Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The secret CIA prisons are real, it's Official!ô
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

timmccloud wrote:
Geneva Convention wrote:
fair trial

The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions are forbidden unless all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people have been met and a regularly constituted court has pronounced a judgment. (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec 1d)



If the administration gets it's way, the congress will write new laws to convene special courts that never existed before. I don't see that being a "regularly constituted court" . So the courts will be bogus.

Now if the accused were tried in existing federal courts with full rights accorded to US citizens, I would never consider it to be a bogus court. But there is a really good reason that will never happen - the accused have such minimal evidence against them they would be laughed right out of the court into freedom.


Except that these are not legal US citezens we are talking about. There are international laws that we must abide by (thanks to the ruling by the US Supreme Court, which is why Bush is pursuing the track he is.) So, to use US Laws is not really applicable in this case.

Quote:
If these courts are created by new laws, and then convened, it confirms a dangerous precedent already occurring in Iraq. Saddam Hussein (One of the worlds bad men, don't get me wrong here), is being tried for crimes based on legislation written by a government that didn't exist until after he was captured. This has already been attacked on numerous legal fronts as being (for want of a better word) bogus as well. Of course the fact the government didn't exist until afterwords will always be a sticking point in any Hussein trial, but we have had a court and justice system since our constitution was written, and there is no need to replace them with any new "tribunals".


Point taken. However, do you not think that it's a pretty weak defense of the Saddam trials? "Killing people was legal for me at the time therefore you cannot try me for that." That just doesn't make sense.

Quote:
Unless of course you want to sidestep 200+ years of American jurisprudence and protections of the innocent. That can be the only reason this administration refuses to try these people in our existing court system, because it knows that it's evidence is insufficient to try them in a real court, and it needs a kangaroo court for convictions.


This is 100% speculation. The reasons given have had to do with national security concerns. In fact, I will ask a question later that will address this.

Quote:
To quote the bible, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" - this is the spirit of the Geneva convention, even if it's not spelled out like that. We want our soldiers protected if they are captured, so we as signatories to the Geneva Convention hold that enemy prisoners of war, "enemy combatants", hell - Mideast kidnap victims for that matter, are treated fairly and humanely by others, because that's what we would do if we captured you. Until this administration and the genius idea that an "enemy combatant" <> "prisoner of war" even if it is a war (!= for you java and C programmers out there).


This is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. Before I go on, I do not condone torture. But if anybody thinks that these Islam Extremists have any intention of following the Geneva Conventions....look at the history for pete's sake. These people behead innocent civillians. They dress in civillian clothes and hide behind civillians and target civillians. To say that we need to accord them Geneva Convention rights so that our soldiers will be granted Geneva Convention rights is complete poppycock!! We should do it because it's right.

This is a terrible justification.

Quote:
The policy's of this administration (see, I'm not blaming the president, I'm blaming the policies of the administrative arm of our government since someone took office in January of 2001) have made things less safe in the world for our captured soldiers and civilians in the light of the "do unto others" concept behind the Geneva convention. And now we plan to write new laws AFTER THE FACT, and charge people with crimes that didn't exist when they were captured, and create special courts with decreased protections of the innocent to try them in.


BS. These Extremists have been killing US Citizens and committing atrocities for far longer than this Admin has been in power. I do not buy this line of argument. To think that if we just hadn't attacked Iraq or Afghanistan, we'd be safe....that's the type of thinking Clinton practiced and it led to the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the World Trade Centers in NYC, countless bombings of US Emabssies around the world and ultimately 9/11. These people hate us. They do not hate us more for being in Iraq, it's just a convenient justification. They would not hate us less if we hadn't gone into Iraq.

For evidence, look at Hezbollah and Israel. Israel left Hezbollah alone. Did nothing for years to try to keep the peace. Hezbollah broke their word (or was it Lebanon that broke the promise?) and continued to arm until they once again were in conflict with Israel. These people are only satisfied with our destruction. To try to apply reason to their actions and motivations seems to me to be utterly fruitless.

Quote:
Any bet's on when you think that this precedent of writing the laws after the prisoner is captured is going to start happening in the US? If you think I'm being silly or paranoid, read on.

You would think there would be a scream from coast to coast if an American Citizen was held in limbo for years without Habeus Corpus or due process, then charged with crimes that didn't exist before their capture, by a biased court without due protections written in our constitution...

...but the case of Jose Padilla proved that the scream will never happen, since he is a US citizen, and was held in limbo for years without being charged with a crime or given any of his due process rights. So here is evidence that the current administration is willing to violate our constitutional rights to fair and speedy trials (at least up to the point immediately before the Supreme Court decides to smack them down), so I would not put it past them to start creating kangaroo courts in the US after this.

If the legislation passes they will be bogus courts, we will be seen as hypocrites to the rest of the world for trumping our vaunted justice system, and then sidestepping that same system whenever we feel like it, we will be less safer in the world as this gives any crackpot group the right to create courts out of thin cloth to "convict" American prisoners.

God, some days I wonder why I left Australia to come back to the US.
I used to be much prouder of my country. Not anymore.


These are not American citizens. There is no slipery slope to address with this issue. Yes, I do think you are being paranoid.

And now my question, and this goes to you too, mouse:

Let's take the Admin at their word and assume that the reason that trials cannot be held in open courts have to do with sensitive national security concerns. How do you propose to hold trials when much of the evidence is in the province of national security?

If you do not believe that National Security is the reason, fine, bow out. But I sincerely want to know what the alternative is if national security is the issue.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AG, the Geneva Convention spells out the fact that you must prosecute prisoners of war as you would your own citizens. What part of that statement isn't penetrating your brain?
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10420
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The man has a point about why we're going with tribunals.
MSNBC wrote:
Aides said the legislation being introduced on Bushís behalf later Wednesday on Capitol Hill insists on provisions covering military tribunals that would permit evidence to be withheld from a defendant if necessary to protect classified information.

So, considering these are terrorists theoretically intent on attacking the US, one could assume a large amount of evidence may pertain to national security and thus classified. Obviously theoretical, but it leaves a big loophole to hamstring the defense.

Quote:
As part of the package, Bush asked Congress to shield from prosecution or lawsuits federal personnel who handle terrorist suspects.

WaPo wrote:
In his speech, Bush endorsed controversial legislation that would exempt U.S. officials and CIA officers from prosecution for some past detainee abuse. He called "unacceptable" provisions in a 10-year-old U.S. law on war crimes that subjects officials to possible prosecution for humiliating or degrading detainees.

This bothers me... it's very suggestive of the idea that they know they did something illegal and want to get protection on the books before it comes out. That may be my tinfoil hat reacting with my shampoo again, though.

Agamemnon wrote:
Let's take the Admin at their word and assume that the reason that trials cannot be held in open courts have to do with sensitive national security concerns. How do you propose to hold trials when much of the evidence is in the province of national security?

Courts already have provisions for using classified evidence in criminal trials. It's called the Classified Information Procedures Act. So, even at their word, they're reinventing the wheel which leads one to ask why?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Quote:
Unless of course you want to sidestep 200+ years of American jurisprudence and protections of the innocent. That can be the only reason this administration refuses to try these people in our existing court system, because it knows that it's evidence is insufficient to try them in a real court, and it needs a kangaroo court for convictions.


This is 100% speculation. The reasons given have had to do with national security concerns. In fact, I will ask a question later that will address this.



no, it's not. the administration has suggested that without hearsay evidence i will be horribly difficult if not impossible for the prosecution to succeed.

that and the specific departures that the administration wishes to make from both civilian and military tribunal proceedings gives this thought a good deal more potential for being dead-on accurate than anything that might be considered 100% speculative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kame wrote:
AG, the Geneva Convention spells out the fact that you must prosecute prisoners of war as you would your own citizens. What part of that statement isn't penetrating your brain?


The part that wonders when you are going to call for miranda rights to be read on the battlefield
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
Agamemnon wrote:
Quote:
Unless of course you want to sidestep 200+ years of American jurisprudence and protections of the innocent. That can be the only reason this administration refuses to try these people in our existing court system, because it knows that it's evidence is insufficient to try them in a real court, and it needs a kangaroo court for convictions.


This is 100% speculation. The reasons given have had to do with national security concerns. In fact, I will ask a question later that will address this.



no, it's not. the administration has suggested that without hearsay evidence i will be horribly difficult if not impossible for the prosecution to succeed.


That makes an amount of sense since many of these combants are captured on the battlefield.

Quote:
that and the specific departures that the administration wishes to make from both civilian and military tribunal proceedings gives this thought a good deal more potential for being dead-on accurate than anything that might be considered 100% speculative.


I retract the speculation part. He still didn't take into account the sensitive nature of national security.

Dogen, that is a bunch of good information. If it is already true, then why are people bitching about defendants not having access to info for their defense? I cannot fathom a motivation of why the Bush admin would want to go through all this trouble to handle prisoners in such a fashion if there wasn't something in it for them: namely necessary intel.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
timmccloud wrote:
Geneva Convention wrote:
fair trial

The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions are forbidden unless all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people have been met and a regularly constituted court has pronounced a judgment. (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec 1d)



If the administration gets it's way, the congress will write new laws to convene special courts that never existed before. I don't see that being a "regularly constituted court" . So the courts will be bogus.

Now if the accused were tried in existing federal courts with full rights accorded to US citizens, I would never consider it to be a bogus court. But there is a really good reason that will never happen - the accused have such minimal evidence against them they would be laughed right out of the court into freedom.


Except that these are not legal US citezens we are talking about. There are international laws that we must abide by (thanks to the ruling by the US Supreme Court, which is why Bush is pursuing the track he is.) So, to use US Laws is not really applicable in this case.

Quote:
If these courts are created by new laws, and then convened, it confirms a dangerous precedent already occurring in Iraq. Saddam Hussein (One of the worlds bad men, don't get me wrong here), is being tried for crimes based on legislation written by a government that didn't exist until after he was captured. This has already been attacked on numerous legal fronts as being (for want of a better word) bogus as well. Of course the fact the government didn't exist until afterwords will always be a sticking point in any Hussein trial, but we have had a court and justice system since our constitution was written, and there is no need to replace them with any new "tribunals".


Point taken. However, do you not think that it's a pretty weak defense of the Saddam trials? "Killing people was legal for me at the time therefore you cannot try me for that." That just doesn't make sense.

Quote:
Unless of course you want to sidestep 200+ years of American jurisprudence and protections of the innocent. That can be the only reason this administration refuses to try these people in our existing court system, because it knows that it's evidence is insufficient to try them in a real court, and it needs a kangaroo court for convictions.


This is 100% speculation. The reasons given have had to do with national security concerns. In fact, I will ask a question later that will address this.

Quote:
To quote the bible, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" - this is the spirit of the Geneva convention, even if it's not spelled out like that. We want our soldiers protected if they are captured, so we as signatories to the Geneva Convention hold that enemy prisoners of war, "enemy combatants", hell - Mideast kidnap victims for that matter, are treated fairly and humanely by others, because that's what we would do if we captured you. Until this administration and the genius idea that an "enemy combatant" <> "prisoner of war" even if it is a war (!= for you java and C programmers out there).


This is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. Before I go on, I do not condone torture. But if anybody thinks that these Islam Extremists have any intention of following the Geneva Conventions....look at the history for pete's sake. These people behead innocent civillians. They dress in civillian clothes and hide behind civillians and target civillians. To say that we need to accord them Geneva Convention rights so that our soldiers will be granted Geneva Convention rights is complete poppycock!! We should do it because it's right.

This is a terrible justification.

Quote:
The policy's of this administration (see, I'm not blaming the president, I'm blaming the policies of the administrative arm of our government since someone took office in January of 2001) have made things less safe in the world for our captured soldiers and civilians in the light of the "do unto others" concept behind the Geneva convention. And now we plan to write new laws AFTER THE FACT, and charge people with crimes that didn't exist when they were captured, and create special courts with decreased protections of the innocent to try them in.


BS. These Extremists have been killing US Citizens and committing atrocities for far longer than this Admin has been in power. I do not buy this line of argument. To think that if we just hadn't attacked Iraq or Afghanistan, we'd be safe....that's the type of thinking Clinton practiced and it led to the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the World Trade Centers in NYC, countless bombings of US Emabssies around the world and ultimately 9/11. These people hate us. They do not hate us more for being in Iraq, it's just a convenient justification. They would not hate us less if we hadn't gone into Iraq.

For evidence, look at Hezbollah and Israel. Israel left Hezbollah alone. Did nothing for years to try to keep the peace. Hezbollah broke their word (or was it Lebanon that broke the promise?) and continued to arm until they once again were in conflict with Israel. These people are only satisfied with our destruction. To try to apply reason to their actions and motivations seems to me to be utterly fruitless.



you see this doesnt make sense to me.

Surely to win on an idealogical front and maintain respect from the rest of the world the US has to make these trials transperant. To justify it by saying that the terrorists wouldn't give anyone a fair trial is EXACTLY the reason why the US must.

Otherwise you are proving that the terrorists are right. The US is a bully and a liar. If you can't trust the US to stand by the Geneva convention why the fuck should the rest of the world. You are justifying what these "terrorists" are saying ... namely that the US deserves to be destroyed.

Give them a fair trial, extridite them and then introduce legislation which
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not advocating a complete ignoring of the Geneva Conventions. I want to know how issues like National Security will be addressed in these trials. Dogan presented already available procedures, but again, this won't make the trials completely transparent.

I am disappointed that more consideration is being made for people who behead and torture without thought; that hide among civillians and target civillians; that more consideration is being made for them than for the US and valid concerns therein.

[edit] Sorry. I have been in a pissy mood this evening and went off a little. I don't word my opinions very clearly when I'm like this. I should know better by now.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10420
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Dogen, that is a bunch of good information. If it is already true, then why are people bitching about defendants not having access to info for their defense? I cannot fathom a motivation of why the Bush admin would want to go through all this trouble to handle prisoners in such a fashion if there wasn't something in it for them: namely necessary intel.

We came to the same conclusion, except for "what's in it for them." In the Washington Post, around the same time Bush was discussing the importance and successfulness of the CIA program, a Pentagon spokesperson was saying that the methods didn't work - as evidenced by the last "five years, hard years." (paraphrased)

Why would the DoD (sans Rummy) be saying the tactics Bush is so stuck on don't work when Bush is saying they do? My conclusion, of course, is that Bush has something to gain outside of the practical purposes of the program - namely, something political.

(If all of Bush's major plans and programs - the Iraq conflict, illegal wiretapping, secret CIA prisons, Gitmo, etc. - become political handicaps [public opinion of them turns negative or more negative] then it poses a very serious threat to Republicans on the very issue they have chosen to make central to their campaigns this year. National security.)
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bingbingbingbing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10420
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is that the prize bell, like at the fair? Did I win the giant, stuffed monkey?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9182

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:05 pm    Post subject: and a stuffed monkey Reply with quote

you won a jose padilla
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We've got a Padilla for sale
Jose, Jose Padilla for sale.
Won't you buy him,
Take him home and try him,
Padilla for sale.

Don't you want a little Padilla you can call your own,
A Padilla who'll be with ya when you're all alone?


actually, you win the right to retain 1 (one) Constitutionally guaranteed freedom...

...if you want to go double or nothing you can choose from the shelf the whole Amendments have been put on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 16633
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:

I am disappointed that more consideration is being made for people who behead and torture without thought; that hide among civillians and target civillians; that more consideration is being made for them than for the US and valid concerns therein.


but it's not about who they are - it's about who _we_ are. are we the kind of people who stand by our principles and morals, no matter how hard the going is? or are we a people who will immediately sink to the lowest level we can, just because the other guy is there already?

the terrorists can kill people, they can't kill what this country is and what it stands for. only we can do that, by making a mockery of our own laws. that's the part the disappoints _me_ - the eagerness with which this administration is dismantling our constitution, because they claim it's necessary to fight the bad guys.

dogen has already given the best response to the tribunals. the other part is - what does "secret" mean, in this context. you didn't address any of my questions on that. sensitive information can be kept within the confines of the court - but the whole world needs to know a) a trial is being held; b) who is being held; c) the crimes(s) with which these people are charged; and d) whether or not they have been convicted of those crimes. none of this should be sensitive material, providing intelligence to the enemy. i mean - they already know what they've done, and who did it - and they are probably pretty aware of who we have captured.

so i ask again - how much of that does bush intent to tell us, with his secret military tribunals?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To tell the truth, I don't know what specifically Bush has in mind and we'll see what legislation comes out of this.

You do realize that there is information that is so sensitive it cannot even be seen by a judge, right mouse? Or at the very least would require a judge that has high level clearance. There's plenty here to argue that the Bush Admin is keeping too much unavailable and that will always be the case. It's an unfortunate truth to the type of situatoin we see ourselves in.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 3 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group