Guantanamo judge drops charges against Khadr

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Actually I've supported the SCOTUS and the Legislature, as well as, the Geveva Conventions, it's you who wants to ignore all three of those things. Unlawful Combatant status has Jurisprudence that dates back to WW2 so whose the one that's been arguing against the American judicial system?

Nice try. But you're not re-writing history on my watch. You didn't support SCOTUS when you were arguing in favor of the MCA. And you certainly did not support the GC when you were arguing for torture technique's to be used in interrogations. And you certainly did not support the GC or any jurisprudence when you were arguing in favor of GITMO.

Sorry dude. You can't have it both ways.

BTW, my knowledge (or lack of) in regards to when, or how long, the term "Unlawful Combatant" has been in existance, has nothing to do with my overall views on our judicial system.

You're slippin'...

One more thing, there are no unlawful combatants at GITMO.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Nice try. But you're not re-writing history on my watch. You didn't support SCOTUS when you were arguing in favor of the MCA.

Actually I was the MCA came about due to the Hamdan decision, military commissions are the legally constituted courts called for in article 3 of the 4th GC.

And you certainly did not support the GC when you were arguing for torture technique's to be used in interrogations.

Actually I was namely article 4 of the 3rd GC and I don't support torture I support coercive interrogations in a ticking time bomb situation.

And you certainly did not support the GC or any jurisprudence when you were arguing in favor of GITMO.

What exactly does the GC have to do with Gitmo? How does it violate the GC exactly?

Sorry dude. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not asking to it's you who wants us to ignore the GC and grant its protections to those who cleary are not entitled to them.

BTW, my knowledge (or lack of) in regards to when, or how long, the term "Unlawful Combatant" has been in existance, has nothing to do with my overall views on our judicial system.

You're slippin'...

One more thing, there are no unlawful combatants at GITMO.

Actually there a numerous unlawful combatants at GITMO.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Actually I was the MCA came about due to the Hamdan decision, military commissions are the legally constituted courts called for in article 3 of the 4th GC.

You were the MCA? You lost me there. Military commissions are Bush's way to get around due process of law. The Hamdan decision was SCOTUS saying the inmates at GITMO have GC rights. By arguing in favor of the MCA, you are arguing against the GC and this country's judicial system. Because it is a separate tier system. With no Supreme Court oversight. And that, makes it un-Constitutional.

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Actually I was namely article 4 of the 3rd GC and I don't support torture I support coercive interrogations in a ticking time bomb situation.

There's no such thing as "coercive interrogations". That's a newage term to mask the fact that we are torturing people. It was created by Gonzales and his bunch to shield Adminstration officials from prosecution.

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
What exactly does the GC have to do with Gitmo? How does it violate the GC exactly?

GC states that people in custody have a right to a hearing in front of a compentant judicial body. That is not what the commissions are. Why the hell would you ask that question when Hamden had to go to court just to get GC rights?

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
I'm not asking to it's you who wants us to ignore the GC and grant its protections to those who cleary are not entitled to them.

Everyone deserves GC rights. And how do you know someone is not entitled to them before they go through due process of law? Just because they are accused of something, does not mean they did it. 145 people have been released from GITMO that never had charges filed against them. You don't see something wrong with that picture? I say, charge them and put them through a trial. Find out who they are, then decide what to do with them.

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Actually there a numerous unlawful combatants at GITMO.

Guess again. That's the reason charges were dropped.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You were the MCA?

"Actually I was, the MCA"

You lost me there. Military commissions are Bush's way to get around due process of law.

The Hamdan decision was SCOTUS saying the inmates at GITMO have GC rights.

article 3 rights not article 4 rights IE they have the right to be tried by regularly constituted courts which the military commissions became as soon as the MCA was passed by congress.

By arguing in favor of the MCA, you are arguing against the GC and this country's judicial system.

No I'm not.

Because it is a separate tier system. With no Supreme Court oversight. And that, makes it un-Constitutional.

No they are not, you need to learn the difference between orginal and appelate jurisdiction, the original jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is determined in article 3 but article 3 also states that their appelate jurisdiction is whatever the Congress says it is:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

There's no such thing as "coercive interrogations". That's a newage term to mask the fact that we are torturing people. It was created by Gonzales and his bunch to shield Adminstration officials from prosecution.

GC states that people in custody have a right to a hearing in front of a compentant judicial body. That is not what the commissions are. Why the hell would you ask that question when Hamden had to go to court just to get GC rights?

Actually the exact phrasing of article 3 is "regularly constituted courts," and with the passing of the MCA that is exactly what the military commissions are.

Everyone deserves GC rights.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so, article 4 is quite clear of who is and who is not entitled to POW status, by I suppose you're technically right as all detainees have article 3 of the 4th GC protections.

And how do you know someone is not entitled to them before they go through due process of law?

They must be certified as unlawful or lawful combatants by military tribunal.

Just because they are accused of something, does not mean they did it.

That's why they must be certified as unlawful combatants by military tribunal and then they recieve a trial by military commission under pretty much the same guide lines as our own soldiers recieve during a court martial.

145 people have been released from GITMO that never had charges filed against them.

Ya and?

You don't see something wrong with that picture?

No I see it as proof that the system works if there is no cause to hold them then that will be determined by the military tribunals and they will be set free.

I say, charge them and put them through a trial. Find out who they are, then decide what to do with them.

They are charged as unlawful combatants and recieve a trial by military commission in line with the Hamdan and ex parte quirin decisions of the SCOTUS, as well as, article 3 of the 4th G.C..

Guess again. That's the reason charges were dropped.

Charges have been dropped against all of the detainees? That's a new one.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
"Actually I was, the MCA"

M-C-A, T-O-T, M-O-U-S-E

WTF is this, a spelling B?

Okay, fine, be the MCA.

No Unlawful Enemy Combatants at Guantánamo
by Prof. Marjorie Cohn Global Research, June 6, 2007
Jurist. Legal News and Research

George W. Bush lost no time establishing military commissions to try the very "worst of the worst" for war crimes. But four and a half years later, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that those commissions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. So Bush dusted them off, made a few changes, and rammed his new improved military commissions through the Republican Congress last fall.

Only three detainees have been brought before the new commissions. One would expect the people Bush & Co. singled out for war crimes prosecutions would be high-level al-Qaeda leaders. But they weren't. The first was David Hicks, who was evidently not so dangerous. The U.S. military made a deal that garnered Hicks a misdemeanor sentence and sent him back to Australia.

Salem Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who used to be Osama bin Laden's chauffeur, was the second. Hamdan, whose case had been overturned by the Supreme Court, was finally brought before a military commission Monday for arraignment on charges of conspiracy and material support for terrorism.

The third defendant was Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, who appeared for arraignment the same day as Hamdan. Khadr was 15 years old when he arrived at Guantánamo. He faced charges of conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, spying, and supporting terrorism.

On Monday, much to Bush's dismay, two different military judges dismissed both Hamdan's and Khadr's cases on procedural grounds.

The Military Commissions Act that Congress passed last year says the military commissions have jurisdiction to try offenses committed by alien unlawful enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants are defined as (1) people who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its allies; or (2) people who have been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) or another competent tribunal. The Act says that a determination of unlawful enemy combatant status by a CSRT or another competent tribunal is dispositive.

But there are no "unlawful" enemy combatants at Guantánamo. There are only men who have been determined to be "enemy combatants" by the CSRTs. The Act declares that military commissions "shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants." In its haste to launch post-Hamdan military commissions, Bush's legal eagles didn't notice this discrepancy. That is why the charges were dismissed.

The Bush administration may try to fix the procedural problem and retry Khadr and Hamdan. But regardless of whether Guantánamo detainees are lawful or unlawful enemy combatants, the Bush administration's treatment of them violates the Geneva Conventions. Lawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by the Third Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. Unlawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by Common Article Three.

It's nice to see we can disagree and still maintain a conversation without all the complimentary FU's.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

M-C-A, T-O-T, M-O-U-S-E

WTF is this, a spelling B?

Okay, fine, be the MCA.

It's nice to see we can disagree and still maintain a conversation without all the complimentary FU's.

Then if there are no unlawful combatants then none of them will be tried by military commission so what's your problem?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Then if there are no unlawful combatants then none of them will be tried by military commission so what's your problem?

My front brake pads are squeaking.

 

[Rahul]

No, that wouldn't be a better question,

Of course it would. It is related to the OP unlike your question.

mostly because I didn't claim that.

So, do you support the detainees being held without access to legal help (until now) at Gitmo?

 

[RightinNYC]

Of course it would. It is related to the OP unlike your question.

It goes directly to your credibility, as I'm questioning a claim you made. I'll take your repeated refusal to answer the question as an acknowledgment that you were wrong, so we can move on from there.

So, do you support the detainees being held without access to legal help (until now) at Gitmo?

As a matter of policy? Not particularly. Do I think it's legally tenable? For the most part.

 

[oldreliable67]

It isn't my problem if you choose not to believe them.

It is your problem, a very definite credibility problem, if you offer opinions and assertions and then claim them as proof. It don't work that way.

 

[oldreliable67]

We should absolutely hold ourselves to the highest of standards: "coercive interrogations" are one thing, torture is something else entirely. For a little perspective on what is and what ain't torture, try this note from The Smoking Gun on for size:

MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here. The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors. In a raid earlier this week, Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses. Photos showing injuries sustained by those captives can be found here. (12 pages)

Follow the links to the photos and docs see what torture really is.

 

[oldreliable67]

Former NY Mayor Ed Koch has always spoken his mind about things. Here he bemoans the state of the NY Times. One of his gripes is their editorial about Gitmo:

The New York Times is special to me. It always has been, and it always will be. Over the years there were times when I was critical of The Times editorials, and on few occasions of its news stories. Yet, my day would not be complete if I had not read The Times.
[...]
So, the criticisms of The Times that follow are written in sorrow, not joy and are intended to help, not harass.

When I read the Times editorial page on June 6th, I was deeply disappointed. Why? Because on one day, in the same issue, three of the four Times editorials struck me as mean-spirited, lacking balance and just plain dumb.

The first editorial, entitled “Gitmo: A National Disgrace,” berates President Bush for “ramm[ing] the Military Commission Act of 2000 through Congress to lend a pretense of legality to his detention camp at Guantanamo Bay…” The language “pretense of legality” is outrageous, considering that the US Supreme Court in an earlier decision advised the Congress that it had the right to create military commissions to deal with “unlawful enemy combatants,” those who don’t wear uniforms on the battlefield and carry concealed weapons. “Lawful combatants (who wear uniforms and carry weapons openly) fall under the Geneva Conventions.”
Pray tell, what is wrong with Congress and the president making that distinction when it comes to trials? Further, hasn’t the military commission proved its fairness by the very fact that it dismissed the cases of the first two defendants brought before it, finding they were not “unlawful enemy combatants?” Instead of assaulting the military tribunal as it did, shouldn’t The Times have praised its fairness? Of course, but The Times is so blinded by its fury on the Iraq war and its hatred of President Bush that its editorial board can’t think straight on these issues. The Times wants the Guantanamo Bay military prison closed. Isn’t that senseless? Wouldn’t a new prison for these alleged terrorists have to be built to hold them pending their trials?

The military commission and conditions at Guantanamo have been in American courts, with appeals going as high as the US Supreme Court. As far as I know, the president has obeyed every court order on the subject. But nothing will satisfy The Times on the war in Iraq or the continued leadership of President Bush, other than the immediate end of the war and the end of the president’s tenure. How does The Times explain the fact that a Democrat-controlled Congress has not seen fit to end the military tribunals and the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay prison? Are they all wrong and only The Times’ editorial board right? The Times simply will not accept the fact that we are at war and millions of Islamic fundamentalists believe it is their religious duty to kill every Hindu, Christian, Jew and other Muslim with whom they disagree on aspects of their shared religion. Wake up, New York Times. We are at war.

He addressed other topics re: the NYT as well. Read the whole thing here.

 

[RightinNYC]

Former NY Mayor Ed Koch has always spoken his mind about things. Here he bemoans the state of the NY Times. One of his gripes is their editorial about Gitmo:



He addressed other topics re: the NYT as well. Read the whole thing here.

Ed Koch is an awesome guy.

 

[Rahul]

As a matter of policy? Not particularly.

Exactly my point.

Do I think it's legally tenable? For the most part.

Its only "legal" in some people's minds.

It is your problem, a very definite credibility problem, if you offer opinions and assertions and then claim them as proof. It don't work that way.

Opinions? Opinions are what everyone has. It is just that mine were backed up by proof.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Opinions? Opinions are what everyone has.

Ya but I got law and the most you got is a statement to the fact that you don't like the law, but I figure you'de like that a whole fuqofalot more than my jurisprudence which involves these miserable kunts gettin fed to the pigs' . . . you gotta rip the teeth and the hair out first for the sake of the pigs digestion, ofcouse you could leave it on but you don't want be shiftin through pig sh!t now do ya? They go through bone like butter.

 

[Rahul]

Ya but I got law and the most you got is a statement to the fact that you don't like the law, but I figure you'de like that a whole fuqofalot more than my jurisprudence which involves these miserable kunts gettin fed to the pigs' . . . you gotta rip the teeth and the hair out first for the sake of the pigs digestion, ofcouse you could leave it on but you don't want be shiftin through pig sh!t now do ya? They go through bone like butter.

I am not sure why you are engaging in making idiotic statements, insults and slur mongering. Do you have anything at all left to offer to the debate?

 

[RightinNYC]

Its only "legal" in some people's minds.

And it just so happens that many of those people are judges.:lol:

Opinions? Opinions are what everyone has. It is just that mine were backed up by proof.

You mean like when you claimed that the SG of the UN had the legal authority to declare what we were doing illegal? You still haven't provided any proof for that claim.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightinNYU:
You mean like when you claimed that the SG of the UN had the legal authority to declare what we were doing illegal? You still haven't provided any proof for that claim.

He is an expert on the UN's position towards an issue of International Law and can indicate whether an action by a member state is in violation of that law. Officially, it is the UNSC that makes those calls.

To say the the UN does not have authority over the US is moot. We ARE part of the UN. We hold "veto" rights over any resolution. So it is silly to suggest we don't have authority over ourselves. Maybe the US citizens, but not the US goverment.

 

[RightinNYC]

He is an expert on the UN's position towards an issue of International Law and can indicate whether an action by a member state is in violation of that law. Officially, it is the UNSC that makes those calls.

To say the the UN does not have authority over the US is moot. We ARE part of the UN. We hold "veto" rights over any resolution. So it is silly to suggest we don't have authority over ourselves. Maybe the US citizens, but not the US goverment.

No, the UNSG can express an opinion. That's it. He has absolutely no authority to declare anything illegal.

Edit: Generally if you want to claim someone is an "expert" on a legal issue, you should make sure the person went to law school first. (Annan didn't)

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightinNYU:
No, the UNSG can express an opinion. That's it. He has absolutely no authority to declare anything illegal.

Edit: Generally if you want to claim someone is an "expert" on a legal issue, you should make sure the person went to law school first. (Annan didn't)

I didn't say he had the authority to declare something illegal. I said he would know the UN's position on a particular issue or if some country's action was in concert with the UN's mission statement. Are you saying that someone who knows enough to become the president of an organization is not a good source to ask regarding that organization?

He didn't have to go to law school to know UN. Do you think Danial Stern doesn't know anything about the NBA? Did you think Lee Iaccoca had to build a car to know about Chrysler?

I'll say this, Annan is a better source than YOU ARE regarding the UN's position on international law. And if you ever become the SG of the UN, I will retract that statement.

 

[RightinNYC]

I didn't say he had the authority to declare something illegal. I said he would know the UN's position on a particular issue or if some country's action was in concert with the UN's mission statement. Are you saying that someone who knows enough to become the president of an organization is not a good source to ask regarding that organization?

The fact that he's the SG doesn't mean that he gets to declare what the official UN policy is and whether something violates it.

He didn't have to go to law school to know UN. Do you think Danial Stern doesn't know anything about the NBA? Did you think Lee Iaccoca had to build a car to know about Chrysler?

Do you think that David Stern knows how to handle litigation matters from when a player punches a ref? Do you think Lee Iaccoca knows how to make sure the SEC filings are completed properly?

The fact that someone runs an organization doesn't mean that they know everything about all parts of it. If Lee Iaccoca tried to tell me that some new thing that Ford was doing was in violation of a Chrysler patent, I wouldn't take his word for it, I'd ask an IP lawyer.

I'll say this, Annan is a better source than YOU ARE regarding the UN's position on international law.

No, Annan is a better source than I regarding his own personal opinion on the legality of the invasion. Annan has the exact same authority as I do to declare it illegal, or deem that it violates the "official UN position."