|
07 Aug 08 - 04:11 PM (#2407843) Subject: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: dick greenhaus Well, after 7 years, it seems nobody--least of all justice--prevails. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 04:19 PM (#2407854) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: CarolC I hope they appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. Not because I necessarily think he's innocent, but because I believe in the rule of law, and I'd like to see it applied to the people who are conducting that kangaroo court. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 04:26 PM (#2407858) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Kangaroo court is my reaction as well. Unless the evidence is made public (minus critical security data), and a defense is allowed to call its own witnesses, it is a travesty of justice. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 04:26 PM (#2407859) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Emma B 'The six jurors, whose names are secret, convicted Hamdan yesterday on charges of providing material support for terrorism by working as a driver and occasional armed bodyguard and weapons courier for bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1996 to November 2001. They sentenced Hamdan, who is about 40, to serve five and a half years in prison. He has already spent six years at Guantanamo. Defence lawyer Charles Swift said Hamdan never shared bin Laden's ideology and was merely a paid driver ridiculed by al-Qaeda insiders as "a simple Bedouin who changed the oil." From Irish Times.com |
|
07 Aug 08 - 04:40 PM (#2407871) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Bobert CarolC beat me to it... |
|
07 Aug 08 - 04:51 PM (#2407878) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Peace I don't know what it is, but I do know that if justice IS the result it will be by coincidence at best. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 04:57 PM (#2407884) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Only five months to go. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 06:13 PM (#2407940) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Little Hawk Sounds to me like they owe him half a year now, even on their own sad notion of "justice". |
|
07 Aug 08 - 06:21 PM (#2407942) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I don't think they would release him even if they could still be in power when his sentence is up. They would still say he is an "enemy combatant" and too dangeroust to let go. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 06:46 PM (#2407962) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: McGrath of Harlow He'd probably be better serving another five months, because by that time Bush will be out of the picture. A bit less likelihood of being released into the custody of people who will disappear him... |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:30 PM (#2407987) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Seven years to investigate, and they have managed to railroad one very minor hanger-on. PATHETIC!! If they can't find one genuinely guilty man in that time, their methods might just need revising. Maybe they should pack up and go home, and leave the detection and prosecution of criminals to those who know SOMETHING about it. Don T. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:39 PM (#2407999) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: McGrath of Harlow When you have relied on torture to assemble a mixture of information and misinformation it gets very embarrassing holding any kind of trial, even with a house-trained "court". |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:54 PM (#2408012) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: John O'L This is what it was all about people. After 9/11 they had to be shown what would happen if they wanted to play by those rules and boy oh boy have we ever shown them. Bet they'll think twice about their tactics now. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:56 PM (#2408016) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Teribus Absolutely correct, permit appeal, after appeal until the verdict that is desired is delivered - That is "our" code of justice. Tell you what folks, thank your lucky stars its none of you relying on theirs, your head would have parted company with your shoulders in some sorid video long time since. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:02 PM (#2408020) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: DougR Carol C, and folks of like thinking still think of attacks by terrorists as "police actions." They are not, they are acts of terrorism by groups that represent no particular country. Perhaps, in the future, the policy on battlefields should be to take no prisoners. That way there would be no question at all as to what will and what will not be handled by the courts. Just a thought. DougR |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:06 PM (#2408024) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Emma B Sure did! In a 43-page opinion in 2008, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:11 PM (#2408028) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Emma B Der Untermensch? |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:22 PM (#2408040) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>Carol C, and folks of like thinking still think of attacks by terrorists as "police actions." They are not, they are acts of terrorism by groups that represent no particular country. Perhaps, in the future, the policy on battlefields should be to take no prisoners. That way there would be no question at all as to what will and what will not be handled by the courts.<< It doesn't matter what you call it Doug. Right is right and the law is the law. Brave people don't stoop to their level. When we stick to our values we are better than them. If order our soldiers to commit war crimes then all those brave people in the Greatest Generation dies for nothing. I would rather take the small chance of being killed in a terrorist attack than have the government piss all over the Constitution to keep me safe. The constitution says that ALL MEN are created equal with certain inalienable rights. Perhaps in future the policy on the battlefield should be to uphold American values and abide by treaty obligations. Bush broke his vow to uphold the Constitution of United States of America. He can't throw out the constitution because he is scared. I'd rather give everyone the basic human right to a fair trial and see the occasional terrorist go free than to stoop to murder, torture and kangaroo courts to make myself a little safer. The decider certainly has made a deal with the Devil, and a bad one at that. It leaves me with one question. Why do you conservatives hate America? ;-) |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:24 PM (#2408042) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor correction If The President continues to order our soldiers to commit war crimes then all those brave people in the Greatest Generation died for nothing. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:27 PM (#2408043) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Emma B ,The sub human that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it.' from a pamphlet distributed by The Race and Settlement Head Office in 1942 |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:29 PM (#2408045) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: CarolC Yeah... we could just kill them all, including any future terrorists while they're still children. Or even better, while they're still in utero. Or even better than that, we could just kill all the women - then there would be no babies to grow up into future terrorists. Yeah... that's it. Let's kill all the women because they are aiding and abetting the enemy by giving birth to them. That's the ticket! (But no abortions, because that would be wrong... ) |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:31 PM (#2408047) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Peace "Perhaps, in the future, the policy on battlefields should be to take no prisoners. That way there would be no question at all as to what will and what will not be handled by the courts." Plead your next traffic violation in Guantanamo. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:45 PM (#2408057) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: heric The numbers I read are that 780 of these hard core terrorists had to be sent there, but most were just released. 270 remain, with twenty of those having war crimes charges finally brought against them, with maybe 60 or 80 of those to face trial. And they brought down the chauffer, eh? Makes me want to buy one of those little party horns and a paper party hat. Thank you Neocon Team!! |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:59 PM (#2408061) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Peace I hope I never get you pissed off at me. GOOD POST! |
|
07 Aug 08 - 09:11 PM (#2408069) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: heric If you were ever to accept an appointment to President of the United States knowing full well you were not up to the task, THEN I could even get mad at you, too. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 09:32 PM (#2408085) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: pdq "The numbers I read are that 780 of these hard core terrorists had to be sent there, but most were just released. 270 remain, with twenty of those having war crimes charges finally brought against them, with maybe 60 or 80 of those to face trial." Well, perhaps if we calm down a bit we will see that the process is working and working as well as can ever be expected. If we accept the numbers given above, we shoiuld note that about 500 detainees of the original 780 we grunt soldiers of the Teliban who weere brought to Guantanamo from Afghanistan. They were of no value for intelligence purposes, justbgrut foot soldiers. They were in safe keeping because the victorious force in their home country would have killed them and done it by the most grotesque means know to man. That is a part of Afghanistan's history. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 09:40 PM (#2408089) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: heric Do we know that? "Worst of the worst" was just hot air from Rumsfeld? |
|
07 Aug 08 - 09:43 PM (#2408092) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: dick greenhaus pdq- If you consider holding people in jail fo seven years without a trial as working, you have a very different idea of what orks than I do. And Doug R.-- What battlefield were these guys captured on? And Teribus-"Tell you what folks, thank your lucky stars its none of you relying on theirs, your head would have parted company with your shoulders in some sorid video long time since." That's the whole point--we're supposed to rely on our system, NOT theirs. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 09:50 PM (#2408096) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Emma B A view from the UK ..... 'After seeking 30 years in prison for Hamdan, in a military tribunal, before a military jury, and in a trial where many rights normally afforded defendants in a civilian court were greatly curtailed, the five and a half year sentence was nothing short of a disaster for the Bush administration. It now finds itself in the unattractive position - in the eyes of civil libertarians and much of the international community at least - of refusing to release Hamdan even after he completes his sentence. He is eligible for release in just five months, but the White House has made clear for months that whatever happened to Hamdan, he would still be held indefinitely because of his classification as an "unlawful enemy combatant". The six-member jury of military officers had already made clear that they were not there to do the prosecution's bidding when they acquitted Hamdan on Wednesday of the more serious charge of conspiring to attack civilians, finding him guilty instead on the lesser charge of providing support to al-Qaeda He was arrested at a road block in Afghanistan in November 2001, with two surface-to-air missiles in his car.' From Times Online august 8th |
|
07 Aug 08 - 10:02 PM (#2408100) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: pdq The grunt soldiers of the Taliban were in something appraoching "protective custody". No trial was ever called for is their cases. These people were carefully identified, interviewed and relocated. They are is the safest countries we could find where they would be accepted. The remaining 270 include "the worst of the worst" such as "Chemical Ali", Saddam's master of nerve gas against the Kurds. The term "go to trial" and "adjudicated" may be slightly different, and I leave that to tha lawyers here to explain, but people like Jose Padilla and other have had court hearings and they have had good legal council. The Guantanamo detainees names have always been a matter of public record and the proceedings are as transparent as can be expected. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 10:15 PM (#2408104) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Peace The US is NOT alone in this! |
|
07 Aug 08 - 10:28 PM (#2408106) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: CarolC They also include people who haven't done anything wrong and who were sold to the US government by dishonest people for the money our government was giving out as bounty. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=113115&messages=1 |
|
07 Aug 08 - 10:32 PM (#2408108) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Richard Bridge I wonder just how long Hamdan would have survived had he refused to carry those missiles in the car. The Guantanamo Bay process contaminates the USA. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 10:34 PM (#2408110) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Emma B 'Questioned at gunpoint, shackled, forced to pose naked. British detainees tell their stories of Guantánamo Bay' The US is not alone in this either |
|
07 Aug 08 - 11:25 PM (#2408135) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor They are going to keep him in jail. Olbermann's take. |
|
08 Aug 08 - 03:27 AM (#2408201) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Barry Finn And then there were the imprisoned childen, who's the terrorist here? Barry |
|
08 Aug 08 - 05:48 AM (#2408264) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it.'"" That accurate a description as early as 1942? And George Bush wasn't even BORN then! Don T. |
|
08 Aug 08 - 07:19 AM (#2408294) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: kendall And he has the balls to preach human rights to the Chinese government. Every time his mug appears on tv and starts spouting his idiotic drivel, I want to cover my head with a bag.He's a walking embarrassment. |
|
08 Aug 08 - 06:25 PM (#2408869) Subject: RE: BS: First Gitmo 'trial'- any reactions? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Caught him at the opening today, slouched in his seat with his jacket off using a pair of binoculars, probably sorting out targets for the next black ops session (he actually had 'em right way round, the brain cell must be back from the laundry). Don T. |
