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..

___________________

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.

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.

___________________

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.

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..

___________________

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.

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..

___________________

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.

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.

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.

___________________

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

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.

___________________