GITMO Arraignment-- Thoughts?

[Nolerama]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004415419_gitmo15.html

5 GITMO prisoners are going up against a military tribunal. What do you think? Is this going to be a fair trial? Is this going to make a difference in US perception of terrorism?

Was GITMO right in the first place?

 

[elder999]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004415419_gitmo15.html

5 GITMO prisoners are going up against a military tribunal. What do you think? Is this going to be a fair trial? Is this going to make a difference in US perception of terrorism?

Was GITMO right in the first place?

Let's see-the original number of prisoners has been put at from 600-700. Let's call it 600. It's now down to 277, and they're trying 5. That's, what?

0.83% right.

 

[Archangel M]

When youre at war you take prisoners. Always been so. Many are "foot soldiers" and some are leaders with vital intell, a few are war criminals. I see nothing unusual in this, viewed with a bit of historical perspective.

 

[Empty Hands]

Military tribunals, particularly the way the Bush Admin. tried to set these ones up, are generally a travesty of true justice. That said, facing any sort of organized justice system is a big improvement compared to what the prisoners have seen so far, which is arbitrary detention with no recourse to a justice system. Plus, the military judges and lawyers involved with these tribunals have consistently stood for their integrity and refused to make the tribunal process the rubber stamp that the Bush Admin. wanted.

See here.
"He said, 'We can't have acquittals,'" Davis said. "'We've been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.'"

 

[Big Don]

I think we should follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter.
That is, with summary executions of unlawful combatants as spies and sabotuers.

 

[Sukerkin]

If there was a way to be more sure of 'guilt' and we existed in a properly declared state of war, I don't reckon I'd disagree all that strongly. The SAS method of dealing with such certainly has simplicity to recommend it and the legalities are fairly clear cut under those circumstances.

The problem is that with the lack of a latter, for I don't think calling it a War on Terror really counts, confronting the former (demonstrable guilt) is very problematic.

 

[Nolerama]

If there was a way to be more sure of 'guilt' and we existed in a properly declared state of war, I don't reckon I'd disagree all that strongly. The SAS method of dealing with such certainly has simplicity to recommend it and the legalities are fairly clear cut under those circumstances.

The problem is that with the lack of a latter, for I don't think calling it a War on Terror really counts, confronting the former (demonstrable guilt) is very problematic.

I do see it as problematic. What some sources are saying is that much of the evidence against these prisoners are circumstantial, or testimonials under torture (mental/physical) and wouldn't hold up in a US court, and that many of their attorneys have dropped the case due to this.

In my opinion, it's not justice, just (and I hate to sound like this) the Bush administration's way of clearing house before the elections. If anyone has a better reason for this, then go right ahead.

Is that the right thing to do? What kind of precedent do you think this will set for future conflicts?

 

[Empty Hands]

That is, with summary executions of unlawful combatants as spies and sabotuers.

I thought they were all captured on the battlefield, AK-47's in hand, shooting at The Troops, while chanting "Death To America"? No, you say? Tsk, tsk.