US Show trial reaches conclusion

[E.J.Armstrong]

The US military are about to pronounce the results of the show trial in Guantanamo Bay.

'...Lawyers for Mr Hamdan said not one witness had testified that Mr Hamdan played any part in terrorist attacks. They questioned the fairness of the trial, which began on 21 July.
"This is a classic case of guilt by association," said Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer, a military defence lawyer appointed by the Pentagon. ...'

from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7541862.stm

In a related trial US military prosecutors stated that the accused was a major threat to the US and was likely to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans because they had irrefutable evidence that he had once breathed air Osama Bin Laden had breathed.

In a damning summary the US military lawyer said that only a committed terrorist would breathe air once used by Bin Laden. The fact that the air had moved ten thousand miles from Afghanistan at the time of the alleged offence was irrelevant to the obviously fair and honest judicial process overseen by the US military. He called for the death penalty, saying that an example needed to be made so that others would not follow suit.

The jury of six US military officers specially picked because they were going to come up with the verdict the US government wanted has now retired to consider their verdict. No defense was allowed in the trial as the military court already knew the accused was guilty.

The chair of the court explained that 'Whatever the guilty verdict, we are protecting the free world from terrorism and the world should be applauding the US as the accused had been described as a 'bad man' by President Bush and Dick Cheney and was therefore, by definition, guilty.

[XBoxWarrior]

I bet you get more replies when the verdict comes in?

It is an interesting case.......

[paximperium]

Meh...whatever. I await the results of the trial before prejudging others unlike a certain someone.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

'...Lawyers for Mr Hamdan said not one witness had testified that Mr Hamdan played any part in terrorist attacks. They questioned the fairness of the trial, which began on 21 July.
"This is a classic case of guilt by association," said Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer, a military defence lawyer appointed by the Pentagon. ...'

Well, if that's what the defense lawyers say, then that's that -- I reckon we can all go home.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

The US military are about to pronounce the results of the show trial in Guantanamo Bay.

'...Lawyers for Mr Hamdan said not one witness had testified that Mr Hamdan played any part in terrorist attacks. They questioned the fairness of the trial, which began on 21 July.
"This is a classic case of guilt by association," said Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer, a military defence lawyer appointed by the Pentagon. ...'

.

Being a "show trial" the rules demand that the Lt. Cmdr be shot at sunrise for treason.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

The US military are about to pronounce the results of the show trial in Guantanamo Bay.

'...Lawyers for Mr Hamdan said not one witness had testified that Mr Hamdan played any part in terrorist attacks. They questioned the fairness of the trial, which began on 21 July.
"This is a classic case of guilt by association," said Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer, a military defence lawyer appointed by the Pentagon. ...'

from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7541862.stm

In a related trial US military prosecutors stated that the accused was a major threat to the US and was likely to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans because they had irrefutable evidence that he had once breathed air Osama Bin Laden had breathed.

In a damning summary the US military lawyer said that only a committed terrorist would breathe air once used by Bin Laden. The fact that the air had moved ten thousand miles from Afghanistan at the time of the alleged offence was irrelevant to the obviously fair and honest judicial process overseen by the US military. He called for the death penalty, saying that an example needed to be made so that others would not follow suit.

The jury of six US military officers specially picked because they were going to come up with the verdict the US government wanted has now retired to consider their verdict. No defense was allowed in the trial as the military court already knew the accused was guilty.

The chair of the court explained that 'Whatever the guilty verdict, we are protecting the free world from terrorism and the world should be applauding the US as the accused had been described as a 'bad man' by President Bush and Dick Cheney and was therefore, by definition, guilty.

Just like Captain Queeg.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Meh...whatever. I await the results of the trial before prejudging others unlike a certain someone.

Its a pity the leader of your country cannot do likewise.

His prejudicial comments and that of other members of his government make a mockery of justice.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by Piggy

Well, if that's what the defense lawyers say, then that's that -- I reckon we can all go home.

Well if the USA will run show trials that make a mockery of justice.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by Texas

Being a "show trial" the rules demand that the Lt. Cmdr be shot at sunrise for treason.

The rules of show trials demand that you set up a system that bears no relation to what the world regards as a fair system of justice and imprisons people for years without even charging them and denies detainees fair access to legal representation.

You seem to have no problem with that.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Piggy

Well, if that's what the defense lawyers say, then that's that -- I reckon we can all go home.

Yea, let's go Piggy. First round's on me!

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Just like Captain Queeg.

You mean the man in charge of this discreditable US system of 'justice' is mad?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

Yea, let's go Piggy. First round's on me!

Anything to say about the abortion of justice that is happening in Guantanamo Bay?

It seems not.

Quelle surprise.

See signature for some of mrbaracuda's extreme right wing views.

Enjoy.

[lionking]

You haven't pre-judged the trial E.J?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

Yea, let's go Piggy. First round's on me!

I'll pay for all the later rounds. Woohoo...actually its a little early to get smashed.

Oh? Was EJ, ranting again? Nevermind.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by lionking

You haven't pre-judged the trial E.J?

When you follow how it has been set up, then nothing that comes out of these trials can be valid.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/how...0804-3pw7.html

It's interesting reading. After what happened to David Hicks, and the statements of the prosecutors themselves, these are indeed show trials. The people being tried may well be guilty of something, but no verdict can be relied upon.

Quote:

Haynes' response was emphatic, according to Morris: "We can't have acquittals! We've got to have convictions! … If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off?"

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

When you follow how it has been set up, then nothing that comes out of these trials can be valid.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/how...0804-3pw7.html

It's interesting reading. After what happened to David Hicks, and the statements of the prosecutors themselves, these are indeed show trials. The people being tried may well be guilty of something, but no verdict can be relied upon.

Oh, I agree with you but EJ isn't exactly the most objective of people around.

It is a shame what is going on there. I have little doubt if any guilty verdict occurs via these trials, it will be challenged in the US Supreme Court and the verdict will be overturned like all the others that have went before the Supreme Court.

I'm sooooo...eagerly awaiting the end of the Bush Administration.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

I bet you get more replies when the verdict comes in?

It is an interesting case.......

It is indeed an interesting case for a lot of reasons including: -

The result of the USA incarcerating so many people in the appalling conditions at Guantanamo without due legal process for years and all they have to show for it is a 'driver'.
It shows the world how far US 'justice' has moved from decent international norms.
It reminds the world of the torture programme run by the USA.
It shows the hypocrisy of the USA in demanding that other countries obey the law when the USA flouts it so dramatically.
It shows the prejudice shown by the president of the USA and his administration in claiming the victims are guilty before even tried.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by lionking

You haven't pre-judged the trial E.J?

You mean the abortion of justice taking place in Guantanamo?

In what sense is it a fair trial designed to find the truth when the US government has already declared all the victims of Guantanamo Bay guilty?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by paximperium

I'll pay for all the later rounds. Woohoo...actually its a little early to get smashed.

Oh? Was EJ, ranting again? Nevermind.

Still not able to construct a post without hurling personal abuse it seems.
Sad really.

After all, how dare anyone highlight injustice when it clearly upsets you so much.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Oh, I agree with you but EJ isn't exactly the most objective of people around.

Given that your own contributions have largely consisted of personal abuse without a single word of mine to support your claims, as witnessed above, on what basis should anyone take you seriously?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

When you follow how it has been set up, then nothing that comes out of these trials can be valid.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/how...0804-3pw7.html

It's interesting reading. After what happened to David Hicks, and the statements of the prosecutors themselves, these are indeed show trials. The people being tried may well be guilty of something, but no verdict can be relied upon.

What is interesting is the supine position of many of those claiming to want the end of the Bush administration. Despite the contempt for due legal process shown by their own country they seem more inclined to attack those who highlight the problems.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

Given that your own contributions have largely consisted of personal abuse without a single word of mine to support your claims, as witnessed above, on what basis should anyone take you seriously?

I'm not debating you, can't you even get that simple fact? I don't debate bigots.

What claims have I made? Hmmmmm?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by 3rd Geneva Convention

Art 84. A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

Why do you guys advocate violating the Geneva Conventions? EJ, you don't like the GC?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why do you guys advocate violating the Geneva Conventions? EJ, you don't like the GC?

Well, here is the problem with the Bush Administration. They are playing by their own rules because the Admin is claiming that they are not Prisoners of War but "Terrorists" so they don't have to follow the Geneva Convention rules but want to try them under military court like a POW.

I consider the Administration retarded and unconstitutional and the SCOTUS has smacked the Bush Admin multiple times for their actions...but they seem to ignore it and keep chugging along.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Oh, I agree with you but EJ isn't exactly the most objective of people around.

It is a shame what is going on there. I have little doubt if any guilty verdict occurs via these trials, it will be challenged in the US Supreme Court and the verdict will be overturned like all the others that have went before the Supreme Court.

I'm sooooo...eagerly awaiting the end of the Bush Administration.

I agree with some of what EJ says, disagree with some. The topic is 'show trial'. I think that is a valid point. Even if it is overturned, the fact that a government can put on such a display in the first place is amazing. This is the group that likes to style the US as the 'leader of the free world'. If that is the case, the free world is in a lot of trouble.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I agree with some of what EJ says, disagree with some. The topic is 'show trial'. I think that is a valid point. Even if it is overturned, the fact that a government can put on such a display in the first place is amazing. This is the group that likes to style the US as the 'leader of the free world'. If that is the case, the free world is in a lot of trouble.

This is where I disagree. I have some measure of trust with some of the guys in uniform. Maybe they'll make the right decision.

Like I said, I withhold judgement until the verdict.

[paximperium]

Just curious EJ.
Are you actually ranting to convince someone else or just to make yourself feel better?
Do you think acting like some foaming mouth madman will actually convince anyone to side with you?

I suggest you actually control your rage and construct a less insulting and hate filled diatribe to convince people to actually side with your position because you will notice everyone treats you like a joke.

[Suddenly]

Aren't show trials supposed to be public?

[doobiedoright]

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

It is indeed an interesting case for a lot of reasons including: -

The result of the USA incarcerating so many people in the appalling conditions at Guantanamo without due legal process for years and all they have to show for it is a 'driver'.
It shows the world how far US 'justice' has moved from decent international norms.
It reminds the world of the torture programme run by the USA.
It shows the hypocrisy of the USA in demanding that other countries obey the law when the USA flouts it so dramatically.
It shows the prejudice shown by the president of the USA and his administration in claiming the victims are guilty before even tried.

\


Appalling?????????????
What the heck are you talking about?
Most of the nuts there have gained a lot of weight.
So appalling to get to go out and kick a soccer ball around and all......poor babys!
Stay out of a war zone and baby you would not be there!
By the way I have not read what you would do with all these nuts.
Shall we ship them to your home and they can live with you!
That is until you do something that offends them and off with your head!
funny all the high and mighty people in this world!
We don't hear any solutions from them do we?

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

Well if the USA will run show trials that make a mockery of justice.

If you would like to argue that this is a mere "show trial", I'd suggest you bring out a little more detail than you have so far.

The whole Gitmo situation is extremely complex legally.

I'm not saying that I agree with the administration's stance on this.

But of course the defense attorneys are going to say things like that. That's their job.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by paximperium

I'm not debating you, can't you even get that simple fact? I don't debate bigots.

What claims have I made? Hmmmmm?

I do enjoy your posts because you seem to e of the opinion that the more abuse you hurl the stronger your argument.


PS
On a sceptics forum if you want to be taken seriously you need to support your own claims. Once again you have refused to do so.

If you really don't know what claims you have made can I suggest that you actually read the thread.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why do you guys advocate violating the Geneva Conventions? EJ, you don't like the GC?

You seem to be confused about the status of the Guantanamo victims.

Remind me what status the victims of Guantanamo have in the USA?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Well, here is the problem with the Bush Administration. They are playing by their own rules because the Admin is claiming that they are not Prisoners of War but "Terrorists" so they don't have to follow the Geneva Convention rules but want to try them under military court like a POW.

I consider the Administration retarded and unconstitutional and the SCOTUS has smacked the Bush Admin multiple times for their actions...but they seem to ignore it and keep chugging along.

How can you be so cruel to the torturers?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by paximperium

This is where I disagree. I have some measure of trust with some of the guys in uniform. Maybe they'll make the right decision.

Like I said, I withhold judgement until the verdict.

Why would anyone have trust in the guys in uniform when they have chosen to participate in this farago? The guys in uniform ran Guantanamo when the torture was taking place. The guys in uniform made their bases available for people to be illegally transported into secret gulags for torture by proxy.

Why should the rest of the world have any respect or trust in the guys i uniform when they have such a tainted record?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Just curious EJ.
Are you actually ranting to convince someone else or just to make yourself feel better?
Do you think acting like some foaming mouth madman will actually convince anyone to side with you?

I suggest you actually control your rage and construct a less insulting and hate filled diatribe to convince people to actually side with your position because you will notice everyone treats you like a joke.

You really are unable to post without personal abuse.

And can I ask why you believe hurling personal abuse makes your argument for you?

Do you understand the need to support your own claims with a fact or two?

I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously you construct an argument that is supported with words I have actually used.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by doobiedoright

\


Appalling?????????????
What the heck are you talking about?
Most of the nuts there have gained a lot of weight.
So appalling to get to go out and kick a soccer ball around and all......poor babys!
Stay out of a war zone and baby you would not be there!
By the way I have not read what you would do with all these nuts.
Shall we ship them to your home and they can live with you!
That is until you do something that offends them and off with your head!
funny all the high and mighty people in this world!
We don't hear any solutions from them do we?

Are you a US citizen? Because you have stated that all the vistims in Guantanamo are guilty without even being tried.

That is the sort of disreputable contempt for the law that the USA has come to represent around the world.

Have you never heard of the concept of innocent until found guilty?

On what basis are you even bothering to go through these appalling show trials when you have already declared the victims of your 'justice' guilty.

Thanks for making my point for me so bluntly.

[BPSCG]

Still taking my posts out of context for your sig line, I see. Makes me wonder why anyone should take anything you say seriously.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

You really are unable to post without personal abuse.

And can I ask why you believe hurling personal abuse makes your argument for you?

Do you understand the need to support your own claims with a fact or two?

I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously you construct an argument that is supported with words I have actually used.

Why am I not surprised by your response?
Hurling abuses? Nah, calling you a bigot is a conclusion,not an ad hominem.

I don't have to insult you to make you seem like a moron, you do that very well without my help.

As I've mentioned, I have no interest with debating someone who acts like a child and is so blinded by his own self righteous hate that he sounds like a lunatic.

Hey, if it makes you feel good, keep screaming at the wind. No one gives a rat's ass about your rants.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally Posted by Piggy

If you would like to argue that this is a mere "show trial", I'd suggest you bring out a little more detail than you have so far.

The whole Gitmo situation is extremely complex legally.

I'm not saying that I agree with the administration's stance on this.

But of course the defense attorneys are going to say things like that. That's their job.

There is an immense body of legal opinion about the nature of Guantanamo Bay, much of which is available through Google

The show trial nature of the 'trials' has been demonstrated repeatedly by
1/ The president and vice president of the USA declaring the victims guilty before they even 'tried'.
'...People need to understand that detainees at Guantánamo Bay are "bad people", the US vice president, Dick Cheney, will say in an interview to be broadcast tonight as pressure grows for the detention centre to close. ...' from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...tan.guantanamo

This demonstrates the contempt the US government has for the basic concepts of law

2/ By an adminstration official 'Haynes' demanding guilty verdicts as already posted by a_unique_person. Again demonstrating the complete contempt the US government has for the law and human rights.

3/ By the constant refusal of the `US to allow fair access to legal representation see '...The hearings were controversial not least because the detainees were not allowed access to lawyers. Nor could they hear classified material that might have formed part of the evidence against them. Rights groups - and the United Nations - say hearings set up by the military violate prisoners' rights to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body. ..." from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3541126.stm

This demonstrates that the US government has consistently tried to avoid the victims being able to represent themselves properly in another fundamental demonstration of contempt for due process.

4/ By the refusal to classify the victims according to recognised legal norms.
'...The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law." Thus, if the detainees are not classified as prisoners of war, this would still grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention which deals exclusively with prisoners of war. A U.S. court has rejected this argument, as it applies to detainees from al Qaeda.[25] Henry King, Jr., a prosecutor for the Nuremberg Trials, has argued that the type of tribunals at Guantanamo Bay "violates the Nuremberg principles" and that they are against "the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949."[151]...'

Why should anyone care about the farce that is being perpetrated in Guantanamo Bay in the name of US 'justice'.? I care because my GI uncle fought against fascism in the second world war. He did not risk his life for his country to turn into a torturer with contempt for decent lawful behaviour.

The USA constantly demands that other countries obey the law and behave properly, all the while showing deep contempt for human rights. When the police become torturers the people should beware. That behaviour endangers the entire world including my children and grand children. That is why I care.

[dudalb]

If we did capture Osama, why do I think that EJ would begin posting crap very sympathetic to him?
Although he will never say so, and I know he will deny it, I suspect that in his heart of hearts EJ thinks that 9/11 and the other terrorist acts agains the US were justified.
He and Oliver seem to be driven purely by a hatred for the US and for Americans in general.