Obama Administration Secures Conviction of Khadr

[Coito ergo sum]

Such as?

If you're going to try war crimes, it should be in a court that has no ties or is not influenced by any of the parties to that war. How is it I need to explain that?

I suppose because what you're coming up with is a new invention. I have no idea what you're talking about because nobody has ever done it the way you're suggesting.

This fiction that a US military court can be unbiased is just ludicrous. Who could possibly defend it?

Maybe the United Nations, which allows for the use of military tribunals by detaining nations under the Geneva Conventions, including but not limited to ARticle 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.

The trouble is, in America, you just accept anything that suits america. It's a national mindset. Part of your brains appear to be missing, a sort of selective blindness.
.

It's not America, dude. It's every country on the face of the Earth. So stop pretending like this is something that the US invented. It's normal and it's legal.

[mistermack]

It's not America, dude. It's every country on the face of the Earth. So stop pretending like this is something that the US invented. It's normal and it's legal.

It's all normal and legal, if you win the war.
If that's all that's important to you, I feel a bit sorry for you. I'm more concerned with is it right, is it just.
Is it legal? I could have worked that one out myself. If you make the law, what you do is always going to be legal.

As far as the US goes, it's them that consistently block the establishment of an international court, and of course it's obvious why. They have most to hide.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not America, dude. It's every country on the face of the Earth. So stop pretending like this is something that the US invented. It's normal and it's legal.

It's all normal and legal, if you win the war.

Well, sure. The country that loses a war has tended not to have power to put anyone on trial. They've surrendered.

If that's all that's important to you, I feel a bit sorry for you. I'm more concerned with is it right, is it just.

No - if you were just concerned about what was right and just, then you wouldn't JUST rail against the United States when the US is not doing anything materially different than the French did, or the Brits or any other country you can name that has been involved in wars. It's not about right and just with you, it's about railing against the US.

Is it legal? I could have worked that one out myself. If you make the law, what you do is always going to be legal.

The US doesn't invent international law by itself.

As far as the US goes, it's them that consistently block the establishment of an international court, and of course it's obvious why. They have most to hide.
.

The US hasn't "blocked" formation of the ICC. The ICC exists. The US just hasn't signed onto it. That's how international law works.

And, the main reason the US is reticent, even under Obama, to sign on to the ICC is the idea that the US will be subjected to ridiculous and politically motivated prosecutions. Exhibit A: http://warisacrime.org/node/49394

Please don't pretend that everyone's motives (except the US's of course) are pure as the driven snow....lol

[eXcommunicate]

Yes, there has, and my position has been consistent that trying them in military tribunals is consistent with past practice by the US and every other western (and non-western) country.

This is actually not an untenable position. Even being as Left as I am, I do understand that historical precedent is on the side of military tribunals. I think though that a new precedent should have been established so that we live up more fully to our ideals. I'd rather we had lived up to the Declaration of Independence when it says, "... All men are created equal." Also, many rights in The Constitution are granted specifically to persons, rather than to just "citizens." But like I said, the historical precedent is toward tribunals to try and convict these men. I just don't think we need to be slaves to precedent.

[mistermack]

No - if you were just concerned about what was right and just, then you wouldn't JUST rail against the United States when the US is not doing anything materially different than the French did, or the Brits or any other country you can name that has been involved in wars. It's not about right and just with you, it's about railing against the US.

WTF ?? I'm replying to this specific thread.

The US hasn't "blocked" formation of the ICC. The ICC exists. The US just hasn't signed onto it. That's how international law XXXXX (doesn''t work).

Fixed!

And, the main reason the US is reticent, even under Obama, to sign on to the ICC is the idea that the US will be subjected to ridiculous and politically motivated prosecutions. Exhibit A: http://warisacrime.org/node/49394

Some professor filed it. It doesn't mean it would happen. Worst luck.
But if the US had been a long-time ratifier, maybe Bush and Cheyney etc. wouldn't have been so keen on torture.

Please don't pretend that everyone's motives (except the US's of course) are pure as the driven snow....lol

I don't think I did that anywhere. I'm replying to a specific thread. Your own thread actually.

[Trolldor]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?
.

It? The guy pled guilty and was therefore convicted and was just sentenced to 40 years.

EDIT: Did you mean "what the fuck has the Obama administration have to do with a US military panel anyway?"

Err...the Obama administration is the Chief Executive, and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, and it is the Obama Administration that runs the prosecution of these fellows. It is they who decide whom to prosecute, and whom to let go, etc. They have everything to do with it.

1) They bring the case, it is the courts who decide whether there is a case to answer for so they can't be held at fault for that.
2) Sentencing is done by the courts, not the administration, so they can't be held at fault for that.
3) When was he caught and charged?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, there has, and my position has been consistent that trying them in military tribunals is consistent with past practice by the US and every other western (and non-western) country.

This is actually not an untenable position. Even being as Left as I am, I do understand that historical precedent is on the side of military tribunals. I think though that a new precedent should have been established so that we live up more fully to our ideals.

That is fair enough. It is certainly not an unreasonable position to suggest that we should have done something differently. I am happy to have that discussion, and would certainly be open to a different course of action. What I object to is the shrill anti-US chirping by folks that pretend that military tribunals are illegal, and that only the US is evil enough to have used them.

I'd rather we had lived up to the Declaration of Independence when it says, "... All men are created equal."

As I noted, George Washington, not an obscure founding father, and plenty familiar with the ideals of the U.S., used a military commission under similar circumstances.

Also, many rights in The Constitution are granted specifically to persons, rather than to just "citizens." But like I said, the historical precedent is toward tribunals to try and convict these men. I just don't think we need to be slaves to precedent.

I agree. The Devil is the details; however, and the alternative should be laid out in sufficient detail and persuasively shown to be better.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?
.

It? The guy pled guilty and was therefore convicted and was just sentenced to 40 years.

EDIT: Did you mean "what the fuck has the Obama administration have to do with a US military panel anyway?"

Err...the Obama administration is the Chief Executive, and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, and it is the Obama Administration that runs the prosecution of these fellows. It is they who decide whom to prosecute, and whom to let go, etc. They have everything to do with it.

1) They bring the case, it is the courts who decide whether there is a case to answer for so they can't be held at fault for that.

It was a plea bargain, so the prosecutor - part of the "Executive Branch" headed by the President (the chief federal law enforcement officer and commander in chief of the military), has everything to do with it, and Obama himself had the power to end the prosecution or bring the prosecution, accept the plea or not accept the plea. It's a DOD prosecution! Obama IS the DOD - the Secretary of Defense is in the President's Cabinet!

And, the Obama administration has the authority to decide which tribunal the guy is tried in. Just like you probably railed against the "illegal Bush military tribunals" - they are Obama's tribunals now.

2) Sentencing is done by the courts, not the administration, so they can't be held at fault for that.

It's the Obama Administration that chose the tribunal. It's the Obama administration that is holding the guy in Guantanamo. It's the Obama administration that has prosecutorial discretion. And, it's the Obama administration that offered and accepted the plea bargain. LOL - Yes, the Department of Defense military tribunal judge imposed the sentence...

LOL - I wonder...if Bush was President ...would you be arguing that he has no role in this, just as you are arguing for the Obama Administration?

3) When was he caught and charged?

He was caught in Afghanistan in July, 2002. He was formally charged with murder on November 7, 2005.

[Trolldor]

lol.

He was caught in Afghanistan in July, 2002. He was formally charged with murder on November 7, 2005.

That answers the question of who's responsible.

Thread over.

[Coito ergo sum]

lol.

He was caught in Afghanistan in July, 2002. He was formally charged with murder on November 7, 2005.

That answers the question of who's responsible.

Thread over.

Huh...responsible?

I was applauding the Obama Administration for getting the conviction. I wasn't sure you opposed it.

If you think it's an injustice, then just because the guy was arrested and charged under the previous administration doesn't absolve this administration of the injustice. If it was an unjust prosecution, the Obama Administration had the unfettered authority to end it, at will, and without asking anyone. They could drop the prosecution and set him free. They needed no permission from a judge, no authorization from congress - nothing. They chose not to - since January, 2009, they pressed this prosecution, and they sought the plea bargain.

And, I say, "nice job, Obama. Way to get it done, when the predecessor let it languish."

You of course, seem to think there's something wrong with it, and then pretend as if the Obama Administration was still not in control of the Executive Branch.

[mistermack]

Coito, your argument about precedents is crazy. So military tribunals have been used before. That makes it all right in your eyes?
Does the same logic apply to the jews? There is a precedent for mass murder, so it should be ok now then?
"Someone did it before" is a non-argument. You never cease to amaze me.
.

[eXcommunicate]

While I disagree with the argument for precedent, I don't think it has no basis. It's one of the core foundations of the application of LAW.

[redunderthebed]

This fiction that a US military court can be unbiased is just ludicrous. Who could possibly defend it?

Maybe the United Nations, which allows for the use of military tribunals by detaining nations under the Geneva Conventions, including but not limited to ARticle 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.

Oh the irony the geneva convention was considered not applicable to people who were in gitmo but to defend the yankee way of doing things it is?!.

Coito, your argument about precedents is crazy. So military tribunals have been used before. That makes it all right in your eyes?
Does the same logic apply to the jews? There is a precedent for mass murder, so it should be ok now then?
"Someone did it before" is a non-argument. You never cease to amaze me.
.

Right wing people especially the intellectual types are generally full of shit why does this amaze you?

[PsychoSerenity]

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, your argument about precedents is crazy. So military tribunals have been used before. That makes it all right in your eyes?

There is nothing "inherently" wrong with military tribunals in these circumstances. I was very clear that I was open to persuasive alternatives.

And, I was quite clear that what I opposed was the shrill cries, pretending that the US invented military tribunals when just about every other country uses them.

Does the same logic apply to the jews? There is a precedent for mass murder, so it should be ok now then?

It wasn't o.k. then. So, it can't be precedent that it's o.k. now. That's why Nazis were tried at Nuremberg. It wasn't o.k.

"Someone did it before" is a non-argument. You never cease to amaze me.
.

Your inability to understand English never ceases to amaze me.

Military tribunals are not illegal, provided they satisfy the requirements of international law. Is anyone claiming that the one used by Obama is illegal under international law?