Five Terrorism Suspects To Be Tried, Right Freaks Out

[Unabogie]

So, I really don't understand this mentality (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/holder-lights-political-firestorm-with-detainee-move.php).

Let's all stipulate for the sake of argument that KSM is guilty. So what's going to happen if he's tried in court? Will he be able to challenge the evidence against him? Yes. Will he be able to have a lawyer? Yes. Will he somehow be acquitted due to some technicality by some bleeding heart jury? No. So is this a bad thing? That we show the world we can give a fair trial to even those who conspire to hurt us?

The people running around screaming "Socialism!" are demanding a return to "the Constitution" and yet they seem to have no clue what that means.

I have perfect faith in our ability to convict people of crimes. If there's one thing to be said about our system of justice, it's that it's really good at filling up jails. For such tough guys, the right is certainly easy to scare.

[Darat]

Wow - I really can't believe the irrational responses that the article quotes.

[Region Rat]

How about a little more honest thread title, like maybe:

Five terrorism Suspects To Be Tried, Some People Freak Out.

[Unabogie]

Wow - I really can't believe the irrational responses that the article quotes.


Well, they're only irrational if you assume they are sincerely held. If it's just opportunistic posturing then they're completely rational.

[Darat]

Well, they're only irrational if you assume they are sincerely held. If it's just opportunistic posturing then they're completely rational.

Nah - the responses themselves remain irrational although the reason for making such irrational responses may be as you say quite rational. :)

[Careyp74]

Perhaps Boehner was speaking his objection about bringing them onto U.S. soil, and not objecting to putting them on trial itself.

Look at me Ma, I'm sticking up for a Republican!

[Unabogie]

How about a little more honest thread title, like maybe:

Five terrorism Suspects To Be Tried, Some People Freak Out.

I'll be happy to update my title when you find me anyone from the right who comes out in support of this.

Here's what RedState is saying:

Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court. In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime. At worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet again becomes a target for terrorists. We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.
You can find more details here.

Call your Congressman and Senator right now. Tell them they should use every tool at their disposal to block this. The number to call is 202-224-3121.

Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson

Editor, RedState.com
KSM will gain access to top secret materials? Really?

[Praktik]

Well its highly bizarre. Obama is essentially running show trials. They will only try people like KSM in the way they are if they are sure to get a conviction.

In cases where their evidence is weaker and they may not pass the evidentiary burden to get a conviction they will use military tribunals where they can control the process.

So the right has nothing to complain about! The only time they're going to try the KSM approach is when they KNOW they're going to win!

[Unabogie]

Perhaps Boehner was speaking his objection about bringing them onto U.S. soil, and not objecting to putting them on trial itself.

Look at me Ma, I'm sticking up for a Republican!

I just called his office, and no, he's not arguing for a trial to be held elsewhere. His lackey's quote was "we just don't think that terrorists should have the same rights as us". I asked him which right in particular he was objecting to, and he said he didn't have time to debate.

[Darat]

...snip...

KSM will gain access to top secret materials? Really?

Well he might, for example he might get to see transcripts of conversations in which he was arranging terrorist attacks....

[Unabogie]

Well its highly bizarre. Obama is essentially running show trials. They will only try people like KSM in the way they are if they are sure to get a conviction.

In cases where their evidence is weaker and they may not pass the evidentiary burden to get a conviction they will use military tribunals where they can control the process.

So the right has nothing to complain about! The only time they're going to try the KSM approach is when they KNOW they're going to win!

Unfortunately, this is exactly right. My hope is that once these trials are over, and we demonstrate that a trial is a perfectly reasonable system of justice, even for scary supermen like KSM, then all of the detainees will get fair and open trials.

[Unabogie]

Well he might, for example he might get to see transcripts of conversations in which he was arranging terrorist attacks....

And he'll say "damn, I forgot about that one! Remember when we plotted to blow up the Beatles...that was awesome!"

[Darat]

Well its highly bizarre. Obama is essentially running show trials. They will only try people like KSM in the way they are if they are sure to get a conviction.

...snip...

That does not make it a show trial - for example in the UK the prosecution services will only prosecute a case if they think they will be successful in obtaining a prosecution.

Whilst the USA may not have the best justice system in the world it has a comparatively good and fair system - I see no reason to assume that he will not be granted a fair trail.

ETA: We may be using a different meaning for "show trail" - to me that is an orchestrated appearance of a trail and in which the outcome is pre-decided.

[Praktik]

That does not make it a show trial - for example in the UK the prosecution services will only prosecute a case if they think they will be successful in obtaining a prosecution.

Whilst the USA may not have the best justice system in the world it has a comparatively good and fair system - I see no reason to assume that he will not be granted a fair trail.

Oh these 5 will be, but others, where they dont feel they have enough evidence will only be tried in "safe venues" with the favourable outcome guaranteed.

Thats what makes them show trials - if all detainees were tried in the same way as KSM then they wouldnt be show trials anymore.

[Lurker]

How about a little more honest thread title, like maybe:

Five terrorism Suspects To Be Tried, Some People Freak Out.

Listen to talk radio to get a pulse on what they think. They are freaking out.

[Region Rat]

I'll be happy to update my title when you find me anyone from the right who comes out in support of this.



You're really going to use this argument?

I don't really care about your position, or anyones position on this topic. I get fed up with the old "Hee, hee, see what the stupid monolithic conservative block is thinking now" argument.

This is usually from the same side who is quick to state that no 2 democrats viewpoints are entirely alike, so it is impossible to lump the left together. Not saying its you, but it is a prevelant viewpoint here.

And for the record, just so you know where I'm coming from, I say try him and get it over with. However, I do believe this is going to blow up in their faces, and he will get off on some technicality or by some bleeding heart jury that you seem sure will not happen.

[Praktik]

And for the record, just so you know where I'm coming from, I say try him and get it over with. However, I do believe this is going to blow up in their faces, and he will get off on some technicality or by some bleeding heart jury that you seem sure will not happen.

Ah yes, cause we all know how sympathetic the average American is to KSM and "the terrorists".

I think you need not worry about bleeding hearts.

[Darat]

...snip... However, I do believe this is going to blow up in their faces, and he will get off on some technicality or by some bleeding heart jury that you seem sure will not happen.

What happens if he is found not guilty by an authoritarian jury - will that be OK? Or are you just concerned that he may be found not guilty if he has a fair trail?

[Region Rat]

Listen to talk radio to get a pulse on what they think. They are freaking out.

I don't believe a handful of talk radio hosts and callers comprise the entirety of the 'Right'.

I do understand that opinions vary greatly on this belief of mine.

I have many family and friends here in the midwest and south that are from the 'right', and they are mostly law and order types who want to put them all on trial and get them in a real jail. Not too many seem really concerned about state secrets and all that, because it seems like there are really not too many secrets out there. Too many things get leaked by disgruntled folks for me personally to believe that something new and drastic will be revealed.

[Unabogie]

You're really going to use this argument?

I don't really care about your position, or anyones position on this topic. I get fed up with the old "Hee, hee, see what the stupid monolithic conservative block is thinking now" argument.

This is usually from the same side who is quick to state that no 2 democrats viewpoints are entirely alike, so it is impossible to lump the left together. Not saying its you, but it is a prevelant viewpoint here.

And for the record, just so you know where I'm coming from, I say try him and get it over with. However, I do believe this is going to blow up in their faces, and he will get off on some technicality or by some bleeding heart jury that you seem sure will not happen.

Are you aware that we've been trying terrorism suspects for years and years and that none of them, not one, has ever been freed on a technicality? Eric Rudolph? Tim McVeigh? The Unabomber? The Blind Sheik? Zacarias Moussaoui? John Lindh?

Can you name a single instance where what you fear will happen has ever, in reality, happened?

And as for the title, again, find me a conservative voice who is not, in unison, braying about this and I will amend my title. Until then, I think it is entirely accurate.

[Lurker]

I don't believe a handful of talk radio hosts and callers comprise the entirety of the 'Right'.

I do understand that opinions vary greatly on this belief of mine.

Hey, when GOP congresspeople stop kowtowing and groveling at Rush's feet should they dare to stray from his teachings then we can talk.

Anyway, you are right. Exceptions exist. I just wish those excpetions were the ones leading the right.

[Region Rat]

What happens if he is found not guilty by an authoritarian jury - will that be OK? Or are you just concerned that he may be found not guilty if he has a fair trail?

No, I was quoting from the OP:

Let's all stipulate for the sake of argument that KSM is guilty. So what's going to happen if he's tried in court? Will he be able to challenge the evidence against him? Yes. Will he be able to have a lawyer? Yes. Will he somehow be acquitted due to some technicality by some bleeding heart jury? No. So is this a bad thing? That we show the world we can give a fair trial to even those who conspire to hurt us?


Stipulated that he was guilty. Stated that he would not get off by the reasons I repeated. That's all.

If he's aquitted, he's aquitted. Let's do this thing and find out.

[Drysdale]

I just dont understand what good can come out of this. They are'nt Americans.

The Islamic radicals are going to be in the news nonstop when the trials start you can bet. That's what they want, a venue to express their warped views.

What is going to come out in disclosure? Is there a possibility some agents lives are going to be endangered now? Our undercover procedures revealed?

All just for the premise of trying to show we are fair? When they are found guilty(if they are, things dont always go as planned)the Jihadists are going to cry foul and demand retirbution etc,etc. anyway. They are'nt going to just say
well, you know they did have a fair trial. Lets just quit Jihad and go home.

What good can possibly come out of this? It just seems to me to be playing with fire.
Too many things can go wrong for the show.

[Region Rat]

Are you aware that we've been trying terrorism suspects for years and years and that none of them, not one, has ever been freed on a technicality? Eric Rudolph? Tim McVeigh? The Unabomber? The Blind Sheik? Zacarias Moussaoui? John Lindh?

Can you name a single instance where what you fear will happen has ever, in reality, happened?


Let's say that from the evidence that has been publically presented, I believe he is guilty. Let's say that I may not have access to all of the evidence, but for the argument, let's say he really did do the dirty deed. You are aware of the controversy surrounding his capture, confinement and treatment while in custody, aren't you? I am not aware that the other people you listed have the same issues surrounding them . Just the fact that the waterboarding was done to him and admitted by the US government is enough for me to believe that he has a chance of beating the rap. Don't you think that the possiblility exists?


And as for the title, again, find me a conservative voice who is not, in unison, braying about this and I will amend my title. Until then, I think it is entirely accurate.

Do you have some documentation that shows that every registered republican supports this position? I don't think I need to spend any time looking. You are making the claim. You show me you are correct. I really don't think you are. Heck, most republicans are still at work and haven't listened to Rush yet to hear what to think about this. Once they do, I'm sure they'll register their regurgitated opinion on the national database of republican agreement.

[Unabogie]

NRO freaks out (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTVkN2ZhMTU0NzcwYWVmYTNmODI1ZTJjMTA1ZDFiODQ=):

This summer, I theorized (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGMyYTQ1ZTM5YTQ5NjJjNzJmNGUxZDIyOTFjYzIyM2Y=) that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.

Andy is the same guy who thinks William Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTlkMTdmNDRkMTM1ODZkNGNkZmRiNDFjMDE4YzRjMjg).

I'd say this qualifies as a freak out.

[Unabogie]

What good can possibly come out of this? It just seems to me to be playing with fire.

Following our system of justice isn't a good thing to come of this? Justice and closure aren't good? A demonstration of self confidence and soft power aren't effective?

And "playing with fire" is a really awesome demonstration of the "tough talk melting to butter" mentality I was referring to.

Well played, sir.

[Newtons Bit]

So, I really don't understand this mentality (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/holder-lights-political-firestorm-with-detainee-move.php).

Let's all stipulate for the sake of argument that KSM is guilty. So what's going to happen if he's tried in court? Will he be able to challenge the evidence against him? Yes. Will he be able to have a lawyer? Yes. Will he somehow be acquitted due to some technicality by some bleeding heart jury? No. So is this a bad thing? That we show the world we can give a fair trial to even those who conspire to hurt us?

The people running around screaming "Socialism!" are demanding a return to "the Constitution" and yet they seem to have no clue what that means.

I have perfect faith in our ability to convict people of crimes. If there's one thing to be said about our system of justice, it's that it's really good at filling up jails. For such tough guys, the right is certainly easy to scare.

The major issues I see is:

1) Security. There are going to be a lot of people outside the courthouse (or inside it) who would like nothing more than to murder KSM themselves. There will also be the likelihood of Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda sympathizers launching terrorist attacks against the people protesting KSM outside the courthouse.

2) Discovery. KSM and his lawyers are going to be privy to a vast amount of sensitive information. The identities of the informants who gave the US information on KSM that led to his capture will undoubtedly be unveiled as well.

The safety of the general public, as well as specific individuals are at risk here. Had you read the article you linked, you would have seen this as the reason the righties are upset:

The Obama Administration's irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people," Boehner said in a statement. "This decision is further evidence that the White House is reverting to a dangerous pre-9/11 mentality - treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and hoping for the best."

"Reverting to a pre-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism and bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil needlessly compromises the safety of all Americans," he said in a statement. "Putting political ideology ahead of the safety of the American people just to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise is irresponsible."

Those are the only two quotes from righties in the article. Neither one of them is concerned about an acquittal, as you suggest. You created one big giant strawman. Good job!

:bigclap

[Drysdale]

Following our system of justice isn't a good thing to come of this? Justice and closure aren't good? A demonstration of self confidence and soft power aren't effective?

And "playing with fire" is a really awesome demonstration of the "tough talk melting to butter" mentality I was referring to.

Well played, sir.

Let me get this straight first. This should cut to the chase with your view.

In your eyes the acts on 9-11 were a criminal act,not an act of war on America. Is that correct?

[Praktik]

All just for the premise of trying to show we are fair? When they are found guilty(if they are, things dont always go as planned)the Jihadists are going to cry foul and demand retirbution etc,etc. anyway. They are'nt going to just say


What good can possibly come out of this? It just seems to me to be playing with fire.
Too many things can go wrong for the show.

Given that this shows the exact opposite of the bolded part, it doesn't even have THAT going for it! ;)

[Roadtoad]

Well, as someone who's somewhat right of center, I say, It's about time.

I think the best thing in the world is for SKM to spew his drivel. It would be great to hear from the defendants themselves the kind of bizarre hate and venom they adhere to. At that point, there's no further question about what these people are, and what it is they hope to accomplish. They are here for Jihad, not for anything else.

Absolutely, they should be tried. Once we see the evidence against them, and once it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that these five are the bastards that hoped to break the world and force it to bow before their "god," I can only hope that public opinion will turn against further appeasement of Muslim extremists. People will realize that doing so will only embolden them, and we will have even more death and destruction such as we saw in New York, London, and Madrid. Kowtow to these thugs, folks, and that's what you get.

My only concern is that they might actually sentence these brutes to death. Big mistake; at that point, they become martyrs in the eyes of their fellow terrorists. That would work against us.

My view: Send them to a supermax prison somewhere in the midwest. Ham for dinner. Don't like ham? Sorry, but every other prisoner is eating it. You get what they get. We won't let you starve, but we won't cater to false teachings relating to a false god.

I never had any sympathy for the IRA bombers who went on hunger strikes. Considering how the Irish have been treated by the British throughout history, there's more reason to feel a degree of such for them, but they had none from anyone who had any concern for the innocent victims of their activities. In light of SKM and his ilk and the positions they have held as oppressors, I have even less sympathy for them than I did Bobby Sands.

[Praktik]

Let me get this straight first. This should cut to the chase with your view.

In your eyes the acts on 9-11 were a criminal act,not an act of war on America. Is that correct?

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but yes, I think treating terrorism in a policing way, rather than a military way (though their resources could be tapped time to time for special ops missions and surveillance and the like certainly) is the appropriate way to deal with things.

I think the Bush approach still hasn't had the time to prove its utility - and I fear in many ways it exacerbated the terror threat rather than actually remove it.

We'll see. These things play out over long-time frames.

[quixotecoyote]

Let me get this straight first. This should cut to the chase with your view.

In your eyes the acts on 9-11 were a criminal act,not an act of war on America. Is that correct?

I'm sure it is, along with everyone else who knows that you need opposing states to have a war.

[Darat]

And even then we have been conducting criminal trials for people involved in waging war for some time now. The two concepts are not somehow exclusive of each other.

[drkitten]

I just dont understand what good can come out of this. They are'nt Americans.

That's exactly the good that will come out of it.

The whole point of this exercise is to show people -- the Islamic Middle East, but also the rest of the world -- that freedom and human rights are GOOD things. That's more or less why we went into Iraq in the first place (unless you believe it was all about oil) -- to "spread democracy and freedom."

This is a rather public test case for whether or not we actually believe (and act on) our own ideals of democracy and freedom. We've been criticizing these authoritarian regimes for an unwillingness to follow the rule of law and to grant basic human rights (such as the right to a fair trial, the right to counsel, the right to be informed of the evidence against them). There are several US citizens rotting in Iranian jails right now on what most Americans (justly) believe is trumped-up evidence.

They're not going to be too worried about their trumped up evidence and star chamber trials when we're using the same techniques.


The Islamic radicals are going to be in the news nonstop when the trials start you can bet. That's what they want, a venue to express their warped views.

So? This is supposed to be a good thing when American do it. "The best cure for bad speech is more speech," remember? If you think there's something wrong with what the Islamic radicals are saying -- and I expect you do -- go ahead and tell the world yourself what you think is wrong with it.


What is going to come out in disclosure? Is there a possibility some agents lives are going to be endangered now? Our undercover procedures revealed?

Not really. The courts have been dealing with this kind of thing for decades and there are procedures in place for handling "secret" evidence.

[Safe-Keeper]

Are you aware that we've been trying terrorism suspects for years and years and that none of them, not one, has ever been freed on a technicality? Eric Rudolph? Tim McVeigh? The Unabomber? The Blind Sheik? Zacarias Moussaoui? John Lindh?Also, as I keep saying, there's the fact that there are people in America and Europe far more dangerous to you and me, and far more vile, who do get their day in court, and do get off due to slick lawyer tricks or whatever. Spree killers and serial rapists can do just as much, or more, damage than a person planting a bomb, but no one is suggesting that we throw, for example, the Catholic priests in jail without trial. I was going to bring up Timothy McVeigh myself as another example - he was arguably a terrorist, and arguably guilty, but did you hear anyone, left or right wing, demand we just execute him or throw him in a prison camp without giving him his day in court?

I can, as can probably a lot of people here, give you many anecdotes from personal experience of rapists and murderers going free, or not even getting arrested in the first place, charges notwithstanding. Do not these people pose a greater hazard to the average US citizen than some idiot with a bomb half a globe away?

I just dont understand what good can come out of this. They are'nt Americans. Another ad hoc rationalization. If an illegal immigrant enters the US and lives there for five years without paying taxes, and is then found guilty of raping twelve women, three of which he brutally tortures... he still gets his day in court.

If you moved to, say, Taiwan and they accused you of a serious crime, wouldn't you expect and demand your day in court even though you were not a PRC citizen?

[Unabogie]

The major issues I see is:

1) Security. There are going to be a lot of people outside the courthouse (or inside it) who would like nothing more than to murder KSM themselves. There will also be the likelihood of Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda sympathizers launching terrorist attacks against the people protesting KSM outside the courthouse.


And yet we've held many trials with other terrorists and this scenario has never happened. Seems like irrational paranoia to me.


2) Discovery. KSM and his lawyers are going to be privy to a vast amount of sensitive information. The identities of the informants who gave the US information on KSM that led to his capture will undoubtedly be unveiled as well.


Do you know how discovery works? I'm not a lawyer, but even I understand that discovery is about the evidence to be used in court, and only that evidence. That's why they couldn't ask for nuclear secrets as part of any federal trial. We've had hundreds of trials involving state secrets. How many times have informants and agents been outed by a court case? Ever? A single case?

More paranoia.


Those are the only two quotes from righties in the article. Neither one of them is concerned about an acquittal, as you suggest. You created one big giant strawman. Good job!

:bigclap

One of the other posters is concerned about acquittal. Perhaps you should take your large hands over there?

[Unabogie]

Let me get this straight first. This should cut to the chase with your view.

In your eyes the acts on 9-11 were a criminal act,not an act of war on America. Is that correct?

I don't see a point there. If they are guilty of "war crimes" as opposed to just "crimes", then we shouldn't try them...EVER? You're aware that we tried the Nazis, right? And they did some pretty bad things, wouldn't you agree? Are these piss-ant thugs worse than the Nazis?

How is that we were able to try the Nazis but we can't try a rag tag group of Jihadis?

[Newtons Bit]

And yet we've held many trials with other terrorists and this scenario has never happened. Seems like irrational paranoia to me.

Do you know how discovery works? I'm not a lawyer, but even I understand that discovery is about the evidence to be used in court, and only that evidence. That's why they couldn't ask for nuclear secrets as part of any federal trial. We've had hundreds of trials involving state secrets. How many times have informants and agents been outed by a court case? Ever? A single case?

More paranoia.

I suggest you start looking into the history of witnesses against the Mob. The federal witness protection program exists for a reason.

One of the other posters is concerned about acquittal. Perhaps you should take your large hands over there?

We are talking about the mentality of the people in the article which you posted in the OP. Remember? It was about people in the article. Not people on this forum, ffs.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Perhaps Boehner was speaking his objection about bringing them onto U.S. soil, and not objecting to putting them on trial itself.


I never understood that objection.

Do they think we can't securely incarcerate a dangerous criminal? If so, why haven't they introduced legislation to get all dangerous criminals off U.S. soil?

[Unabogie]

I suggest you start looking into the history of witnesses against the Mob. The federal witness protection program exists for a reason.

You think that these guys are even as powerful as the Mafia? Here? You think they can hit a witness here? So why didn't they do this when we tried Massaoui? Or Padilla?

How come we pulled those off with no hitches?


We are talking about the mentality of the people in the article which you posted in the OP. Remember? It was about people in the article. Not people on this forum, ffs.I already posted Andy McCarthy's bedwetting. If you want, let's just link to every (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/11/9-11-mastermind-to-stand-trial-in-new.html)single (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-alleged-911.html)conservative (http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/13/the-worst-decision-by-a-us-president-in-history/)speculating (http://anotherblackconservative.blogspot.com/2009/11/coming-to-america-khalid-sheikh.html)about acquittals (http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/11/13/the-ultimate-version-of-the-out-of-towners/).

Damn, that's tedious. Here's the whole list (http://www.memeorandum.com/).

[Undesired Walrus]

So this will be carried out like any traditional trial? A jury of ordinary New Yorkers?

Only good can come out of such a procedure. Of the people, for the people, etc.

[Thunder]

"No true freedom-loving Democracy puts terrorists on trial!!!

Hang them all!!!!"

i have a feeling that the reason Bush and Co. did not want to try the 9-11 folks in the USA, is because they may reveal embarresing facts about old relationships between Al-Qaeda, the Mujahadeen, and the CIA or DOD or State Department.

It will look very bad if it turns out any of these groups were receiving funds from the USA during the 80s and 90s.

[Lurker]

Newton:

We did put the mob people on trial despite danger to the witnesses. We did not hold the mob people indefinitely without trial.

I assume you would want to do something with the terrorist suspects eventually, right? Are you more in favor of a military trial or something? I am just trying to suss out where you think this should go.

[Unabogie]

Michael Mukasey has just come out blasting Eric Holder for allowing a trial of these suspects (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/former-bush-admin-ag-slams-holder-on-911-trials.php).

"It shows a willingness to disclose how our intelligence process works and offer [the suspects] a platform in our legal system to gather intelligence for themselves,"

I ask again, how is it we ever tried any of the other accused terrorists, like the Blind Sheik who was behind the first WTC attack in 1992?

Somehow, a judge was able to hold a trial, maintain intelligence sources, and then sentence the Sheik to life in prison along with his accomplices.

One can only assume that that judge was smarter and less of a pansy than Michael Mukasey (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/18/nyregion/sheik-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-in-bombing-plot.html).

But Judge Michael B. Mukasey of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who also sentenced Mr. Abdel Rahman's nine co-defendants to prison terms ranging from 25 years to life, said his pleas could "seriously mislead the public."


"You were convicted of directing others to perform acts which, if accomplished, would have resulted in the murder of hundreds if not thousands of people," the judge said in a packed, heavily guarded courtroom. The bombs that Mr. Abdel Rahman and the others had planned to detonate, Judge Mukasey said, would have caused destruction on a scale "not seen since the Civil War" and would have made the related 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center "seem insignificant."


In addition to the life term for Mr. Abdel Rahman, Judge Mukasey imposed a life sentence on El Sayyid A. Nosair, who was convicted of murdering Rabbi Meir Kahane at a Manhattan hotel in 1990 -- a crime that prosecutors said marked the beginning of the terror campaign that Mr. Abdel Rahman and the others were convicted of waging.


Holy pandering, Batman, this looks like a case of rank dishonesty!

[Newtons Bit]

Newton:

We did put the mob people on trial despite danger to the witnesses. We did not hold the mob people indefinitely without trial.

I assume you would want to do something with the terrorist suspects eventually, right? Are you more in favor of a military trial or something? I am just trying to suss out where you think this should go.

I'd be fine with either, honestly. I think what Obama is doing is a bit risky and the onus is on him to ensure security at the trials. However, I understand that some people are concerned about the informants who gave us the information (who don't live in the USA) and the secrecy of information gathering to the point where they favor a military tribunal. That's their opinion. I'm okay with them having their opinion. And I don't like it when people create strawmen to attack someone else.

Edit: BTW Lurker, Unobogie thinks that there has not ever been a case where an informant has been put at risk by a trial, hence my comment.

[Undesired Walrus]

"No true freedom-loving Democracy puts terrorists on trial!!!

Hang them all!!!!"

i have a feeling that the reason Bush and Co. did not want to try the 9-11 folks in the USA, is because they may reveal embarresing facts about old relationships between Al-Qaeda, the Mujahadeen, and the CIA or DOD or State Department.

It will look very bad if it turns out any of these groups were receiving funds from the USA during the 80s and 90s.

Al Qaeda didn't exist back then, and it was Carter's Administration that funded the ISI.

[rwguinn]

I'd be fine with either, honestly. I think what Obama is doing is a bit risky and the onus is on him to ensure security at the trials. However, I understand that some people are concerned about the informants who gave us the information (who don't live in the USA) and the secrecy of information gathering to the point where they favor a military tribunal. That's their opinion. I'm okay with them having their opinion. And I don't like it when people create strawmen to attack someone else.
You're too logical.
What difference does it make if we have to reveal the electronics and details of how we intercept cell-phone calls--or who the moles are in A-Q? They're just people doing a job. The guy on trial has RIGHTS!
It's gonna be a Bitch--but (against historical precedent and the stupidity of politicians) I can hope that these things have already been considered, and are not an issue in the evidence.
I'm not optimistic, though.

[Unabogie]

You're too logical.
What difference does it make if we have to reveal the electronics and details of how we intercept cell-phone calls--or who the moles are in A-Q? They're just people doing a job. The guy on trial has RIGHTS!
It's gonna be a Bitch--but (against historical precedent and the stupidity of politicians) I can hope that these things have already been considered, and are not an issue in the evidence.
I'm not optimistic, though.

When you put it like that, I'm convinced. I will promptly forget the hundreds of national security trials, including the one presided over by Mike Mukasey himself, plus the ones done under Bush and Cheney, which have occurred without explaining to defendants how our NSA apparatus works, if you'll just be kind enough to tell me where to find the delete button on my brain.

[Newtons Bit]

You're too logical.
What difference does it make if we have to reveal the electronics and details of how we intercept cell-phone calls--or who the moles are in A-Q? They're just people doing a job. The guy on trial has RIGHTS!

That's actually one of the pro's about doing a civil trial. It's a good way to show that we are in fact better than these terrorist schmoes. We will do what is right and fair even if it means shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak.


It's gonna be a Bitch--but (against historical precedent and the stupidity of politicians) I can hope that these things have already been considered, and are not an issue in the evidence.
I'm not optimistic, though.

Aye, we can hope that it goes well.

[Darat]

When you put it like that, I'm convinced. I will promptly forget the hundreds of national security trials, including the one presided over by Mike Mukasey himself, plus the ones done under Bush and Cheney, which have occurred without explaining to defendants how our NSA apparatus works, if you'll just be kind enough to tell me where to find the delete button on my brain.

Thank goodness the USA has never had to put people on trial who for instance may have sold or given secrets of the USA nuclear weapons programme - they'd have had to release all the details about all nuclear weapons to everyone!

[Fiona]

I think they will need a jury comprising Amish, if that is even enough

[rwguinn]

When you put it like that, I'm convinced. I will promptly forget the hundreds of national security trials, including the one presided over by Mike Mukasey himself, plus the ones done under Bush and Cheney, which have occurred without explaining to defendants how our NSA apparatus works, if you'll just be kind enough to tell me where to find the delete button on my brain.
Straw belongs in the stable, not building tackling dummies.
Learn to READ, dude.

[Newtons Bit]

Thank goodness the USA has never had to put people on trial who for instance may have sold or given secrets of the USA nuclear weapons programme - they'd have had to release all the details about all nuclear weapons to everyone!

WTF?!?! :confused::confused::confused::confused:

Of course not. But the defense has the right to know who outed the guy who was trying to sell secrets. They have a right to know how the case against the defendant was created.

You're a :rule10 mod. Shouldn't you know enough to not make strawmen?

[Unabogie]

Straw belongs in the stable, not building tackling dummies.
Learn to READ, dude.

Dude, you bring up "strawmen" after writing:

You're too logical.
What difference does it make if we have to reveal the electronics and details of how we intercept cell-phone calls--or who the moles are in A-Q? They're just people doing a job. The guy on trial has RIGHTS!

Sorry I didn't give this tripe the time it deserves. Care to cite a single instance, ONE, where anyone says we should give up moles or details on intercepts in order to preserve RIGHTS!

Thanks, yours in straw,

Unabogie

[Roadtoad]

WTF?!?! :confused::confused::confused::confused:

Of course not. But the defense has the right to know who outed the guy who was trying to sell secrets. They have a right to know how the case against the defendant was created.

You're a :rule10 mod. Shouldn't you know enough to not make strawmen?

He's only human. Born to make mistakes.

[Unabogie]

WTF?!?! :confused::confused::confused::confused:

Of course not. But the defense has the right to know who outed the guy who was trying to sell secrets. They have a right to know how the case against the defendant was created.

You're a :rule10 mod. Shouldn't you know enough to not make strawmen?

Do you know how these trials work? There are lots of processes in place to protect secrets.

Here's a list of several recent cases and you can read the back and forth between counsel and the courts.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html

I couldn't find any orders allowing state secrets to be aired in court, but maybe I didn't look hard enough?

Really. This is just a fantasy.

It doesn't happen.

[Darat]

WTF?!?! :confused::confused::confused::confused:

Of course not. But the defense has the right to know who outed the guy who was trying to sell secrets. They have a right to know how the case against the defendant was created.

You're a :rule10 mod. Shouldn't you know enough to not make strawmen?

That was not a strawman - that was satire.


rwguin (and you agreed with him) are the ones that introduced strawmen into the thread. No one has suggested at any point that in the course of the trial national security should be jeopardised or the lives of USA agents and informers be placed in danger.

I find it hard to credit that you really do not think that your country has not had to develop procedures to deal with such issues in the course of a trial. Or do you believe this is the first time anyone has been on trail in which matters of national security have had to be considered (in regards to access to evidence, evidence collection and witnesses)?

[Unabogie]

That was not a strawman - that was satire.


rwguin (and you agreed with him) are the ones that introduced strawmen into the thread. No one has suggested at any point that in the course of the trail national security should be jeopardised or the lives of USA agents and informers be placed in danger.

I find it hard to credit that you really do not think that your country has not had to develop procedures to deal with such issues in the course of a trial. Or do you believe this is the first time anyone has been on trail in which matters of national security have had to be considered (in regards to access to evidence, evidence collection and witnesses)?

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html

Indeed, not the first :-)

[Roadtoad]

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html

Indeed, not the first :-)

And everyone ignored my humorous musical reference. :mad:

Fine. I'll go to my room.

[rwguinn]

That was not a strawman - that was satire.


rwguin (and you agreed with him) are the ones that introduced strawmen into the thread. No one has suggested at any point that in the course of the trial national security should be jeopardised or the lives of USA agents and informers be placed in danger.

I find it hard to credit that you really do not think that your country has not had to develop procedures to deal with such issues in the course of a trial. Or do you believe this is the first time anyone has been on trail in which matters of national security have had to be considered (in regards to access to evidence, evidence collection and witnesses)?
What ******** from someone supposed to be intelligent.
The OP states
Five Terrorism Suspects To Be Tried, Right Freaks Out . then goes on to state that
The people running around screaming "Socialism!" are demanding a return to "the Constitution" and yet they seem to have no clue what that means.
We simply injected a couple of reasons some folks might have reservations--the law of unintentional consequences is very real to those of us who have to deal with the Government on a regular basis, and the fact is, politicians think only in short term: "How can we shut up some of those niggling little voices that make us uncomfortable" rather than what the actual ramifications are. Liberal politicians are especially good at think in terms of today only-and the knee-jerk "all US conservatives are ********" ******** that you, in your infinite wisdom (cuz you're a UKian and across an ocean)think of us is absolute straw, and you know it.

That is not straw. Your comments, and the OP, are.

[WildCat]

I don't see a point there. If they are guilty of "war crimes" as opposed to just "crimes", then we shouldn't try them...EVER? You're aware that we tried the Nazis, right? And they did some pretty bad things, wouldn't you agree? Are these piss-ant thugs worse than the Nazis?

How is that we were able to try the Nazis but we can't try a rag tag group of Jihadis?
The Nazis were tried by military tribunals, not a civilian court.

[WildCat]

I ask again, how is it we ever tried any of the other accused terrorists, like the Blind Sheik who was behind the first WTC attack in 1992?
He was not captured as a result of being a named party in a war authorized by the US Congress.

[Unabogie]

The Nazis were tried by military tribunals, not a civilian court.

But the point is that they were tried. With evidence, lawyers, and judges. Let's not alter history and forget that the default position of these same people was that these people should NEVER get trials, nor access to lawyers, nor even be access to family members.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/

"Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict, we hold that the submitted declaration is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the commander-in-chief has constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the war powers entrusted to him by the United States Constitution," the Appeals Court said. "No further factual inquiry is necessary or proper, and we remand the case with direction to dismiss the petition."

Which of course was overturned but the Supreme Court.

So the goal posts have moved. Now it's somehow wrong to try people in civilian courts when before it was wrong to try them at all.

I reject such un-American tripe. We've managed to try all kinds of monsters, including the Nazis, without succumbing to such paranoid fear.

[Cynic]

He's only human. Born to make mistakes.

Does quoting Human League songs constitute some sort of thread-ending violation? ;)

I was just watch an interview with Eric Holder in which he was asked rather pointedly if he'd properly considered if this decision might allow them to be found innocent, as if to suggest that it would have been smarter to orchestrate this in such a way to guarantee a conviction. Where are we as a society when the integrity of the trial itself is not paramount?

[Dr Adequate]

n that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

At best, this will be a show trial ... Cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to be a problem for these people.

[Unabogie]

He was not captured as a result of being a named party in a war authorized by the US Congress.

What does that have to with the objections being levied? Was he Al Qaeda? Yes. Was he a terrorist? Yes. Did we try him without causing another attack during the trial, or spilling state secrets? Yes. Was he acquitted by some lawyerly trick? No. Have we done this countless times and none of these dire consequences occurred? Yes.

Stay on topic and address the objections being levied. Do you agree that any of those things will happen if we try KSM in New York? If so, then why didn't they happen when we tried Moussaoui or Padilla or any of the others?

If not, then it seems you'd agree that this is possibly just opportunistic posturing.

[Roadtoad]

Does quoting Human League songs constitute some sort of thread-ending violation? ;)

I was just watch an interview with Eric Holder in which he was asked rather pointedly if he'd properly considered if this decision might allow them to be found innocent, as if to suggest that it would have been smarter to orchestrate this in such a way to guarantee a conviction. Where are we as a society when the integrity of the trial itself is not paramount?

That, amigo, is the truly scary part. Read up on what Roma's been going through in the Community section. If there's no chance they can be found to be anything but guilty, then the fix is in, and it's all a lie. It's for show, nothing more.

Cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to be a problem for these people.

And you were thinking about living here? Seriously? This is in our headlines DAILY!

[quadraginta]

The Nazis were tried by military tribunals, not a civilian court.

He was not captured as a result of being a named party in a war authorized by the US Congress.

I seem to recall some minor dust-up about how the Gitmo detainees weren't proper combatants and thus undeserving of the protocols involved in the handling of enemy combatants under law. This was, IIRC, the rationale for the unique denial of the sort of rights that we claim we want to encourage the rest of the world to embrace.

I'm unclear about what has changed beyond the denial part in these arguments.

After having spent so much effort to establish that they are not properly subject to the jurisdiction of military law, there now seems to be a 180 degree about face by the same people when confronted with the possibility of an application of non-military law.

One is left with the inescapable conclusion that there is a desire for no law whatsoever to be applied to their treatment.

Good old American values?

[quadraginta]

<snip>
So the goal posts have moved. Now it's somehow wrong to try people in civilian courts when before it was wrong to try them at all.

I reject such un-American tripe. We've managed to try all kinds of monsters, including the Nazis, without succumbing to such paranoid fear.


Beat me to it. Shoulda read ahead.

[WildCat]

Are you aware that we've been trying terrorism suspects for years and years and that none of them, not one, has ever been freed on a technicality? Eric Rudolph? Tim McVeigh? The Unabomber? The Blind Sheik? Zacarias Moussaoui? John Lindh?

Can you name a single instance where what you fear will happen has ever, in reality, happened?
In the trial of the blind sheik for bombing the WTC the prosecution was required to hand the defense a list of all unindicted co-conspirators. Within 10 days this list was in the hands of one of those co-conspirators in Khartoum, Sudan. His name was Osama bin Laden, and now he knew he was being watched and was a suspect in the WTC bombing. A nice heads-up to be more careful, and also who in the organization had been compromised.

There are real, actual concerns of a public trial in civilian courts, not just conjecture.

Other concerns are the safety of informants and witnesses families, particularly in a country like Pakistan.

[WildCat]

But the point is that they were tried. With evidence, lawyers, and judges
Right, in a military tribunal. Not a civilian court by the criminal ustice system.

[Thunder]

The 1993 WTC bombers were tried in Federal court. the Blind Sheik and the other nuts who wanted to bomb the subways and the tunnels and a police station in Brooklyn, were tried in Federal Court. Tim McVeigh was tried in Federal Court.

Our court system works just fine, and has a damn good record at getting terror convictions. i see no good reason to abandon it.

and as far as highly sensitive evidence goes, a judge can always deal with that appropriately.

to abandon our court system is to abandon America and freedom, as far as I am concerned.

[WildCat]

What does that have to with the objections being levied? Was he Al Qaeda? Yes. Was he a terrorist? Yes. Did we try him without causing another attack during the trial, or spilling state secrets? Yes. Was he acquitted by some lawyerly trick? No. Have we done this countless times and none of these dire consequences occurred? Yes.

Stay on topic and address the objections being levied. Do you agree that any of those things will happen if we try KSM in New York? If so, then why didn't they happen when we tried Moussaoui or Padilla or any of the others?

If not, then it seems you'd agree that this is possibly just opportunistic posturing.
You think trying the #2 or 3 guy in al Qaeda is comparable to Jose Padilla?

And see my post about what happened in the 1995 trial of the WTC bombers we caught.

And judging from this review (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/0709/book/book_abrahamson_willful.html) of a book written by the federal judge at that trial he doesn't think civilian criminal trials are the way to go.

[Thunder]

However, I think that the United Nations should set up a new terrorism court. and a prison for housing convicted terrorists and for keeping unconvicted terror-group members who are deemed too dangerous to be let free.

we can put the prison on some far off island, like Tazmania.

[WildCat]

The 1993 WTC bombers were tried in Federal court. the Blind Sheik and the other nuts who wanted to bomb the subways and the tunnels and a police station in Brooklyn, were tried in Federal Court. Tim McVeigh was tried in Federal Court.

Our court system works just fine, and has a damn good record at getting terror convictions. i see no good reason to abandon it.
And thanks to the Blind Sheik trial al Qaeda got an official US Government list of names of people in al Qaeda who were known to US intelligence.

[Unabogie]

And judging from this review (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/0709/book/book_abrahamson_willful.html) of a book written by the federal judge at that trial he doesn't think civilian criminal trials are the way to go.

You're quoting Andy McCarthy???

The guy is certifiable. He's the guy who claimed William Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father. He is as far right an ideologue as you'll ever see.

Can you in any way defend Woo like that?

[Thunder]

And judging from this review (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/0709/book/book_abrahamson_willful.html) of a book written by the federal judge at that trial he doesn't think civilian criminal trials are the way to go.

and a-Woo we go!!!

:p

Bush said that Al-Qaeda tried to attack our freedoms. well, if we do away with our freedoms which includes civilian courts, then Al-Qaeda has won.

[WildCat]

You're quoting Andy McCarthy???
No, the judge who tried the blind sheik - Judge Michael B. Mukasey.

[Unabogie]

And thanks to the Blind Sheik trial al Qaeda got an official US Government list of names of people in al Qaeda who were known to US intelligence.

Do you have a link to this which is a neutral source? My Google-Fu is failing me to find anything, even right wing blogginess on the subject.

[Brainster]

I don't see a point there. If they are guilty of "war crimes" as opposed to just "crimes", then we shouldn't try them...EVER? You're aware that we tried the Nazis, right? And they did some pretty bad things, wouldn't you agree? Are these piss-ant thugs worse than the Nazis?

How is that we were able to try the Nazis but we can't try a rag tag group of Jihadis?

The Nazis faced military tribunals, not civilian courts.

[Thunder]

No, the judge who tried the blind sheik - Judge Michael B. Mukasey.

The book was written by Andrew C. McCarthy. look at your linky.

[Unabogie]

No, the judge who tried the blind sheik - Judge Michael B. Mukasey.

The book in the link is from Andy McCarthy. And Mukasey is certainly not a neutral party. He's injected himself in a particularly political way to all this, aside from covering George Bush on the torture issue. The fact that he presided over a trial that successfully convicted 9 terrorists only underscores his dishonesty.

[Unabogie]

The Nazis faced military tribunals, not civilian courts.

I know it's a long thread, but this has been covered.

[rwguinn]

Edited for rule 12.

[WildCat]

Do you have a link to this which is a neutral source? My Google-Fu is failing me to find anything, even right wing blogginess on the subject.
Judge Mukasey was concerned throughout about balancing the defendants’ rights against national security. He ordered an array of potential evidence to be disclosed to the defense, for instance, but drew the line at information he said would needlessly compromise intelligence operations.

In his Wall Street Journal article, he wrote that terrorism prosecutions “risk disclosure to our enemies of methods and sources of intelligence that can then be neutralized.”

The risk, he wrote, is not theoretical. A list of unindicted co-conspirators provided to the defense in the 1995 trial, including Osama bin Laden, reached Mr. bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, within 10 days, Judge Mukasey wrote, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/washington/20trial.html?pagewanted=1

[rwguinn]

I know it's a long thread, but this has been covered.
And you keep ignoring it.

[Unabogie]

Edited quote of modded post.

Maybe you could help Wildcat find a link to this alleged breach? I can't find it anywhere.

[WildCat]

The book in the link is from Andy McCarthy. And Mukasey is certainly not a neutral party. He's injected himself in a particularly political way to all this, aside from covering George Bush on the torture issue. The fact that he presided over a trial that successfully convicted 9 terrorists only underscores his dishonesty.
It's also the opinion of Judge Mukasey.

And if we start rejecting opinions of those who are political partisans we'll have no one to quote on this subject on either side, will we?

[WildCat]

Maybe you could help Wildcat find a link to this alleged breach? I can't find it anywhere.
Post 85.

[Unabogie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/washington/20trial.html?pagewanted=1

So the only source is from Mukasey himself?

When Mr. Kuby, the defense lawyer, applied for a security clearance for a later trial, Judge Mukasey met with a Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) agent to argue against the idea, saying he was convinced that Mr. Kuby had leaked sealed documents to Newsday and The New York Times.

“Mukasey stated that he could not imagine anyone who would be less trustworthy with sensitive information than Kuby,” a special agent’s summary of the interview said. Mr. Kuby, who did not receive the clearance and denied leaking the documents, obtained the summary through a freedom of information request.

I don't find Mukasey a credible person. He acted repeatedly in his tenure as AG as a firewall against anything damaging to the Administration, especially when it came to national security matters and anything relating to Bush's policies on torture.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004499.php

Now this could be true, but I'd like to see a more neutral source before I believe it.

[WildCat]

More evidences for Unaboogie:
Before Mukasey became attorney general, he was a federal judge who heard terrorism cases in New York.



In his first interview since leaving the Justice Department, Mukasey told NPR that one cost of terrorism trials is financial. Security can make a terrorism case much more expensive than a typical criminal trial.



"But putting that aside," says Mukasey, "there can be a cost in disclosure of information — including intelligence that in the nature of a public trial would come out in public or be discovered by the defendant."



For example, he described a trial he presided over as a judge in which Osama bin Laden was named in a list of unindicted co-conspirators, "and [bin Laden] was then made aware not only that his identity was known but also [of] the identity of the other co-conspirators who were then known to the government," says Mukasey.


Given that some costs of a terrorism trial cannot be anticipated, Mukasey says weighing the costs of such a trial against the benefits is "a very, very difficult balance to strike. I think that there have to be different kinds of proceedings for different kinds of cases."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104406496


Also from Mukasey, maybe you think he's lying?

[Unabogie]

It's also the opinion of Judge Mukasey.

And if we start rejecting opinions of those who are political partisans we'll have no one to quote on this subject on either side, will we?

McCarthy is not a partisan, he's a CTer.

I promise not to quote Alex Jones if you agree that Mr. McCarthy is unreliable as well.

:D

[Unabogie]

More evidences for Unaboogie:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104406496


Also from Mukasey, maybe you think he's lying?

I think he's obviously conflicted. He was in the middle of the Bush policies and therefore, his opinion is not a valuable to me as someone who wasn't.

That's pretty obvious, right? If I start quoting Holder as a defense for Holder's actions, that would be self-serving, right? Well, Mukasey is just as self-serving.

[SezMe]

And thanks to the Blind Sheik trial al Qaeda got an official US Government list of names of people in al Qaeda who were known to US intelligence.
One hopes that lessons learned will be applied to later trials.

[rwguinn]

More evidences for Unaboogie:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104406496


Also from Mukasey, maybe you think he's lying?
Also, this is addressed, starting on page 8 of this:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/0508_terrorism_litt_bennett/0508_terrorism_litt_bennett.pdf

But it also references Mukasey, so it's also straw.

[WildCat]

Here's a non-Mukasey source which references the list, from the POV of an informant whose name was made known by it:

Mr. Mohamed also contended he "personally aborted" two large- scale terrorist operations in the United States, which he did not identify.

He said he was angry, though, that prosecutors had placed him on a list of potential co-conspirators prepared in advance of the 1995 trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and other defendants, who were convicted in a plot to blow up landmarks in New York City. He said that if in the future "he learned of other terrorist attacks, he would not stop them."http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/22/nyregion/22TERR.html

So there's an actual informer who says he will no longer inform thanks to the knowledge he may be outed in a trial.

I bet he's not the only one who feels that way.

[Newtons Bit]

That was not a strawman - that was satire.

I wasn't aware that was an either/or.

rwguin (and you agreed with him) are the ones that introduced strawmen into the thread. No one has suggested at any point that in the course of the trial national security should be jeopardised or the lives of USA agents and informers be placed in danger.

WTF are you trying to argue? Are you in the right thread? I've been addressing the OP this entire time. You know, the people who have a mentality that Unabogie can't understand. From what I can tell, neither you nor him actually read that article.

The two guys on the right, as quoted in that article and whom this thread is supposedly about, give two reasons for not having a civil trial in NYC. They are safety and national security. They think that (not me) it's an unnecessary risk. Unabogie couldn't figure out in the OP that those statements in the article, which I've quoted in full on this thread already, are about safety and national security. He thinks it's really about them being acquitted somehow. Don't ask me how. There's nothing in that article that suggests that the two righties think that they'll be acquitted.

Furthermore, Unabogie thinks that no informant has ever been exposed to his detriment during a civil trial.

I find it hard to credit that you really do not think that your country has not had to develop procedures to deal with such issues in the course of a trial. Or do you believe this is the first time anyone has been on trail in which matters of national security have had to be considered (in regards to access to evidence, evidence collection and witnesses)?

It's a risk. People get exposed. Methods get uncovered. If it were really just a policing matter then it's no big deal. Everyone knows how the police operates. We have the federal witness protection program to protect witnesses (they're given entirely new lives). The CIA's operations, methods and strategies are still rather secret. Giving KSM, and more importantly: his lawyers, access to this information is inherently dangerous to the security of those operations. They will send that information back to Al-Qaeda. People in Afghanistan and Iraq who helped us will be put at risk. This is a very common talking point on the right. It's been around since the 2004 election. It's not necessary to make strawmen to argue against it.

Our Justice system, however is very good. It gives people accused by the government every possible reasonable advantage available. It makes things difficult for the government. And in policing matters in the USA this is a good thing. It does however expose operations by the CIA to some risk.

[Drysdale]

I know it's a long thread, but this has been covered.

Where?

I have'nt seen you address this particular point at all.

[Dragoonster]

I'm pleased that trials will finally commence, that's more important than where they're held imo. I don't see any risks of tring KSM in New York though.

FYI, here's a transcript of Holder's entire press conference:

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-091113.html

The main thing I'd been wondering about was why some were being tried in civ court and some in military, and whether it was for crappy reasons as some have broached.

In his speech at the National Archives in May, the President called for the reform of military commissions to ensure that they are a lawful, fair, and effective prosecutorial forum. The reforms Congress recently adopted to the Military Commissions Act ensure that military commission trials will be fair and that convictions obtained will be secure.

I know that the Department of Defense is absolutely committed to ensuring that military commission trials will be consistent with our highest standards as a nation, and our civilian prosecutors will continue to work closely with military prosecutors to support them in that effort.

In each case, my decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced in July. Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors – including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated – that must be considered. In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee.

It is important that we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions. Just as a sustained campaign against terrorism requires a combination of intelligence, law enforcement and military operations, so must our legal efforts to bring terrorists to justice involve both federal courts and reformed military commissions. I want to thank the members of Congress, including Senators Lindsay Graham, Carl Levin and John McCain who worked so hard to strengthen our national security by helping us pass legislation to reform the military commission system.

At least the argument for why was made, though I might not buy it.

My main curiousity now is what Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (USS Cole bombing mastermind) will be charged with. It wasn't an attack on civilians, and seems at first blush to be an act of war. It doesn't seem to be terrorism (though I'm not sure which definitions might be used), nor a war crime. He may be defined as in illegal combatant under Geneva Conventions guidelines or the US equivalent, but that doesn't necessarily mean the attack was a war crime, punishable by execution.

Any ideas what the charges against him will be?

[Unabogie]

Here's a non-Mukasey source which references the list, from the POV of an informant whose name was made public by it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/22/nyregion/22TERR.html

So there's an actual informer who says he will no longer inform thanks to the knowledge he may be outed in a trial.

I bet he's not the only one who feels that way.

The FBI thinks he's a prevaricator.

But the 15 pages of excerpts of F.B.I. interviews, along with snippets of grand jury testimony and other records released this week, support earlier indications that in the past decade, while he was working for Mr. bin Laden, Mr. Mohamed and the F.B.I. engaged in a delicate dance.


Mr. Mohamed appeared to be offering a mixture of truth and lies about Mr. bin Laden, perhaps in an attempt to bolster his credibility with the authorities while keeping them from learning about Mr. bin Laden's actual intentions.


So I think we can agree that care is required to try these cases. If care is not taken, come back and I'll agree with you that the cases were botched.

I would note, though, that this case is from 1995, and it's almost 2010. So in 15 years, there is only one case out of hundreds where it's even marginally possible that something important was leaked.

Again, we tried Moussaoui, under Bush I would add, and he was the "20th Hijacker".

My fingers are tired, so I'll just suggest we revisit this after the trial and compare predictions.

I predict this is all a bunch of posturing and it will be as controlled as all of the other trials we've held.

[rwguinn]

Edited for rule 12.

[Meadmaker]

My main curiousity now is what Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (USS Cole bombing mastermind) will be charged with. It wasn't an attack on civilians, and seems at first blush to be an act of war. It doesn't seem to be terrorism (though I'm not sure which definitions might be used), nor a war crime. He may be defined as in illegal combatant under Geneva Conventions guidelines or the US equivalent, but that doesn't necessarily mean the attack was a war crime, punishable by execution.

Any ideas what the charges against him will be?

I don't know, but generally you aren't allowed to claim to be acting as a soldier unless you are representing something recognized as a government. Al-qaeda doesn't qualify. The Taliban could.

My guess is that it will be conspiracy to commit murder.

[Fiona]

I don't really understand that Meadmaker. If the US government claims to be at war they must be at war with someone: that someone appears to be "terror". Since one cannot meaningfully make war on an abstract noun it can only be that it is at war with people who frighten them. This person seems to qualify and must therefore be a soldier. If he is a soldier he has committed no crime, so far as I can see.

[daenku32]

So if this is a "show trial", then what would your normal Constitutionally demanded trial be like?

[Cynic]

The accusations of "show trial" are really just the critic's contention that they would prefer to see the defendants railroaded in private, rather than railroaded in public.

[rwguinn]

The accusations of "show trial" are really just the critic's contention that they would prefer to see the defendants railroaded in private, rather than railroaded in public.
Y'all jus keep on bleevin' that. It allows you to ignore reality, just like any religion.

[Praktik]

The accusations of "show trial" are really just the critic's contention that they would prefer to see the defendants railroaded in private, rather than railroaded in public.

Well yes, there is that useage.

But the other useage comes from the civil liberties crowd - namely that the decision to prosecute only winnable cases in civilian court amounts to putting safe wins out there for public consumption, while keeping possible aquittals due to lack of evidence, or improperly obtained evidence, safely out of public view. They can still get their wins if they control the function of the court much more deeply, as with military tribunals.

Of course, there is a political reality that demands this. In the hyper-partisan and highly competitive bloodsport of American politics it is clear that aquittals in civilian courts with high media saturation and the dragging out in detail of torture or other malfeasance used to obtain evidence will turn on whoever is holding power with a vengeance.

I just wish we could acknowledge this pull on the process even if there's not much we can do about it.

I think on some level too, while the easy wins are the only ones going to these venues that once there, it will be a fair trial. And I don't doubt they've got winners in their hands. The process in these narrow cases will definitely conform to the ideals of justice appealed to in the propaganda.

But that is really outweighed by the crass political calculations and manouevers necessary to massage the process in the most favourable possible light to avoid undue embarrassment and/or long-lasting political albatrosses.

[Bob Klase]

This person seems to qualify and must therefore be a soldier. If he is a soldier he has committed no crime, so far as I can see.

Exactly what are the legal requirements to be considered a "soldier" and how is a "soldier" allowed (or required) to act in ways that are different than a non-"soldier"?

[Meadmaker]

As for the OP: You could replace the headline with

Obama does something: Right wingers say something stupid in response.


I find it so difficult to talk about the right wing these days without using the word "mindless".

[Praktik]

In my mind, there is one glaring problem strategically speaking with the kind of viewpoint we've seen posted from the RedStateUSA crowd.

These people are also cheerleaders for torture.

By keeping this process as predictable as possible, and not risking cases where torture malfeasance could fuel another news cycle - the Obama administration is essentially keeping the lid shut on the discussion.

And that is strategically to their benefit. So they should really be getting behind this and extolling the virtues of American justice and magnamity to pump up some patriot points and keep the torture issue off the radar.

[Travis]

I approve of this decision. Personally I never really thought the Tribunals were necessarily as unfair as some presented them but it was also always my thought that if we really do have the evidence on these guys then a civilian trial ought to be preferable. Head NAZI's were only tried in a tribunal thanks to extreme extenuating circumstances surrounding the scope of their crimes and the utter destruction of the lands in which their crimes were committed.

The potential security risks, and the risks of disclosing more than we might want to, are the prices we pay for being a civil society that actually believes in things like liberty and justice. We don't, after all, allow prosecutors to just never disclose anything because it makes convictions harder if they do. We know it makes conviction, and the decision to prosecute in first place, harder but it also a central structure to what makes our justice system fair and not authoritarian.

[Cynic]

My previous statemeant was sort of half-serious, half-facetious. I'm honestly not entirely sure what to think. Like a lot of difficult decisions, there are good points on either side. Ultimately, I think there's more to recommend the currently proposed idea. Besides living up to our advertized pride in being a just, fair society, I think there's actually merit to the idea that the assults were (particularly) directed at NYC, directed at America and its people, and not against the "military". As such, it seems fitting.

Keeping our enemies in remote locations in other countries seems kind of cowardly of us as well. Why are we so concerned about our safety, but are willing to expose other countries to it? It's like worrying that your kid shook up your beer, so you take it over to the neighbor's house to open it. It always bothers me when we act, as a nation, in a way we that we would disapprove of if other countries did it.

What might be the tipping point for me is the fact that military trials make sense because they involve military personnel and military issues, things that the military lawyers and military judges are specially trained and indoctrinated in to understand. The military world, local and global, is a culture unto itself. It's not about whether the incident happened "in a war", especially in a "war" as diffuse as one "against terror".

These guys aren't military. Their actions weren't against military personnel. The only aspects of this that might require a uniquely military perspective to wrap our heads around is the prisoner's methods of capture and what happened to them after that capture. I don't think that's enough.

That might make us look bad, but that's just tough, really. If there's one thing I really don't like about America is our capacity to tell people to be one way and then do something else ourselves. If the laws for our own citizens are obstensively set up the way they are because that's how we feel humans should be treated, where to we get off treating foreigners worse? Are they not human?

[SezMe]

The only aspects of this that might require a uniquely military perspective to wrap our heads around is the prisoner's methods of capture and what happened to them after that capture.
Good post but I have a problem with this. Most (all?) of these guys were NOT captured by the military. They were taken in Pakistan (and maybe Afghanistan) as a result of intelligence operations THEN turned over to the military. After that turnover, problems of torture and other mistreatment happened.

[Brainster]

I know it's a long thread, but this has been covered.

So military tribunals would have been fine with you?

[Darat]

...snip...

We simply injected a couple of reasons some folks might have reservations

...snip...

What nonsense, you stated that:

"What difference does it make if we have to reveal the electronics and details of how we intercept cell-phone calls--or who the moles are in A-Q?"

No one has at any time in this thread suggested that national security (in regards to evidence, witnesses etc.) considerations should be put to one side, apart from you and Newton to enable these trials to go ahead. Your use of a claim that the people who are supporting the trials have not made could not be a more clear cut example of you and Newton creating a strawman.

[Fiona]

Exactly what are the legal requirements to be considered a "soldier" and how is a "soldier" allowed (or required) to act in ways that are different than a non-"soldier"?

This is part of the problem, really. Under international law a soldier is defined in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. The USA is a signatory to that convention.There are further provisions in the second protocol (which I think the US has not signed).

So far as I can tell the USA has gone out of its way to interpret the structure of Al Quaeda so that it may be characterised as an enemy power and the situation as one which falls under the laws of war. This contrasts with the UK government's refusal to recognise that status in relation to the Irish terrorists, who were always treated as criminals.

The status afforded was confirmed when the USA specifically determined that those detained in Guantanamo Bay were "enemy combatants". However the implications of that are not entirely positive for the USA's purposes and so they have sought to show that they are "illegal enemy combatants" in the same way as spies are. This has been the subject of a lot of legal debate and scrutiny within the US as it is not clear that it is in line with the conventions which the US signed. The effect was to deny those who were detained access to either military or civil courts and thus to remove any legal rights from them.

As I understand it this is illegal in both domestic and international law. The US does reserve the right to conform to international law only insofar as that is passed into domestic law, so far as I am aware: but what the authorities sought to do was not so enshrined and there has been ongoing international and domestic opposition to the interpretation adopted. This has now led to the claim being abandoned, as I understand it, and those prisoners are now to be accorded rights either as combatants or as criminals: it is difficult to see how they could ever have been neither and I am glad to see that this policy, which for me is entirely outwith the rule of law, has been overturned

If I understand it correctly this thread is about those who have now been recognises as alleged criminals, and they are to be tried for their crimes in the normal way.

There are problems: despite those who say that there is no concern about whether they might be acquitted that is entirely at odds with the "innocent till proved guilty" principle. It is very hard to see how they can get a fair trial from an unbiased jury given the publicity and given the certainties displayed, not least in this thread.

The allegation that their confessions were extracted under torture will also be a plank of the defence, I think. It seems undeniable because the authorities have admitted to interrogation techniques which could not be seen as lawful under civilian law. There has been debate about what to call those techniques but it is very difficult to see how evidence obtained in that way could be admissable in a civil court.

But if the government had instead decided that these were prisoners of war the situation would be no better for the prosecution: for at least some of those people (such as the one we are discussing here) he would seem to have fallen into the definition of soldier (unless you are to say that a sneaky operation to destroy and enemy ship is always illegal: and I don't think the marines would like that): and if he is a soldier he has committed no crime and is entitled to protection under the Geneva convention: that is he may be detained but he cannot be required to give any information apart from "name rank and serial number", famously. Any interrogation utilising torture or coercion is again illegal: so there is not comfort there.

The whole mess is predicated on the characterisation of the situation as a war: if the US had continued to define these people as criminals (as was done with the Irish) many problems would have been avoided: but the reason for this way of approaching it was to justify the invasion of Afghanistan (and maybe Iraq). Without this declaration of war those actions could not have been taken with any semblance of legality. And this is the point, I think.

It is perfectly possible to believe that there is a real war (though for myself I cannot take the idea of war on an abstract noun in any way seriously) but if that is the position you take then it seems to me that you must honour the obligations of the geneva convention and you must accept the inconvenient consequences as well as the beneficial ones

[Meadmaker]

So far as I can tell the USA has gone out of its way to interpret the structure of Al Quaeda so that it may be characterised as an enemy power and the situation as one which falls under the laws of war.
....
The status afforded was confirmed when the USA specifically determined that those detained in Guantanamo Bay were "enemy combatants".
....This has now led to the claim being abandoned, as I understand it, and those prisoners are now to be accorded rights either as combatants or as criminals:....if the US had continued to define these people as criminals (as was done with the Irish) many problems would have been avoided:

Fiona is exactly right in her post, excerpted above, and those who have defended the Bush administration policies would do well to understand it. Under George W. Bush, when it was convenient to treat them as criminals, they were treated as criminals. When it was convenient to treat them as military personnel, they were treated as military. The Bush administration policy could be restated as, "We don't have to follow any law we don't feel like it, and we'll do whatever we darned well feel like doing, and we'll issue some sort of memo as cover." It was an arrogance of power that did not serve our nation well.

When the war began in Afghanistan, I was pretty tolerant of the opening of Guantanamo and the sort of ambiguous status of many detainees. After all, this situation really was somewhat different than a standard, garden variety, armed conflict. You had a terrorist organization that was committing crimes, (e.g. the 9/11 attacks), but doing so with the support and approval of a government (the Taliban), but which government hadn't been "officially" recognized as legitimate, despite the fact that it was functioning as a government in every way. Then, the country was invaded, resulting in a situation where many residents of that country felt compelled to take up arms against the invader. Some of those people were the same criminals who had plotted crimes prior to the invasion, but others were not. I recognized there was a lot of confusion, and it might take some time to sort out.

What I failed to comprehend, and was incredibly saddened to discover, is that the leaders of our nation really didn't give a hoot about sorting it all out. They threw out everything that I think makes our nation great.

Now, though, the Obama administration has to pick up the pieces, and I think they're doing it well. There will be trials for accused criminals. I believe those trials will be fair. They will try and sort out who was engaging in plotting crimes prior to the invasion, and who took up arms in response to the invasion. It's a real mess, and no solution will be pretty, but I trust that the current government of the United States will make a reasonable effort to see that real justice is done, which I would not say was true under the last administration.

It would be a nice change of pace if, in a few years, I can look back at the way the Obama administration handled detained foreign nationals, and I did not have to use the term "Orwellian" in the description.

[Bob Klase]

This is part of the problem, really. Under international law a soldier is defined in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. The USA is a signatory to that convention.There are further provisions in the second protocol (which I think the US has not signed).

Article 4 does not define "soldier". Article 4 does not even contain the word "soldier". It does address POWs and a number of categories that must be treated under the POW rules. Some of those categories would commonly be called "soldiers" and many would commonly be called "civilians".

You specifically said "This person seems to qualify and must therefore be a soldier." My only question was how you determine someone "qualifies and therefore must be a soldier". Surely you can give a better definition that referencing an Article of the GC that doesn't even use the word.

[Fiona]

Ah, I am sorry Bob Klase: I did not realise this was a semantic problem: feel free to use any word you want to describe the status of those who are covered by the convention of prisoners of war: nothing sustantive hangs on it at all

[Drysdale]

Fiona is exactly right in her post, excerpted above, and those who have defended the Bush administration policies would do well to understand it. Under George W. Bush, when it was convenient to treat them as criminals, they were treated as criminals. When it was convenient to treat them as military personnel, they were treated as military. The Bush administration policy could be restated as, "We don't have to follow any law we don't feel like it, and we'll do whatever we darned well feel like doing, and we'll issue some sort of memo as cover." It was an arrogance of power that did not serve our nation well.

When the war began in Afghanistan, I was pretty tolerant of the opening of Guantanamo and the sort of ambiguous status of many detainees. After all, this situation really was somewhat different than a standard, garden variety, armed conflict. You had a terrorist organization that was committing crimes, (e.g. the 9/11 attacks), but doing so with the support and approval of a government (the Taliban), but which government hadn't been "officially" recognized as legitimate, despite the fact that it was functioning as a government in every way. Then, the country was invaded, resulting in a situation where many residents of that country felt compelled to take up arms against the invader. Some of those people were the same criminals who had plotted crimes prior to the invasion, but others were not. I recognized there was a lot of confusion, and it might take some time to sort out.

What I failed to comprehend, and was incredibly saddened to discover, is that the leaders of our nation really didn't give a hoot about sorting it all out. They threw out everything that I think makes our nation great.

Now, though, the Obama administration has to pick up the pieces, and I think they're doing it well. There will be trials for accused criminals. I believe those trials will be fair. They will try and sort out who was engaging in plotting crimes prior to the invasion, and who took up arms in response to the invasion. It's a real mess, and no solution will be pretty, but I trust that the current government of the United States will make a reasonable effort to see that real justice is done, which I would not say was true under the last administration.

It would be a nice change of pace if, in a few years, I can look back at the way the Obama administration handled detained foreign nationals, and I did not have to use the term "Orwellian" in the description.

I'd like to see some specifics supporting this accusation.

There is a train of thought that Obama could just be trying to dig up more dirt on Bush also. This is the most convenient way. Just more blame Bush for everything ammo.

[WildCat]

Under George W. Bush, when it was convenient to treat them as criminals, they were treated as criminals. When it was convenient to treat them as military personnel, they were treated as military.
It's also exactly what Obama and Holder are doing. They made it clear last spring that even if acquitted in a trial they would still be held as enemy combatants indefinitely.

eta: and what is often missed is that at the same press conference announcing that KSM and 4 others would be tried in civilian court in NYC Holder also announced that 5 others would be tried in military tribunals.

[Newtons Bit]

What nonsense, you stated that:

"What difference does it make if we have to reveal the electronics and details of how we intercept cell-phone calls--or who the moles are in A-Q?"

No one has at any time in this thread suggested that national security (in regards to evidence, witnesses etc.) considerations should be put to one side, apart from you and Newton to enable these trials to go ahead. Your use of a claim that the people who are supporting the trials have not made could not be a more clear cut example of you and Newton creating a strawman.

:bs:

By definition, a civil trial exposes government methods and witnesses to the defense. The prosecution is required to provide anything information to the defense that might be potentially exculpatory. This is broad. In a military tribunal, this is not the case.

Further, as I've stated more than once in this thread, I do not feel that a civil trial is an unnecessary risk. I am not opposed to it. I can actually dig my head out of the sand for long enough to determine the pros and cons of both options (civil trial and military tribunal).

This isn't the fifth grade playground. If someone says you're using a strawman argument, maybe you should actually read what they write, read the original source material rather than just counter-accusing them of using a strawman. Arguments that fall along the line of:

"You're using a strawman argument! <here's why>"
"Nuh-uh, you're using a strawman argument! <no reason>"

are both boring and childish. And I have no further desire to partake in it.

Was it really that hard to read the article in the OP and determine what the two righties in it had against civil proceedings? Is it too hard to recall the arguments against treating terrorism as a police matter that have been around since 2004 and before? Both of those questions are rhetorical. It actually was too hard for many people who have posted in this thread.

The whole thread is just one giant epic fail. It is indicative of the partisan spirit that restricts so many people from understanding the basic arguments of people of a different political ideology and results in nothing more than the misunderstanding of what the other side. Which is the end-result of the stereotyping and demonization of people who think something that you don't. And I'm ashamed that so many people at the JREF fall into that.

[Darat]

:bs:

By definition, a civil trial exposes government methods and witnesses to the defense. The prosecution is required to provide anything information to the defense that might be potentially exculpatory. This is broad. In a military tribunal, this is not the case.

...snip...

So as I said earlier: I find it hard to credit that you really do not think that your country has not had to develop procedures to deal with such issues in the course of a trial.


And as I asked earlier, and I'll ask again: Do you believe this is the first time anyone has been on trail in which matters of national security have had to be considered (in regards to access to evidence, evidence collection and witnesses)?

[Praktik]

It's also exactly what Obama and Holder are doing. They made it clear last spring that even if acquitted in a trial they would still be held as enemy combatants indefinitely.

eta: and what is often missed is that at the same press conference announcing that KSM and 4 others would be tried in civilian court in NYC Holder also announced that 5 others would be tried in military tribunals.

This is exactly right.

WildCat - see? we dont always have to disagree..;)

[Brainster]

Here's a pretty good article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14legal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) on the pros and cons of trying KSM and the others in civilian court.

Remember, AG Holder himself said this was the toughest decision he had to make. Which means what? That there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. So is it really so surprising that those making the argument against the civilian trial would be upset?

[Cynic]

Good post but I have a problem with this. Most (all?) of these guys were NOT captured by the military. They were taken in Pakistan (and maybe Afghanistan) as a result of intelligence operations THEN turned over to the military. After that turnover, problems of torture and other mistreatment happened.

I'd think Pakistani military still counts as military, but I don't know the specifics that well, if they were taken by police officers or Steve Guttenburg or what. Even organizations like the FBI sometimes border on military. Not sure if it matters or relates to my point, but it's something to consider. The lines are getting blurry.

[Newtons Bit]

So as I said earlier: I find it hard to credit that you really do not think that your country has not had to develop procedures to deal with such issues in the course of a trial.

As I have already explained: the defense has advantages. They get access to large portions of the prosecutions investigation. They're not supposed to leak it, but if they're Al-Qaeda sympathizers they might just go ahead and "accidentally" leak it.


And as I asked earlier, and I'll ask again: Do you believe this is the first time anyone has been on trail in which matters of national security have had to be considered (in regards to access to evidence, evidence collection and witnesses)?

Uh, no. And as I have already explained, THERE ARE RISKS associated with criminal trials. The defense gets access to information. You cannot separate their access to relevant information and due process of the law. They're the same concept.

I notice you've still missed my posts where I explain this. This is the last time.

[INRM]

I think all of them should be tried. No military commissions and none of that. With the evidence gathered, they'll get convicted and will likely get the harshest punishment possible under law.

[Sporanox]

I haven't read through the thread, but did anybody mention the concern that KSM will essentially get one of his most coveted wishes - a platform covered by all major media to spout his radical fantasies?

Despite what some may think, that is both a victory for KSM and perhaps actually dangerous.

[Meadmaker]

I haven't read through the thread, but did anybody mention the concern that KSM will essentially get one of his most coveted wishes - a platform covered by all major media to spout his radical fantasies?

Despite what some may think, that is both a victory for KSM and perhaps actually dangerous.

Are people so stupid that that when he starts spouting his radical fantasies, the people will say, "Gosh. I never thought about it like that?" I'm thinking no. I'm not the least bit worried about giving him an opportunity to spout whatever he wants, right up until they say, "Do you have any last words?"

[Cynic]

Yes. But that's freedom of speach for you -- better it than the alternative.

[INRM]

Sporanox,

A judge can keep cameras out of a courtroom right? Because I'm pretty sure in some criminal cases I've heard that done before.


Cynic,

Very true.

[Newtons Bit]

Are people so stupid that that when he starts spouting his radical fantasies, the people will say, "Gosh. I never thought about it like that?" I'm thinking no. I'm not the least bit worried about giving him an opportunity to spout whatever he wants, right up until they say, "Do you have any last words?"

In the USA? Probably not. At least not to people who weren't already sympathizing with him. In the middle-east? It might have some impact.

[the_eye]

Which Guy said?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

The American Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

I honestly believe that Freedom is the ideal situation for all people. America isn't a free Nation unless it willing follows the Law for all people, Regardless of Crime.

Edit: The Right to a fair trial isn't up for negotiation.

[SezMe]

I haven't read through the thread, but did anybody mention the concern that KSM will essentially get one of his most coveted wishes - a platform covered by all major media to spout his radical fantasies?
I don't remember this happening in the previous terrorist trials. Why would it happen this time around. A good judge can keep cameras out of the courtroom and put the defense on a very short leash. The only thing on the 6 o'clock news will be sanitized reporting by a compliant media. I'm not concerned.

[WildCat]

Which Guy said?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

The American Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

I honestly believe that Freedom is the ideal situation for all people. America isn't a free Nation unless it willing follows the Law for all people, Regardless of Crime.

Edit: The Right to a fair trial isn't up for negotiation.
The debate is whether or not this is best in the civilian criminal courts or a military tribunal.

I don't think there's any question here about criminal court proceedings.

It comes down to whether you think the 9/11 attacks were an act of war or a criminal act.

[Thunder]

i think the al-qaeda suspects should be put in a war-crimes trial at the Hague.

9-11 was a criminal act of war. there are legal acts of war, such as attacking soldiers and military instillations, and then there are illegal acts of war, such as using civilian airplanes filled with civilians, to attack a civilian target.

do i believe that the attack on the USS Cole was an act of terrorism, or an illegal act of war?

nope.

[WildCat]

i think the al-qaeda suspects should be put in a war-crimes trial at the Hague.

9-11 was a criminal act of war. there are legal acts of war, such as attacking soldiers and military instillations, and then there are illegal acts of war, such as using civilian airplanes filled with civilians, to attack a civilian target.

do i believe that the attack on the USS Cole was an act of terrorism, or an illegal act of war?

nope.
So you think disguising yourself as a civilian to attack a military target is a legal act of war? :rolleyes:

[Thunder]

So you think disguising yourself as a civilian to attack a military target is a legal act of war? :rolleyes:

military targets are fare game. once we start watering down the definition of "terrorism", we enter dangerous waters.

is it ok to hit a military target in order to attempt to intimidate the enemy military? sure.

[WildCat]

military targets are fare game. once we start watering down the definition of "terrorism", we enter dangerous waters.
Evasion noted. I'll ask you again: Do you think it's legal under the Laws of Armed Combat to disguise yourself as a civilian to attack a military target?

[Slayhamlet]

military targets are fare game. once we start watering down the definition of "terrorism", we enter dangerous waters.

is it ok to hit a military target in order to attempt to intimidate the enemy military? sure.

So the attack on the Pentagon was "fare [sic] game" as well? It is a military target, is it not?

[Thunder]

So the attack on the Pentagon was "fare [sic] game" as well? It is a military target, is it not?

the attack on the Pentagon was an act of terrorism. why?

not because the target was not legit, but because a civilian airliner filled with civilians, was the method of attack. if the hijackers let the passengers get off first, then it would not have been a terrorist act.

in war, military installations are fare game. I'd expect you to know that.

if we start declaring attacks on military targets as acts of terror, then many Israelis strikes in Gaza and the WB were also, acts of terrorism.

[WildCat]

if we start declaring attacks on military targets as acts of terror, then many Israelis strikes in Gaza and the WB were also, acts of terrorism.
Did the Israeli soldiers disguise themselves as civilians?

And nice to try to change the subject to terrorism, but it's about what constitutes a war crime.

[Thunder]

And nice to try to change the subject to terrorism, but it's about what constitutes a war crime.

um...what is the topic of this thread? terrorists right?

:p

[Thunder]

Evasion noted. I'll ask you again: Do you think it's legal under the Laws of Armed Combat to disguise yourself as a civilian to attack a military target?

in the Lavon Affair, Israelis tried to disguise themselves as Arab civilians, to attack a civilian target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_affair#Operation_Susannah

"In the summer of 1954 Colonel Binyamin Gibli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binyamin_Gibli), the chief of Israel's military intelligence, Aman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Intelligence_Directorate_%28Israel%29), initiated Operation Suzannah in order to reverse that decision. The goal of the Operation was to carry out bombings and other acts of violence in Egypt with the aim of creating an atmosphere in which the British and American opponents of British withdrawal from Egypt would be able to gain the upper hand and block the withdrawal.
According to historian Shabtai Teveth, who wrote one of the more detailed accounts, the assignment was "To undermine Western confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime by generating public insecurity and actions to bring about arrests, demonstrations, and acts of revenge, while totally concealing the Israeli factor. The team was accordingly urged to avoid detection, so that suspicion would fall on the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, 'unspecified malcontents' or 'local nationalists'."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_affair#cite_note-Teveth-0)
The top-secret cell, Unit 131, which was to carry out the operation, had existed since 1948 and under Aman since 1950. At the time of Operation Susannah, Unit 131 was the subject of a bitter dispute between Aman {military intelligence} and Mossad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad) {national intelligence agency} over who should control it.
Unit 131 operatives had been recruited several years before, when the Israeli intelligence officer Avram Dar arrived in Cairo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo) undercover as a British citizen of Gibraltar called John Darling. He had recruited several Egyptian Jews who had previously been active in illegal emigration activities and trained them for covert operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operations).
Aman decided to activate the network in the spring of 1954. On July 2, they firebombed a post office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_office) in Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria), and on July 14, they bombed the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo) and a British-owned theater. The homemade bombs, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerine), were inserted into books, and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs would explode. They did little damage to the targets and caused no injuries or deaths."

and oh, um, didnt Ehud Barak disguise himself as a female civilian when he killed a few members of Black September?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spring_of_Youth

"The team attacking the target was mostly based on Sayeret Matkal commandos, led by then unit-commander Ehud Barak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak). (Barak later became IDF Chief of Staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramatkal) and subsequently Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Israel)). The attacking team also included Yonatan Netanyahu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonatan_Netanyahu), who became unit commander two years later and became known for leading the hostage rescue operation in Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe) in which he was killed. The team approached the buildings disguised as civilians and couples. (Barak was disguised as a brunette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunette) woman.)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spring_of_Youth#cite_note-0) In the building, the team killed three PLO and Black September leaders".

i believe the term is......OWNED!!!!

:)

[quadraginta]

I'm easily confused, so be patient.

You offered the statement ...

<snip>

It comes down to whether you think the 9/11 attacks were an act of war or a criminal act.

Then after some exchange on the subject with parky you chastise him for ...

<snip>

And nice to try to change the subject to terrorism, but it's about what constitutes a war crime.

Perhaps your definition of "criminal act" in association with 9/11 has some other meaning I haven't discerned? I would have thought that "terrorism" would be an acceptable synonym.

What exactly did you mean?

[SezMe]

military targets are fare game. once we start watering down the definition of "terrorism", we enter dangerous waters.
parky, you keep doing that. "Fair" is the word you want.

[gtc]

in the Lavon Affair, Israelis tried to disguise themselves as Arab civilians, to attack a civilian target.


That is Egypt and your second example is from Lebanon. Your original claim was about actions in West Bank or Gaza.

Be that as it may, this isn't a thread about Israel. Your constant attempts to turn every issue into an attack on Israel or an attack on Jews who don't think the way you want them to think is tiresome.

[the_eye]

The debate is whether or not this is best in the civilian criminal courts or a military tribunal.
.

It's impossible for an American military tribunal to be fair and impartial.

[Caustic Logic]

My only concern is that they might actually sentence these brutes to death. Big mistake; at that point, they become martyrs in the eyes of their fellow terrorists. That would work against us.

My view: Send them to a supermax prison somewhere in the midwest. Ham for dinner. Don't like ham? Sorry, but every other prisoner is eating it. You get what they get. We won't let you starve, but we won't cater to false teachings relating to a false god.

You're alright, but I'm actually glad you're not running a prison. I doubt they would kill him, for the reasons you cite. I think an Oswald ending would be interesting, hope they can avoid that. I'm not a 9/11 Truther but I have to be suspicious of big show trials like this. They managed to get a conviction of Megrahi, somehow. It wasn't a military trial either, but it was held at an old US-NATO military base (Camp Zesit).

[Dr Adequate]

Remember, AG Holder himself said this was the toughest decision he had to make. Which means what? That there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. So is it really so surprising that those making the argument against the civilian trial would be upset? If there are good arguments on both sides, then they should be less upset, instead of painting it as being soft on terrorism.

Perhaps you could point me to the conservative blogger who said: "Yes, I can see that there are excellent points on both sides. And also I am sure that Holder has had access to information that I have not, and to much better legal advice than I have had access to, and took much longer to think about it than I have in what is admittedly a knee-jerk reaction composed within a few hours of his announcement, but nonetheless my tentative conclusion is that he was wrong. Of course, I can see that men of goodwill might differ on this question ..."

[Meadmaker]

Regarding the discussion about whether these are war criminals or civilian crimes, I think there's some confusion about who actually gets to start a war. If I get tired of those darned Belgians and their chocolates, and I decide to do something about it by blowing up a Belgian chocolate factory, I will be prosecuted as a civilian, despite all of my protestations that I had declared war on the Belgians.

Only governments get to declare war. If those on trial wish to enter a defense that they were acting on behalf of the government of Afghanistan, and they were subjects of that government carrying out government policy, then I might be willing to listen and treat them as military. However, I don't think anyone from Al-Qaeda has made any such claim. As a consequence, they're civilians.

The only exception is for people who were captured fighting the invading Americans and/or their allies. I, for one, would not hold any such individual responsible for a crime. Their nation had been invaded. They were fighting against the invaders. That makes them POWs, assuming they hadn't engaged in any crimes before the invasion. Of course, since that conflict is still going on, we ought to hold those people indefinitely, but that's another issue.

[Caustic Logic]

If there are good arguments on both sides, then they should be less upset, instead of painting it as being soft on terrorism.

Perhaps you could point me to the conservative blogger who said: "Yes, I can see that there are excellent points on both sides. And also I am sure that Holder has had access to information that I have not, and to much better legal advice than I have had access to, and took much longer to think about it than I have in what is admittedly a knee-jerk reaction composed within a few hours of his announcement, but nonetheless my tentative conclusion is that he was wrong. Of course, I can see that men of goodwill might differ on this question ..."

And the correct response, Pat, is "touche!"

[Caustic Logic]

Only governments get to declare war. If those on trial wish to enter a defense that they were acting on behalf of the government of Afghanistan, and they were subjects of that government carrying out government policy, then I might be willing to listen and treat them as military. However, I don't think anyone from Al-Qaeda has made any such claim. As a consequence, they're civilians.


That's a good argument. Apparently, it was never about the right reason to treat it militarily, it was abut what that does for the treatment. Indefinite, lucky-we-don't-just-shoot-you, etc. UNLESS they're making an exception for bin Laden's dreamland future super-Caliphate as a hostile nation. Be afraid, Narnia.

ETA: I saw it first: "dreamland future super-Caliphate as a hostile nation" works perfectly with that Mary Poppins song. If you say it loud enough you might get long renditions.

[Lurker]

And everyone ignored my humorous musical reference. :mad:

Fine. I'll go to my room.

Don't you want me, baby?

[Bob Klase]

Ah, I am sorry Bob Klase: I did not realise this was a semantic problem: feel free to use any word you want to describe the status of those who are covered by the convention of prisoners of war: nothing sustantive hangs on it at all


One of the big questions has been (and is) whether or not they are covered by the Geneva Convention as POW's. If you want to solve that question by merely claiming that "they seem like soldiers" then you're certainly correct- nothing substantive hangs on it at all.

[Fiona]

Nothing at all hangs on the word "soldiers": so far we agree. Question is whether they fall under the geneva convention as prisoners of war. So what do you think is relevant, if not the geneva convention?

[Cynic]

I suppose all of this raises the question of whether the distinction between declared war with a government and people with an agenda setting of bombs and shooting at you is unnecessarily arbitrary. Or rather, it is necessarily arbitrary, but if the lines need to be drawn there. Complicated. We need to be able to distinguish between people fighting a war and people who are best seen as criminals to be dealt with by a police force.

Crossing national borders changes the game though. Does that immediately subject them to international police, and if so, who is that? I don't think targets being civilian versus military makes much difference, though it certainly shifts focus about who will be taking an interest. I do, however, think there's a difference as to whether the government or governments from which they come is taking an active interest in stopping them. Citizens are sort of like children -- the parents are culpable for their acts, effectively, if not nor legally, along similar lines.

[GreyICE]

Evasion noted. I'll ask you again: Do you think it's legal under the Laws of Armed Combat to disguise yourself as a civilian to attack a military target?

With all due respect, that's two different questions. Not all acts illegal under the Laws of Armed Combat and the Geneva conventions are acts of terrorism. They're two different concepts.

It's not terrorism to attack a military target, even if it's done in a non-legal manner.

[Cynic]

Terrorism is engaging in an act whose primary focus is to terrorize, period. I think the question emerging is whether that can be seen as a solitary activity (a strategy), or as a tactic in a long-term engagement in war.

In the case of 9/11, I think it is very clearly the first. Setting off roadside bombs and 'splodin' kids into stores in a warzone on the other hand is probably the second.

I think it was a mistake to make the issue "terrorism". It's too broad and non-specific.

[Elvis666]

I just dont understand what good can come out of this. They are'nt Americans.

Why does that matter? If a Canadian commits a crime in the US, is he or she not (normally) tried for it in a US court of law?

Terrorist acts like this are not acts of war, they are crimes and should be treated so.

And, to address the OP, by any definition the members of the forum would normally use, I would be considered part of the "Right", and my only response to this was "About time."

[drkitten]

I suppose all of this raises the question of whether the distinction between declared war with a government and people with an agenda setting of bombs and shooting at you is unnecessarily arbitrary. Or rather, it is necessarily arbitrary, but if the lines need to be drawn there. Complicated. We need to be able to distinguish between people fighting a war and people who are best seen as criminals to be dealt with by a police force.

Crossing national borders changes the game though. Does that immediately subject them to international police, and if so, who is that?

It's not a question of "international" police, though. It's a question of "national" police. A person who commits a crime in the United States is subject to the laws of the United States; this has been settled international law for a long time. The sole exception is where the person involved is acting as agent for another nation-state, such as a diplomat (who is usually granted immunity from his host country's laws) or an invading soldier (who is usually outside the reach of the host country, but even when captured is entitled by treaty to better treatment than is usually meted out to criminals. For example, artillerists cannot typically be charged with murder or arson no matter how many buildings they shell.)



I don't think targets being civilian versus military makes much difference, though it certainly shifts focus about who will be taking an interest.

It does make a difference to the crimes on the charge sheet.

In the case of a soldier, the laws and customs of war prohibit attacks on civilian targets -- deliberately targeting a civilian can open up an artillerist to charges in the host country.

In the case of a normal criminal, "terrorism" is usually defined as an attack on civilians, and carries a harsher penalty.

The reasoning in both cases are the same -- civilians are non-combatants and should be protected, a principle going back to the middle ages if not before.

[Cynic]

It's not a question of "international" police, though. It's a question of "national" police. A person who commits a crime in the United States is subject to the laws of the United States; this has been settled international law for a long time.
[snip]
It does make a difference to the crimes on the charge sheet.

In the case of a soldier, the laws and customs of war prohibit attacks on civilian targets -- deliberately targeting a civilian can open up an artillerist to charges in the host country.

In the case of a normal criminal, "terrorism" is usually defined as an attack on civilians, and carries a harsher penalty.

The reasoning in both cases are the same -- civilians are non-combatants and should be protected, a principle going back to the middle ages if not before.

What I'm trying to explore here is whether our traditional binary treatment of these concepts has been outmoded by current realities -- or if they were ever approriate, strictly speaking. (And by explore, I mean that I'm not arguing with anyone's opinion, just talking about stuff and seeing what I and everyone else thinks.)

Basically, I think there are more shades to be regarded here than if the perpetrators are or aren't military or if the crime is or isn't terrorism. Asymetric warfare is called that because it is, by definition, an especially lopsided contest. In those situations, if the smaller group is expected have any chance then deviations from traditional warfare can be expected. To an extent, their tactics can be considered justifyable in terms of the scope of their goals and limits of their capabilities. There might be a distinction to be drawn between blowing up a civilian building for "petty" reasons versus doing for "good" reasons. We don't tolerate it with formal militaries because they are regarded as having more options.

That's not really a defense of terrorism, though it may seem like one. But I think we tend to view these sorts of things in terms of whether or not we agree with their motivations. We're more sympathetic toward non-government groups waging asymetric war against targets when we agree with their viewpoints, calling them "freedom fighters" or whatever. But when they do it in the name of a cause we don't like, they're Terrorists (with a capital T). And of course it isn't just perspective -- sometimes their goals can be reasonably weighted in an objective manner so far as justification is concerned. Naturally after 9/11, all speculation of reasoning was forbidden because of the extreme objection to the tactics used. Understandable, I suppose, but forces a black/white paradigm that isn't very realistic, IMO.

What I'm getting at here is that determining these kinds of issues isn't as simple as government sponsorship or the location and type of targets attacked. An army is an army, regardless of those things. What that means for treatment as a POW versus a common criminal, I'm not sure, but I think it points to existence of a middle ground.

In the US, we definately treat organized crime somewhat differently, even if the crimes themselves are held in the same regard as non-military crime. There's an old game from the 90's called Syndicate that involved warfare between national and multinational corporations, independent of national governments. An analysis of that might be instructive, oddly. :)

[Meadmaker]

Cynic,

One of the theories behind our distinction between treating military and civilian actions differently has to do with who is held to be responsible. Generally, killing a bunch of people is frowned upon, and anyone who does it is subject to punishment. However, we make an exception for soldiers. That has to do with traditions of holding soldiers in somewhat high regard, but there's another reason that is more important. It is assumed that the soldier is not responsible for his actions. He has a duty to carry out the instructions of the king/government, and so any responsibility for his actions is transferred to the king. (This principle is at least as old as Shakespeare's Henry V.)

Looking at it from a different angle, it is also assumed that failure to carry out the king's will may be punishable by itself, so a soldier is given a pass on any bad behavior based on the theory that he has no choice. A soldier is even allowed to carry out an illegal order, like shooting a civilian, if he can demonstrate that he has a reasonable belief that his own life will be forfeit if he refuses to carry out the order.

However, if the Nuremburg trials are considered a precedent, the leaders are not off the hook just because their actions are military. One of the crimes with which the defendants were charged was the act of starting an aggressive war. The war itself was held to be illegal. Killing large numbers of people in an organized fashion is generally frowned upon, and the leaders can't pass the buck to their superiors, because they don't have superiors. If we were to somehow grant that the 9/11 attacks, or other terrorist activities, were part of a war, the leaders would still have to justify the war. One of the problems with doing that is that the trials are generally held by the winners, who are generally unsympathetic.

[drkitten]

What I'm getting at here is that determining these kinds of issues isn't as simple as government sponsorship or the location and type of targets attacked.

And I'm suggesting that you're wrong.

Legal distinctions are almost always arbitrary, but they are almost always simple. If the victim dies, it's murder. If the victim recovers, it's merely attempted murder, which is usually punished much less harshly. It seems perhaps silly and unfair that the punishment meted out should depend not on the actions of the criminal himself, but upon the skills of the paramedics called to the scene, but there it is.


An army is an army, regardless of those things.

Yes. But there are certain aspects to an army that are legally recognized as being worth protecting, and certain aspects that the army itself must obey in order to qualify for those protections. One of the aspects that has historically been extremely important is the principle of national sovereignty -- that nations can engage in actions without fear of legal repercussions, even when the same action would be criminal when taken by an ordinary individual. Countries can repudiate treaties freely, but individuals cannot typically repudiate contracts without justification.

... and this, in turn, mean that actors on behalf of a state need a certain amount of protection; you can't sue a diplomat for breaking a treaty. You can't imprison a soldier for breaking a window,.... but you can imprison him for representing an enemy state irrespective of his behavior.

Of course, if he doesn't represent a nation-state, then there's no principle of national sovereignty involved. Which is why POWs and criminals are treated differently. And why "armies" of terrorists and "armies" of nations are treated differently, even though they're ultimately just groups of armed individuals.

[Brainster]

If there are good arguments on both sides, then they should be less upset, instead of painting it as being soft on terrorism.

But that is what Holder is saying, not those who oppose the civilian trial for KSM and the others.

Perhaps you could point me to the conservative blogger who said: "Yes, I can see that there are excellent points on both sides. And also I am sure that Holder has had access to information that I have not, and to much better legal advice than I have had access to, and took much longer to think about it than I have in what is admittedly a knee-jerk reaction composed within a few hours of his announcement, but nonetheless my tentative conclusion is that he was wrong. Of course, I can see that men of goodwill might differ on this question ..."

Perhaps you could point me to the liberal bloggers who are saying the same thing about those other Gitmo detainees who are going to face military commissions or tribunals instead of the civilian courts? Or are they also bed-wetters, to use the silly tag created by the OP? Here's Dahlia Lithwick (http://www.slate.com/id/2235467/), urinating on the mattress over the case of Omar Khadr:

He was captured as a child soldier but offered none of the protections that warranted. Video surfaced last year of him weeping as he described being abused under detention.

Remember, I have made my own feelings clear on this matter. I'm a results guy, not a process guy. As long as KSM gets life or death, I'll be satisfied.

[GreyICE]

Perhaps you could point me to the liberal bloggers who are saying the same thing about those other Gitmo detainees who are going to face military commissions or tribunals instead of the civilian courts? Or are they also bed-wetters, to use the silly tag created by the OP? Here's Dahlia Lithwick (http://www.slate.com/id/2235467/), urinating on the mattress over the case of Omar Khadr:

Nice quote. Perhaps you could include the two lines after it.

Video surfaced last year of him weeping as he described being abused under detention. Khadr alleges that he has been shackled in stress positions until he wet himself, then used as a "human mop" to clean his own urine. In May 2008, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that Khadr's detention "constituted a clear violation of fundamental human rights protected by international law."

Is out of context the new meme?

[Mark6]

You think that these guys are even as powerful as the Mafia? Here? You think they can hit a witness here? So why didn't they do this when we tried Massaoui? Or Padilla?

How come we pulled those off with no hitches?
You think Moussaoui’s trial went off with no hitches?

His lawyers tied the court up in knots for four years.

All they had to do was demand that the government hand over all its intelligence on Moussaoui. The government would not do it, so the process dragged on. It only ended was because suddenly Moussaoui decided to plead guilty. That plea relieved the government of the choice between allowing a fishing expedition into its intelligence files, continuing the charade forever, or dismissing the charges.

Difference with KSM is he already confessed :)

[Thunder]

Be that as it may, this isn't a thread about Israel. Your constant attempts to turn every issue into an attack on Israel or an attack on Jews who don't think the way you want them to think is tiresome.

i was answering Wildcat's question.

[Unabogie]

You think Moussaoui’s trial went off with no hitches?

His lawyers tied the court up in knots for four years.

All they had to do was demand that the government hand over all its intelligence on Moussaoui. The government would not do it, so the process dragged on. It only ended was because suddenly Moussaoui decided to plead guilty. That plea relieved the government of the choice between allowing a fishing expedition into its intelligence files, continuing the charade forever, or dismissing the charges.

Difference with KSM is he already confessed :)

I was going to avoid getting back into this thread (since I've said pretty much all I have to say on it), but, this is just ridiculous. Granting your characterization as the truth, this isn't at all what people are suggesting will happen. A "hitch" being four years of delay, followed by a conviction? And this is bad? We convicted him and even by your narrative of the trial, a) no secrets were spilled and b) he got life and c) swarms of super-Jihadis did not descend on the courtroom via parachutes and exact their revenge.

This just proves my point all the more. People scared of a public trial are bedwetters.

To quote the judge who sentenced him.

“Mr. Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr in a great big bang of glory,” she said, “but to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper.”http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060504/060504_brinkema_hmed_8a.standard.jpgArt Lien / AFP - Getty Images
This courtroom sketch shows U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema during the trial.
At that point, Moussaoui tried again to interrupt her, but she raised her voice and spoke over him.


“You will never get a chance to speak again and that’s an appropriate ending.”

[Thunder]

i think Conservatives don't want to put these guys on trial because they want to destroy America's freedoms, and jury trials are a great symbol of American freedom.

:)

[Peephole]

Fiona is exactly right in her post, excerpted above, and those who have defended the Bush administration policies would do well to understand it. Under George W. Bush, when it was convenient to treat them as criminals, they were treated as criminals. When it was convenient to treat them as military personnel, they were treated as military. The Bush administration policy could be restated as, "We don't have to follow any law we don't feel like it, and we'll do whatever we darned well feel like doing, and we'll issue some sort of memo as cover." It was an arrogance of power that did not serve our nation well.
You're totally right here.
Now, though, the Obama administration has to pick up the pieces, and I think they're doing it well. There will be trials for accused criminals. I believe those trials will be fair. They will try and sort out who was engaging in plotting crimes prior to the invasion, and who took up arms in response to the invasion. It's a real mess, and no solution will be pretty, but I trust that the current government of the United States will make a reasonable effort to see that real justice is done, which I would not say was true under the last administration.
You're totally wrong here. Obama is keeping the Bush policies almost completely intact. Don't forget, even though the right-wingers are going crazy now, that this isn't a new thing, the Bush administration also organised trials for terror detainees (like Zacarias Moussaoui).

It's still the same system. The "U.S. government always wins"-system. If they have tons of evidence against you, you get a fair trial (which you obviously lose). If they're not sure they can get a conviction by a regular judge, they set up a military tribunal (in which the cards are stacked against you). And if they barely have any evidence at all, they just hold you indefinitely.

[Roadtoad]

Don't you want me, baby?

Well, maybe if you'd brush your teeth once in a while, and pass on the extra helping of pinto beans at dinner.

Otherwise... Nah.

[WildCat]

What exactly did you mean?
I didn't want to get bogged down on the definition of terrorism is all.

[WildCat]

i believe the term is......OWNED!!!!

:)
No parky, not at all.

What do you think would have happened if they were caught by Egypt?

[tyr_13]

No parky, not at all.

What do you think would have happened if they were caught by Egypt?

They were caught by the US. I know this is totally American centric and arrogant, but we're better than Egypt. There I said it.

[WildCat]

With all due respect, that's two different questions. Not all acts illegal under the Laws of Armed Combat and the Geneva conventions are acts of terrorism. They're two different concepts.

It's not terrorism to attack a military target, even if it's done in a non-legal manner.
See? This is why I ddn't want to get bogged down on the definition of "terrorism".

Not all war crimes are terrorism, but it's a war crime nonetheless.

[WildCat]

They were caught by the US. I know this is totally American centric and arrogant, but we're better than Egypt. There I said it.
Elaborate.

eta: I was specifically referring to the examples in parky's post, "they" referred to Israeli commandos, not anyone in Gitmo.

[Thunder]

No parky, not at all.

What do you think would have happened if they were caught by Egypt?

who cares. they attempted false-flag terrorism in Egypt. they deserved the death penalty.

plus Ehud Barak and the other assassins dressed as civilians during an military operation, which is a war-crime.

[Cynic]

plus Ehud Barak and the other assassins dressed as civilians during an military operation, which is a war-crime.

Maybe I watch too many bad movies, but don't we (the US) have forces that do that sort of thing all the time?

[WildCat]

who cares. they attempted false-flag terrorism in Egypt. they deserved the death penalty.
They didn't get caught.

plus Ehud Barak and the other assassins dressed as civilians during an military operation, which is a war-crime.
And they did not get caught.

Of course, if they had been they could have been tried and executed.

[WildCat]

Maybe I watch too many bad movies, but don't we (the US) have forces that do that sort of thing all the time?
Yep, as does everyone else. Spying isn't exactly legal.

[Thunder]

They didn't get caught.
And they did not get caught.

Of course, if they had been they could have been tried and executed.

well, you asked me if Israelis ever dressed as civilians during military operations. the answer is yes.

and Israel has committed and sought to commit military acts against civilian targets, which is terrorism.

help me help you.

[Brainster]

You're totally right here.

You're totally wrong here. Obama is keeping the Bush policies almost completely intact. Don't forget, even though the right-wingers are going crazy now, that this isn't a new thing, the Bush administration also organised trials for terror detainees (like Zacarias Moussaoui).

It's still the same system. The "U.S. government always wins"-system. If they have tons of evidence against you, you get a fair trial (which you obviously lose). If they're not sure they can get a conviction by a regular judge, they set up a military tribunal (in which the cards are stacked against you). And if they barely have any evidence at all, they just hold you indefinitely.

You say that like it's a bad thing. It's a feature, not a bug.

[Dr Adequate]

But that is what Holder is saying ... No, Brainster, that was the conclusion you drew. You wrote: "Remember, AG Holder himself said this was the toughest decision he had to make. Which means what? That there are good arguments on both sides of the issue."

If you wish, you may now amend this to: "Remember, AG Holder himself said this was the toughest decision he had to make. Which means what? That he's a pinko traitor who can't see his clear duty as an American because he loves terrorists."

Perhaps you could point me to the liberal bloggers who are saying the same thing about those other Gitmo detainees who are going to face military commissions or tribunals instead of the civilian courts? Not without reading some liberal blogs.

[Dr Adequate]

Don't forget, even though the right-wingers are going crazy now, that this isn't a new thing, the Bush administration also organised trials for terror detainees (like Zacarias Moussaoui). Incidentally, did everyone see the Daily Show?

Heh heh heh.

[Tailgater]

well, you asked me if Israelis ever dressed as civilians during military operations. the answer is yes.

and Israel has committed and sought to commit military acts against civilian targets, which is terrorism.

help me help you.

Could you quote that question?

[Peephole]

You say that like it's a bad thing. It's a feature, not a bug.
I know, a large part of the U.S. doesn't understand the concept of justice anymore. You and others consider people guilty until proven innocent.

[tyr_13]

Incidentally, did everyone see the Daily Show?

Heh heh heh.

Indeed.

[Fiona]

I know, a large part of the U.S. doesn't understand the concept of justice anymore. You and others consider people guilty until proven innocent.


I don't know if it is a large part of the US: but it is a very scary strand in the thinking on this board and it saddens and scares me :(

[drkitten]

I know, a large part of the U.S. doesn't understand the concept of justice anymore.

Apparently this large part includes you.

You and others consider people guilty until proven innocent.

That's not what "justice" means, even under the Anglo-American rules of burden of proof.

The idea of "presumption of innocence" refers strictly to court proceedings, and even more specifically to the verdict in court proceedings. Obviously the prosecuting attorney considers the defendant to be guilty or she wouldn't have brought the case to trial in the first place. And she's usually quite up-front about it : "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today we will prove to you that the defendant is guilty of ...."

Similarly, the arresting officer considers the perp to be guilty, or he'd not make the arrest. And the judge that orders the defendant held without bail pending trial "because he is a risk to the community" considers the defendant to be guilty.

[Fiona]

I don't agree drkitten: the police officer, prosecuter and judge should really proceed on the basis that there is sufficient evidence that there is a case to answer. They should not under any circumstances make a presumption of guilt.

And in fact to say that the prosecutor presumes guilt is at odds with how decisions to prosecute are made, at least in this country: the tests are that "it is in the public interest" that the case should be brought: and/or that there is a 50% chance of conviction

And for anyone not in those roles there should be a a determination to view the defendant as an innocent person falsely accused: the evidence should overturn that presumption because it is strong enough to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt (or on balance of probability in civil cases)

I am afraid you seem to confirm Peephole's point

[Tailgater]

Obviously, there is a degree of predetermined guilt leading up to the trial or there would be no such thing as setting bail. Or as DK points out, there would be no arrest. They would just accuse you and send you a notice to come to court.

"I am afraid you seem to confirm Peephole's point"

Lame.

Once you are in court, the jury is to presume you inncocent. The trick is getting a speedy trial.

[drkitten]

I don't agree drkitten: the police officer, prosecuter and judge should really proceed on the basis that there is sufficient evidence that there is a case to answer.

Not at all. That's one of the key aspects of the idea of prosecutorial discretion. If the prosecution itself is not convinced of the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," why should they expect the jury to be so convinced?

If the prosecution is not convinced of the defendant's guilt, the case shouldn't even come to trial. There are far too many cases where the defendant is manifestly guilty and to do otherwise clogs up the system.



They should not under any circumstances make a presumption of guilt.

They are not. They are making a conclusion of guilt, based on evidence. The conclusion may or may not satisfy the juridical standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the judge certainly knows whether or not he believes on the basis of evidence presented whether or not the defendant is guilty. And in the event that he does not believe (not enough evidence has been presented), he has both the authority and the duty to stop the proceedings and order a release.



And for anyone not in those roles there should be a a determination to view the defendant as an innocent person falsely accused

Not at all; the whole point, for example, of the grand jury process is to show enough evidence to convince the grand jurors that the defendant is guilty. But the same evidence that will convince a rational grand juror will also convince any rational observer. Which means, in turn, that any rational observer seeing the same evidence will not view the defendant as falsely accused.

What makes the grand jury process tricky is the fact that only one side of the case is presented, and that's also why the defendant gets an actual trial. It's easy to convince people with one-sided evidence.

[Fiona]

Obviously, there is a degree of predetermined guilt leading up to the trial or there would be no such thing as setting bail. Or as DK points out, there would be no arrest. They would just accuse you and send you a notice to come to court.

I do not think you read my post. Or perhaps it was not clear. There is no predetermination of guilt. There is assessment of the evidence and the probability of getting a conviction. Not the same thing at all

"I am afraid you seem to confirm Peephole's point"

Lame.

But true :)

[Tailgater]

I do not think you read my post. Or perhaps it was not clear. There is no predetermination of guilt. There is assessment of the evidence and the probability of getting a conviction. Not the same thing at all

Probability of conviction and determination of guilt walk hand in hand. Predeterminating the chances of throwing someone in jail doesn't sound much different or I just don't get your point.



But true :)Yet, the discussion just started. Talk about prejudging.

[Fiona]

Not at all. That's one of the key aspects of the idea of prosecutorial discretion. If the prosecution itself is not convinced of the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," why should they expect the jury to be so convinced?

Precisely: they see the evidence and they make a judgement as to whether there is a 50% chance of conviction. That is what prosecutorial discretion is about: nothing to do with being sure of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at all: it would be a very strange system of justice if it were as you describe: there would be very many fewer cases brought to court and there would be a 100% conviction rate or near enough: most people would not be at all comfortable with such a system

If the prosecution is not convinced of the defendant's guilt, the case shouldn't even come to trial.

That just does not happen to be the way the law works in this country: I doubt it is how it works in yours either. If there is no 50% rule I will honestly be surprised

There are far too many cases where the defendant is manifestly guilty and to do otherwise clogs up the system.

And that again epitomises the problem I think that Peephole identified and I agree with. Verdict first, trial afterwards is not a very good principle

They are not. They are making a conclusion of guilt, based on evidence. The conclusion may or may not satisfy the juridical standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the judge certainly knows whether or not he believes on the basis of evidence presented whether or not the defendant is guilty. And in the event that he does not believe (not enough evidence has been presented), he has both the authority and the duty to stop the proceedings and order a release.

They are making a judgement on whether there is a case to answer. Again that is not at all the same thing.

Not at all; the whole point, for example, of the grand jury process is to show enough evidence to convince the grand jurors that the defendant is guilty. But the same evidence that will convince a rational grand juror will also convince any rational observer. Which means, in turn, that any rational observer seeing the same evidence will not view the defendant as falsely accused.

Not after the evidence has been presented, of course not. But if they do not presume him falsely accused before they have seen the evidence they are not fit to serve

What makes the grand jury process tricky is the fact that only one side of the case is presented, and that's also why the defendant gets an actual trial. It's easy to convince people with one-sided evidence.

I do not know what this process is like really: but again it seems to me from what you describe that once again they are determining whether there is a case to answer: not whether the person is guilty: indeed it does not make sense if that is not true

[Cynic]

Legal distinctions are almost always arbitrary, but they are almost always simple. If the victim dies, it's murder. If the victim recovers, it's merely attempted murder, which is usually punished much less harshly. It seems perhaps silly and unfair that the punishment meted out should depend not on the actions of the criminal himself, but upon the skills of the paramedics called to the scene, but there it is.

I appreciate your pointing this distinction out to me, as I admit I was definately thinking from an intention/action perspective, not about outcomes, per se. However, there's a quote from H.L. Mencken I've always liked. He said: For every problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong. For instance, how does this paradigm work for the crime of conspiracy? Arguably participating in a conspiracy that comes to fruition and causes destruction is simple enough. But we still prosecute those who conspire about things that are thwarted, arguably because they had to be, but there that is.


Yes. But there are certain aspects to an army that are legally recognized as being worth protecting, and certain aspects that the army itself must obey in order to qualify for those protections. One of the aspects that has historically been extremely important is the principle of national sovereignty -- that nations can engage in actions without fear of legal repercussions, even when the same action would be criminal when taken by an ordinary individual. Countries can repudiate treaties freely, but individuals cannot typically repudiate contracts without justification.

... and this, in turn, mean that actors on behalf of a state need a certain amount of protection; you can't sue a diplomat for breaking a treaty. You can't imprison a soldier for breaking a window,.... but you can imprison him for representing an enemy state irrespective of his behavior.

Of course, if he doesn't represent a nation-state, then there's no principle of national sovereignty involved. Which is why POWs and criminals are treated differently. And why "armies" of terrorists and "armies" of nations are treated differently, even though they're ultimately just groups of armed individuals.

This may not be a fair analogy, but it reminds me of arguments against gay marriage that suggest that we can't allow it to "defend the non-gay marriage". More to the point, does treating non-state sponsored combatants as something other than criminals in any way diminish the status afforded to state-sponsored soldiers?

Unlike the marriage issue, the status given to soldiers versus civilians is based on something solid, as you've described. But while valid, it's an argument that is only as good as the truths of its premises. I would suggest that this issue might be more complicated because, on close inspection, those premises rest on certain assumptions that are not always true and are arguably arbitrary themselves.

For instance, there is particular emphasis put in maintaining the integrity of "the state", so much so that everything else has been defined in terms of -- and exclusive to -- it. But the importance of a centralized form of existence, while certainly traditional and historically prevalent, isn't necessarily a given. Technology and increased population may someday make a decentralized "state" a reality where land isn't so much important. This is no doubt a radical idea, but I think it calls into question the idea that the validity of a given group rests solely on the fact that they claim a particular patch of land. If we take the notion that the Native Americans really didn't view the land as anything people owned at face value, then do we naturally conclude that when the settlers came and said "fine, I'll claim it then if you won't" that the only people who could be said to be a genuine army with respect to protections were the settlers?

Another major premise is that civilians are there to be protected, that they just step out of the way when armies come, and it's just army versus army. I'm not sure it's ever really been true so much as a well-regarded idea. Are civilians resisting an army considered soldiers and afforded the benefits that come with it? Why would a farmer defending his property be given fewer rights than a soldier hired to do the same thing? Here we're talking essentially about a group who rather than resisting (well, they're doing that too) is actually lauching assaults. Why would they be taken any less seriously than an army hired to do the same?

I think this issue is being taken advantage of to come up with whatever scenario works out best for us. If we attacked Afganistan on the notion that they sponsored Al Quada, does that not make Al Quada an army? Probably not, but then again, why not? It could be argued that Al Quada militants are just doing their jobs, following orders, etc in the name of their organization, and the only thing that differentiates them from soldiers in the same situation is a chunk of land with a flag planted on it. And it would seem circular to declare that this distinction matters because it matters.

[drkitten]

I do not think you read my post. Or perhaps it was not clear.

Or perhaps you can't tell the difference between the private opinion inside a person's head and the public declaration of guilt as made by a court trial.

There is no predetermination of guilt.

There is indeed.

There is assessment of the evidence and the probability of getting a conviction.

And that assessment of evidence is exactly a predetermination of guilt (or innocence). It's NOT strictly a probabilistic assessment -- legal ethics are very clear on this. Prosecutors are not supposed to make decision about whether or not to prosecute based on whether or not they think they are likely to win a case, but upon the interests of justice,.... i.e., whether or not the prosecutors have concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to them, that the defendant is guilty.

Not the same thing at all

The difference is not where you think it is.

The difference is that the prosecutor's determination that the defendant is guilty has no legal standing whatsoever (except that it enables the case to proceed to trial). You cannot be punished on the basis of a prosecutor's determination that you are guilty.

This is even more true prior to trial. An on-line legal dictionary (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause) states : "Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true."

And a little later, "the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted."

The key word there is "believe," which is "to hold as true." If "a reasonable person" does not "believe" that the claim or charge is true, neither arrest nor prosecution can proceed. If the arresting officer, or the prosecuting attorney, or the judge does not "believe" that the charges are true, the arrest/prosecution must stop. And the defendant has the authority to demand this, for example, via habeas corpus.

The difference is between "believe" and "prove." I can certainly believe things to be true that have not been proven. I can also recognize that although I believe something to be true, there may be other evidence that will cause me to shift my belief. And that's the purpose of the trial.

The "presumption of innocence" refers only to the court proceedings. At the beginning of the trial, everyone who has looked at the evidence believes that the defendant is guilty, but none of them have the authority to pronounce him as guilty, because he has not been proven guilty. They have predetermined him to be guilty in their own mind on the basis of the evidence that they've seen thus far, but they are also aware that the not all the evidence is in, and that that their mere belief, no matter how well founded, is not legally sufficient to establish guilt.

And the judge and prosecutor are aware of a distinction that evidently neither you nor Peephole is aware of -- the distinction between "I believe that X" and "I have proven that X."

[drkitten]

For instance, how does this paradigm work for the crime of conspiracy? Arguably participating in a conspiracy that comes to fruition and causes destruction is simple enough. But we still prosecute those who conspire about things that are thwarted, arguably because they had to be, but there that is.

Well, typically conspiracy to X is punished more harshly than conspiracy to commit X, but I'm not sure if that's relevant. The key aspect of a conspiracy, legally, is not the act to which the conspiracy is directed, but the act of conspiracy itself. And again, this is a very clear legal distinction that any lawyer will explain if necessary to their case.

You're right, of course. Simple rules almost always produce counterintuitive results in complex areas, which is part of why it takes twenty minutes to learn how to fry an egg and three years to learn the law. And it's also part of why the law is continually in flux. But part of learning the law is understanding (from case law and legislative debate) why the existing lines are drawn.


This may not be a fair analogy, but it reminds me of arguments against gay marriage that suggest that we can't allow it to "defend the non-gay marriage". More to the point, does treating non-state sponsored combatants as something other than criminals in any way diminish the status afforded to state-sponsored soldiers?

Yes. The Geneva Conventions (the Fourth Convention, IIRC) were very clear that civilians were entitled to due process of law and a certain degree of protection from atrocity (which included arbitrary incarceration). There are similar-but-different protections given to soldiers -- which basically included immunity to law, but explicitly makes them vulnerable to arbitrary incarceration (in POW camps).

Basically : civilians are subject to A but not B. Soldiers are subject to B but not A. And there are even official binding procedures to determine whether any given person is a civilian or a soldier.

The Bush administration tore up these conventions by asserting that, based on nothing more than the administration's say-so, a person could be put into a third category that was subject to both B and A.

If you accept that civilians-we-like are treated differently than civilians-we-don't-like, then you explicitly accept that civilians-they-like can be treated differently than civilians-they-don't-like. And you implicitly accept that soldiers-they-like can be treated differently than soldiers-they-don't-like. Which makes the Conventions meaningless.



Unlike the marriage issue, the status given to soldiers versus civilians is based on something solid, as you've described. But while valid, it's an argument that is only as good as the truths of its premises. I would suggest that this issue might be more complicated because, on close inspection, those premises rest on certain assumptions that are not always true and are arguably arbitrary themselves.

And when that happens, the Conventions can be revised. Diplomacy, like law, is an ongoing process. But it's an ongoing multiparty process.


For instance, there is particular emphasis put in maintaining the integrity of "the state", so much so that everything else has been defined in terms of -- and exclusive to -- it. But the importance of a centralized form of existence, while certainly traditional and historically prevalent, isn't necessarily a given. Technology and increased population may someday make a decentralized "state" a reality where land isn't so much important. This is no doubt a radical idea, but I think it calls into question the idea that the validity of a given group rests solely on the fact that they claim a particular patch of land.

Not really. Our current notion of state is, as you point out, defined by land ownership. But it's also implicitly defined by recognition by other states. If you declare that you own land but someone else claims they own that same land, then the "statehood" is determined, literally, on a case-by-case basis ("recognition") depending on whose claim any particular state supports. If you decide to found something that you want to have the rights and authority of a "state" based on something other than land ownership, and it is recognized by other states, then we'll need to redefine what we mean by sovereign.

But until that actually happens, that's not especially relevant.

If we take the notion that the Native Americans really didn't view the land as anything people owned at face value, then do we naturally conclude that when the settlers came and said "fine, I'll claim it then if you won't" that the only people who could be said to be a genuine army with respect to protections were the settlers?

No, because the Native Americans are explicitly recognized as sovereign (by treaty) by the United States. Of course, these treaties have been changed and renegotiated over the years, and no one other than the USA recognizes their claims.....



Another major premise is that civilians are there to be protected, that they just step out of the way when armies come, and it's just army versus army.

Actually, no. That's not a major premise. The idea is that the armies are supposed to be the ones stepping out of the way.

Are civilians resisting an army considered soldiers and afforded the benefits that come with it?

Actually, yes (subject to a few provisos). That's explicit in the Geneva conventions (3rd) as well. The actual wording refers to "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."


I think this issue is being taken advantage of to come up with whatever scenario works out best for us. If we attacked Afganistan on the notion that they sponsored Al Quada, does that not make Al Quada an army?

No, because Al Qaeda doesn't "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war," which makes them ordinary common-or-garden criminals, not soldiers.

[drkitten]

Double post. Forum strange-osity.

[Newtons Bit]

You say that like it's a bad thing. It's a feature, not a bug.

WTF Brainster? Due process of law is one of the reasons the USA rebelled against the British Crown in the first place. Giving it up now just because we don't like some evil asshats goes against everything this country was founded upon.

[GreyICE]

WTF Brainster? Due process of law is one of the reasons the USA rebelled against the British Crown in the first place. Giving it up now just because we don't like some evil asshats goes against everything this country was founded upon.

He's results oriented. The ends justify the means and all that. As long as the right people get shot at the right time, who cares if we blew up a few omelets?

[Cynic]

There's a reason the term "Machiavellian" isn't generally regarded as a compliment.

[Fiona]

Or perhaps you can't tell the difference between the private opinion inside a person's head and the public declaration of guilt as made by a court trial.

Not at all sure what you are getting at, here. The private opinion of the prosecutor is irrelevant to them doing their job: I certainly would expect a prosecutor to bring a case if the evidence meant the 50% test was met, even if they really liked the accused and could not believe they did the crime. Would you not?

There is indeed


We will just have to disagree about that. A determination of guilt (or not) is the outcome of a trial. In parts of you argument you seem to accept that: in others you don't. Perhaps it is a problem of definitions.

And that assessment of evidence is exactly a predetermination of guilt (or innocence).

No, it isn't. It is an assessment of the quality of the evidence and a judgement about whether that evidence is likely to lead to a conviction. The prosecutor can be absolutely convinced that a person is guilty: without evidence to support that conclusion he should not bring a case.

It's NOT strictly a probabilistic assessment -- legal ethics are very clear on this. Prosecutors are not supposed to make decision about whether or not to prosecute based on whether or not they think they are likely to win a case, but upon the interests of justice,.... i.e., whether or not the prosecutors have concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to them, that the defendant is guilty.

Not in this country. It is a two stage test and you have conflated them. The prosecutor should not bring a case without a 50% chance of conviction: AND there is a further test of public interest: so that the prosecutor can bring a case on a lesser chance or refuse to take one on a greater chance if the public interest is served thereby. I do not really see what you are arguing here, I confess: your last sentence seems to agree with what i am saying: that the question is the quality of the evidence and NOT the prosecutor's view as to guilt: they should take the case when the evidence is strong whether they privately believe in guilt or not. It is not their job to determine guilt. It is their job to assess the evidence and, if it is strong enough, to present it, so that the jury can determine guilt. So far as I can see we are broadly agreed

The difference is not where you think it is.

The difference is that the prosecutor's determination that the defendant is guilty has no legal standing whatsoever (except that it enables the case to proceed to trial). You cannot be punished on the basis of a prosecutor's determination that you are guilty.

I think it is exactly where I think it is. In essence this is an issue of words. In my form of words the prosecutor determines that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial to determine guilt: in your form of words the prosecugtor is persuaded by the evidence that the defendant is guilty but that view does not matter: what matters is his ability to persuade a jury to the same view. in neither form of words is there a predetermination of guilt for two reasons: first, as you say , the prosecutor can only have a private opinion on that subject and it has no standing: and second any such private opinion is not a predetermination: it based on the evidence to hand.

I really do not know what we are arguing about here

This is even more true prior to trial. An on-line legal dictionary (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause) states : "Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true."

Sure. On the basis of evidence there must be a case to answer. A distinction without a difference so far as I can see. There is nothing there which is at odds with what I am saying. The evidence must give a reasonable prospect of conviction. Neither the police nor the prosecution's opinion of guilt have any bearing at all: their opinion about the quality of the evidence is what is important.

And a little later, "the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted."

Yep: that is why the test is 50%.

The key word there is "believe," which is "to hold as true."

The key words are the ones I have bolded.

If "a reasonable person" does not "believe" that the claim or charge is true, neither arrest nor prosecution can proceed. If the arresting officer, or the prosecuting attorney, or the judge does not "believe" that the charges are true, the arrest/prosecution must stop. And the defendant has the authority to demand this, for example, via habeas corpus.

Nope. If the arresting officer or the prosecutor or the judge do not have enough facts to show that the charges are true the arrest/prosecution must stop. Their opinion about it doesn't matter a jot except in so far as it is an opinion about the evidence

The difference is between "believe" and "prove." I can certainly believe things to be true that have not been proven. I can also recognize that although I believe something to be true, there may be other evidence that will cause me to shift my belief. And that's the purpose of the trial.

If what you are arguing is that a prosecutor, judge or police officer can bring a case on the basis of their belief alone I think you are wrong and your own quotes show you are wrong. They must have facts to support that opinion. Where they have facts, and their decision to proceed is based on those facts, then there is a case to answer and there will be a trial to determine guilt. That is not a predetermination of guilt, though they might very well believe the person to be guilty. It is irrelevant what they believe. Where they have a view that a person is guilty but no facts that is a predetermination and it is not lawful for them to proceed.

The "presumption of innocence" refers only to the court proceedings. At the beginning of the trial, everyone who has looked at the evidence believes that the defendant is guilty, but none of them have the authority to pronounce him as guilty, because he has not been proven guilty. They have predetermined him to be guilty in their own mind on the basis of the evidence that they've seen thus far, but they are also aware that the not all the evidence is in, and that that their mere belief, no matter how well founded, is not legally sufficient to establish guilt.

And is thus irrelevant. Actually I think this is a silly argument because I do not think we broadly disagree. The presumption of innocence of course obtains before the evidence has been evaluated: there would be no possibility of conviction if it was in play afterwards. The fact remains that prejudging the issue before considering the evidence is wrong whoever does it. And the fact remains that the determination of guilt is not for the police or the prosecutor or the judge, as you agree. If you recall how this debate started, it came up because some people who have not seen the evidence at all have made it plain that they demand conviction in these cases: and the danger is that this makes a fair trial impossible. The American justice system has been very alive to those problems and I presume it is still very concerned with that kind of issue: I certainly hope so

And the judge and prosecutor are aware of a distinction that evidently neither you nor Peephole is aware of -- the distinction between "I believe that X" and "I have proven that X."

I am not unaware of it at all: in some parts of your posts you seem to be: but I do not think that is true either. Whatever: the important question is how we arrive at a fair trial and if the jury do not respect the presumption of innocence before hearing the evidence it cannot happen. And that is what this whole conversation is about at least as far as I understand it

[NoZed Avenger]

Not at all sure what you are getting at, here. The private opinion of the prosecutor is irrelevant to them doing their job: I certainly would expect a prosecutor to bring a case if the evidence meant the 50% test was met, even if they really liked the accused and could not believe they did the crime. Would you not?


I am not sure where you are getting a 50% test from.

Apart from conceptual problems applying numbers to the process, if the prosecutor thinks he has only a 'better than 50% chance' of a conviction, he is nowhere near able to -- in good conscience -- claim guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If that is all he/she has, then I would *not* want the prosecutor to proceed.

[Fiona]

It is the legal standard here, Nozed Avenger. As I said there is a two stage test; first the evidential test and second the public interest test.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/resources/prosecution.html

It is very generally known as a 50% test but, as I said, the second test (public interest) sometimes leads to cases being brought even though there is a lesser chance of conviction or not brought even though it is greater.

Eg

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/big-boost-for-police-in-cps-shakeup-1524121.html

Among the proposals that ministers will consider are basing some CPS lawyers in large police stations, a relaxation on some occasions of the "more than 50 per cent chance of conviction" rule that the prosecutors use in deciding whether to pursue cases, and giving the police a mechanism by which they can challenge CPS decisions not to prosecute.

[Cynic]

I am not sure where you are getting a 50% test from.

Apart from conceptual problems applying numbers to the process, if the prosecutor thinks he has only a 'better than 50% chance' of a conviction, he is nowhere near able to -- in good conscience -- claim guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If that is all he/she has, then I would *not* want the prosecutor to proceed.

Depends. Very often there are quite sufficient reasons for the prosecution to know to a certainty that a person is guilty but can't show that very well. For instance, if there's a video tape with the guy standing there over the body pumping bullets into the body, but for some reason that tape is ruled inadmissible. In such a circumstance, any chance of a conviction is better than none at all. Sometime might come up, and juries are unpredictable.

[the_eye]

Conservatives Say Gitmo Detainees Would Be Fine In IL Prison, Warn GOP Of 'Scaremongering (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/conservatives-say-gitmo-detainees-would-be-fine-in-il-prison-warn-gop-of-scaremongering.php?ref=fpa)

[Dr Adequate]

"Scaremongering", you say? No, they're just voicing valid concerns.

fzLTs7lFY1c
Paging Mr Jon Stewart ...

[the_eye]

"Scaremongering", you say? No, they're just voicing valid concerns.

fzLTs7lFY1c
Paging Mr Jon Stewart ...

(I'm not entirely sure you're serious or not.)

What's stopping the "terrorists" from doing the exactly the same thing to the Participants in the Military Tribunal? Is the American Law enforcement so incompetent that it can't prevent such scenarios? When did cowardice become acceptable in America?

My response:

Here's $2, Go to the vending machine and a buy a can of "Pump the **** up."

[Dr Adequate]

(I'm not entirely sure you're serious or not.) You aren't? Well, I guess being Australian you don't know who Jon Stewart is, and being new round here you don't know much about me either.

I think it's a delicious example of batcrap crazy.

[the_eye]

You aren't? Well, I guess being Australian you don't know who Jon Stewart is, and being new round here you don't know much about me either.

I think it's a delicious example of batcrap crazy.

I totally forgot about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show! I used watch episodes over the internet, until they banned Australian Users.

[Tailgater]

I totally forgot about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show! I used watch episodes over the internet, until they banned Australian Users.

Stewart banned?

[Cynic]

When did cowardice become acceptable in America?

As a basic requirement for scaremongering to work, cowardice has always been in vogue with those seeking to control people. Fear isn't enough on its own, when people are willing to face it.

[tyr_13]

I especially like the 'they're going to recruit our extensive prison population as jihadist' fear mongering. Right, because the first thing we're going to do is put them in general population, hopefully selecting a group of young, angry, guys only there because they had some pot who get out soon.

Plus they might make a bomb with toilet paper and toothpaste or something.

[Dr Adequate]

I especially like the 'they're going to recruit our extensive prison population as jihadist' fear mongering. Right, because the first thing we're going to do is put them in general population, hopefully selecting a group of young, angry, guys only there because they had some pot who get out soon. Well of course they're going to let KSM mingle with the ordinary American criminals who have just committed petty crimes of violence. Because instead of them tearing his guts out and feeding them to the crows as revenge for 9/11, he is going to turn them into jihadis, 'cos hey, that's just how human nature works, isn't it?

[NoZed Avenger]

It is the legal standard here, Nozed Avenger. As I said there is a two stage test; first the evidential test and second the public interest test.


Interesting, although I must say (not being a crim attorney) I am not fond of the wording.

Thanks, though.

[Praktik]

(I'm not entirely sure you're serious or not.)

What's stopping the "terrorists" from doing the exactly the same thing to the Participants in the Military Tribunal? Is the American Law enforcement so incompetent that it can't prevent such scenarios? When did cowardice become acceptable in America?

My response:

Here's $2, Go to the vending machine and a buy a can of "Pump the **** up."

The best response to the cowardly and politically opportunistic cries of the "danger" of housing alleged terrorists on US soil is to tell these windbags that if we accept their weaksauce arguments, "then the terrorists win."

After all, the mission of the terrorists is to strike fear in the hearts of Americans, and claiming that we can't house them on US soil for fear of possible future attacks is the craven argument of one who has succumbed to the terrorist's strategy.

Don't let them win!!

Beyond all that, behind this argument is a nested American exceptionalism. "we can't house terrorists here because they will be magnets for terrorist attacks from their terrorist allies".

So we house them in other countries, and subject their populations to this risk.

Sure, the risk is a cowardly fantasy, but if they truly believe their words then what these people are really saying is that other innocent third-party people should be a human shield to cover for American lives in this American war.

[Cynic]

Well of course they're going to let KSM mingle with the ordinary American criminals who have just committed petty crimes of violence. Because instead of them tearing his guts out and feeding them to the crows as revenge for 9/11, he is going to turn them into jihadis, 'cos hey, that's just how human nature works, isn't it?

I agree it's a silly objection, but then again, Charlie Manson is still attracting followers when I can scarcely figure out how he ever did. :boggled:

[Peephole]

"Scaremongering", you say? No, they're just voicing valid concerns.

fzLTs7lFY1c
Paging Mr Jon Stewart ...
Here's more of this nut, how do these guys get elected?

XSFbvRXNGg

[Darth Rotor]

Ah yes, cause we all know how sympathetic the average American is to KSM and "the terrorists".

I think you need not worry about bleeding hearts.
The lawyers, then. Let's see: KSM's lawyer first makes a motion to change venue, since he is not likely to get a fair trial in New York.

Bets?

DR

[Brainster]

WTF Brainster? Due process of law is one of the reasons the USA rebelled against the British Crown in the first place. Giving it up now just because we don't like some evil asshats goes against everything this country was founded upon.

These people are not US citizens. They do not have the same rights as US citizens. It bothers me little that they are being detained without trial; nobody gives POWs a trial, they are simply detained for the duration of the war. And these guys aren't even legitimate POWs.

BTW, here's an interesting snippet of an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111703879.html) from the Washington Post on the fate of the Gitmo detainees:

Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions. About 90 others have been cleared for repatriation or resettlement in a third country, and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material.

Bolding added for emphasis. Let me say here that I applaud Obama's pragmatism on those 75 detainees.

[Darth Rotor]

Nothing at all hangs on the word "soldiers": so far we agree.
That would be what we call "wrong" in English.

[Peephole]

These people are not US citizens. They do not have the same rights as US citizens. It bothers me little that they are being detained without trial; nobody gives POWs a trial, they are simply detained for the duration of the war. And these guys aren't even legitimate POWs.
If a foreign country abducts you tomorrow, would you argue that you don't have any rights because you're on foreign soil?

[Thunder]

These people are not US citizens. They do not have the same rights as US citizens. It bothers me little that they are being detained without trial; nobody gives POWs a trial, they are simply detained for the duration of the war. And these guys aren't even legitimate POWs.


one could argue that terrorists deserve more legal rights then regular old POWs. why is this? because regular old POWs are not accused of a crime, and just simply go home when the war is over.

terrorists, ARE accused of a crime..and therefore must be put on trial to decide if they are guilty of innocent. if they are found guilty, they may be executed......while POWs should never be executed for any reason.

when you face the possibility of life in prison or death, you deserve the right to defend yourself against charges. this is a fundamental human right.

[Unabogie]

The lawyers, then. Let's see: KSM's lawyer first makes a motion to change venue, since he is not likely to get a fair trial in New York.

Bets?

DR

He most certainly will. But it will be denied, since the judge will conclude that any venue in the country will have the same prejudice.

Bets?

[Fiona]

That would be what we call "wrong" in English.

Why?

[quadraginta]

These people are not US citizens. They do not have the same rights as US citizens. It bothers me little that they are being detained without trial; nobody gives POWs a trial, they are simply detained for the duration of the war. And these guys aren't even legitimate POWs.

<snip>

Then what are they exactly? Are they political and legal non-entities with no rights of any kind anywhere?

It seems somewhat incongruous to defend the invasions of entire countries on the basis of our devotion to democracy, individual rights, and rule of law and at the same time maintain that people we incarcerate in the course of those invasions deserve none of those rights.

I'm not sure what can be done that is more appropriate than to evaluate each case on its own merit, and take whatever legal course most closely fits those circumstances. That seems to be what is being done.

[drkitten]

These people are not US citizens. They do not have the same rights as US citizens.

I wish I knew where this particular idiocy originated.

It's certainly not in the Constitution. For example, it says "Congress shall make no law ...."; it doesn't say "Congress shall make no law .... unless that law affects only non-citizens." It says "the accused shall enjoy ...", not "the accused shall enjoy (provided that he is a citizen of the United States) ..." It says "no person shall ...", not "no citizen shall ...."

You would be perfectly happy with the police being free to detail English tourists at will and sentence them to arbitrary punishment without benefit of trial?

.... but somehow, I suspect you get annoyed when American tourists are locked up without trial while visiting foreign countries.

[Thunder]

"All men are created equal, and endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

clearly, our Founding Fathers felt there were some universal rights that all men shared...regardless of their citizenship.

should all men be allowed to vote in the USA? no.

should all men be allowed Medicare and Medicade? no.

should all men, accused of a crime, have the right to defend themselves, seek representation, and have a jury decide their fate?

YES.

I firmly believe that the right to a fair trial, where one can have a lawyer and defend themselves, is a right that belongs to all human beings, regardless of where they live.

the United States did an amazing thing by recognizing this.

[the_eye]

Stewart banned?

Copyright issues, we can't watch TV episodes from any Website in America.

These people are not US citizens. They do not have the same rights as US citizens. It bothers me little that they are being detained without trial; nobody gives POWs a trial, they are simply detained for the duration of the war. And these guys aren't even legitimate POWs.


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

[Freddy]

My only question is whether, in the unlikely event that one of these suspects is acquitted or has his charges dismissed, these suspects would actually be released. Because if not, these are just show trials.

I notice that Holder has no problem with the continued detention of those he doesn't think could be convicted in a court of law, and that makes me think that even in the unlikely event KSM's charges were dismissed, he would not be set free. Holder basically let this slip when asked about it, before realizing what he had said and taking it back. But I find it very hard to believe that KSM or the others would be released anywhere under any circumstances, because Obama would be toast and he knows it.

If that is the case, then these trials are a sham, worse even than indefinite detention, because they would make a mockery of our justice system - a worse mockery than either the status quo or military tribunals:

"We'll give these guys just enough due process to feel a little better about ourselves and look a little better in other peoples' eyes, but those who stand a chance of going free if we gave them due process won't be getting civilian trials." Failure is not an option, indeed.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

[Tailgater]

Copyright issues, we can't watch TV episodes from any Website in America.


hmm, interesting.



Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

This was a response to a quote that was not mine. If you could please seperate me from it and try not to do it in the future, I would appreciate it.

[Brainster]

I wish I knew where this particular idiocy originated.

It's certainly not in the Constitution. For example, it says "Congress shall make no law ...."; it doesn't say "Congress shall make no law .... unless that law affects only non-citizens." It says "the accused shall enjoy ...", not "the accused shall enjoy (provided that he is a citizen of the United States) ..." It says "no person shall ...", not "no citizen shall ...."

You would be perfectly happy with the police being free to detail English tourists at will and sentence them to arbitrary punishment without benefit of trial?

.... but somehow, I suspect you get annoyed when American tourists are locked up without trial while visiting foreign countries.

Take it up with Obama and Holder, I'm not the one saying they can't have a speedy trial by jury. And there is a murky spot in the law for foreign combatants caught and detained overseas, which is one big reason why Bush put them in Gitmo rather than bring them to the USA.

[Travis]

What does citizenship have to do with this? If a French tourist is accused of a crime while in the USA do we just lock them up and not even bother with a trial because "they're not US citizens" and therefore have no right to a speedy trial by jury?

Whatever happened to the idea of universal human rights?

[GreyICE]

Take it up with Obama and Holder, I'm not the one saying they can't have a speedy trial by jury. And there is a murky spot in the law for foreign combatants caught and detained overseas, which is one big reason why Bush put them in Gitmo rather than bring them to the USA.

But you WERE the one saying they didn't have a right to those trials.

I understand if you don't want to take responsibility for your own words, I wouldn't want to be responsible for them either.

[Brainster]

What does citizenship have to do with this? If a French tourist is accused of a crime while in the USA do we just lock them up and not even bother with a trial because "they're not US citizens" and therefore have no right to a speedy trial by jury?

You folks are all missing one key point with your hypotheticals. The terrorists detained at Gitmo are not accused of crimes while in the USA. Moussaoui, for example, was accused of crimes while in the USA, and so he was tried here. The foreign combatants, for example, that little slug from Canada, committed crimes on the battlefield in Afghanistan. That is a completely different matter.

Here's a little video of an exchange between AG Holder and Lindsay Graham that may help illustrate the problem:

sG7lm8Sfbo4

Are you seriously going to suggest that if Osama Bin Laden is captured, that he should immediately receive his Miranda warnings? Because if you don't mirandize him and you are going to try him in a US criminal court, you may have problems with the Supreme Court decision in Gideon. Indeed, I suspect that will be one of the many tactics that KSM's lawyers will use.

[Darat]

Perhaps then it would make sense to hand them over to an international criminal court?

[Neally]

Bumbling Holder can't seem to explain or understand the implications of his decision:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4&feature=player_embedded

[Brainster]

Perhaps then it would make sense to hand them over to an international criminal court?

The USA is not a member.

[Darat]

The USA is not a member.

Hasn't stopped you handing people over to such courts for trial in the past.

[drkitten]

And there is a murky spot in the law for foreign combatants caught and detained overseas,

Yeah, as I said, I wish I knew where the false belief that such a murky spot existed (i.e. "this idiocy") originated. Because it's not anywhere in US law.

[drkitten]

You folks are all missing one key point with your hypotheticals. The terrorists detained at Gitmo are not accused of crimes while in the USA.

Doesn't matter. There are some crimes that are well recognized to have universal jurisdiction -- piracy, for instance, or war crimes. You can also take acts in foreign countries that are nevertheless crimes here -- conspiracy to commit a crime in the States being an obvious and relevant example.

The actual terrorists --- e.g., those who participated in the planning of acts of terrorism on US soil -- fall under the jurisdiction of the US for that participation. Those who committed war crimes can be tried anywhere.

And the people who didn't actually commit any crimes shouldn't be punished for being on the wrong battlefield at the wrong time. That's actually in the Geneva Conventions.

[Brainster]

Wasn't there a point in here where Dr Adequate suggested that the Republicans should acknowledge that AG Holder had much more information and better legal advice and took longer to think about it than they did? Didn't the thread start out with accusations about how the GOP was a bunch of bed-wetters over one of Holder's carefully thought-out decisions?

:D

[Darat]

Wasn't there a point in here where Dr Adequate suggested that the Republicans should acknowledge that AG Holder had much more information and better legal advice and took longer to think about it than they did? Didn't the thread start out with accusations about how the GOP was a bunch of bed-wetters over one of Holder's carefully thought-out decisions?

:D

Can't see the post you seem to be referring to - can you link to it?

[GreyICE]

Wasn't there a point in here where Dr Adequate suggested that the Republicans should acknowledge that AG Holder had much more information and better legal advice and took longer to think about it than they did? Didn't the thread start out with accusations about how the GOP was a bunch of bed-wetters over one of Holder's carefully thought-out decisions?

:D

God, he's suspended, and yet I find out his ghost haunts these forums. I have an accusation of sockpuppetry, there's no way in hell B.A.C. didn't write that.

[Skeptic]

It seems to me that Graham more or less destroyed Holder's claims about the rationale for trying KSM & co. in civilian courts. I am not sure how to embed youtube videos, but you can find the video here (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjM3ZWFkMzc5MmI4Yjc3YTAwOWViYTY4MTliMTZkMTg=).

[Brainster]

Can't see the post you seem to be referring to - can you link to it?

Here you go (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5314907#post5314907).

[Beat]

What does citizenship have to do with this? If a French tourist is accused of a crime while in the USA do we just lock them up and not even bother with a trial because "they're not US citizens" and therefore have no right to a speedy trial by jury?

Whatever happened to the idea of universal human rights?

Sadly, it doesn't exist in common American thought.