As I recall during WW II we were best buds with the Soviets. That
changed right after the war was over as you may recall and the Soviets
became our enemies. The same with Osama and the US. Osame was the
lesser of two evils between the Soviets and the Taliban. Once the
Soviets were no more, then the Taliban with its actions became an
enemy. Easy peasy to explain that one.
As to the Geneva Convention the terrorists were not noncombatants. They
were unlawful combatants which is a totally different thing and makes
them not covered by the Geneva Convention.
The full range of our rights is not available to the unlawful
combatants. Different thing from what you are trying to bloviate about.
On 10/07/2010 04:12 PM, nominal9 wrote:
Geneva Conventions are for uniformed army from national
governments.
Where do you get that these terrorists are therefore covered by the
Geneva Conventions. dick
Hi dick , First... I am not a lawyer.... but I do read some such
stuff, on occassion.... just to keep an eye on the real
liars.....Anyway, I have read portions of the Geneva Convention that
extend treaty protections to non-uniformed combatants or just plaint
indigenoue=s peopel caught in the middle or "suspected.... do you
really want to make me look it up?... it would be a bother....http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention....
Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only
article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international
conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered
to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed
conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship
or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their
arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to
wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The
passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's
protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war.
Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should
endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or
part of the other provisions of GCIII.
As to the Abu Ghraib photos, those were not military trials. As to
the
perps there they had been removed and were having their trials set up
when the story was broadcast. The military had already publicized
the
Abu Ghraib case months before Seymour Hersch wrote his articles. The
officers had been removed, the NCO's were under indictment and the
case
was being handled by the military at the time the story broke. It
was
the media that blew that up and caused the problems from Abu
Ghraib.
You should check somewhere other than Talking Points Memo before you
mention that. As I said, those were not trials and have no basis for
even being mentioned here./ dick
Well... my basis was your comment on the "inquisition" analogy.... I
was comparing some of the "punishments" imposed by ther Inquisition to
some of the Photographed punishment at Abu Ghraib... the photo of the
semi-naked prisoner with the pointed hood over his head, standing on a
stool with electrodes and wires dangling from his fingers particularly
evoked the Inquisitiion for me... the Inquisitioners were the first to
wear those sorts of pointy hoods, I think.... I don't know if the KKK
picked it up directly from them, or not.... Anyway.... association to
torture was my aim, not a strict allegation of trials for the
prisoners there.
I made no mention of denying rights to citizens. I was merely
suggesting that there is no basis in the Constitution or the case law
that would suggest that foreign nationals should be granted the
rights
that are granted citizens by the Constitution. Can you point to any?
Come on.... do you mean to tell me that a "foreign national" a tourist
for a week in the U.S. or someone on a limited visitor visa... if
charged with a crime here in the U.S. ... should not and would not be
accorded all rights and privileges under the Courts and Law as a U.S.
Citizen? Maybe you should look that one up.... But to your point.... I
want to try to find what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this GITMO
question during the Bush years....http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=2483936489630436485&q=Boumediene+v.
+Bush&hl=en&as_sdt=8002
there it is...... Boumediene v. Bush.... hope the link works for you I
could paste the decision but it is long.
It was the civilians, in particular a civilian lawyer, who was used
by
this sheik to pass orders to his group in Egypt. That would not
have
happened with the military. I think if that same case came before
the
court now with the benefit of hindsight the results would have been
different. I also think that had more cases come to the court the
weight of judging would have been different as well. It was the luck
of
the draw which case go to the SCOTUS first. The various cases in
the
chute came there from different results based on whether they came
from
the 9th Circuit Court or from a court that actually believed in the
Constitution.
As to your grieving, those seem like crocodile tears to me. "I
grieve
that because of my political beliefs your rights to protection from
terrorists have been denied. I grieve that my AG and her staff set
up
the wall that kept info from being passed between agencies. I
grieve
that the administration I supported for 8 years declined to take
charge
of Osama when he was offered. I grieve that the administration I
supported for 8 years declined to do anything when our embassies were
blown up. I grieve that when our troops and the ship they were on
were
attacked the administration I supported for 8 years sat back and did
nothing." There's your grief. Fat lot of good it did. / dick
Please do not question my "grief".... I have long stated that I wish
that each of the Dead U.S. 9/11 cilvilians and U.S. soldiers and
Coalition soldiers that have died in the Middle East could be replaced
by the misguided "leaders" and their political supporters who put them
in harm's way.....it should have been Bush/Cheney and the Neocons...
plus any of their other misguided supporters.... dead...
As for the Clinton Administration's handling of Osama bin Laden... I
do not disagree... but go back further... to the Soviet / Afghan
War....the U.S. supported Osama back then, too....What turned an "ally
" into an enemy, then? How about the Israeli/ Palestinian issue...
want to get into that one, too?
.
On Oct 6, 5:28 pm, dick<[email protected]> wrote:
Geneva Conventions are for uniformed army from national governments.
Where do you get that these terrorists are therefore covered by the
Geneva Conventions.
As to the Abu Ghraib photos, those were not military trials. As to the
perps there they had been removed and were having their trials set up
when the story was broadcast. The military had already publicized the
Abu Ghraib case months before Seymour Hersch wrote his articles. The
officers had been removed, the NCO's were under indictment and the case
was being handled by the military at the time the story broke. It was
the media that blew that up and caused the problems from Abu Ghraib.
You should check somewhere other than Talking Points Memo before you
mention that. As I said, those were not trials and have no basis for
even being mentioned here.
I made no mention of denying rights to citizens. I was merely
suggesting that there is no basis in the Constitution or the case law
that would suggest that foreign nationals should be granted the rights
that are granted citizens by the Constitution. Can you point to any?
It was the civilians, in particular a civilian lawyer, who was used by
this sheik to pass orders to his group in Egypt. That would not have
happened with the military. I think if that same case came before the
court now with the benefit of hindsight the results would have been
different. I also think that had more cases come to the court the
weight of judging would have been different as well. It was the luck of
the draw which case go to the SCOTUS first. The various cases in the
chute came there from different results based on whether they came from
the 9th Circuit Court or from a court that actually believed in the
Constitution.
As to your grieving, those seem like crocodile tears to me. "I grieve
that because of my political beliefs your rights to protection from
terrorists have been denied. I grieve that my AG and her staff set up
the wall that kept info from being passed between agencies. I grieve
that the administration I supported for 8 years declined to take charge
of Osama when he was offered. I grieve that the administration I
supported for 8 years declined to do anything when our embassies were
blown up. I grieve that when our troops and the ship they were on were
attacked the administration I supported for 8 years sat back and did
nothing." There's your grief. Fat lot of good it did.
On 10/06/2010 05:01 PM, nominal9 wrote:
Why do you compare military trials to medieval
trials. Are you saying that the military trials our military are
tried
under are the equivalent of The Inquisition? / dick
Something about the Abu Ghraib photos suggested it to me.....
Where do you find the basis for offering
those rights to foreign nationals on trial for terrorist acts? / dick
Geneva Conventions?.... just a whim....
After all the
ones that have been carried out were given a fair trial with good
representation. It was only that the civilian lawyers were pissed
because they lost out on getting the cases that this whole brouhaha
came
about in the first place. / dick
I think the Supreme Court had a hand in that.... there wasn't adequate
"legal" framework under the Bush Administration for militasry
tribunals for "terrorism suspects".... I think... something like
that...
What is your basis for the
trials of the Sheik who headed the first attempt to blow up the WTC
and
had much to do with the second. / dick
that was a civilian trial... wasn't it! .... you are the one
complainaing about civilian trials... you critique it....
(as an aside... as I remember, some of the FBI or other federal
prosecutors laughed or mocked the Sheik for his failure to blow up the
Towers the first time around... their "bravado" and lack of
"seriousness" seemed misplaced those sad years later... don't you
think?)
How about the treatment he dished out and caused to be
dished out to those who jumped or were blown up at the WTC. Do they
deserve any say in this case? Apparently you don't think they matter
at
all. As someone who was lucky to be going to work late that day as
opposed to having been at that site about that time on most days I
want
them to have the roughest trial possible. That could have been me
there on that day being blown up or burned up if I had not had to
stop
by to buy some hearing aid batteries and thus being late for work. /
dick
Oh... so I suppose you would extend your "denial" of equal protection
and due process to all criminals... regardless of terrorist ties,
citizenship, ethnicity or whatever......?
And by the way.... I do grieve for the fallen and commiserate with the
survivors.....I just do not think that we should do further damage to
our country and institutions... out of spite.... cut off our own
noses, as it were.
On Oct 6, 4:36 pm, dick<[email protected]> wrote:
If it is good enough to train our Navy Seals why should I complain about
using it on terrorists. Would you favor not waterboarding and then
getting hit with a terroristic attack that you could have prevented?
Just how far are you willing to go to save the country? and where do you
draw the line and why. Why do you compare military trials to medieval
trials. Are you saying that the military trials our military are tried
under are the equivalent of The Inquisition? Sure sounds like it. Do
you favor giving terrorists from foreign nations the same rights you are
denying out troops at trial? Where do you find the basis for offering
those rights to foreign nationals on trial for terrorist acts?
And back to waterboarding, do you believe San Fran Nan on not knowing
about it after attending conferences where it was discussed and she was
a participant? In fact do you believe this administration and this
Congress on waterboarding in the first place.
Back again to waterboarding, where did I even mention such a thing.
What I was talking about was that the prisoners in Gitmo should have
been tried by the military tribunals long ago and would have been had
people like you butted out and let them get on with it. After all the
ones that have been carried out were given a fair trial with good
representation. It was only that the civilian lawyers were pissed
because they lost out on getting the cases that this whole brouhaha came
about in the first place.
And back to the terrorist trials again. What is your basis for the
trials of the Sheik who headed the first attempt to blow up the WTC and
had much to do with the second. Do you feel that he has been
maltreated? How about the treatment he dished out and caused to be
dished out to those who jumped or were blown up at the WTC. Do they
deserve any say in this case? Apparently you don't think they matter at
all. As someone who was lucky to be going to work late that day as
opposed to having been at that site about that time on most days I want
them to have the roughest trial possible. That could have been me
there on that day being blown up or burned up if I had not had to stop
by to buy some hearing aid batteries and thus being late for work.
On 10/06/2010 04:18 PM, nominal9 wrote:
dick.... I ask "pointedly" and sarcastically.... Do you recommend that
we return to the medieval; practice of throwing a bound prisoner into
deep water and waiting to see if he or she floats, as a means to
determine guilt or innocence?.... oh yeah, apparently, if you are
among those "conservatives" who favor waterboarding.... you just
might....
nominal9
On Oct 6, 11:11 am, dick<[email protected]> wrote:
Looks like another judge who is making the civilian trials of terrorists
more difficult. No wonder the military wants to do its own trials.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: News Alert: Judge Bars Major Witness From Civilian Terrorism
Trial
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:17:07 -0400
From: NYTimes.com News Alert<[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wed, October 06, 2010 -- 10:15 AM ET
-----
Judge Bars Major Witness From Civilian Terrorism Trial
Minutes before a major terrorism trial was about to begin, a
federal judge barred prosecutors in Manhattan on Wednesday
from using a key witness.
The government had acknowledged it learned about the witness
from the defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, while he was
being interrogated while being held in a secret overseas jail
run by the C.I.A.
The ruling by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan would be a setback for
the Obama administration's goal of trying former detainees in
civilian courts because it would limit the kinds of evidence
prosecutors can introduce. It was not immediately clear if
prosecutors would appeal the ruling.
The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, was scheduled to begin
trial on Wednesday in Federal District Court on charges he
conspired in the 1998 bombings of the American Embassies in
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks,
orchestrated by Al Qaeda, killed 224 people.
Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07ghailani.html?hp&emc=na
-----
Now get New York Times breaking news alerts sent to your mobile phone.
Sign up by texting
...
read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
