WSJ: The Verdict on Holder-How to botch a terrorist trial and harm the U.S. reputation for justice.

[Larry]

You think wrong, the precedence for military tribunals was set in the past. These tribunals were used against criminals regardless of race. Madison is implying tribunals are a new invention developed to persecute Muslims and brown people.

And they are. (A new invention.)

Remember? The chronology is:

Bush announces that there are no rules at GTMO, there will be no rules. No due process has been conducted, nor will it be conducted, because the President has declared that every person there, and every person who will be sent there, to be guilty without a trial of any kind.

The Supreme Court tells Bush that no, that won't fly.

Bush then demands that Congress completely discard the existing rules and procedures which had been in place, and write entirely new rules, from scratch, giving the government all of the powers that Bush wants it to have.

Congress complies.

Now, is it possible that these new, improved, rules will stand up in court? I certainly don't know. Heck, I don't even know what the new rules are. I've read alarmist, second-hand reports about them, but I assume there's a lot of spin in those reports, too.

So I'm not willing to flat-out claim that the new rules are a joke, or show trials, or the other alarmist things I've read.

But let's not claim that this is something that's the same as the old rules, either.

[Bliz]

This is pure politics by the right. The guy still faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and possibly life and not a single person can say whether or not the same outcome would have happened in a military tribunal. This guy can join the four others that are in federal max for life that our court system dealt with appropriately. I'm not saying a court is always the best option, but let's not lose sight of the fact that it does work.

Agreed. The entire thrust of the article is misguided. The number of counts on which he is convicted is irrelevant. What is relevant is the sentence (which I believe is longer than many terrorists convicted in military tribunals have gotten), and the fact that the fears about grandstanding or using the trial as a platform were unfounded.

we've tried probably close to 100 terrorists in civilian courts. It's gone just fine.

It's sad what's become of the WSJ since News Corp bought it.

[Larry]

Just because a jury of God knows who didn't convict doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying he's automatically guilty just because the CIA says so.

And yet, you are saying that just because 12 out of 12 people said he wasn't guilty, that's not good enough for you.

[Larry]

I'm having trouble figuring how this harms our reputation for justice.

Wait, first let me back up and wonder when conservatives started giving a rat's patootie about our "reputation". Seems like the past decade all I've heard is sneering about what other nations think of us. Suddenly it's a matter of importance?

But bringing a guy to trial, hearing all the evidence, convicting him of the crime supported by the evidence and acquitting of the ones that were not - is that supposed to show a flaw in the system?

Oh, I forgot, they didn't consider all the evidence because they didn't allow confessions tortured out of people. That stuff is not admissable in a military tribunal either, so what's the complaint? That we didn't simply hold a Soviet-era style show trial and execute him immediately afterwards? Would that have been better for our "reputation"?

I've been trying to figure that out for myself.

Oh, no! Now the world will know that the US puts people in trial, and presents evidence against them, and judges them based on that evidence! Our reputation has been irreparably harmed!

[Madison Redskin]

Yeah, that's why they are in gitmo. Because they are Muslim.

I never said that they are in prison because they are Muslim. I did say that the vast majority of detainees are terrorists who deserve to die or rot in jail, but don't let that get in the way of a good ole' fashioned freak out.

[aREDSKIN]

How does it "harm" the United States reputation for justice to pronoune a man innocent of 230 charges of murder? Wouldn't it harm our reputation more if we found a guy guilty of 230 charges of murder, when he wasn't?

Why are we conferring "rights" to an individual that had never set foot in this country??

[JimboDaMan]

Why are we conferring "rights" to an individual that had never set foot in this country??

I am astounded by that question. All human beings have rights.

[aREDSKIN]

I am astounded by that question. All human beings have rights.

Think again. Legal rights as citizens ?? Really??

[Bliz]

Think again. Legal rights as citizens ?? Really??

Rights to a fair trial? Absolutely.

[Larry]

Why are we conferring "rights" to an individual that had never set foot in this country??

Because we value the Constitution?

Because we believe in right and wrong?

Because we think that morality is important?

Because We, the People, of the United States of America, have chosen to only grant to our government certain powers, subject to certain limitations, and we don't trust the government with any more powers that we've chosen to grant it? And we intentionally did NOT grant the government the power to coerce information out of people, and to make them disappear without a trial?

Oh. Sorry. That must make me a liberal.

[killerbee99]

Because we value the Constitution?

Because we believe in right and wrong?

Because we think that morality is important?

Because We, the People, of the United States of America, have chosen to only grant to our government certain powers, subject to certain limitations, and we don't trust the government with any more powers that we've chosen to grant it? And we intentionally did NOT grant the government the power to coerce information out of people, and to make them disappear without a trial?

Oh. Sorry. That must make me a liberal.

Ok, i lol'd

[JimboDaMan]

Think again. Legal rights as citizens ?? Really??

Whatever those words mean, they are not what I said. One is not two. Up is not down. A citizen is not a non-citizen.

But do non US citizens have rights? Of course they do.

Are you arguing that guilt or innocence are concepts that apply only to Americans? The US government can detain, punish, execute non citizens for any reason or non at all?

[aREDSKIN]

Because we value the Constitution?

Because we believe in right and wrong?

Because we think that morality is important?

Because We, the People, of the United States of America, have chosen to only grant to our government certain powers, subject to certain limitations, and we don't trust the government with any more powers that we've chosen to grant it? And we intentionally did NOT grant the government the power to coerce information out of people, and to make them disappear without a trial?

Oh. Sorry. That must make me a liberal.

My question is a legal one. Does a non-citizen, foreigner, living in another country and have never been to the US have the same rights as a citizen?

[Predicto]

My question is a legal one. Does a non-citizen, foreigner, living in another country and have never been to the US have the same rights as a citizen?

Lawyer here. The answer is yes, with certain exceptions. Foreigners may not vote, for example. But yes, foreigners have the same rights to a fair trial that any American has, and the right not to be tortured, and the right to an attorney, and so forth.

This is because the US Constitution does not "grant rights to citizens." It does not grant rights at all. It assumes that all people have inalienable rights, and then "denies power to the government" to do certain things. That is why our Constitition is so amazing - it limits government power over individuals.

[Larry]

My question is a legal one. Does a non-citizen, foreigner, living in another country and have never been to the US have the same rights as a citizen?

No. He can't be President.

Now, if he's being prosecuted for a crime? Then yep, in the courtroom he does.

[Mad Mike]

Lawyer here. The answer is yes, with certain exceptions. Foreigners may not vote, for example. But yes, foreigners have the same rights to a fair trial that any American has, and the right not to be tortured, and the right to an attorney, and so forth.

This is because the US Constitution does not "grant rights to citizens." It does not grant rights at all. It assumes that all people have inalienable rights, and then "denies power to the government" to do certain things. That is why our Constitition is so amazing - it limits government power over individuals.

The real question is how do those rights apply to someone involved in an act of war against the US? Should we stop and have a trial for every enemy combatant before we shoot them? It's an extreme example I know, but where exactly is that line?

And is a military tribunal denying those rights? It's proven good enough for American soldiers accused of war crimes. Why should an enemy combatant be treated any different? How is it that fair?

[Chicken Fried]

What that quoted statement implies is that: (1) some Americans don't have very happy thoughts about Muslims; and (2) those Americans aren't going to be losing sleep over the possibility that some of the detainees might be innocent. Are you actually going to disagree with that?

Just so you don't accuse me of saying that all of the detainees are innocent, let me state that I suspect that the vast majority of them are terrorists who deserve to die or rot in jail.

Please forgive me for confusing "Americans" with "some Americans" since they're both obviously the same thing.

I know what you're saying. You're not THAT crazy, Madison. I'm just doing to you what would have predictably happened if I, a conservative, generalized about race.

[Madison Redskin]

Please forgive me for confusing "Americans" with "some Americans" since they're both obviously the same thing

Actually, the quote you mentioned said "all Americans," which is quite different from "some Americans."

I know what you're saying. You're not THAT crazy, Madison. I'm just doing to you what would have predictably happened if I, a conservative, generalized about race.

You're not so bad yourself. I understand why people took my quote and ran with it. I should have been more careful. In any case, I think you get my drift and realize I'm not a nut who thinks America is a country choc full of racists.

[Madison Redskin]

No. He can't be President.

Well then how to explain the Kenyan-Indonesian sitting in the White House.

[Predicto]

The real question is how do those rights apply to someone involved in an act of war against the US? Should we stop and have a trial for every enemy combatant before we shoot them? It's an extreme example I know, but where exactly is that line?

That is one of the great debates of our time. Especially when you are not talking about "enemy combatants" in the traditional battlefield sense, but suspected terrorists captured anytime, anywhere. It is horribly difficult to know where the line should be, but I am pretty sure that I don't want the Government to have the unilateral power to call someone an enemy combatant and deny them a trial under any circumstances the Government chooses. :whoknows:

And is a military tribunal denying those rights? It's proven good enough for American soldiers accused of war crimes. Why should an enemy combatant be treated any different? How is it that fair?

Well, putting aside the "definition of enemy combatant" problem, our soldiers (god bless them) signed up for military service, and the attendant loss of rights that this entails. They can't just quit and go home, they can't just disobey orders, they can't do lots of things.

It's a little different when the government grabs a suspect who hasn't signed up, and based on what they are ACCUSED of, tries to deny them the right to a full trial to exonerate themselves. An accused murderer gets a fair trial. :whoknows:

[nonniey]

That is one of the great debates of our time. Especially when you are not talking about "enemy combatants" in the traditional battlefield sense, but suspected terrorists captured anytime, anywhere. It is horribly difficult to know where the line should be, but I am pretty sure that I don't want the Government to have the unilateral power to call someone an enemy combatant and deny them a trial under any circumstances the Government chooses. :whoknows:

Well, putting aside the "definition of enemy combatant" problem, our soldiers (god bless them) signed up for military service, and the attendant loss of rights that this entails. They can't just quit and go home, they can't just disobey orders, they can't do lots of things.

It's a little different when the government grabs a suspect who hasn't signed up, and based on what they are ACCUSED of, tries to deny them the right to a full trial to exonerate themselves. An accused murderer gets a fair trial. :whoknows:

The problem is that the enemy in the cases we're talking about are being captured and interrogated by non law enforcment entitiies whose mission is to prosecute the war not prosecute criminals, their evidence gathering does not pass muster for civilian trial, thus the need for using military tribunals which have more liberal requirments for evidence submission. Bottomline it was idiotic to try those captured by military or intelligence services in a civilian court.

[Seabee1973]

Because we value the Constitution?

Because we believe in right and wrong?

Because we think that morality is important?

Because We, the People, of the United States of America, have chosen to only grant to our government certain powers, subject to certain limitations, and we don't trust the government with any more powers that we've chosen to grant it? And we intentionally did NOT grant the government the power to coerce information out of people, and to make them disappear without a trial?

Oh. Sorry. That must make me a liberal.

When does a foreign National have us constitutional rights?

[Predicto]

The problem is that the enemy in the cases we're talking about are being captured and interrogated by non law enforcment entitiies whose mission is to prosecute the war not prosecute criminals, their evidence gathering does not pass muster for civilian trial, thus the need for using military tribunals which have more liberal requirments for evidence submission. Bottomline it was idiotic to try those captured by military or intelligence services in a civilian court.

That is one way of looking at it. At the same time, I question whether just calling something a "war on terror" actually makes it a real war, so that all of our due process rules should go out the window.

Believe me, I don't think I have all the answers, but it honestly bothers me how easy it is for us to justify bypassing basic rights and evenn justifying torture once our fear reaction gets strong enough.

[Predicto]

When does a foreign National have us constitutional rights?

Post 39. They don't have "US constitutional rights." They have natural human rights. The US goverment has "US consitutional limitations on its power."

If an English tourist is accused of murder in Iowa, he has the same due process rights as someone born and raised in Des Moines.

[TimmySmith]

Post 39. They don't have "US constitutional rights." They have natural human rights. The US goverment has "US consitutional limitations on its power."

If an English tourist is accused of murder in Iowa, he has the same due process rights as someone born and raised in Des Moines.

What on earth does your example have to with a foreigner who perpetrates crimes against Americans on foreign soil?

He should have never been brought here, plain and simple.