The TRUTH About Upcoming Military Tribunals So Many DU'ers Refuse To Acknowledge

I really wish the Reactionary Screamers on DU would get informed before launching into another hissy fit.

Bringing these people to trial is part of the process of closing Gitmo. And some of the people at Gitmo weren't just civilians caught up in Bush's crazy.

Associated Press
Obama revives tribunals for Gitmo detainees
By LARA JAKES , 05.15.09, 01:30 PM EDT


President Barack Obama says he is restarting military tribunals for a small number of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo though with several new legal protections for defendants.

Obama said in a statement Friday that his approach is "the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values."

...Obama is immediately changing the rules that govern the trials in ways consistent with his past criticism of the Bush system. Obama also is asking Congress to change the law.


WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama will restart military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, reviving a Bush-era trial system he once assailed as flawed but with new legal protections for terror suspects, U.S. officials said.

The changes to the system, which will affect a small number of detainees, will be announced Friday.

The military trials will remain frozen for another four months as the administration adjusts the legal system that is expected to try fewer than 20 of the 241 detainees at the U.S. naval detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thirteen detainees - including five charged with helping orchestrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - are already in the tribunal system.

Two senior administration officials outlined several of the rules changes, which will be carried out by executive authority, to The Associated Press on Thursday night. They 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 White House may seek additional changes to the military commissions law over the next 120 days, but it was not immediately clear Thursday what they could include. The two senior administration officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama had not yet announced the changes.

snip

The restrictions on evidence almost certainly will result in only a fraction of detainees who ever will go to trial. The rest of the detainees would either be released, transferred to other nations or tried by civilian prosecutors in U.S. federal courts, an official said.

It's also possible that some could continue to be held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions protections, according to another senior U.S. official.

The decision to restart the process puts the administration in a race against the clock to conclude commission trials before the Navy prison is closed, by January 2010. If the trials are still going on, the detainees might have to be brought to the United States, where they would receive even greater legal rights.

Since Obama's executive order to close the prison, Republicans have focused on the issue of where the detainees would go - and the new Democratic administration's lack of a plan to deal with them. In his Thursday statement, Graham said he would not support allowing detainees to be released into the United States.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/15/ap6429085.html

No matter the method, the trials are simply for show. Those people, whatever their background, are most certainly not going to get a fair trial and the whole world will know it. It is a gross miscarriage of whatever passes for justice here and they should all be released wherever they were captured.

One could argue that many US citizens may not get a perfectly fair trial and that innocent sometimes suffer - however, I am not in favor of releasing everyone in prison because of it. I think we must do the best we can to evaluate each case and it is likely that many will be released. I'm not in favor of either extreme where we either lock away everyone for life or set everyone free without examining each case.

The restrictions on evidence almost certainly will result in only a fraction of detainees who ever will go to trial. The rest of the detainees would either be released, transferred to other nations or tried by civilian prosecutors in U.S. federal courts, an official said.

because they were soldiers. They were agents of Al Qaida. NOT civilians.

You try soldiers in military court.

Are you really that ignorant that you'd suggest none of the detainees were in fact trained agents of Al Qaida and thus soldiers?

Maybe you can't read the Opening Post which PLAINLY STATES questionable evidence will not be used. etc.

It's pretty clear some DU'ers really are just full of hot air and literally don't know what they're talking about.

There is nothing wrong with military tribunals provided they are used for prosecuting SOLDIERS and adhere to legal standards WHICH OBAMA REINSTATED.

Sen. Lindsey Graham OK With Transferring Gitmo Prisoners to U.S.--But Won't Volunteer His State
Monday, May 18, 2009
By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) - Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that he is working with the Obama administration on crafting an indefinite detention policy for enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo Bay, saying that he thinks they should be held in military prisons in the United States.

<snip> Graham has said that he views the enemy combatants as a military threat. When asked by CNSNews.com whether that means they should be held in the United States in military prisons, Graham said: “I’m okay with that, quite frankly. I’m not volunteering South Carolina. But the point is I think the military prison is the right place because it can be defended by the military and they’re very good at this.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48196

We should all read ALL of the details of the tribunals before jumping to conclusions about the President's decision.

The fact that you insist that "only less than 20" are undergoing tribunals is pretty disgusting. It presumes guilt before innocence. It reeks of "okay but we'll treat these REALLY DANGEROUS TERRORISTS with a modicum of ceremonial hooha. They can choose between military lawyers intent on screwing them. They won't be penalized for refusing to testify in front of their torturers (in a kangaroo court it wouldn't matter anyway)... etc.

Anyone can be "charged with aiding the 9-11 attacks." Saddam Hussein sure was. He was also known ("everybody knows!") to have "weapons of mass destruction." Are you WMD sure? All you know is what a thoroughly corrupted media system tells you.

Pushing condemned men through a kangaroo court, no matter how small the number, is a travesty of justice. Even if all were innocent, would all be set free? Or would that be too much of a "public relations fiasco" for our Commander in Chief to permit?

Seriously: have you any decency?

for the Hamden v Rumsfeld case?

You don't know what you are talking about. Your ignorance should be a badge of shame.

Military Tribunals are appropriate for trying soldiers and as long as standards are upheld.

The reason the previous military tribunals during Bush were seen as violations of prisoners rights is because he changed standards.