Stupid woman

[denoir 0]

Except for two things:

1) Right now two US citizens are going to face such a tribunal.

2) The Geneva conventions that it violates were written in 1949 - after WW2.

Haupt was a U.S. citizen, he was condemned anyway.  Later he was pardoned.  Citizenship is not always the determinative factor on who gets tried by military tribunal.  Treasonous action against America in support of a foreign combatant is the determinative factor.

Well, then, if I have ever claimed that America was a judicially fair country, I take it back.

So your Constitution allows the state to charge a citizen with treason and bypass all the judicial safeguards? Goes well together with the PATRIOT act, don't you think? It doesn't speak to well of your justice system though.

Well, maybe you are allowed by your constitution to do that to your own citizens. You can't however to foregin citizens as you have ratified the third act of the 1949 Geneva convention, which sets specific requirements on independence and impartiality of the accusing, defending and judging parties.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Geneva Convention I don't believe covers saboteurs operating within foreign borders.  Under the Convention, saboteurs and spies are subject to summary execution.  At least in America, they get a trial.

Saboteurs and spies are not covered by the Convention.

[Schoeler 0]

Except for two things:

1) Right now two US citizens are going to face such a tribunal.

2) The Geneva conventions that it violates were written in 1949 - after WW2.

Haupt was a U.S. citizen, he was condemned anyway.  Later he was pardoned.  Citizenship is not always the determinative factor on who gets tried by military tribunal.  Treasonous action against America in support of a foreign combatant is the determinative factor.

Well, then, if I have ever claimed that America was a judicially fair country, I take it back.

So your Constitution allows the state to charge a citizen with treason and bypass all the safeguards? Goes well together with the PATRIOT act, don't you think?

Well, maybe you are allowed by your constitution to do that to your own citizens. You can't however to foregin citizens as you have ratified the third act of the 1949 Geneva convention, which sets specific requirements on independence and impartiality of the accusing, defending and judging parties.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Geneva Convention I don't believe covers saboteurs operating within foreign borders.  Under the Convention, saboteurs and spies are subject to summary execution.  At least in America, they get a trial.

Saboteurs and spies are not covered by the Convention.

Who said the trial by tribunal isn't impartial?  Are you aware of any differences between it and a regular military courts marshall other than secrecy?  As I said, in time of war, Geneva allows saboteurs and spies to be summarily executed, and many a nation has carried out that sentence.  If you want precedent, there it is.  At least they are getting a trial with evidentiary rules of procedure, representation etc...  Its a hell of a lot better than an immediate march out to the firing squad.

[toadlife 3]

Saboteurs and spies are not covered by the Convention.

Are you syaing that someone suspected of plotting to blow up a bridge (terrorists) cannot be grouped in with Saboteurs? If so, why not?

[denoir 0]

Who said the trial by tribunal isn't impartial?  Are you aware of any differences between it and a regular military courts marshall other than secrecy?   If you want precedent, there it is.  At least they are getting a trial with evidentiary rules of procedure, representation etc...  Its a hell of a lot better than an immediate march out to the firing squad.

Those that fought you in Afghanistan were neither spies nor saboteurs. And your own citizens are not protected by Geneva, but are supposed to be protected by your constitution. In USA however, apparently not.

And yes, if you weren't paying attention, I listed all the basic differences. Here it goes again:

Quote[/b] ]

[*]The comission is neither indenpendet nor impartial. The army officers who will act as 'judges' are paid and promoted by the defence department, an arm of the government which has alledged the prisoners' guilt and which acts as their detaining power. These officers are comissioned to sit as 'judges' by the president - the commander in chief - who decides that the defendants should be prosecuted and who thus has a vested interest in their conviction.

[*]There is no appeal, except to the president, who cannot be impartial because the decision appealed against is that of his own tribunal.

[*]There are no normal evidentiary rules or safeguard. Evidence is admissible if the presiding officer thinks it should be admitted.

[*]The hearing is in secret and the transcripts are not available for third party (including the judicial branch) review.

[*]There is no provision for the burden of proof to be placed on the prosecution, or for it to meet a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Guilt is simply to be established by evidence of 'probative value to a reasonable person'. The officers who form the 'jury' need ont be unanimous - as a vote of two thirds secures a conviction. And to top it all off, they don't have to give a reasoned written judgement.

Quote[/b] ]As I said, in time of war, Geneva allows saboteurs and spies to be summarily executed, and many a nation has carried out that sentence.

No it does not allow it. It just doesn't cover it. Spies are not protected by the Geneva conventions, but those that face military comissions today are not accused of espionage.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]Some highlights:

[*] The comission is neither indenpendet nor impartial. The army officers who will act as 'judges' are paid and promoted by the defence department, an arm of the government which has alledged the prisoners' guilt and which acts as their detaining power. These officers are comissioned to sit as 'judges' by the president - the commander in chief - who decides that the defendants should be prosecuted and who thus has a vested interest in their conviction.

This is the same in any nation for a military courts marshall. I don't see the U.N. accusing the NATO countries of railroading their servicemembers or prisoners of war. A perfectly acceptable and tested method of trying military matters.

Quote[/b] ][*] There is no appeal, except to the president, who cannot be impartial because the decision appealed against is that of his own tribunal.

Wrong, there is an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. If the conviction is sustained, the President can pardon the offender.

Quote[/b] ][*] There are no normal evidentiary rules or safeguard. Evidence is admissible if the presiding officer thinks it should be admitted.

Evidence in any trial is only admissible if the judge (or in this case the presiding officer) thinks it is admissible. Give me a break!

Quote[/b] ][*]The hearing is in secret and the transcripts are not available for third party (including the judicial branch) review.

Transcripts are available to the United States Supreme Court under writ of certiorari.

Quote[/b] ][*] There is no provision for the burden of proof to be placed on the prosecution, or for it to meet a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Guilt is simply to be established by evidence of 'probative value to a reasonable person'. The officers who form the 'jury' need ont be unanimous - as a vote of two thirds secures a conviction. And to top it all off, they don't have to give a reasoned written judgement.

I wouldn't be too sure on this either. I'll look that up for you.

[denoir 0]

Saboteurs and spies are not covered by the Convention.

Are you syaing that someone suspected of plotting to blow up a bridge (terrorists) cannot be grouped in with Saboteurs? If so, why not?

Because there has been no formal declaration of war. They are not enemy saboteurs, but criminals. And as such they should be protected by your constitution.

The cases today are treated like neither. They're not saboteurs nor spies, but Taliban and AQ soldiers that engaged US forces in regular combat. Very few of them are suspected for any concrete act of terrorism.

They have been locked up, not charged with a crime and are going to be tried through a military comission. Two of them are US citizens, who by any normal legal standard would be protected by their constitutional rights to a real trial. But, perhaps that is too much to expect in a country where the Supreme Court decides the results of elections. As shown by Bush, your legal system lacks the safeguards to prevent political abuse of it from the executive and possibly legislative branches of government. There is supposed to be an absolute separation, and in the US, there is not. (Don't get me started on supreme court judges who are or have been politically active).

[Schoeler 0]

Saboteurs and spies are not covered by the Convention.

Are you syaing that someone suspected of plotting to blow up a bridge (terrorists) cannot be grouped in with Saboteurs? If so, why not?

Under Geneva, those not fighting in uniform or under a national flag, or for an organized military force, or recognizable as a nationalist movement (partisans etc..) are not governed by the rules of war. They fall under the rules applicable to spies and saboteurs. Terrorists are not soldiers and do not deserve the respect or protections accorded to legitimate soldiers. Any reasonable person would lump them in with spies and saboteurs, their tactics and targets are virtually indistinguishable.

The Constitution does protect citizens, just not those who renounce citizenship through an act of treason or war against their own people.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Saboteurs and spies are not covered by the Convention.

Are you syaing that someone suspected of plotting to blow up a bridge (terrorists) cannot be grouped in with Saboteurs? If so, why not?

Because there has been no formal declaration of war. They are not enemy saboteurs, but criminals. And as such they should be protected by your constitution.

The cases today are treated like neither. They're not saboteurs nor spies, but Taliban and AQ soldiers that engaged US forces in regular combat. Very few of them are suspected for any concrete act of terrorism.

They have been locked up, not charged with a crime and are going to be tried through a military comission. Two of them are US citizens, who by any normal legal standard would be protected by their constitutional rights to a real trial.

you are forgetting that one of Geneva convention states that there has to be recognizable insignia to be treated as a POW, which Taliban lacked.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Some highlights:

[*]  The comission is neither indenpendet nor impartial. The army officers who will act as 'judges' are paid and promoted by the defence department, an arm of the government which has alledged the prisoners' guilt and which acts as their detaining power. These officers are comissioned to sit as 'judges' by the president - the commander in chief - who decides that the defendants should be prosecuted and who thus has a vested interest in their conviction.

This is the same in any nation for a military courts marshall.  I don't see the U.N. accusing the NATO countries of railroading their servicemembers or prisoners of war.  A perfectly acceptable and tested method of trying military matters.

.

Yeah, but these are not military matters. That system is ok if you want to put your own troops on trial. It is not however if you want to put foregin troops on trial, because it is a violation of article 84 and 85 of the 1949 Geneva (III) Conventions.

It is also no good for charging your onwn civilians - which is what you are doing right now.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ][*] There is no appeal, except to the president, who cannot be impartial because the decision appealed against is that of his own tribunal.

Wrong, there is an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  If the conviction is sustained, the President can pardon the offender.

Not according to what I'm reading. You are confusing it with regular military comissions. This is the one Bush introduced for suspected "terrorists".

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ][*] There are no normal evidentiary rules or safeguard. Evidence is admissible if the presiding officer thinks it should be admitted.

Evidence in any trial is only admissible if the judge (or in this case the presiding officer) thinks it is admissible.  Give me a break!

You're studying law? Scary. The basic requirement for a justice system in any civilized country is that you are not judged by the same people who charge you with the crime. In this case, the very same organization is jury, judge and executioner.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]The basic requirement for a justice system in any civilized country is that you are not judged by the same people who charge you with the crime. In this case, the very same organization is jury, judge and executioner.

then where do you draw the line of hierarchy of organzation? US Supreme court? US gov't itself? UN?

for reference geneva 3

Quote[/b] ]ARTICLE 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

ARTICLE 85

Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.

ARTICLE 105

The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses and, if he deems necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter. He shall be advised of these rights by the Detaining Power in due time before the trial.

Failing a choice by the prisoner of war, the Protecting Power shall find him an advocate or counsel, and shall have at least one week at its disposal for the purpose. The Detaining Power shall deliver to the said Power, on request, a list of persons qualified to present the defence. Failing a choice of an advocate or counsel by the prisoner of war or the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power shall appoint a competent advocate or counsel to conduct the defence.

The advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war shall have at his disposal a period of two weeks at least before the opening of the trial, as well as the necessary facilities to prepare the defence of the accused. He may, in particular, freely visit the accused and interview him in private. He may also confer with any witnesses for the defence, including prisoners of war. He shall have the benefit of these facilities until the term of appeal or petition has expired.

Particulars of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, as well as the documents which are generally communicated to the accused by virtue of the laws in force in the armed forces of th

e Detaining Power, shall be communicated to the accused prisoner of war in a language which he understands, and in good time before the opening of the trial. The same communication in the same circumstances shall be made to the advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war.

The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the trial of the case, unless, exceptionally, this is held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the Detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

notice that it talks about POWs, not the ones who are not classified as POWs.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Some highlights:

[*] The comission is neither indenpendet nor impartial. The army officers who will act as 'judges' are paid and promoted by the defence department, an arm of the government which has alledged the prisoners' guilt and which acts as their detaining power. These officers are comissioned to sit as 'judges' by the president - the commander in chief - who decides that the defendants should be prosecuted and who thus has a vested interest in their conviction.

This is the same in any nation for a military courts marshall. I don't see the U.N. accusing the NATO countries of railroading their servicemembers or prisoners of war. A perfectly acceptable and tested method of trying military matters.

.

Yeah, but these are not military matters. That system is ok if you want to put your own troops on trial. It is not however if you want to put foregin troops on trial, because it is a violation of article 84 and 85 of the 1949 Geneva (III) Conventions.

Of course they are military matters, we are at war. Courts marhsall are employed by all civilized nations to try enemy combatants and foreign soldiers in time of war. You Euros did it all the time in World War II.

Quote[/b] ]It is also no good for charging your onwn civilians - which is what you are doing right now.

The Supreme Court in Quirin when deciding Haupt's fate ruled he had renounced his citizenship by committing an act of war for an enemy power against his own people. He in effect renounced his U.S. citizenship and claimed German citizenship all in one act. Even as a U.S. citizen, it is governed under treason in time of war, a whole new set of rules applies.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ][*] There is no appeal, except to the president, who cannot be impartial because the decision appealed against is that of his own tribunal.

Wrong, there is an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. If the conviction is sustained, the President can pardon the offender.

Not according to what I'm reading. You are confusing it with regular military comissions. This is the one Bush introduced for suspected "terrorists".

Ex Parte Quirin was an appeal from just this sort of trial. Precedent is there loud and clear. There is precedent for appeal to the Supreme Court dating back to 1863. I think what you are reading is inaccurate.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ][*] There are no normal evidentiary rules or safeguard. Evidence is admissible if the presiding officer thinks it should be admitted.

Evidence in any trial is only admissible if the judge (or in this case the presiding officer) thinks it is admissible. Give me a break!

You're studying law? Scary. The basic requirement for a justice system in any civilized country is that you are not judged by the same people who charge you with the crime. In this case, the very same organization is jury, judge and executioner.

The United States charges them with the crime, a panel of military officers judges them. How is this different from a municipality charging a street criminal and him electing to waive a trial by jury and be judged by the local magistrate?

[denoir 0]

you are forgetting that one of Geneva convention states that there has to be recognizable insignia to be treated as a POW, which Taliban lacked.

That can be debated. Both the Geneva accords and the concrete situation in Afghanistan. The primary definition is that there is a chain of command.

Basically there are three categories.

1. Enemy combatants (i.e soldiers). They are very protected by Geneva and have various rights. They can only be charged with war crimes.

2. Spies, saboteurs etc. That are not protected by Geneva, but also only if they are part of an otherwise organized military chain of command. It becomes even more complicated as you must declare war etc etc

3. Criminals. Protected by the civilian laws of the country. If somebody dressed as a civilian, who is not part of a military organization that belongs to a country and has a clear chain of command, starts shooting at your troops, he falls into this category.

Your own citizens (with no affiliation to the own military) are (in normal civilized legal systems) always treated as 3) And hence they should be protected by the own constitution. This includes spies and saboteurs.

Bush & Co interpret everybody as 2) and they refuse to define what actually 2) is. In that construction, anybody, including your own citizens can by the decision of the president be declared to belong to that category. Including own citizens.

Today in USA the following would be legally possible: Bush could declare say all Democrat politicians to be traitors and put them in front of a military comission, whose rules he decides. Or why not all supreme court justices he doesn't like? Their legal protection would be forfeited as well.

That should not be possible in a country that has a functioning judicial, legislative and executive separation of powers.

[Schoeler 0]

By the way Denoir, I forgot to mention that its nice having you back on the other side of the table trading shots. You make this forum a hell of a lot of fun for me.

[denoir 0]

Of course they are military matters, we are at war.  Courts marhsall are employed by all civilized nations to try enemy combatants and foreign soldiers in time of war.  You Euros did it all the time in World War II.

Yeah but (for the fourth time) then came the 1949 Genva Conventions with much stricter requirement specifications. And the current US system doesn't respect those requirement specifications.

Quote[/b] ]The Supreme Court in Quirin when deciding Haupt's fate ruled he had renounced his citizenship by committing an act of war for an enemy power against his own people.  He in effect renounced his U.S. citizenship and claimed German citizenship all in one act.  Even as a U.S. citizen, it is governed under treason in time of war, a whole new set of rules applies.

My point exactly. And since in the current case, the president decides who is to be on the "terrorist/traitor" list, he can choose anybody.

Quote[/b] ]The United States charges them with the crime, a panel of military officers judges them.  How is this different from a municipality charging a street criminal and him electing to waive a trial by jury and be judged by the local magistrate?

Obviously by him electing to waive a trial by jury. Those tried by a military tribunal don't get to choose.

[denoir 0]

By the way Denoir, I forgot to mention that its nice having you back on the other side of the table trading shots.  You make this forum a hell of a lot of fun for me.

Hehe, indeed, I feel the same way It's very boring when all the bright people agree.

Well, I'll have to continue disagreeing with you tomorrow. I'm off to bed now.

[Akira 0]

There is no "option" of a quick trial, it is mandated buy the Constitution.

Sure there is. I think Bush called it a "Military Comission". Who can stand before such a comission? Enemies of the state (now called 'terrorists'). Who decides who qualifies as a terrorist? Why Bush of course!

Some highlights:

[*] The comission is neither indenpendet nor impartial. The army officers who will act as 'judges' are paid and promoted by the defence department, an arm of the government which has alledged the prisoners' guilt and which acts as their detaining power. These officers are comissioned to sit as 'judges' by the president - the commander in chief - who decides that the defendants should be prosecuted and who thus has a vested interest in their conviction.

[*] There is no appeal, except to the president, who cannot be impartial because the decision appealed against is that of his own tribunal.

[*] There are no normal evidentiary rules or safeguard. Evidence is admissible if the presiding officer thinks it should be admitted.

[*]The hearing is in secret and the transcripts are not available for third party (including the judicial branch) review.

[*] There is no provision for the burden of proof to be placed on the prosecution, or for it to meet a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Guilt is simply to be established by evidence of 'probative value to a reasonable person'. The officers who form the 'jury' need ont be unanimous - as a vote of two thirds secures a conviction. And to top it all off, they don't have to give a reasoned written judgement.

If you didn't know, apart from being gross violations of articles 84 and 85 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III which the US and 187 other countries have ratified (for non-US citizens), there are currently two US citizens awaiting tribunal and they have been denied legal council. The supreme court has dismissed their complains.

So, Schoeler, you were telling a fairy tale about Constitutional protection in the US justice system? Please go on.

While all true, this really has no bearing on this topic of the 21-year-old who yelled "Bomb".

EDIT: How did this get turned into an international law discusion? I leave for a few hours and look what happens...

[Placebo 29]

I was going to reply when this thread was about a stupid woman, feel like I've fallen into the wrong thread

Anyways in this current climate it's exceedingly stupid to say you have a bomb in your bag at an airport, she got what she deserved IMO

[Akira 0]

I was going to reply when this thread was about a stupid woman, feel like I've fallen into the wrong thread

Anyways in this current climate it's exceedingly stupid to say you have a bomb in your bag at an airport, she got what she deserved IMO

I know. Now I feel like an uneducated asshat for wanting to talk about the not-to-bright chickie.

[Akira 0]

Well everyone erroneously yellin' about 6 months in jail can clam up now:

Woman released on bail

[ran 0]

Well everyone erroneously yellin' about 6 months in jail can clam up now:

Woman released on bail

what about our guy ?

[Akira 0]

Well everyone erroneously yellin' about 6 months in jail can clam up now:

Woman released on bail

what about our guy ?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that in the international law discussion...

Who's "our guy"?

[ran 0]

L'Humanité article concerning the man (in french)

(L'huma is a french communist paper, sorry, i'm trying to find other more neutral sources )

Same story but by the Nouvel Observateur (source: AP news)

finally, an english one

[SpecOp9 0]

What a dumb lady

[KJAM 0]

she paid Å3000 bail and gets a trial in a month (or so they are saying anyway) and if found guilty(of what im not exactly sure, terrorism or just being plain stupid she faces up to 15 YEARS!!.

btw guys can you stop deviating from the original first post (especially you denoir lol j/king, and stop talking about military trials, she is a civvie) or i'll simply close the thread

[SpecOp9 0]

Wouldnt talking about Military Trials be better than talking about nothing at all?