Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would it matter if they're found not guilty and either held indefinitely or sent to some other country to be tried again or held indefinitely.
What part of, the difference between the death penalty and indefinite detention do you not understand?
All of which is quite besides the point, since what the hell were the military commissions supposed to represent? Show trial by kangaroo court? A modern day remake of the Star Chamber?? Was Cheney going to reprise his role as Torquemada?
Quote:
But MCA was brought into law and there is no reason to try them in NYC except for show.
It was brought into law but it remains fatally flawed:
"We do not need military commissions. They are broken and beyond repair. We do not need indefinite detention, and we do not need a new system of "national security courts." Instead, we should try those whose guilt we can prove while observing "the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" — in other words, using those long-standing rules of due process required by Article III courts and military courts-martial — and resettle or repatriate those whom we cannot. That is the only solution that is consistent with American values and American law."
Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, US Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corps and former chief prosecutor for Guantanamo detainees.
"We do not need military commissions. They are broken and beyond repair. We do not need indefinite detention, and we do not need a new system of "national security courts." Instead, we should try those whose guilt we can prove while observing "the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" — in other words, using those long-standing rules of due process required by Article III courts and military courts-martial — and resettle or repatriate those whom we cannot. That is the only solution that is consistent with American values and American law."
Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, US Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corps and former chief prosecutor for Guantanamo detainees.
1) Yes, but these detainees aren't American.
2) At least not American civilians.
3) Besides the so called "confessions" very little evidence can be bought. Most evidence collected in Iraq & Afghanistan will not stand in our court system. Also, you intend to try non Americans, suspected of committing (or planning to commit) crimes in a remote country, with different culture, laws, habits and values, by adaptation to our culture and values. Should each of them become another O.J Simpson?
4) The only remaining solution is to treat them as enemy POW.
1) Yes, but these detainees aren't American.
2) At least not American civilians.
3) Besides the so called "confessions" very little evidence can be bought. Most evidence collected in Iraq & Afghanistan will not stand in our court system. Also, you intend to try non Americans, suspected of committing (or planning to commit) crimes in a remote country, with different culture, laws, habits and values, by adaptation to our culture and values. Should each of them become another O.J Simpson?
4) The only remaining solution is to treat them as enemy POW.
Have you read anything that I've written on this thread?
Everyday, foreign nationals are arrested, indicted, tried and convicted in American courts, both state and Federal, and every single one of them is afforded all the relevant rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
As for admissible evidence... you can't introduce computer files, video tapes, records, journals, documents simply because they were created in a foreign country? Dare I ask what that belief is based upon?
As for the issue of crimes planned from a foreign country. please note the number of major drug trafficers who have been convicted in Federal courts.
The O.J. thing was just a throw away line that seemed witty when you wrote it, right?
As for treating terrorist as POW's, well that certainly was an option and one that may be required in the future, but that is a totally different discussion.
Have you read anything that I've written on this thread?
Everyday, foreign nationals are arrested, indicted, tried and convicted in American courts, both state and Federal, and every single one of them is afforded all the relevant rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Not when these crimes were committed in faraway countries, sometimes agist other locals. Not when their alleged crime is planning to commit a crime or be accessory to one.
Quote:
As for admissible evidence... you can't introduce computer files, video tapes, records, journals, documents simply because they were created in a foreign country? Dare I ask what that belief is based upon?
Sure, when the judge and jury cannot see the crime scene, or bring witnesses, or cross examine witnesses. Computer files as evidence are popular in trials of crimes committed here and in Europe, but in Afghanistan? How would you try a person, who was scouting before a Taliban attack on a US convoy, who pretends not to understand one word from what you say...
Quote:
As for the issue of crimes planned from a foreign country. please note the number of major drug trafficers who have been convicted in Federal courts.
Yes, these were "major" drug dealers and some of their processing and trials would not stand serious scrutiny of defense lawyers and human rights activists.
Quote:
The O.J. thing was just a throw away line that seemed witty when you wrote it, right?
Since our legal system borders at times with circus, I wouldn't be surprised to see endless mistrials and media frenzy outside courts, with the focus shifting from the alleged crimes to how the evidence was collected. BTW, when the evidence or prosecution were not well prepared, it does not mean the suspect is not guilty. It only means that the legal process was faulted.
Quote:
As for treating terrorist as POW's, well that certainly was an option and one that may be required in the future, but that is a totally different discussion.
I agree, and POW have rights that are easier to deal with in cases of foreigners who acted in foreign countries, for both sides.
When word of his being tried in civilian court first came out, Pat Buchanan on McGlaughlin Group predicted what would happen.
Of course, ULTRA LIBERAL Eleanor Clift vehemently stated it would not.
She praised the civilian court system and said Obama had said even if found not guilty, he would never be set free.
??????????????????????
How can you praise the civilian court system and then assure the American people that even if he is found not guilty, he never will be freed ?
Can't have it both ways.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
