take away the problem that the current proposal is for trial by a new sort of military commission.