TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › No deal on Gitmo trial suspensions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No deal on Gitmo trial suspensions

post #1 of 30
1/29/09 at 11:34am
Thread Starter 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss=rss_nation

Things like this are what happens when campaign promises meet the road of reality.
Reply
post #2 of 30
1/29/09 at 2:26pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Quote:
A military judge in Guantanamo Bay today denied the Obama administration's request to delay proceedings for 120 days in the case of a detainee accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship, an al-Qaeda strike that killed 17 service members and injured 50 others.
GO ARMY
Reply
post #3 of 30
1/29/09 at 2:38pm
That took some guts to stick it to the Commander-in-Chief like that. Promote the man to general.
Reply
post #4 of 30
1/31/09 at 4:59am
I am not a fan of Gitmo. And the reasoning from Judge Pohl that the public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment is strange to me when the charges stem from an incident that happened nine years ago. I am not sure that 120 day is all that long compared to how long they kept these people without a trial. I guess speedy is all relative.

That being said I am a firm believer in the separation of the three branches of government and if the courts have determined that the military commission act passed by congress is still in effect, than it is still in effect. A request from a president does not preclude that. Whether I agree with the ruling or not is irrelevant, I am glad to see the separation working. For me it also underscores how complex Gitmo is. You can't just close it down and let these people go and you have to apply the applicable laws to the detainees. The laws themselves are complex. I am not a lawyer so I don't know how withdrawing charges or delaying trials would effect the outcome of these cases. So frankly I rely on the courts to make the appropriate decisions. I would like to see Gitmo closed but it needs to be done in an appropriate manner and it will take time.
Reply
post #5 of 30
2/5/09 at 4:50pm
Thread Starter 
A not so lovely update.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ent-oba-2.html

ABC News has learned that on Friday, President Obama will likely order the Department of Defense's Military Commission to withdraw charges against terrorist suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The charges may later be reinstated in a military commission or pursued in a civilian court. Al-Nashiri will remain in custody.

The announcement will not be made until after President Obama meets with the families of victims of terrorist attacks on 9/11 and on the U.S.S. Cole, where he will assure them that this step is not being done to be lenient towards al-Nashiri. The move is being done to stop the continued prosecution of al-Nashiri in a court system that his administration may ultimately find illegitimate, not for any other reason, sources told ABC News.

Al-Nashiri has been identified as the former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al Qaeda and the mastermind of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. In March 2007 he testified in military court that he only confessed to certain crimes because he has been tortured for the previous five years.





There should be some very angry families.
Reply
post #6 of 30
2/6/09 at 8:55am
Thread Starter 
It's official.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...BcWhwD965PRR00

I hope God continues to bless America, we're gonna need every bit of it.
Reply
post #7 of 30
2/6/09 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
It's official.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...BcWhwD965PRR00

I hope God continues to bless America, we're gonna need every bit of it.
I honestly don't see the problem with it myself Dismissed with prejudice, he remains in custody, the process is reviewed and if deemed legal and proper they resume, if not other means, such as Federal court will be used. It sounds completely up and up to me.
Reply
post #8 of 30
2/6/09 at 6:23pm
Thread Starter 
I feel bad for this woman, she's very disappointed in this being dismissed.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.h...9d70b0c12f2749

"Hard Feelings" is the name of the video with her interview.
Reply
post #9 of 30
2/6/09 at 7:58pm
Sentencing someone in a court system that reviews may later find improper isn't going to give anyone closure. If they simply cannot wait for a review of the trial system to be completed, then it sounds more as though they are seeking revenge instead of justice
Reply
post #10 of 30
2/7/09 at 7:06am
The retired Captain of the U.S.S. Cole is happy with what the President told him! If he's happy, then I'm happy
Quote:
“It went far better than I had imagined,” Kirk Lippold, a retired Navy commander who is a senior military fellow at Military Families United and was the commanding officer of the Cole at the time of the attack in 2000, said Friday evening.

Commander Lippold had been critical of the president’s decision to close the prison, but after the meeting said he was pleased with what he called Mr. Obama’s commitment to bringing the suspects to justice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/us...mo.html?ref=us
Reply
post #11 of 30
2/8/09 at 7:23am
Even though I don't agree at all with closing down the detention facility at Gitmo or halting the military tribunals, Obama is exercising his right to do so as outlined in the Geneva Convention, much like Bush was exercising his right accoriding to the convention to have the tribunals. I've mentioned this before in other threads when explaining about unlawful combatants, which is what a terrorist is.
Reply
post #12 of 30
2/9/09 at 3:51pm
Thread Starter 
Oh snap. It's not so easy. Now the ACLU is sad. No change on renditions.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...administr.html

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.

Reply
post #13 of 30
2/10/09 at 8:00am
Thread Starter 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

There's a whole list of reasons you can't do civilian legal proceedings for terrorists.
Reply
post #14 of 30
2/10/09 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

There's a whole list of reasons you can't do civilian legal proceedings for terrorists.
If they had just thought about doing it legaly from the get go instead of going all Sgt Slaughter/Mark Fuhrman on them they wouldnt have to be worring about that now
Reply
post #15 of 30
2/11/09 at 7:46am
Military tribunals are legal proceedings.
Reply
post #16 of 30
2/11/09 at 7:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Military tribunals are legal proceedings.
Thanks Bryan. As far as I knew they are legal also.
Reply
post #17 of 30
2/11/09 at 7:58am
They are also allowed by the Geneva Convention as an option for trying unlawful combatants.
Reply
post #18 of 30
2/11/09 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
They are also allowed by the Geneva Convention as an option for trying unlawful combatants.

If the Geneva convention accords can't be used to protect them, how can they be used to convict them? The articles of the Geneva convention that allows for trying unlawful combatants applies to non-military guerrillas fighting on behalf of an enemy nation.

I'm just curious as to wether the accords apply, or not?
Reply
post #19 of 30
2/11/09 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
If the Geneva convention accords can't be used to protect them, how can they be used to convict them? The articles of the Geneva convention that allows for trying unlawful combatants applies to non-military guerrillas fighting on behalf of an enemy nation.

I'm just curious as to wether the accords apply, or not?
They are allowed some basic protections such as humane treatment and to not be tortured but the Geneva Convention is vague on what a "regularly constituted court" is. It's left up to the detaining authority to determine how to proceed with prosecuting people who are accused of being unlawful combatants. They can be prosecuted under the laws of the detaining state. The problem in the US has been whether or not unlawful combatants are entitled to Habeas Corpus. The Supreme Court rejected the tribunals, I believe it was back in 2004 (part of the reasoning had something to do with Congress not being involved). In 2006, Congress passed an act allowing military tribunals for members of the Taliban and Al-Queda to take place. There are gray areas which aren't clearly defined. There's a lot of debate as to whether or not an unlawful combatant is a "protected person" under the Convention.
Reply
post #20 of 30
2/20/09 at 5:19pm
Thread Starter 
Awww, looky.

Gitmo meets the prison requirements as called out in the Geneva Convention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss=rss_nation

Hey, things aren't so bad as they were portrayed in the media. How 'bout that?
Reply
post #21 of 30
2/20/09 at 5:30pm
Doesn't come as a surprise to me.
Reply
post #22 of 30
2/20/09 at 6:02pm
I always thought Gitmo was legitimate.
Reply
post #23 of 30
2/20/09 at 11:35pm
That's meaningless, actually, because Gitmo isn't being closed due to the conditions there.
Reply
post #24 of 30
2/21/09 at 12:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
That's meaningless, actually, because Gitmo isn't being closed due to the conditions there.
I don't believe anyone implied that it was. The military commission that Congress established should be allowed to go ahead with the tribunals. I don't agree with Obama wanting to close the detention facility at Gitmo.
Reply
post #25 of 30
2/21/09 at 1:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
The military commission that Congress established should be allowed to go ahead with the tribunals.
Aren't the tribunals a legal necessity now that it has been established that the prisoners weren't Mirandized, or have I missed something?
Reply
post #26 of 30
2/21/09 at 1:12am
To find that Gitmo meets standard, 5 years after it was first put under the public microscope, is actually a somewhat meaningless designation. Of course it's going to meet those standards after all these years of the world looking at it.
Reply
post #27 of 30
2/21/09 at 1:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Aren't the tribunals a legal necessity now that it has been established that the prisoners weren't Mirandized, or have I missed something?

I don't know. Do they have to be Mirandized if they were captured outside of the United States? I don't see why they should be if they were captured in Iraq or Afghanistan. If caught on US soil then I can see how being read Miranda Rights can come into play.
Reply
post #28 of 30
2/21/09 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
I don't know. Do they have to be Mirandized if they were captured outside of the United States? I don't see why they should be if they were captured in Iraq or Afghanistan. If caught on US soil then I can see how being read Miranda Rights can come into play.
From what I understand, any self-incriminating statements made by a suspect who wasn't Mirandized can be barred in a U.S. court of law.

This article states:
Quote:
Fuller was referring to the Miranda v. Arizona U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1966, which held that potential criminal suspects in custody must be informed of rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Similar warnings must be given to suspects in U.S. military custody, and suspects overseas who may face U.S. charges commonly receive warnings. "If they are a suspect, and they are detained, a Miranda is usually given," FBI special agent Stewart Kelley testified.
Reply
post #29 of 30
2/21/09 at 1:02pm
I honestly didn't know that.

There are a lot of gray areas in the Geneva Convention when it comes to unlawful combatants since they aren't POWs. I have to wonder how many legal gray areas there are between our legal system and the military's legal system that need to be ironed out in regards to terror suspects. Since they apparently have to be read Miranda rights may be it would be best to turn custody of them over to the DOJ. Perhaps they could renovate Alcatraz and stick them there?
Reply
post #30 of 30
2/21/09 at 1:22pm
Alcatraz is a museum now, so that can probably be ruled out. I think the DOJ will only be able to try those there's enough evidence against without confessions; the others will probably have to go before military tribunals, or be released. It's a real mess.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › No deal on Gitmo trial suspensions