Holder: 9/11 suspects to face military tribunals

[fskimospy]

For acts of terrorism committed within US jurisdiction by persons under US jurisdiction, I agree. 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". I suspect the answer is once again "Bush".

Because the overarching theme of all these calls for military tribunals is that we're so terribly scared someone we've imprisoned might be found not guilty.

You're projecting on me again, btw.

 

[werepossum]

Because the overarching theme of all these calls for military tribunals is that we're so terribly scared someone we've imprisoned might be found not guilty.

You're projecting on me again, btw.

Speaking of projecting . . .

I have no fears that someone we're detaining might be found not guilty as long as that person is truly not guilty. I would hate to see them released on a technicality though, and that's one place where left and right disagree completely.

 

[fskimospy]

Speaking of projecting . . .

I have no fears that someone we're detaining might be found not guilty as long as that person is truly not guilty. I would hate to see them released on a technicality though, and that's one place where left and right disagree completely.

Can you define what you consider a 'technicality' to be?

 

[kylebisme]

Because the overarching theme of all these calls for military tribunals is that we're so terribly scared someone we've imprisoned might be found not guilty.

Yeah, at least in many cases, the whole of the "evidence" against the people we have imprisoned is akin to that used to hang women during the Salem witch trials. Of course, unlike the bombing of our Saudi National Guard training center and the 1998 bombing of the African embassies, there isn't even enough evidence to indite bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks; yet we've maintained a decade long occupation of Afghanistan on the pretense that he is was behind that. It seems most people are just emotionally incapable of coming to terms with the fact that the WoT is a scam, and proper trials would shatter all illusions to the contrary, so of course we can't have anything like that.

 

[LumbergTech]

Speaking of projecting . . .

I have no fears that someone we're detaining might be found not guilty as long as that person is truly not guilty. I would hate to see them released on a technicality though, and that's one place where left and right disagree completely.

I don't see how this doesn't apply to domestic problems as well. So its ok to let a domestic murderer go on a technicality, but a foreigner charged with a crime deserves less?

"Different tools" ....To me that just sounds like how you justify it to yourself. The analogy you used really didn't relate to what we were discussing which is fairness of different types of trials.

 

[rudeguy]

why not save some money and just let these guys go in downtown NYC? Maybe accidentally leak the date and time they would be released.

Let the problem work itself out.

 

[airdata]

Bush and Obama answer to the same people. So comparing one against the other is a little silly.

 

[matt0611]

So, wait, are you children pleased with this decision, or are you just looking for a reason to be a partisan hack and attack the other side?

You don't have to answer, we already know.

I hated Bush, when I heard Obama talk about how he wanted to change the way they were tried, actually give them trials and show how the US was about justice, I was happy.

I didn't vote for Obama but on some things I agreed with him on, like this.

I honestly am disappointed with Obama when it comes to this and the patriot act, I actually was fooled into thinking he was different.

I used to have the attitude that "hey Obama is not what I wanted, but at least he'll change some of the things I disagreed with Bush on"

But no, even the good stuff I was hoping to come to fruition from Obama being President hasn't happened.

You people who defend him at all costs no matter what are the shills.

 

[werepossum]

Can you define what you consider a 'technicality' to be?

Examples of technicalities would be failure to Mirandize, a break in the chain of evidence (by criminal rules which were never designed to apply to a battlefield or to foreign LEOs), searches without warrants.

I don't see how this doesn't apply to domestic problems as well. So its ok to let a domestic murderer go on a technicality, but a foreigner charged with a crime deserves less?

"Different tools" ....To me that just sounds like how you justify it to yourself. The analogy you used really didn't relate to what we were discussing which is fairness of different types of trials.

Do you honestly not see the difference between evidence from, say, Pakistan in the case of a terror suspect arrested in Pakistan, and one arrested in, say, Detroit? The detainees we're discussing mostly fall into three categories - detained by US or coalition military forces, detained by CIA assets, or detained by foreign civilian agencies. The first is not trained in civilian law enforcement and lives would be lost attempting to follow civilian law enforcement rules in a combat environment. The last is not trained in American civilian law enforcement procedures. The middle group may or may not have civilian law enforcement training, but are seldom in places or conditions where American civilian law enforcement procedures are practical. For instance, take a suspected terrorist nabbed by a CIA raid in Somalia. No US judge has jurisdiction to issue a search warrant. No Somalia judge would issue a search warrant. Your options are limited. Treat him like an American civilian and you can't touch him. Treat him like an enemy combatant and you can arrest and detain him, or kill him. If you choose to kill him, you lose any possible intelligence value and you lose the possibility to later decide he's possibly not guilty; can't release a dead guy. (Well, technically you can, but it's immaterial to the dead guy.) If you choose to arrest and detain him, you lose the chain of evidence necessary to proceed in civilian court. You simply cannot detach men from combat units to follow up, or to testify. You can't force informers to come to America to be faced in court. You can't force foreign actors military or otherwise to come to America to be faced in court.

If we choose to have military or foreign detainees to be tried in civilian criminal courts, we have the choice of either freeing them, or of establishing precedent that our legal rights are not necessarily important. If it's okay that Muhammed al-Sadr doesn't have the right to face his accuser in criminal court, why would Velvet Jones have that right? If Muhammed al-Sadr's house can be searched by government at will without a warrant, why not Biff McYuppy's house too?

 

[Deeko]

I actually was fooled into thinking he was different.

I used to have the attitude that "hey Obama is not what I wanted, but at least he'll change some of the things I disagreed with Bush on"

Not buying this. Your posting history disagrees with you.

You people who defend him at all costs no matter what are the shills.

Try harder, kid. I didn't defend him, and my posting history does not show any bias towards him, either. I might shoot down attempts at hackery, but that's it.

 

[fskimospy]

Examples of technicalities would be failure to Mirandize, a break in the chain of evidence (by criminal rules which were never designed to apply to a battlefield or to foreign LEOs), searches without warrants.

So basically you're worried that we can't mirandize people, the easiest thing in the world to do, concerned that we actually need to be able to tie evidence in a trial to the person accused of using it, and an incorrect assumption about how the 4th amendment works outside the US. (the Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th amendment does not apply to searches of nonresident aliens outside the US)

 

[matt0611]

Not buying this. Your posting history disagrees with you.



Try harder, kid. I didn't defend him, and my posting history does not show any bias towards him, either. I might shoot down attempts at hackery, but that's it.

Buy it or don't buy it, I don't give a shit. My post history will show that I've been against the patriot act, keeping people in indefinite detention, going into unneeded and wasteful foreign wars etc
All points where I've disagreed with Bush on.

I've been against all of that and always have been, believe what you want though if it makes you feel better.

The second part was directed to someone else in this thread who called me a shill, not you.

 

[Generator]

This issue way back then was probably why Obama asked himself..."why not sellout?" The pathetic display of cowardice New York City showed over these trials was a disgrace. This very issue could very well be the lynch pin why Gitmo is still open, Manning has no trial, and American citizens are now be assassinated by the government. We get what we want people. And its a diet of absolute shit.

 

[rudeguy]

This issue way back then was probably why Obama asked himself..."why not sellout?" The pathetic display of cowardice New York City showed over these trials was a disgrace. This very issue could very well be the lynch pin why Gitmo is still open, Manning has no trial, and American citizens are now be assassinated by the government. We get what we want people. And its a diet of absolute shit.

I think you dropped your tin foil hat back there

 

[werepossum]

So basically you're worried that we can't mirandize people, the easiest thing in the world to do, concerned that we actually need to be able to tie evidence in a trial to the person accused of using it, and an incorrect assumption about how the 4th amendment works outside the US. (the Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th amendment does not apply to searches of nonresident aliens outside the US)

Well, feel free to continue insisting that US and other coalition nation's soldiers Mirandize detainees, follow civilian evidenciary rules and procedures, and in general behave as policemen. And be sure and let me know how that works out for you. As for me, I'm happy with Obama's decision.

Also like to point out that if I were on the left I'd have called your objections racist long before this.

 

[Generator]

Obama took the measure of America and saw it was rife with cowards. Holder even said as much...

It was a challenge the president put to the people and they absolutely failed. Go watch your dancing with the stars fuck face.

 

[werepossum]

I think you dropped your tin foil hat back there

LOL!

 

[Fern]

So basically you're worried that we can't mirandize people, the easiest thing in the world to do..
-snip-

Considering that we're talking about suspected terrorists who come in from other countries and various tribal faction likely speaking different dialects I'm gonna have to say "NO" it's not.

You can't properly Mirandize people in a language they cannot possibly understand.

Even if they all spoke some universal Arabic we'd be required to have too many of troops proficient in that language before this could easily be done. We all know we have no abundance of translators.

Rember too that few of these people can read.

Fern

 

[kylebisme]

I used to have the attitude that "hey Obama is not what I wanted, but at least he'll change some of the things I disagreed with Bush on"

Same, though I voted for him because I bet a friend that he wouldn't take Kansas regardless of if I voted for him or not, and because I knew my stake in the electoral collage was going to McCain no matter what I did. Our system is so fucked.

 

[fskimospy]

Considering that we're talking about suspected terrorists who come in from other countries and various tribal faction likely speaking different dialects I'm gonna have to say "NO" it's not.

You can't properly Mirandize people in a language they cannot possibly understand.

Even if they all spoke some universal Arabic we'd be required to have too many of troops proficient in that language before this could easily be done. We all know we have no abundance of translators.

Rember too that few of these people can read.

Fern

Uhmm, you seriously need to think through what you're saying, because that's the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

Miranda only prohibits the use of evidence in an interrogation that's given out by a defendant before he's made aware of his rights, there's no requirement to do it immediately (and large exceptions that allow for on the spot Miranda free interrogations).

If what is stopping us from warning him is a language barrier then HOW THE FUCK ARE WE INTERROGATING HIM?!

 

[Fern]

Uhmm, you seriously need to think through what you're saying, because that's the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

Miranda only prohibits the use of evidence in an interrogation that's given out by a defendant before he's made aware of his rights, there's no requirement to do it immediately (and large exceptions that allow for on the spot Miranda free interrogations).

If what is stopping us from warning him is a language barrier then HOW THE FUCK ARE WE INTERROGATING HIM?!

Seriously?

You really have to ask the latter question?

Great, we lose all the evidence collected until he's back in a base, GITMO, or wherever until he can be Mirandized by somebody who's proficient in his language. Forget the physical eveidence too, no chain of custody etc.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Seriously?

You really have to ask the latter question?

Great, we lose all the evidence collected until he's back in a base, GITMO, or wherever until he can be Mirandized by somebody who's proficient in his language. Forget the physical eveidence too, no chain of custody etc.

Fern

!?

What do you mean lose the evidence? Do you know what the Miranda warning is?

 

[Throckmorton]

Examples of technicalities would be failure to Mirandize, a break in the chain of evidence (by criminal rules which were never designed to apply to a battlefield or to foreign LEOs), searches without warrants.


Do you honestly not see the difference between evidence from, say, Pakistan in the case of a terror suspect arrested in Pakistan, and one arrested in, say, Detroit? The detainees we're discussing mostly fall into three categories - detained by US or coalition military forces, detained by CIA assets, or detained by foreign civilian agencies. The first is not trained in civilian law enforcement and lives would be lost attempting to follow civilian law enforcement rules in a combat environment. The last is not trained in American civilian law enforcement procedures. The middle group may or may not have civilian law enforcement training, but are seldom in places or conditions where American civilian law enforcement procedures are practical. For instance, take a suspected terrorist nabbed by a CIA raid in Somalia. No US judge has jurisdiction to issue a search warrant. No Somalia judge would issue a search warrant. Your options are limited. Treat him like an American civilian and you can't touch him. Treat him like an enemy combatant and you can arrest and detain him, or kill him. If you choose to kill him, you lose any possible intelligence value and you lose the possibility to later decide he's possibly not guilty; can't release a dead guy. (Well, technically you can, but it's immaterial to the dead guy.) If you choose to arrest and detain him, you lose the chain of evidence necessary to proceed in civilian court. You simply cannot detach men from combat units to follow up, or to testify. You can't force informers to come to America to be faced in court. You can't force foreign actors military or otherwise to come to America to be faced in court.

If we choose to have military or foreign detainees to be tried in civilian criminal courts, we have the choice of either freeing them, or of establishing precedent that our legal rights are not necessarily important. If it's okay that Muhammed al-Sadr doesn't have the right to face his accuser in criminal court, why would Velvet Jones have that right? If Muhammed al-Sadr's house can be searched by government at will without a warrant, why not Biff McYuppy's house too?

Agree 100%. This civilian trial stuff never made sense. It was nothing but a talking point used by the left to bash Bush-- I took it at face value back in my Pacifica Radio listening days, but just a tiny amount of common sense and critical thinking makes it clear that it's BS.

 

[SandEagle]

wtf. khalid still wearing that same nasty tshirt after all these years?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, feel free to continue insisting that US and other coalition nation's soldiers Mirandize detainees, follow civilian evidenciary rules and procedures, and in general behave as policemen. And be sure and let me know how that works out for you. As for me, I'm happy with Obama's decision.

Also like to point out that if I were on the left I'd have called your objections racist long before this.

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.