King Of Bongo
King Of Bongo

addict
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Dec 2002
Total posts: 522
Posted:here's an article that was recently published by the economist.

I personally feel the military courts have too great a potential for misuse ( another previous article ) and bypass what I would consider essential human rights. It seems like a sick and twisted way of getting rid of "american values/justice" and claiming "its different", that simply because the judgement does not take place on american soil the comissions have a right to do whatever they want in whatever way they want. I feel it boils down to some disgusting machiavellian travesty of justice lowering the all famous american justice to the same level as the terrorists they aim to catch. The fact that american citizens detained in the same circumstances have the right to elect to be judged by civilian courts for me makes it so. (some animals are more equal than others?)
Apparently now thanks to Blair's insistence, the two Briton's detained in Guantanamo are also more likely to receive a "fair" (/lenient) trial. The pentagon has been quick to point out that the rules for close allies is different and does not "set a precedent". Already setting out from a point where people will be judged differently depending on the country where they were born is disgusting. It is essentially racist.

what do you think? Did I miss something?

[ 24. July 2003, 12:50: Message edited by: King Of Bongo ]


Your life is ending one minute at a time...
So live it.

Delete Topic

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:If I drop a nuke on downtown London say killing 1 million people, do I deserve to have rights?

In my own opinoin, I would say no.

quote: The trial may be open to the press and public, but it can also be closed at any time by the presiding officer or Pentagon officials.
Doesnt this happen in civil courts too?

quote: Defendants cannot represent themselves. They must accept a military lawyer assigned to them. Would it honestly be fair for someone who speeks little to no English to represent theirself?

quote: They can also have a civilian lawyer, at their own expense, but this lawyer must be an American citizen and must be cleared by the Pentagon for access to classified information.
I'm in the military and yet I still have to have a clearance done, it is nothing major. Hell if you have a good memory or a decent address book it takes all of 20 minutes to fill out the packet! They are making that sound harder than it is.

quote: Even with these qualifications, the civilian lawyer, along with the defendant and public, can be excluded from a trial session if protected informationa vaguely defined category much broader than classifiedis presented by the prosecution.A civilian does not have the right to know everything. Some secrets must be kept. Now, a military lawyer would still be present though.


So far, everything in that first article makes sence.


Like I said at the begining, if I killed alot of people or belonged to a group that killed alot of people just because they wanted to, do I deserve to be treated fairly? I still say no.

What the first and second article have not told you is that there are two laws in America, 1 being the law that every day citizens fall under and 2 is the law that military members fall under on top of the first.

We can either try these people as accoplises to mass murder, or try them as military members, either way if found guilty they would get death.

The theird link didnt work for me can you fix it please?


Anyhoo, the fact that these guys are getting trials is amazing to me. I am supprised that they just arnt lined up and shot by every American that owns a gun!


Like I said before, I just dont see a panal of jourers or a panal of military officers differencing on the outcome of any trial.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Dom
Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK
Member Since: 19th Dec 2001
Total posts: 3009
Posted:I think I've posted about this before. It's a travesty of humanity and justice. Few, if any, of those held in Guantanamo would have known about the Sept 11th attacks on the US. All they're guilty of is being on the losing side of a war, something that has happened time and again throughout history. Most have probably not harmed any Americans, except for a few nasty looks at their guards.

Ray's post is a prime example of the real reason these people are kept captive - the desire for revenge. The US public can't ever get justice from those directly responsible for 9/11, but they'll happily accept some random dark skinned people and have them punished instead.

What if the roles were reversed. Vietnam announces tomorrow it's kept hundreds of US troops prisoner since the war. What would the US response be?

Hypocrisy born of the lust for revenge.

Ray:
quote:
Would it honestly be fair for someone who speaks little to no English to represent their self?
Er, what about the ones that can speak English, like the British citizens.

Either everyone else is being paranoid or you're being naive about the clearance thing. Time and again governments use ploys like this to make sure the odds are stacked in their favour. Any lawyer the Pentagon though was too good they could just refuse clearance to, and not state a reason.

And the 'right to know everything' thing again. Why not? What can be so amazing about the cases of a bunch of guys caught fighting in the desert? 99% of these people are not Al Qaeda masterminds - they're normal guys who thought they were fighting for the right side. They're being charged with aiding Al Qaeda, in most cases just by flying over there to join the armed ranks. It's kinda like trying the guy who fuelled the Enola Gay for genocide.

The 'protected' information exclusion is open to abuse, as mentioned before.

And I'm always amazed how easily many Americans will accept exceptions to, or ignore, their precious constitiution on one hand, whilst on the other claim it as a provider of unwavering rights that they will never give up.


Delete

Charles
Charles

Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
Location: Auckland
Member Since: 27th Jun 2001
Total posts: 3989
Posted:Raymund...This is my second post in the War Topics section for a while, so please bear with me if I'm not up to speed with a lot of things.

I agree with a lot of what you have said, although one statement does worry me a little.

quote: Like I said at the begining, if I killed alot of people or belonged to a group that killed alot of people just because they wanted to, do I deserve to be treated fairly? I still say no.
In that case, if you did kill a lot fo people deliberately and while in a sane state of mind, then you and I agree completely.

BUT the point of a trial, is that no-one knows if the person in the docks is actually guilty or not.

The reasoning that people who kill hundreds of others should have no rights has absultuely no bearing on people who are ACCUSED of killing hundreds of others.

It's at this point, that some might pile in a number of facts proving why a certain person is guilty. But, these facts need to be looked at objectively.

Say there is video evidence showing one of Saddam's aides shooting a young woman. Is that enough evidence to convict him of murder?

Most people would say yes instantly.

BUT the video on it's own does not prove that the person on the video is the person who is currently standing trial...perhaps it is a very unlucky doppelganger.

OR perhaps Saddam's aide was carrying out military justice on someone who had turned on her fellows and killed dozens of soldiers?

Just because the regime is currupt, doesn't mean there aren't criminals or psychopaths within the regime who deserve to be punished as if they were in America, or in the American Army?

What if the video was faked (ie he shot into the ground next to her) on purpose so she could escape the country without being hunted down afterwards? Would a military court believe just his testimony that she is still alive but in hiding and impossible to trace?

I have no doubt there are some flaws in my arguments here, and that you may be able to disprove each one, but there are mere examples of why I feel military and civilian courts should follow the exact same procedures.

But at the end of the day, I don't feel there is any court system in operation today that is fullproof. They all have huge gaping flaws in them and I would eb lying if i said I could think of a better way to deal with this.

All I know, is that lining up SUSPECTS against a wall and shooting them makes those with the guns the criminals.

And there are enough criminals already without turning honest soldiers or civilians into them as well.

And, of course, this just my opinion


HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:Dom, yes your quite right that the protected information clause can be abused.

Just because a store has a sign that says that they reserve the right to refuse a customers business doesnt mean that they will.

Your being very pesimistic, so what else is new?

How is it fair, for you Dom (someone who isnt American), to claim that my opinion is the majority opionion for a multi-million member nation?

Your also right, Americans are racist pigs who will attack any and all "dark skinned" people and accuse them of being responsible for 9/11.


Here is something about Vietnam, let me just start by saying LEARN SOME HISTORY!

Vietnam ended, prisoner exchange somewhat happend, Vietnam said that they held no US military personel, the US says we dont believe you but what can we do. If 40 years down the road Vietnam comes out and says... ohh by the way... we lied! Then I would guess as to say the general concenses of the poplation would want to get our people back, even if they are just remains. Would it cause a war, I doubt it.

The difference... the US says 'We have these people ... ... ...' and lists them by name. So, the US is in no way dening that the people exist. Unlike your example of Vietnam. So... perhaps if you boned up on your history a bit you might have chosen a better example.

So Dom, riddle me this, what would you do that would be so much better?

I bet you cant answer that.

Hell nobody has ever been able to answer that question.

Though since you know so damn much I am sure that you would be able to come up with something that would provide justice and be fair.

I mean these people are accomplices to 3000 murders, or atleast they are accused of it. Even if they escaped 3000 murder charges, do you honestly think that everyone will agree and let them go peacefully? Would you risk peoples lives to protect them?


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:Charles, your right, it needs to go to trial. However you can not try someone on one standerd of law when they are held to another.

These people are being treated like military personel in the instance of the trial.

They have the exact same rights as I do if I were to be charged of the same crime. Under a military court.

Like I said before there is civilian law and then there is military law, that is made up of civilian and other laws.

I can not be tried as a civilian alone, if I say killed someone and was guilty without a doubt (insert enough evidence to prove it to your conclusion) I would be tried through the military system not the civilian, why?

Double jeprody, Because I am a military member if I was tried in a civilian court, once my scentance is over, if I am still alive, then I must be tried in a military court. Since someone cant be charged for the same crime twice, they have to only try me in a military court.

It is a similer situation with the people held in Cuba.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Dom
Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK
Member Since: 19th Dec 2001
Total posts: 3009
Posted:Bad example - a shop loses money if they refuse a customer. The US Government can win by refusing certain lawyers and excluding them from certain key times of the trial. It's all about what they have to gain that'll drive people's actions.

Pesimistic? No, realistic. Political games happen all the time but are only noticed if you're watching carefully, or it gets the government into big trouble like it is in the UK now.

quote:
So Dom, riddle me this, what would you do that would be so much better?
This is a line used by many people to keep the status quo. Just because one person who says something isn't right can't give a foolproof alteratnite doesn't make the original wrong right.

The Vietnam situation was hypothetical. I know what happened, but I was posing a 'what if' example. Hypthetical situations aren't meant to be completely factual. You answered perfectly - America might well go to war to get them back. Hypocrisy on the part of the US government.

And by bringing up the prisioner exchange you answer your 'what would I do' question for me. Thanks The arguement is that these people are potentially dangerous to the US. Well, so are a lot of people. Using that argument the US could put everybody in Iraq into similar camps. Like everyone else who harbours a desire to assianate Bush, but hasn't carried it out, they've free people.

quote:
I mean these people are accomplices to 3000 murders
Like I said, most probably not. Not even Bin Laden's senior staff knew about the 9/11 attacks - so I find it unlikely that a bunch of amateur fighters training in Afghanistan would have been directly involved in 9/11. You're judgement is clouded by the desire for revenge.


Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:How would you know who knew what?

Anyhoo, just becuase the guy driving the get away car didnt know that someone just got shot and killed in the bank doesnt mean that he wasnt an accoplise to murder.

Ignorance is not a defence!

I really dont want revenge on these people, I am just being realistic when I say that these people wouldnt get a fair trial weather it be military or civilian. You think you know me Dom, but you dont.

What prisoners would be exchanged? Ours for theirs, who do they have?

Still in an effort to understand you, you would exchange prisoners, and call things even? Yep justice was done there! </sarcasim>


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

King Of Bongo
King Of Bongo

addict
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Dec 2002
Total posts: 522
Posted:sorry ray, but the link still seems to work for me...
however here's basic "facts" from the article:

1.US agreed on Tuesday that it would not seek the death penalty for two British terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay
2.US agreed that it would not monitor any conversations between the pair and their chosen defence counsel
3.US also agreed to consider allowing the two to serve prison terms in the UK if they are convicted
4.US offered assurances that the two men would be able to choose civilian lawyers, including a UK lawyer as a consultant, and that the families would be permitted additional contact
5.US official said that the agreement is "case-specific" and would not set a precedent for all the other detainees. "These are not sweeping changes that cut across the entire process,"
6.US is now likely to face similar demands for concessions from other countries such as Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia whose citizens are being held by the US in the war on terror
7.the agreement does not even mark the end of discussions with the UK, which is seeking a broader set of changes, including a right of appeal, which would effectively turn the tribunals into what one UK official called "a civilian tribunal with a military title".

hope I aint infringin any copyright laws, I have copied and pasted bits and pieces, if I am, then please tell me and I'll gladly remove this post.


Your life is ending one minute at a time...
So live it.

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:Well... you quoted your source so no worries there,

Hrm this changes a few things I take it ehh Dom?


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

King Of Bongo
King Of Bongo

addict
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Dec 2002
Total posts: 522
Posted:quote:Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
If I drop a nuke on downtown London say killing 1 million people, do I deserve to have rights? quote: the fact that these guys are getting trials is amazing to me. I am supprised that they just arnt lined up and shot by every American that owns a gun you're already parting on the fact that they are guilty as sin. whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? reminds me of a quote of George Bush's in reference to those hled in guantanamo and eligible for the trials:
"all I can tell you, is that these are bad people"
does that mean you get the right to deny them any rights?

from the table in the first article, ray, you would be judged by a US court martial right?
second last and last columns
rights you get that people judged by military commission wouldn't:
1. get to choose your own lawyer
2. lawyer-client confidentiality
3. know all the evidence against you!!!!
4. appeal to an independent judge

From what I read, these tribunals would be made up entirely of people selected by the pentagon meaning they can be as biased as they want in their selection and judge someone on facts they don't even get to know about:
possible situation
"why were you condemned to death?"
-"I don't know, I wasnt told the evidence against me"...

even more shocking still is that these courts give people less rights than the South African apartheid...


Your life is ending one minute at a time...
So live it.

Delete

DeepSoulSheep
DeepSoulSheep

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Sep 2002
Total posts: 2617
Posted:If I had a nickle for every time I hit reply in this section and then decided not to bother

I live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Delete

Dom
Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK
Member Since: 19th Dec 2001
Total posts: 3009
Posted:quote: Hrm this changes a few things I take it ehh Dom?
What you going on about? I believe there's more than 2 people at Guantanamo.

And you've mentioned that if you committed a crime then you'd be tried by a military court. Fair enough, but you signed peices of paper to agree to that. These guys didn't.

quote:
How would you know who knew what?
Well, I'm not a mind reader, but when it comes to 9/11 you might remember that soon afterwards there was a video released featuring a senior Al Qaeda member who worked constantly with Bin Laden. It was used as proof that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11. In that video he talks about when they found out about 9/11, and how smug Bin Laden loked. He tells that most people in Al Qaeda's inner circle didn't know about the attacks. So I'm assuming they weren't having open planning sessions in the training camps and getting everyone to help make Al Qaeda branded box cutters for the hijackers.

quote: you would exchange prisoners, and call things even? Yep justice was done there! Understand that you cannot have revenge, you cannot get even. The US will NEVER be 'even' with those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, because they were suicide attacks. Sorry, it's a tough deal, but that's life, sometimes you just have to move on.


Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:You know though, they claim to be part of this "army" so... why try them as civilians?

True there are more than two, but still those claims of how terrible this is going to be arnt holding as much water right now are they? Atleast not with two cases.

Secondly, your speculating, can you come up with an argument that isnt 100% speculation?

Dom, you would believe propaganda hands down?? wow so you are a hypocrite!

I have the right council, but if I bring a council to an NJP hearing, it automatically becomes a Courtmartial, that brings higher steaks. They dont joke around with NJPs hell you dont go to one unless you are guilty (its a hearing not a trial there is no innocent untill proven guilty there), so by taking it to a courtmartial I just screwed myself. I might loose rank and pay at an NJP but at a courtmartial I could get some brig time on top of all that.

So it would be a tactically unwise move to take a lawyer to an NJP hearing, though I can still seek the advice outside the hearing.

I will be able to see the evidence in the courtroom. Just like these guys, with the exception of material classified above my clearance.

Say I was involved with some organisation that had a mole in it, and it was evidence from that mole that got me cought. If that evidence depicted who the mole was, then it would be a good thing to keep him alive by keeping things secret... wouldnt you think?

Or should a man die needlessly just so I can see everything? Is that fair?

I do get to appeal, but in writing only at first, if deemed appropriate for appeal then it will go to the next highest courmartial.

I must give you a warning, I am not leagle admin, this is all how I understand it and is to be taken with a grain of salt.


and one last important point WHO IN THE WORLD TOLD YOU THAT LIFE WAS FAIR??


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete


Similar Topics

Using the keywords [necessary evil] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Axis of Evil Wannabees [4 replies]
2. Forums > Evil multinationals. [26 replies]
3. Forums > The question of Evil [20 replies]
4. Forums > OOh...need evil music [2 replies]
5. Forums > why the military doesnt have evil robots of doom [20 replies]

     Show more..