If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)
(newsgroups trimmed way down)
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote, in us.military.army: "Paul J. Adam" wrote: :What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion :change if you were the defendant? Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They just want to get off. Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-) This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to the skies? Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law, every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us. Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced. Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death. My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best, limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong, all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair' anything. You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military court handed down a death penalty. Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome, all trials must be fair if justice is to be served. It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation. But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made by our government to do everything in secret behind closed doors. No offense intended to the US military justice system, but I think it was a bad call. YMMV. Henrietta K. Thomas Chicago, Illinois |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
wrote: Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law, every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us. You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot them out of hand? BTW, are you aware that the rules covering these trials are copied almost verbatim from the rules for US military courts-martial? It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation. FYI, the defendant has fewer rights under a tribunal than those given to the prisoners at gitmo. Also, the judges on a UN tribunal would vote the way their governments told them to. But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made by our government to do everything in secret behind closed doors. No offense intended to the US military justice system, but I think it was a bad call. OK, then what is you solution to the problem of providing a fair trial while protecting US military secrets? I can just see the result of the US saying to a UN tribunal: "What we are about to tell you is Top Secret so please promise not to tell your governments about US military and intelligence capabilities." -- In every generation the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America because we are freedom's home and defender. The commitment of our fathers is not the challenge of our time. President George W Bush - Sept 14, 2001 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . ..
You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot them out of hand? I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same respect for the principles of international law most of the past century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all. Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here. Rob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
:The US government has shown the same
:respect for the principles of international law most of the past :century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all. International Law is a concept not a reality. Law implies someone enforces behavior and punishes misbehavior as directed by the law. There is no international enforcement, nor international legislative or adjudication bodies. The UN is a meeting of ambassadors who can purpose treaties which member nations can accept or reject. Imagine a community with a written set of suggestions for proper behavior, but no courts, police or judges....... Thats 'international law'. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob van Riel" wrote in message om... Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . .. You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot them out of hand? I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same respect for the principles of international law most of the past century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all. Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here. Rob Rob, You are incorrect, once the Twin towers came down the US was at war and as such has the right to self defense. We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those who gave them aid and comfort. Nuff said Jim |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:
We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those who gave them aid and comfort. I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed their country and buildings. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Watt" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote: We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those who gave them aid and comfort. I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed their country and buildings. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com Unfortunatly they had the wrong leader... I doubt soviets like Stalin, Some Germans I understand disliked the Bavarian corpural too. and I doubt they enjoyed Sherman tanks crossing the rhine or B17 flying over Berlin. War sucks. Jim |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Watt wrote:
:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote: : :We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those :who gave them aid and comfort. : :I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed :their country and buildings. Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
After reviewing Paragraph 5 pf the OPORD of Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39
GMT, Henrietta K Thomas exclaimed: (newsgroups trimmed way down) On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote, in us.military.army: "Paul J. Adam" wrote: :What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion :change if you were the defendant? Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They just want to get off. Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-) This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to the skies? Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law, every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us. Under international law, huh? Maybe you could point out which agreements constitute the laws in this case? Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced. Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death. My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best, limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong, all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair' anything. Your understanding is based on what? You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military court handed down a death penalty. Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome, all trials must be fair if justice is to be served. ....and you have this basis for thinking that they aren't or may not be: ...... It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation. But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made by our government to do everything in secret behind closed doors. No offense intended to the US military justice system, but I think it was a bad call. Show me "in secret behind closed doors." -- Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever. SPC Robert White 31U, OKARNG HHC 45th eSB Thunderbirds! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |