Gitmo Tribunals Restarted...

[Possessed Freak]

I guess this system is the best thing we have in place... because he was supposed to stop it??

Linky...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

ftfa

The decision to restart the process puts the administration in a race against the clock to conclude commission trials before the Navy prison is closed, by January 2010. If the trials are still going on, the detainees might have to be brought to the United States, where they would receive even greater legal rights.

the question is not what rights should these people have legally but what rights should they have morally. It is immoral to incarcerate people no matter what the consequences of not doing so are.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
ftfa

The decision to restart the process puts the administration in a race against the clock to conclude commission trials before the Navy prison is closed, by January 2010. If the trials are still going on, the detainees might have to be brought to the United States, where they would receive even greater legal rights.

the question is not what rights should these people have legally but what rights should they have morally. It is immoral to incarcerate people no matter what the consequences of not doing so are.

putting a killer in jail is immoral even if he will kill again? that's some fuzzy logic right there...

the question is exactly what rights they have legally, not being us citizens, and being captured in a war. imho i dont think they should have stopped in the first place, we need to get this stuff cleaned up and over with. if we are going to charge them, do it, if not, send them home, this seems like it would benefit all involved parties.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
I guess this system is the best thing we have in place... because he was supposed to stop it??

Linky...

Your thread title is mis-leading and trolling....as is your topic summary!
It also indicates that you diud not read the article yourself!!

Here are some examples from the article....
The tribunal system ? set up after the military began sweeping detainees off the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001 ? has been under repeated challenges from human rights and legal organizations because it has denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom.

An administration official familiar with Obama's decision said between 10 and 20 of the 241 detainees currently at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be tried by military commissions.

Thirteen other detainees ? including five charged with helping orchestrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington? already have been moved into the system and are expected to be tried there.

The rest of the detainees would either be released, transferred to other nations or tried by civilian prosecutors in U.S. federal courts, an official said. It's also possible that some could continue to be held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions protections, according to another senior U.S. official.

 

[fskimospy]

Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

:laugh:


Oh man, that I hope that kool-aid is refreshing.

 

[trenchfoot]

Like some folks here like to say, the user of a gun decides wether to use it for good or bad. So too the tribunals. The INTENT of the tribunals have changed along with the changing of administrations.

To say that Obama is going ahead with the tribunals for the same reasons that Bush and Cheney did is non-sensical.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

:laugh:


Oh man, that I hope that kool-aid is refreshing.

Text

Two senior administration officials outlined several of the rules changes, which will be carried out by executive authority, to The Associated Press on Thursday night. They include:

_Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.

_A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.

_Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.

_Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.

The White House may seek additional changes to the military commissions law over the next 120 days, but it was not immediately clear Thursday what they could include. The two senior administration officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama had not yet announced the changes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

But the argument then was not about improving military tribunals, but moving these detainees to civilian courts.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

But the argument then was not about improving military tribunals, but moving these detainees to civilian courts.

Exactly. Like so many other policies, Obama is carrying yet another one over from Bush with some minor modifications. There is no substantive difference between the two tribunal systems. The end result will be the same. And as charrison points out, the whole issue was about moving this to a civilian court.

 

[Wheezer]

originally I was going to post what a bad idea this is, to bring terrorist from the battle field into civilian courts, then I remembered:

Timothy McVeigh -terrorist (tried in American courts)

Jeff Ford Founder of the Black P Stones found guilty of conspiring with Libya to carry out terrorist attacks in Chicago -terrorist (tried in civilian court)

Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj -all were convicted of carrying out the 1993 car bombing of the WTC. -terrorists (all tried and convicted in civilian courts)


and those are just a few, I am sure if you go back through history you will find more.

We have set a precedence of trying terrorists in our courts, it does not matter really if you are a US citizen or not, if you attack the US, her troops, the people or the government , then what does it matter if you are a US citizen or not?

Hell, if you think about it most gangs and their members are terrorists they hold hostage entire sections of cities and the population and yet they are tried in our courts everyday.

So while at first I was opposed to this idea of trying these people in our court system, looking through our history we opened that door a long time ago, whats the point of trying to close it now?

 

[Genx87]

Wheezer one thing to remember is those people were either American citizens or the acts were comitted on American soil. So we had the ability to quarantine the crime scene. Many or all of the perps in Gitmo were taken off a battlefield in a foriegn land with little to no evidence chain. Putting them into our civilian courts would imo be a nightmare.

That is why I suspect Obama is going to stick the ones we have some form of evidence into a less strict military court and toss the rest.

 

[Hacp]

Change! I say we free the terrorists and let them bomb us again.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

But the argument then was not about improving military tribunals, but moving these detainees to civilian courts.

Exactly. Like so many other policies, Obama is carrying yet another one over from Bush with some minor modifications. There is no substantive difference between the two tribunal systems. The end result will be the same. And as charrison points out, the whole issue was about moving this to a civilian court.

That is just rediculous argument ---the end result.......of course the end result will be the same if they are guilty...
At least this way they have some legal rights, where as under the Bush administration they had no legal rights!

Your arguemnt that the end result will be the same is stoppid and idiotic and just plain has nothing to do with this article!

 

[Budmantom]

Oh that Barry, does he have any idea of what he's doing?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

But the argument then was not about improving military tribunals, but moving these detainees to civilian courts.

Exactly. Like so many other policies, Obama is carrying yet another one over from Bush with some minor modifications. There is no substantive difference between the two tribunal systems. The end result will be the same. And as charrison points out, the whole issue was about moving this to a civilian court.

That is just rediculous argument ---the end result.......of course the end result will be the same if they are guilty...
At least this way they have some legal rights, where as under the Bush administration they had no legal rights!

Your arguemnt that the end result will be the same is stoppid and idiotic and just plain has nothing to do with this article!

Again, a difference in kind. All military tribunal defendants have rights. The issue is what rights and to what extent.

And if you are going to insult someone, at least spell the insults correctly. :laugh::lips:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Oh that Barry, does he have any idea of what he's doing?

You certainly don't.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Very dissapointed in Obama's decision...

The fact is that our civilian court system has a far, far better record of convicting accused terrorists than the military commission system.

The popular discourse of the freakin day, relies on the idea that it would somehow be dangerous to bring the accused to this country for the purposes of trials. It's truly an absurd concept, considering the effectiveness of the Prison-Industrial complex in the United States that has succesfully managed to detain - with little outcry of incidents - about 1 percent of the population.

In terms of the prisoner of war/enemy combatant terminology, which in terms of the juridico-political aspects of this seems to be the technicality employed for the purposes of allowing these shams to go forth, the resolution is quite simple. Either we abide by Geneva or not. If not, convene Congress and withdrawal from the treaty. Otherwise, step the hell up, allow civillian or regular military trials, and get right with the law. But don't try to justify some antinomious double-standard where, because these tortured and broken men are so dangerous, we must operate extralegally.

I may be completely wrong, but I think that Obama's situation could be analogous in some ways. He appears to be trying over and over to prove himself to the Pentagon brass and powerful players at the CIA. In order to do this, he is having to abandon clear positions he spelled out only months ago, making himself look weak and ridiculous in the process. It is a huge mistake.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
I guess this system is the best thing we have in place... because he was supposed to stop it??

Linky...

Your thread title is mis-leading and trolling....as is your topic summary!
It also indicates that you diud not read the article yourself!!

Here are some examples from the article....

Are the tribunals being restarted? Yes or no?
Were the Bush era tribunals attacked? Yes or no?
Will the Obama tribunals be attacked? Yes or no (speculation, but I bet not)?

I did read the article, and I fail to see where the title/Summary is mis-information.

 

[OCGuy]

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...DC17891&show_article=1

Amnesty International seems to think Obama broke a major campaign promise.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: OCguy
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...DC17891&show_article=1

Amnesty International seems to think Obama broke a major campaign promise.

Why do you care? Aren't you in favor of military tribunals? Weren't you the moron suggesting earlier in this thread that Obama's military tribunals = Bush's military tribunals, sans any change whatsoever? Did you see the differences Robor posted?

Dude, pick a f'ing side already. Your gyrations are making everyone dizzy.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

fail...obama adnitted his mistake , why don't you?

 

[Xellos2099]

I think the problem is: We don't exactly have mountain of evidence against the alleged terrorist since they are often captured on the battlefield and any evidence there were would be long gone (It IS a battlefield). We can't exactly let them go either since there is a high change they will kill US soldier again. If we let them out knowingly they will do that, that's treason. So how aboiut leting them all in usa and put them in a house that is right next to those who are against Gitmo Tribunal. Let see if their tune change.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obamas tribunals != Bush's tribunals.

fail...obama adnitted his mistake , why don't you?

Well geeze dude, sometimes when you're hired to come in and clean up some other douchebag's mistakes, you realize that the clusterfusk they've created is so screwed up that there really is no ideal way to straighten it out. That is precisely what Gitmo and the entire apparatus to deal with "enemy combatants" is: a total clusterfsck that is going to be messy to unravel no matter how you approach it.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: OCguy
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...DC17891&show_article=1

Amnesty International seems to think Obama broke a major campaign promise.

Why do you care? Aren't you in favor of military tribunals? Weren't you the moron suggesting earlier in this thread that Obama's military tribunals = Bush's military tribunals, sans any change whatsoever? Did you see the differences Robor posted?

Dude, pick a f'ing side already. Your gyrations are making everyone dizzy.

My opinions dont matter on the international stage. Amnesty Internationals tend to get press.

Nice deflection on to me instead of commenting on the actual story I posted. Does that tactic actually work sometimes?