http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/29/scotus.gitmo.appeals.ap/index.html

The Supreme Court has reversed itself on a decision made in April, and has decided to hear the appeal on the legality of the military tribunals ongoing at Guantanamo. Perhaps it had something to do with the statement about what was going on in the tribunals by one of the officers who had been sitting as a judge.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/23/guantanamo.ap/index.html

If what this officer has said is true, then the tribunals currently being used do not, in my opinion, meet the definition of fair hearings. When the judges are being pressured by their superior officers to return guilty verdicts even when the evidence does not support that conclusion, you can't possibly call that a fair review.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court finds this whole thing unconstitutional. I also hope it's findings will lead to further oversight hearings and action by Congress to rein in the illegal and immoral actions of this administration. I am beginning to believe we need a war crimes tribunal in this country to look at the actions of this administration.

I don't know why they're bothering. The military has clear pictures of every single detainee at Guantanamo engaging in terrorist activity. I recently received one from my source in Intel.

http://imagechan.org/img/images/spank.jpg

We shouldn't be bothering the Supreme Court with this.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court finds this whole thing unconstitutional.
Yeah, let's extend our constitutional rights to non-Americans being held on foreign soil. Especially to the people we suspect were complicit in attempting to perpetrate future 9/11 attacks on our soil. I mean, if all Muhammad did was take a few shots at a uniformed soldier while hiding behind some women and children in public, then fuck it - I say, let's give him a "fair" trial and let him go already.

I'm with ya 100% there, Imagineer. :thumbs: :rolleyes:

If you want 'em treated fairly, then we should sail 'em out into Caribbean via aircraft carrier while ensuring their chains are linked person to person with a 300 lb ball on the end that we throw overboard so the families of the 9/11 victims can watch as those scumbags frantically claw their way off the ship's deck and into black water 100 feet below.

Yeah, let's extend our constitutional rights to non-Americans being held on foreign soil.

If you believe the Constitution applies only to Americans, you have to ignore the document itself, history, and years of legal precedent. I also feel compelled to point out that they are being held on territory controlled by the US, not exactly "foreign soil" but just foreign enough to be legally questionable.


Especially to the people we suspect were complicit in attempting to perpetrate future 9/11 attacks on our soil.

How do you know this? Do we have evidence? If we do, why are we afraid to show it?

Before you mention that these guys have "classified" information, or that revealing it would jeopardize national security, how is it possible that after five years of captivity they have any useful info at all?


I mean, if all Muhammad did was take a few shots at a uniformed soldier while hiding behind some women and children in public, then fuck it - I say, let's give him a "fair" trial and let him go already.

I'm with ya 100% there, Imagineer. :thumbs: :rolleyes:

Mischaracterizing Imagineer and his post does nothing for your argument Prae. :)

Nobody said "let them go". The purpose of a trial is to determine what, if anything, they are guilty of.

If you believe the Constitution applies only to Americans, you have to ignore the document itself, history, and years of legal precedent.
Then we're ALL Americans - every one of us. Unless, of course, we're on foreign soil, that is. Then we're a statistic. That seems fair.

Do you really believe that wholesaling our rights and freedoms is fair to the people who've given their lives maintaining and preserving what we have here and abroad? Freedom isn't free; someone pays for it. Since when has being an American been so cheap?

And legal precedent? Where? The precedent created here on OUR soil? Yeah, that's what I thought. Who paid for that "history" and who drafted that document? You may wanna treat our goddamned country like a grab-bag for the very people bent on our destruction, but I don't. Our nation is already there to serve the worlds disenfranchised and forgotten, but don't think for one second those people don't have to go through the legal vetting process to receive our rights and privileges. Short of them vacationing here (or on a Visa, student or otherwise), they deserve NOTHING - they're fucking FOREIGNERS and we're at war. It's that simple.
How do you know this? Do we have evidence? If we do, why are we afraid to show it?
Because eyewitness testimony doesn't set well with your camp, that's why. Short of DNA evidence, credible and impartial investigations, and professional courtesy extended via the four seasons during their imprisonment, you people cry torture. Oh, Gooooooood - NO! Not the water board!!! Anything but that!

All joking aside, they didn't pull these people off the street at random, Vile. These dudes took shots at our boys; they had paperwork on them detailing troop movements, had weapons caches in their homes, and bombs in their possession. As far as I'm concerned, they can f*@#king rot.
Mischaracterizing Imagineer and his post does nothing for your argument Prae. :)
You're right. That wasn't very fair of me. I apologize, Imagineer. It's a touchy subject. ;)

Because eyewitness testimony doesn't set well with your camp, that's why.

What eyewitness testimony?


All joking aside, they didn't pull these people off the street at random, Vile. These dudes took shots at our boys; they had paperwork on them detailing troop movements, had weapons caches in their homes, and bombs in their possession.

I hope you're right about that Prae, but the government's unwillingness to put these people on trial suggests that they may not have as much evidence as you think.

The government cannot resonably claim that these guys still have useful information after being held captive for so long. If they are guilty of crimes let's find out who's guilty and of what. Keeping these men in detention without charge only serves to tarnish our reputation internationally and aid the terrorists who are trying to recruit others.

What eyewitness testimony?
The testimony of the soldiers who saw what happened, and detained them for pointing and firing a Kalashnikov at them, or for trying to plant bombs in public markets, or for being in possession of maps that recorded our troop movements, or for stocking weapons caches, etc.
I hope you're right about that Prae, but the government's unwillingness to put these people on trial suggests that they may not have as much evidence as you think.
I think it's probably a bit of a logistical nightmare to pull our troops out of the hot zones in Afghanistan and Iraq to have them "testify" that these guys are, in fact, guilty. If there's proper documentation, then let's get it over with.

I've said for many years now that our government should try these people in lieu of spoken testimony and sentence them to death based on sworn written testimony. I mean, hell - I'm certainly not a fan of having to feed and house those bastards.
If they are guilty of crimes let's find out who's guilty and of what. Keeping these men in detention without charge only serves to tarnish our reputation internationally and aid the terrorists who are trying to recruit others.
I agree.

This is a military matter. The Bush Administration has already shown the military is above the law in cases of national security. And I agree.

I don't want to take a chance of a terrorist going free because a judge who wants to make headlines can make it happen.

Not to mention most of them are not American citizens.

Yeah, let's extend our constitutional rights to non-Americans being held on foreign soil. Especially to the people we suspect were complicit in attempting to perpetrate future 9/11 attacks on our soil. I mean, if all Muhammad did was take a few shots at a uniformed soldier while hiding behind some women and children in public, then fuck it - I say, let's give him a "fair" trial and let him go already.

I'm with ya 100% there, Imagineer. :thumbs: :rolleyes:

If you want 'em treated fairly, then we should sail 'em out into Caribbean via aircraft carrier while ensuring their chains are linked person to person with a 300 lb ball on the end that we throw overboard so the families of the 9/11 victims can watch as those scumbags frantically claw their way off the ship's deck and into black water 100 feet below.

I thought long and hard about whether to bother replying to you. First, let me state for the record that I am absolutely in favor of continuing to hold any Al Qaeda members, Taliban fighters, or any one else who has acted in any way against the United States. Let me also state for the record that I am absolutely against holding and torturing innocent individuals who may have been erroneously captured.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that there must be some form of review for detainees, to seperate the guilty from the innocent. The President and Congress have enacted a Military Tribunal to hold those hearings. They have not extended anything like the full Constitutional protections to the detainees. Among the rights not provided to defendants in the Tribunal are the right to confront there accusers and to question them, the right to know the evidence against them, and the right not to have illegally obtained evidence used against them.

Your argument that it is inconvenient to transport the witnesses against the detainees to the hearings has already been anticipated. They can be sworn in by their commanding officer anywhere in the world, or by any Federal Court Judge, and provide their sworn statement in writing.

I do not know whether you bothered to read the second link I provided. I will quote a couple of paragraphs of it here in case you didn't.

"An Army officer who played a key role in the "enemy combatant" hearings at Guantanamo Bay says tribunal members relied on vague and incomplete intelligence while being pressured to rule against detainees, often without any specific evidence.

"His affidavit, submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and released Friday, is the first criticism by a member of the military panels that determine whether detainees will continue to be held.

"Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who is an Army reserve officer and a California lawyer, said military prosecutors were provided with only "generic" material that didn't hold up to the most basic legal challenges.

"Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, said Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies."

I would like to make a couple points in reegard to that article. First, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham is in a lot better position than you are to know what is going on in those tribunals.

Second, he provided a sworn affidavit to the Supreme Court detailing his allegations. Since he is a serving military officer, he would be subject to a court martial and could be imprisoned for many years if convicted of making a false statement. Even if what he is saying is completely truthful, he has thrown away his military career. It took a lot of courage for him to come forward.

Given those two points, I think it is likely that his statements are true. The Supreme Court apparently agrees with me on that much because they reversed their decision not to hear the detainees appeal, and the Supreme Court does not often reverse their decisions on which cases to hear.

I think every American citizen should be concerned about this. If these allegations are true, our government is deliberately holding innocent human beings in prison. That is just plain wrong. They may be doing it out of fear, or to avoid the embarrassment of releasing them after holding them for years. Whatever the reason, there is simply no excuse for holding innocent individuals. If there is evidence, it should be provided. If there isn't, the individuals must be released.

I don't want to take a chance of a terrorist going free because a judge who wants to make headlines can make it happen.


Are you willing to imprison the innocent to allay your fears?

It comes down to which is worse:
Imprisoning and torturing an innocent person, or letting a potentially dangerous criminal go free.
I think I stand firmly in the first camp. But, for the record, the second is a perfectly valid opinion to have too.

This will be interesting. ONe thing i think it will highlight is the inadequacy of our legal system for dealing with terrorists. Does anyone think that under the current rules of evidence one could ever have a viable prosecution of KSM? Beyond unlikely and consequently he'd be free. So the larger, more important question becomes how to deal with these guys.

being held on foreign soil. Point of order, here: a U.S. military base anywhere is under the same laws as any other US territory. It is domestic soil in a foreign country.

But, for the record, the second is a perfectly valid opinion to have too.Particularly if you value American principles.

I don't know why they're bothering. The military has clear pictures of every single detainee at Guantanamo engaging in terrorist activity. I recently received one from my source in Intel.

http://imagechan.org/img/images/spank.jpg

We shouldn't be bothering the Supreme Court with this.

Let's say the US gets invaded tomorrow (say the Chinese - this means nothing). Now, I see some Chinese soldiers walking around my backyard. So, being the proud gun-owning American that am, I, along with my neighbhors, get our guns and shoot at the chinese soldiers to "defend our country".

So, we miss and the chinese soldiers arrest us and label us "terrorists" and take us to a camp in Mongolia. Are we terrorists because we were trying to fight an invading force?

I am really torn on this issue. We invade a country and then label the people "terrorists" who try to fight us. In reality, yes they are POWs. But have we ever held POWs for this long?

Are we terrorists because we were trying to fight an invading force?This is a fair observation. I too would be out on the bayou at night sniping the bastards, then during the day waving cheerfully as the tanks rolled throught he subdivision. It's basic guerrilla warfare. And it is part of the American tradition.

Many of the "detainees" labelled as enemy combatants don't fit that profile, though. They may be imports, have been involved in aggressive action before the "invasion," etc.

For me the issue is simple: if you have enough evidence to hold someone for years, then you damn well ought to have enough evidence to convict them in court in a fair trail that meet the standards of the US justice system. (Even if some of the proceedings are not open to the general public, per intellegence concerns.)

[The only people would should be able to blow intellegence covers/leads, etc., are members of the Executive branch.]