Obama and enemy combatants rights

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
I guess my feigned outrage was posted somewhere else other than Anandtech since I wasn't a member here in 2001. If you are asking my opinion about the case he should have probably been handled by military courts. However, since it was 3 months after 9/11 or so, I don't think people really knew WHAT to do with him.. so they used the civilian system.

We've since learned a lot about handling terrorists and I do not think that using civilian justice is appropriate. Any other decade old cases you'd like me to comment on? Pan Am bombers?

So basically as long as a terrorist is American they get a fair trial, it's being a foreigner that's the important part?

What exactly did we learn about handling terrorists that makes civilian courts wrong? Reid was sentenced successfully to 3 life sentences.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
So basically as long as a terrorist is American they get a fair trial, it's being a foreigner that's the important part?

What exactly did we learn about handling terrorists that makes civilian courts wrong? Reid was sentenced successfully to 3 life sentences.

Being American gets you a fair trial in civilian courts. Being a foreign terrorist should get you a fair trial in a military court.

OJ Simpson also got away with murder because of civilian courts. Should we call it even there?
 
Last edited:

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Being American gets you a fair trial in civilian courts. Being a foreign terrorist should get you a fail trial in a military court.

OJ Simpson also got away with murder because of civilian courts. Should we call it even there?


Under the Geneva Conventions an unlawful combatant without POW status may be detained and prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state.

But I guess since we are the big, bad USA ("USA! USA! USA!"), a nation founded under the principle that 'government should be of laws rather than of men,' we can subvert our values, and subject ourselves to the bloodthirsty tyranny of those who shout the loudest and make up the rules as they go along ....




--
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Under the Geneva Conventions an unlawful combatant without POW status may be detained and prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state.

But I guess since we are the big, bad USA ("USA! USA! USA!"), a nation founded under the principle that 'government should be of laws rather than of men,' we can subvert our values, and subject ourselves to the bloodthirsty tyranny of those who shout the loudest and make up the rules as they go along ....

--

Obviously I mistyped. I meant to say a FAIR military trial. From what you quoted there is nothing saying we can't use military trials instead of civilian trials. Unless you think our military lacks values and the ability to hold a fair trial? Since we are resorting to generalizations, I suspect that you are the type that would spit in the face of our military after they came home from defending your rights to do so. Am I right? :rolleyes:
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Obviously I mistyped. I meant to say a FAIR military trial. From what you quoted there is nothing saying we can't use military trials instead of civilian trials. Unless you think our military lacks values and the ability to hold a fair trial? Since we are resorting to generalizations, I suspect that you are the type that would spit in the face of our military after they came home from defending your rights to do so. Am I right? :rolleyes:

You are an (with a capital A) Asshole.




--
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
so a guy who tries to blow up a airline Obama's admin gives him rights and is not going to be tried as a enemy. however, on the other hand obama is dropping bombs on villages in Pakistan killing not only "suspected terrorist" but also kids. no riights, no trial just BOOM! can somebody explain to me how this works?


No one that doesn't LIE can explain it. It is what it is . Terrorism
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
so why are you comparing two entirely different thing....
Quit with the false outrage. There is no comparrison here.
In fact this topic you are discussing needs to be taken to the Outhouse!!

Sounds tyo me like you need to wait until you get into high school and take a civics class then come back to P&N to play with the big boys!!

i got a A in civics at UND does that count?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
And so it continues...

Judge tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee
Jan 8 03:00 PM US/Eastern
By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a terrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.

However, the judge said statements he made during two military administrative hearings at the U.S. detention center in Cuba, where he was assisted by a personal representative, were reliable and sufficient to justify holding the detainee.

Musa'ab Omar Al Madhwani allegedly engaged in a 2 1/2-hour firefight with Pakistani authorities before his capture in a Karachi apartment in 2002.

The detainee says that after five days in a Pakistani prison, he was handed over to U.S. forces and flown to a pitch-black prison he believes was in Afghanistan. He says he was suspended in his cell by his left hand and that guards blasted his cell with music 24 hours a day.

He said that he confessed to whatever allegations his interrogators made and that harassment and threats continued after he was moved to a different prison in Afghanistan.

Al Madhwani said that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay on multiple occasions threatened him when he tried to retract what he now claims was a false confession.

The judge said he was particularly concerned that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay relied on or had access to the coerced confessions from Afghanistan made by Al Madhwani.

The logical inference from the record, said the judge, is that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay reviewed Al Madhwani's coerced confessions with him and asked him to make identical confessions.

"Far from being insulated from his coerced confessions, his Guantanamo confessions were thus derived from them," Hogan wrote.

The judge said the government presented medical records about the detainee's debilitating physical and mental condition that confirm his claims of harsh treatment during the 40 days he spent in Pakistann and Afghanistan.

Despite Hogan's concerns about the 23 statements, the judge relied on other evidence and three statements Al Madhwani made to a military tribunal and a review board to conclude that he trained, traveled and associated with members of al-Qaida, including high-level operatives. On those grounds, the judge ruled he is legally detained.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Being American gets you a fair trial in civilian courts. Being a foreign terrorist should get you a fair trial in a military court.

OJ Simpson also got away with murder because of civilian courts. Should we call it even there?

Maybe according to the Constitution of the United Fear No Evil's...but that isn't what governs this country.

To have a military tribunal Congress needs to declare war. Go write a letter to your Congressman.

Christ people, it's not hard to figure this out. Congress COULD, and SHOULD have declared war on Al-Qaeda after 9/11. They didn't. Thus, the Constitution is what is followed, and the Constitution grants all PERSONS the right to trial in civilian court. It doesn't matter what the crime they are accused of committing is.

This forum absolutely cracks me up. The exact same people bitching and moaning about how health care reform is unconstitutional have no problem circumventing the Constitution for trying terrorists. They don't even realize what a slippery slope it is they are advocating.
 

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
91
Obviously I mistyped. I meant to say a FAIR military trial. From what you quoted there is nothing saying we can't use military trials instead of civilian trials. Unless you think our military lacks values and the ability to hold a fair trial? Since we are resorting to generalizations, I suspect that you are the type that would spit in the face of our military after they came home from defending your rights to do so. Am I right? :rolleyes:

And you, in turn, appear to think the US legal system lacks this same ability as well? As long as he is brought to justice, I don't give two shits where he's convicted.