Pentagon official suggests blacklisting lawyers representing detainees

[STAGE 2]

Of course, you do understand that the detainee bill allows any agent designated by the President or Secretary of Defense to declare a person to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." There is no reason this can't be done to a US citizen. After that, you get a military tribunal which can allow secret evidence (which you can't examine or refute) as well as confessions given under duress (including torture).

Then you obviously haven't read the bill. This has been beathen to death elsewhere, but the bill specifically does not apply to US citizens. Its written as plain as day. This kind of makes all of your fears irrelevant.

Furthermore, the DoD wasn't exactly forthcoming about who they are holding at Gitmo. They only released a complete list of names under court order. And if you believe there aren't people being secretly held elsewhere, I have a bridge to sell you.

So what if they are. You don't think that the department of defense has reasons for keeping what they do under wraps. And again, people went through the courts and recieved redress. Thats how the system works.

Furthermore, I am aware of at least 3 US citizens who were detained for some substantial time without recourse or access to a lawyer. Hamdi and Padilla are still in custody, I believe (and may well be guilty). Another (a lawyer in Oregon) was in no way connected to terrorists and was eventually released.

And these 3 have subsequently prevailed in court. Whats the point. Out of hundreds of prisoners, you are going to have people who shouldn't be there. Its simply the nature of numbers. When we find out who these people are, their grievances should be addressed. However that doesn't mean that we scrap our whole system.

 

[Titan6]

Titan6- Certainly one can make the argument that if you capture someone, drag them to the other side of the world and imprison them forever without trial while torturing them you have no moral duty towards that person. You have already dismissed them as human beings. Your actions have already defined your ethics. These fit nicely hand in glove with yours which is willful ignorance at absolute best. And a whole lot of other nasty things at worst. What you keep saying is that these people have no rights under US law. If true I ask you what rights do they have?

Stage2- Probably some bastardized combination of the geneva conventions and international law. There really isn't a legal precedent for these people because they don't really have a home country, and they aren't uniformed troops. What is true however, is that our constitution does not apply. Thats really the only thing I care about.

Good way to refute something when you do not want to know; or pretend not to know the answer. Again willful ignorance because as you point out you do not care. This is good as it is an honest answer and much better than the double speak we typically get.

But let us assume you are right. Since there is no such thing as "International Law" (please point me to the legislative body) then go with the Geneva Convention. How many violations of the law do we see there? Plenty if they have status. But if as you (and many others) say the GC does not give them status then I ask you again what rights do they have?

If they have no rights than they are a property of the state; since the state has possesion of them. This is called slavery. Do you believe the US Government should be involved in slavery?

This is the problem in which we find ourselves.....

 

[shootinstudent]

Stage 2,

While I disagree with any US citizen being denied their right to trial, this doesn't really address the issue. Hamdi was a US citizen who had his rights violated, he went through the courts for redress of his grievances and he prevailed. Thats pretty much how the system is designed to work.

Yeah, but the problem is that the "constitution doesn't apply" argument contends that the Courts did this in error.

Do you think detainees have a right to challenge their detention in court or not?

If not, how can you call this an example of the system working? Hamdi and Padilla are examples of the system failing, because the system is designed to keep terror suspects out of the courts.

Then you obviously haven't read the bill. This has been beathen to death elsewhere, but the bill specifically does not apply to US citizens. Its written as plain as day. This kind of makes all of your fears irrelevant.

It's most definitely not written in there.

And the US position is that Padilla is an enemy combatant.

There really isn't a legal precedent for these people because they don't really have a home country, and they aren't uniformed troops. What is true however, is that our constitution does not apply. Thats really the only thing I care about.

Of course there's legal precedent for these people. The Moussaoui trial, the trial of Noriega, the Yousef and Sattar and Rahman trials, etc etc. Are you saying that no foreign terrorists have been tried for crimes?

Or are you saying that the constitution doesn't bind the US to international treaties?

I think your position amounts to "they do not fall under the purview of any law."

 

[nobody_special]

Then you obviously haven't read the bill. This has been beathen to death elsewhere, but the bill specifically does not apply to US citizens. Its written as plain as day. This kind of makes all of your fears irrelevant.

I read the bill in detail. The designation of "unlawful enemy combatant" can be applied to US citizens, and in fact it has been applied to Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, both of whom are US citizens.

 

[bowfin]

You haven't met any burden of proof that detainees are, in fact, analgous.

You're back in a civilian court again. These people weren't arrested, they were captured during a war.

"There probably are innocent people being detained and tortured, but I don't care. Them's the breaks."

Let's just say I care less about an innocent man LIVING in a jail cell than I would a guilty man KILLING everyone who is covered under his personal jihaad. The difference is I can look at both sides and choose the least crappy of two evils. You choose to ignore that there even would be possible reprecussions in your plan of action.

Sinking ships filled with Japanese civilians because they may or may not have been 'engaged in war' would have been a war crime, yes.

...and you are aware that my statement about sinking every Japanese ship we saw wasn't hypothetical? I mean, you realize that is how that war was fought by both sides?...

...and you realize that fighting a war in the most efficient way to get it over as quickly as possible and avoid needless casualties is the most humane way to fight a war? Fighting with rules and truces and Holy Days off and "no killing the King" statutes gave mankind such abominations as "The Hundred Years War" that lasted 132 years?

I think I'll bow out of the discussion, because I don't think you have a realistic grasp of mankind's history of wars. You are looking for something that never existed, indeed, can't exist, especially with an enemy that hides amongst civilians to safeguard themselves at the civilian's expense.

In summation, I would rather some people lose basic rights than to have other people lose their limbs and lives. Since you have not advanced any ideas or plans to keep from letting loose potential (and literal) ticking time bombs while freeing anyone that might be "iffy" or "can't say", your argument can hold no sway with me.

 

[Art Eatman]

One moral to the story in this is, "Don't be for shooting at GIs." That's not the way to win friends and influence folks in your favor.

Another moral to the story is, "Don't go making folks think you're gonna do terrorism stuff in the U.S." Getting involved in plans to make things go "Boom!" in the night is at best considered to be anti-social.

Art

 

[Titan6]

True that Art.

Another good rule is don't make an enemy of an Afgan warlord or he will sell you to rich Americans. Don't appear to be too well off or independent or too religious for the same reason.

I suppose if the Chinese came here with guns to overthrow President Clinton after I retire and she renegs on the US debt I would pick up a gun and start shooting at my liberators on prinicipal alone. If they invade Canada instead I would probably go up there and help out the Canadians even though it isn't really my fight on the premise we would be next anyway. Of course the Chinese would not imprison me they would shoot me on the spot. Everything depends upon your point of view I suppose...

True, many of these wrongfully imprisoned have been released, about half. Some should not have been and have popped up again on the battlefield.

 

[STAGE 2]

But let us assume you are right. Since there is no such thing as "International Law" (please point me to the legislative body) then go with the Geneva Convention. How many violations of the law do we see there? Plenty if they have status. But if as you (and many others) say the GC does not give them status then I ask you again what rights do they have?

If they have no rights than they are a property of the state; since the state has possesion of them. This is called slavery. Do you believe the US Government should be involved in slavery?

This is the problem in which we find ourselves.....

So are people serving life sentences in prison slaves?

The short and correct answer is no. Because a person has no rights under a particular system of government does not make them a slave. We don't own the people that we are detaining.

Bottom line you can't point to any legal authority that suggests our holding these people indefinately is illegal other than some peoples moral sensibilities.

 

[shootinstudent]

STAGE 2,

You should read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court had no problem finding that laws apply (including the Geneva conventions) to the Guantanamo detainees.

We're also party to the ICCPR...no indefinite detention without trial allowed under that one.

For a group of people that supposedly have no legal protection, the Exec Branch has sure spent a lot of money and time fighting a mostly losing battle in court to prove that they don't have any rights.

 

[STAGE 2]

Yeah, but the problem is that the "constitution doesn't apply" argument contends that the Courts did this in error.

Do you think detainees have a right to challenge their detention in court or not?

If not, how can you call this an example of the system working? Hamdi and Padilla are examples of the system failing, because the system is designed to keep terror suspects out of the courts.

Non citizen detainees should have no access to our courts period. Hamdi and Padilla are an example of the system working because as US citizens they were able to challenge their detention.

It's most definitely not written in there.

And the US position is that Padilla is an enemy combatant.

Your missing the point. Theres nothing in the constitution that says the government cannot label someone an enemy combatant. The feds can sit there and call everyone an enemy combatant all day long. The bill only suspends habeas for non citizens. Its specifically states that habeas can't be suspended for US citizens.

Beign an enemy conbatant isn't inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, and it doesn't deny someone their day in court.

Of course there's legal precedent for these people. The Moussaoui trial, the trial of Noriega, the Yousef and Sattar and Rahman trials, etc etc. Are you saying that no foreign terrorists have been tried for crimes?

Or are you saying that the constitution doesn't bind the US to international treaties?

I think your position amounts to "they do not fall under the purview of any law."

No, there really isn't a precedent for these people because we have never gone to war with a terrorist group. These people are more than just criminals, but they aren't a standard military. Most all have been captured in armed combat with our troops. So yes this is a new situation.

As far as international treaties, I don't really see how that comes into play. These groups operate apart from governments. Anything in any treaty isn't binding on them. Whats more, many of these people have renounced their home citizenship. They are just international drifters.

 

[STAGE 2]

You should read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court had no problem finding that laws apply (including the Geneva conventions) to the Guantanamo detainees.

We're also party to the ICCPR...no indefinite detention without trial allowed under that one.

For a group of people that supposedly have no legal protection, the Exec Branch has sure spent a lot of money and time fighting a mostly losing battle in court to prove that they don't have any rights.

I have no doubt that there is no shortage of ACLU lawyers that will find rights for all sorts of non citizen combatants under our constitution. These are the same people (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) that believe principles of international law trump our constitution. They also read the 2nd amendment out of the constitution as much as they possibly can.

I wouldn't put all of my faith in the court that think Kelo is a proper interpretation of our constitution.

 

[shootinstudent]

Non citizen detainees should have no access to our courts period. Hamdi and Padilla are an example of the system working because as US citizens they were able to challenge their detention.

The point is that they got into the courts only because the court refused to allow the executive to do what it wanted-so no, that is not "the system working." That was the Court intervening and forcing the executive to do something it was trying not to do with its "enemy combatant" magic.

The bill only suspends habeas for non citizens. Its specifically states that habeas can't be suspended for US citizens.

Beign an enemy conbatant isn't inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, and it doesn't deny someone their day in court.

Where will I find in this statute a protection of the right of Habeas Corpus?

Are you saying that enemy combatants actually have the right to appeal their detention to US courts?

If they don't, how is that not denying a day in court?

No, there really isn't a precedent for these people because we have never gone to war with a terrorist group. These people are more than just criminals, but they aren't a standard military. Most all have been captured in armed combat with our troops. So yes this is a new situation.

So what was the first "War on Terror" in central America? All those arrests, extraditions, trials of foreign heads of state....were not like this how? Were those people not terrorists, and John Negroponte and the rest of the Washington crew just made up all that war on terror stuff in the 80's?

International treaties are the law, so yeah...that should be in play

 

[STAGE 2]

The point is that they got into the courts only because the court refused to allow the executive to do what it wanted-so no, that is not "the system working." That was the Court intervening and forcing the executive to do something it was trying not to do with its "enemy combatant" magic.

Read the bold part again. Thats the example of the system working.

Where will I find in this statute a protection of the right of Habeas Corpus?

Are you saying that enemy combatants actually have the right to appeal their detention to US courts?

If they don't, how is that not denying a day in court?

From the bill...

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.


...so, since we know that US citizens have the right of habeas corpus, and this bill expressly addresses aliens (which by definition are not US citizens) there is nothing under this law that allows the government to imprison US citizens indefinately.

As for the aliens, this legislation was drafted in response to the SCOTUS decision, and dispenses with the issue of whether enemy combatants that are not citizens have any right to a trial on our system.

So what was the first "War on Terror" in central America? All those arrests, extraditions, trials of foreign heads of state....were not like this how? Were those people not terrorists, and John Negroponte and the rest of the Washington crew just made up all that war on terror stuff in the 80's?

International treaties are the law, so yeah...that should be in play

I don't recall anyone from south american attacking us, or fighting our military in large scale engagements. Most of what was done back then was done through law enforcement with the military playing a secondary role.

This is entirely different. We are at war in the literal sense. There is a battlefield, with enemy positions, casualties and all of the rest. It just so happens who we are fighting is an independent organization rather than the army of an opposing nation.

Because most if not all of international law and treaties were created during a time when nations still went to war, they don't account for this situation. They are binding, but they simply don't apply to this situation.

 

[nobody_special]

Nothing in the military commissions act prevents the government from indefinitely detaining US citizens without due process. As for habeas... there is a fundamental problem: if a citizen is detained as an unlawful enemy combatant, he does not have access to the courts (for a habeas petition) unless a Combatant Status Review Tribunal recognizes his status. It's a case of "guilty until proven innocent" ... you must demonstrate your status to a military tribunal, while you are being held by in military detention, before you ever get a chance to file a habeas appeal in civilian court.

Read this opinion by a law professor:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-military-commissions-act-apply-to.html

Also...

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html

Therefore if, as everyone is assuming, this definition does establish who may be detained by the military outside the civilian justice system, it would quite literally give the Secretary of Defense the statutory authority to detain just about anyone he wants, indefinitely. And if that's the case, then the habeas-stripping provision would really be the least of it, because even with all the due process and habeas protections in the world, it would be almost impossible to challenge the grounds on which someone is detained if the Executive itself can establish what the permissible grounds for detention are.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/01/so-much-for-presidents-assent-to.html

Second, the President unsurprisingly signals that the Administration reads the Graham Amendments to cut off currently pending habeas cases, including most importantly the Hamdan case that's now before the Supreme Court and the Al Odah case (Rasul on remand) that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has under review

And recall that Hamdan is a US citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...grounds_that_the_Act_applies_to_U.S._citizens

The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.[17] Indeed, the wording of section 948b[18] of the act appears to explicitly contradict the Third Geneva Convention of which the United States is currently a signatory.

In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[19]

One has described the Act as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment" - referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged.[20]

The military commissions act allows the detention and torture of US citizens, with no evidence required beyond the word of an agent of the President of Secretary of Defense. And I don't have much faith in the president's integrity, so I'd rather not have to rely on his word alone as a protection against imprisonment and torture. Sure, an unjust detention of a citizen might get reversed in court, but justice rarely moves quickly... and until that time, you're still at the mercy of military interrogation.

 

[57Coastie]

Stage 2: wrong, wrong, wrong!

You confuse the act's approach to indefinite detention without charge with its approach to trial by military commission. In the case of a US citizen the former is permitted. Any alleged right to seek a writ of habeas corpus is a futility when the basis of the detention has been legitimized.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Since Nuremberg, adherence to the rule of law has proved to be the United States' best foreign relations tool. The U.S. Constitution is taken as a model by other countries.

Richmond, thanks for the post. We have an ideal to aim for and it should be
adhered to as best we can.

Titan6, yes, things do get a bit complicated in war and the allies had their
share of comlicated circumstances back then as well:

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

(We can look back as recently as the 1990s in the FRY as well).

It all comes down to how we should handle our prisoners. I for one still believe
that even if they are bad people, that they should still be afforded basic dignity
and some semblance of the rule of law.

It is irrelevant about how they would treat us if we were there prisoners,
it is how we treat others which reflects who we are to ourselves and
the rest of the world.

There's an old rule of Chivalry that goes:

Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

 

[Flyboy]

As a result, you are either suggesting that we extend the protections of the constitution to terrorists, or adhere to some sort of "natural law" in which we grant our freedoms to others willy-nilly.

The latter, sort of. Clearly, you haven't read--or fully understood--the Declaration of Independence. If you had, you might have picked up on this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

It says--quite plainly, I think--that rights aren't granted by people--they're "endowed" by the Creator. Everybody has those rights, as an inherent consequence of his existence. That being the case, we don't "grant" rights "willy-nilly;" rather, we respect the fact that they had the rights to begin with, and opt not to infringe upon them.

 

[Titan6]

So are people serving life sentences in prison slaves?

The short and correct answer is no. Because a person has no rights under a particular system of government does not make them a slave. We don't own the people that we are detaining.

Bottom line you can't point to any legal authority that suggests our holding these people indefinately is illegal other than some peoples moral sensibilities.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. As a lawyer you know full well that these people had rights, a trial as outlined by the Constitution, were found guilty and lost their freedoms, and are now being fairly treated in prison. What we are talking about is people who are denied any due process imprisoned forever, tortured and left to die in a hole.

I never have pointed to any legal precedent that suggests holding these people is illegal. Some point to the Geneva Convention, treaties, various laws, legal precedent, treaties whatever. Laws can be interpreted to mean quite a lot. These matter not in my eyes, wrong is still wrong.

I find it quite ironic that the ones who have likely never served a day in the fight are all for the ugliness and human rights violations and the ones who have to fight the real fight are mostly on the other side.

It all comes down to the idea of what is the right thing to do. I say if you wish to kill and imprison and torture innocent men, or not even care if they are innocent or not you have lost the moral high ground. If a nation as rich, powerful and diverse as ours can not afford to be..... Just.... than the end of our world leadership is quite near.

 

[wooderson]

You're back in a civilian court again. These people weren't arrested, they were captured during a war.

Good God, try reading again. I didn't say anything about arrest or a legal burden of proof. I said you hadn't met any burden associated with your assertion that all detainees are, in fact, terra-ists.

Let's just say I care less about an innocent man LIVING in a jail cell than I would a guilty man KILLING everyone who is covered under his personal jihaad. The difference is I can look at both sides and choose the least crappy of two evils. You choose to ignore that there even would be possible reprecussions in your plan of action.

Bollocks. Your argument, then, is that a system of safeguards - free, fair and open legal processes for detainees - is tantamount to setting 'guilty' men free to kill.

Thus, the only effective form of law enforcement in all events (not just the war on Terra) is unending detainment without trial.

Excellent job of undermining the basic concepts defining justice from Hammurabi onward.

...and you are aware that my statement about sinking every Japanese ship we saw wasn't hypothetical? I mean, you realize that is how that war was fought by both sides?...

You have a citation for the US Navy sinking a Japanese cruise ship? (nb: a nationa's merchant marine corp are considered fair game in times of war)

You realize that the sinking of a ship alleged to have been engaged in war commerce was the event that precipitated our involvement in the Great War, right?

And still, your argument comes down to "bad things happened in the past, so how can you take issue with bad things that happen now!?!?!?" A response to that really isn't even possible.

...and you realize that fighting a war in the most efficient way to get it over as quickly as possible and avoid needless casualties is the most humane way to fight a war? Fighting with rules and truces and Holy Days off and "no killing the King" statutes gave mankind such abominations as "The Hundred Years War" that lasted 132 years?

You have no understanding of history - or reality - if you think the Hundred Years' War was caused by good behavior on all sides.

That's just patently and laughably absurd.

 

[STAGE 2]

The military commissions act allows the detention and torture of US citizens, with no evidence required beyond the word of an agent of the President of Secretary of Defense.

Pure and utter baloney. There is nothing in the act condoning torture, and the acts provisions only apply to alien enemy combatants.

If you're going to post this crap, cite me the section that allows the government to detain US citizens without the right to trial.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. As a lawyer you know full well that these people had rights, a trial as outlined by the Constitution, were found guilty and lost their freedoms, and are now being fairly treated in prison. What we are talking about is people who are denied any due process imprisoned forever, tortured and left to die in a hole.

What rights? Maybe under their system of government, but they waived those when they decided to attack us. Furthermore, youhave NO EVIDENCE than ANYONE is being tortured at gitmo. The one story about someone pissing on a koran (which isn't torture by any stretch of the imagination) was false. Stop spreading falsehoods.

I never have pointed to any legal precedent that suggests holding these people is illegal. Some point to the Geneva Convention, treaties, various laws, legal precedent, treaties whatever. Laws can be interpreted to mean quite a lot. These matter not in my eyes, wrong is still wrong.

Alright then. Stop acting as if what we're doing is something horrible. If we aren't breaking the law then you have no viable complaint.

I find it quite ironic that the ones who have likely never served a day in the fight are all for the ugliness and human rights violations and the ones who have to fight the real fight are mostly on the other side.

You have no idea what I do, if I've served or what my background is. You might be surprised at how much experience I have with this stuff. Furthermore, you have no evidence of any human rights violations at Gitmo. Stop lying.

It all comes down to the idea of what is the right thing to do. I say if you wish to kill and imprison and torture innocent men, or not even care if they are innocent or not you have lost the moral high ground. If a nation as rich, powerful and diverse as ours can not afford to be..... Just.... than the end of our world leadership is quite near.

Fair enough. However there isn't anything that suggests any of these people are innocent. Most if not all of them have been captured on the battlefield fighting our troops. This idea that these folks are somehow innocent is an utter joke. Neither is there any evidence that any of these people are being tortured. This despite the repeated attempts of the red cross, doctors without borders and amnesty international trying to find some sort of mistreatment.

I have no wish to imprison innocent men. I also have no wish to see confirmed terrorists go free. Assuming that each of these men is a terrorist (and you don't have any evidence to sugggest otherwise) there isn't anything wrong by any moral standard by letting them rot.

Whats really funny to me is that 50 years ago, the military simply shot folks for doing this (non-uniformed personel engaged in combat/intelligence activity/etc) and no one raised a peep. I guess we are just a kinder gentler nation.

 

[Titan6]

Falsehoods? Since I am being nice I will go with a good neocon magazine Forbes. If I wanted to get nasty I could go with the Washington Post:

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html

US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan - UN
06.24.2005, 11:37 AM

GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

'They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,' the Committee member said.

'They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark,' he said.

UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.

The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.

Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.

The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.

Alright then. Stop acting as if what we're doing is something horrible. If we aren't breaking the law then you have no viable complaint.

Really? Then everyone needs to stop complaining about all those guns laws. They are perfectly legal...

You have no idea what I do, if I've served or what my background is. You might be surprised at how much experience I have with this stuff. Furthermore, you have no evidence of any human rights violations at Gitmo. Stop lying.

Read the above article. There are lots more where that came from. If you want I can post hundreds, that was just the first one that popped up in a goggle search that well... read it yourself: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,220,000 for torture at guantanamo. (0.22 seconds)

 

[JerryM]

Anyone who thinks military courts are kangaroo courts doesn't have a clue about them. If I were innocent I would much rather have a military court than a civilian one. On the other hand if I were guilty I would rather have a civilian court. There is more justice in the military than the civilians ever dreamed of.

I speak from 22 years of active duty, and a couple of years as a trial counsel in the days before one had to be a lawyer to do that. Before a trial there is an investigation that determines whether there is sufficient information to try the accused. In general the evidence is overwhelming before on is brought to trial.

Military personnel who are on the court-martial have always been very fair, and intelligent.
Regards,
Jerry

 

[Titan6]

Thanks Jerry that is a good point:

Before a trial there is an investigation that determines whether there is sufficient information to try the accused. In general the evidence is overwhelming before on is brought to trial.

So where are all the trials? Some of these people have been there for more than half a decade. And surely with your 22 years you know that military have rights and "evidence" that is brought out under duress can not be used against them in a trial...

I am not implying in the least that military courts are kangaroo courts. Normally they are much better and more fair than civilian courts. This is a civil rights issue. Military personnel have rights, despite what you hear on TV. These people are not given any.

 

[wooderson]

You really think a secret military tribunal where a defendant doesn't actually get to respond and offer a defense is even vaguely similar to some GI going up for court martial?

 

[nobody_special]

The military commissions act allows the detention and torture of US citizens, with no evidence required beyond the word of an agent of the President of Secretary of Defense.

Pure and utter baloney. There is nothing in the act condoning torture, and the acts provisions only apply to alien enemy combatants.

If you're going to post this crap, cite me the section that allows the government to detain US citizens without the right to trial.

You didn't read the references in my post, did you?

Section 948a is applicable to all persons declared "unlawful enemy combatants" including US citizens.

And while such persons may still technically have a right to trial, in practice things are not so simple. Go read the links I provided.

Also, (from the Wikipedia article):

On the other hand, congressman David Wu (D-OR) stated in the debate over the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives that "by so restricting habeas corpus, this bill does not just apply to enemy aliens. It applies to all Americans because, while the provision on page 93 has the word "alien in it, the provision on page 61 does not have the word alien in it."