Holder: No civilian trials for Gitmo detainees and KSM

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

On what evidence? What we tortured out of him or someone else?

See, again more BS. Skirting around the fact that KSM is an actual terrorist as opposed to just admitting you're a shithead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

The 9/11 Commission was started in 2002, and released in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

So how does any of this invalidate the notion that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a civillian court of law; instead of a secret kangaroo court?

KSM was captured by the Pakistanis only in 2003, and his capture was only officially acknowledged by the US in 2006.

Was KSM tortured? Yes. Did this affect the 9/11 Commission? Not really - because the capture was kept secret until 2006 and they named KSM as the architect behind 9/11 based on already existing evidence - like his known ties to Al Qaeda.

Hell, KSM even flat-out told Al Jazeera in 2002 that he was one of the masterminds behind the attack:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/ma ... .terrorism

So how does any of this invalidate the notion that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a civillian court of law; instead of a secret kangaroo court?

So again, unless you can show evidence that KSM is not a terrorist, shut the fuck up. KSM is a terrorist. This was known before they captured and tortured him. You have yet to refute this and instead engage in dishonest misdirection.

Of course, just like any other criminal.
...

the average American is scum, a sadistic bigot. Which is true in my opinion, but hardly a recommendation.

Yeah, thanks for hypocritically classifying most Americans as sadistic, bigotted scum without sufficient trial or evidence and thus demonstrating that you're just a big of a bigot as you think Americans are.

So how does any of this invalidate the notion that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a civillian court of law; instead of a secret kangaroo court?

Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski were both terrorists. McVeigh blew up a whole Federal building with a truck bomb, and Kaczynski blew up lots of mail bombs. Both men were tried in civilian courts. As I recall, McVeigh experienced ULTIMATE JUSTICEtm; and Kaczynski currently spends 23 hours a day in a tiny concrete box. How is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed any different from those men? Apart from the fact that he's a filthy sand-ni(censored)r "Islamocommunaziterrorfascist"?

Well, I suppose the fact that he was tortured might have something to do with it . . . but too goddamned bad. The knowledge of the nation's reprehensible treatment of certain men, women, and children in its custody is a horse that bolted from the barn long ago. If the United States can't build a legitimate case against him, free of the evidence tainted by his torture and imprisonment in secret CIA prisons, then he deserves to be acquitted due to the incompetence of those prosecuting him.

[Thanas]

Dahlia Lithwick puts it well:

Cowardly, Stupid, and Tragically Wrong
The Obama administration's appalling decision to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a military trial.


Today, by ordering a military trial at Guantanamo for 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants, Attorney General Eric Holder finally put the Obama administration's stamp on the proposition that some criminals are "too dangerous to have fair trials."

In reversing one of its last principled positions—that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates—the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law. This isn't just about the administration allowing itself to be bullied out of its commitment to the rule of law. It's about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers—first-class law for some and junk law for others.

Every argument advanced to scuttle the Manhattan trial for KSM was false or feeble: Open trials are too dangerous; major trials are too expensive; too many secrets will be spilled; public trials will radicalize the enemy; the public doesn't want it.

Of course, exactly the same unpersuasive claims could have been made about every major criminal trial in Western history, from the first World Trade Center prosecution to the Rosenberg trial to the Scopes Monkey trial to Nuremburg. Each of those trials could have been moved to some dark cave for everyone's comfort and well-being. Each of those defendants could have been tried using some handy choose-your-own-ending legal system to ensure a conviction. But the principle that you don't tailor justice to the accused won out, and, time after time, the world benefited.

Now the Obama administration—having loudly and proudly made every possible argument against a two-tier justice system—is capitulating to it.

But make no mistake about it: It won't stop here. Putting the administration's imprimatur on the idea that some defendants are more worthy of real justice than others legitimates the whole creeping, toxic American system of providing one class of legal protections for some but not others: special laws for children of immigrants, special laws for people who might look like immigrants, different jails for those who seem too dangerous, special laws for people worthy of wiretapping, and special laws for corporations. After today it will be easier than ever to use words and slogans to invent classes of people who are too scary to try in regular proceedings.

Say what you want about how Congress forced Obama's hand today by making it all but impossible to try the 9/11 conspirators in regular Article III courts.* The only lesson learned is that Obama's hand can be forced. That there is no principle he can't be bullied into abandoning. In the future, when seeking to pass laws that treat different people differently for purely political reasons, Congress need only fear-monger and fabricate to get the president to cave. Nobody claims that this was a legal decision. It was a political triumph or loss, depending on your viewpoint. The rule of law is an afterthought, either way.

It may not matter to you today that the U.S. government has invented a new class of criminals fit for a new class of trials. It may bother you a lot more when special rules are created for unions, or corporations, or the poor, or the children of illegal immigrants, or eco-terrorists. Today's capitulation will just embolden Congress to do all that and more.

A year ago, Holder told the New Yorker's Jane Mayer that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would serve as "the defining event of my time as attorney general." Sadly, he's probably right. He will be remembered for having sacrificed what he knew to be right for some payoff to be named later. We will, all of us, in the long run bear the costs of that choice.

If Nuremberg was good enough for Hitler's ilk, why wasn't it good enough for Bin Laden? Is the latter more terrible than Göring, than Frank (who commanded the death of several million poles), of Kaltenbrunner, head of the Einsatzgruppen?

Rachel Maddow has more in a video well watching.

Excerpt:

A Democratic President kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties -- he puts the nail in the coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office -- and he does it on the first day of his re-election effort.

and Glenn Greenwald as well makes the following observation:

Indeed, as I've documented before -- virtually every country that suffers horrible Terrorist attacks -- Britain, Spain, India, Indonesia -- tries the accused perpetrators in its regular court system, on their own soil, usually in the city that was attacked. The U.S. -- Land of the Free and Home of the Brave -- stands alone in being too afraid to do so.

Related to that: the notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven; he ran on a platform of opposing all the measures he now supports and won decisively. By itself, that proves that -- when these debates are engaged rather than conceded -- these positions are politically sustainable. Obama adopts Bush Terrorism policies because he wants to and has no reason not to -- not because doing so is a political necessity.

Finally -- and as is usually true for this excuse -- the notion that "Congress made him do it" is totally false: aside from the fact that the Obama administration long ago announced that it would retain the military commission system, the White House -- long before Congress acted to ban transfers of detainees to the U.S. -- removed decision-making power from the DOJ in the KSM case and made clear it would likely reverse Holder's decision. As The Atlantic's Andrew Cohen notes:

"Long before the formal "restrictions" came into place on Capitol Hill, the Justice Department could have forced the issue in Congress by bringing Mohammed to trial in the U.S. Even recently, it could have asked the courts to broker the fight between the executive and legislative branches over the fate of the men. It could have put the heat on truculent local politicians. But the feds chose to avoid all of those fights until it was too late. One day, perhaps, we'll really know why."

The Congressional ban is the excuse, not the cause.

[Zinegata]

First of all, since people here are idiots, let me restate what I actually said:

Meh, I don't really think the electorate voted Obama to have civilian trials for known terrorists. Polls do show support for that is slim at best.

The electorate supported military courts in 2001 by a margin of 6 to 10:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90362&page=1

They still support military courts in 2009 by the same margin:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124493/Ameri ... STS=tagrss

And it's still the same story in 2011:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/ ... 300135319/

So again, when people voted for Obama to "change" things, one of the changes was NOT to send KSM to a civilian instead of a military court.

------

So no, I was not addressing whether or not KSM should be tried in a civilian court. That argument is completely fucking irrelevant to the fact that the polls have shown Americans - by a slim majority - never wanted KSM tried in a civilian court. Stop this dishonest shit where I said one thing and you want to argue about something else.

-----

Secondly, I am countering this hooligan assertion:

They aren't "known terrorists"; they have been accused of terrorism

And as I've already shown, KSM is a known terrorist even before he was captured and tortured. So claiming KSM isn't a known terrorist is an actual lie and outright misdirection.

So again, stop with the fucking lies. KSM is a known terrorist. How he eventually faces justice is irrelevant to this fact.

-----------------

However, since people want to talk about the merits of the military tribunal, I'll give it a go - but to the only one who's making actual arguments about the trial instead of simply playing "gotcha!" game.

Thanas, Nuremberg was a military trial. There were a lot of civilian prosecuters and judges involved (mostly from America), but it's called the International Military Tribunal for a reason. Half the judges - including the president, were military men. Nuremberg has often been accused of being little more than victor's justice precisely because of this reason - especially given the Soviet involvement.

So it's not a shining moment that said "war crimes should be prosecuted by civilian courts!". Not when the US accomodated the Soviets having two generals sit as judges. One of whom said this about the trials:

We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments.... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iona_Nikitchenko

The fact is when you try to convict foreigners for crimes against your people, there is no real set precedent. Lockerbie for instance was tried by a Scottish Civilian Court, representing American families, on a US military base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerbie_trial

The Hague was supposed to provide a venue for everyone, but the thing is most of the people that matter aren't signatories to the ICC, which still hasn't convicted anyone.

Personally, the format of the trial is much less important than the verdict. Nuremberg is significant not because it was a civilian trial. It was significant because some of the defendants were actually acquitted. That is why - despite criticisms of it being little more than victor's justice - Nuremberg was a landmark. Despite the Soviet intentions, it achieved some semblance of fairness.

So until we actually see a military trial in action and it turns out to be a pure kangaroo court, I'm not going to condemn the 60% of the American people who support the trials.

[Thanas]

First, I leave the others to rebut your points about them. I think they are without merit, but that is for them to handle.

Thanas, Nuremberg was a military trial. There were a lot of civilian prosecuters and judges involved (mostly from America), but it's called the International Military Tribunal for a reason. Half the judges - including the president, were military men. Nuremberg has often been accused of being little more than victor's justice precisely because of this reason - especially given the Soviet involvement.

So it's not a shining moment that said "war crimes should be prosecuted by civilian courts!". Not when the US accomodated the Soviets having two generals sit as judges.

It was a public trial, with a presumption of innocence. Persons were able to chose theri own attorneys, who had access to testimony. There was no such thing as evidence of torture being admitted, no such thing as secrecy, no anonymous "sources" etc. If you think the military commissions are the same, then you are either ignorant or deluded. Heck, the commissions are not even public. The Nuremberg trials were broadcasted.


EDIT: Hey, if you think the two are the same, why don't you show what Nuremberg's characteristics were and how this applies to secret military trials as well.

The Hague was supposed to provide a venue for everyone, but the thing is most of the people that matter aren't signatories to the ICC, which still hasn't convicted anyone.

The ICC has not, but the International Court for Crimes in former Yugoslavia has proven itself able to handle complex cases. "Since the very first hearing (referral request in the Tadić case) on 8 November 1994, the Tribunal has indicted 161 individuals, and has already completed proceedings with regard to 100 of them: five have been acquitted, 48 sentenced (seven are awaiting transfer, 24 have been transferred, 16 have served their term, and one died while serving his sentence), 11 have had their cases transferred to local courts. Another 36 cases have been terminated (either because indictments were withdrawn or because the accused died, before or after transfer to the Tribunal)."

Personally, the format of the trial is much less important than the verdict.

Why?

Nuremberg is significant not because it was a civilian trial. It was significant because some of the defendants were actually acquitted. That is why - despite criticisms of it being little more than victor's justice - Nuremberg was a landmark. Despite the Soviet intentions, it achieved some semblance of fairness.

So until we actually see a military trial in action and it turns out to be a pure kangaroo court, I'm not going to condemn the 60% of the American people who support the trials.

Honestly, I cannot for the life of me understand your thought process here.

[Samuel]

And as I've already shown, KSM is a known terrorist even before he was captured and tortured. So claiming KSM isn't a known terrorist is an actual lie and outright misdirection.

So again, stop with the fucking lies. KSM is a known terrorist. How he eventually faces justice is irrelevant to this fact.

No, what we have is the 9/11 Commision declaring he was a terrorist and an interview. You know what you need to prove people are guilty of a crime? Evidence. If we had good evidence he was a terrorist, we would have tried and convicted him. The fact we felt the need to delay trial and torture him suggests that we don't have evidence.

Honestly, I cannot for the life of me understand your thought process here.

If not everyone who is brought before the tribunal is found guilty, it must be fair!

[Zinegata]

It was a public trial, with a presumption of innocence. Persons were able to chose theri own attorneys, who had access to testimony. There was no such thing as evidence of torture being admitted, no such thing as secrecy, no anonymous "sources" etc. If you think the military commissions are the same, then you are either ignorant or deluded. Heck, the commissions are not even public. The Nuremberg trials were broadcasted.

Really? Again, how would you explain the statement of the Soviet judge then (which you conveniently ignored)?

We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments.... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime

The chief Soviet judge again stated flat-put that these men were guilty. That is hardly operating on the "presumption of innocence".

Just because you say that it's operating on the "presumption of innocence" doesn't actually make it so. Again, it was the verdicts at Nuremberg which ultimately validated it - the Soviet judges didn't get their way (and largely because the Brits - also military judges - sided with the Americans).

On the matter of secrecy - certainly there is a difference between the two trials. But to condemn the current trials without context is dishonest. Nuremberg was conducted after Germany was already beaten. By contrast there are still ongoing terrorist threats. Would the British have conducted a public trial of Rudolf Hess in 1942? Probably not.

The rest you can legitimately complain about. But again, until the tribunals actually convict some helpless farmer instead of KSM, I don't really think the AMerican public is very wrong about this issue.

The ICC has not, but the International Court for Crimes in former Yugoslavia has proven itself able to handle complex cases. "Since the very first hearing (referral request in the Tadić case) on 8 November 1994, the Tribunal has indicted 161 individuals, and has already completed proceedings with regard to 100 of them: five have been acquitted, 48 sentenced (seven are awaiting transfer, 24 have been transferred, 16 have served their term, and one died while serving his sentence), 11 have had their cases transferred to local courts. Another 36 cases have been terminated (either because indictments were withdrawn or because the accused died, before or after transfer to the Tribunal)."

It's still problematic given that virtually every nation that matters - i.e. US, India CHina, has not signed on to the treaty anyway. All it shows is that - like Lockerbie - there is really no set precedent on how to handle war crimes. You need to set up special bodies to handle each on a case-by-case basis.

Why?

Why not? OJ Simpson was tried in a civilian court but got away with murdering his wife. Is insisting on a specific process more important than getting actual justice?

I know very many would say "the system is more important", and that may even be true if we're talking about American citizens here. But as far as treating war criminals are concerned, there isn't an actual definitive system in place.

[Zinegata]

No, what we have is the 9/11 Commision declaring he was a terrorist and an interview. You know what you need to prove people are guilty of a crime? Evidence. If we had good evidence he was a terrorist, we would have tried and convicted him. The fact we felt the need to delay trial and torture him suggests that we don't have evidence.

No, this is you splitting hairs.

I am saying KSM is a known terrorist.

You are talking about "KSM should be proven to be a terrorist beyond reasonable doubt".

Again, stop playing stupid games. Further BS like this will be ignored, because they're not actual arguments. They're just lame attempts to change goalposts because some people here seriously can't even admit guys like KSM are known Al Qaeda operatives.

A real attempt to argue would be to show that the evidence presented is faulty. So unless you can point specifically as to why the 9/11 Commission was wrong to call KSM a terrorist, or if you can prove the Al Jazeera interview was a fabrication (I know some people have claimed that, but I've never seen a good strong case for it), you're not arguing. You're just bullshitting.

[Anguirus]

Since KSM is almost certainly an al-Qaeda operative, it begs the question of why the government does not feel it can make this case in a public trial.

As an American, I prize the presumption of innocence. It confuses me that you're getting so worked up over peoples' acceptance of this principle.

[Zinegata]

Since KSM is almost certainly an al-Qaeda operative, it begs the question of why the government does not feel it can make this case in a public trial.

As an American, I prize the presumption of innocence. It confuses me that you're getting so worked up over peoples' acceptance of this principle.

Probably because the defense can scream "he was tortured!" all day long, which would result in the case getting thrown out regardless of the evidence before he was captured and tortured.

Bush's fault which Obama inherited.

And again: A lot of kangaroo courts also operate on the presumption of innocence. Nuremberg very nearly became one had the Soviets got their way. Just because you say a court has a presumption of innocence, doesn't mean it will actually be followed or will lead to justice.

[K. A. Pital]

Just because you say that it's operating on the "presumption of innocence" doesn't actually make it so. Again, it was the verdicts at Nuremberg which ultimately validated it - the Soviet judges didn't get their way (and largely because the Brits - also military judges - sided with the Americans).

There was a presumption of innocence, actually. Otherwise Schacht, etc. would be convicted merely because they were accused. The fact that Nazi leadership commited crimes was simply universally acknowledged by the time of the trials, but the degree of personal responsibility in this collective atrocity was precisely the matter of the trial.

By contrast there are still ongoing terrorist threats. Would the British have conducted a public trial of Rudolf Hess in 1942? Probably not.

The question is not "would", but rather could or could not. Obviously they could. And next, so what? Terrorism is not going to end because some idiot called Bush or Obama declared a universal "war" on terrorism: a sentence which is so stupid that it's hard to find something as idiotic spoken before in history with such a serious face.

It's still problematic given that virtually every nation that matters - i.e. US, India CHina, has not signed on to the treaty anyway. All it shows is that - like Lockerbie - there is really no set precedent on how to handle war crimes. You need to set up special bodies to handle each on a case-by-case basis.

This is because major powers are fucking dickheads who want to be able to protect their soldiers if the latter go murdering civilians. It is a moral failure of colossal proportions. As is the very fact that "special bodies" controlled by major powers are the sole "deciders" when it comes to such trials, too.

Is insisting on a specific process more important than getting actual justice?

Here one might argue that due process is actually very important to justice. Does it really matter whether the defendants at Soviet purge-era trials, which had merely minutes of hearing and a special extralegal commission decide their fate, were guilty or not? Even if they were, their accusation, indiction and punishment were done without due process. Heck, you might as well call it "revolutionary justice" if you're saying that it's factual guild or guiltlessness only important thing in the process.

If legal process is not important, but actual justice is important, vigilantism is also perfectly justified. For example, does Bush deserve death for his war crimes? Or, more simply, the Kill Team soldiers which recently made the headlines? Quite surely they do, if their guilt was proven by a civilian court of law, I believe mass murder is pretty much the sure way to face death.

So then a person would be fully justified to take up arms and execute the Kill Team soldiers. Sure, there's no due process, but they are guilty and actual justice matters more. By that logic, killing off leaders of powerful nations and more than a few corporations is entirely justified as well, because they are deeply implicated in major crimes and the only thing which precludes a trial is the fact that the justice system is subservient to the rich and powerful nations and individuals.

You can see where this logic brings us? Not that I entirely disagree with it, heh - you just have to be ready to bring it to the logical conclusion, that being it doesn't matter if it's vigilantism, revolutionary tribunals, a dictatorial mock trial or whatever so as long as there's "actual justice" and the person is actually guilty of what he's being accused of.

[Thanas]

Really? Again, how would you explain the statement of the Soviet judge then (which you conveniently ignored)?

As the opinion of one person, who was in the minority and did not, on his own, have the power to change a verdict as he pleased. In any case, it literally would not have mattered had he personally bought excess rope in advance of the trial, as the record shows, the trial was overall fair and public. Yes, mistakes were made, yes, some verdicts are a bit questionable, yes, the American prison commander was a brutish thug (and a war criminal himself), but overall, it still was a fair, public trial.

Just because you say that it's operating on the "presumption of innocence" doesn't actually make it so. Again, it was the verdicts at Nuremberg which ultimately validated it - the Soviet judges didn't get their way (and largely because the Brits - also military judges - sided with the Americans).

So...you claim the presumption of innocence does not exist despite the whole trial being based on it and verdicts reflecting that? Strange argument here.

On the matter of secrecy - certainly there is a difference between the two trials. But to condemn the current trials without context is dishonest. Nuremberg was conducted after Germany was already beaten. By contrast there are still ongoing terrorist threats. Would the British have conducted a public trial of Rudolph Hess in 1942? Probably not.

They did however conduct public trials of German spies and saboteurs. You have no case here. Hess was not put on trial back then because he was an intelligence asset. The same is not true for the current inmates.

And if you really think the context of Guantanamo is in any way worse than the context of WWII (and there were ongoing terrorist threats by Nazis back then as well) then you are a horrible person.

The rest you can legitimately complain about. But again, until the tribunals actually convict some helpless farmer instead of KSM, I don't really think the AMerican public is very wrong about this issue.

So, to recap:
- evidence gained by torture
- anonymous accusations
- no way for the defence to really challenge witnesses
- no way for the defence to view secret evidence
- the mere concept of secret evidence being admitted
- past torture of the accused to soften him up
- no real judges, no real defence attorneys
- no way of knowing whether there is any safeguard observed in practice
- judge, jury and prosecutor being part of the same institution and maybe even the same chain of command

does not bother you in the slightest?

Hold on, I got a call from Berlin incoming. Judge Freisler is intrigued by your ideas of justice, as they all so closely align with his. He wishes to enquire when you can arrive at the Volksgerichtshof and start your productive career. After all, we have already seen the justice such courts usually produce.

It's still problematic given that virtually every nation that matters - i.e. US, India CHina, has not signed on to the treaty anyway. All it shows is that - like Lockerbie - there is really no set precedent on how to handle war crimes. You need to set up special bodies to handle each on a case-by-case basis.

BS. I guess the vast majority of nations does not count, nor do the other members of the United Nations? And nobody ever has spoken out against setting up special bodies. But that does not mean the special bodies must be secret miltary commissions.

Why not? OJ Simpson was tried in a civilian court but got away with murdering his wife. Is insisting on a specific process more important than getting actual justice?

Your idea of justice is not the idea of the civilized world. You seem to be operating under the assumption of "I know he did it/he is a bad person = guilty". This is not justice. That is stone age thuggery. Even the ancient empires knew that justice cannot be gained through anything but a legal process. The process is more important than the verdict, because if you do not have a process, then your "justice" is without foundation.

Probably because the defense can scream "he was tortured!" all day long, which would result in the case getting thrown out regardless of the evidence before he was captured and tortured.

Bull. Several Germans accused and convicted at the war crimes tribunals were tortured, which did not result in automatic acquittals. Evidence gained without violating procedure can still be admitted. Your scenario is without any legal basis.

[Edi]

Since KSM is almost certainly an al-Qaeda operative, it begs the question of why the government does not feel it can make this case in a public trial.

As an American, I prize the presumption of innocence. It confuses me that you're getting so worked up over peoples' acceptance of this principle.

Probably because the defense can scream "he was tortured!" all day long, which would result in the case getting thrown out regardless of the evidence before he was captured and tortured.

Bush's fault which Obama inherited.

And again: A lot of kangaroo courts also operate on the presumption of innocence. Nuremberg very nearly became one had the Soviets got their way. Just because you say a court has a presumption of innocence, doesn't mean it will actually be followed or will lead to justice.

So do you think anyone accused of terrorism should be tried in a kangaroo court instead of in a real civilian one because they might (Oh, the Horror!) be acquitted due to incompetence and/or illegal actions on part of the prosecution?

If that's the case, you could just as well spare any pretense and put a bullet through the back of their heads without ceremony and you'd have the same amount of justice there.

I wish people like you got put through the same sort of grinder the War on Terror detainees are just so you could learn why it's a bad idea not to give them a proper trial.

[Zinegata]

As the opinion of one person, who was in the minority and did not, on his own, have the power to change a verdict as he pleased. In any case, it literally would not have mattered had he personally bought excess rope in advance of the trial, as the record shows, the trial was overall fair and public. Yes, mistakes were made, yes, some verdicts are a bit questionable, yes, the American prison commander was a brutish thug (and a war criminal himself), but overall, it still was a fair, public trial.

It was the opinion of the chief Soviet judge. Not some clerk. Not some minor functionary. The chief Soviet judge. Who could in fact change a verdict because he was one of the people voting whether or not to convict someone.

So let's not downplay the fact that Nuremberg could have become a kangaroo court if the Soviets got their way.

I agree that Nuremberg was ultimately judged a fair trial. But if enough of the judges shared the same opinion as the Soviet one, it wouldn't matter if the trial was officially operating on the "presumption of innocence".

So...you claim the presumption of innocence does not exist despite the whole trial being based on it and verdicts reflecting that? Strange argument here.

No, I claim that just because you say a trial has presumption of innocence, doesn't mean it's actually case.

If all four judges shared the Soviet judge's opinion - despite the rules - Nuremberg would have been a kangaroo court.

They did however conduct public trials of German spies and saboteurs. You have no case here. Hess was not put on trial back then because he was an intelligence asset. The same is not true for the current inmates.

Public trials that were held for propaganda purposes, not to show that there was justice or the rule of law. You're not making a case either.

Also, KSM is not an intelligence asset? Isn't that the whole reason why they're torturing him for information?

And if you really think the context of Guantanamo is in any way worse than the context of WWII (and there were ongoing terrorist threats by Nazis back then as well) then you are a horrible person.

No, Hess wasn't tortured and the Allies treated their prisoners with a humanity even the Nazis had to acknowledge. But I am demonstrating that protecting national secrets could have played a role in the current format of secret trials.

So, to recap:
- evidence gained by torture
- anonymous accusations
- no way for the defence to really challenge witnesses
- no way for the defence to view secret evidence
- the mere concept of secret evidence being admitted
- past torture of the accused to soften him up
- no real judges, no real defence attorneys
- no way of knowing whether there is any safeguard observed in practice
- judge, jury and prosecutor being part of the same institution and maybe even the same chain of command

does not bother you in the slightest?

It actually does bother me quite a lot. But again, when choosing between the bitter pill of having a scumbag like KSM go through shit like this, or risking the case thrown out, I'm gonna have to side with the American public on this one that option a) is better.

We live in the real world Thanas. Sometimes there is no "Take a Third Option".

BS. I guess the vast majority of nations does not count, nor do the other members of the United Nations? And nobody ever has spoken out against setting up special bodies. But that does not mean the special bodies must be secret miltary commissions.

Thanas, don't be silly. When virtually all the major powers don't sign up for it, a treaty is in deep trouble. Because ultimately the treaty will need support from the US and other major powers to enforce it. It's a nice treaty in paper, but as of now it's really just a paper treaty.

And no, it doesn't have to be secret military commissions.

Your idea of justice is not the idea of the civilized world.

Your idea of justice is only of that of the rich, developed, First World.

In most countries you can rely upon the judge being bribed by the richer party to rule in their favor. Where "presumption of innocence" isn't actually enforced and are just nice words.

Heck, you can even do that often enough in the First World. Or buy high-priced attorneys (or attorneys who want to become famous) who will use the "Any doubt is reasonable doubt!" defense like in the OJ Simpson trial.

So let's not engage in stupid dick-waving on people's "idea of justice".

Bull. Several Germans accused and convicted at the war crimes tribunals were tortured, which did not result in automatic acquittals. Evidence gained without violating procedure can still be admitted. Your scenario is without any legal basis.

Really? Please elaborate. I didn't hear of Goering and the others getting tortured.

[Zinegata]

Since KSM is almost certainly an al-Qaeda operative, it begs the question of why the government does not feel it can make this case in a public trial.

As an American, I prize the presumption of innocence. It confuses me that you're getting so worked up over peoples' acceptance of this principle.

Probably because the defense can scream "he was tortured!" all day long, which would result in the case getting thrown out regardless of the evidence before he was captured and tortured.

Bush's fault which Obama inherited.

And again: A lot of kangaroo courts also operate on the presumption of innocence. Nuremberg very nearly became one had the Soviets got their way. Just because you say a court has a presumption of innocence, doesn't mean it will actually be followed or will lead to justice.

So do you think anyone accused of terrorism should be tried in a kangaroo court instead of in a real civilian one because they might (Oh, the Horror!) be acquitted due to incompetence and/or illegal actions on part of the prosecution?

If that's the case, you could just as well spare any pretense and put a bullet through the back of their heads without ceremony and you'd have the same amount of justice there.

I wish people like you got put through the same sort of grinder the War on Terror detainees are just so you could learn why it's a bad idea not to give them a proper trial.

No, I'm saying I'm not seeing any other option that won't result in the distinct possibility of an acquittal in an era of "any doubt is reasonable doubt" defenses.

So you may want to backtrack on all the mudslinging, because I'm getting sick and tired of getting called a fascist just because I'm not seeing any other option other than a very problematic civilian trial system - which is probably also the position of the 60% of the American public that supports military tribunals. They're all not fascists either.

You can, in fact, support something you disdain because the other options results in worse things happening.

[Zinegata]

Stash -> I think I addressed your other points in my reply to Thanas, but if I missed anything else my apologies. But this I have to respond to as it's worth pointing out:

You can see where this logic brings us? Not that I entirely disagree with it, heh - you just have to be ready to bring it to the logical conclusion, that being it doesn't matter if it's vigilantism, revolutionary tribunals, a dictatorial mock trial or whatever so as long as there's "actual justice" and the person is actually guilty of what he's being accused of.

Yes. You're correct it can potentially lead to the break down of the entire system. Ideally, justice should always follow specific rules. That the ideal.

[K. A. Pital]

Stash -> I think I addressed your other points in my reply to Thanas, but if I missed anything else my apologies. But this I have to respond to as it's worth pointing out:

You can see where this logic brings us? Not that I entirely disagree with it, heh - you just have to be ready to bring it to the logical conclusion, that being it doesn't matter if it's vigilantism, revolutionary tribunals, a dictatorial mock trial or whatever so as long as there's "actual justice" and the person is actually guilty of what he's being accused of.

Yes. You're correct it can potentially lead to the break down of the entire system. Ideally, justice should always follow specific rules. That the ideal.

Actually, it depends on if you want the system to break down. I'm not sure you are entirely wrong here. Justice sometimes can matter more than "due process", if said process ends up with people who should be dead ten times over walking on Earth and still doing evil. Call me a walking Guillotine, but there are times when justice is more important than playing by the rules.

Part of the problem is that many people in the American military should be also dead ten times over. Who watches the watchers, duh.

[Simon_Jester]

So, to recap:
- evidence gained by torture
- anonymous accusations
- no way for the defence to really challenge witnesses
- no way for the defence to view secret evidence
- the mere concept of secret evidence being admitted
- past torture of the accused to soften him up
- no real judges, no real defence attorneys
- no way of knowing whether there is any safeguard observed in practice
- judge, jury and prosecutor being part of the same institution and maybe even the same chain of command
does not bother you in the slightest?

It actually does bother me quite a lot. But again, when choosing between the bitter pill of having a scumbag like KSM go through shit like this, or risking the case thrown out, I'm gonna have to side with the American public on this one that option a) is better.

So, Khalid Shiekh Muhammed is so dangerous and evil that trying him under conditions where it is inconceivable that any real procedural rules or safeguards will apply is better than risking that an honest court would deem the case against him hopelessly tainted. Because he is just that dangerous.

OK then.

Why have a trial at all?

Why not just put a bullet through his head now and have done with it? Why not simply openly proclaim, as state policy, that we no longer feel any need to have trials into the cases of Designated Very Bad Men, because the evidence against such people can prove their obvious guilt without the need for a trial?

I'm not on board with that, and I doubt you are either... because we both know what happens when you go down that road: the class of Designated Very Bad Men is abused, and abused harder. Until the very idea that anything resembling justice might be dealt to those the state sees as enemies becomes a mockery.

And yet I still can't see a functional difference between railroading someone through a kangaroo court designed to ignore all rights the defendant has and all safeguards in place to protect the innocent... and just arbitrarily declaring that they're guilty. In fact, you did just arbitrarily declare that KSM is guilty. That's what you're using to justify putting him through a kangaroo court in the first place. Why bother having the trial at all? Why not just punish him yourself, if you know he's guilty and can't accept the danger that he might be let go because of how we've treated him in the past ten years?

So on the one hand, just giving the executive branch the power to identify and execute Designated Very Bad Men without trial is unacceptable. On the other, there really isn't much difference between letting the executive branch kill Very Bad Men after holding a kangaroo court and letting them do it with no trial at all.

I doubt you'd advocate killing KSM without benefit of trial, given the precedent that would set. But doesn't that argue that the same's true for applying a kangaroo court?

Doesn't that argue that while the consequences of risking KSM being let go because of our own stupidly abusive detention policy are bad... they are not as bad as the consequences of allowing our courts and judiciary to be prostituted out to the military-security complex this way? That the practice of holding bizarre star chamber pseudo-courts for people the government deems to be beyond the pale is itself something dangerous and corrosive?

I mean hell, there was never any question of this in the case of Timothy McVeigh, who was personally responsible for the death of 168 people. We tried him, fair and square. KSM was part of a team of twenty who killed 3000 people, but he is far too dangerous to try for fear that he might be let go.

I mean fuck, given the precedents that have grown up since 9/11, it's not like Obama can't just order him killed for Breathing While Being An Evil Terrorist the day after we release him for our inability to prove him guilty without using evidence tainted by torture.

Stash -> I think I addressed your other points in my reply to Thanas, but if I missed anything else my apologies. But this I have to respond to as it's worth pointing out:

You can see where this logic brings us? Not that I entirely disagree with it, heh - you just have to be ready to bring it to the logical conclusion, that being it doesn't matter if it's vigilantism, revolutionary tribunals, a dictatorial mock trial or whatever so as long as there's "actual justice" and the person is actually guilty of what he's being accused of.

Yes. You're correct it can potentially lead to the break down of the entire system. Ideally, justice should always follow specific rules. That the ideal.

Actually, it depends on if you want the system to break down. I'm not sure you are entirely wrong here. Justice sometimes can matter more than "due process", if said process ends up with people who should be dead ten times over walking on Earth and still doing evil. Call me a walking Guillotine, but there are times when justice is more important than playing by the rules.

You can argue it... but if you're going to do that, you shouldn't stop at Khalid Shiekh Mohammed. You should be willing to kill everyone who's "better dead."

Which is a perfectly normal attitude for a revolutionary who wants to wipe out 5% of the population to make a better world for the remaining 95%. For someone less committed to wading their way to tomorrow through blood, that kind of show trials and vigilantism and the rest isn't acceptable. It's just another way to be barbaric.

So yes, I think for consistency's sake we need to draw the line here. Either it is so important to kill or imprison KSM that it's worth ignoring due process to do it, or it isn't.

If it is, then there are a LOT of other people, not all of them Muslim terrorists, who should be treated the same way. There are a lot of things about the world that someone damned sure ought to swing for.

If it isn't, then, well, we might have to accept that the world contains one more free man who hates us than it used to.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, Simon got my point quite good. There's a lot of breathing people who should be dead. If you are not ready to give them the same treatment as KSM out of expediency or whatever, if you're not the one with a cold mind and a hot heart who is ready to put them all out to make the world better, you should stick to due process.

Selective violation of due process is even worse than universal non-selective violence. It tells people that there are humans who don't really "deserve" due process, they just happen to have that luxury, and then there are others which don't deserve it. Who are those others? Not fully human? Not fully "citizens"? Who knows.

But I rest my case. I have stated the point perfectly well.

[Thanas]

It was the opinion of the chief Soviet judge. Not some clerk. Not some minor functionary. The chief Soviet judge. Who could in fact change a verdict because he was one of the people voting whether or not to convict someone.

So let's not downplay the fact that Nuremberg could have become a kangaroo court if the Soviets got their way.

I agree that Nuremberg was ultimately judged a fair trial. But if enough of the judges shared the same opinion as the Soviet one, it wouldn't matter if the trial was officially operating on the "presumption of innocence".

But they didn't and your entire point is moot. In fact, it is a giant red herring that does not serve as any evidence in your case.

No, I claim that just because you say a trial has presumption of innocence, doesn't mean it's actually case.

But it was, so who cares?

Public trials that were held for propaganda purposes, not to show that there was justice or the rule of law. You're not making a case either.

Evidence for that?

Also, KSM is not an intelligence asset? Isn't that the whole reason why they're torturing him for information?

What is your evidence that he is still an intelligence asset?

No, Hess wasn't tortured and the Allies treated their prisoners with a humanity even the Nazis had to acknowledge. But I am demonstrating that protecting national secrets could have played a role in the current format of secret trials.

The same could have had applied to Nuremberg. The United States back then might have just as well declared not to allow evidence of things the alllied did (like sinking Japanese ships and not rescuing survivors) to be discussed, but they did. The excuse of "national secrets" and "the good of the country" is just a scharade, an empty platitude.

It actually does bother me quite a lot. But again, when choosing between the bitter pill of having a scumbag like KSM go through shit like this, or risking the case thrown out, I'm gonna have to side with the American public on this one that option a) is better.

We live in the real world Thanas. Sometimes there is no "Take a Third Option".

Yeah, you would have fitted right in with the scumbag Nazi judges. I am sure you would also have argued for the internment of the Japanese in WWII, after all, the same applies here. And I do not buy that it bothers you. I do not buy it at all when you can dismiss it with some excuse like "BBBBUH he is a baaaad man and obviously guilty." Well, if he is so obviously guilt, why not prove it in a court? It would serve far less the aims of Al-Quida's propaganda arm than "secret trial".

Thanas, don't be silly. When virtually all the major powers don't sign up for it, a treaty is in deep trouble. Because ultimately the treaty will need support from the US and other major powers to enforce it. It's a nice treaty in paper, but as of now it's really just a paper treaty.

So France, Japan, the UK, Germany, Spain - heck, the entire EU etc...are all not major powers? What world are you living in?

Your idea of justice is only of that of the rich, developed, First World.

....disregarding the idiocy of that statement, since when is the USA not part of the rich, developed, first world?

Really? Please elaborate. I didn't hear of Goering and the others getting tortured.

The French put a number of German officers in certain prisons, who were then beaten repeatedly. The soviets as well were far from being angels in their treatment of prisoners or civilians. Nevertheless, the General's trials etc. did go ahead.

[Zinegata]

But they didn't and your entire point is moot. In fact, it is a giant red herring that does not serve as any evidence in your case.

No it's not. You're claiming that the Nuremberg trials served as a good benchmark. But Nuremberg was not a civilian trial. It did not have impartial judges. You can keep dismissing it as a Red Herring, but the fact is Nuremberg could have easily been a kangaroo court.

But it was, so who cares?

I do, because you're holding it up as some kind of standard to follow. It was massively flawed and could have gone Kangaroo.

Evidence for that?

Give me time to look it up. But given that the vast majority of German spies were captured and turned into double agents by the British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Cross_System), I'm exceedingly doubtful that the trials against Germans spies were anything more than further propaganda/maskirovka moves by the British rather than any genuine pursuit for justice in the interest of public accountability.

What is your evidence that he is still an intelligence asset?

And what was your evidence that Rudof Hess was ever an intelligence asset?

KSM was at the very least being tortured for intelligence information. So before we proceed with this comparison show some evidence that the Brits actually valued Hess as an intelligence asset.

The same could have had applied to Nuremberg. The United States back then might have just as well declared not to allow evidence of things the alllied did (like sinking Japanese ships and not rescuing survivors) to be discussed, but they did. The excuse of "national secrets" and "the good of the country" is just a scharade, an empty platitude.

Except, of course, the war was already over. So it's again exceedingly hard to form a comparison.

Yeah, you would have fitted right in with the scumbag Nazi judges. I am sure you would also have argued for the internment of the Japanese in WWII, after all, the same applies here. And I do not buy that it bothers you. I do not buy it at all when you can dismiss it with some excuse like "BBBBUH he is a baaaad man and obviously guilty." Well, if he is so obviously guilt, why not prove it in a court? It would serve far less the aims of Al-Quida's propaganda arm than "secret trial".

Come on Thanas. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi? I thought you debated better than this.

You can believe that it doesn't bother me. That would simply make youw wrong. And I'm tired of this bullshit idiocy that you can only be a Fascist or a Lover of All That is Right and Free In This World with regards to this issue.

So France, Japan, the UK, Germany, Spain - heck, the entire EU etc...are all not major powers? What world are you living in?

Thanas, again, stop lying. They're major powers - but when the US, Russia, China, and India don't sign on it too, it loses a lot of power. Which again has ZERO convictions except for a specially convened body in Yugoslavia.

....disregarding the idiocy of that statement, since when is the USA not part of the rich, developed, first world?

Since it flew over you, let me put it in blunter terms:

Your view of justice is far from universal. The reality of justice all over the world is far darker.

The French put a number of German officers in certain prisons, who were then beaten repeatedly. The soviets as well were far from being angels in their treatment of prisoners or civilians. Nevertheless, the General's trials etc. did go ahead.

*shrugs* Sure. But then again the evidence at Nuremberg was in the "all but irrefutable" mode anyway, because you're putting government officials on trial for acts committed by a government.

With terrorists, it's harder to find a smoking gun to ensure an airtight conviction. If you'd rather risk thousands more innocent lives by setting possible terrorists free just to maintain an ideal justice system, that's your opinion to make. I don't think it's the right one. Ideals have to sometimes be sacrificed.

[Zinegata]

OK then.

Why have a trial at all?

For the same reason as one of the major reasons behind Nuremberg: Appearances.

Really, they could have just summarily shot all of the high-ranking Nazi officials too. But it sends a stronger message if you expose all of the terrible crimes of a regime.

In this case, it's more of the US going "Hey, we're still following the rule of law! Sort of!"

And yet I still can't see a functional difference between railroading someone through a kangaroo court designed to ignore all rights the defendant has and all safeguards in place to protect the innocent... and just arbitrarily declaring that they're guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... commission

The thing is... the commission actually hasn't arbitrarily declared everyone they've tried guilty.

Out of the list of people that have gone through the system, two have been acquitted of all charges. One has been acquitted of some charges.

So going through the military tribunal - while not offering the same protections as a civilian court - is certainly not an automatic death sentence either. It's one of those uncomfortable in-between things that's not quite fascist, but not quite liberal and free either.

Personally, I don't think any of us here really know whether or not the tribunals are just kangaroo courts or are doing an actual, serious job of seperating the good from the bad. We really don't have much to base it on. We'll only really see the verdict on tribunals many years from now.

[Zinegata]

My reply to Simon addressed the "You should just kill them off than engage in a kangaroo court!" part, showing that... it's a bit more complicated than that. But this again is a nice nugget from Stas:

Selective violation of due process is even worse than universal non-selective violence. It tells people that there are humans who don't really "deserve" due process, they just happen to have that luxury, and then there are others which don't deserve it. Who are those others? Not fully human? Not fully "citizens"? Who knows.

Not really. What needs to be remembered is that due process has always been selective. We were not always born with unalienable rights. These rights are instead granted to us by the place and circumstances of our birth, and it varies from place to place and from cicrumstance to circumstance.

If you were born in America, you have the right to due process. If you were born in North Korea, not so much. It's almost as much of a crapshoot as the chance of getting mugged.

[Edi]

So you may want to backtrack on all the mudslinging, because I'm getting sick and tired of getting called a fascist just because I'm not seeing any other option other than a very problematic civilian trial system - which is probably also the position of the 60% of the American public that supports military tribunals. They're all not fascists either.

I don't give a tinker's damn about what you are or aren't sick and tired of being called. If it honks like a goose and steps like a goose, it probably is a goose.

The normal US court system has quite enough expertise and knowledge to try terror suspects and convict them through the normal due process channels and in the vast majority of cases they have handed down harsh sentences, with only a very, very few acquittals. Meanwhile the military commission system has all the flaws of a kangaroo court and has an abysmal track record so far and has been ruled unconstitutional by no less than the SCOTUS on more than one occasion, after which the administrations have tried again with minor tweaks.

This points to the US being a nation of spineless, amoral cowards who don't give a fuck and since you are advocating that position, you're going to get all the scorn that comes with that territory. Live with it or get the fuck out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

My reply to Simon addressed the "You should just kill them off than engage in a kangaroo court!" part, showing that... it's a bit more complicated than that. But this again is a nice nugget from Stas:

Selective violation of due process is even worse than universal non-selective violence. It tells people that there are humans who don't really "deserve" due process, they just happen to have that luxury, and then there are others which don't deserve it. Who are those others? Not fully human? Not fully "citizens"? Who knows.

Not really. What needs to be remembered is that due process has always been selective. We were not always born with unalienable rights. These rights are instead granted to us by the place and circumstances of our birth, and it varies from place to place and from cicrumstance to circumstance.

If you were born in America, you have the right to due process. If you were born in North Korea, not so much. It's almost as much of a crapshoot as the chance of getting mugged.

Yeah, yeah. That's completely dodging the point, which is that even if you're not born in America, you're still supposed to get the same due process if you're tried in an American court or are dealt with in an American jurisdiction. Which is precisely what Guantanamo, Bagram and other American controlled facilities fall under despite the neocons pretending otherwise. Your evasion attempt is pathetic at best.

[Zinegata]

So you may want to backtrack on all the mudslinging, because I'm getting sick and tired of getting called a fascist just because I'm not seeing any other option other than a very problematic civilian trial system - which is probably also the position of the 60% of the American public that supports military tribunals. They're all not fascists either.

I don't give a tinker's damn about what you are or aren't sick and tired of being called. If it honks like a goose and steps like a goose, it probably is a goose.

You are also dodging the point that you can, in fact, not subscribe to either extreme on this issue. So I will scorn you instead for apparently believing only extremes exist in this world.

The normal US court system has quite enough expertise and knowledge to try terror suspects and convict them through the normal due process channels and in the vast majority of cases they have handed down harsh sentences, with only a very, very few acquittals. Meanwhile the military commission system has all the flaws of a kangaroo court and has an abysmal track record so far and has been ruled unconstitutional by no less than the SCOTUS on more than one occasion, after which the administrations have tried again with minor tweaks.

Well, the said court's track record does include two outright dismissals of the case against the defendant, so while it potentially has all the flaws of a kangaroo court, so far it has actually released at least two people who turned out to be innocent. So again, I'm not really inclined to pass judgement on it since we aren't actually allowed to see how it works.

As for the normal US court system... Yeah, it could possibly have worked back in 2001 before the torture. The '93 WTC bombers were certainly convicted. But again, this is 2011 and we're already talking about Obama inheriting a mess that would probably have no easy outs.

This points to the US being a nation of spineless, amoral cowards who don't give a fuck and since you are advocating that position, you're going to get all the scorn that comes with that territory. Live with it or get the fuck out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

No, this points to you not being able to understand that people are not simple and can be classified for easy reference like "The US is a nation of spineless, amoral cowards who don't give a fuck". So yes, I will heap more scorn on you by paraphrasing a video game quote to show how you're just making stupid generalizations.

Because by your standards the whole world is composed of spineless, amoral people. There is injustice everywhere in the world but precious little is being done about it. Let's rage about how Europe raped and pillage its colonies before the 20th Century from time to time shall we? Or let's blow a gasket over more current issues like how Africa is such a mess and nobody cares.

Or you could improve your debating by sending out less noise, and more signal.

Yeah, yeah. That's completely dodging the point, which is that even if you're not born in America, you're still supposed to get the same due process if you're tried in an American court or are dealt with in an American jurisdiction. Which is precisely what Guantanamo, Bagram and other American controlled facilities fall under despite the neocons pretending otherwise. Your evasion attempt is pathetic at best.

I wasn't talking to you nor referring specifically to this situation. I was responding to Stas' general statement and saying that "having a different standard of due process is more common than you think".

Moreover, by your standards, the entire Nuremberg trial was in fact a sham - because it was not tried according to the same due process as an American court. For instance...

1) The rules of evidence were not the same as an American court.

2) The defendants were charged with crimes that did not even exist before the creation of the court.

3) The defendants were denied several modes of defense - particularly the "The Allies did it too!" argument.

4) The Soviets actually falsified evidence by saying the sections wherein they agreed to divide Poland between themselves and Germany was a forgery. This was an actual outright lie and should have been grounds for a mistrial.

So clearly, the "same due process rule" isn't always applied. It shouldn't mean that it lets you get away with torture, but insisting on same due process in all circumstances flies in the face of reality.

This is not evasion. This is demonstrating that this is a pretty complex issue that is not served by stupid generalizations. The history of these kinds of prosecutions does in fact involve the process being tweaked here and there to serve justice. Again, it'd be great if there's a Third Option - but so far there does not seem one.

[Simon_Jester]

OK then.
Why have a trial at all?

For the same reason as one of the major reasons behind Nuremberg: Appearances.
Really, they could have just summarily shot all of the high-ranking Nazi officials too. But it sends a stronger message if you expose all of the terrible crimes of a regime.
In this case, it's more of the US going "Hey, we're still following the rule of law! Sort of!"

Jesus you completely missed the point of the Nuremberg trials.

The object of a public trial is not merely to 'expose crimes;' it is to establish a procedure by which crimes are punished. To say "yes, our civilization is bigger than you, you are not above the law." You can't say that meaningfully when you yourself are assuming the right to stand above the law because you're dealing with a Designated Very Bad Man and you only like the law as long as it does exactly what you want.

At Nuremberg, the crime was so big they had to invent a new court just to find room for it... but they did. A court in which yes, the defendants had real attorneys and the evidence could be examined locally.

It was not a show trial. The Russians wanted a show trial... because show trials were a Stalinist specialty. And now you want to start them again- have a "trial" purely for show, when the guilt of the defendant has already been decided. Because remember, your reason for sending KSM to this tribunal in the first place requires that you first decide that he is guilty.

He's guilty, therefore he's too dangerous to set free, therefore we can't risk him being set free, therefore we can't follow the rule of law because after the utter shit we've done, by our own laws we might have to set him free. Therefore we can't send him to a trial that follows the laws.

That is your argument. Do you not see the danger in this? Do you not see what happens when you declare people guilty before the trial?

In no sense does such a trial say what you want. It is an open, naked confession that the US is totally indifferent to the rule of law, having already ignored it for ten years. It is an official statement by the US government that it is above the law, and Designated Very Bad Men are below the law.

Both those ideas are horribly corrosive in a democracy.

And yet I still can't see a functional difference between railroading someone through a kangaroo court designed to ignore all rights the defendant has and all safeguards in place to protect the innocent... and just arbitrarily declaring that they're guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... commission

The thing is... the commission actually hasn't arbitrarily declared everyone they've tried guilty.

Out of the list of people that have gone through the system, two have been acquitted of all charges. One has been acquitted of some charges.

So going through the military tribunal - while not offering the same protections as a civilian court - is certainly not an automatic death sentence either. It's one of those uncomfortable in-between things that's not quite fascist, but not quite liberal and free either.

You can't be "not quite fascist" any more than you can be "a little bit pregnant" in a situation like this.

I have no doubt that some of the Stalinist show trials acquitted their defendants of some charges... for show. It doesn't matter. If you're sending people to trials with no due process, you have already stopped caring whether they are guilty or innocent. Because you have removed the essential safeguards that courts need to keep them from convicting innocent people who happen to have become targets of state suspicion.

You're at risk of all sorts of things. You're at risk of trials becoming political footballs: "Terrorists/wreckers/heretics are too dangerous to be set free, so we must find this man guilty!" Hell, that's already happened. You're at risk of the state establishing a mechanism to do this to people that it will later use on you. You're at risk of the trials becoming a tool for tyranny, of sheer naked intimidation- look no further than the "trial" of Tukhachevsky if you don't believe me.

Again, either the prisoner's fate is determined in advance (he's too dangerous to set free, and thus too dangerous to send to a real court), or it's not. Occasional exceptions the tribunal chooses to make to show off its mercifulness don't count for a damn thing.

Personally, I don't think any of us here really know whether or not the tribunals are just kangaroo courts or are doing an actual, serious job of seperating the good from the bad. We really don't have much to base it on. We'll only really see the verdict on tribunals many years from now.

Does this not concern you?

Do you simply not care about their quality? Does it not matter to you if they really are guilty or innocent, so that you can throw up your hands and say "ah, well, we'll know in twenty years?"

I never thought I'd say this, but you deserve to live through something like the Stalinist purges, just so you'd know where this ends up. The spreading class of 'enemies of the state' that gets applied to more and more people for more and more reasons, the pervasive terror that you might be next, might be denounced by someone through no fault of your own and dragged through a 'trial' system that is more concerned with punishing the Designated Bad Men than with figuring out whether you're one of them.

I mean, for the love of God, what is wrong with you?