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

Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . ..
You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
them out of hand?

I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same
respect for the principles of international law most of the past
century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Rob

(Rob van Riel) wrote:

:Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . ..
:
: You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
: them out of hand?
:
:I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
:alone shoot anyone over there.

Fortunately, you aren't an arbiter of international law, since you
seem to not understand it very well. Or do you not think that the
attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center constitute
sufficient cassus belli? If they don't, what would?

:The US government has shown the same
:respect for the principles of international law most of the past
:century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Well, that sounds like your mind is firmly made up and you decline to
be bothered by facts. Vote for Gore, did you?

One small fact is that we came in on the side of the last recognized
government of the place. You can count the nations who recognized the
Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan on your thumbs, and
Pakistan withdrew their recognition.

Another small fact is that we went in after a group who had 'declared
war' on us first, who were taking actions that essentially constituted
war crimes against us, and whom the folks controlling the territory
they were in refused to do anything about. Sounds like legitimate
cause for war to me, even if the Taliban HAD been the legal government
of Afghanistan.

:Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
:the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Both legal AND a good idea.

--
"Now this is the Law of the Jungle --
as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper,
but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk
the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack."

-- "The Law of the Jungle", Rudyard Kipling

:The US government has shown the same
:respect for the principles of international law most of the past
:century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.


International Law is a concept not a reality. Law implies someone
enforces behavior and punishes misbehavior as directed by the law.
There is no international enforcement, nor international legislative
or adjudication bodies. The UN is a meeting of ambassadors who can
purpose treaties which member nations can accept or reject. Imagine a
community with a written set of suggestions for proper behavior, but
no courts, police or judges....... Thats 'international law'.

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in
message . ..
You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
them out of hand?

I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same
respect for the principles of international law most of the past
century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Rob

Rob,

You are incorrect, once the Twin towers came down the US was at war and as
such has the right to self defense.
We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
who gave them aid and comfort.

Nuff said

Jim

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
who gave them aid and comfort.

I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
their country and buildings.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and
those
who gave them aid and comfort.

I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
their country and buildings.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Unfortunatly they had the wrong leader...
I doubt soviets like Stalin, Some Germans I understand disliked the
Bavarian corpural too.
and I doubt they enjoyed Sherman tanks crossing the rhine or B17 flying over
Berlin.

War sucks.

Jim

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:
:
:We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
:who gave them aid and comfort.
:
:I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
:their country and buildings.

Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists.

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!