I can't see trying 'enemy combatants' in a military tribunal. The military court system is set up to utilize military laws and procedures, yet are totally inefficient for a civilian/non military defendant. It's a classic case of the government wanting their cake and eating it too.

I didnt convict Libby. He was tried through the justice system and found guilty. I would have accepted any decision in which the rule of law is upheld.

keep tossing out those red herrings, ace. Thats what uncompromising extremists do. :thumbsup:

Change the name Libby to Clinton.. still like that post?

because if you allow exceptions for one case, you open the door for any others that the government (or apathetic people) wish to pursue. pretty soon, you may end up with no trials at all, just summary executions a la judge dredd.

Just because we fucked up in our methods of obtaining evidence in a manner that is correlative with our own standards doesn't mean we get to abandon those standards for our own safety. Perhaps conservatives who support willy-nilly justice that ebbs and flows according to the severity of their own abuses are the ones who have the most to learn from this event. Maybe?

dc_dux,

At the risk of starting an argument, it is factually incorrect to state the Republicans blocked the closing of Gitmo. Correct?

Correct.

Not a chance in hell that you ought to be able to be released on bail, but yes, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That applies to the Chuck Mansons of the world, as well.

It is a check and balance on our system of justice. A second opinion that due process was followed and that "obvious" guilt is indeed guilty.

How many Gitmo detainees have that level of evidence against them? 3? Maybe 4? And for those cases, we have a short trial in which they plead guilty and then go on to sentencing. What about the innocent people, dogzilla? What about the fact that Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to then-secretary of state Colin Powell, has stated that most Guantanamo detainees are innocent?

What I find most amazing is you stating "The evidence speaks for itself." Well no, dogzilla, it doesn't. The evidence is classified or nonexistant, and we won't even know why these people were kidnapped until they're tried on the evidence. You're arguing against the evidence; you're saying "don't worry about the evidence speaking for itself. I know they're guilty."
KSM admitted guilt, yes. Was that before or after he was tortured? If it was coerced, should that admission be admissible in court? Would you admit to something you didn't do if tortured?
I can't make it much more clear than this: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not representative of the detainees in Gitmo. There's a mountain of evidence against the Christmas bomber, most of it quite public. What evidence do you have that similarly condemns every single man in Gitmo?

I posted in the past that I actually changed political parties (Republican to Libertarian) in part due to the way Republicans handled the Clinton matter. It was a joke and an embarrassment the way it was handled.

---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

True. However the red herrings are like bait - I am waiting to see if I can find something you feel so strongly about that you wont compromise.

By the way, I can't wait for the Bush tax cuts compromise, the compromise that won't really be a compromise for us uncompromising extremists.:thumbsup:

Did not know that, thanks for clarifying.

Then I would create something totally new, just for the Gitmo terrorists that we know are guilty.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------


The concept of evidence in war is beyond me. Like I said we can never agree from what follows from the question of are we at war or not.

{added} I am going on a vacation and my wife is telling me to get off of the f,ing computer, leave your freinds (yea right, she just doesn't know) alone, and pack. To all those I offended this week, I apologize. FYI, my wife loves this show call the "Dog Whisperer" and I found out why a while ago, those who watch will understand. I am like the dog who gets singularly focused and increasingly wound up - the dog whisperer on the show does some kinda magic with the dog to get it to snap out of it - my wife is like a Ace whisperer. If Cesar was here, he would tell you guys that you are doing everything wrong. Have a great Thanksgiving.

The only reasonable alternative, then, would be something outside the jurisdiction of America. Would you suggest an international court?

Well how very convenient for you. Therefore you don't have to discuss the far-reaching implications of ignoring established principles of jurisprudence in order to circumvent our own abuses of the system. How very, very convenient. Therefore, you don't have to actually say that you support abuses of the system.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

haha. yeah.

It's easy to have this attitude as an American. If I didn't have sympathy for people I've never met, I could very well feel this way, too.


When I see images like this one, knowing that these men have never even been tried and convicted, I get this thing called moral outrage. The sense of justice I was partially born with and partially developed because of my environment is triggered by the thought of innocent, usually poor and Arab people being kidnapped, taken to another part of the planet, imprisoned for who knows how long, and are likely abused and even tortured. Even if I did believe we were at war with these people Spoiler: we're not actually at war with anyone, I'd still find myself horrified at the idea of innocent people being treated this way. I'd imagine a similar feeling of horror is what gave birth to the ethical theories behind our justice system.

but... but... the sense of necessity that I attribute to my nation's military's moral ambivalence during wartime makes me feel vital and feeds a personal sense of urgency that makes my life seem more interesting. It's, like, life or death, man. And if we don't torture and convict people to send messages to other people who might dislike us for, among other things, our casual wartime disregard for human rights, then we're all going to get killed by terrorists and then they will laugh at us, but maybe not in that order.

...

We are not at war. But we are in military conflict with extra-national non-identified combatants, in which said actions have been upheld by the SCOTUS in cases such as Padilla v. Rumsfeld. More over noting the case that war has not been declared by congress, miltary action has been, thus opening the door to tribunals.

Even in court cases as late as 2008 where the SCOTUS ruled against the Bush administration, they still didn't challenge the legality of Gitmo or the President's right to deem suspects combatants, merely that they have a right to challenge the status and a right to file for habeaus corpus.

The convicted received 20 years to life - that's a minimum of 20 years in prison (no parole), and possibly the rest of his life in prison. I fail to see how this conviction somehow demonstrates American 'weakness'.

ace, I find your line of reasoning beyond disturbing. You said something to the effect that acquitting a "known guilty" person presents an unbearable risk. But what do you mean when you say "known guilty"? Known to whom? To you? How would you go about defining the set of cases in which the guilt of the accused is "well-known" enough to determine the outcome of a trial before it begins? Could it possibly be defined in a way that can be determined more or less objectively?

It's faster and more correct to call them either alleged insurgents or criminals, depending on what they're charged with.
That question wasn't before the court. They have yet to rule on this issue.