Which is what the US will do. These people fall under military justice which our courts have upheld in the past.
I guess you missed this the other day:
Quote:
MAJ. MICHAEL MORI, U.S. MARINE CORPS, ATTORNEY FOR DETAINEE DAVID HICKS: Good evening, sir.
BROWN: Thank you. Let's focus a bit on your concerns. What you have said essentially is that the people, that the government has a vested interest in the outcome and the government is making all the rules and stacking the deck.
MORI: Well, that's correct. The rules and procedures are written basically coming out of the same system and office that's going to be controlling the prosecutions and it's an unnecessary system. The United States military justice system is available to try any of the detainees down in Cuba.
BROWN: So, the system that is going to be used is separate from the Uniform Code of Military Justice that everyone who was ever in the service knows at least something about?
MORI: Yes, sir and that's -- the commission process dates back to the 1940s when we tried the war criminals in Japan and in Germany. Those processes haven't been repeated up to the present day until now. And now, we've resurrected that old process and are trying to use it again.
And, of course, since the 1940s the Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted in 1950. We had the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and our own domestic criminal law and international law has developed so far in the past 50-plus years.
BROWN: Can you give me an example or two of what you find fundamentally unfair?
MORI: Fundamentally, I think most Americans understand in the commission process there is not an independent judge. You won't see a judge separate from the jury as you would in any criminal court in the United States or in the military court martial process.
BROWN: Is that not also true in some court martials?
MORI: No. No, sir in every court martial you have an independent judge who is deciding evidentiary rules, rules of motions brought by either side, instructing the jury and is responsible for the trial process from beginning to end.
BROWN: Just so I understand this, the presiding officer or judge, to use a term we all get, is also part of the jury?
MORI: Yes, that's correct and that is a throw back to the old style of court martial system before the enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice so by placing the presiding officer in as a voting member of the jury again we've now moved back to pre-1950 military justice and I don't think you'd find an attorney in any court sitting on a jury in this country.
BROWN: Just one more process question. This goes back to when this was first talked about and we raised these questions and I'll admit I have some -- I'm not sure I understand the reason here is that once these -- one there are convictions there is no right to appeal to the American courts, the federal courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court. That does not exist for these people.
MORI: Under the current rules and procedures, that's correct, Mr. Brown.
There is a panel of civilian attorneys that have been handpicked by the Department of Defense to fill the role of a review panel. And that's the Department of Defense's answer, which is completely opposite to the system set up under the court-martial process, which has an independent civilian review panel who's presented and posted to their positions for 15 years each term.
BROWN: Major, for all those people sitting out there going, "Tough. These are terrorists. Why does it matter?" Why does it matter? Why should people care?
MORI: If there's reliable evidence to try the detainees down at Guantanamo Bay, bring them before an established justice system.
If there's not reliable evidence, that does not justify changing our standards of due process and justice in this country. The United States has had a long history of ensuring fairness and due process. And now is not the time to change those values.
BROWN: Major, it's good to meet you. Good luck to you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
Definition of Chichen Hawk:_ n._ A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person?s youth.
Giant you're posted opinion not facts. THey used the process in the 40's. Nothing new here.
Quote:
And, of course, since the 1940s the Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted in 1950. We had the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and our own domestic criminal law and international law has developed so far in the past 50-plus years.
This story, and the media's "coverage" of it, is getting some traction. Thank god.
Excellent read. Not that it won't be dismissed out of hand by our, um, "conservative" members.
It will be interesting to see how the Bush chicken-hawk crew and blood and honor rhetoric plays against Kerry, should he win the nomination (as it currently appears he will). I'm particularly struck by the possiblity that the shameful smearing of Max Cleland will come back to bite the Bushies in the ass, now that he has endorsed Kerry and is campaigning with him in the South.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
US should apply his own standarts. And the camp delta do not fit with any US standart of justice.
When you judge someone you apply your own standarts, and you do not apply the standarts of the people you judge.
In clear what you said was irrelevant.
Now let's go back in the topic (in wich i must confess, i am not so interested : there where already one in the past in AO).
Which is what the US will do. These people fall under military justice which our courts have upheld in the past.
Originally posted by Scott
Pssst. What's camp delta?
Oh I see delta replaced x-ray. Must have happened when I was in paris.
Bush=Awol
Novak=Traitor
Cheney=Haliburton
Santorum= well... Santorum
Aschroft=Big Brother
Rowland=Soon the be shamed former governor
Shwarzenegger=Sham
Neil Bush=STDs and Call Girl Patron
oh I'm sorry... was I off topic?
Until the Shrub releases his military record... he hasn't defended himself from the AWOL charges.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I like the this...
Bush=Awol
Novak=Traitor
Cheney=Haliburton
Santorum= well... Santorum
Aschroft=Big Brother
Rowland=Soon the be shamed former governor
Shwarzenegger=Sham
Neil Bush=STDs and Call Girl Patron
oh I'm sorry... was I off topic?
Until the Shrub releases his military record... he hasn't defended himself from the AWOL charges.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I like the this...
Bush=Awol
Novak=Traitor
Cheney=Haliburton
Santorum= well... Santorum
Aschroft=Big Brother
Rowland=Soon the be shamed former governor
Shwarzenegger=Sham
Neil Bush=STDs and Call Girl Patron
oh I'm sorry... was I off topic?
Until the Shrub releases his military record... he hasn't defended himself from the AWOL charges.
Dude, you totally forgot pretzel-gate. Choked on a pretzel and fell down? My ass.
Originally posted by Scott
Which is what the US will do. These people fall under military justice which our courts have upheld in the past.
I guess you missed this the other day:
MAJ. MICHAEL MORI, U.S. MARINE CORPS, ATTORNEY FOR DETAINEE DAVID HICKS: Good evening, sir.
BROWN: Thank you. Let's focus a bit on your concerns. What you have said essentially is that the people, that the government has a vested interest in the outcome and the government is making all the rules and stacking the deck.
MORI: Well, that's correct. The rules and procedures are written basically coming out of the same system and office that's going to be controlling the prosecutions and it's an unnecessary system. The United States military justice system is available to try any of the detainees down in Cuba.
BROWN: So, the system that is going to be used is separate from the Uniform Code of Military Justice that everyone who was ever in the service knows at least something about?
MORI: Yes, sir and that's -- the commission process dates back to the 1940s when we tried the war criminals in Japan and in Germany. Those processes haven't been repeated up to the present day until now. And now, we've resurrected that old process and are trying to use it again.
And, of course, since the 1940s the Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted in 1950. We had the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and our own domestic criminal law and international law has developed so far in the past 50-plus years.
BROWN: Can you give me an example or two of what you find fundamentally unfair?
MORI: Fundamentally, I think most Americans understand in the commission process there is not an independent judge. You won't see a judge separate from the jury as you would in any criminal court in the United States or in the military court martial process.
BROWN: Is that not also true in some court martials?
MORI: No. No, sir in every court martial you have an independent judge who is deciding evidentiary rules, rules of motions brought by either side, instructing the jury and is responsible for the trial process from beginning to end.
BROWN: Just so I understand this, the presiding officer or judge, to use a term we all get, is also part of the jury?
MORI: Yes, that's correct and that is a throw back to the old style of court martial system before the enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice so by placing the presiding officer in as a voting member of the jury again we've now moved back to pre-1950 military justice and I don't think you'd find an attorney in any court sitting on a jury in this country.
BROWN: Just one more process question. This goes back to when this was first talked about and we raised these questions and I'll admit I have some -- I'm not sure I understand the reason here is that once these -- one there are convictions there is no right to appeal to the American courts, the federal courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court. That does not exist for these people.
MORI: Under the current rules and procedures, that's correct, Mr. Brown.
There is a panel of civilian attorneys that have been handpicked by the Department of Defense to fill the role of a review panel. And that's the Department of Defense's answer, which is completely opposite to the system set up under the court-martial process, which has an independent civilian review panel who's presented and posted to their positions for 15 years each term.
BROWN: Major, for all those people sitting out there going, "Tough. These are terrorists. Why does it matter?" Why does it matter? Why should people care?
MORI: If there's reliable evidence to try the detainees down at Guantanamo Bay, bring them before an established justice system.
If there's not reliable evidence, that does not justify changing our standards of due process and justice in this country. The United States has had a long history of ensuring fairness and due process. And now is not the time to change those values.
BROWN: Major, it's good to meet you. Good luck to you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
MORI: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/21/asb.00.html
Originally posted by Scott
Oh I see delta replaced x-ray. Must have happened when I was in paris.
Camp Delta's a US base in Cuba where people are held without trial, presumed guilty.
Do you defend it? If you do, why do you hate America so much, and everything the Bill of Rights stands for?
Originally posted by giant
I guess you missed this the other day:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/21/asb.00.html
Giant you're posted opinion not facts. THey used the process in the 40's. Nothing new here.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Camp Delta's a US base in Cuba where people are held without trial, presumed guilty.
Do you defend it? If you do, why do you hate America so much, and everything the Bill of Rights stands for?
I do defend it. It's one of the aspects of war. You can put your anti-US spin on it if you like. I'm sure that's how you view the world anyway.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He didn't show up for 2 years... out of 6.
snip
Just shows how privileged he was.
Clinton broke no laws. If he's a draft dodger so is Limbaugh, Cheney... and everyone else that got a defferrment to a war no one wanted to fight in.
At least Gore set foot in Vietnam.
Not just Limbaugh and Cheney. Take a look at this list of rightwing icons in the
Chicken-Hawk Brigade
Definition of Chichen Hawk:_ n._ A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person?s youth.
Originally posted by Scott
Giant you're posted opinion not facts. THey used the process in the 40's. Nothing new here.
And, of course, since the 1940s the Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted in 1950. We had the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and our own domestic criminal law and international law has developed so far in the past 50-plus years.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Camp Delta's a US base in Cuba where people are held without trial, presumed guilty.
Do you defend it? If you do, why do you hate America so much, and everything the Bill of Rights stands for?
Are they Americans? Are they in America? Maybe we should apply the American Bill of Rigts in Iran? You think your Ayatollahs would like dat?
They are Islamicists captured in Islamistan. Cut dem feet, arms, eyes, tongue off, and leave da rest for Allah to snak on.
Originally posted by jimmac
Our standards of right and wrong should be upheld everywhere! Otherwise they're worthless.
Salem Allahcum.
I'm all for American imperialism. But the pinkos and da Commies always get in da way.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Are they Americans? Are they in America? Maybe we should apply the American Bill of Rigts in Iran? You think your Ayatollahs would like dat?
They are Islamicists captured in Islamistan. Cut dem feet, arms, eyes, tongue off, and leave da rest for Allah to snak on.
The Bill of Rights is founded on the belief that our Rights are Rights because they are UNIVERSAL human rights
They should be self evident
and it should be self evident to any thinking soul who pretends to understand the Bill Of Rights
Originally posted by pfflam
The Bill of Rights is founded on the belief that our Rights are Rights because they are UNIVERSAL human rights
They should be self evident
and it should be self evident to any thinking soul who pretends to understand the Bill Of Rights
Tell dat to Ahmed.
This story, and the media's "coverage" of it, is getting some traction. Thank god.
Originally posted by midwinter
click.
This story, and the media's "coverage" of it, is getting some traction. Thank god.
Excellent read. Not that it won't be dismissed out of hand by our, um, "conservative" members.
It will be interesting to see how the Bush chicken-hawk crew and blood and honor rhetoric plays against Kerry, should he win the nomination (as it currently appears he will). I'm particularly struck by the possiblity that the shameful smearing of Max Cleland will come back to bite the Bushies in the ass, now that he has endorsed Kerry and is campaigning with him in the South.