Obama to revive terror tribunals

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by JLatte, May 15, 2009.

  1. JLatte macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/obama.military.tribunal/index.html

    Emphasis mine.

    I'm a little bit confused, what he's doing *seems* like a right thing, especially the part about not admitting into evidence statements from waterboarding, hearsey, etc. Why is the ACLU up in arms about this? I would think they would prefer to get most of the 'minor suspects' released rather than kept in prison for an unknown amount of time. Due process takes long enough as it is.
     
  2. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
    i can't speak to the ACLU's motives for their stance, but I do wish Barack would just focus on the issues of today, and not be drawn into the stigma of the past.
     
  3. JLatte thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    #3
    I fully agree, however Obama was left with quite some baggage from the past that he has to do something with.
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    Why?

    Just where is this obligation written?? Move on, or be handcuffed with the past.
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    The past will follow until it is dealt with. Can't really just sweep it under the rug and forget it ever happened.
     
  6. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    Every president is, do you think Bush dealt with 9/11 on mere coincidence?
     
  7. SydneyDev macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    #7
    It's not the past though - there are a bunch of terrorists in custody, something has to be done with them.
     
  8. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #8
    There's a bunch of people in custody whether they have any connection to what could be called terrorism is dubious to say the least.
     
  9. SydneyDev macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    #9
    What do you think should be done with them?
     
  10. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #10
    If there is any evidence they have broken U.S. law they should be brought before a federal judge and jury.If there is none they should be released and sent to a country of their choice.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    I think they should be released to whichever country will have them. The USA has forfeited any right to detain them further or subject them to any other process, due or otherwise, by the illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional actions of the previous administration.
     
  12. SydneyDev macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    #12
    Apparently Obama disagrees with you.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Obama, unlike Peterkro, is not infallible.
     
  14. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #14
    It wouldn't be the first time he was wrong.:)
     
  15. Journojulz macrumors 65816

    Journojulz

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #15
    Like it or not, we must face the unpaletable fact that perhaps SOME of the Gitmo suspects bought by CIA bribes may actually be guilty of something.

    The quicker the tribunals start - the quicker the gates are closed.

    Cuba is a wonderful place to visit. - i hope more americans get the chance to sample their hospitality.
     
  16. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #16
    Canadians already know this, the problem is to keep the Americans out!!! :rolleyes:
     
  17. Journojulz macrumors 65816

    Journojulz

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #17
    :D

    Yeah, was fun to be there with castro still in power.

    Not a fan of communism, but its the closest i have seen to seeing it work.

    stood on the beach and watched Katrina slam northwards.

    Then watched a week of cnn demonstrating exactly how much the land of the free cared about those citizens who couldn't afford to pay for things.

    PS Hello Canada - we don't talk much, but we are glad you are there. :D
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Any country that would have them that won't torture them.

    Although I see no reason we can't use the civilian court system to bring charges and try people. If there's no evidence, provide them with a ticket to wherever they wish to go. If there's evidence, hold a trial and let a jury decide on their innocence or guilt. If their found not guilty, see above. If guilty, lock them up. All this pants-pissing by conservatives about how scared they are about these guys walking the streets in their districts is just nonsense.

    I haven't seen the Unabomber wandering the streets lately.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    At least they voice their concerns, I haven't seen many dems stepping up to house them in their states (I saw one that said he would reluctantly take them at last resort).

    I don't know how a civilian court proceeding would go with these types of trials, it seems to me we would have already broken too many rules afforded to our own people and have to let them go.
     
  20. SydneyDev macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    #20
    I think it should depend on where they were captured. If they were taken from a US street they should be tried in a civilian court. If they were taken on a foreign battlefield they should get a military tribunal.

    Currently Obama is treating them all as enemy soldiers regardless of where they were captured, and so tribunal for all. But maybe he is right, I mean in this kind of war civilian areas are part of the battlefield too.

    Maybe the US captured ones go to a civilian court first, and a civilian judge decides whether they are a soldier or not, based on surveillance evidence. If he is satisfied he hands them back to the military to be tried, if he is not he tries them himself.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    The whole premise is bogus. It is not a crime to take up arms against an invading or occupying force.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    And how is that the fault of the defendant? :confused:
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    We don't follow the same processes that are upheld in civilian court abroad. We can't go back and decide to switch to a civilian trial after they have been processed militarily. I am not sure any evidence would even be admissible, on top of that we would most likely have classified information that would need to be declassified which could effect our intel operations.

    I think this was a good decision on Obama's part.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    I presume "processed militarily" is a euphemism for tortured? Sort of like how "processing plant" is a euphemism for abattoir?

    That aside, our civilian courts are adequately equipped to handle classified information. This has been demonstrated time and again.

    And again, you fail to give any explanation as to how any of the improper "processing" is the fault of these defendants. If a cop "processes" you incorrectly, do we switch to a different court system?
     
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    No its not a euphemism for torture, we don't process civilians the same way we process enemy combatants. When you are caught in the US you are read Miranda rights, when in the field they don't have to because you aren't protected under US law. We are trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole here. Even standard interrogations without EITs wouldn't be admissible under my view because they weren't advised of their rights.

    Its not the fault of the defendants, but its also not the fault of the nation because we would not normally process enemy combatants through civilian courts.
     

Share This Page