Reply With Quote
It's a very bad example.
It also worries me that others countries may seek to emulate what we're doing right now with respect to whoever gets detained irregularly.
It's a very bad example.
For ourselves and for others.
Why does liberty end as a concern when the military or law enforcement is involved?
Just try all the ers you can in federal court.
We might lose one or two. It ain't a system of justice if there's a 100% rate of conviction, and no sane person should ever desire such a high degree of success in LE.
Or so I thought. Expedience appears to be winning out over fairness on this question too.
Because expedience is king, and the public clamors for vengeance.
That is fine. You referenced how others see us and I figured you had a specific country or countries in mind. I can certainly see where you're concern is with respect to what we might become.
I don't understand the latter statement.
There's a self-negating tautology at the bottom of it. The bad guys go into the process with a presumption of guilt on their heads before any hearing even takes place.
The mere fact of detention was sufficient to turn the 600 or so gitmo prisoners we have already released into terrorists at the moment of their detention, before they saw any magistrate or answered any questions.
Anglo-American legal thinking is very influential. That's all.
No . the Court usually tells Congress how to fix a law they just declared uncons utional. You're acting like this is extraordinary.
So do you trust the established federal justice system more than and ad hoc, made up scheme that had already failed once out of the gate?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.
I do.
I think there will be cases where using tribunals will be inevitable for reasons I mentioned above and all the offenses that actually occurred on battlefields, but I'd rather use it as a last resort, not as a wholesale cheap replacement of the federal system.
Again, if all that matters is price, just shoot every detainee now, no matter their guilt or innocence or degree of offense. That's your brand of cheap justice.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.
Can you really not see the difference from criminals to opposing armies. Were the soldiers from previous wars and previous enemy armies given bail and read their "rights"?
me
What law and custom are you assuming this does not follow?wh
The way we always did, until a few years ago.Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes?
@SnC:
I already said try them under UCMJ if you want. I guess that didn't make any impression on you.
Who ever said anything about giving anyone bail?
So when a terrorist is brought in, the military has to maintain evidence now? Does a soldier get another new job - prosecutor? Peachy.What are you referring to, please? Can you be more specific ?
Were you referring to the question of access to -- Immigration court? Military courts? Federal courts? --- for certain classes of prisoners?
Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes?
If they plausibly belong to the routine course of military justice, let the routine course of military justice take them. But that isn't what we have.
What we have now is ad hoc justice on a separate track. There's a big difference. If the military must try them, at least make the process credibly fair, instead of strapping them in -- like we do now-- for a cynically expedient carnival ride that either ends in prison or indefinite detention, post verdict.
Sure. Give em a normal military trial. That'd be much better than what we do now. I might even go for that were it submitted, and criminal action against them already ruled out.
So the military tribunals created for this type of problem you are ok with?
The whole of our legal custom and history previous to 9/11, is not just a bare hook.Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes?
I know. It's a big hassle.
What the are you talking about?
You know who does the prosecuting (and usually the defending) in tribunals and normal military trials, don't you?
What legal custom exactly. What part of history? In time of war, what other time in our history did we treat our enemy like citizens?
No you don't.
Who maintains evidence for military tribunals, SnC?
When I run for the presidency, that will be my motto.
So keeping POW is to create justice? WTF?? This is why I don't read chump.
It's pretty easy to tell you don't read.
Turns out you can't really post coherently either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
