Do you think that Terrorists should be put in front of a Military tribunal?

[Camikaze]

RE: State secrets- isn't that an argument for whether the court should be open or closed, rather than whether it should be military or civilian?

 

[Archbob]

Nah, we should make them fight an angry bear, with only a battle-axe in a stadium.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, I noticed you haven't responded to my post. I'll repost in here, since you seemed to have overlooked it

Didnt overlook it, just didnt respond.

Nobody has argued that only POWs are allowed to be tried by military tribunals. What you have argued is that established conventions of WWII do not apply when assigning Prisoner of War status to Afghans taken prisoner during the Afghanistan War.

No I havent. I have actually argued that the tribunals done then set a precedent for today. What I did say was that the conventions of today arent as good as establishing these peoples status as they could be. But not that they dont apply.

But you are also saying that the same conventions held during WWII (i.e. trial of spies/sabateurs) mean that the same prisoners must be tried by military tribunal. That is clearly contradictory.

Because you were misunderstanding my comments.

You can't completely disregard established conventions in one breath and then expound their absolute adherence in another.

I didnt.

So you admit that you are attempting to fit the law to your preferred outcome, rather than fitting the outcome to the established laws?

Laws are always changing for a myriad of issues, some by a little, some a lot. I dont see how this is a argument for civil court to be honest. Like I said, the main issue is one of status, not necessarily which venue best fits foreign terrorists attacking/planning to attack the USA.

If established conventions cannot be applied when considering terrorists as POWs, they also cannot be applied when considering trial by military tribunal. It's a matter of consistency, which is apparently not your strongest suit

I see that as a matter of comprehension of what I have said...apparently not your strongest suit.

 

[Mise]

No I havent. I have actually argued that the tribunals done then set a precedent for today. What I did say was that the conventions of today arent as good as establishing these peoples status as they could be. But not that they dont apply.

So they're not very good, but they still apply in situations you deem them to apply (precedents allowing trial by military tribunal), and don't apply in situations you deem them not to apply (precedents assigning POW status) Mr Consistency strikes again!

Now, don't say that this is not exactly what you are doing, because I have posted several quotes of you doing exactly this (Japanese bomber analogy, spies/sabateurs). Unless you are backtracking on these arguments? Or perhaps you are admitting that the US not giving the prisoners taken in the Afghan War POW status was illegal? Are you saying that the US should, after all these years of saying otherwise, followed the Geneva Convention in their dealings with these prisoners?

Laws are always changing for a myriad of issues, some by a little, some a lot. I dont see how this is a argument for civil court to be honest. Like I said, the main issue is one of status, not necessarily which venue best fits foreign terrorists attacking/planning to attack the USA.

You don't see how manipulating and disregarding established legal and military protocols first to deny prisoners POW status, and then doing a complete about face in order to have them tried by the military, is grossly unjust? You don't see how making ad-hoc laws, disregarding all existing laws and precedents at your whim, is simply not just?

You should just admit that your previous arguments were flawed, and retreat to this whole "state secrets" argument.

 

[MobBoss]

So they're not very good, but they still apply in situations you deem them to apply (precedents allowing trial by military tribunal), and don't apply in situations you deem them not to apply (precedents assigning POW status) Mr Consistency strikes again!

Its not my fault you dont understand how such things as POW status are applied in the Law of Landwarfare.

Well, for example, in their attempt at trying to pin down the status of terrorists and insurgents who dont normally comply with the rules of land warfare, the Bush administration coined a new term: illegal enemy combatant. And while it does make sense to have a category for someone who engages in organized terror attacks on you, but does not conform to the established rules of land warfare, it doesnt make it easier for folks like you to grasp.

And btw, a lot of this is simply my opinion, so I am not 'deeming' anything here. And there really isnt any need to call names either.

Now, don't say that this is not exactly what you are doing, because I have posted several quotes of you doing exactly this (Japanese bomber analogy, spies/sabateurs).

And I am trying to clarify my position for you, yet you seem determined to not pick up on that and would rather quibble on some perceived inconsistency you cant seem to get past. How about you try and allow the conversation to go forward?

Unless you are backtracking on these arguments?

Not at all. Is it that important to you to be so petty as to try and score points like this? Or continue to fire off silly questions to try and catch me in an inconsistency? /shrug.

It occurs to me you are arent really trying to discuss the topic insomuch as trying to discuss me.

Or perhaps you are admitting that the US not giving the prisoners taken in the Afghan War POW status was illegal?

It wasnt illegal since they didnt qualify for that status per established international law. However, it may have made things easier if we had just given them that status regardless, even if it meant giving them more rights than they deserved.

Are you saying that the US should, after all these years of saying otherwise, followed the Geneva Convention in their dealings with these prisoners?

I think doing so gives us several benefits, but also contains a few cons as well. However, I think everyone can agree simply holding them without end, without trial isnt getting us any favorable opinion worldwide no? Even if we are indeed justified in doing so.

I mean come on Mise...you cant complain about the inmates not getting rights and then also complain when I suggest something that might actually try and help the situation for all parties involved.

You don't see how manipulating and disregarding established legal and military protocols first to deny prisoners POW status, and then doing a complete about face in order to have them tried by the military, is grossly unjust?

We dont need to give them POW status to try them in military tribunals. Maybe thats where you are confused. But we would if we tried to give them a Courts Martial.

Remember: Military Tribunals =/= Courts Martial. They are not the same thing.

You don't see how making ad-hoc laws, disregarding all existing laws and precedents at your whim, is simply not just?

Ease up Francis, I am just talking possibilities here. However, 'laws' get made up all the time, just like the current one concerning Military Tribunals was only recently passed a few years ago: The Military Commissions Act (or MCA for short). I think you need to get over the fact that new laws do indeed get passed. Its kind of how the system works.

You should just admit that your previous arguments were flawed, and retreat to this whole "state secrets" argument.

Rofl, would that help out your score?

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Hi, can we please increase the civility in the thread?

 

[Mise]

It's not a "perceived inconsistency", it's an actual inconsistency that you insist on repeating.... You can't have it both ways -- you can't claim that military convention applies when deciding where to try them, but not when deciding how they should be treated in the months and years before trial. It is simply unjust, hypocritical, and inconsistent. You can't whitewash those inconsistencies by accusing me of "not understanding". I understand perfectly well what I'm reading - it's right there in front of me in your posts, and it's that kind of completely inconsistent application of justice that makes the public so distrustful of military tribunals.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not a "perceived inconsistency", it's an actual inconsistency that you insist on repeating.... You can't have it both ways -- you can't claim that military convention applies when deciding where to try them, but not when deciding how they should be treated in the months and years before trial.

Actually, I have explained myself pretty clearly. Your just too insistent on trying to prove inconsistency as opposed to actually discussing the topic.

Again, they should be tried via military tribunal or courts martial because their crimes are part of an ongoing war/conflict/whatever you want to label it. Their status comes into play in determining which of the two (Military tribunals or Courts Martial) is applicable.

I dont see whats so hard or inconsistent about that. But I cant make you see the sense of it. If you simply cant then we just need to agree to disagree and move on.

It is simply unjust, hypocritical, and inconsistent.

Because you say it is? Again...no, its not.

You can't whitewash those inconsistencies by accusing me of "not understanding".

Why not? You whitewash my own comments by accusing me to be inconsistent.

I understand perfectly well what I'm reading - it's right there in front of me in your posts, and it's that kind of completely inconsistent application of justice that makes the public so distrustful of military tribunals.

Not all of the public are distrustful of military tribunals. In fact, if a poll were done nationwide, I would think a plurality or maybe even a majority would prefer military tribunals/courts martial over civil court.

In fact, in thinking of this it made me go look it up and apparently I am right.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/872a1 Civil Rights and the War.pdf

59% in favor of tribunals on that ABC poll.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/fox-news-poll-percent-think-trial-military-tribunal/

52% in favor in that recent poll.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/b...civilian-trials-for-terrorists--83256752.html

67% on that one from the San Fran examiner referencing a Rassmussen poll done just days ago.

A quote:

"Regardless of where and how the trials take place, voters continue to strongly oppose giving suspected terrorists all the rights of U.S. citizens," the report says. "Just 16% think the suspects should have the legal rights of American citizens, but 74% reject that idea."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124493/americans-odds-recent-terror-trial-decisions.aspx

59% on that one.

Seems to me that you are in a pretty small minority here Mise.

Btw, my linking of these polls kind of puts the poll in this thread into perspective. Pretty much shows out far out of touch the CFCOT demograph is with the american people.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Mostly because they are the ones directly affected by what happened.

So?

Anyway, they arent dictating anything, but making their opinions being heard, much like your very own. Is there any reason we should listen to your own emotional appeal anymore than theirs?

If you can find something irrationally emotional about my opinion, then by all means, disregard it. I know you will either way, though.

 

[JollyRoger]

Mobby is winning the debate on Military Tribunals until someone comes up with a good counterargument to one of the following premises:

1. Terrorism trials generally involve state secrets
2. Trials involving state secrets are best handled by a military court

It is the government itself that invokes the state secrets privilege - the criminal defendant in the context of a terrorist trial cannot. Thus if the administration is willing to allow a case to go forward in civil court, it has likely weighed the state secret risks and expects that a conviction can be secured without the need for evidence that would constitute a state secret.

Since the executive branch is primarily responsible for foreign relations, it can properly weigh the positive & negative foreign relations effects of a convential trial vs. a military tribunal against the positive & negative effects of state secret risks. Some guy without the kind of access that the Oval Office has to information needed to make such an assessment would not be able to properly weigh this, thus the bare assertions regarding one aspect of the weighing process without considering the foreign relations aspects.

Also, Mobby has not backed up his assertion that terrorist trials generally involve state secrets. If one can get a conviction on evidence that does not involve state secrets, then the trial does not need to involve state secrets. Since we are dealing with the so-called worst of the worst with presumably easily provable criminal acts, I think premise #1 is overstating the case.

As to premise #2, if the state secret doctine is invoked, the judge (in both the civil and military context) can still view the evidence in camera to determine if it is legitimately a state secret. So the state secret privilege involves one additional party in each context viewing the alleged state secret evidence. If you trust military judges more than federal judges to keep a secret, then I suppose you've got something there, but I have seen no evidence presented to back up the assertion that military judges are more trustworthy in their ability to keep a secret than federal judges.

Maybe if the military judge is gay, he has demonstrated to himself his secret keeping ability in relations to DADT, but no one would know that unless he breached DADT, thus showing he could not keep a secret. Perhaps we should lift DADT so military judges can come forward to demonstrate they were successful at keeping a secret and provide Mobby with a handful of judges to help bolster his point beyond bare assertion. Our national security depends on it.

 

[MobBoss]

Also, Mobby has not backed up his assertion that terrorist trials generally involve state secrets. If one can get a conviction on evidence that does not involve state secrets, then the trial does not need to involve state secrets. Since we are dealing with the so-called worst of the worst with easily provable criminal acts, I think premise #1 is overstating the case.

Not necessarily, since these boys werent caught in the act per se. The intelligence assets and methods used to find them and then apprehend them would most likely be confidential in nature, and most likely part of the trial itself.

I admit that not all such tribunals or courts martial need involve state secrets, but the likelyhood of it actually occurring is pretty decent.

Maybe if the military judge is gay, he has demonstrated his secret keeping ability in relations to DADT, but no one would no that unless he breached DADT, thus showing he could not keep a secret. Perhaps we should lift DADT so military judges can come forward to demonstrate they were successful at keeping a secret and provide Mobby with a handful of judges to help bolster his point beyond bare assertion. Our national security depends on it.

I am not sure how he is supposed to take your replies seriously when they contain stuff like this.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not necessarily, since these boys werent caught in the act per se. The intelligence assets and methods used to find them and then apprehend them would most likely be confidential in nature, and most likely part of the trial itself.

The methods to find and apprehend them are not elements of the criminal offense, thus not evidence that is necessary in securing a conviction.

I am not sure how he is supposed to take your replies seriously when they contain stuff like this.

I give Pefection the benefit of the doubt in possessing enough common sense to discern the serious from the snark.

 

[MobBoss]

The methods to find and apprehend them are not elements of the criminal offense, thus not a necessary part of the case needed to be proven for a conviction.

No, but the intelligence methods used to ascertain they were indeed involved are.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, but the intelligence methods used to ascertain they were indeed involved are.

The are many ways to gather and prove up evidence and state secret methods are not necessarily exclusive to these cases. Obviously, the administration thinks the DOJ can secure convictions without the need for disclosing state secrets.

 

[Mise]

Actually, I have explained myself pretty clearly. Your just too insistent on trying to prove inconsistency as opposed to actually discussing the topic.

Again, they should be tried via military tribunal or courts martial because their crimes are part of an ongoing war/conflict/whatever you want to label it. Their status comes into play in determining which of the two (Military tribunals or Courts Martial) is applicable.

You have once again completely missed the point. In establishing their status, the US has disregarded the military conventions; you cannot use those same military conventions to now try them via military tribunal, because you have already disregarded military convention in establishing their status. That is the hypocrisy, that is the inconsistency, and that is the injustice. You cannot whitewash this by saying I don't understand -- I understand exactly what you are doing, and it stinks.

Not all of the public are distrustful of military tribunals. In fact, if a poll were done nationwide, I would think a plurality or maybe even a majority would prefer military tribunals/courts martial over civil court.

Prefer =/= trust. And just because you would prefer to try them in a military tribunal doesn't mean that it is just to try them in a military tribunal. Again, all this shows is that you want to corrupt justice to suit your own preferences. I'm sorry if you would prefer laws to be pliable to your own personal ends, but that is simply wrong.

Seems to me that you are in a pretty small minority here Mise.

Since when are 41%, 48%, and 33% "small minorities"? The polls show that a huge number of Americans -- around 120 million -- think you are wrong. If you want to call that a "pretty small minority", then it's simply further proof of you whitewashing the facts.

 

[MobBoss]

You have once again completely missed the point. In establishing their status, the US has disregarded the military conventions; you cannot use those same military conventions to now try them via military tribunal

The Military Commissions Act disagrees with you. /shrug. But we didnt 'disregard' military conventions, we made them work the best we could and proceeded accordingly.

I understand exactly what you are doing, and it stinks.

Again, Mise, "I" am doing nothing except giving my opinion.

Prefer =/= trust.

Do you have anything aside from opinion to back this up?

And just because you would prefer to try them in a military tribunal doesn't mean that it is just to try them in a military tribunal.

You havent made a case that miltary tribunals are inheritly unjust. No one in this thread has.

Again, all this shows is that you want to corrupt justice to suit your own preferences.

Not at all and thats an unfair allegation. What I want his historical precendent to be followed.

I'm sorry if you would prefer laws to be pliable to your own personal ends, but that is simply wrong.

I have zero personal stake in this Mise. Dont try to make it personal.

Since when are 41%, 48%, and 33% "small minorities"?

My pardon, I was referring to the 16% in that excerpt I gave saying the terrorists should get the same rights as Americans. Apparently that wasnt clear enough.

The polls show that a huge number of Americans -- around 120 million -- think you are wrong.

And that an even larger number thinks you are wrong.

 

[Flying Pig]

In general, we say that if a bloke is obviously trying to kill us and we can find a soveriegn state whose uniform he wears who will claim responsibility for his actions, then he's a soldier. If this condition isn't met then we say that he's a civvy with a gun. Therefore, terrorists should be tried as serial killers in civillian courts.

Thread over.

 

[Mise]

In general, we say that if a bloke is obviously trying to kill us and we can find a soveriegn state whose uniform he wears who will claim responsibility for his actions, then he's a soldier. If this condition isn't met then we say that he's a civvy with a gun. Therefore, terrorists should be tried as serial killers in civillian courts.

Thread over.

QFT.

And, MobBoss... If you want to reply to me, you can do it without splitting my posts up into 50 million little parts of half-sentences

The real question here is: Will the terrorists receive a fair trial in a civilian American court, precided over by American judges. The answer is yes, they undoubtedly will.

 

[MobBoss]

QFT.

And, MobBoss... If you want to reply to me, you can do it without splitting my posts up into 50 million little parts of half-sentences

Actually, Mise, my post style is my post style. Feel free to post how you want, and so will I and happiness will abound.

The real question here is: Will the terrorists receive a fair trial in a civilian American court, precided over by American judges. The answer is yes, they undoubtedly will.

There is nothing to indicate they wouldnt get a fair trial in either a military tribunal or courts martial either.

 

[JollyRoger]

There is nothing to indicate they wouldnt get a fair trial in either a military tribunal or courts martial either.

Assuming he can get a fair trial in either place, than isn't it best to leave it to the President to decide? After all, the President has better access than you or I to facts necessary to weigh various factors such as state secret risks and foreign relations implications. There were over 300 civil court convictions under President Bush on terrorism related charges. Do you have issue with these civil cases?