Question: Should the government of the United States of America proceed with trials of the prisioners [of war] currently housed at Guantanamo based on evidence as layed out in the article?
I can't make it simpler. I'm sure the Smoke and Mirrors Brigade will try and make it more complicated than a yes or no answer...or try to bring in unrelated concepts. We'll see what we'll see.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sorry I tried to get the discusssion moving in the intelligent direction but FOT seems to think you should not discuss something until 1: GWB actually has his hand in the cookie jar, not a mm from the edge but in. 2: the democrats did it. 3: the french did it
Back to topic. I don't think that these are good criteria for bringing people to trial. They are basically saying ah we'll think of something later as the trial progresses. Glad my country doesn't have courts like that. But saying that I think this admin. will do it because they have detained these people for so long, without reason, as they are not POW, and now they find they have nothing to charge them with. But if they let them go they will lose face with the rest of the world so they have to do this. These men were convicted the day they were brought there. They are just waiting for the "drumhead" (is that what Picard called it). As GWB pointed out these guys are all terrorist without evidence then, and they won't need it at the trials because they will be behind closed doors and military.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Clearly, the relationships between considering, planning, and intent to do are fuzzy. I now believe you are correct in believing that little progress can be made in this area.
Right now, I'm looking for parallells between these trials and the trials of Nazi officers at Nuremburg and other places. My hypothesis is that there were at least some incidents where Nazis were, essentially, tried for being Nazis. If this is so, then the same logic may apply here, and would make these actions appropriate. If not... back to the drawing board.
However, I'm no expert on WWII judicial history, so I've asked a few folks who should be able to provide data. More on that later.
From the article:
quote:The new approach would make it an offense to have been a senior member or officer of a Qaeda unit that was involved in any of the regular crimes of war
Of course, it will still be necessary to demonstrate that the accused was a senior member or officer, and that their unit was involved in any of the regular crimes of war (Thus the charge of 'no evidence necessary' seems specious)
Additionally, the 'new approach' above seems to me to be very much the same rationale behind trying Nazi officers who were "only following orders" in ordering their troops/guards/etc. to committ war crimes.
If there's a difference, I'm interested in hearing it.
[ April 25, 2002, 14:46: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, its a bad thing to do. Yes, it is something that I support.
Hard. No.
Instead, we've taken another interesting logical turn.
Rightness or wrongness of an act can not be taken into account on its own merrit, it is now dependent on previous events of dubious analogy.
So much for moral clarity.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Rightness or wrongness of an act can not be taken into account on its own merrit, it is now dependent on previous events of dubious analogy.
Yep, we call that "legal precedent."
Who ever said the law had anything to do with morality?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:No, screaming "no warrant" will, though. Evidence seized without a proper search warrant would be inadmissable.
Bad wannabe cop. No donut.
There are a lot of things I love. Especially when Rob puts his foot in his ass so deep it'll be permenently stained brown. I guess the saying is actually "mouth" (not ass), but, oh well.
Now, see, Rob is a librarian. And as he's so fond of pointing out, he majored in English. And yet he doesn't seem to have the whole comprehension thing figured out.
Obviously, if the police are kicking down his door, they HAVE a warrant. Why do they have such a warrant? I dunno. Maybe a neighbor saw Rob building his bomb. Maybe someone over heard him bragging about it. Maybe Julie decided she didn't want to get married to the next Unabomber. Maybe he's in his parents' basement and they don't like him building bombs in their house, so they gave the police permission to enter and search after informing them of what was going on (and since it's Rob's parents' house, if they give consent, the cops don't need a warrant). Anyways, that's for another scenario for the First of Two.
Yet Rob would like to pretend they don't have a warrant. Well, that's all good and well, I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that he made a rather bold assumption about a scenario which, since it didn't say otherwise, should have (all together now) common sense applied to it.
Then again, Robert has never shown himself to have common sense, so why be surprised?
Bad wannabe librarian. No book for you.
quote:War Plan Red, War Plan Black, War Plan Orange.
These were three plans drawn up by the US between the late 1890's and the early 1930's.
They were strategic scenarios and options , plans for waging war, being 'considered' if the US had felt the need to defend its Pacific interests against The UK (Red), Germany (Black), and Japan (Orange).
Now, here we see classic Robert slight of hand at work. The military obviously functions a bit different from the civilian government. This is what we like to call "D'uh."
To be the best, the military has to prepare for every option, no matter how silly we might think it is. They can run drills and exercises to ready for an attack by Martians, if they'd like. And it always pays to prepare for the worst fight you can imagine -- and pre-World War II, Great Britain ruled the seas. Any military force in the world should always judge themselves by how well they stack up to the best, not to the weak nation with a seventy-year old warship.
This, as anyone with (here's that magical word again!) common sense can tell you, is much different from the civilian government considering a process that is highly illegal. Big difference, Robby muh boy! Still can't see it, huh?
posted
Erm... Who cares what was done at the war crimes trials at Nürnberg? Just because something's been done before, that doesn't make it a good thing. After all, I'm sure there was plenty of anti-Semitism carried out in Nürnberg shortly prior to those trials, but that doesn't mean it's okay for the government to consider persecution of Jews and their relatives.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Maybe this is just me, but the last time I check, a debate is won by solid and sound arguments, not two person going at each other to see who can come up with the best profanity to piss other people off.
When something like "your foot is stuck in your ass" type of comments come up, it's offensive no matter what the original intention might be.
The way I see it, comments like this have no place in a civilize debate; take it to the ghetto where only low life bottom feeders or lousy bums can appreciate the twisted humor behind it.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
But Bluey, this is where the fun comes from! Neither of these two will ever, ever, be able to put forth an argument which changes the other's view on anything. It's how they go about trying that provides the entertainment.
Now, regarding military contingency plans; I wonder, would Rob be concerned if the US military started assembling plans designed to implement a state of martial law? No, and neither would I, because there are many good reasons why martial law might need to be declared at one time or another. And given what assholes soldier types can be, I'd sooner they know what they're doing before they start shooting people for driving too fast in the car park at Walmart.
But what if they started, whether at the elected government's direction or not, forming plans to implement martial law prior to (and in replacement for) the next set of major elections, say the congressional mid-terms or even the next Presidential race? Said plans including the rounding-up of major opposition party leaders? How does that sit with your "it's OK for the goverment to consider anything, it's just like the military making contingency plans" stance?
posted
Oh, I understand "legal precedent" there Rob and I half expected you to run there.
However, since conservatives reject international action now, i.e. opposition to the war crimes court, how can you now lay claim to past international adjudication to support present potential American military tribunals?
And...
If in past tribunals, and I'm not saying it happened at Nuremburg, there were due process problems, how does that make it ok now?
[ April 26, 2002, 09:45: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Pretty damn poor, if you ask me, Lee. It's one thing for soldiers to know crowd control -- and in fact, I think the Military Police and National Guard are pretty well instructed in what to expect if they're needed in a riot ...
... but, yeah, the situation you describe would bother me very much. And I'm sure, if it was a Democratic politician in office when it happened, that Rob & Omega would be quick to scream about treason, or big government, or whatever (of course, if it was a Republican in office, it would be 'just planning').
Blue -- no one forces you to read the Flameboard. And if you think THIS is name-calling, surf over to the TrekBBS's The Neutral Zone.
quote:Oh, I understand "legal precedent" there Rob and I half expected you to run there.
However, since conservatives reject international action now, i.e. opposition to the war crimes court, how can you now lay claim to past international adjudication to support present potential American military tribunals?
And...
If in past tribunals, and I'm not saying it happened at Nuremburg, there were due process problems, how does that make it ok now?
Damn it Jay I was going to make that point.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey, aren't y'all the ones always yelling about how court rulings ARE law, regardless of any superceeding law?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If that was supposed to mean something, let me assure you it didn't.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's quite simple really. If Omeychops can show that even one of those people, who has an opposing viewpoint to his, has ever expressed such an opinion regarding court rulings, then that means that every single one of these people who don't agree with him are wrong about everything, ever. Because he's never contradicted himself, and he's always right. Bit like his views on the Bible, really - 100% correct and non-contradictory.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
