Holder: 9/11 suspects to face military tribunals

[ProfJohn]

When they do it on US soil we do, or at least that's what we did in the case of the Kent State shootings.

Kent State was national guard which are state soldiers not members of the federal military.

 

[werepossum]

Again, Mirandizing detainees is so simple as to be trivial. If you think that we shouldn't need to have to prove that evidence we're using to convict someone is actual evidence against them that's fine.

I have no idea why you would call my objections racist, but whatever the cartoonish caricature of the left that you have in your mind is doing isn't of particular interest to me.

I have no intention of calling your objections racist, merely pointing out that many if not most on the left play the race card early and often. (Not you, you're a good guy, if terminally liberal.) I'd like to be there though when you start explaining to the military how trivial it will be for them to start Mirandizing people they detain. Ought to be good for a laugh.

My objection to chain of evidence is not that we shouldn't have to prove evidence used against someone isn't actually associated with them, merely that the military and to a lesser extent CIA are not equipped to follow civilian rules for admissible evidence. This applies doubly to allied forces (who don't even share our laws) and other governments. The military are not police, they are warfighters. Either we prosecute this as a war, or we follow the liberal model: pack up shop, go home, hunker down, and when they kill a bunch of us, blame ourselves. This middle ground, where we use the military but then insist on treating the little darlings like shoplifters once we catch them, is bullshit. If we are treating them as civilian criminals, then we have no right to accept them from other countries, and we certainly have no right to use the military against them. Thank G-d Obama has seen the light and agreed to let military law adjudicate a military conflict.

 

[ProfJohn]

We can't use the civilian system because there are too many problems with the case that could result in some judge throwing the whole thing out the window.

Khalid was water boarded and a judge could throw anything involving what we learned from those sessions out the door.

There are also all kinds of other problems with the cases. Lack of warrants, picked up in a foreign country etc etc.

Perhaps you guys should read up on the Nuremberg trials. We didn't collect Nazi leaders and bring them back to NY to put them on trail. Nor did we gather up Japanese leaders and bring them Pearl Harbor and charge them with murder.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no intention of calling your objections racist, merely pointing out that many if not most on the left play the race card early and often. (Not you, you're a good guy, if terminally liberal.) I'd like to be there though when you start explaining to the military how trivial it will be for them to start Mirandizing people they detain. Ought to be good for a laugh.

My objection to chain of evidence is not that we shouldn't have to prove evidence used against someone isn't actually associated with them, merely that the military and to a lesser extent CIA are not equipped to follow civilian rules for admissible evidence. This applies doubly to allied forces (who don't even share our laws) and other governments. The military are not police, they are warfighters. Either we prosecute this as a war, or we follow the liberal model: pack up shop, go home, hunker down, and when they kill a bunch of us, blame ourselves. This middle ground, where we use the military but then insist on treating the little darlings like shoplifters once we catch them, is bullshit. Thank G-d Obama has seen the light and agreed to let military law adjudicate a military conflict.

Sure, who do you want me to talk to? From my time in I personally know dozens of people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and I've talked with some of them about this very topic before. The vast majority of the people we detain would never be put on trial in the US because there would be no point. Not only have they frequently not broken any US laws, but we stand little to gain from it.

If you look at the actual circumstances of how almost 100% of these people we plan on putting on trial were captured, you would see there is ample opportunity to do exactly that, or the evidence we have on them is shady. (almost none of them were captured on a battlefield) Rules for the chain of evidence are not hard, all they are (basically) is that you need to be able to identify the person who had custody of the evidence. It's not like you're asking a guy who's charging a machine gun nest to mirandize someone in the middle of a battle, you're asking people engaging in a planned operation to detain someone to undertake some simple procedures.

 

[fskimospy]

We can't use the civilian system because there are too many problems with the case that could result in some judge throwing the whole thing out the window.

Khalid was water boarded and a judge could throw anything involving what we learned from those sessions out the door.

There are also all kinds of other problems with the cases. Lack of warrants, picked up in a foreign country etc etc.

Perhaps you guys should read up on the Nuremberg trials. We didn't collect Nazi leaders and bring them back to NY to put them on trail. Nor did we gather up Japanese leaders and bring them Pearl Harbor and charge them with murder.

Pro-Jo, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't need a warrant to search a foreign national in a foreign country. I also know all about the Nuremberg trials, I wonder if you do. You do realize that most of the things people in Nuremberg were convicted of aren't actually crimes in the US, right? (planning and waging an aggressive war, etc.)

Also very strange that you're trying to say 'we need to violate this guy's rights by denying him a fair trial because we already violated his rights by torturing him'.

 

[ProfJohn]

Are you saying that military trials aren't fair trials??

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying that military trials aren't fair trials??

Depends on the rules used. Any trial that allows evidence obtained through torture is not a fair trial, period.

 

[ProfJohn]

I expect the government will walk a fine line in that regard.

One nice thing about a military tribunal is the fact that may not have to throw out any evidence gathered that might be related to torture while in a civilian court they would most likely throw that evidence out.

Also, in a military court we can hide the source of some of our evidence, but can't do that in a civilian court. This fact is very important because we don't want to 'out' intelligence sources, especially ones whose lives may be put in danger.

 

[fskimospy]

I expect the government will walk a fine line in that regard.

One nice thing about a military tribunal is the fact that may not have to throw out any evidence gathered that might be related to torture while in a civilian court they would most likely throw that evidence out.

Also, in a military court we can hide the source of some of our evidence, but can't do that in a civilian court. This fact is very important because we don't want to 'out' intelligence sources, especially ones whose lives may be put in danger.

Well I guess it depends on how you define 'nice'.

You might think that its all well and good that evidence obtained through torture (and yes, related evidence too) can be used, but I guess thats where your idea of a fair trial and mine part ways.

You also may think that it is a 'nice' thing that people can be imprisoned or executed based upon evidence they have no chance to rebut, but that would again be a place where your ideas of what are fair and mine go their own way.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think you misunderstand the evidence part.

He can still rebut the evidence, but he might not be allowed to know who provided the evidence.

It would be up to the judges, I believe there are several of them, to look at the evidence and decide for themselves if it is legit and where it came from and if it should be included etc.

So if Khalid's uncle gave information about Khalid and his crimes that information could be used, but Khalid would never knew it came from his uncle.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you misunderstand the evidence part.

He can still rebut the evidence, but he might not be allowed to know who provided the evidence.

It would be up to the judges, I believe there are several of them, to look at the evidence and decide for themselves if it is legit and where it came from and if it should be included etc.

So if Khalid's uncle gave information about Khalid and his crimes that information could be used, but Khalid would never knew it came from his uncle.

Civilian courts already have that ability under CIPA.

 

[kylebisme]

But you'll have to explain to me why prosecuting acts of irregular warfare via military tribunals constitutes "hysterical fear" whereas demanding civilian trials for people captured outside of US jurisdiction and accused of crimes committed outside of US jurisdiction is not "hysterical fear".

Are you too hysterical to realize this thread is about "9/11 suspects", and 9/11 happened inside of US jurisdiction?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I expect the government will walk a fine line in that regard.

One nice thing about a military tribunal is the fact that may not have to throw out any evidence gathered that might be related to torture while in a civilian court they would most likely throw that evidence out.

Also, in a military court we can hide the source of some of our evidence, but can't do that in a civilian court. This fact is very important because we don't want to 'out' intelligence sources, especially ones whose lives may be put in danger.

Only in your delusional world-view would this be a fair trial.

Illegally obtained evidence (gained through torture)? Thrown out in any civilized legal system, but you are OK with it. Gotcha

hearsay evidence presented without any facts? Not accepted in Us courts, but you are OK with it. Gotcha

And of course, any PJ post wouldn't be complete without that BS "gotta protect our sources". LOL, it's the truth just trust us, we wouldn't lie about it, but we can't tell you how we know. So how did that work out for those WMD's?

So basically, you idea of a fair trial is that any evidence obtained via torture is OK, all hearsay is OK, and not allowed to be argued since of course you would throw out the "protect the sources" BS. Great. So we can get anyone to confess to anything with enough torture, and if that doesn't work, we can get anyone to make up stuff that cannot be challenged.

So how about we "try" PJ like this? I can get an anonymous source to say that they think PJ is a terrorist. There...case closed. Sorry PJ, you can't investigate these claims, since I can't tell you who said that, have to protect my sources you know. But I am sure it's true, so you're guilty. Have fun in Gitmo.