“war on terror” = “war on due process” ?

[mikkey 0]

I read this in the local media down here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/hicks-facing-rigged-trial-say-exprosecutors/2005/08/01/1122748579667.html

Quote

Two former US military prosecutors have complained to their superiors that the military commissions set up by the Bush Administration to try Guantanamo detainees, including Hicks, are a sham.

In emails sent in March last year — three months before Hicks was charged with terror-related offences including conspiracy to murder — the men said that they were pressured to proceed with charging Hicks and three other detainees even though the cases against them were "half-assed".

According to the emails, which have been seen by The Age, the prosecutors were told that it did not matter that the evidence was insufficient for a guilty verdict as military commission members would be "hand-picked" to ensure convictions.

Quote

Captain Carr, in his email, said the commissions were designed to prosecute "fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged".

In perhaps his most serious charge, Captain Carr wrote that when he expressed concern about the quality of evidence against some detainees, he was told by Colonel Borch that guilty verdicts were assured. "You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be hand-picked and will not acquit these detainees," he wrote.

Major Preston wrote: "I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people — surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

Major Preston wrote that he had "utter contempt" for most of the officers in the prosecutors office who were more concerned with their reputations than doing the right thing. "I lie awake worrying about this every night," he said.

I find this amazing. So it is OK to have kangaroo courts like in the Soviet Union because there is a “war on terror”. Remind me what we are supposed fight for? Democracy and the rule of law???

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[CornishChris 5]

I have long held a concern that the inmates in Gitmo are being held illegally, or at best immorally.

My view is fairly simple - if you have enough evidence to hold them indefinately then you have enough evidence to try them, if not let them go. This has obviously been big news in Oz & in the UK where several of our countrymen have been held by another country without charge for several years at a time. In the case of someone like Mamdu Habib (sp?), then released without charge after 2+ years. What happened to a fair justice system?

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[Tonto 1]

With you there.

As a South African who grew up in a country that had "Detention without trial" during the apartheid years, it was clear that those people were dying in detention at an alarming rate.

Try them, or let them go.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[mikkey 0]

Well, yes the issue of years and years of detention without trial reminds one of SA under Apartheid. The new issue - that the court is rigged and the evidence so weak that even military prosecutors are upset... well that is more the tradition of Joseph Stalin.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Hicks, a 29-year-old Islamic convert, has been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since January 2002 — a month after his capture among Taliban forces in Afghanistan. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted murder, aiding the enemy and conspiracy. A date for his commission trial remains unknown.

You forgot that part. I figure that you meant to include it so I put it in there for you.

Of course I guess he is just a victim? He was only there visiting relatives? Maybe he was kidnapped and forced to go to Afghanistan and spend time with the Taliban? Which one is it?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[mr2mk1g 10]

dunno. If he had a trial we'd find out. If he's got no explanation he'll be found guilty. Why ought he not be tried and convicted?

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

dunno. If he had a trial we'd find out. If he's got no explanation he'll be found guilty. Why ought he not be tried and convicted?

Maybe I am just delusional here. THis guy gets caught with the taliban and you think that he is innocent.

How about the guy that with 4 other people robs a bank....when he gets arrested just says, "oh, I'm not with those guys, I was going to make a deposit."

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I didn't say he was innocent. I said he should be tried and convicted. Is there a valid reason why he should not be? I mean, the evidence is all there right or you wouldn't be so sure he's guilty.

Quote

How about the guy that with 4 other people robs a bank....when he gets arrested just says, "oh, I'm not with those guys, I was going to make a deposit."

Dunno - maybe he was there to make a deposit. What we generally do under those circumstances is try them and find them guilty if they were a robber.

In fact that's exactly what both our countries constitutions say we must do.

[kelel01 1]

Terrorists tend not to shirk responsibility for things. They're the first ones to proudly step up and say, "I did it." Am I wrong for thinking that? I very well may be, so I'm seriously asking.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

I didn't say he was innocent. I said he should be tried and convicted. Is there a valid reason why he should not be? I mean, the evidence is all there right or you wouldn't be so sure he's guilty.

I am all for a trial, I never said to not have a trial. I just think that assuming that he is innocent is a little ridiculous. That is why it falls under the heading of military tribunal. He was caught in the act.....guilty! Now as far as his punishment, that will be up to the tribunal....right?

Now, the article said that military prosecuters are blowing the whistle. That there isn't enough evidence to convict him. I dont think that he would be in gitmo had he just been jaywalking.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Terrorists tend not to shirk responsibility for things. They're the first ones to proudly step up and say, "I did it." Am I wrong for thinking that? I very well may be, so I'm seriously asking.

This falls under the same heading as insurgent, freedom fighter, or any other name you want to put on it. Not neccesarily a "terrorist".

however, I am not the on-sight expert. I just gathered my conjectures from the article in the same manner that you did. You assumed he is innocent because he didn't own up to it. I assume he is guilty because he was caught in the act.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[kelel01 1]

I assume nothing. And the justice system should not rely on assumptions. Are you saying it should?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I dont think that he would be in gitmo had he just been jaywalking.

We don't know until he's had a trial. If the prosecuters say there's not enough evidence to even try him... what the hell is he still doing in jail 3 years after he was picked up?

There's no reason why they all shouldn't be given hearings. You and I both agree on that. The Supreme Court even agrees with us. Everyone agrees. Why hasn't it happened yet - they've been there years!

[mikkey 0]

Just shows that you have no respect for due process. A) Read the part of the article wher military prosecutors thought the case againts him (what he was charged with) was "half-arsed".
B) The fact that the boss of the prosecutors told them not to worry about evidence, as the tribunal would be stacked to ensure conviction no matter what.

Great system. Now, Hicks is a mercenary and was in Bosnia etc. and he was caught in Afghanistan. I have no sympathy for him. However, it seems like he is a "small fish" and they are struggeling to charge him with serious crimes so they are rigging the system instead.
I am not supporting Hicks, I am supporting the principle of due process and a fair trial. Holding people without rights for years and years and then rigging a trial to make sure they get convicted... not the type of society I belive in. Sounds more like Iran or North Korea.... comprende?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

however, I am not the on-sight expert. I just gathered my conjectures from the article in the same manner that you did. You assumed he is innocent because he didn't own up to it. I assume he is guilty because he was caught in the act.

You are assuming. Quite a few people have been picked up who were proven to be completely innocent. There was actually a documented case where an innocent Afghani who was arrested after a "tip" was tortured to death by Americans in a detention facility in Afghanistan.
I have no doubt that Hicks actually did wrong, but that does not mean that he has no right to a trial and a fair trial. Seems he is not getting it and this is wrong if you believe in due process and the rule of law....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[CornishChris 5]

Quote

You assumed he is innocent because he didn't own up to it. I assume he is guilty because he was caught in the act.

ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.

I fucking hate that expression but hey when it fits, it fits.

Did you read my post about the Aussie held for over 2 years and then released without any charge? If they haven't got anything to try these guys with then should be freed. if they have then try them already . How would you feel if you were arrested and held in Gitmo indefinitely, how would your family feel? OK, you weren't in Afganistan but the authorities holding people because theybelieve they are a threat allows huge scope for abuse of power.

Also I am assuming that in the US you still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Could you confirm?

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Also I am assuming that in the US you still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Could you confirm?

As I said before I believe that they should have trials. If he is innocent then it will be proven....just like if he is guilty. I am a skeptic of the whole process. What is known is that this guy was in Afghanistan trying to kill American troops, for you in other countries that might be just what you are looking for but it does not bode well for me. If the shoe fits....

In my humble opinion (for what its worth) I think that he is guilty. But then again, my opinion is kinda skewed considering the fact that I have put my life on the line and have something invested in the conflict. It's easy for others to sit back and say that things are cut and dry without anything invested.

One other thing, don't most tribunals wait until after the conflict is over?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[lawrocket 3]

So, does this article add anything to y'all's opinions of lawyers? This Captain and Major are lawyers. I think it's nice that these guys took an oath and are living up to it.

It's what I expect lawyers to do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Exactly.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

As I said before I believe that they should have trials. If he is innocent then it will be proven....just like if he is guilty

I disagree. If the evidence is insufficient to support a prima facie case against him, then they should not try him. That's an abuse of the justice system. Think of what would happen if you tried everyone on everything. "Hey, if they aren't convicted, then no harm, no foul." I certainly wish that were the case.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

I disagree. If the evidence is insufficient to support a prima facie case against him, then they should not try him. That's an abuse of the justice system. Think of what would happen if you tried everyone on everything. "Hey, if they aren't convicted, then no harm, no foul." I certainly wish that were the case.

This is why you are the lawyer and I am not. I think that one fault of the US Justice system is that we have to have a trial half the time. If someone shoots at cops, and takes them on a 100mph chase they should not be given protection under the law. That person has victimized society and should be removed from society.

Most people like to think that everyone is in their right mind all the time (and when they arent, it can be fixed). The truth of the situation is that there are people out there that have no place in society. These people need to be removed, not coddled.

Is this guy's freedom is more valuble than societies' wellbeing?

What is more important? the lives of 11 people? or the lives 3000?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Maybe I am just delusional here. THis guy gets caught with the taliban and you think that he is innocent.

Since when is fighting on the side of a defending force a crime? Have we imprisoned every surviving Iraqi who fought against us during the first month of our invasion of Iraq?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Since when is fighting on the side of a defending force a crime? Have we imprisoned every surviving Iraqi who fought against us during the first month of our invasion of Iraq?

How many in Iraq flew in from Australia?

I dont think that you have any idea actually how many people are in prison in Iraq (no I dont have a number, but I will try to find one).

The next difference is that we let 400,000 people disappear into the countryside in Iraq. Members of the Iraqi Army were allowed to return to their homes, we figured it would be better in rebuilding the nation. Besides we couldn't capture all of them on the way in.

This guy got caught. He will have a trial.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Since when is fighting on the side of a defending force a crime? Have we imprisoned every surviving Iraqi who fought against us during the first month of our invasion of Iraq?

Members of the Iraqi Army were allowed to return to their homes, we figured it would be better in rebuilding the nation.

Absolutely. That's the way modern warfare works. We fight, someone wins. The victors go about effecting the changes they wanted and the vanquished return to their lives and wait to see what the changes will be. But the fact that they fought to preserve their previous way of life has not, to my knowledge, been considered evidence of any crime. As a result, I would not consider the fact that someone fought with the Taliban in their attempt to repel an invading army to mean they are automatically guilty of a crime.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

think that one fault of the US Justice system is that we have to have a trial half the time. If someone shoots at cops, and takes them on a 100mph chase they should not be given protection under the law. That person has victimized society and should be removed from society.

We have laws and procedures for removing a person from society. But, these laws and procedures have built in protections to help mitigate unjustly putting someone away.

Why do so many go to trial even when there's pretty clear proof of guilt? Many times it's because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. the risk/benefit is in favor of going to trial. If a prosecutor offers you life in prison without parole (especially in a state that does not have the death penalty) then what the hell does the defendant have to lose by going to trial? He may get a win, or a lesser conviction that sentences him to 5, 10 or 20 years.

Protections under the law are there for everybody. I'll put it this way - I could start plenty of rumors about you that, if repeated enough and often will become accepted byt eh general public. Hearsay arguments and allegations are great to destroy someone in the court fo public opinion.

But, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were put in to protect people from the government because the government removing people from society must have protections. Stalin had people removed from society that the government found had no place, except for working in the gulags. Do we really want to follow that example that we fought against for 50 years?

Quote

Is this guy's freedom is more valuble than societies' wellbeing?

Yep. Because our society is one of individuals under the law. Because our society is predicated upon limits to government power. Destroy that individual's rights and the US society as we know it no longer fucking exists! Our society becomes one of dictatorship.

Whether you think a better society will result is another question. But I'm pretty damned sure that our present society's well-being will be altered significantly.

Quote

What is more important? the lives of 11 people? or the lives 3000?

That depends on how those lives are affected. Frankly, I'd rather see 3000 perish than see 11 of my friends, family, etc., thrown off into a hole to rot out their existence.

It's probably because I myself have taken oaths to support and defend that Constitution of mine. And to me, words have meaning, ideas have meaning and actions have meaning. Once I understood WHY those protections are there, I valued them in a far greater way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.