What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buyâs holiday campaign.
60 Comments
- c0mputar, on 06/09/2009, -0/+12It seems like they clearly have evidence to convict this guy, so what took so long to get this to trial?
- inactive, on 06/09/2009, -6/+18No torturing, now! If he is found guilty then kill him. But give him a fair trial.
- lamejoketeller, on 06/09/2009, -6/+15Jesus christ, people, why do we care? It's not like he gives off an airborne terror agent from his skin, that will infect new yorkers with terror. He's just a dude, handcuffed, in prison clothes, being watched by a bunch of other dudes with really powerful guns. Besides, if we're going to arrest them, we have to ***** deal with them. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This NIMBY stuff is pure *****.
- c0mputar, on 06/10/2009, -0/+7Nowhere, I wiki'd it.
- mrseptic, on 06/09/2009, -8/+15Ya, things like due process and evidence are stupid.
- JimmyTheClam, on 06/10/2009, -5/+12Nope!
And it can be any attorney the accused terrorists wishes to name.
The terrorist himself can even view them if he wishes to act as his own attorney.
Yet, many people here do not see a problem with that. - InfiniteNothing, on 06/09/2009, -2/+8Wouldn't the lawyers still need clearance to view those documents?
- c0mputar, on 06/09/2009, -1/+7Someone didn't read the article.
- c0mputar, on 06/09/2009, -0/+6He was in fact publicly accused of being involved in the attack, and subsequently captured, in 2004.
- ShrikeDeCil, on 06/10/2009, -1/+7The rules for dealing with people captured outside the US borders just aren't set up for this legally.
Look at the charges and think about how many are going to eventually pass muster. Buying explosives -in-Tanzania- isn't against American law. Mostly because we don't have jurisdiction to dictate what people can do in other countries. If he actually drove the truck, that's a direct act against an American - that would be different.
But a lot of this crap is completely new territory. Japanese soldiers weren't tried for murder for firing at an avowed enemy in a time of war.
If you say "Well, he's a prisoner of war! We captured him fair and square!" you get to follow the Geneva Conventions. Which is fine. "Indefinite detainment" is actually fine under the Geneva Conventions. But a civilian trial is -a-war-crime-. The GC explicitly requires military tribunals for prisoners of war.
So Bush tried (IIRC) three different arrangements for military tribunals that were vast improvements over the Nuremberg military tribunals. But the ACLU (and others) kept objecting. Some of the complaints were legit, but it has slowed the entire process to a complete halt.
I'm not sure how this particular guy was captured, but if it was a battlefield capture I'm not optimistic of the outcome. - JimmyTheClam, on 06/09/2009, -12/+16Letting attorneys for terrorists go through classified documents sounds like a great idea.
Really, what could go wrong?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&am ...
Well, OK, other than THAT.
So it's back to terrorism as a "law enforcement" problem to be fought in the courts.
That didn't exactly work last time, what will be different this time? - JimmyTheClam, on 06/10/2009, -2/+6Are you being deliberately obtuse mikelieman?
Sure we can get a conviction, it's the disclosure of the means of intelligence gathering that is the problem.
And while we are at it, what about getting getting legitimate intelligence thrown out because it does not conform with civilian evidence gathering techniques.
Finally, it took DECADES of mobsters walking free, and witnesses being murdered before we saw out first RICO statutes and changes in the law to deal with that kind of unique threat. - rayen99, on 06/10/2009, -1/+5What I don't understand about this is it seems like the best solution is to try them in a military court as they are enemy combatants. There is nothing unfair about that. What's messed up about the current situation is the fact that these prisoners haven't had a trial at all, not that they haven't had a civilian trial.
- noangelcame, on 06/10/2009, -2/+6I agree! You cowardly politicians need to stop letting cowardly evil bastards like Dick Cheney scare you!
- burketo, on 06/10/2009, -0/+4http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/eu-guanta ...
the EU has already started taking guantanamo detainees... - JimmyTheClam, on 06/09/2009, -7/+10Not as stupid as trying terrorists in civilian court.
That's just not my opinion, but the opinion of Andy McCarthy who led the prosecution of the terrorists in the first WTC bombing and long time critic of trying terrorists in civilian courts.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjEwMmI3Z ...
"Of cours, the issue has never been whether we can get terrorism convictions in federal courts (and while most terrorists have been securely detained in federal prisons, not all have). The question is whether prosecution in civilian courts is a sound national security strategy given (a) the limited capacity of the system to apprehend and bring international terrorists to trial, and (b) the generous due process rules which force us to disclose skads of intelligence to terrorists β and expose our sources to testify against terrorists β even as their network is still at large and still committed to killing us. That latter seems like it shouldn't be much of a concern with Ghailani, but even this is by no means certain.
The charges entail not only narrow murder counts focused on the bombing but very broad conspiracy charges (including the overarching al-Qaeda conspiracy to murder Americans). Broad charges trigger broad discovery obligations. Rest assured Ghailani's lawyers will ask for every shred of information in the government's files, even for years after the embassy attacks β arguing that, since the government has chosen to charge Ghailani with that conspiracy, and since it contends the al-Qaeda conspiracy continues to this day, Ghailani is entitled to all relevant information in the government's possession regarding al-Qaeda." - appleofdischord, on 06/10/2009, -1/+4allegedly.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember? - jtt123, on 06/09/2009, -3/+6I'd do that anyway for the 200+ people he killed
- ShrikeDeCil, on 06/10/2009, -0/+3There have been military tribunals set up several times now under different frameworks. The various anti-military-tribunal groups have been filing complaints non-stop and grinding the proceedings to a halt.
President Obama declared an immediate freeze on military tribunals on inauguration day as an extra little hurdle. - ElCheLikesAudi, on 06/10/2009, -2/+5I sooooooooo proud to be a New Yorker and Jersey boy right now I was watching news clip of all these other state saying "you can't bring them here!" and ***** like that. We lost 3,000 people yet we have the balls to allow these people a trial while everyone else say "it too risky" well I'm here to say this. At least didn't forget the right thing to do!
- c0mputar, on 06/10/2009, -0/+2I learn something new everyday!
- Jowsley, on 06/10/2009, -0/+2"Human rights activists say that European nation is (sic) concerned about economic and diplomatic retaliation from China. The Chinese government has said no returned Uighurs would be tortured, but warned other countries in January against taking the men."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.uighu ... - c0mputar, on 06/10/2009, -1/+3Nah. You and most people missed my point. I'm banging my head at how funky your comment was. I think what made it funky was the placement of your comma, your conservative stance on the death penalty, and your short sentence structure of the liberal statement. I'm probably one of the most liberal people you'd ever know.
- c0mputar, on 06/09/2009, -2/+4Everybody panic!
- lamejoketeller, on 06/09/2009, -4/+6wasted first comment.
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1If convicted and executed, will this guy get credit for time served?
- costumemaker, on 06/09/2009, -8/+9.. and this is how it should be.
You want to declare someone a terrorist? You do it through the court system that our founding fathers set up. This gives the US credibility since it actually uses real justice rather than totalitarianism. - mrseptic, on 06/10/2009, -0/+1"The Geneva Conventions do -not- require a trial of any sort for a POW."
That's great, except they're not being held as POWs. - ShrikeDeCil, on 06/10/2009, -2/+3The Geneva Conventions do -not- require a trial of any sort for a POW.
They explicitly forbid a -civilian- trial and mandate a military tribunal. Additionally, there are strong limitations on what you can -charge- a POW with under the Geneva Conventions. Killing someone in uniform isn't a war crime, for instance. - mikelieman, on 06/10/2009, -2/+3JimmyTheClam,
Please cite the relevant Federal Rules of criminal procedure which supports your allegation that anyone can view documents sealed by the Judge? - inactive, on 06/10/2009, -4/+5The ACLU and the other assorted "rights" groups who kept petitioning against military tribunals.
- Adrian540, on 06/10/2009, -2/+3TURRORISTS? Not in my backyard!
- akchrs, on 06/10/2009, -6/+7βThey torture me in the Obama time more than Bush.β ~ Lakhdar Boumediene former Guantanamo detainee
- inactive, on 06/10/2009, -3/+3I know, being a Republican, the whole "fair trial" first thing probably confuses the hell out of you.
- inactive, on 06/10/2009, -3/+3Just keep watching Fox "News," and you will keep feeling warm and fuzzy.
- solboldi, on 06/09/2009, -6/+6Accused in 98, tried in 2009?
- mrseptic, on 06/10/2009, -1/+1"it's the disclosure of the means of intelligence gathering that is the problem."
I completely agree with you, but how can we hold a fair trial without presenting all of the evidence? - ShrikeDeCil, on 06/10/2009, -1/+1You're right. They have less rights than a POW - they fall under the spies, saboteurs, pirates, and guerrilla rules.
But we're promoting them all the way to the civilian courts as part of lawfare. Where the laws are going to have a very tough time with jurisdiction.
The military -just- started reading battlefield captures their Miranda Rights. - ShrikeDeCil, on 06/10/2009, -3/+3Don't worry, they torture me too.
Let's see: sleep deprivation, lack of heat to save planet, lack of decent light from these mercury things. They haven't pulled the caterpillar thing, although the stunt with Caterpillar Inc. was pretty slimy itself. - NMRgentleman, on 06/10/2009, -2/+2So I read, although it sounds like they've only taken "delivery" of precisely one so far, and saying they'll take more and actually doing it are two different things. Perhaps the blog author here was unaware of the one. In any case, I doubt the White House would be doing this if they had any other option, (besides keeping them ourselves, that is.)
- maz2331, on 06/10/2009, -2/+2If you're going to hold them, they need to be tried in a court subserviant to SCOTUS. That's a Constitutional issue, as well as a Geneva Convention one.
Better idea: the spooks that catch them outside US jurisdiction just shoot, shovel, and shut up.
But once they are in custody, Due Process applies.
No sympathy toward terrorists here at all, but the rules are what they are, and have to be followed. - joebagodonuts, on 06/10/2009, -1/+0Bring them to Colorado.
Some of our Congress critters are wussies. It's not like we don't have a good place to put 'em. Heck - we'll take the federal funds to increase staff and facilities, too. :)
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12424986 - akchrs, on 06/10/2009, -3/+2AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
- InfiniteNothing, on 06/10/2009, -6/+5Thus more proof torturing doesn't produce reliable results
- BotchaMcCoola, on 06/10/2009, -2/+1The richest al-Qaeda supprorters are in Saudi Arabia. I guess we still won't do anything about them though, right?
- Recluse84, on 06/09/2009, -6/+5I say we tie bricks to his feet and throw him in a lake. If he drowns, he must be Al Qaeda.
- mikelieman, on 06/10/2009, -3/+2"Sure we can get a conviction, it's the disclosure of the means of intelligence gathering that is the problem."
Yeah. If the truth ever comes out in a court, these guys who tortured prisoners in their custody are *****.
"And while we are at it, what about getting getting legitimate intelligence thrown out because it does not conform with civilian evidence gathering techniques."
I don't remember there being any limits on the 5th Amendment's guarantees of Due Process, so if it's inadmissible, it's inadmissible. And the person who collected it should be sanctioned.
"Finally, it took DECADES of mobsters walking free, and witnesses being murdered before we saw out first RICO statutes and changes in the law to deal with that kind of unique threat."
So you admit that the DOJ and Federal Courts and Marshals have all the experience and training they need.
Thank you for your contribution. - solboldi, on 06/09/2009, -3/+2Where in the article does it reference the 2004 date?
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is