Welcome to PatsFans.com

Wow, military judge dismisses charges against Guantanamo detainee

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Pujo, Jun 4, 2007.

  1. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Jun 4, 2007
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,656
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +533 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Good news that we're letting these guys go on technicalities.

    :bricks:
     
  3. pats-blue

    pats-blue Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    "Khadr had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier at Guantanamo Bay, but because he was not classified as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant," Army Col. Peter Brownback said he had no choice but to throw the case out"

    So let me get this straight....you are cheering this? LIke BF said it was a technicality not a trial that proclaimed his innocence..did you see the charges? WOW is right but not how you intended it, did you read this and really think great?
     
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I read this and said "Wow, who would have thought the rule of law would prevail."

    Don't worry, they can reclassify and re-charge him, but I'm glad the government isn't being allowed to take shortcuts.
     
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    The real question is why would you presume the military court WOULDN"T respect the rule of law?????:bricks:
     
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,203
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Cuz...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    For the same reason the administration insisted on military rather than civilian trials: military courts are less sympathetic to defendants than civilian courts, and don't afford them all due process protections.
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,203
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    i.e. In military courts people like OJ don't get off, whereas in civilian courts, if it doesn't fit....:D
     
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Why don't we just try everyone in military courts then? Speeding ticket? Tell it to the Colonel!
     
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,203
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    I was being a dink. :p
     
  11. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I hadn't noticed ;)
     
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,974
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +429 / 12 / -26

    Have to believe that some type of due process will work to our advantage in the big scale of things, would much rather come across on the world stage as a country who makes sure that people are not railroaded into a quick decision, but by a fair and balanced process with rules. If we do not afford basic protections to everyone, than what is the sense?? We become them and everyone looses.
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    Military courts are better equiped to deal with matters that happen on a battlefield. The rules of evidence that apply in a civilian police matter would be crazy to use in a war zone.....Unless you would like Marines giving Miranda rights to terrorist planting IED's who are captured.:rolleyes:
     
  14. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Come now, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo weren't captured on a battlefield, they were arrested at their homes in Afghanistan based on witness testimony, and some of them were arrested in foreign countries like Canada, far from any battlefields.
     
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    This brings up the matter of dealing with people caught through intel operations, say Khalid Sheik Mohammad (the mastermind of 9-11). Do you believe that the CIA and military intel working on covert operations have to be bound by the same rules of evidence as police investigating US citizens domestically?
     
  16. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    No, not necessarily. But I do think it's outright dishonest to make the argument that all these people were captured on a "battlefield" when in many cases they were as far from a battlefield as you or I are.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2007
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    I don't know the specifics do you? Is it claimed that all the Gitmo prisoners were captured on a battlefield? I am not aware of that.

    The idea that these enemy combatants can be dealt with like common criminals and get the Constitutional protections granted to US citizens in ordinary criminal matters is absurd.
     
  18. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're the one who claimed it, or at least implied it, by saying that military courts are more equipped to handle matters that happen on the battlefield, without any mention that these people weren't all arrested on the battlefield.
    On a broad level, I agree, certain people captured under certain circumstances may not be entitled to constitutional rights. But again, we need a better definition of what an enemy combatant is so we can figure out who's entitled to what rights. If an enemy combatant is just someone who was captured on a literal battlefield, then you can't call all of these people enemy combatants: some were arrested far from battlefields by civilian authorities. If someone is arrested for, say, providing material support to terrorists, on US soil, should they be denied rights? Who gets to make the determiniation that someone is an enemy combatant? Could that determination extend to US citizens captured on US soil? And then, when constitutional rights are denied, we still have to ask whether we want to give these people statutory rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive has to respect legislation dealing with detainee rights, even if they're not entitled to constitutional protections. What kind of statutory rights do we want to give them?

    It's too easy to talk in generalities, but absolutely pointless.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>