Pentagon Sets Rules for Detainee Trials

jimkyser

Senior member
Nov 13, 2004
547
0
0
I'd really like to understand how the Pentagon can claim they are ensuring these people "are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized by civilized people" if they will allowed coerced or hearsay evidence. Those two allowances go against the judicial guarantees in pretty much all civilized countries. And giving the government the right to disallow presentation of defense evidence is going to make it impossible for these people to get a fair trial.

Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them now? Why waste the time, effort and money on a complete sham of a kangaroo court.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070118/D8MNS0RO0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death.

According to a copy of the manual obtained by The Associated Press, a terror suspect's defense lawyer cannot reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government has a chance to review it.

The manual, sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday and scheduled to be released later by the Pentagon, is intended to track a law passed last fall by Congress restoring President Bush's plans to have special military commissions try terror-war prisoners. Those commissions had been struck down earlier in the year by the Supreme Court.

Last September, Congress - then led by Republicans - sent Bush a bill granting wide latitude in interrogating and detaining captured enemy combatants. The legislation also prohibited some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but granted the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

Passage of the bill, which was backed by the White House, followed more than three months of debate that included angry rebukes by Democrats of the administration's interrogation policies, and a short-lived rebellion by some Republican senators.

The Detainee Treatment Act, separate legislation championed in 2005 by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., prohibited the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of military and CIA prisoners. It was approved overwhelmingly by Congress despite a veto threat by Bush, who eventually signed it into law.

The Pentagon manual is aimed at ensuring that enemy combatants - the Bush administration's term for many of the terrorism suspects captured on the battlefield - "are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized by civilized people," according to the document.

As required by law, the manual prohibits statements obtained by torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the Constitution.

However, the law does allow statements obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,045
0
0
That's alright. I'm sure this is what the founding fathers would have wanted for this country anyway.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
That's alright. I'm sure this is what the founding fathers would have wanted for this country anyway.

That probably explains why Washington used Military tribunals on people after the revolutionary war and Lincoln after the Civil War.

Why people who arent part of our citizenship should be granted the rights of being a citizen of the United States doesnt make sense to me.

Provide them with decent humane treatment and a military tribunal.

As for the OP, are you suggesting the military has in the past abused this practice which leads you to have no confidence in it? It has been used extensively in the past in case you didnt know. The most recent I believe was on German Sabateurs and an American citizen caught trying to create havoc within our country in World War II.
 

jimkyser

Senior member
Nov 13, 2004
547
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
As for the OP, are you suggesting the military has in the past abused this practice which leads you to have no confidence in it? It has been used extensively in the past in case you didnt know. The most recent I believe was on German Sabateurs and an American citizen caught trying to create havoc within our country in World War II.

Can you show me where those military tribunals allowed hearsay or coerced evidence? Or where they allowed the prosecution to limit the evidence the defense could present by having the prosecution preapprove it? I didn't say that military tribunals are by definition bad, I am taking issues with the rules for allowable evidence. It's those rules that are making the system a sham, not the fact that there is a system.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: jimkyser
Originally posted by: Genx87
As for the OP, are you suggesting the military has in the past abused this practice which leads you to have no confidence in it? It has been used extensively in the past in case you didnt know. The most recent I believe was on German Sabateurs and an American citizen caught trying to create havoc within our country in World War II.

Can you show me where those military tribunals allowed hearsay or coerced evidence? Or where they allowed the prosecution to limit the evidence the defense could present by having the prosecution preapprove it? I didn't say that military tribunals are by definition bad, I am taking issues with the rules for allowable evidence. It's those rules that are making the system a sham, not the fact that there is a system.

There has always been a lower threshold for evidence in military tribunals due to the nature of the beast. Most are based around evidence that has been lost on the battlefield or lost due to a war. As for Bush's specific requests? I dont know how the other tribunals worked. But I would imagine there were some lax standards in the past as well.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...
You mean like outing CIA agents and the front companies for which they work (esp. when they are involved in intelligence on Iranian WMD programs)?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: jimkyser
I'd really like to understand how the Pentagon can claim they are ensuring these people "are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized by civilized people" if they will allowed coerced or hearsay evidence. Those two allowances go against the judicial guarantees in pretty much all civilized countries. And giving the government the right to disallow presentation of defense evidence is going to make it impossible for these people to get a fair trial.

Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them now? Why waste the time, effort and money on a complete sham of a kangaroo court.

All they have to do now is torture some more people, get some made-up "confession" to act as the coerced evidence et voila! One dead "terrorist".


The Road to Guantanamo
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jimkyser
Originally posted by: Genx87
As for the OP, are you suggesting the military has in the past abused this practice which leads you to have no confidence in it? It has been used extensively in the past in case you didnt know. The most recent I believe was on German Sabateurs and an American citizen caught trying to create havoc within our country in World War II.

Can you show me where those military tribunals allowed hearsay or coerced evidence? Or where they allowed the prosecution to limit the evidence the defense could present by having the prosecution preapprove it? I didn't say that military tribunals are by definition bad, I am taking issues with the rules for allowable evidence. It's those rules that are making the system a sham, not the fact that there is a system.

There has always been a lower threshold for evidence in military tribunals due to the nature of the beast. Most are based around evidence that has been lost on the battlefield or lost due to a war. As for Bush's specific requests? I dont know how the other tribunals worked. But I would imagine there were some lax standards in the past as well.

The real problem is the majority of the detainees were captured in Afhanistan, fighting for the legitimate government of Afhganistan, which at the time was controlled by the Taliban.
There is no terrorist intel to be gotten from the vast majority. Its like asking a US soldier on the ground in Iraq what are the CIA's plans. And since there is no evidence to try them on, the Bushies need "hearsay" and tortured "confessions" to come up with anything.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
what the hell do any of you know about intelligence requirements and gathering? seriously?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...
You mean like outing CIA agents and the front companies for which they work (esp. when they are involved in intelligence on Iranian WMD programs)?

HAHAHAHAHA!

good point Conjur.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...
You mean like outing CIA agents and the front companies for which they work (esp. when they are involved in intelligence on Iranian WMD programs)?

HAHAHAHAHA!

good point Conjur.
I'm not sure that there is any humor to be found in any compromise of our intelligence gathering methods and agents... no matter who does the compromising. I personally despise anyone involved in doing so; regardless of political affiliation or position.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: jimkyser
As required by law, the manual prohibits statements obtained by torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the Constitution.

However, the law does allow statements obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge.
Seems reasonable to me. A judge will get to review the information and how it was obtained and then will rule on whether it should be allowed or not.

As usual the people who complain about this don?t offer any alternative of their own.
If this is so important to the American people how come it wasn?t part of the Democrats 100 hours?

I say we call them POWs and let them rot till the 'war' is over.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,566
890
126
Aren't they already guilty under the current administration by the fact that they are already incarcerated?
 

SonnyDaze

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2004
6,867
3
76
Originally posted by: jimkyser
Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them now? Why waste the time, effort and money on a complete sham of a kangaroo court.

Agreed. Why don't we?
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,566
890
126
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
Originally posted by: jimkyser
Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them now? Why waste the time, effort and money on a complete sham of a kangaroo court.

Agreed. Why don't we?

Because in the USA one is innocent until proven guilty. One of the detainees was a chauffeur. Others, no doubt, were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: conehead433
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
Originally posted by: jimkyser
Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them now? Why waste the time, effort and money on a complete sham of a kangaroo court.
Agreed. Why don't we?
Because in the USA one is innocent until proven guilty. One of the detainees was a chauffeur. Others, no doubt, were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, chauffeur to the most wanted terrorist in the world, guess that was the only job this guy could find to support his family?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I wish that I could be Dr. Evil's "chauffeur"!!!! I mean, come on! The fringe benefits must rock! An extra-large cave with my own indoor slit-trench!? ROCK ON!

bah... you clowns don't know sh*t from shinola... this entire war is some sort of abstract case-study for most of you people.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...
You mean like outing CIA agents and the front companies for which they work (esp. when they are involved in intelligence on Iranian WMD programs)?

HAHAHAHAHA!

good point Conjur.
I'm not sure that there is any humor to be found in any compromise of our intelligence gathering methods and agents... no matter who does the compromising. I personally despise anyone involved in doing so; regardless of political affiliation or position.

I was more entertained by your cluelessness and failure to keep the GOP propaganda talking points in line.

Thats what happens when you fall for too many lies.

If you are such a glorious example of what our military has for its "intelligence community" no wonder we are FUBARd.

Luckily, I happen to know better, because in fact there are military folks out there that are smart

much smarter than you.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: conehead433
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
Originally posted by: jimkyser
Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them now? Why waste the time, effort and money on a complete sham of a kangaroo court.
Agreed. Why don't we?
Because in the USA one is innocent until proven guilty. One of the detainees was a chauffeur. Others, no doubt, were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, chauffeur to the most wanted terrorist in the world, guess that was the only job this guy could find to support his family?

Hey, the guy only answered the ad in the Kabul times want ads for a chauffer for a high profile terrorist.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...

This is a total non sequitur and is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...

This is a total non sequitur and is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
how so? Most of the inadmissible evidence in question is essentially classified information that could/would lead to the compromise of our gathering methods and agents... so tell me Don, how is that irrelevant to the discussion again?

@Orbyte - so you say son, so you say.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jimkyser
As required by law, the manual prohibits statements obtained by torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the Constitution.

However, the law does allow statements obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge.
Seems reasonable to me. A judge will get to review the information and how it was obtained and then will rule on whether it should be allowed or not.

As usual the people who complain about this don?t offer any alternative of their own.
If this is so important to the American people how come it wasn?t part of the Democrats 100 hours?

I say we call them POWs and let them rot till the 'war' is over.

What 'war' are you talking about, poofjohn?

The "WAR" in Afganistan was supposedly over some years ago. You don't mean the little detour called Iraq, shouldn't they try Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi courts?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
shouldn't they try Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi courts?
That's the first valid argument I've heard from your entire camp. well done!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |