Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[angellous_evangellous]

so for you, angellous, should this right be reserved for American citizens, or should immigrants have a right to trial in that case as well?

Well, not all arrests lead to trials. Arrests require sufficient evidence and then more evidence is needed for it to go to trial. In this process, we need to figure out precisely who we have in custody, and in the case of illegal immigrants I personally would rather see them in our prisons here (or executed here) for crimes committed here than have a chance to be released or executed in another country. But this is out of concern for the victim's family, who can be assured that the scum is suffering at our hands. So yes, I think that anyone arrested on our soil, with the exception of terrorists, should have a trial.

As it is, I care little for scumbags be they indigenous or imports.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, not all arrests lead to trials. Arrests require sufficient evidence and then more evidence is needed for it to go to trial. In this process, we need to figure out precisely who we have in custody, and in the case of illegal immigrants I personally would rather see them in our prisons here (or executed here) for crimes committed here than have a chance to be released or executed in another country. But this is out of concern for the victim's family, who can be assured that the scum is suffering at our hands. So yes, I think that anyone arrested on our soil, with the exception of terrorists, should have a trial.

As it is, I care little for scumbags be they indigenous or imports.

Or rather, to be more specific in answering my question, a right to trial. What say you, MM118, should anyone arrested have a right to a trial? Only citizens, or immigrants as well?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or rather, to be more specific in answering my question, a right to trial.

It's still imprecise for non-citizens, though. Do they really have a right to a trial if they are sent back to their home country to be tried there, in certain extreme cases?

Anyway, for our purposes, I think that when a person is arrested and charged with a crime committed on US soil, they have the same right to a trial as a citizen.

The thing is, terrorist "suspects" aren't being charged with a crime, nor technically arrested. They are being held as enemy combatants for crimes not committed on US soil, and are subject to military tribunal rather than US law. US law, after all, is not international or world-wide in its mission and scope.

 

[Autodidact]

It's still imprecise for non-citizens, though. Do they really have a right to a trial if they are sent back to their home country to be tried there, in certain extreme cases?

I was referring only to a right to trial in the U.S. for crimes committed in the U.S.

Anyway, for our purposes, I think that when a person is arrested and charged with a crime committed on US soil, they have the same right to a trial as a citizen.

The thing is, terrorist "suspects" aren't being charged with a crime, nor technically arrested. They are being held as enemy combatants for crimes not committed on US soil, and are subject to military tribunal rather than US law. US law, after all, is not international or world-wide in its mission and scope.

Right, but MM118 is denying them any rights.

"Enemy combatants" is a category the Bush admininstration made up to try to avoid giving them any rights, whether as prisoners of war or criminal defendants. Prisoners of war would get some minimal rights, and be released when the war is over. Bush et al. declined to use this category, probably because they didn't want the Geneva conventions to apply. So they're stuck with criminal defendants.

Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court decision giving them habeas corpus rights?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was referring only to a right to trial in the U.S. for crimes committed in the U.S.

I hope that I've been clear about that, then.

Right, but MM118 is denying them any rights.

"Enemy combatants" is a category the Bush admininstration made up to try to avoid giving them any rights, whether as prisoners of war or criminal defendants. Prisoners of war would get some minimal rights, and be released when the war is over. Bush et al. declined to use this category, probably because they didn't want the Geneva conventions to apply. So they're stuck with criminal defendants.

Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court decision giving them habeas corpus rights?

On the one hand, this to me appears to severely abuse our justice system. It's reaching over to people held by our military and treats enemies of the state as if they were residents on our soil. In this respect, it makes no sense to me - we are in effect treating our enemies as friends.

On the other hand, I do like the American spirit and symbolism of the decision, calling to mind for me the greatness of America as displayed at Nuremberg. It is America at its very best IMHO.

However, I wish that we didn't know what our military did with combatants that they need to extract information from. The public nature of Gitmo and the fight for the rights of its detainees is IMHO a light at the end of the tunnel for the Bush administration. Its public nature, despite its secretive nature, has opened it up to public review.

 

[LittlePinky82]

total straw man argument, i have proved you are misquoting me and you are asking me to prove your own misinterpretation of my quotes , and you keep doing it over and over but it doesn't change a thing , i cannot prove, what you claim, i am claiming ,

you have ignored the one to one thread i set up ,
you have clogged up this thread with you astounding nonsense, and it ends
here.
I will not answer your absurd misinterpretation and misquotes of my posts,any longer.
Your deliberately crafting posts to provoke me with the intention of wasting my time and energy. its almost trolling

game over .end of .

How did you prove it? Did you quote yourself and than where I misquoted you? Nope. You didn't do it. All you did was make the claim. That is not proof. If we were in a court room right now I can bet that the judge would be laughing his *** off at you and your claims against me. Pathetic!

Hon I just have been on here now. I haven't seen your thread yet. I do have a life. I do need sleep you know. I have other things to do. Sorry I can't bow at everything you do or say. Get over it. Unlike some people on here obviously I'm not online every single minute of the day.

Ah so you do admit defeat. Good job. Finally! All I've asked you all a long is to prove your claim these groups are influential in Iraq. You've finally admitted you can't. How many pages has it been now? Thank God!

So asking you to prove your claim is now trolling? You don't know the definition of trolling hon. People only accuse others of trolling like you did when they have nothing themselves to contribute so instead they character assassinate. So let's see throughout these last few pages of a simple request you've insulted me for my political beliefs, my intelligence and for being a new person on the board. Wow Kai if this is how you treat all new people to the forum it's a shame really. Oh and I still never got that apology for your insults either. So are you going to take a couple more pages to do that now?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Well, not all arrests lead to trials. Arrests require sufficient evidence and then more evidence is needed for it to go to trial. In this process, we need to figure out precisely who we have in custody, and in the case of illegal immigrants I personally would rather see them in our prisons here (or executed here) for crimes committed here than have a chance to be released or executed in another country. But this is out of concern for the victim's family, who can be assured that the scum is suffering at our hands. So yes, I think that anyone arrested on our soil, with the exception of terrorists, should have a trial.

As it is, I care little for scumbags be they indigenous or imports.

Nope. Even the so-called "terrorist" gets a trial as well. There was a story a couple years back of a guy from Canada who was arrested for being a terrorist. He was put in jail and tortured and later released because it turned out he wasn't a terrorist. Just because you claim someone is a "terrorist" doesn't mean they are. I mean hell George Bush has been spying illegally on anti-war groups. More than likely in his mind they're "terrorist's."

 

[LittlePinky82]

I hope that I've been clear about that, then.

On the one hand, this to me appears to severely abuse our justice system. It's reaching over to people held by our military and treats enemies of the state as if they were residents on our soil. In this respect, it makes no sense to me - we are in effect treating our enemies as friends.

On the other hand, I do like the American spirit and symbolism of the decision, calling to mind for me the greatness of America as displayed at Nuremberg. It is America at its very best IMHO.

However, I wish that we didn't know what our military did with combatants that they need to extract information from. The public nature of Gitmo and the fight for the rights of its detainees is IMHO a light at the end of the tunnel for the Bush administration. Its public nature, despite its secretive nature, has opened it up to public review.

Why shouldn't you want to know? It's OUR military. It's the public. We have a right to know what they are doing. If they are torturing people. Killing people. Holding people and violating the Constitution. We have EVERY right.

 

[Autodidact]

Maher Arar

 

[LittlePinky82]

Maher Arar

Yes that's the guy! Sorry I couldn't remember his name. I just remember the event because I was so disgusted by it. (Definitely not surprised however)

 

[Autodidact]

If you are interested in the case, here is a link to an article that I wrote for an impeachment blog almost a year ago about the Arar case.
There is also an article I wrote for that site about habeas corpus that you may find interesting.

 

[LittlePinky82]

If you are interested in the case, here is a link to an article that I wrote for an impeachment blog almost a year ago about the Arar case.
There is also an article I wrote for that site about habeas corpus that you may find interesting.

Thanks. I'll have to check it out later tonight when it's more quiet around here and I can really read it.

 

[blackout]

Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Of what accused crime are we speaking here?
Guilty or innocent of What?

 

[Autodidact]

Bin Ladin hates Bush so ergo not only is he innocent he is a hero. [sarcasm]

Personally when someone says, "I am the one who fly the planes into the WTC and I am declaring war on America.", I tend to take them at there word. Fine, we are at war. See you on the battlefield. Our troops have found educational material in Iraq that teach how to use our legal system and the media against us.

Anyone who thinks we can win this war by treating it like a murder trial is just fooling themselves.

Are we at war with Al Qaeda? I missed that.

 

[Autodidact]

I think the Supreme Court decision is moot, as they have no jurisdiction outside US, and have absolutely no authority over the military. They may as well have declared all the prisoners not guilty, it would not have made a difference. I think its just another example of judges trying to be more than mere interpreters of law.:angel2:

Are you saying that GITMO is not part of the U.S.? What country is it a part of then?

And you're quite wrong about the second part. Say a U.S. general walks up to your spouse and shoots them dead. Can they be prosecuted? If the appeal goes up, would SCOTUS have jurisdiction?

It appears that you haven't a clue. btw, I'm a lawyer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying that GITMO is not part of the U.S.? What country is it a part of then?

Cuba.

AFAIK, the US' position at GITMO is something akin to a tenant who became a squatter when his landlord died.

I thought that the base was created under an agreement with the pre-Castro Cuban government, and the US just refused to leave when the Communists took power. I don't believe that anyone on either side has ever argued that it's anything other than Cuban soil... albeit with a big honkin' US government facility on it.

I've wondered about what the legal implications of this might be. For instance, in my one "law for engineers" class, I learned that a contract for an illegal purpose is unenforceable; I wonder if this means that KFC or the other restaurants on-base aren't legally required to pay their suppliers or staff, since conducting transactions in US dollars is illegal in Cuba, which implies to me that virtually any commercial contract at GITMO where money changes hands would be "for an illegal purpose".

Edit: going back to the initial point, though, my position is that when it comes to the US government, you can't have power derived from the Constitution without the freedoms and restrictions in it as well. Since under the US system, all American governmental power flows from the Constitution, if the government exercises authority anywhere in the world, if it's legal and legitimate, then it must be bound by the limits of the Constitution as well.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hello everybody,

In light of the latest Supreme Court decision where the detainees at Gitmo have a right to a hearing wouldn't Bin Laden be innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, say we capture Bin Laden, isn't he given this right to a hearing? And if it is to be a fair hearing wouldn't he have to be innocent until proven guilty?

And doesn't this undercut many opponents of the Iraq war that say that we should be going after (and indeed trying to kill) Bin Laden instead of going to Iraq?

I believe he is innocent until proven alive and proven guilty. Some over there believe he's dead. Bhutto certainly believed he was killed.

 

[England my lionheart]

Hello everybody,

In light of the latest Supreme Court decision where the detainees at Gitmo have a right to a hearing wouldn't Bin Laden be innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, say we capture Bin Laden, isn't he given this right to a hearing? And if it is to be a fair hearing wouldn't he have to be innocent until proven guilty?

And doesn't this undercut many opponents of the Iraq war that say that we should be going after (and indeed trying to kill) Bin Laden instead of going to Iraq?

I personally believe he is dead but if he were taken alive it does raise problems but he should be tried by the Hague for crimes against Humanity and given the rights of anyone accused of a crime,representation,innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Elessar]

Cuba.

AFAIK, the US' position at GITMO is something akin to a tenant who became a squatter when his landlord died.

I thought that the base was created under an agreement with the pre-Castro Cuban government, and the US just refused to leave when the Communists took power. I don't believe that anyone on either side has ever argued that it's anything other than Cuban soil... albeit with a big honkin' US government facility on it.

I've wondered about what the legal implications of this might be. For instance, in my one "law for engineers" class, I learned that a contract for an illegal purpose is unenforceable; I wonder if this means that KFC or the other restaurants on-base aren't legally required to pay their suppliers or staff, since conducting transactions in US dollars is illegal in Cuba, which implies to me that virtually any commercial contract at GITMO where money changes hands would be "for an illegal purpose".

Edit: going back to the initial point, though, my position is that when it comes to the US government, you can't have power derived from the Constitution without the freedoms and restrictions in it as well. Since under the US system, all American governmental power flows from the Constitution, if the government exercises authority anywhere in the world, if it's legal and legitimate, then it must be bound by the limits of the Constitution as well.

Actually, no, by advice given to Castro by the USSR, Guantanamo is still on permanent lease to the United States, for the price of $100 of gold annually.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, no, by advice given to Castro by the USSR, Guantanamo is still on permanent lease to the United States, for the price of $100 of gold annually.

Hmm. I guess I assumed that since Casto came to power, the US' presence would have been unwanted.

Anyhow, doesn't that mean that GITMO's status as Cuban soil is even more certain?