Its' about time - I find it very hard to accept that we hold these people without any due process.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050201/GUANTANAMO01/TPInternational/TopStories

"Although this nation must take strong action under the leadership of the commander-in-chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity does not negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years," wrote Judge Joyce Hens Green.

Now does it mean the whole Guantanamo circus will be replaced by something more legal ?

there are conflicting rulings on this, one judge said it was OK, one said it was not.

Personally I dont see why foreigners should get access to our courts. A military tribunal is fine. people assume it will automatically be a bad thing becasue it has the word military in it. Just becasue it says military doesnt mean it will be unfair or bogus. our troops get tried by military courts all the time, why not these prisoners?

I don't see why, if we have such great evidence that they were up to no good, they can't have access to the courts.

they will ahve access to the courts, the military courts. do you think a military tribunal is automatically bogus? why should we set the precedent of allowing foreign combatants access to the same courts american born car thieves use? What is wrong with a military tribunal? if someone can tell me what is so wrong with it I may agree with you. In my experiences in the military though, military justice is not some kangaroo court out to get as many people as it can. I know it is easy to assume a military court will somehow be corrupt when a civilian court will not, but thre is more of a chance a civilian court will release a dangerous terrorist on a technicallity tehn there is a military court will execute an innocent terrorist

why shouldn't they get a fair trial in a regular court? A military tribunal is a kangaroo court.

At a time when we preach values, liberty and freedom - it just seems plain bad judgement that we should abuse the human rights of these people.

It doesn't matter if they are foreigners - we are holding them. If a foreigner breaks the law - he gets tried in a court just like a US citizen - we don't ship them to devils island and argue about if they have any rights.

why do you assume a military tribunal will not be fair? how many military tribunals have you witnessed? how do you know some anti bush judge who thinks gitmo is wrong wont release a dangerous terrorist? I think most of this just stems from a distrust of the US military. I dont think a military trail will be any more kangaroo then a regular trial by someone on the 9th circuit court out of SF.

I would hope that the military court system doesn't have as much backlog as our regular courts, otherwise, they could be locked up forever.

On another note, I have to agree, Trav, that the military would be less likely to acquit someone based on a technicality vs. our regular court system (although as I wrote that, I started to ask myself if that were "fair"). Do you know if our military would appoint an attorney to represent the foreign prisoner if so requested? Or, would it have to come from elsewhere? It would seem pretty biased if the US military appointed an attorney.

Originally posted by Travh20
why do you assume a military tribunal will not be fair? how many military tribunals have you witnessed? how do you know some anti bush judge who thinks gitmo is wrong wont release a dangerous terrorist? I think most of this just stems from a distrust of the US military. I dont think a military trail will be any more kangaroo then a regular trial by someone on the 9th circuit court out of SF.

So what you are saying is the judicial system cannot be trusted and we need to use a more trustworthy system (one that will not release these people)

A military tribunal has little of the fairness of the judicial system. There is no attorney client privilage, defendants do not have the right to even hear the charges against them.

We have a judicial system - we need to use it. If these guys are guilty then present the evidence and send them to jail for life if they are guilty. If there is no evidence - let them go. This is the USA, not some military junta. You know there is a reason why we keep these guys on Devils island - out of the reach of justice up until now. You cannot hold somebody because you think they are a threat - you need evidence.

Judges do not determine guilt or innocence, sure they throw out cases that have no basis, but it's a jury that determines guilt.

I am saying a military tribunal is just as good to try people captured in war as a regular court. the whole idea of trying people captured in battle in a foreign land in a regular court like they were Michael Jackson is ludicrous

A military tribunal has little of the fairness of the judicial system. There is no attorney client privilage, defendants do not have the right to even hear the charges against them.
Is this really true?

At the outset, I was questioning whether it was fair that a military court would be more apt to "hold" a suspected terrorist for whatever reason. But now, if the suspect was just picked up off the street for being a certain race, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time (how would we ever know, really?)... then the regular Court system needs to intervene.

Where and how do you determine someone is to be tried? Plugging up our court system (and spending our money to hear/defend/prosecute each case) cannot be the only answer.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am saying a military tribunal is just as good to try people captured in war as a regular court. the whole idea of trying people captured in battle in a foreign land in a regular court like they were Michael Jackson is ludicrous

But you act like these people were soldiers in uniform fighting on a battle field. They weren't. Most were just guys pulled off the streets. If they were soldiers - they would be POW's - they aren't POW's

The "whole idea" of holding people without charge is what is really ludicrous.

I'm not saying they are all innocent, just that even the guilty deserve a fair trial.

Could this problem of courts not be solved by a world court?
Normally I would not recommend this, but the present situation might warrant such action. Fairness would be apparant to all involved, contraversy would be put to an end.
A panel of several Judges could be picked from around the world with majority decision ruling the outcome.
This action would take the pressure off the U.S. for justice for all.

An International Court system. Sounds good! But who would do the picking? The U.S. picks one, then another country picks one, etc. We certainly can't do ALL of the picking.

I have had the privelidge os sitting through two military tribunals. One was an obvious hunt for a scape goat. The other I'm not sure about. However, would you think it fair for the military to try you, appoint your lawyer and have power over your lawyer. Military lawyers are soldiers. They must do as they are told just like any other soldier. For the most part, military trails are kangaroo courts when they try their own soldiers. I do not know if that would change when they are trying people who are accused of fighting against their fellow soldiers. A blatant conflict of interest.

military tribunals dont provide many of the benefits of regular courts, and of course, there is the conflict of interest thing. if liberty, freedom, democracy, etc. is so important to us we should give it to everyone ,not just citizens of our own country.

then everyone should base their countrys around our constitution too

You logic is flawed. If you truely believed in something you would extend it to everyone you meet. Not just those that live between a 2 particular imaginary lines.

How bout this Trav. Since our military inflicts its will upon the world then maybe all countries should get to vote for who our president is.

You forget that you agreed to military tribunals. No one else did, and no one else wants them. They are a farce and a travesty of justice. If you suppossedly value rule and law then you would stick to the constitution for everyone.