Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

(newsgroups trimmed way down)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote, in us.military.army:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
:change if you were the defendant?

Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
just want to get off.

Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)

This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
the skies?

Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.

Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.

My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
anything.

You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
court handed down a death penalty.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.

It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
by our government to do everything in secret behind
closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
justice system, but I think it was a bad call.

YMMV.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
wrote:



Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.

You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
them out of hand?

BTW, are you aware that the rules covering these trials are copied
almost verbatim from the rules for US military courts-martial?



It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.

FYI, the defendant has fewer rights under a tribunal than those given
to the prisoners at gitmo.

Also, the judges on a UN tribunal would vote the way their governments
told them to.

But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
by our government to do everything in secret behind
closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
justice system, but I think it was a bad call.

OK, then what is you solution to the problem of providing a fair trial
while protecting US military secrets?

I can just see the result of the US saying to a UN tribunal: "What we
are about to tell you is Top Secret so please promise not to tell your
governments about US military and intelligence capabilities."



--
In every generation the world has produced enemies
of human freedom. They have attacked America because
we are freedom's home and defender. The commitment
of our fathers is not the challenge of our time.
President George W Bush - Sept 14, 2001

After reviewing Paragraph 5 pf the OPORD of Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39
GMT, Henrietta K Thomas exclaimed:

(newsgroups trimmed way down)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote, in us.military.army:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
:change if you were the defendant?

Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
just want to get off.

Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)

This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
the skies?

Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.


Under international law, huh?

Maybe you could point out which agreements constitute the laws in this
case?

Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.

My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
anything.


Your understanding is based on what?

You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
court handed down a death penalty.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.


....and you have this basis for thinking that they aren't or may not
be:

......

It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
by our government to do everything in secret behind
closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
justice system, but I think it was a bad call.


Show me "in secret behind closed doors."


--
Pain heals.
Chicks dig scars.
Glory lasts forever.
SPC Robert White 31U, OKARNG HHC 45th eSB Thunderbirds!

Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad, and
that wont always land you in paradise. Although the sunsets in Gitmo
are wonderful. GDSF Leeward side during Operation Sea Signal.

The UN isn't the answer. For the attrocities commited in Srebernetza
(Bad spelling I know) the commmands who did it landed 17 years. 17
years for killing 5,000 people. So, these little warriors of god go to
the ICC and receive what ?...... Probation ?

International Law did not do this country any good on 9-11. Now we
call the shots. Thank god we do not rely on the UN to enforce law or
will.







Henrietta K Thomas wrote in message . ..
(newsgroups trimmed way down)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote, in us.military.army:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
:change if you were the defendant?

Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
just want to get off.

Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)

This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
the skies?

Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.

Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.

My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
anything.

You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
court handed down a death penalty.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.

It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
by our government to do everything in secret behind
closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
justice system, but I think it was a bad call.

YMMV.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois

Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them,

Thread got long so I'm not sure who wrote this but.................
They are not "accused person's" they were caught on the battlefield
shooting at allied troops or supporting those who were. So let 'em
sit till the war is over and then decide what to do with em.
kwc

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:

Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad, and
that wont always land you in paradise.

Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
without charge or representation, or apology come to that.

This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?

Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.

Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks enjoying
the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants, having
been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be detained
in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You don't
get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time they
will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm sure
you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in the
issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill hostillities
are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on USENET
is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to your
elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...

Chapter and verse, Colin, please.

(You're usually very clueful, but the GCs are explicit: even spies may
not be shot out of hand, but must be tried first)

Are you sure? Here is the only passage I can see where it talks about
persons who are not protected under Geneva III or Geneva IV.

Geneva (IV)-1949

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter
is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely
suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the
State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such
rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if
exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to
the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and
regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the
present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security
of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
/end quote

They must be "treated with humanity" but from my reading it seems to
be that *if* you try them, the trials must be fair. I don't see any
requirement that they be tried. Indeed, they specifically make
reference to holding someone based on on suspicion and then they are
"regarded as having forfeited rights of communication". Fairly broad
powers there, enshrined under Geneva-IV (1949), from my readings it in
fact seems to justify what's going on at Gitmo completely (if we
assume that the men at Gitmo don't qualify for protection under either
GC III or GC IV).

That brings up Geneva III-1949, Article 5.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong
to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall
enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as
their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Again, no right to a trial that I can see, only a "competant
tribunal". The US has started releasing men from Gitmo, admitting that
they had been caught up in the dragnet by mistake, so there is some of
this going on; note also that I don't believe they say that the
tribunal (for deciding whether they meet GC III 4.2) must be an open
one. And you don't need a tribunal to declare someone not covered by
III or IV; you only need the tribunal in cases where there is doubt.

The US seems to be loudly protesting that the men aren't entitled to
protection under the GC's, but in all actuality most of the AQ men
wouldn't get any protection anyway (Geneva III (1949) Article 4
section 2 would be the standards that they would have to meet, and
from my knowledge of AQ very few of them would meet them). I don't
think the way the men in the pens are treated would be any different
if the US were to announce that they were to be held under the GC's,
because so many men wouldn't qualify as POW's, not meeting the
requirements of GC (III) 4.2 (which are fairly strict, requiring a
chain-of-command and a mark recoginzable at a distance (distinct from
merely carrying a gun)). The AQ men almost certainly wouldn't, the
Taliban men might, I don't know enough about how the Taliban operated
to know.

Now, giving the British citizens to Britain would be the smart move to
help Tony Blair... it seems so obvious that I don't really know why
they aren't.

Chris Manteuffel

"TinCanMan" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:

Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad, and
that wont always land you in paradise.

Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
without charge or representation, or apology come to that.

This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?

Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.

Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks
enjoying
the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,
having
been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be
detained
in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You
don't
get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time
they
will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm sure
you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in
the
issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill hostillities
are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on
USENET
is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to your
elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.

If they are POW's then they should be covered by the various Geneva
Conventions - but the US has explicitly denied them the rights under those
Conventions.

David

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:51:13 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
wrote:
Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.

You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
them out of hand?

Chapter and verse, Colin, please.

(You're usually very clueful, but the GCs are explicit: even spies may
not be shot out of hand, but must be tried first)

You are correct. They can be tried - then shot.


BTW, are you aware that the rules covering these trials are copied
almost verbatim from the rules for US military courts-martial?

Apart from issues like secret hearings, strict controls on defence
counsel and the absence of defence witnesses?

Only specific parts of the hearings will be 'secret.' Those are the
parts where "Information whose unauthorized disclosure can be
reasonable expected to cause harm to the national defense"

I suggest that you actually read the rules instead of somebody's
opinions of the rules. Here is a link to the actual text.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...0020321ord.pdf



What rights to the Gitmo prisoners have?

See the above link. Please note: we consider them to be criminals -
not combatants.


Roughly how many of those detainees are there because of information
that is currently TOP SECRET US EYES ONLY, out of interest?

I don't know - and if I did I would not be able to discuss it with
you.

FYI, I have talked to people who actually guarded those folks. As a
result, I feel that they are too dangerous to ever be let free.

Or what we can do is give them their weapons back and turn them loose
in your hometown.


--
In every generation the world has produced enemies
of human freedom. They have attacked America because
we are freedom's home and defender. The commitment
of our fathers is not the challenge of our time.
President George W Bush - Sept 14, 2001

chebs wrote:


Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them,

Thread got long so I'm not sure who wrote this but.................
They are not "accused person's" they were caught on the battlefield
shooting at allied troops or supporting those who were. So let 'em
sit till the war is over and then decide what to do with em. kwc

Not all of them, one of the two british born prisoners was extradited
from Pakistan to Afghanistan and then went from there to Guantanamo.

Another was extradited from Zambia.