Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

Are you ready for the trial of Osama Bin Laden then, if he is captured, wherein he will show he is not an enemy soldier? In fact, would it not be phrased more correctly that we must prove that he is an enemy soldier, instead of him proving he is not? Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that the basis of all of our courts?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Are you ready for the trial of Osama Bin Laden then, if he is captured, wherein he will show he is not an enemy soldier? In fact, would it not be phrased more correctly that we must prove that he is an enemy soldier, instead of him proving he is not? Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that the basis of all of our courts?

He wouldn't be a soldier anyways; more akin to the leader of a foreign army.

cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And what army is that? Certainly not one that represents a country, so how is it an army? Haven't you thought of these questions before, or is this all just now beginning to dawn on you?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And what army is that? Certainly not one that represents a country, so how is it an army? Haven't you thought of these questions before, or is this all just now beginning to dawn on you?

I said 'akin' to a leader of a foreign army.

'soldier' is the wrong word for him, as he doesn't huck a rifle or blow things up himself. It's like calling a mob boss a 'goon.' You have the position title incorrect.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Are you ready for the trial of Osama Bin Laden then, if he is captured, wherein he will show he is not an enemy soldier? In fact, would it not be phrased more correctly that we must prove that he is an enemy soldier, instead of him proving he is not? Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that the basis of all of our courts?

Gosh, okie.

You don't really trust the US court system, do you? Reading your posts, you'd have to wonder why Timothy McVeigh isn't living in a beach house in Florida...

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Are you ready for the trial of Osama Bin Laden then, if he is captured, wherein he will show he is not an enemy soldier? In fact, would it not be phrased more correctly that we must prove that he is an enemy soldier, instead of him proving he is not? Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that the basis of all of our courts?

If Osama is tried under a Bush or McCain presidency it will be in front of the Guantanamo military tribunals. The CSRTs would almost certainly accept a government claim that he was a combatant.

Not sure what Obama would do. I would speculate Obama would have him tried in federal civilian court, but I could be wrong on that.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Are you ready for the trial of Osama Bin Laden then, if he is captured, wherein he will show he is not an enemy soldier? In fact, would it not be phrased more correctly that we must prove that he is an enemy soldier, instead of him proving he is not? Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that the basis of all of our courts?

Gosh, okie.

You don't really trust the US court system, do you? Reading your posts, you'd have to wonder why Timothy McVeigh isn't living in a beach house in Florida...

Timothy McVeigh was not captured in a cave in Afghanistan by soldiers, untrained and ill prepared and undesigned to arrest a potential civilian to be tried in a civilian court, let alone having the training or ability to collect evidence admissable in a civilian court. He was captured in Perry, Oklahoma, with all the trappings of law enforcement having access to evidence, shortly after the crime was committed. He was arrested, read his rights, and all pertinent evidence was duly and properly collected by crime investigators trained in the processing of a civilian criminal. And we had not intentionally tried to kill him by dropping bombs on areas where we thought he might have been weeks months or years before he was arrested, which would be in direct violation of hunting down and arresting a common criminal. Just a few problems you might wish to consider, old europe. Sheesh!!!

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

If Osama is tried under a Bush or McCain presidency it will be in front of the Guantanamo military tribunals. The CSRTs would almost certainly accept a government claim that he was a combatant.

Based on what evidence, oralloy? Hearsay is not admissable. And where are you going to find an impartial judge and jury? Innocent until proven guilty, got that?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

He was captured in Perry, Oklahoma, with all the trappings of law enforcement having access to evidence, shortly after the crime was committed. He was arrested, read his rights, and all pertinent evidence was duly and properly collected by crime investigators trained in the processing of a civilian criminal.

Yeah. But - correct if I'm wrong - he was pulled over for driving without a license plate, and initially put into jail for carrying a weapon illegally? Nothing to do with terrorism....

And key to the trial was his own confession that he was behind the terrorist attack?

0 Replies

Proving what?.....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Gosh, okie.

You don't really trust the US court system, do you?

Not to fight a war, which should be intuitively obvious to everyone, but apparently is not, including the Supreme Court.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

Gosh, okie.

You don't really trust the US court system, do you?

Not to fight a war, which should be intuitively obvious to everyone, but apparently is not, including the Supreme Court.

Well, the detainees aren't POWs, either.

I might be wrong, but I think that if they had been declared POWs, the Supreme Court would never have gotten to decide on this matter...

0 Replies

oe is absolutely correct. If the Bush admin had done what was right in the first place, they wouldn't be having these problems.

Of course, that would have precluded them from torturing the pow's like they wanted to, and we can't have that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

oralloy wrote:

If Osama is tried under a Bush or McCain presidency it will be in front of the Guantanamo military tribunals. The CSRTs would almost certainly accept a government claim that he was a combatant.

Based on what evidence, oralloy?

I think there is plenty of evidence that he did 9/11.

okie wrote:

Hearsay is not admissable.

Yes it is. This is a war crimes tribunal.

okie wrote:

And where are you going to find an impartial judge and jury?

From the ranks of US military officers.

okie wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty, got that?

I'm sure the military tribunals could manage that.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
old europe wrote:

Gosh, okie.

You don't really trust the US court system, do you?

Not to fight a war, which should be intuitively obvious to everyone, but apparently is not, including the Supreme Court.

Well, the detainees aren't POWs, either.

How are captured enemy fighters being held until the end of the war not POWs?

old europe wrote:

I might be wrong, but I think that if they had been declared POWs, the Supreme Court would never have gotten to decide on this matter...

I think you are wrong. The essence of the Supreme Court's decision is that some civilians might be wrongly counted as an enemy fighter, and so they have the right to file habeas claims to try to establish they are actually civilians.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

okie wrote:
oralloy wrote:

If Osama is tried under a Bush or McCain presidency it will be in front of the Guantanamo military tribunals. The CSRTs would almost certainly accept a government claim that he was a combatant.

Based on what evidence, oralloy?

I think there is plenty of evidence that he did 9/11.

Actually, the only evidence that he was responsible is his own word.
As far as I know, there is no physical evidence.

okie wrote:
Hearsay is not admissable.

Yes it is. This is a war crimes tribunal.

And that tribunal still must follow the rules concerning evidence

okie wrote:
And where are you going to find an impartial judge and jury?

From the ranks of US military officers.

Not possible, since the military will have captured him.
A defense attorney could have a field day with the members of the military that sit on the trial board.

okie wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty, got that?

I'm sure the military tribunals could manage that.

So you are saying that a kangaroo court is acceptable to you.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
okie wrote:

Hearsay is not admissable.

Yes it is. This is a war crimes tribunal.

And that tribunal still must follow the rules concerning evidence

It's a war crimes tribunal. The rules of evidence allow hearsay.

mysteryman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
okie wrote:
And where are you going to find an impartial judge and jury?

From the ranks of US military officers.

Not possible, since the military will have captured him.

It is completely possible. That is how military tribunals work.

mysteryman wrote:

A defense attorney could have a field day with the members of the military that sit on the trial board.

A defense attorney who wanted to lose their case maybe.

mysteryman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
okie wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty, got that?

I'm sure the military tribunals could manage that.

So you are saying that a kangaroo court is acceptable to you.

No, I am saying the military tribunals are not kangaroo courts.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
old europe wrote:

Gosh, okie.

You don't really trust the US court system, do you?

Not to fight a war, which should be intuitively obvious to everyone, but apparently is not, including the Supreme Court.

Well, the detainees aren't POWs, either.

How are captured enemy fighters being held until the end of the war not POWs?

That's beyond me, too.

But I didn't decide that they wouldn't be treated as POWs and stripped off the protections the Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners in wartime would have granted them.

Here, to refresh your memory:

Quote:

Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the war captives in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would not be designated as prisoners of war, regardless of what decision the administration made on Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's request for a review of how the Geneva Convention on captives' rights might apply.

It's pretty well documented where the whole mess started.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
old europe wrote:

Gosh, okie.

You don't really trust the US court system, do you?

Not to fight a war, which should be intuitively obvious to everyone, but apparently is not, including the Supreme Court.

Well, the detainees aren't POWs, either.

How are captured enemy fighters being held until the end of the war not POWs?

That's beyond me, too.

But I didn't decide that they wouldn't be treated as POWs and stripped off the protections the Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners in wartime would have granted them.

Here, to refresh your memory:

Quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the war captives in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would not be designated as prisoners of war, regardless of what decision the administration made on Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's request for a review of how the Geneva Convention on captives' rights might apply.

It's pretty well documented where the whole mess started.

I don't see the mess. The administration considers them to be unlawful combatants (with some justification).

Unlawful combatants do not get accorded the protections of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. But that does not deprive us of our right to detain them until the end of the war.

The Bush Administration was actually a bit sloppy in not having a tribunal designate them as an unlawful combatant, so technically these guys are considered to still have all the rights of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. But it would be a simple matter to have a tribunal designate them as unlawful combatants if they needed to.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

I don't see the mess. The administration considers them to be unlawful combatants (with some justification).

And that's the mess.

The term 'unlawful combatant' doesn't seem to be a legal term.

To me, it seems that 'unlawful combatant' is merely a PR term, coined by the Bush administration in order to be able to refuse detainees the protection of Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners in wartime as well as any other rights under national or international law.

Again, I might be wrong, and you might be able to link to the legal definition of what an 'unlawful combatant' actually is. I doubt it, though.

0 Replies

Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know