Am I the only one who finds this kind of thing absurdly disturbing? http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hicks-pleads-guilty/2007/03/27/1174761419519.html This guy has three lawyers - two are disallowed from participating, one because she's not an active member of the military, the other because he won't sign agreement to a literally unknown set of ethical guidelines. They schedule his hearing in the middle of the night after some sort of plea arrangement is made - which really sounds like "hurry up and close the deal!" The judge rules in his own favor when his own impartiality was brought into question - being that he disqualified the defendant's attorneys and refused the defense's proposed trial schedule. The guy is brought to trial in handcuffs and not allowed to stand. We have australian politico's comparing our justice system to that of the former Soviet Union. ------------ This kind of stuff makes it seem like traffic court - you're at Gitmo, so you're guilty. It's just a matter of time before we try and convict you - regardless of what you say or what evidence is entered into the record in your favor. I don't know anything about this guy, his background story, or anything like that. I don't particularly care. What I do care about is the fact that the justice system that these "POWs" are being dealt is hoaky and questionable from all sides and isn't at all representative of what we've been raised to understand as impartial and blind justice. And we're doing it with the whole freaking world watching. Not only is it wrong, you have to think about what's going to happen to our own POWs the next time we are involved in a conflict. This country now has no moral position from which to argue for a defined detention period, red cross access, or providing the semblance of a justice process. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about "terrorists this" or "terrorists that" or "the rules have changed" or "we don't know how to deal with this situation" but the simple fact remains that the U.S. is a world leader, a world super power, and holds the responsibility of providing the moral high ground that every other country should aspire to. This is a mess that spans more than just current events - it is representative of the standards of justice that our own soldiers should expect in a best-case-scenario for generations to come. Our leaders are making tragic mistakes that are going to affect our children.
Well those terrorists in Gitmo are there not because they dodged paying parking tickets, they are there because they are terrorists, regarding your above quote in relation to POWs that terrorists have captured we already know what happens troops are beheaded & burnt, i bet our troops wished when caught they were shipped over to an holiday camp
They are only terrorist because you have been told they are terrorists. In fact many that have spent years there have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt they they have no ties to any sort of terrorist activities or other terrorist organizations. They only reason for their imprisonment is because of them being Muslim, Arab and at the wrong place at the wrong time. This type of large net prosecution is exactly what is so disturbing about GITMO. It is against our values set forth by the Constitution and the vision of a greater country our founding fathers had. When will it stop? Could someone become a terrorist for speaking out about their government one day? For posting something on an internet board? For taking a video at Disneyland? It is a slippery slope when we start having special rules for special cases.
well, since we "have yet to prove they are terrorists" (even though most were caught with weapons, explosives, some have confessed, etc., how do you prove that they were "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"? I don't think they were captured because they are muslims, I think that they just all happen to be muslim...would sending an american there make you feel better?
You are right about eventually getting confessions out of them. If you hold someone long enough, you can eventually crush their will, impose your will upon them, and get them to do just about anything you want them to do. Take away any unbiased representation and you don't even need to worry about them complaining about it. But who cares how long that takes if you set up a dungeon like this with no laws or regulations you can basically keep people indefinitely. Of course you could care less about how many innocent people have been imprisoned there for years, how many innocent people get convicted wrongly. You only care about the ends that justify the means. If one real terrorist gets convicted and imprisoned for every 5 innocents, you would be OK with this because it brings some sort of comfort and safety to your life. EDIT and your assertion that people are imprisoned because "they were found with weapons and explosives" is an attempt to say that all people around the world that have weapons and explosives are automatically a terrorist and guilty is laughable. It is also however not true. The majority of people in GITMO are there because their paths crossed somehow with people that have ties to terrorist organizations.
so cutting off someones head after holding them for only a few hours would be better for you? Those that were innocent were released long ago...however, the ones we have down there are extremely dangerous...of course you would rather see them all free than have 1 dangerous person behind bars/ I did not say that all people around the world with weapons were dangerous...the people in Gitmo were the people that were for the Taliban govt and supporting them...they were fighting against us because they supported this regime. This regime is responsible for giving harbor to osama and his gang of loons...therefore, as you say, they did cross paths with people who were associated with terrorist organizations...and they also fought for them.
d16man do you honestly believe that it is OK to keep people for an indefinite amount of time if someone tells you they are guilty of a crime (lets say for serial murder)? Do you also believe it would be justifiable to round up lots of these suspects that fit a profile and may have some signs of guilt associated to them (maybe they knew the victims, had some motive maybe, some means, in the area, possessed a weapon that may have been used etc). And leave them unprotected by some sort of unbiased representation during this indefinite time frame. These small sacrifices could be justified by the fact that this tactic would keep future victims safe. Would this be OK with you? Or is it just OK for Arabs and Muslims?
again, I think that terrorists can be held, (not for being arab or muslim, that is just how it is...if these people were japanese or chinese it would be the same case, stop playing that card, its not a valid excuse) terrorist don't believe in any kind of ethics at all (remember 9/11, england and spain subway bombings?)...so if they don't, why should we not also throw some of those ethics out the window?
And you believe there innocent because their Muslims? Yes, you could say the wrong place at the wrong time & doing wrong things It will stop when terrorists stop killing people & planning these acts Cry me a river, using the word innocents is laughable.
The direction this thread has gone in is a very realistic example of what I am talking about. Sitting at home in the comfort of your living room or office, none of us have the slightest idea who these people are, where they were arrested, why they were arrested, or any of the circumstances surrounding their capture or detainment. There is no basis to form an opinion on whether or not these people are innocent. In fact, there is no basis to form an opinion on whether or not these people are terrorists at all - since the bulk of them have not been charged with a crime. What we do know is that these people are not told how long they are being held. We do know that Red Cross has complained repeatedly about access to POWs and the treatment of POWs. We do know that the military tribunals that some of these people are given are courtrooms that are extremely unfriendly to defendants and are likely to have a 100% conviction rate or at the very least a conviction rate that would be unheard of in a fair court system. What other countries do or what our enemies do should have nothing to do with the rules that our nation lives by. We are the world leaders. Think beyond today and all the terrorism bullshit. Think historically and think of the future.
Gitmo,torture and Kangaroo courts are the result of Amateur hours in intelligence community and conduct of war when professionals has been replaced by Amateur Republican zealots from different think tanks. The government after seriously damaging the fight against terrorism is desperate to save face by getting "conviction" in this show trials in order to justify their own f*ck up. We already now what is going to happen. This guy has admitted to crime that they requested in order to make a deal to be send back to Australia. While this administration will try to use this as a triumph against terrorism in a public relation game, this guy will claim torture and abuse of his rights as soon as he is back in Australia and they can not deny him the right to lawyer or proper court to appeal his conviction. Australian government and other western governments has to deal with this situation which makes it much harder for them to extradite any citizen of their country suspected of Terrorism to USA because of the danger of torture and lack of proper legal frame work for the courts. Short and false public relation victory for this administration, in reality will result in the long term damage to effectively fighting terrorism.
Nope, I find it absurdly disturbing myself, that the same people, over and over again, make the same excuses for and offer sympathy to terrorists. People that would otherwise slit their throat and do anything to bring down our country, are given a grievence theater on public forums where many other hardened criminals such as rapists, murders and pedophiles get barely a modicum of sympathy for doing far less. I find it disturbing that it's part of our governments responsibilities to protect it's people by taking scum terrorists off the planet and confining them so that they cannot do harm to others, yet some are disappointed in such. I find it equally disturbing that many have been let go from Guantanamo, only to have gone back to their country of deportation and committed further terrorist attacks against other innocent people. I find it disturbing that people cheerlead for this sort of activity and think they are seen as anything more than gullible and clueless for giving aid, comfort and sympathy to these types of people in light of such.
Actually, it has been done to Americans of Chinese and Japanese descent. Some of them had been naturalized citizens back multiple generations, but one young male child was put there simply because he had the same first name as a leader of one of the two nations. This was viewed after the fact as a civil rights disaster, and the US has since paid reparations to the families thus held. The fact that if we allow it to happen to these people means it could happen to anyone is exactly the fact that should be keeping us from supporting this. Now, that said, a few things on this particular case. First of all, even in American Civil court you have little recourse if you get a biased judge. The best you can do is go to the presiding district judge and make a case for removal. This would be INCREDIBLY hard to do, and if you fail, you are in hot water. So that's not out of the ordinary. Also, military law is separate from civilian law, so I'm actually in favor of requiring the lawyer appointed to a defendant in a military court have a background in Military Law, just as I would be in favor of making sure that a defendant in civil court have a lawyer who has a background in civil law. However a military lawyer was on the team, and this should have sufficed. The ejection based on not swearing to "Whatever the government decides after the fact" is particularly reprehensible.
That was then, this is today. My ancestors were slaughtered for being Indian. I don't conveniently use that as an excuse today to shed tears over terrorists that want to harm our country.
*shrugs* Who said I was shedding tears over terrorists? I'm just trying to protect MY rights and freedoms by protecting the rights and freedoms of all. I'm trying to keep an eye to how history may view this time in our nation. I fully expect a mix of outrage over not seeing a threat, such as preceded our isolationist attitudes around World War II, and outrage over our rights being assailed, also similar to WWII.
Your rights are not in jeopardy. I believe last week I countered numerous "ifs" that simply have no foundation. Further, you have rights, enemy combatants do not. Therefore, you are trying to protect rights of people who are not afforded them in the first place. That, is shredding tears.
Your so called answer is very stupid and illogical, read it again. Are you sure you want to be associated with such stupid post?
Typical gworld, every post is a stupid post if it's not praising terrorists. So predicatable, sigh...