Washington, Lincoln and FDR all employed the use of military tribunals.

Washington used them during the revolution. They were employed by the Union in the aftermath of the civil war. And FDR used them during WW2.

This is nothing new and its not anti-American.

The problem was that Bush's military tribunals for terrorist suspects were not allowing very many, if any, rights for the detainees.

Obama's tribunals, which incidentally will be used to try less than 20 of the 240 people we are detaining are including several serious changes to the Bush tribunal system. These changes include:

- Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.

- A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.

- Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.

- Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.

The use of a military tribunal was NEVER the problem. It was the deprivation of rights and fair protections that was the problem. That was what Obama criticized during the campaign and that is EXACTLY what he changed.

If you don't see how this is a HUGE change from the way Bush was handling the prosecution of suspected terrorists, then you are just looking for a reason to cry foul and you are ignoring facts, you are ignoring history and you are ignoring common sense.

We need to accept the fact that terrorists are REAL and that President Obama has an obligation to protect us from them. The difference is that he is actually doing his job without propping up the issue of terrorism as a propaganda tool to control people with fear. That simply is not what is happening.

Thanks for this.

R is for Recommend which you can do at the bottom of the OP (original Posters) post. You'll see it next to the alert button.

Thanks for the post. I saw O's video you should add that to your post where they can see what he said about the tribunals in 2006. It's been posted but would compliment your thread as well.

:kick:

And if you don't see how he's buckled to corporate interests at EVERY turn (while parsing words Bush-style) - you haven't been paying attention. As for the tribunals...AI Press Release:

WASHINGTON, May 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In response to President Barack Obama restarting the military commissions at the U.S.-controlled detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Amnesty International's executive director Larry Cox issued the following statement:

"President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency.

"Whatever revisions the Obama administration has made to the commissions do not change the fact that the commissions do not provide an adequate standard of justice for the detainees nor the victims of terrorism -- they merely mock the U.S. Constitution, international laws and undermine fundamental human rights standards.

"What happened to President Obama's confidence in the U.S. justice system's ability to try detainees? He himself said that 'we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism.'

"U.S. federal courts are a perfectly sound system to try any and all detainees. They have brought other terror suspects to justice, and there is no reason why these courts cannot continue to do the same."

Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 2.2 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.

Advocating for the public option, raising the taxes for corporations and ending tax havens...oh yeah he's just loving corporate ass.

Listen to what O said...obviously you didn't and just quoted bullshit articles that read what they want:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BIylNUkmvo

That could have spared you from embarassing yourself.

will not grant the defendants some of the protections that the Constitution guarantees to criminal defendants. Maybe that's OK, but I'd like to hear the argument.

According to media accounts.....

The president said that immediate rule changes governing the trials, carried by out executive authority, will begin to bring them "in line with the rule of law," most significantly by altering some rules of allowable evidence. Obama also is asking Congress to change the 2006 law creating the current, on-hold tribunal system to enact more sweeping reforms.

"This is the best way to protect our country while upholding our deeply held values," Obama said in a statement announcing his decision.

Pentagon lawyers were filing a continuance request with the military commissions judge. It appeared the administration was asking for a four-month delay in trials to give it time to enact at least the initial rule changes, but that timeframe has been in flux over recent days and was not immediately clear. Obama did not specify a timeframe in his statement.

The Washington Post first broke the news about the tribunals last weekend. Administration sources told the AP Thursday that the rules changes include:

Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.
A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding.
Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.
Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.
White House may seek more changes

The White House may seek additional changes to the military commissions law over the next 120 days, but it was not immediately clear what they could include.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356 /

the right to trial by jury, the right to a public trial, the right to be confronted with the witnesses against one; the right to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in one's favor, or the right not to be compelled to witness against oneself. But I might be wrong about some of these.

The idea that he never supported any version of Military Tribunals isn't accurate but since when have the media or people let facts get it the way of a good, drama-filled fit.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/president-oba-7.html

"As a senator, Mr. Obama supported military commissions, though he voted against the version pushed by the Bush administration, which ultimately passed the Senate and was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

In 2006, then-Sen. Obama voted for a military tribunal bill originally drafted by former Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, and GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

That bill had passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee but was changed significantly in negotiations with the Bush White House and GOP-led Congress.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., offered the original Warner/McCain/Graham bill as a substitute to the bill being supported by President Bush and the Senate Majority Leader. Levin's effort, supported by Obama, failed.

A White House source says the original bill drafted by Sens. Warner, McCain, and Graham will be "a good starting point for the congressional effort."

The greater protections afforded detainees in the Obama administration's military tribunals will include banning evidence obtained through "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" interrogation techniques; adding additional restrictions on the admissibility of hearsay evidence; allowing defendants greater leeway in choosing military counsel; protecting detainees from "adverse inference" if they do not testify at trial; and eliminating the effect of the combatant status review tribunal for purposes of jurisdiction under the Military Commissions Act.

On September 28, 2006, then-Sen. Obama expressed support for military commissions in general -- not to mention the version of the bill he supported, originally written by Warner, McCain, and Graham, and offered by Levin -- and discussed why he was voting against the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, supported by President Bush.

"The problem with this bill is not that it's too tough on terrorists," he said in 2006. "The problem with this bill is that it's sloppy. And the reason it's sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right."

Then-Sen. Obama said military courts should make decisions on these detainees."

I posted the link to see what he said. You need to get your facts...and it's coming from his mouth.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

no, there can be no disagreement.

I get that from RWers all the time though. They think they're entitled to their own facts.

"Mr. McCain’s campaign did not respond to requests for comments about Guantánamo. The Obama campaign declined to comment specifically, but in his platform, Mr. Obama promises to abolish military tribunals and conduct a review to determine which prisoners to prosecute, which to hold under the laws of war and which to release. His proposal does not specify where detainees would be held."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/washington/21gitmo.html?ref=us

I'll keep looking and I WILL find it - but there you have a NY Times reference to his platform. Comparing me to a rightwinger just won't fly, redqueen. That's just not RIGHT.

Not comparing you... just that opinion vs. fact tactic.

Its less than 10% of the detainess that will be tried under them and those are probably the only ones that are actual terrorists. I have no problem with actual aggressors against the United States being tried by a military tribunal. And your use of the word "tinkering" does not effectively diminish the significance of the legal rights he is granting those that didn't have them before.

is becoming typical troll behavior.

I don't remember his exact words during the campaigns on this topic, but I do remember the impression I was left with: He did not oppose military commissions. He opposed the poorly constructed and improperly used Bush version. I don't ever remember him saying a military commission wouldn't exist under his administration, I wouldn't have expected that in wartime, anyhow, but that he would change the way the system worked, which is what he is doing.

for the necessity of a military tribunal in the first place.
Rational reasons as to why we can't try suspected terrorists in our criminal courts is what I'm looking for.

(And I'm anything but an expert, btw)

Is that typical prisoners of war which don't commit any crimes, they're just fighting for their country. So they're not given any trial, they'll just detained until the fighting's over and then they're repatriated.

And then there are some amount of people who, in addition to being on the battle field, commit serious crimes not related to combat. And those are the people who are given military tribunals.

Like nazi war criminals. They were given tribunals. They weren't tried in civilian courts.

Its a hard thing to make a call on. I personally think we should be talking to the UN about using the Hague. That would still be a different standard than that of which we use for domestic criminals. All I'm saying is that no precedent is being set as far as military tribunals go and some of our best Presidents have used them. On top of that, this new tribunal system is only going to be used for a small amount of detainees and they are going to have a lot more leeway in terms of how they can defend themselves and what evidence can be permissibly used against them.

with the Supreme Court's ruling in Milligan.

The decision held citizens, in a state upholding the Constitution (ie, not in a state of secession and rebellion), could not be tried by a military tribunal.

rage and hysteria.

"war on terror" propaganda. They held POW's during those wars. Are these GITMO captives POW's or not? And if not, why not?

And how in the world do you know how President Obama's military tribunals will function when the details and language of the proposal have not been released publicly?

So if you can't prove in a real court with full defendent rights that the alleged terrorists are really guilty of crimes, I suppose a kangaroo military court can get the "job" done.

Of course it will be "Bush lite" tribunals so that makes it OK.