Cheney;" Yeah, I did it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't know, but I would think military tribunals are cheaper than Eric Holder's former lawfirm.

---

Oh, so your reasons are purely partisan in nature.

That's honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I do know why courts federal exist and why it was possible to safely and successfully prosecute and convict Moussaoui without reinventing the wheel.

It's simple: the Bush administration had a case against him and won in federal court.

The question now is why that suddenly isn't good enough for the underpants bomber when no one objected to the Moussaoui trial so vehemently back then.

---

Like I said before, he was captured in the USA. A grand jury determined that was sufficient evidence to go forward on a series of federal felony charges.

If Moussaoui is picked up in Iraq, he gets tried before a military tribunal and would not have access to our federal courts.

You don't really know the "why." I thought for a second there I would get a well reasoned response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Like I said before, he was captured in the USA. A grand jury determined that was sufficient evidence to go forward on a series of federal felony charges.

If Moussaoui is picked up in Iraq, he gets tried before a military tribunal and would not have access to our federal courts.

You don't really know the "why." I thought for a second there I would get a well reasoned response.

---

I told you exactly why -- the Bush administration had a case against them that could be tried in federal court and they tried it. There was no reason to justify it - there has to be a justification to change a case like that to a military tribunal that had to be created for the purpose and failed to meet constitutional muster the first time around. You didn't understand. That is not my problem.

You don't seem to understand the current issue well at all.

People are whining that Abdulmutallab should be tried by a tribunal, when his case is very similar to that of Reid, who was never moved out of the federal justice system. Reid was arrested in the air over international waters trying to blow up a plane, and he was indicted and sentenced in a US district court.

Why should the Abdulmutallab case be tried differently? It certainly doesn't appear to be a jurisdictional issue - if that was the case a federal case wouldn't even be an option.

Please try to read my response next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Like I said before, he was captured in the USA. A grand jury determined that was sufficient evidence to go forward on a series of federal felony charges.

If Moussaoui is picked up in Iraq, he gets tried before a military tribunal and would not have access to our federal courts.

You don't really know the "why." I thought for a second there I would get a well reasoned response.

---

Please explain why Ramzi Yousef faced terrorism charges in a New York federal district court and was tried and sentenced by that court after he was captured in Pakistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Please explain why Ramzi Yousef faced terrorism charges in a New York federal district court and was tried and sentenced by that court after he was captured in Pakistan.

---

He committed a crime here in the USA, in New York. He was captured by the Pakistani government and extradicted to the US, not picked up on a battle field. This was not a military action nor was he picked up by the millitary. There would be no reason or need for him to be tried by a military tribunal.

With respect the the underwear bomber, I could care less where he gets tried. I would argue that he should get tried in a federal court.

I am against bringing in Gitmo prisoners/people picked up by the military and trying them in federal court. It is a waste of money and an unnecessary security risk. I also believe that it is perfectly constitutional to have military tribunals for these prisoners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

He committed a crime here in the USA, in New York. He was captured by the Pakistani government and extradicted to the US, not picked up on a battle field. This was not a military action nor was he picked up by the millitary. There would be no reason or need for him to be tried by a military tribunal.

---

So, KSM's crime was also committed in New York.

Quote:

---

With respect the the underwear bomber, I could care less where he gets tried. I would argue that he should get tried in a federal court.

---

Fantastic.

Quote:

---

I am against bringing in Gitmo prisoners/people picked up by the military and trying them in federal court. It is a waste of money and an unnecessary security risk.

---

Another money argument. How much money is saved using tribunals? I need to see a number to be convinced.

Quote:

---

I also believe that it is perfectly constitutional to have military tribunals for these prisoners.

---

Depends on the tribunal, remember the first scheme was indeed unconstitutional. Who's to say the current tribunal system won't have to be scrapped after another court challenge? How much did it cost for the first constitutionally flawed one? How much did starting over cost?

I'm trying to understand the blind faith put into this largely ad hoc system of justice and how it has to be so much better than the American federal justice system. I mean one of the terrorists convicted and sentenced by this system is walking free right now without restriction after a few additional months in prison, a reduced sentence he received in a deal obtained in the tribunal system. Did that make us safe? Is he completely rehabilitated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I made you an honest question to give you the opportunity to support your own claim. I don't see an answer.

---

And, it's in my response to Winehole.

There are a lot of parts to the Geneva Conventions which is why I asked which ones you believe were being violated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So, KSM's crime was also committed in New York. ?

---

Millitary Commision Act of 2006 was not around in the 90s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Another money argument. How much money is saved using tribunals? I need to see a number to be convinced. ?

---

Loads of money. These cases will take years to prosecute because unlike some of the aforementioned convictions, most of these people will not admit guilt. Their trials could take years to prosecute. There are endless motions to be filed and then endless apeals to be made. If the prisoners were assigned your average public defender it might not be as big a deal but these people seem to get high profile law firms with resources to burn to represent them.

What numbers do you need to see. These trials will cost over 200 million to prosecute. Millitary tribunals take weeks at the most. All representation and judiciary is paid for with the millitary. A motion will get an answer in a couple of days not 7 months.

Where do I base my numbers and facts. From practicing law in Missouri and Kansas the last several years. I have helped with a few cases in millitary court at Ft. Leavenworth and I can tell you that the differnece in the speed and expenses of a trial is night and day between millitary and civilian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Depends on the tribunal, remember the first scheme was indeed unconstitutional. Who's to say the current tribunal system won't have to be scrapped after another court challenge? How much did it cost for the first constitutionally flawed one? How much did starting over cost??

---

Read Breyer's concurrence in Hamdan which was joined by 4 from the majority and it is not hard to imagine that it will be upheld.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'm trying to understand the blind faith put into this largely ad hoc system of justice and how it has to be so much better than the American federal justice system. I mean one of the terrorists convicted and sentenced by this system is walking free right now without restriction after a few additional months in prison, a reduced sentence he received in a deal obtained in the tribunal system. Did that make us safe? Is he completely rehabilitated?

---

It is sufficient to do the job. Will it make mistakes? Any court does. Federal courts can screw it up just as easily as millitary. My opinion is that there is no sense in allowing jury trials and complete access to our judicial system, to people who will make a mockery of it and waste my hard earned tax dollars. They will get a fair shake in millitary court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And, it's in my response to Winehole.

There are a lot of parts to the Geneva Conventions which is why I asked which ones you believe were being violated.

---

I did say Article 5 of the declaration of Human Rights...
Winehole mentioned Geneva Common Article 3...

We're still waiting for your honest, straight answer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

They will get a fair shake in millitary court.

---

So far they haven't been. Comprehensive case files weren't compiled and the government has lost 32 of ~40 habeas cases. For the 32 who won, that means there wasn't compelling evidence to detain them in the first place, let alone to present charges to a military commission.

In the military tribunals secret evidence and hearsay is permitted. The defendant isn't allowed to know the secret evidence, and he has no right to confront or cross examine his accusers.

How is that a fair shake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Millitary Commision Act of 2006 was not around in the 90s.

---

The constitutionality of part or all of that act is still a big unknown. As seen in the illegal suspension of the Habeas Corpus (Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States), later on turned over by the Supreme Court, it can take just as many years and can also be stalled.

Not to mention that the wording on the Act is counterproductive and already caused cases to be entirely dismissed because of it:

On June 4, 2007, in two separate cases, military tribunals dismissed charges against detainees who had been designated as "enemy combatants" but not as "unlawful enemy combatants". The first case was that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian who had been designated as an "enemy combatant" in 2004. Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Colonel Peter Brownback ruled that the military tribunals, created to deal with "unlawful enemy combatants," had no jurisdiction over detainees who had been designated only as "enemy combatants." He dismissed without prejudice all charges against Khadr. Also on June 4, Captain Keith J. Allred reached the same conclusion in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

This monstrosity is probably going to be abolished and remembered just like it's cousins, the Alien and Sedition Acts

I actually have no problem trying these people in military tribunals under military law (the same used to deal with spies in the Cold War era).
The problem is that military law actually grants a good amount of rights also, as it should, of due process. Things like discovery of evidence, and the accused being able to examine and defend himself against the accusations.
Obviously, guys like Dick didn't want to take any chances, and came up with the MCA.

The fairly recent 2009 amendment to the act actually works around some of those mishaps for defendants, but still falls short of the due process provided by both the standard military trials and civilian trials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that refers to things like "the rack." I wouldn't apply it to today's understanding of "cruel and unusual." Make sure you know what it meant then.

---

So methods of punishment that the Framers could have never contemplated -- methods involving things like the use of electricity, for instance -- could never be cruel and unusual for Eighth Amendment purposes (in your estimation, at least) because the Framers couldn't have thought of it when they drafted the Bill of Rights?

Dragging criminals behind moving cars -- not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; Framers never dreamed of cars!

Submerging criminals in water and adding electricity? Not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; No electricity in 18th Century!!

Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So methods of punishment that the Framers could have never contemplated -- methods involving things like the use of electricity, for instance -- could never be cruel and unusual for Eighth Amendment purposes (in your estimation, at least) because the Framers couldn't have thought of it when they drafted the Bill of Rights?

Dragging criminals behind moving cars -- not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; Framers never dreamed of cars!

Submerging criminals in water and adding electricity? Not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; No electricity in 18th Century!!

Right?

---

Raping and sodomizing someone isn't torture because we say it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The fairly recent 2009 amendment to the act actually works around some of those mishaps for defendants, but still falls short of the due process provided by both the standard military trials and civilian trials.

---

In a nutshell, what changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Raping and sodomizing someone isn't torture because we say it isn't.

---

Obama needs to release those tapes...the worry of course, is that we will be run out of Iraq and Afghanistan..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

In a nutshell, what changed?

---

There's actualy plenty of changes. From the cosmetic, scrapping the 'combatants' figure, to the actual important stuff, like striking out the determination of the detainees by a Commision. Stuff like admitting hearsay is still there, it just has some small tweaks to help defendants prepare to the accusation.

Here's a quick rundown on some of the changes:
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/...th071409ms.pdf

Also, these two articles have another fairly quick rundown:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091104.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091130.html

Thanks. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So methods of punishment that the Framers could have never contemplated -- methods involving things like the use of electricity, for instance -- could never be cruel and unusual for Eighth Amendment purposes (in your estimation, at least) because the Framers couldn't have thought of it when they drafted the Bill of Rights?

Dragging criminals behind moving cars -- not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; Framers never dreamed of cars!

Submerging criminals in water and adding electricity? Not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; No electricity in 18th Century!!

Right?

---

I mean the intensity of a torture. Not the specific style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Millitary Commision Act of 2006 was not around in the 90s.

---

Nor was it around when KSM was captured, but it's good to invent new systems of justice when needed. Screw tradition and centuries of due process -- we're scared now!

Quote:

---

Loads of money. These cases will take years to prosecute because unlike some of the aforementioned convictions, most of these people will not admit guilt. Their trials could take years to prosecute. There are endless motions to be filed and then endless apeals to be made. If the prisoners were assigned your average public defender it might not be as big a deal but these people seem to get high profile law firms with resources to burn to represent them.

---

That's the US system of justice. Funny that you think it isn't sufficient in some cases. Very selective of you.

Quote:

---

What numbers do you need to see. These trials will cost over 200 million to prosecute. Millitary tribunals take weeks at the most. All representation and judiciary is paid for with the millitary. A motion will get an answer in a couple of days not 7 months.

---

I need to see the numbers that show the cost of each. You are pretending that money spent by the military doesn't count. It does.

Quote:

---

Where do I base my numbers and facts. From practicing law in Missouri and Kansas the last several years. I have helped with a few cases in millitary court at Ft. Leavenworth and I can tell you that the differnece in the speed and expenses of a trial is night and day between millitary and civilian.

---

Great. Give me the numbers.

Quote:

---

Read Breyer's concurrence in Hamdan which was joined by 4 from the majority and it is not hard to imagine that it will be upheld.

---

Hey, I'm sure the well-meaning people who created the first tribunal system thought it was bulletproof as well.

Quote:

---

It is sufficient to do the job. Will it make mistakes? Any court does. Federal courts can screw it up just as easily as millitary. My opinion is that there is no sense in allowing jury trials and complete access to our judicial system, to people who will make a mockery of it and waste my hard earned tax dollars. They will get a fair shake in millitary court.

---

They aren't going to make a mockery of the tribunals and waste money there? And then some will walk free after making deals.

The only reason I can think of trying these people like KSM in tribunals is that there was evidence obtained by means that would never be allowed in federal courts like torture. Since Bush fucked those cases up so horribly we might as well make up a new system where we can convict them. That's fine, but we aren't fooling anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The constitutionality of part or all of that act is still a big unknown. As seen in the illegal suspension of the Habeas Corpus (Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States), later on turned over by the Supreme Court, it can take just as many years and can also be stalled.

Not to mention that the wording on the Act is counterproductive and already caused cases to be entirely dismissed because of it:

On June 4, 2007, in two separate cases, military tribunals dismissed charges against detainees who had been designated as "enemy combatants" but not as "unlawful enemy combatants". The first case was that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian who had been designated as an "enemy combatant" in 2004. Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Colonel Peter Brownback ruled that the military tribunals, created to deal with "unlawful enemy combatants," had no jurisdiction over detainees who had been designated only as "enemy combatants." He dismissed without prejudice all charges against Khadr. Also on June 4, Captain Keith J. Allred reached the same conclusion in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

This monstrosity is probably going to be abolished and remembered just like it's cousins, the Alien and Sedition Acts

I actually have no problem trying these people in military tribunals under military law (the same used to deal with spies in the Cold War era).
The problem is that military law actually grants a good amount of rights also, as it should, of due process. Things like discovery of evidence, and the accused being able to examine and defend himself against the accusations.
Obviously, guys like Dick didn't want to take any chances, and came up with the MCA.

The fairly recent 2009 amendment to the act actually works around some of those mishaps for defendants, but still falls short of the due process provided by both the standard military trials and civilian trials.

---

This is very interesting. The truth is that I do not follow these cases or this particular area of law that much. Thank you for your post.

I would agree with you that we could do away with the tribunal code of "law" and try them through military law. I am not about throwing out our system of justice. I just want speedy inexpensive trials. I think that the military can provide this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Nor was it around when KSM was captured, but it's good to invent new systems of justice when needed. Screw tradition and centuries of due process -- we're scared now! .

---

If you had read Hamdan, which I know you did not, you would know that four members who voted in the majority of that opinion, joined and supported Justice Breyer's concurrence which essentially told the president that if congress passes a bill establishing these tribunals, this would be constitutional. The Court was against going around congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That's the US system of justice. Funny that you think it isn't sufficient in some cases. Very selective of you.

---

I never trust a court because they are unpredictable. I always try to resolve a case through mediation/arbitration if possible. Most judges tell you that when you put the case in their hands, someone is going to go away pissed.

The criminal system is no better. It might be the best in the world, in my opinion, but there are mistakes and bad decisions all the time. If you think that justice is always reached at the end of a case then you have no clue how the system really works.

Its not selective, it is honesty from someone on the inside who works in courtrooms every day and who has represented his fair share of criminal defendents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I need to see the numbers that show the cost of each. You are pretending that money spent by the military doesn't count. It does.

Great. Give me the numbers.

---

Do your own research. I have sat through proceedings in both courts and have seen the difference. I don't think you have. Convince me that it will cost $200 million to try an individual through the military system of justice. NY has released the numbers for the civil case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Hey, I'm sure the well-meaning people who created the first tribunal system thought it was bulletproof as well.

They aren't going to make a mockery of the tribunals and waste money there? And then some will walk free after making deals.

The only reason I can think of trying these people like KSM in tribunals is that there was evidence obtained by means that would never be allowed in federal courts like torture. Since Bush fucked those cases up so horribly we might as well make up a new system where we can convict them. That's fine, but we aren't fooling anyone.

---

okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Do your own research. I have sat through proceedings in both courts and have seen the difference. I don't think you have. Convince me that it will cost $200 million to try an individual through the military system of justice. NY has released the numbers for the civil case.

---

So then -- putting the ethical and moral dimensions aside for a moment-- for you it is a pure matter of economic expedience, rather than of law or custom, verdad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

So then -- putting the ethical and moral dimensions aside for a moment-- for you it is a pure matter of economic expedience, rather than of law or custom, verdad?

---

What law and custom are you assuming this does not follow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Justice Breyer's concurrence which essentially told the president that if congress passes a bill establishing these tribunals, this would be constitutional. The Court was against going around congress.

---

In the very same decision in which they set the MCA of 2006, an act of Congress, aside at least in pars?:rollin

The way I read it it, the SC was daring Congress to pass a better law.

The MCA of 2006 didn't pass the sniff test. It's like when your teacher hands your own exam back to you and asks you to return it with corrections. Characterizing the ruling as being strictly deferential to Congress seems a bit strained to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

The criminal system is no better. It might be the best in the world, in my opinion, but there are mistakes and bad decisions all the time. If you think that justice is always reached at the end of a case then you have no clue how the system really works.

---

It's ours. Please don't introduce justice along any other track. Just look how bad that's been already. Imagine how much worse the mistakes in a completely ad hoc system, so dubiously and unfortunately improvised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

Do your own research.

---

A very common refrain. I resort to it some myself. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

So then -- putting the ethical and moral dimensions aside for a moment-- for you it is a pure matter of economic expedience, rather than of law or custom, verdad?

---

Yes. For the most part. Again, if you want to throw out tribunals then fine. Give them trials through the military justice system and I am fine with that. I understand that there will be problems clasifying every combatant. But it is something that can be resolved.