Thread: So these are the types of people the supreme court want to turn loose on US courts?

Lucky for us, in warfare we do not have to grant the enemy the assumption of innocence before guilt is proven. Of course, you don't have to take my word for anything. I don't think anyone is arguing that the detainees captured in the midst of terrorist activities are "great guys". Far from the truth. Where my fundamental disagreement with others is their insistence on seeing these people as the equivalent to a citizen captured for petty larceny at WalMart. They are not the same. They aren't citizens, they aren't soldiers, they demand protection under the Geneva conventions which specifically excludes them from its protections but then when it suits them (e.g. they don't want to wait until the end of hostilities to be tried or released) they want to be treated as U.S. citizens and given a media heavy U.S. trial by the same people they are sworn to destroy on the very soil of their target country, rather than the military trial granted to POW's found guilty of a crime. If they are to have a civilian trial, I feel the jurisdiction belongs to the country in which their crimes took place or the country of their victims. If Achmel Fayad is detained because he is known to be the mastermind of the Al Qaeda cell in Talil, for instance, if it is unacceptable (illegal! some would scream) to keep him in captivity to find out who his group was going to murder next and when/how, then I'm sure he would have a nice trial in Talil at the hands of the Iraqis, who no doubt have not forgotten the decapitated bodies floating down the Tigris that many here in the U.S. seem to forget too easily. Wonder how long he would last.
If one would claim we have no right to detain these people, then such is tantamount to admitting the detainees are NOT EPWs. It also follows, that if it is claimed we cannot detain such people, we also would therefore have no authority to TRY them, either. Back to Afghanistan, or Iraq, or wherever, to face trial. That goes for the Americans and British and other America haters that enlisted and bore arms against us for Al Qaeda. They get tried over there too. They have forfeited their rights as citizens here, simply by bearing arms against there own country.
Seems fair to me, anyway. I see no reason to keep people we can't try and who we can't get information from to save innocents because it *might* violate some right or other that an American lawyer thinks they have.


John P.

John, forgive me, but I'm having trouble following your point. You're saying that we have proven operatives of terror that we shouldn't allow habaes corpus to because if we can't prove they're operatives of terror we'll have to let them go. If they're proven they'll stay if not we shouldn't be keeping them.

As for your mention of what Iraqis/americans remember/forget habaes corpus isn't a civil trial with a jury and all, it's a judge determining whether or not there's enough evidence to detain someone.

I've never seen someone ask for a full trial with jury, only habaes corpus which is a chance for someone to examine all facts and determine if they can or cannot be held. If they're in our custody that judgment as to whether or not we keep them there should be done by our laws.

Out of curiosity do you believe that blackwater should be tried under afghani law where their crimes were committed as they wish or under american law as they are an american contractors, american citizens and currently based in the us?

I have a couple of links regarding the precedent that the supremes broke at the link below... all the way from WW2

Adult Content Notice

Originally Posted by Nickelking

John, forgive me, but I'm having trouble following your point. You're saying that we have proven operatives of terror that we shouldn't allow habaes corpus to because if we can't prove they're operatives of terror we'll have to let them go. If they're proven they'll stay if not we shouldn't be keeping them.

As for your mention of what Iraqis/americans remember/forget habaes corpus isn't a civil trial with a jury and all, it's a judge determining whether or not there's enough evidence to detain someone.

I've never seen someone ask for a full trial with jury, only habaes corpus which is a chance for someone to examine all facts and determine if they can or cannot be held. If they're in our custody that judgment as to whether or not we keep them there should be done by our laws.

Out of curiosity do you believe that blackwater should be tried under afghani law where their crimes were committed as they wish or under american law as they are an american contractors, american citizens and currently based in the us?

Nickelking, while I see where you are going with this, for the detainees to then wish to be treated as POW's (or more up to date, "EPW's") they then are not as I understand under the jurisdiction of any U.S. court, but rather a military tribunal or some such. If, on the other hand they wish to be tried as U.S. citizens which they are not, their actions did not necessarily occur under U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore they should be tried in an Afghan or Iraqi court, for instance. Since they wish to be treated as EPWs, no civilian judge has any real authority over whether they are being held wrongfully or not, they will remain until the end of hostilities with Al Qaeda or such other sooner time is deemed appropriate by the U.S. government. POW's do not get habeas corpus, they are simply detained until releasing them would not be increasing enemy troop strengths. See what I mean here?
We want them to have their cake and eat it as well. There is no prerogative to release them at all if they are EPW's, because we are still in conflict with the entity they are claiming as a "nation" (Al Qaeda) in order to "sortof" be protected as enemy combatants, rather than be sent back to trial immediately (and probably execution) at the hands of Iraqi or Afghan forms of justice.

As for Blackwater, it as an organization did not commit any of the crimes many people attribute to it, but certain operatives have been accused of doing so. Those people as citizens definitely fall under U.S. jurisdiction, as they are HERE. Remember, witnesses were flown all the way from Iraq to try and convict the Marines accused of murder in Haditha, only to find after the media spectacle lasting months and at least one senator had declared them murderers, that at least 7 of the 8 were innocent, and perhaps all of them?
WRT Blackwater, Had Afghan authorities captured them doing illegal activity, unless it was in a U.S. controlled area (US military jurisdiction) yes, I feel the Afghans would have the right to try these individuals. As mercenaries, they are also not protected under the Geneva conventions, which are clearly written specifically to provide guidelines for warfare between uniformed armed forces and an unarmed, (ununiformed) civilian populace. Mercenaries in this case, or terrorists in the case of Al Qaeda operatives, are not included.



John P.

Really I think the geneva convention shouldn't hold just to POWs, but to any human, once again it falls under minimum human rights. (ps, what does EPW stand for, I haven't heard that one.) Al Quaeda will always exist... I don't think it's possible to exterminate an ideology so does that mean these people are POWs for life?

While traditional POWs I can see being held until the end of hostilities, in this war (yes I cal it a war despite what some peoples semantics say) it's much much more difficult to tell who's an enemy combatant. I read possibly in the WSJ, I can't remember that only 24 of the detainees were captured on the battlefield, they're obviously clear POWs, but we haven't proven much in the way of the rest.

I would like to note that I don't think any of the GITMO detainees will get released as a result of Habaes Corpus, I believe in our administration enough to believe they are all there for rightful provable reasons. I also doubt that any judge will let them go for anything less than full proof of innocence. But the fact that we allow it will raise our perception in world opinion and may be enough to bring back support for what we really need to do.

Thanks for the response on the blackwater part, I was just curious as they seem to be gunning for that only because afghani law doesn't hold the company responsible. only the employee.

In principle I agree with you in a way, although I would point out that the Geneva conventions were not held specifically to make human rights laws, but to arrive at a set of rules that would delineate the activities considered proper during warfare, e.g. who one is required to treat well, and who is not. Terrorists and spies, for instance, are thought very lowly of, apparently, as they not only are not covered, but are specifically excluded from its protections. Therefore, they actually do not apply in quite a few cases where people would like to apply them. For instance, I would LOVE to be able to use pepper spray and the like to assist in my escape if such became necessary, but pepper spray is against the Geneva conventions, and is considered a chemical agent. After mass mustard gassing in WWI, someone saw fit to restrict chemical agents. Just an example. Police and civilians *here* however are not governed by Geneva conventions and can use them freely. Even nightclub bouncers carry it.

EPW=Enemy Prisoner of War. It's the same thing, I guess somebody wanted a new acronym.


Night folks.


John P.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

I believe in our administration enough to believe they are all there for rightful provable reasons.

Sadly, this is not the case. Unless, the government reveals what it knows in open court, you will never know if there is evidence or not. Saying, "I have evidence that I can't show you" is simply a way of covering up your mistakes.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

I also doubt that any judge will let them go for anything less than full proof of innocence..

"Full proof of innocence" ... what an odd thing for an American to say. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Sadly, this is not the case. Unless, the government reveals what it knows in open court, you will never know if there is evidence or not. Saying, "I have evidence that I can't show you" is simply a way of covering up your mistakes.

And sometimes its a matter of national security!

Originally Posted by Chimensch

"Full proof of innocence" ... what an odd thing for an American to say. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?

War time happened!

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Sadly, this is not the case. Unless, the government reveals what it knows in open court, you will never know if there is evidence or not. Saying, "I have evidence that I can't show you" is simply a way of covering up your mistakes.

that's exactly it, I'd like the evidence to be shown.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

"Full proof of innocence" ... what an odd thing for an American to say. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Believe me, I wish it weren't the case, but I have a feeling that's what the judges will be looking for.

ha! those last two posts together eare hilariously JMS and I.