Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on November 19, 2010, 01:38:25 AM
-
Remember Obama promising that Guantanamo terrorists brought to trial in civilian courts would get everything that they have coming?
I guess Obama misspoke again. In case you missed it, Al Queda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani--who blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing 224 people and injuring far more--was found guilty of just one of the scores of charges he faced. He was found guilty of conspiring to destroy US government property, and faces 20 years.
Way to go, Obama! I can't wait to find out what the others will get. Maybe some will just get a fine, eh?
Ghailani might have been convicted on more charges, but the judge ruled that testimony given by another Guantanamo detainee was inadmissible because the CIA used coercive methods to get the name of the witness from Ghailiani. (The potential witness was probably forced to watch reruns of Al Franken Saturday Night Live skits).
How is it that the jury was able to find him guilty of conspiring to destroy the property, but not of the deaths and destruction once the conspiracy was committed? I guess only Obama and God know the answer to that (but I repeat myself).
I don't expect this to get a lot of press coverage. People would be really steamed if they heard about it.
-
He was found guilty of conspiring to destroy US government property, and faces 20 years.
WTF? What state was the jury from?
-
Well, one thing's for sure - this couldn't possibly indicate that the Government was throwing people in Guantanamo on facts that weren't so clear, or that it was failing to properly investigate. I mean, the fact that he was acquitted of hundreds of charges could only possibly show how inappropriate civilian trials are.
There's no questioning the Government's accusations comrades!
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/11/19/2010-11-19_stop_the_terror_trials.html
and follow some of the links there for more background
-
Well, one thing's for sure - this couldn't possibly indicate that the Government was throwing people in Guantanamo on facts that weren't so clear, or that it was failing to properly investigate.
In the case of this particular person, your snark is a true statement. His guilt WRT to the embassy bombings is not in question by anyone who is allowed to look at the facts. Which the jury wasn't.
Military tribunal for the mohammedian or, since he conducted war as an unlawful combatant, an execution out of hand and be done with it.
-
Perhaps you can explain to me what role the President plays in the conduct of a civilian trial such that the President is held accountable for the outcome. I must have missed that lecture in law school.
-
The cherry on top of this story, is that Obama suggested that the military could indefinitely imprison him after the civilian sentence. Which reveals that this was a show trial to begin with, and they SCREWED UP A SHOW TRIAL! :facepalm: (amateur hour!).
The second thing to note is that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did (military POW) - huh, imagine that. Remember that fierce moral urgency they had to get Bush out of the WH? I guess Bush was doing it right all along.
Well, at least he's not releasing the guy just to prove himself loyal to a stupid, rash, empty-headed campaign promise.
-
Perhaps you can explain to me what role the President plays in the conduct of a civilian trial such that the President is held accountable for the outcome. I must have missed that lecture in law school.
He is the boss of the Attorney General.
He is the guy who took the enemy out of POW camp and put him in a civilian trial.
He is directly responsible for creating this mess.
-
He is the boss of the Attorney General.
He is the guy who took the enemy out of POW camp and put him in a civilian trial.
He is directly responsible for creating this mess.
I see. And does the President pick the judge, select the jury, make rulings on the admissibility of evidence and prepare the jury instructions?
-
Ghailani might have been convicted on more charges, but the judge ruled that testimony given by another Guantanamo detainee was inadmissible because the CIA used coercive methods to get the name of the witness from Ghailiani. (The potential witness was probably forced to watch reruns of Al Franken Saturday Night Live skits).
It has been a pretty long-standing precept in most American jurisdprudence that evidence obtained by torture is not admissible. Perhaps you should educate yourself on some of the 'coercive methods' used and see how you would like them.
-
I see. And does the President pick the judge, select the jury, make rulings on the admissibility of evidence and prepare the jury instructions?
In essense, yes he did. Becuase he had 3 options:
1 Military POW forever
2 Military tribunal
3 Civilian trial
He chose #3. He chose the circumstances to deal with this guy.It has been a pretty long-standing precept in most American jurisdprudence that evidence obtained by torture is not admissible. Perhaps you should educate yourself on some of the 'coercive methods' used and see how you would like them.
Then don't take a foreign enemy non-combatant to a civilian trial.
I might agree that the US should have no part in torture or "harsh interrogation". But that doesn't mean a guy responsible for 200+ American deaths should be allowed to live; let alone go free after 20yrs (minus time served already). This isn't a moral equivalency game.
The facts were corroborated by a witness who was not tortured. This evidence also wasn't allowed because the name of the witness came from the prisoner. That might not be admissible in civilian court, but sure is in military court.
-
In essense, yes he did. Becuase he had 3 options:
1 Military POW forever
2 Military tribunal
3 Civilian trial
He chose #3. He chose the circumstances to deal with this guy.
Then don't take a foreign enemy non-combatant to a civilian trial.
I might agree that the US should have no part in torture or "harsh interrogation". But that doesn't mean a guy responsible for 200+ American deaths should be allowed to live; let alone go free after 20yrs (minus time served already). This isn't a moral equivalency game.
The facts were corroborated by a witness who was not tortured. This evidence also wasn't allowed because the name of the witness came from the prisoner. That might not be admissible in civilian court, but sure is in military court.
Uh, no. The President simply does not have the powers to control the outcome of a civil trial. He does not call up the judge and jury and tell them how to decide the case. And if you truly believe this and feel that torture should be allowed to produce evidence, then in fairness, I expect your next message to point out how President Bush is responsible for the outcome of the John Walker Lindh case.
-
WTF? What state was the jury from?
Case was tried in NY.
-
Uh, no. The President simply does not have the powers to control the outcome of a civil trial. He does not call up the judge and jury and tell them how to decide the case. And if you truly believe this and feel that torture should be allowed to produce evidence, then in fairness, I expect your next message to point out how President Bush is responsible for the outcome of the John Walker Lindh case.
The president doesn't have the ability to control the outcome of a civilian trial.
He DOES have the ability (and exercised that ability) to choose to put a foreign enemy, captured on foreign soil, in a domestic civilian court. We aren't criticising the court, most people EXPECTED (and so stated) that a civilian court was inadequate to the task of trying foreign enemy combatants.
His failure was not in the prosecution and outcome of the civilian trial but in choosing that venue in the first place. (The outcome was already predicted by those opposed to using civilian courts.)
-
So President Bush thought a civilian court was good enough for John Walker Lindh, but President Obama is wrong in thinking that a civilian court was good enough for Ghailiani. I see.
If we truly believe that the only way to get justice is to use military tribunals, in the belief that 'of course they will make the right decision whereas a civilian court cannot', then there is a fundamental flaw somewhere. This suggests that any military tribunal decisions are pre-ordained.
-
So President Bush thought a civilian court was good enough for John Walker Lindh, but President Obama is wrong in thinking that a civilian court was good enough for Ghailiani. I see.
If we truly believe that the only way to get justice is to use military tribunals, in the belief that 'of course they will make the right decision whereas a civilian court cannot', then there is a fundamental flaw somewhere. This suggests that any military tribunal decisions are pre-ordained.
Gee, if only there were some obvious difference between John Walker Lindh and Ahmed Ghailani that might suggest why we treated an American citizen differently from a foreign national... OH WAIT!
-
This is fairly predictable - we've presumed guilt because the Government said so, and whatever trial the defendant gets is supposed to just be a formality to confirm the Government's accusation.
Now that a jury of 12 looked at the evidence and concluded that the overwhelming majority of the Government's accusations were baloney, the problem is that 12 ordinary people were allowed to exercise a choice. Military commissions are better because they will just confirm the accusation.
It's a sad day for justice when a man's acquitted on most counts after having been tortured by the Government, and the only public response is "what bs! Next time we should just make sure it's a conviction."
-
This is fairly predictable - we've presumed guilt because the Government said so, and whatever trial the defendant gets is supposed to just be a formality to confirm the Government's accusation.
Now that a jury of 12 looked at the evidence and concluded that the overwhelming majority of the Government's accusations were baloney, the problem is that 12 ordinary people were allowed to exercise a choice. Military commissions are better because they will just confirm the accusation.
It's a sad day for justice when a man's acquitted on most counts after having been tortured by the Government, and the only public response is "what bs! Next time we should just make sure it's a conviction."
Yes, all the evidence was included for the jury. War is peace and freedom is slavery, too.
-
Gee, if only there were some obvious difference between John Walker Lindh and Ahmed Ghailani that might suggest why we treated an American citizen differently from a foreign national... OH WAIT!
You mean sort of like Yasser Hamdi, and Jose Padilla, two American citizens designated as enemy combatants?
-
Yes, all the evidence was included for the jury. War is peace and freedom is slavery, too.
Yes, and a military tribunal will be sure to exclude just the right evidence.
-
You mean sort of like Yasser Hamdi, and Jose Padilla, two American citizens designated as enemy combatants?
You mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi
A Saudi Arabian citizen with technical US citizenship who we sent back to Saudi Arabia?
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)
Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court.
An American citizen who was tried in civilian court?
You're right! That's TOTALLY different from John Walker Lindh, an American citizen tried in civilian court... ???
-
You must have missed the part where American citizens were designated as 'enemy combatants' and were facing the prospect of indefinite detention or military tribunals until the Supreme Court said that was a bad thing. Or does American citizenship count for nothing? And just what is 'technical' citizenship, anyway?
-
a military court woulda kicked the evidence obtained by torture. in many ways military courts are more by the book than civvy ones
-
If the idea is to send a message to global outlaws, we're doing that. And it's not a good one.
-
Eleven of the twelve jurors voted to convict. One juror--for reasons known only to himself or herself--couldn't vote guilty.
Again, how could the jury find the defendant guilty of the conspiracy to destroy federal property (the embassies), but not in the conspiracy that resulted in the deaths from the destruction of the property?
-
has the jury been polled as far as i know this is the closest we get to that
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/11/17/ahmed-ghailani-guilty-of-conspiracy-but-not-terrorism/
and this bears looking at
But aside from second-guessing the trial result, there’s a problem with that: Judge Lewis Kaplan strongly suggested that he refused to let Abebe testify not just because prosecutors wouldn’t have found him if it weren’t for the torture-induced confession of Ghailani, but also because Abebe himself was coerced to give the testimony he did. Which means we couldn’t know whether his testimony had been shaded to reflect what those coercing him to testify wanted him to say.
plus the one charge carries 20 to life
-
plus the one charge carries 20 to life
So he could be out in seven to fifteen.
-
not federal time he won't be
no parole
-
not federal time he won't be
no parole
Don't the Feds have good time off sentences?
-
maybe but thats limited i've never done fed time let me check with a friend who just got out
-
http://ezinearticles.com/?Calculating-Federal-Good-Time-Credit-and-Time-to-be-Served-on-a-Federal-Prison-Sentence&id=1077955
-
Hmmm. Only 15% good time credit. I have read about some of the more crowded state prison systems having 33 % good time credit.
-
The result was predictable as soon as it was decided to take it to a civilian court. While a military tribunal isn't a pre-ordained slam dunk either, a civilian court and it's rules are not designed for enemy combatants. Obama was an idiot for choosing this way to go.
Enemy combatants should be tried in a military tribunal, no exceptions IMO.
-
Hmmm. Only 15% good time credit. I have read about some of the more crowded state prison systems having 33 % good time credit.
shoot back in the day i maxed out a year in 93 days same courthouse same judge gave me 12 months county time and it took 248 days to get out
-
Obama was an idiot for choosing this way to go.
And it's now getting some press, and people are mad. Obama's not a good politician. Anybody on my local city council could have foreseen the repercussions of this and avoided it.
-
The axioms I am arguing from...
* US citizens have an absolute right to trial by jury and all other constitutional protections safeguarded by jurisprudence.
* Non-US citizens who are active in combat operations against the US have no constitutional rights (jury, trial, etc).
* Non-US citizens have human rights (no torture, standard POW practises, etc).
* Other non-US citizens have legal rights according to the treaties we sign with the other particular nation (ex. Geneva)
* I don't play the moral equivalence game... by which I mean, one sin does not cancel another sin.
If the terrorist kills and IF the US commits torture. That does not excuse the terrorist... he should still be shot. That does not excuse the US... the manager/CO and torturer should be imprisoned/impeached.
What Obama has done, is chosen a venue to put on a show trial for the people. He DID NOT have to do this. He had other legitimate options for handling a foreign POW.
The plan backfired for reasons thinking people already knew. Civilian courts are no good for prosecuting wars on foreign soil. Civilian courts are no good for exposing military intelligence. Civilian courts are no good for getting witnesses from hostile foreign countries. Civilian courts are no good investigating hostile armies for acts of war.
We know it is a show trial: After the plan backfired for these obvious reasons, Obama is promising to imprison this guy indefinitely regardless of the sentencing. :facepalm:
-
* US citizens have an absolute right to trial by jury and all other constitutional protections safeguarded by jurisprudence.
* Non-US citizens who are active in combat operations against the US have no constitutional rights (jury, trial, etc).
* Non-US citizens have human rights (no torture, standard POW practises, etc).
* Other non-US citizens have legal rights according to the treaties we sign with the other particular nation (ex. Geneva)
True.
But one has to ask, at one point does one give up his citizenship? Someone who renounces their allegiance to this country and takes up arms against it still entitled to all the rights of citizenship?
-
The axioms I am arguing from...
* US citizens have an absolute right to trial by jury and all other constitutional protections safeguarded by jurisprudence.
* Non-US citizens who are active in combat operations against the US have no constitutional rights (jury, trial, etc).
* Non-US citizens have human rights (no torture, standard POW practises, etc).
* Other non-US citizens have legal rights according to the treaties we sign with the other particular nation (ex. Geneva)
* I don't play the moral equivalence game... by which I mean, one sin does not cancel another sin.
If the terrorist kills and IF the US commits torture. That does not excuse the terrorist... he should still be shot. That does not excuse the US... the manager/CO and torturer should be imprisoned/impeached.
What Obama has done, is chosen a venue to put on a show trial for the people. He DID NOT have to do this. He had other legitimate options for handling a foreign POW.
The plan backfired for reasons thinking people already knew. Civilian courts are no good for prosecuting wars on foreign soil. Civilian courts are no good for exposing military intelligence. Civilian courts are no good for getting witnesses from hostile foreign countries. Civilian courts are no good investigating hostile armies for acts of war.
We know it is a show trial: After the plan backfired for these obvious reasons, Obama is promising to imprison this guy indefinitely regardless of the sentencing. :facepalm:
and the same fed judge has said its kosher
-
The result was predictable as soon as it was decided to take it to a civilian court. While a military tribunal isn't a pre-ordained slam dunk either, a civilian court and it's rules are not designed for enemy combatants. Obama was an idiot for choosing this way to go.
Enemy combatants should be tried in a military tribunal, no exceptions IMO.
What is it about a civilian court that is "not designed" for enemy combatants? Excluding evidence obtained through torture is pretty basic; if a military commission won't do that, it has no hope of meeting even the most bare-bones test for a fair trial.
The reason that this guy was acquitted is that the Government had a bunch of information that wasn't so good, some of it obtained through torture (who knows what its value would have been at trial), and as a result, a jury didn't buy it. Now they want to find a trial venue where the law and facts won't be so scrutinized - they just want someone who will affirm the accusations.
-
:facepalm: Civilian courts are for civilian criminals.
We're at war with terrorists; they are not criminals.
A military trbunal may ... or may not have come to the same verdict.
Our exalted Obama and Supercop Holder claimed that a civilian court would have no trouble with terrs ... only to achieve this embarrassment served up as humble pie.
There really was no doubt that this character was guilty except the court(s) didn't like the fact that he was identified by a critter who had been aggressively interrogated. Aggressive interogation is what you do when an enemy has information you need in a war.
I really am not at all comfortable with providing any of these terrorists with trials. I am only saying that the military tribunal is the only appropriate place for them if they must be done.
The reason that this guy was acquitted is that the Government had a bunch of information that wasn't so good....
Oh really? It still got the thug convicted for 20 to life on the conspiracy charges. We've released a number of the Quantanamo detainees only to find a substantial % of them actually do go back to the battlefield.
So all in all I remain quite confident our government has good reason to ... "detain" these Islamonazis.
-
they might have floated it if they hadn't jacked up both the guy and their main witness. i can't say i disagree with excluding using info gotten under duress too much of a good thing
-
True.
But one has to ask, at one point does one give up his citizenship? Someone who renounces their allegiance to this country and takes up arms against it still entitled to all the rights of citizenship?
Oh they are citizens still, they simply committed treason, and should be tried for such in a manner befitting a citizen of our country. As for non-US-citizens caught in an active war zone shooting at our guys, without the sanction of a recognizable uniform and/or State entity, I would say a military tribunal is most appropriate and actually quite generous considering they have zero protections as a proper prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions due to their choice in the manner that they are waging war.
All this being said, I can't help but remember an axiom of Judicial process: It is better to be tried in a military court if you are innocent, and a civilian court if you are guilty.
-
What is it about a civilian court that is "not designed" for enemy combatants? Excluding evidence obtained through torture is pretty basic; if a military commission won't do that, it has no hope of meeting even the most bare-bones test for a fair trial.
The reason that this guy was acquitted is that the Government had a bunch of information that wasn't so good, some of it obtained through torture (who knows what its value would have been at trial), and as a result, a jury didn't buy it. Now they want to find a trial venue where the law and facts won't be so scrutinized - they just want someone who will affirm the accusations.
Rules, chain of custody, evidence, Miranda rights, etc. Military tribunals have different rules, rules which work with someone caught on a battlefield. Should torture count? No, course not. But that isn't the only thing at issue. They painted him as a poor little errand boy, and some nitwit bought in to it. If he is guilty of helping blow up the buildings, he is guilty of the resulting murders. I have a hard time buying that a military tribunal would have come to a likewise finding.
-
If a trial accepts coerced testimony, then it is not a fair trial.
Period. No discussion.
Any evidence received through coerced testimony should be thrown out.
-
If a trial accepts coerced testimony, then it is not a fair trial.
You ever been interrogated by cops?
-
You ever been interrogated by cops?
If you believe that 'harsh police interrogation' is the same as sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and the other methods authorized for use on illegal combatants, I have news for you.
-
You ever been interrogated by cops?
yea couple dozen times you? gonna try to equate it with torture?really? bad decision with me in the room as it were.
they wanna torture him fine use the info to stop further crimes ? fine just be aware its not gonna fly in court. i'm ok with taking him outside and putting oner in his ear but don't try to play games n court to put lipstick on the pig
-
Rules, chain of custody, evidence, Miranda rights, etc. Military tribunals have different rules, rules which work with someone caught on a battlefield. Should torture count? No, course not. But that isn't the only thing at issue. They painted him as a poor little errand boy, and some nitwit bought in to it. If he is guilty of helping blow up the buildings, he is guilty of the resulting murders. I have a hard time buying that a military tribunal would have come to a likewise finding.
Well, here's the thing - how do you know that the jurors were "nitwits" to believe this guy was an errand boy in the grand scheme? Because the Government said so? Or because some guy named him during a session of simulated drowning?
How on earth did anyone become convinced of guilt before these trials even started?
-
In as much as I don't believe anyone here was present at the trial, that is a rather pointless question. One might as well ask you why you seem dubious of his guilt when you have as little reason to believe anything as anyone else.
I suppose there are still a few people here who don't believe the government just grabs "terrorists" off the street (or battlefield ... or where-ever) in a willy-nilly fashion. We don't have to suspend common sense, as we are not yet appointed to a jury to try any particular defendant.
-
Yes, I've been interrogated and, no, it was not torture. However, it was coerced.
If a trial accepts coerced testimony, then it is not a fair trial.
How many hours of interrogation before it's "coerced"?
I've been sleep deprived. In fact, I was for many years. Did I torture myself?
As for waterboarding, three terrorists were waterboarded, and this guy wasn't one of them.
He was found guilty of conspiring to blow up two embassies. How could he be not guilty of conspiring in the deaths that resulted?
-
He was found guilty of conspiring to blow up two embassies. How could he be not guilty of conspiring in the deaths that resulted?
Intent and knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of what his co-conspirators were doing.
Most troubling about this is the presumption that because the Government said so, all of these Guantanamo detainees are guilty. All of the facts we have on them come from the Government. If there's no independent review of those facts, there's no way to tell if the Government did its homework.
-
How many hours of interrogation before it's "coerced"?
I do not know. I am not a physician. I do know that there are laws regulating how many hours of sleep suspects must receive, how they may be interrogated, etc. These laws exist for a very good reason.
I've been sleep deprived. In fact, I was for many years. Did I torture myself?
If you do not understand why depriving an individual of sleep is torture, there's little I can do for you.
-
If you do not understand why depriving an individual of sleep is torture, there's little I can do for you.
I've gone as long as a month on just a couple dozen hours sleep. It didn't feel anything like having bamboo stuck under my fingernails.
We're drifting away from the original complaint in this thread, which was the decision to try terrorists in civilian court rather than military tribunals. It was an unprecedented decision, a purely political decision, and it's going to backfire in a purely political fashion.
And now I'm going to sleep. Maybe.
-
Most troubling about this is the presumption that because the Government said so, all of these Guantanamo detainees are guilty. All of the facts we have on them come from the Government.
But if you can't trust the government, who can you trust? ;/
-
I've gone as long as a month on just a couple dozen hours sleep. It didn't feel anything like having bamboo stuck under my fingernails.
Fact: People who go for extended periods without sleep often begin to hallucinate. Do you think a man who is hallucinating can sign a confession? Do you think such a confession would fly in a court of law? Should it?
Fact: Being punched in the face also is not as bad as having bamboo stuck under your fingernails. Do you think a confession drawn by means of punching a man in the face should fly in court?
-
Fact: Being punched in the face also is not as bad as having bamboo stuck under your fingernails. Do you think a confession drawn by means of punching a man in the face should fly in court?
Can I volunteer to test the method on Rangel?
-
Fact: People who go for extended periods without sleep often begin to hallucinate. Do you think a man who is hallucinating can sign a confession? Do you think such a confession would fly in a court of law? Should it?
Fact: Being punched in the face also is not as bad as having bamboo stuck under your fingernails. Do you think a confession drawn by means of punching a man in the face should fly in court?
This is part of the problem with the torture debate - finding something that's worse doesn't mean what you're discussing is not torture. Ironically, water-torture (waterboarding is a word that apparently never existed until the .gov started doing it to people) is by many accounts one of the most painful things you can do to a person short of ripping off body parts.
-
This is why I've said that foreign nationals caught doing terrorist acts overseas should be interrogated in theater and then summarily executed in same....
-
This is why I've said that foreign nationals caught doing terrorist acts overseas should be interrogated in theater and then summarily executed in same....
Ah, but Obama is doing that, too. Except for the interrogation part. And that he's executing them with drones. And their neighbors and families, too.
But the waterboarding of those three terrorists. Man, that's really cruel.
MicroBalrog, De Selby, do either of you know what "coercive techniques" were used in the interrogation of the terrorist in this trial? It wasn't waterboarding, since he wasn't one of the three. Was it being barked at by dogs?
-
i don't but a judge who did tossed the evidence. and hes not a complete leftist whackjob. same judge allows indefinite confinement
-
Lumping terrorists in with criminals is just plain dumb. It's willfully ignorant. And it's dangerous.
You cannot build good policy on a foundation of lies and falsehoods. That's what Obama did when he kicked these guys into civilian courts, saying that civvie courts would be able to deliver justice in matters of terrorism and war. It seems he's beginning to see the error inherent in this, but it's too late. The genie is out of the bottle. He now has to either abide by the decision of the civilian courts, or refuse to honor their decision. Neither option will result in true justice.
The really painful thing is that all this was perfectly foreseeable. Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to understand that foreign terrorists are not at all similar to domestic criminals, and that whatever is appropriate for one isn't going to be appropriate for the other.
-
This is part of the problem with the torture debate - finding something that's worse doesn't mean what you're discussing is not torture. Ironically, water-torture (waterboarding is a word that apparently never existed until the .gov started doing it to people) is by many accounts one of the most painful things you can do to a person short of ripping off body parts.
And what accounts would those be? I am not aware we've drawn and quartered anyone recently. I don't doubt that's painful.
Waterboarding makes people "think" they're drowning. I should imagine it's uncomfortable and probably disturbing, more than painful.
I can't really say I believe it's anywhere near "ripping off body parts."
-
the accounts of our own service men after ww2 might work. you know the ones we used to convict those japanese of war crimes. the guys we executed for those same crimes
-
And what accounts would those be? I am not aware we've drawn and quartered anyone recently. I don't doubt that's painful.
Waterboarding makes people "think" they're drowning. I should imagine it's uncomfortable and probably disturbing, more than painful.
I can't really say I believe it's anywhere near "ripping off body parts."
Please look up the psychological and physical effects of oxygen deprivation and drowning.
If this is done to you, you WILL be in great physical pain. You also WILL be feeling intense fear, even if you're are you're safe. This is your body's reaction to drowning.
-
The really painful thing is that all this was perfectly foreseeable. Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to understand that foreign terrorists are not at all similar to domestic criminals, and that whatever is appropriate for one isn't going to be appropriate for the other.
If I recall correctly, weren't the majority of IRA terrorists tried in British or Irish civilian courts? Did the UK resort to military tribunals in those cases?
-
the accounts of our own service men after ww2 might work.
That's it! We let a bunch of old guys sit around and tell them war stories; I'd confess to being the shooter on the grassy knoll after a few hours with the right crowd.
-
If I recall correctly, weren't the majority of IRA terrorists tried in British or Irish civilian courts? Did the UK resort to military tribunals in those cases?
dpn't get me started on the "special laws" the brits used against the irish look up "supergrass" for just one example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven
-
the accounts of our own service men after ww2 might work. you know the ones we used to convict those japanese of war crimes. the guys we executed for those same crimes
Okay...now, accounts of people whose bodies have been torn apart ....?? [popcorn]
-
The really painful thing is that all this was perfectly foreseeable. Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to understand that foreign terrorists are not at all similar to domestic criminals, and that whatever is appropriate for one isn't going to be appropriate for the other.
Well, take a shot at explaining - what about the criminal trial (whose job is to ensure the government doesn't imprison people arbitrarily) isn't appropriate for a foreign terrorist?
Those criminal protections aren't there because the courts and government over the years were interested in a series of gifts to criminals. They exist because they're proven methods of stopping the government from willy nilly imprisoning people it doesn't like, and leaving them no option to challenge it, even when they've done nothing wrong.
-
This is why I've said that foreign nationals caught doing terrorist acts overseas should be interrogated in theater and then summarily executed in same....
That's homicide under military law, international convention, and US law.
The idea that you could ever "summarily" (in modern parlance) execute people is myth. A "summary offence" at common law is one where you get a trial, but not by jury. This is what used to happen to spies and irregular forces; they got trials.
Monkeyleg,
We only know for certain that a judge decided it was sufficiently close to torture to throw it out. He would be making that decision on the same standard as a military commission.
The real issue here isn't military commission versus civilian trial - the reality is that the outcomes will be the same for both if either is properly constituted. Most who advocate commissions seem to do so on the basis that they believe a commission will rubber stamp the government's accusations; that is a serious problem.
-
.... Most who advocate commissions seem to do so on the basis that they believe a commission will rubber stamp the government's accusations; that is a serious problem.
I don't believe that's the case. I think many believe a military commission or tribunal will eliminate a lot of the excessive hoopla and garbage that defense attorneys throw up in civilian trials. In that way, they're more efficient.
They may not come to different verdicts, but they would likely be more efficient.
-
I don't believe that's the case. I think many believe a military commission or tribunal will eliminate a lot of the excessive hoopla and garbage that defense attorneys throw up in civilian trials. In that way, they're more efficient.
They may not come to different verdicts, but they would likely be more efficient.
If efficiency is the only difference, why the outrage?
-
??? You never get outraged when politicians do screwball things for political reasons?
-
You may be outraged by all the 'hoopla' attorneys 'throw up', but the rules aren't there at random. They're there to protect the police from accidentally railroading an innocent man who was looking very suspicious. Maintaining a fair system is far more important than executing every single terrorist.
-
That's homicide under military law, international convention, and US law.
So is beheading hostages...don't think that the other side is respecting the law much....
The idea that you could ever "summarily" (in modern parlance) execute people is myth. A "summary offence" at common law is one where you get a trial, but not by jury. This is what used to happen to spies and irregular forces; they got trials.
And a trial in-theater is a problem why?.....I'm sure there's plenty of JAG officers who can pronounce sentence....
Keep it simple....interrogate and execute....no muss, no fuss.....
-
You may be outraged by all the 'hoopla' attorneys 'throw up', but the rules aren't there at random. They're there to protect the police from accidentally railroading an innocent man who was looking very suspicious. Maintaining a fair system is far more important than executing every single terrorist.
No, they exist to tactically delay trials, to obfuscate facts, and various other things.
And no one "protects" the "police" from "accidently railroading an innocent man." I am all in favor of protecting the rights of the accused, but to say that lawyers don't play games trying to suppress evidence they know was obtained legally, and numerous other shenanigans, is simply being determinedly naive.
-
No, they exist to tactically delay trials, to obfuscate facts, and various other things.
And no one "protects" the "police" from "accidently railroading an innocent man." I am all in favor of protecting the rights of the accused, but to say that lawyers don't play games trying to suppress evidence they know was obtained legally, and numerous other shenanigans, is simply being determinedly naive.
It is called the adversarial system, and the prosecution side also plays these games. A lawyer is ethically bound to represent the best interests of the client consistent with good practice and legal ethics. If you have a better system that protects the rights of the accused, we are all ears.
-
Well, take a shot at explaining - what about the criminal trial (whose job is to ensure the government doesn't imprison people arbitrarily) isn't appropriate for a foreign terrorist?
Those criminal protections aren't there because the courts and government over the years were interested in a series of gifts to criminals. They exist because they're proven methods of stopping the government from willy nilly imprisoning people it doesn't like, and leaving them no option to challenge it, even when they've done nothing wrong.
There you go again, confusing terrorists with criminals.
Terrorists are not common criminals. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of stupidity.
It is called the adversarial system, and the prosecution side also plays these games. A lawyer is ethically bound to represent the best interests of the client consistent with good practice and legal ethics. If you have a better system that protects the rights of the accused, we are all ears.
When dealing with foreign warfighters, why is the adversarial criminal justice system even a little bit appropriate?
Seems to me that matters of war and national security aren't things we should play games with, and that the adversarial system is wholly incompatible.
-
No, they exist to tactically delay trials, to obfuscate facts, and various other things.
And no one "protects" the "police" from "accidently railroading an innocent man." I am all in favor of protecting the rights of the accused, but to say that lawyers don't play games trying to suppress evidence they know was obtained legally, and numerous other shenanigans, is simply being determinedly naive.
The system does not work based on the idea that the lawyer is a good person. The lawyer may be a very bad person. But the system works.
If we did not have - and every Western nation has, to some extent - an adversarial system, then far many more innocent men would be in prison than you can possibly imagine. This isn't because police are evil people. If the problem were that evil people are police officers, then we could solve it by firing them and hiring better people to be police officers.
Have you never heard a police officer complain that he knew of a bad guy that he was certain was a crook, but he couldn't get him because he didn't have the proper proof? Sometimes these hunches are right, sometimes they are wrong. If police were allowed to bend the rules to imprison crooks - say, waterboard them until they confess, many innocent people would be imprisoned. This has nothing to do with police being evil.
The government has unlimited resources, uniformed and undercover officers, mobile crime labs, the works. The only thing the defender has is his lawyer.
-
It is called the adversarial system, and the prosecution side also plays these games. A lawyer is ethically bound to represent the best interests of the client consistent with good practice and legal ethics. If you have a better system that protects the rights of the accused, we are all ears.
1.) I know it's called the "adversarial system."
2.) I didn't say I had a better one.
3.) I said if the terrorists in Gitmo were to be tried the Military commission would be the best way to go.
The system does not work based on the idea that the lawyer is a good person. The lawyer may be a very bad person. But the system works.
If we did not have - and every Western nation has, to some extent - an adversarial system, then far many more innocent men would be in prison than you can possibly imagine. This isn't because police are evil people. If the problem were that evil people are police officers, then we could solve it by firing them and hiring better people to be police officers.
Have you never heard a police officer complain that he knew of a bad guy that he was certain was a crook, but he couldn't get him because he didn't have the proper proof? Sometimes these hunches are right, sometimes they are wrong. If police were allowed to bend the rules to imprison crooks - say, waterboard them until they confess, many innocent people would be imprisoned. This has nothing to do with police being evil.
The government has unlimited resources, uniformed and undercover officers, mobile crime labs, the works. The only thing the defender has is his lawyer.
:facepalm: And I keep hearing how the police are outgunned by the badguys and the resources are being stretched too thin ...blah blah blah.
[popcorn]
Did someone get the idea I don't like our judicial system? [tinfoil]
Perhaps people think we should use crystal balls. Or shoot-outs at high noon on main street.
Micro, despite everything, I am not out to change our system.
No, they exist to tactically delay trials, to obfuscate facts, and various other things.
I will grant "obfuscate facts" might sound nefarious, but when you really think about it, it doesn't have to be. What if a knife was retrieved using illegal methods that had to be removed from evidence. The "knife" would still be a "fact" but the jury would be prohibited from hearing about it because it would be the "fruit" of an "illegal search."
This thread was supposed to be about "Obama's promise of tough civilian trials of terrorists."
.... Seems to me that matters of war and national security aren't things we should play games with, and that the adversarial system is wholly incompatible.
;)
-
3.) I said if the terrorists in Gitmo were to be tried the Military commission would be the best way to go.
and a military commission would have to toss the evidence gotten by torture or betray the oath they swore.
-
What if a knife was retrieved using illegal methods that had to be removed from evidence. The "knife" would still be a "fact" but the jury would be prohibited from hearing about it because it would be the "fruit" of an "illegal search."
How is this a problem? Does the concept of people planting evidence not exist anymore? Including people planting evidence because a suspect is 'guilty anyway'?
-
How is this a problem? Does the concept of people planting evidence not exist anymore? Including people planting evidence because a suspect is 'guilty anyway'?
If you're talking about average street cops planting evidence in criminal investigations, then you have a point. There are, and ought to be, very rigorous rules and procedures for obtaining evidence in criminal investigations.
Do you believe that the same evidentiary rules used in the U.S. for criminal investigations are tenable on contested foreign battlefields? I don't.
-
Do you believe that the same evidentiary rules used in the U.S. for criminal investigations are tenable on contested foreign battlefields? I don't.
why? we've seen rules bent by our own side to head hunt our own soldiers wrongfully surely it happens the other way as well and its wrong both directions
-
3.) I said if the terrorists in Gitmo were to be tried the Military commission would be the best way to go.
and a military commission would have to toss the evidence gotten by torture or betray the oath they swore.
So? If they were to be tried in a military commision, that's what would happen.
How is this a problem? Does the concept of people planting evidence not exist anymore? Including people planting evidence because a suspect is 'guilty anyway'?
[tinfoil] I am not in favor of anyone "planting" any kind of evidence, either in civilian court or military (except maybe against some people on this forum >:D >:D >:D ---JUST KIDDING!!!!)
I am not sure where we're going with this. Do you people believe that planting evidence happens every time an investigative body pursues a investigation? How often you you suppose it happens?
98% of the time?
67% of the time?
46% of the time?
[popcorn]
-
All I'm saying is that to avoid that, we need rules that toss illegally-obtained evidence. Even when this evidence would lead to a conviction of a guilty man.
-
I thought we did already ....
-
I thought we did already ....
we do and thats what torpedoed this case
-
There you go again, confusing terrorists with criminals.
Terrorists are not common criminals. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of stupidity.
When dealing with foreign warfighters, why is the adversarial criminal justice system even a little bit appropriate?
Seems to me that matters of war and national security aren't things we should play games with, and that the adversarial system is wholly incompatible.
You keep repeating this assertion that terrorists cannot be treated like criminals, but then fail to explain why. I'd like to see your reasoning as to how putting them through criminal process to determine if they are in fact terrorists leads to "stupidity".
-
All I'm saying is that to avoid that, we need rules that toss illegally-obtained evidence. Even when this evidence would lead to a conviction of a guilty man.
Why?
If the evidence is not fake, illegally obtained evidence is still evidence for guilt.
If someone did something illegal to obtain that evidence, why don't we punish the person who committed the crime of obtaining it rather than letting someone off who committed some other crime?
Why is being a victim of a crime a "get out of jail free" card for a criminal?
-
Why?
If the evidence is not fake, illegally obtained evidence is still evidence for guilt.
If someone did something illegal to obtain that evidence, why don't we punish the person who committed the crime of obtaining it rather than letting someone off who committed some other crime?
Why is being a victim of a crime a "get out of jail free" card for a criminal?
Because otherwise authorities will determine someone is guilty, and then torture people to prove it, including people who might be innocent. If you want to protect your own right not to be tortured, that is the price you pay.
If you mean illegally obtained evidence other than in the present case (ie, material obtained in illegal searches), the idea that the exclusionary rule is so vast as to turn smoking guns out of trials is a creation of 1980's Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson movies. It has no basis in reality. But even that is sustained by the same principle - if you don't exclude the evidence, authorities will routinely violate rights to make the case.
Maybe some are okay with that, but I believe the constitution says what it means and actually restricts the power of the Government. YMMV.
-
Because otherwise authorities will determine someone is guilty, and then torture people to prove it, including people who might be innocent. If you want to protect your own right not to be tortured, that is the price you pay.
If you mean illegally obtained evidence other than in the present case (ie, material obtained in illegal searches), the idea that the exclusionary rule is so vast as to turn smoking guns out of trials is a creation of 1980's Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson movies. It has no basis in reality. But even that is sustained by the same principle - if you don't exclude the evidence, authorities will routinely violate rights to make the case.
Maybe some are okay with that, but I believe the constitution says what it means and actually restricts the power of the Government. YMMV.
And you didn't answer my question.
Why is the proper response to illegally obtained evidence a "get out of jail free" card rather than putting the person who broke the law and illegally obtained the evidence in jail?
-
And you didn't answer my question.
Why is the proper response to illegally obtained evidence a "get out of jail free" card rather than putting the person who broke the law and illegally obtained the evidence in jail?
There were two answers there, which will now be more explicit:
1. The exclusionary rule is not a get out of jail free card.
2. The government almost never prosecutes its own people for acting in the course of their employment, no matter how egregious. (Lon Horiuchi, anyone?). Criminal sanctions and civil sanctions already exist for this kind of behaviour, and still it sometimes occurs. The only effective way to stop the government from violating rights to fix its cases is to make the violation fruitless.
And as an aside, there is an issue of fundamental fairness - defendants can't rely on illegal methods of excluding evidence. If that's the rule, it ought to apply to the government's conduct as well. Unless you think that the state should have special privileges that we don't, of course.
-
Who here believes that Obama and the DOJ ever had any intention of being tough on terrorists??? Hasn't "terrorism" been stricken from the official vocabulary?
-
2. The government almost never prosecutes its own people for acting in the course of their employment, no matter how egregious. (Lon Horiuchi, anyone?). Criminal sanctions and civil sanctions already exist for this kind of behaviour, and still it sometimes occurs. The only effective way to stop the government from violating rights to fix its cases is to make the violation fruitless.
That's a very good argument. I always like pointing out how something would work in practice rather than in theory.
As such, I must concede the point. Though I may prefer to punish the wrong-doers rather than reward other wrong doers, you are right that is unlikely to succeed in the current environment.
-
You keep repeating this assertion that terrorists cannot be treated like criminals, but then fail to explain why. I'd like to see your reasoning as to how putting them through criminal process to determine if they are in fact terrorists leads to "stupidity".
We're at war with them. Soldiers exist to attack and kill the enemy, not to question them, collect evidence, maintain a chain of custody for the evidence, and present what they have to a D.A.
Put the detainees in court, and then you have to put together a case against them, and if you haven't done the business of putting together a case, it won't be effective, even though the detainee was taken off a battlefield after shooting (at) American troops.
Is this quantum physics, or something? ??? ;/
-
...The government almost never prosecutes its own people for acting in the course of their employment, no matter how egregious. (Lon Horiuchi, anyone?). Criminal sanctions and civil sanctions already exist for this kind of behaviour, and still it sometimes occurs. The only effective way to stop the government from violating rights to fix its cases is to make the violation fruitless.....
The only thing Randy Weaver was convicted of was not showing up in court on a specified date; in fact Gerry Spence, his attorney, used the government's own case in defense and it worked perfectly.
So the violation of the Weaver's rights, the death of his wife and son.... it was all fruitless in the end.... and this prevented the government from commiting the atrocity ....how?? >:D [popcorn] :facepalm: ???
-
Yes, well, our current Administration doesn't really believe it's at war with anyone except the American people and their legacy values. That is the alpha and the omega of the current problem. Until we get people in power who come out of the right values and perspective things are going to get more and more crazy.
-
We're at war with them. Soldiers exist to attack and kill the enemy, not to question them, collect evidence, maintain a chain of custody for the evidence, and present what they have to a D.A.
Put the detainees in court, and then you have to put together a case against them, and if you haven't done the business of putting together a case, it won't be effective, even though the detainee was taken off a battlefield after shooting (at) American troops.
Is this quantum physics, or something? ??? ;/
Common sense FTW!
(The fact that anyone needs to explain this is worrisome.)
-
Common sense FTW!
(The fact that anyone needs to explain this is worrisome.)
"... we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
I also take this moment to point out the repeated misuse of the term "terrorist," which seems to be losing it's gravitas in the face of over-reaching application. So, to state the obvious once more, a terrorist is a person or persons, who through attacks directed specifically at a non-combatant (civilian) populace, which are orchestrated in such a manner as to cause the greatest psychological impact, intend to cause a shift in political or ideological policies by inducing a state of general fear, apprehension and/or anxiety in the public body. A person who enters a war zone to attack uniformed soldiers while neglecting to conform to the requirements of a uniform or other recognizable symbol, or who are not nationals of one of the involved belligerents, are not terrorists, nor are they criminals in the civilian sense. They are Unlawful Combatants which holds a specific distinction in international law and the rules of war.
Something else that has been gnawing at me, the decrying of the tribunals because all the evidence "comes from the government." When was the last time an ACLU lawyer, or local police officer offered to escort a patrol from the 10th Mountain in Afghanistan in order to ensure that all evidence that some jackhole was shooting at our soldiers or trying to blow them up was collected and processed properly? Has anyone considered that all evidence "comes from the government" because the Government(tm), in the form of our military, are the blokes actually over there collecting it as it were?
By the by, does anyone have the actual recidivism rates for released gitmo POW's? I recall running across quite a few in 2006 in Afghanistan who after being released, hooked back up with the Taliban and got killed fighting our guys (again) or went on to be suicide bombers.
-
If we do not hold trials, how do we find out who is responsible for the attacks?
Sure. Ahmad abu-Sumsum is captured in Afghanistan, rifle in hand, shooting at our guys. Drumhead trial, execution. Simple enough.
But what if Ahmad is detained at an airport in, say, Europe, because intel states he planned a bombing back in 2007. How do you know it's the guy?
-
We're at war with them. Soldiers exist to attack and kill the enemy, not to question them, collect evidence, maintain a chain of custody for the evidence, and present what they have to a D.A.
Put the detainees in court, and then you have to put together a case against them, and if you haven't done the business of putting together a case, it won't be effective, even though the detainee was taken off a battlefield after shooting (at) American troops.
Is this quantum physics, or something? ??? ;/
The problem with this is that you're not distinguishing between fighting in a war on the field of battle (which isn't a crime, even for the other side), and criminal activity, ie, like torturing captured soldiers or dressing as a civilian and killing civilians.
Arresting a guy who is part of an organised group, fighting uniformed troops, is not in and of itself enough to warrant criminal punishment. You also have to determine that he was fighting illegally; that requires a fact-finding trial and always has.
Soldiers have never considered it lawful to just shoot captives, even captives who were caught shooting at them.
-
The problem with this is that you're not distinguishing between fighting in a war on the field of battle (which isn't a crime, even for the other side), and criminal activity, ie, like torturing captured soldiers or dressing as a civilian and killing civilians.
Arresting a guy who is part of an organised group, fighting uniformed troops, is not in and of itself enough to warrant criminal punishment. You also have to determine that he was fighting illegally; that requires a fact-finding trial and always has.
Soldiers have never considered it lawful to just shoot captives, even captives who were caught shooting at them.
In short you "problem" is not a "problem" at all; it's a figment of your own imagination.
Do I HAVE to distinguish everything? Do you think our soldiers detaining insurgents in A'Stan are having difficulty determining if they're part of an "organized group," or are accountants or something?
I don't think our troops in A'stan are having any problems at all determining the "legality" of those they're shooting at, and who are shooting at them, and whom they occasionally manage to capture alive.
Last I checked the dimbulbs who perpetrated Abu Ghraib were being processed through the military criminal system or have been convicted. Was there some problem "distinguishing" what they did? [popcorn]
-
Last I checked the dimbulbs who perpetrated Abu Ghraib were being processed through the military criminal system or have been convicted. Was there some problem "distinguishing" what they did? Popcorn
apparently there was/is thats why the guys getting gigged are mostly lower ranks. more and higher heads shoulda rolled. or at least thats what the jag brigadier claims
Do you think our soldiers detaining insurgents in A'Stan are having difficulty determining if they're part of an "organized group," or are accountants or something?
well since some of the folks kicked loose from gitmo were part of that process . yea sometimes they do
I don't think our troops in A'stan are having any problems at all determining the "legality" of those they're shooting at, and who are shooting at them, and whom they occasionally manage to capture alive.
according to my grandkids who've been there you are mistaken
then of course there is this
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/asia/13afghan.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers
not troops here
http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-09-16/news/dp-nws-blackwater-trial-20100916_1_drotleff-suv-afghan-national-army
not our troops
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3602953,00.html
brit troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/british-troops-afghan-civilian-shootings
more if you need em
-
:facepalm: CASD, mistakes are made in every war. One of the earlier stories I recall about A'Stan was bombing a wedding party.
I wish those things didn't happen, but they do. If someone could arrange so that we wouldn't fight wars because we might screw up then fine, but show men how to do it and keep America safe from the evil out there.
As for Gitmo, people were indeed released and some of them were recaptured on the battlefield. When we can convince the Islamists all to wear uniforms, perhaps this difficulty can be remedied, however since that seems rather unlikely, the onus is on them, not us.
-
I don't think our troops in A'stan are having any problems at all determining the "legality" of those they're shooting at, and who are shooting at them, and whom they occasionally manage to capture alive.
Actually we are. I know of (and was peripherally involved) with several incidents in iraq that involved good solid intel, that we acted on to capture insurgents/terrorists only to find out later we were being used to settle a debt of 5 goats (or some such) from the late 1800's. My buddies in A-Stan tell me the same thing happens there.
Yes, the ones actually shooting at us are easy to tell apart, but those are actually pretty rarely captured. The ones we capture are most often not actually shooting at the moment of capture.
* which is not to say I think we need to import these guys to New York civilian courts, but pretending that everyone we catch is definatlly a tango is absurd.
-
so tommy is that a tacit admission that maybe some guys ARE having trouble discerning friend from foe?
edited because dog mush types too fast for me
-
so is that a tacit admission that maybe some guys ARE having trouble discerning friend from foe?
Umm......No:
Actually we are.
It's an explicit statement of such.
-
sorry i meant to be replying to tommy gunn your opinion agrees with that of my grand kids who were over there i might argue with the boy but the grand daughters will kick my butt if i give em any sass about things they know about
-
[tinfoil] Maybe we should just pack it up and come home until we find a way to wage a war without any "collateral damage" at all. [popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn]
Have a nice Thanksgiving. Don't kill the wrong turkey. :-*
-
Actually we are. I know of (and was peripherally involved) with several incidents in iraq that involved good solid intel, that we acted on to capture insurgents/terrorists only to find out later we were being used to settle a debt of 5 goats (or some such) from the late 1800's. My buddies in A-Stan tell me the same thing happens there.
Yes, the ones actually shooting at us are easy to tell apart, but those are actually pretty rarely captured. The ones we capture are most often not actually shooting at the moment of capture.
* which is not to say I think we need to import these guys to New York civilian courts, but pretending that everyone we catch is definatlly a tango is absurd.
That doesn't sound like "good solid intel" to me....
Sounds like we should be killing them all and let God sort it out. [popcorn] >:D
During WWII the Germans had "good solid intel" we had poison gas we were shipping over to use. This came to light when some G.I.s stumbled into a cave in Germany that was below ground level and in which canister after canister of German munitions (poison gas) had been stored. It had begun to leak out and a couple of the soldiers died. This was after surrender and when the German Top brass were confronted with this they were asked why they didn't use it. They replied by claiming that they didn't dare because they knew we had much, much more of it. We said that's cr@p, we don't, and one German officer went off and came back with a stack of photos showing an American supply ship offloading doezens of pallets all loaded to the gills with gas canisters. The German challenged his American counterpart with this "proof" and the American officer simply laughed and told him -- correctly -- it was nitrogen gas canisters used in American artillery recoil systems.
The Germans had a different artillery recoil system and thus had "misidentified" inert Nitrogen containers.
So much for "military intel." :P :P :P :P
Most wars we've fought are replete with stories like that. There's "good" intel" and "bad" intel, and the only way it can be ascribed "good" is if it turns out real.
The problem is confounded because the other side is usually going to be trying to mislead you.
So long as we allow ourselves to become distracted, we're going to prolong this war indefinantly. Engaging in "nation-building" before you achieve a clearly defined victory is wrong.
We ought to be fighting this war with a great deal more ruthlessness than we are. It's going to be Vietnam redux if we don't start clobbering the terrorist camps in NW Pakistan and other places they're holing up.
And predator drone strikes, nice as they are, aren't enough.
-
so do you have a more detailed strategy figured out? with some of the fussy details ironed out? sovereignty and such? and whats was/is your diplomatic strategy?
-
"More detailed strategy?" .... :-*
Do you think I should call Obama on my redphone and tell him where to drop the nukes? [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
-
i was wondering how you overcame all that sovereign nation stuff. what your plan was for getting more countries to lay down for airstrikes and such. and you planning on going nuke? that will be a tough sell.
-
Enough with the ad hom. The tone around here has abandonded civil for some reason.
-
i would liken what we need to do as similar to union busting. we want to displace a group(s) that are harmful to the greater organization. without killing the whole staff off. when i had to do that my most powerful tool was "being nice". it wasn't nearly as hormonally gratifying as going in and firing everyone but the end results were much much better. is it harder? heck yes but lots of good things are difficult. but still worth doing. i tried both methods and got a heck of a rep using the chainsaw method. and it was fun. the other way is not near as much fun and much harder but the end result is an order of magnitude better.i understand the emotions that motivate the kill em all and let god sort em out crowd but policy driven by emotion is often a poor plan.
-
As for non-US-citizens caught in an active war zone shooting at our guys, without the sanction of a recognizable uniform and/or State entity, I would say a military tribunal is most appropriate and actually quite generous considering they have zero protections as a proper prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions due to their choice in the manner that they are waging war.
This. Not rocket science, by any means.
Lumping terrorists in with criminals is just plain dumb. It's willfully ignorant. And it's dangerous.
You cannot build good policy on a foundation of lies and falsehoods. That's what Obama did when he kicked these guys into civilian courts, saying that civvie courts would be able to deliver justice in matters of terrorism and war. It seems he's beginning to see the error inherent in this, but it's too late. The genie is out of the bottle. He now has to either abide by the decision of the civilian courts, or refuse to honor their decision. Neither option will result in true justice.
The really painful thing is that all this was perfectly foreseeable. Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to understand that foreign terrorists are not at all similar to domestic criminals, and that whatever is appropriate for one isn't going to be appropriate for the other.
Yup.
We're at war with them. Soldiers exist to attack and kill the enemy, not to question them, collect evidence, maintain a chain of custody for the evidence, and present what they have to a D.A.
Put the detainees in court, and then you have to put together a case against them, and if you haven't done the business of putting together a case, it won't be effective, even though the detainee was taken off a battlefield after shooting (at) American troops.
Is this quantum physics, or something? ??? ;/
KGBS beat my sig line to the punch.
-
the accounts of our own service men after ww2 might work. you know the ones we used to convict those japanese of war crimes. the guys we executed for those same crimes
CSD:
While some may use the same terminology for these, they were different as night & day. I'd suggest reading some of those accounts and comparing them to accounts of how we waterboarded the Big 3 or waterboard our own folks in training.
-
CSD:
While some may use the same terminology for these, they were different as night & day. I'd suggest reading some of those accounts and comparing them to accounts of how we waterboarded the Big 3 or waterboard our own folks in training.
i read the trial testimony of one of our guys who was a pow does that count?
i don't have a problem with torture just don't try to bring the testimony to court
-
i was wondering how you overcame all that sovereign nation stuff. what your plan was for getting more countries to lay down for airstrikes and such. and you planning on going nuke? that will be a tough sell.
Apparantly you don't get sarcasm. For some reason people have problem with nukes ... I guess they make people deader than other weapons ... or maybe it's the "glow-in-the-dark" landscape that is left behind. I would not really use them unless I was told by my top commanders we'd lose otherwise and losing would have really horrific consequences for America.
I think nukes would actually be pretty useful in NW Pakistan and would strike terror in our enemies. The problem is it would horrify our allies and probably cause them to pack up, most likely. Shame, because we could save a lot of our soldiers' lives with nukes, but that's just the rotten political reality of the situation. Our own soldiers' lives and those of our allies lives just aren't worth the horrid anti-PC stigma of using nukes.
As to getting "more countries to lay down for airstrikes and such" what are we doing to get Pakistan to "lay down" for our predator strikes? Our problem is basically in A'Stan & Pakistan.
Pakistan is -- to some extent -- "cooperating'' with us.
-
I've read memoirs of some Russian vets who 'worked' on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. They write the landscape is so complex, it's sometimes difficult to figure out where the border is. There are some horror stories about reconnaissance teams accidentally deploying into Pakistan and even destroying things there.
-
I've read memoirs of some Russian vets who 'worked' on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. They write the landscape is so complex, it's sometimes difficult to figure out where the border is. There are some horror stories about reconnaissance teams accidentally deploying into Pakistan and even destroying things there.
That was before google.earth came along ... wait ... [tinfoil] never mind.
We were also very meticulous about keeping our operations strictly inside Vietnam in that war .... [popcorn] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
-
i remember the pres told us so!
-
Daisycutters. Why are we not dropping more of those?
-
we do more precise stuff nowadays
-
Daisycutters. Why are we not dropping more of those?
Research shows that the combat efficiency of bombs does not increase linearly with payload and weight. Again, the Russians in Afghanistan attempted to utilize giant unguided and guided bombs - 4, 5, 9 tons each - in close air support as well as strategic operations in Afghanistan. It was far less spectacular than you think, a
-
I guess the daisycutters got ''pruned'' from the arsenal ...... :laugh: [tinfoil] :lol: :lol: :lol: [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
-
Research shows that the combat efficiency of bombs does not increase linearly with payload and weight. Again, the Russians in Afghanistan attempted to utilize giant unguided and guided bombs - 4, 5, 9 tons each - in close air support as well as strategic operations in Afghanistan. It was far less spectacular than you think, a
Screw effective...they are just plain cool!
-
Hey...a little nuke goes a long way.... :cool: