The Obama Administration is ready to restart the military tribunals at Gitmo

[DefenseLawyer]

So much for the promise to end these illegal, fake trials and close our illegal prison. This is a deal breaker for me. I guess I am officially off the team.


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/03/26/military-commission-trials-set-for-the-summer.aspx

[sandnsea]

1. How do you know they will be fake?

And don't they have to put some of these people on trial in order to move them to the Illinois prison, in order to close Gitmo?

Did you think they would just let all of the people at Gitmo go free?

[DefenseLawyer]

2. Well since the rules of evidence don't apply

and the defendants aren't allowed access to most of the evidence against them or to a trial by jury then yeah, I'd agree the the ACLU and the rest of the world that these "trials" (that George Bush just made up) are illegal. If these people can't be charged with a crime and tried by a jury then yeah, I'd say they should go free. If you were being held indefinitely in a foreign prison I'm guessing you would feel the same way.

[sandnsea]

4. That isn't true

Please remove pre-conceived ideas, even from the ACLU, and document where military trials don't use evidence or don't allow defendents access to evidence. Military trials were not made up by George Bush. Military tribunals outside even the military justice system were made up by George Bush. These trials aren't going to be held at Gitmo, the courts have already ruled against many of the violations Bush enacted, they will follow the Geneva Conventions.

Objecting to what is happening here and now is fine. But do it based on the facts that exist today, not what existed over five years ago and has been corrected.

[nosmokes]

5. The detainees own military lawyers said the tribunals were a farce and

there were some that resigned their commissions over it, sacrificing their careers and accrued pensions. I don't give a crap how much you worship Obama, you must be able to recognize the hypocrisy and total capitulation on this one.

[sandnsea]

6. In the last year?

I missed that. Please provide info.

The problem is that arguments applied in one instance, get applied to situations that are completely different. The Cole for instance. No shit those connected to the bombing of a US military ship are going to be tried in military court. Who would think otherwise? And yet somehow, people conflate this with non-military acts of terrorism before 9/11 and say a military trial for the Cole is violating that commitment.

Or ignoring all the changes made to the Patriot Act, and acting as if anything related to that bill is the same as passing it in 2001. That's nuts.

Time has marched on. There have been numerous court challenges. New laws have been written. Most of the innocent at Gitmo have been released. A process is being implemented to move those that are still dangerous to Illinois, where they will have a trial that was good enough for the Abu Ghraib torturers.

Certainly there are things that could be done better. Define it, justify it, create a plan to change it, enlist help.

These broadbased end of the world rants are no better than what the tea partiers do. Except for the fact that Cindy Sheehan started with a legitimate cause, the end result is that she has become no different than Sarah Palin. Now how could she have prevented that from happening?

[nosmokes]

9. comparing Sheehan to Palin?!? You've flipped your lid S&S.

If someone has broken the fucking law then try 'em in a court o law. Period. It's simple.

typo

[sandnsea]

10. Cindy has become the kind of caricature

That Sarah Palin always was. The average American sees them as opposite sides of the nutball American coin. Cindy did think she was going to unseat the Speaker of the House, right?

A military ship is attacked, and you say try those who attacked our military in a US court? Really?? I disagree.

If a US citizen blew up any military installation of any country in the world, there would be a military trial and some very serious consequences. Why are we supposed to do any different?

[DefenseLawyer]

18. Military trials are for members of the military that break their rules

Unless I am in the military, if I commit a crime on a military base that doesn't give the military jurisdiction over me, I am not sure why you think that would be the case. See Toth v. Quarles. On the other hand, if you are justifying it by saying that's what other countries would do, that isn't really what we are about. The Saudis cut off hands for shoplifting; the Chinese just shoot people, yet we do not. Yes, we are supposed to do different. Much different. I am shocked that you are trying to defend this thing. There is no justification for it other than pure politics, courtesy of Rahm Emanuel. Just because it is "less unfair" than the fake commission system set up by Bush doesn't make it legitimate and it flies directly in the face of the moral, principled and legal stand the President took as a candidate against secret trials by commission.

[DefenseLawyer]

11. You seem to be confusing military trials under the Uniform Code

with these military commissions. The Abu Ghraib torturers were not tried by tribunal. And they are planning to hold the trials at Gitmo, according to what was just reported. So you are blurring together two totally different things in order to justify the complete abandonment of the principle of the rule of law. But hey, it's not like the President said "As president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions... Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists ... Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary." Oh that's right, the President didn't say that; the candidate said that.

[sandnsea]

12. No and no

They are not holding the trials at Gitmo, they're holding them in Illinois. They are not creating new tribunals, they are holding them under the same framework as the UCMJ an Geneva Conventions.

These are not Bush's tribunals. I don't care how many times some "respected authority" says so.

[Winterblues]

16. You don't remember the Big Speech Obama gave on Civilian Trials

for these people and how it would be seen by the rest of the world. He did not stutter and was very precise about how safe it would be and how no prisoner had ever escaped from a maximum security federal prison and how over three hundrd terrorists had been tried in Civilian courts and were still in prison and how ONLY three terrorist had been tried in military tribunal and two of those three were out and back in terrorist units. Then republicans complained and Obama reversed himself without any logical explanation..

[EFerrari]

8. Not to mention, the record is more convictions in civilian courts. n/t

[katandmoon]

3. I would expect no less.

[EFerrari]

7. I had a feeling this would happen while watching Leon Panetta's

confirmation hearing.

[Echo In Light]

13. Bump

[Solly Mack]

14. Thanks for posting this

[Echo In Light]

15. Bump

[Dinger]

17. Hope and Change? Fuck That (nt)