Obama Defies Congress, Brings Bin Laden Son in Law to NY

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
42

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Talk about a terrorist recruiting tool.

[/quote]

This is a thoroughly fatigued tactic of delusion. Good thing the US military didn’t buy into this in the Pacific Campaign in WWII. We’d have never made it past Guadalcanal in the fear that more Japanese would be recruited to resist the Yankees on their way to Nippon.
[/quote]

Look at what I was responding to and tell me if you think it’d be just fine.

Not that it really matters, I’m not for due process because of how it looks to terrorists. I’m for it because how it looks to us.[/quote]

That makes no sense. You brought up “terrorist recruiting tool,” not me.[/quote]

Fair enough, for the record it was a throwaway line in response to what I think was a joke.

I don’t care what terrorists think of us. Not at all. I want due process for due process’ sake.

43

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal…

[/quote]

Sorry, Jack, this doesn’t wash. If it did every Nazi or Japanese or North Korean or North Vietnamese or Iraqi civilian spy captured on or near the battlefront, for instance, would’ve had to have been dragged across the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans to stand trial in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

It doesn’t work that way and never has.

Whether or not al Qaeda signed the Geneva Convention or not is irrelevant.

We’ve been over this many times here and a national consensus backed by court decisions, for the most part, has been established. Let it go, your argument has no traction and will not gain any unless the Bam Admin does stupid things like this to re-enable it.
[/quote]

Whatever “forum” a person is tried in has to comply with basic fairness standards–another name for due process–and I think this is especially important for persons charge with serious and heinous crimes…

[/quote]

The implicit message in your post is that military tribunals do not comply with basic fairness standards/due process. That is strange and a brand new concept to our legal system.

It would also cast a huge shadow on all military trials that have gone on for generations. What new nugget of revelation that you’ve panned in your Utopia Creek can you show us?[/quote]

That’s not what I’m saying,

[/quote]

That’s what you implied. Read your post.

Now I know you were implying because you outright state it here.

Why does Gitmo not meet the standards? Where in American history have military tribunals consistently been open?

I’m saying you don’t know that it doesn’t.

If you think you do please reveal why.

I see. It must be all about “convenience.” OK.

Bin Laden’s son and I have little in common just like my granddad and Hermann Goring. Your analogy is hopelessly flawed. As is your logic on this subject.
[/quote]

A fair tribunal is a fair tribunal regardless of who you are, and the more serious the charge the more fairness needs to be assured. Fuck, even most of the Nazi’s got open trials with procedural protections.

Also, many of the Gitmo detainees have been incarcerated for over a decade now without a trial, and that in-and-of-itself is a violation of fundamental fairness and due process. Now, it appears that the CIA is controlling the show not the judge there, although it is difficult to get any real news on the issue for this very reason. My concerns are: (1) eves-dropping on attorney-client information; (2) lack of evidentiary standards; (3) admission of evidence procured by torture; (4) unfair lack of disclosure of material exculpatory evidence (like Brady material); and (5) lack of meaningful cross-examination and confrontation of prosecutorial witnesses and evidence. Although I’ll agree that I don’t have a great handle on what’s going on down there precisely because of the closed and Kafka-esque nature of the proceeding.

44

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Also, shit like this is exactly what I don’t want to have happen to the 9/11 terrorists, i.e., having their convictions overturned:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-verdict-reversals-guantanamo-trials-012713/[/quote]

This too is strange. Apparently now you are opposed to due process.

Why do you flip? Why do you flop? Take a side and stick with it.[/quote]

No, I’m happy they have some appellate rights, but I suspect the current trial going on will get tossed because it fails to comply with basic fairness and we will be back to square one. There is simply no good reason for this circus.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/17-2

45

Push, serious question, why do you think Gitmo is a good idea?

46

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage. [/quote]

A reasoned response if one accepts your premise that these people are simply civilian criminals. I simply do not accept your premise. They are so much more than “civilian criminals” and I believe history has settled this discussion.

Either way, what particularly concerns me about this is the handling of information within the different venues. As the article pointed out, he can simply plead the fifth. More concerning to me, since he has to be provided access to ALL evidence against him there is a great possibility of exposing intelligence secrets and sources. Civilian courts are in no way designed to deal with such intricacies involving informational gathering and other aspects of national security.

47

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Either way, what particularly concerns me about this is the handling of information within the different venues. As the article pointed out, he can simply plead the fifth. More concerning to me, since he has to be provided access to ALL evidence against him there is a great possibility of exposing intelligence secrets and sources. Civilian courts are in no way designed to deal with such intricacies involving informational gathering and other aspects of national security. [/quote]

This is a legitimate concern, but it isn’t exactly accurate. There are specialized civilian courts that deal with national security issues like the FISA warrants that are staffed by Article III judges that are also subject to national-security clearances and procedures. Also, cases that involve national security issues come before federal civilian courts regularly, and, if necessary, all or a portion of the case can be sealed.

I think the question you are getting at is whether due process requires disclosing exculpatory evidence that might also be a national-security secret or expose a secret source. This issue is present regardless of venue. The problems that arise with this don’t disappear by changing venue, unless you are just willing to say disclosing exculpatory evidence isn’t a component of due process. I’d disagree with this, but again, this isn’t a question of forum, its a question of the basic requirements of fairness.

49

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You do not want the collective stupidity of the uninformed public deciding the fate of people highly responsible for terrorism. [/quote]

Yeah you want them to research all they possibly can about the case BEFORE it begins so that way they know the verdict going in…that’s how it works right?

They’re probably getting that high federal minimum wage in San Francisco.

50

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You do not want the collective stupidity of the uninformed public deciding the fate of people highly responsible for terrorism. [/quote]

Yeah you want them to research all they possibly can about the case BEFORE it begins so that way they know the verdict going in…that’s how it works right?

They’re probably getting that high federal minimum wage in San Francisco. [/quote]

You on your rag again ?

51

jjackrash, puzzle me this…

While not completely thought through, this scenario keeps coming to mind. What is to keep (or is there any avenue) the Blink Sheik from perusing a retrial in a civilian court. After all, could his legal team not make the case that he was not afforded a fair and impartial trial and should be afforded all the protections of the Bill of Rights?

52

[quote]JEATON wrote:
jjackrash, puzzle me this…

While not completely thought through, this scenario keeps coming to mind. What is to keep (or is there any avenue) the Blink Sheik from perusing a retrial in a civilian court. After all, could his legal team not make the case that he was not afforded a fair and impartial trial and should be afforded all the protections of the Bill of Rights? [/quote]

The remedy for a bad trial is tough to assess under these circumstances because its never-never land. They are making up rules as they go along from what I can tell, which is one of the problems. If I were their lawyer I’d be screaming that they have had 12 years already to get them a good trial in the proper court and the remedy is dismissal with jeopardy attaching. But those are consequences too hideous too imagine so I don’t think that will happen. And I don’t know how jeopardy even works or if they have double-jeopardy rights. I mean what rights do they have and what rights don’t they have in this proceeding? That’s really the problem, just what, exactly are their rights? How can you tell if rights are violated when they aren’t really defined? They are entitled to basic “minimum” rights, but its hard to say what that means when the rules are not clearly defined.

I suppose a new trial in civilian court is another possible remedy. Or it could be a new trial with an order for better procedures. I think alot will depend on the actual record that is developed and how bad the actual trial looks when its over. When all is said and done if the record looks like it was close to a fair trial that will probably be it and whatever judgment is rendered will stand. Or if there is some basic unfairness but it looks like it can be fixed on retrial with instructions that might be a remedy as well. There is so little information coming out of Gitmo right now I really can’t even venture to guess what the actual record looks like.

Its just such a clusterfuck and an unnecessary one in my opinion–who knows what will happen when all is said and done.

53

[quote]JEATON wrote:
jjackrash, puzzle me this…

While not completely thought through, this scenario keeps coming to mind. What is to keep (or is there any avenue) the Blink Sheik from perusing a retrial in a civilian court. After all, could his legal team not make the case that he was not afforded a fair and impartial trial and should be afforded all the protections of the Bill of Rights? [/quote]

Here’s another unlikely but possible scenario. What if the military judge gets fed up and decides the CIA has so tainted the trial, process, and evidence that a fair trial is impossible at this point? IIRC at least one but probably several military judges (and I know prosecutors have) quit over the basic unfairness of the Gitmo set up. What if one of judges actually decides to do something about it and dismisses a case against a major player? What a circus that would be.

54

It’s likely that this is being done to stir up fear in America. I’m sure the hope is that Americans will say, “If we can’t deal with foreign enemies without a civilian trial, then we better give up our own right to trial so that our government can better deal with these terrorists.”

55

Let me clarify. I think that without the current developments, the Blind Sheik has nothing. As things are playing out, he and his legal team have the fuel for one hell of a PR fire if nothing else.

This just looks like a really dumb, ego driven move that has large potential to backfire.

56

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Let me clarify. I think that without the current developments, the Blind Sheik has nothing. As things are playing out, he and his legal team have the fuel for one hell of a PR fire if nothing else.

This just looks like a really dumb, ego driven move that has large potential to backfire. [/quote]

Shoot, you mean this guy.

Sorry, I had KSM on my brain and was thinking of the current trial going on in Gitmo when I responded to your last post:

The Blind Sheik was convicted in a real federal court and is serving life. His sentence has already been affirmed. That’s a done deal.

57

[quote]NickViar wrote:
It’s likely that this is being done to stir up fear in America. I’m sure the hope is that Americans will say, “If we can’t deal with foreign enemies without a civilian trial, then we better give up our own right to trial so that our government can better deal with these terrorists.”[/quote]

I would not call this “likely.”

58

My bad. You are absolutely right. For my example I was attempting to come up with someone who had already been tried and convicted in a military tribunal who could now use the Sulaiman case to petition for a new trial. I was also on the verge of sleep so the old noodle was running on vapors.

59

Ok. First cup of coffee and my head is clearing. I believe the civilian case for the Blind Shiek and the subsequent conviction stemmed from his involvement in the original world trade center bombing. Yes he was tried and convicted.

However, he and four others are now back in military court for their involvement in the 9/11 attacks. So, in the same time frame we have two planners of the 9/11 attacks being tried in the US. One in civilian court and the other in military.

Regardless of the outcome of the Sulaiman case, I can easily see the Blind Sheik seeking a retrial in US civilian court and demanding all the protections of the US Bill of Rights, just as was afforded his partner in evil.

I have not read it yet, but I just dug up this recent paper concerning the problems at hand. Do not know which way the bias slants. Look it over if time permits.