TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

Well, the impartial jury of peers convicts Salim Hamdan, for material support of terrorism. Why? Because he drove Osama's car. Even if he was found not guilty, he would not have been released. I say Gitmo is a pilot court for what the neocons wish they could do in America but would not yet risk saying so. They'de watch the initiation of a police state with a smile on their faces..

Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well, the impartial jury of peers convicts Salim Hamdan, for material support of terrorism.

the military code doesn't guarantee an impartial jury of peers. it provides that a warrant or commissioned officer shall decide the case.

Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the military code doesn't guarantee an impartial jury of peers. it provides that a warrant or commissioned officer shall decide the case.

Thus, a kangaroo court. A show trial. A sham of a legal proceeding. A disgrace to the United States of America. A snub to our international obligations.

Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Thus, a kangaroo court. A show trial. A sham of a legal proceeding. A disgrace to the United States of America. A snub to our international obligations.

not really - this is the same court that would try a soldier that killed a child in iraq. Noone argues that a military court trying a soldier is a kangaroo court. Military courts are not only tolerated, but have been part of the US justice system for a very long time and are a part of the american legal tradition.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 not really - this is the same court that would try a soldier that killed a child in iraq. Court martials are not only tolerated, but have been part of the US justice system for a very long time and are part of the american legal tradition.

Except they're not trying American soldiers..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Except they're not trying American soldiers..

i get your point, but that doesn't make it a kangaroo court. It is a long established system that follows rigid laws enacted by congress. These aren't courts that sprung up recently with the sole purpose to convict terrorists. The terrorists actually receive lawyers that were trained in american law schools, and the officers hearing the case are well versed in military law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i get your point, but that doesn't make it a kangaroo court. It is a long established system that follows rigid laws enacted by congress. These aren't courts that sprung up recently with the sole purpose to convict terrorists. The terrorists actually receive lawyers that were trained in american law schools, and the officers hearing the case are well versed in military law.

That makes no difference I'm afraid. This court does not respect the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible (e.g. hearsay), the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.

And even if he was found NOT GUILTY, because he is classified as an "enemy combatant", he would be held indefinitely anyways. I'm amazed at how the Bush administration would give Al-Qaida members the classification of "enemy combatant"? Enemy combatant for what state I ask? These guys should be treated like the criminals they are. Common criminals. War combatants? Give me a break..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That makes no difference I'm afraid. This court does not respect the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible (e.g. hearsay), the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. And even if he was found NOT GUILTY, because he is classified as an "enemy combatant", he would be held indefinitely anyways. I'm amazed at how the Bush administration would give Al-Qaida members the classification of "enemy combatant"? Enemy combatant for what state I ask? These guys should be treated like the criminals they are. Common criminals. War combatants? Give me a break..

i'm not well versed in military law so i can't really comment anymore. i don't really know that much about the defendant's rights and trial procedures. since i don't have time to really look into it, i'll take you for your word, although i'm slightly skeptical.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That makes no difference I'm afraid. This court does not respect the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible (e.g. hearsay), the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. And even if he was found NOT GUILTY, because he is classified as an "enemy combatant", he would be held indefinitely anyways. I'm amazed at how the Bush administration would give Al-Qaida members the classification of "enemy combatant"? Enemy combatant for what state I ask? These guys should be treated like the criminals they are. Common criminals. War combatants? Give me a break..

i just read that he was acquitted of conspiracy. if it was a kangaroo court he would have be convicted on all charges. i can't agree with that claim.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i just read that he was acquitted of conspiracy. if it was a kangaroo court he would have be convicted on all charges. i can't agree with that claim.

It does not matter what he was acquitted of. This is still a kangaroo court. Just because it projects a certain image of a court room does not mean it is just...

1. The man is not a war criminal, hence a "war crimes tribunal" is a farce.

2. The man was tortured. The period immediatly after his detention at an Afghan checkpoint is strangely not available.

3. Evidence against Hamdan was obtained through coercion.

4. The man underwent sexual interrogation by female soldiers.

5. NO WAY TO APPEAL THE RULING.

6. Verdict means nothing when Mr. Hamdan is classified as an unlawful enemy combatant. Except one thing...He wasn't a combatant.

7. Some of the evidence was classified and so could not be reviewed by the defense.

8. The trial is not open to the public.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It does not matter what he was acquitted of. This is still a kangaroo court. Just because it projects a certain image of a court room does not mean it is just... 1. The man is not a war criminal, hence a "war crimes tribunal" is a farce. 2. The man was tortured. The period immediatly after his detention at an Afghan checkpoint is strangely not available. 3. Evidence against Hamdan was obtained through coercion. 4. The man underwent sexual interrogation by female soldiers. 5. NO WAY TO APPEAL THE RULING. 6. Verdict means nothing when Mr. Hamdan is classified as an unlawful enemy combatant. Except one thing...He wasn't a combatant. 7. Some of the evidence was classified and so could not be reviewed by the defense. 8. The trial is not open to the public.

the key element of a kangaroo court is that the outcome is determined in advance. If the outcome was predetermined then the conspiracy charges would have stuck. As I said before, I'm not well versed in military law and trial procedures, but as far as I know this is the same court and the procedures are the same as would be used for US military personnel. If my memory is correct, the supreme court ruled in hamden v rumsfeld that the detainees must be tried in accordance with the uniform code of military justice. Those tribunals are hardly unjust. The procedures and evidentary rules are different and not suitable for civilians, however, it is entirely proper to impose the rules on soldiers and war criminals. If you don't like hamdan's classification as a war criminal then that's fine, but calling military courts 'kangaroo courts' just shows your ignorance about the military justice system.

i suggest you parse through this before making outlandish claims about the military justice system, especially since a few of your claims are just inaccurate, notably the appeal part:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIIch47.html

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the key element of a kangaroo court is that the outcome is determined in advance. If the outcome was predetermined then the conspiracy charges would have stuck. As I said before, I'm not well versed in military law and trial procedures, but as far as I know this is the same court and the procedures are the same as would be used for US military personnel. If my memory is correct, the supreme court ruled in hamden v rumsfeld that the detainees must be tried in accordance with the uniform code of military justice. Those tribunals are hardly unjust. The procedures and evidentary rules are different and not suitable for civilians, however, it is entirely proper to impose the rules on soldiers and war criminals. If you don't like hamdan's classification as a war criminal then that's fine, but calling military courts 'kangaroo courts' just shows your ignorance about the military justice system. i suggest you parse through this before making outlandish claims about the military justice system, especially since a few of your claims are just inaccurate: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIIch47.html

These courts are designed for military jurisprudence, NOT, the prosecution of criminals, ESPECIALLY, "war criminals". If they are war criminals, send them to the Hague! Also, kangaroo courts don't just determine the outcome in advance..A kangaroo court is one in which the defendants rights to defend himself are infringed upon, and thus, the outcome itself is unlawful.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton These courts are designed for military jurisprudence, NOT, the prosecution of criminals, ESPECIALLY, "war criminals". If they are war criminals, send them to the Hague! Also, kangaroo courts don't just determine the outcome in advance..A kangaroo court is one in which the defendants rights to defend himself are infringed upon, and thus, the outcome itself is unlawful.

the code of military justice has applied to POWs since its enactment. Since a POW can be a 'war criminal' the code applies to 'war criminals'. I simply don't agree that the US should submit itself to the jursidiction of an international court on an issue that involves US security. Despite your feelings, osama bin laden did commit a crime in the US, thus, if hamdan was complicit in those actions he violated US law. Since the actions are considered acts of war, it is not unreasonable to apply the military code in this case. If 9/11 wasn't an act of war by your definition, then any actions comitted by hamdan post-9/11 during the afghan war are surely subject to military law because it occurred in a time of war. The fact that the US brought war upon them is irrelevant because one party has to begin the war. Believe it or not, I actually have some sympathy for the guy since it appears all he did was drive osama, but submitting to the hague is an awful precedent.

I think they should arrest Osama's cow.. and charge him of terrorism cos he gave milk to Osama!!

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi I think they should arrest Osama's cow.. and charge him of terrorism cos he gave milk to Osama!!

if joe six pack was the personal driver for a known and wanted serial murderer he would also be guilty of a crime. Harboring and providing assistance to criminals is a punishable crime. As i said before, i have sympathy for the guy, however, he knew that Osama was the most wanted man on the planet - there are consequences when you make a stupid choice like that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the code of military justice has applied to POWs since its enactment. Since a POW can be a 'war criminal' the code applies to 'war criminals'. I simply don't agree that the US should submit itself to the jursidiction of an international court on an issue that involves US security. Despite your feelings, osama bin laden did commit a crime in the US, thus, if hamdan was complicit in those actions he violated US law. Since the actions are considered acts of war, it is not unreasonable to apply the military code in this case. If 9/11 wasn't an act of war by your definition, then any actions comitted by hamdan post-9/11 during the afghan war are surely subject to military law because it occurred in a time of war. The fact that the US brought war upon them is irrelevant because one party has to begin the war. Believe it or not, I actually have some sympathy for the guy since it appears all he did was drive osama, but submitting to the hague is an awful precedent.

An act of war? 9/11 was a terrorist attack. And terrorism is a CRIMINAL ACT. Acts of war are initiated by state actors. 9/11 was initiated by a TERRORIST GROUP. A CRIMINAL GROUP. You lend Al-Qaida too much credit by classifying their actions as an "act of war". They are not a military. These guys are criminals, and should be charged as criminals. Additionally, torture is illegal according to international law, and this court allows evidence obtained through coercion to enter the courtroom. That is not justice. That is a vendetta. Vendettas have no place in the rule of law.

Hamdan wasn't even captured in combat/battlefield. He was detained by Afghans at a checkpoint. So much for being a "combatant", let alone "war criminal".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton An act of war? 9/11 was a terrorist attack. And terrorism is a CRIMINAL ACT. Acts of war are initiated by state actors. 9/11 was initiated by a TERRORIST GROUP. A CRIMINAL GROUP. You lend Al-Qaida too much credit by classifying their actions as an "act of war". They are not a military. These guys are criminals, and should be charged as criminals. Additionally, torture is illegal according to international law, and this court allows evidence obtained through coercion to enter the courtroom. That is not justice. That is a vendetta. Vendettas have no place in the rule of law. Hamdan wasn't even captured in combat/battlefield. He was detained by Afghans at a checkpoint. So much for being a "combatant", let alone "war criminal".

you can make an argument that afghanistan was a state actor in 9/11 because the country provided material support for al qaida to initiate the attacks. In any event, 9/11 was incomparable in history, so you can't make simple analogies to past acts and classify it as a plain vanilla terrorist act. Notwithstanding, these guys are hardly simple criminals because there is in fact a war waging right now in afghanistan with the US and NATO on one side pitted against al qaida and the taliban on the other side. Simple criminals don't have the means to wage a war against a nation.

It is unimportant how hamdan was captured. Many nazis were not captured on the battlefields either, but they were not tried in a criminal court. Similarly, Slobodan Milo�evi� wasn't captured on the battlefield, however, he was tried in a war tribunal. Your emphasis on the location of capture is absolutely irrelevant as to whether a person is a war criminal, combatant, or otherwise.

I can't justify tourture at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Believe it or not, I actually have some sympathy for the guy since it appears all he did was drive osama

no. he was captured by Northern Alliance forces. the four other Al Queera in the car with him were killed in another firefight. three Soviet surface to air missiles were in the trunk of his car.

he'll get time served and could be released early next year as opposed to the 30 to life prosecutors tried for.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's driver

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you can make an argument that afghanistan was a state actor in 9/11 because the country provided material support for al qaida to initiate the attacks. In any event, 9/11 was incomparable in history, so you can't make simple analogies to past acts and classify it as a plain vanilla terrorist act. Notwithstanding, these guys are hardly simple criminals because there is in fact a war waging right now in afghanistan with the US and NATO on one side pitted against al qaida and the taliban on the other side. Simple criminals don't have the means to wage a war against a nation.

Afghanistan was in a state of civil war. It was a failed state. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and extremist groups. To say the Taliban government meant to attack America on a pre-meditated basis is just plain wrong. There is also not a war going on in Afghanistan. There is an INSURGENCY against foreign occupation forces considered to be infidel crusaders. Al-Qaida is not a fighting force. They are a terrorist group. The Taliban are the insurgents. They can certainly be classified as POWs, but not Al-Qaida. I wouldn't give them the dignity of calling them a military force. They the worst type of criminals..Terrorists. Terrorists don't wage war, they wage campaigns of terrorism. To try lowly foot soldiers, or a driver in this case, as war criminals in a military show trial, is a farce.

But I guess me and you just have our differences..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's dr

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It was a failed state. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and extremist groups.

right like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, UK, Italy...blah blah blah

honestly dude, you haven't the slightest clue what breeds terrorism and extremist groups.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama'

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo right like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, UK, Italy...blah blah blah honestly dude, you haven't the slightest clue what breeds terrorism and extremist groups.

lol, whatever...You seem to think occupying sovereign countries stops terrorism...DUDE...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Os

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton lol, whatever...You seem to think occupying sovereign countries stops terrorism...DUDE...

...and another thing you ignorant dipshit. you haven't the slightest clue what 4th generation warfare is. youre trapped by this concept that modern warfare is only state initiated. wrong. paramilitary groups, wholly idependent of "the state", have been waging war for 60 odd years. thank you WWII.

god youre stupid

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convict

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...and another thing you ignorant dipshit. god youre stupid

I love getting a emotional reactions out of you..

quote:

you haven't the slightest clue what 4th generation warfare is. youre trapped by this concept that modern warfare is only state initiated. wrong. paramilitary groups, wholly idependent of "the state", have been waging war for 60 odd years. thank you WWII.

I think I have a very coherent clue of today's warfare. You've probably misread my statements. I'll repeat it again, Al-Qaida is not a para-military group. They are a criminal terrorist group. And if you yourself knew anything about 4th generational warfare, heavy handed military force will not defeat a decentralized guerrilla or terrorist group. History has shown that terrorist groups are dismantled almost always by police action and detainment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court con

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I love getting a emotional reactions out of you..

i'm not emotional. just pointing out how ridiculously ignorant you are.

quote:

I'll repeat it again, Al-Qaida is not a para-military group. They are a criminal terrorist group.

again, youre locking yourself into definitions that, one, are completely subjective. two, using said subjective definitions wrongly in an objective sense. just dumb dude. pure f**king arrogant stupidity

a paramilitary group can be any armed groups not officially considered a national military force. this is not new to anybody. you though, apparently.

your county's SWAT team is a paramilitary group. Al Queera in Afghanistan is a paramilitary group. Al Queera in Iraq is a paramilitary group.

Al Queera has ranks. they train in weapons and tactics and actively engage other military organizations from Pakistan to Indonesia to the Arabian peninsula. they actively recruit from around the world. IOW Al Queera owns you...if only in an intellectual sense.

quote:

And if you yourself knew anything about 4th generational warfare, heavy handed military force will not defeat a decentralized guerrilla or terrorist group.

tell that to the Columbians shitbrick. or the Phillipinos. or a 19 year old Marine corporal in Diyala.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo kangaroo court convicts Osama's dr

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Afghanistan was in a state of civil war. It was a failed state. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and extremist groups. To say the Taliban government meant to attack America on a pre-meditated basis is just plain wrong. There is also not a war going on in Afghanistan. There is an INSURGENCY against foreign occupation forces considered to be infidel crusaders. Al-Qaida is not a fighting force. They are a terrorist group. The Taliban are the insurgents. They can certainly be classified as POWs, but not Al-Qaida. I wouldn't give them the dignity of calling them a military force. They the worst type of criminals..Terrorists. Terrorists don't wage war, they wage campaigns of terrorism. To try lowly foot soldiers, or a driver in this case, as war criminals in a military show trial, is a farce. But I guess me and you just have our differences..

I'm siding with Q on the notion that you are stuck in a historical view of warfare (not the ignorant dipshit part though). I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this one.

Funny thing, you just called Hamdan a 'soldier'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a soldier is a military personnel.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.