The Kangaroo Court

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Rammstein, Mar 29, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    I have not yet read the articles, but my initial reaction about anything to do with Guantanamo is to post -----> :-({|=

    Anyway, that is not why I replied. Rather, I wanted to point out that I like your new signature line, with the quote from Goldwater's acceptance speech, but I wanted to ask, Did you know Goldwater supported the AWB?

    So much for campaign rhetoric.
     

  2. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    He did? :evil:


    After you read the articles tell me what you think. Should the President be allowed to try people, anyone, in secret courts?

    Should people tried in this country (ok, technically GB is not our country and that was the justification they use blah blah blah) not enjoy the right to have legal council, habeas corpus, etc?
     
  3. maddog

    maddog New Member

    220
    0
    0
    But if left to the number of liberals in our own system ... noone would ever be convicted of terrorism acts such as 9/11 due to some stupid loophole or technicality that could cause picture perfect evidence to be ruled as nonadmissable.

    Should they expect to be tried by U.S. standards when they don't believe that any of our laws pertain to them?
     
  4. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    In my opinion, this is not a liberal vs conservative issue, rather an issue of right vs wrong.

    The PatAct II and the Military Commissions Act are written so broadly that it can be applied to a wide range of people.

    If we want an open and transparent government then we cannot allow secret trials to be conducted. I view secret trials and suppressing peoples habeas corpus rights as a step toward despotism.

    The fact that these people don't believe that the laws pertain to them is immaterial. Foreign nationals come to this country and commit crimes, yet we still try them in regular courts.
     
  5. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Ok, first let me say that a us citizen in the us should keep habeas corpas with open trials. On the other hand, if you are from a foreign country we invaded and in one of our many camps, you have no right to it.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    Nonuniformed combatants operating in theater should be thankful they are not simply lined up against a wall and shot.
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    No. They believed that foreign agents out of uniform, spies, saboteurs, and the like, forfeited procedural rights.

    Sorry.
     
  8. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Like Jose Padilla?...
     
  9. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I'd prefer that to torture, because that would be within the scope of war IMO.
     
  10. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Is there any historical evidence to support that?
     
  11. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    1
    38
    Nathan Hale
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    It is not only within the scope of war, but it protects civilians. That is why the Geneva Conventions applied only to uniformed combatants. People operating out of uniform, as Al-Queda does, endanger civilians with their operations (as if they care).
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    Wow! :shock: Is there any historical evidence against it? Nathan Hale, obviously, but probably tens of thousands of others we cannot name. It was the practice up until Vietnam.

    There is a very fundamental distinction between US citizen and foreign enemy combatants. Unlawful foreign enemy combatants have never been extended constitutional rights of citizen criminal defendants, nor should they now. The Bush military commission system and the enhanced rights under the proposed legislation are far more due process than unlawful foreign enemy combatants have historically received. With the exception of our voluntary extension of Geneva POW rights to Viet Cong unlawful combatants fighting in civilian clothing, due process has historically been a cursory battlefield hearing to determine if the person in civilian clothing or our own uniforms was a combatant followed by a summary execution.

    During the Battle of the Bulge, our military simply shot captured SS dressed in our clothing. There was no trial.

    Granting unlawful enemy combatants fighting in civilian clothing amongst and behind civilian non combatants the same rights as those who fight in uniform and do not unnecessarily endanger civilians simply rewards war crimes which endanger civilians.
    :wink:
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    jrm witnessed me pose this situation to two experts on a debate panel, one of whom secured the conviction of the blind shiek, the other of whom currently represents seven Gitmo detainees and was there to criticize the due process being afforded to them.

    BOTH of them agreed and stated that the substantive laws had not changed, that this was still the law of war (i.e., summary execution) but that the United States had changed culturally so that it no longer found this acceptable.

    Since the change came in 'nam, during the 60s, I have but two words - stinkin' hippies! :evil:
     
  15. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Fair enough.

    But are secret courts really something that should be allowed? Especially when the definition for whom may be sent there is so broad?
     
  16. maddog

    maddog New Member

    220
    0
    0
    Ramm I think you would find that most military court martials or trials are not public.
     
  17. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    There is a difference between non-public and secret.
     
  18. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    1
    38
    Not really. The serious question here is whether on not Habis corpis applies. Frankly I don't see it in this case, except you brought up Padilla IIRC the courts ruled in his favor. Non US citizens caught on a battlefield bearing arms against the US don't have a right to HC. Non uniformed combatants don't have a right to protections under the Geneva and Hauge conventions.