Holder: No civilian trials for Gitmo detainees and KSM

[Zinegata]

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.

Establish a procedure? When was the last time a British, American, French, and Soviet judge sat together on a table to have someone executed for committing genocide? Where were they in Rwanda?

The point of the Nuremberg trials was to tell people that genocide was no longer acceptable. It is a landmark because it codified a new set of international laws - i.e. defining "crimes against humanity". It was in many ways the Allies saying "this is why we fought this war". In fact, the Soviets saw it almost entirely as a way of justifying themselves - given how they hid evidence of their complicity in dividing Poland between Germany and themselves in 1939!

But the procedure itself was in fact not established at Nuremberg. That's why there have been numerous attempts to convene some kind of International Court to actually try war crimes. So again: Nuremberg established a new standard in international behavior. Genocide is not cool. But as to establishing an actual procedure, Nuremberg fell short in terms of providing a model for the future.

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.

The rules of evidence at Nuremberg were actually NOT the same as a civil trial. And outright false evidence was actually introduced by the Allies. For instance...

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

The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence; the tu quoque defense was removed; and some claim the entire spirit of the assembly was "victor's justice". The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:
"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations"

There were major, major flaws in the Nuremberg procedure which was why it wasn't used again.

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?

No, it isn't.

What I'm saying is that a trial is not just about rules and procedures. It is also about the people running it.

Nuremberg's procedure presumed innocence. But as I already showed, the chief Soviet judge did not believe in it.

The current Military Tribunals presume guilt. And yet it has already produced two case dismissals. How can you reconcile this? How can a system that is supposedly so biased against the defendant produce case dismissals? My answer is simple: Procedure is but one part of a judicial proceeding. Maybe the guy who are running the actual trial are taking their jobs very seriously to weed out the good from the bad. I don't know because the proceedings are being done in secret.

Legal trials are more than just about procedure. Obsessing over existing procedure alone does not make for good justice. Otherwise the Nazis tried at Nuremberg should all have been set free because the crimes they were being charged with arguably did not even exist yet.

I have no doubt that some of the Stalinist show trials acquitted their defendants of some charges... for show. It doesn't matter.

The two people who were let go haven't been singing America's praises. They are both in fact seeking to sue the US government for damages.

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

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

If these were for "show", then these are very embarassing "for shows".

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?"

To be perfectly honest? Yes.

Firstly, I'm not an American citizen, and I'm used to seeing America impose double standards.

Secondly, there are several hundred prisoners in Gitmo. Many of them are probably actual terrorists. And while their treatment is inhuman, there are millions more out there in the world suffering inhuman treatment. Different forms of slavery still exist in the world. Women are raped. Children are killed. Lots of people are in jail for crimes they didn't commit. The world is a shitty, shitty, place with a lot of suffering and other people are more deserving of sympathy. I don't have infinite sympathy.

And bluntly, that's probably why the American public, for the past ten years, has approved of the tribunals by a margin of 6 out of 10. Out of all the problems in the world, a bunch of possible terrorists probably rank very, very low on their sympathy list. Heck, even the 40% who are against the trials are probably more worried about how their own rights may be impunged in the future. They don't really care about these guys at all. I'd even go out on a limb and say that the people who are arguing against me here don't even really care about these guys at all either. They are more interested in "winning" an Internet argument for the sake of their ideals.

Thirdly, yes, it is actually worrying because it sets a precedent wherein people are simply locked away and tortured for years on end. I don't like torture at all. I think it's wrong. Bush shouldn't have done it. But what's the alternative? A civilian trial that could end up like OJ Simpson?

You need to make a case. You can't just say that you have to try them in civilian courts because it's the legally correct thing to do. You need to show a plan demonstrating that this will in fact keep bad people off the streets. I don't think Obama has really done that.

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?

Perhaps you should live through one, so that you can realize first-hand that your statements are nothing more than fear-mongering.

I don't live in the US. But I have relatives there. They are not afraid of the government coming in to arrest them. They're more worried about the next meal. Or of those poor people in Japan living in tents. But the government coming in to arrest them for trumped-up crimes? That's seriously not happening.

[TheHammer]

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?

I just wanted to point out that you are thinking of the Bush Era Military tribunals. The things I've bolded above were largely reformed in 2009:

When Congress revisited the system in 2009's Military Commissions Act, it pushed the commission system still closer to conformity with the standards associated with courts-martial and civilian criminal trials. In today's system, appeals ultimately run to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and beyond to the Supreme Court if necessary. Military judges preside at the trials. Ex parte evidence -- evidence that is shown to the fact-finder but not the defendant -- is not permitted. Verdicts must be unanimous.* And most significantly, not only are the fruits of torture and cruel treatment precluded from admission, but so too are any statements that were made on any involuntary basis. (The sole exception is the rare circumstance in which a prosecutor might want to introduce statements made on the battlefield at the time of capture.)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e?page=0,1

So, while its certainly not perfect, and may not be up to everyone's standards, its also not nearly as bad as it used to be and how you painted it.

[Zinegata]

Wow. I didn't know that. That honestly makes me feel a lot better, and goes a long way towards explaining the two case dismissals.

Thanks.

edit: FYI though, verdicts still require a 2/3s majority. The article issued a correction but it's not reflected in the quote.

[Samuel]

Establish a procedure? When was the last time a British, American, French, and Soviet judge sat together on a table to have someone executed for committing genocide? Where were they in Rwanda?

The last time someone was convicted for genocide was in June 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world ... hague.html

There also have- amazingly enough- been convictions for people who took part in the Rwandan genocide.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/ ... 6613.shtml

[Zinegata]

Establish a procedure? When was the last time a British, American, French, and Soviet judge sat together on a table to have someone executed for committing genocide? Where were they in Rwanda?

The last time someone was convicted for genocide was in June 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world ... hague.html

There also have- amazingly enough- been convictions for people who took part in the Rwandan genocide.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/ ... 6613.shtml

And both of those did not involve a British, American, French, or Soviet judge in a Nuremberg-style format. Again, Samuel, enough of your usual misdirection tactics.

Again, the law of "crimes against humanity" was established at Nuremberg. But the actual procedure for prosecuting crimes was not.

In fact, notice how the trial at the Hague was conducted under UN auspices, whereas the Rwandan one resulted in this:

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

Not exactly the same procedure followed in both cases. One resulted in conviction and jailing. The other? Somethng more along "Truth and Reconciliation" ala South Africa.

The closest we have to a standardized way of prosecuting war crimes is via the ICC/ICT. But again, without so many key nations supporting it, it's a rather hollow organization that takes decades to get anything done.

And it's worth noting that the ICC is not a military court like Nuremberg.

[Thanas]

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.

Nuremberg was at least partly a civilian trial. The only country who only sent military officers was the USSR, the rest did not and chose lawyers, judges and advocates. You can preen all you want about that, but the fact still remains it was a fair trial.

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

But it did not, it could not seeing how the soviets were in the minority, and you got no case. It is still heaps and bounds better than the military commissions.

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.

You can claim all you want, still no evidence.

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.

No, how about you show some comparison as to how KSM is more dangerous than Hess so that he does not deserve a public trial.

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

The war might have been over, but there were still Nazi terror cells believed to be operating. And if the populace would turn against you, you might never catch a lot of the criminals still at large. I fail to see how this makes it any different from the current situation.

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

Giving that I can find your stances reflected nearly 100% in the writings of certain Nazis and fascists who did away with the legal system in Germany, I find the comparison apt.

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.

Either you have justice, or you do not. You cannot have justice for "people we like" and a different kind of justice for "people we do not like". That flies in the very face of what is considered "fair and equivalent justice for all".

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.

So it only counts when the central body does something, but not a specific subdivision? Your argument is intellectually dishonest.

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.

Since when do standards in corrupt shithole countries like, say, Laos or the Philippines matter when considering actions in the first world? Would you also argue that we could easily sacrifice the freedom of our women to dress freely considering said freedom is also far darker all over the world?

*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.

The precedent still applies, and I hope that one day, you get murdered without trial by some policemen because sometimes, Ideals have to be sacrificed. Like I said, you sound exactly like the Nazi scumbag justices in the third reich. THere too, they faced communist terrorism. Their response: Suspend ordinary civil rights, put up special camps and then convict them in secret trials. Oh wait, no, my mistake, at least they had the honesty of holding publci kangaroo trials. So, my apologies, I was incorrect - you are worse than them, in fact.

[Thanas]

I just wanted to point out that you are thinking of the Bush Era Military tribunals. The things I've bolded above were largely reformed in 2009:

When Congress revisited the system in 2009's Military Commissions Act, it pushed the commission system still closer to conformity with the standards associated with courts-martial and civilian criminal trials. In today's system, appeals ultimately run to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and beyond to the Supreme Court if necessary. Military judges preside at the trials. Ex parte evidence -- evidence that is shown to the fact-finder but not the defendant -- is not permitted. Verdicts must be unanimous.* And most significantly, not only are the fruits of torture and cruel treatment precluded from admission, but so too are any statements that were made on any involuntary basis. (The sole exception is the rare circumstance in which a prosecutor might want to introduce statements made on the battlefield at the time of capture.)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e?page=0,1

So, while its certainly not perfect, and may not be up to everyone's standards, its also not nearly as bad as it used to be and how you painted it.

So they claim. Given the actual track record of such tribunals, I do not feel inclined to trust them. Also, note that there is still no safeguard or guarantee that they will actually adhere to such standards. Secret evidence is still permitted, the judges etc. are still within the same organization that also prosecutes etc..

And several lawyers who actually witnessed such a system painted a far less rosier picture than you do.

[TheHammer]

So they claim. Given the actual track record of such tribunals, I do not feel inclined to trust them. Also, note that there is still no safeguard or guarantee that they will actually adhere to such standards. Secret evidence is still permitted, the judges etc. are still within the same organization that also prosecutes etc..

And several lawyers who actually witnessed such a system painted a far less rosier picture than you do.

Well, the "track record" is the reason they made the changes that they did - essentially to address the more egregious elements you noted. Whether or not you trust them to follow through on it is up to you, but basing opinions for the current tribunals on past Bush era tribunals is going to give an inaccurate picture. They should be judged on their own merits.

[Edi]

So they claim. Given the actual track record of such tribunals, I do not feel inclined to trust them. Also, note that there is still no safeguard or guarantee that they will actually adhere to such standards. Secret evidence is still permitted, the judges etc. are still within the same organization that also prosecutes etc..

And several lawyers who actually witnessed such a system painted a far less rosier picture than you do.

Well, the "track record" is the reason they made the changes that they did - essentially to address the more egregious elements you noted. Whether or not you trust them to follow through on it is up to you, but basing opinions for the current tribunals on past Bush era tribunals is going to give an inaccurate picture. They should be judged on their own merits.

The current tribunals are the exact same as the Bush era tribunals. Obama has adopted every single fucking one of Bush's policies as they were during his time or even extended those policies to new depths of lawlessness.

Saying "Obama tribunals should not be judged by the same yardstick but by their own merits" is complete and utter bullshit. That argument has two possible sources: Either total cluelessness and ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

[Thanas]

So they claim. Given the actual track record of such tribunals, I do not feel inclined to trust them. Also, note that there is still no safeguard or guarantee that they will actually adhere to such standards. Secret evidence is still permitted, the judges etc. are still within the same organization that also prosecutes etc..

And several lawyers who actually witnessed such a system painted a far less rosier picture than you do.

Well, the "track record" is the reason they made the changes that they did - essentially to address the more egregious elements you noted. Whether or not you trust them to follow through on it is up to you, but basing opinions for the current tribunals on past Bush era tribunals is going to give an inaccurate picture. They should be judged on their own merits.

Okay then. What measures are taken to ensure secret evidence (and by that I do not mean "oh yeah, we will give the defence council a blackened out page that says nothing more than "anonymous source X says", I mean cross examination and all that) is not permitted, what measures are taken to ensure the trial is public, what measures are taken to ensure the judges are impartial and not part of the same organization as the prosecution, what measures are taken to ensure the judges, prosecutors and defence councils are outside the military chain of command, what measures are taken to ensure the result can be challenged before the Supreme Court, what measures are taken to ensure that the defence has adequate time and resources to devote to the task, what measures are taken to ensure civilian council is permitted, what measures are taken to ensure the state cannot fall back to the secrecy doctrine, what measures are taken to ensure all opinions are judged on their merit instead of "well, we rather trust Private Schmuckatelli because he is an Army member than some farmer", what measures are taken constitutional safeguards apply?

Because if any of those are not implemented to the fullest, you cannot have a fair trial.

[Samuel]

And both of those did not involve a British, American, French, or Soviet judge in a Nuremberg-style format. Again, Samuel, enough of your usual misdirection tactics.

Because the precedent was established for everyone (namely the trying of political and military figures), not just the participants? That and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

In fact, notice how the trial at the Hague was conducted under UN auspices, whereas the Rwandan one resulted in this:

That is because the Rwadan court is working on the individuals who actually carried out the crimes, instead of the organizers. Even the Russians didn't try every single member of the Wehrmacht.

[TheHammer]

So they claim. Given the actual track record of such tribunals, I do not feel inclined to trust them. Also, note that there is still no safeguard or guarantee that they will actually adhere to such standards. Secret evidence is still permitted, the judges etc. are still within the same organization that also prosecutes etc..

And several lawyers who actually witnessed such a system painted a far less rosier picture than you do.

Well, the "track record" is the reason they made the changes that they did - essentially to address the more egregious elements you noted. Whether or not you trust them to follow through on it is up to you, but basing opinions for the current tribunals on past Bush era tribunals is going to give an inaccurate picture. They should be judged on their own merits.

The current tribunals are the exact same as the Bush era tribunals. Obama has adopted every single fucking one of Bush's policies as they were during his time or even extended those policies to new depths of lawlessness.

Saying "Obama tribunals should not be judged by the same yardstick but by their own merits" is complete and utter bullshit. That argument has two possible sources: Either total cluelessness and ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

Is this a generic "Obama is Bush part 2" rant or are you talking specifically about the situation at hand? Did you read the article I posted that detailed the differences between the two? If you are disputing its validity, what are your sources?

[TheHammer]

So they claim. Given the actual track record of such tribunals, I do not feel inclined to trust them. Also, note that there is still no safeguard or guarantee that they will actually adhere to such standards. Secret evidence is still permitted, the judges etc. are still within the same organization that also prosecutes etc..

And several lawyers who actually witnessed such a system painted a far less rosier picture than you do.

Well, the "track record" is the reason they made the changes that they did - essentially to address the more egregious elements you noted. Whether or not you trust them to follow through on it is up to you, but basing opinions for the current tribunals on past Bush era tribunals is going to give an inaccurate picture. They should be judged on their own merits.

Okay then. What measures are taken to ensure secret evidence (and by that I do not mean "oh yeah, we will give the defence council a blackened out page that says nothing more than "anonymous source X says", I mean cross examination and all that) is not permitted, what measures are taken to ensure the trial is public, what measures are taken to ensure the judges are impartial and not part of the same organization as the prosecution, what measures are taken to ensure the judges, prosecutors and defence councils are outside the military chain of command, what measures are taken to ensure the result can be challenged before the Supreme Court, what measures are taken to ensure that the defence has adequate time and resources to devote to the task, what measures are taken to ensure civilian council is permitted, what measures are taken to ensure the state cannot fall back to the secrecy doctrine, what measures are taken to ensure all opinions are judged on their merit instead of "well, we rather trust Private Schmuckatelli because he is an Army member than some farmer", what measures are taken constitutional safeguards apply?

Because if any of those are not implemented to the fullest, you cannot have a fair trial.

Well a couple of things. Firstly, I don't have answers to any of those questions. I merely wanted to point out the aspects you highlighted about Military Tribunals that were based on out-dated information. I'm not debating whether or not that makes it a "fair trial", however I would go so far as to say its more fair than the Bush era tribunals. I'd expect many of your questions will be answered as time goes on and we see the results of the new tribunals.

I would fully expect that the testimony of Army members (right or wrong) will carry more weight with the judges, in much the same way the testimony of police officers (right or wrong) tends to carry more weight in civilian courts. While thats not neccessarily fair, it tends to go with human nature. I doubt that aspect of it, trusting "Private Schmukatelli", would change very much in an American civilian court.

[Thanas]

Well a couple of things. Firstly, I don't have answers to any of those questions. I merely wanted to point out the aspects you highlighted about Military Tribunals that were based on out-dated information.

If you do not have answers to those questions, then you are effectively conceding the information was very much up-to-date (well, maybe not in the case of torture evidence).

I'm not debating whether or not that makes it a "fair trial", however I would go so far as to say its more fair than the Bush era tribunals. I'd expect many of your questions will be answered as time goes on and we see the results of the new tribunals.

How? How will we see the results? All we will hear is a verdict. There will be no publicity, no reporters present. In short, what makes you think we will hear any of it except from statements by the Army, which has in the past lied through its teeth about these things.

I would fully expect that the testimony of Army members (right or wrong) will carry more weight with the judges, in much the same way the testimony of police officers (right or wrong) tends to carry more weight in civilian courts. While thats not neccessarily fair, it tends to go with human nature. I doubt that aspect of it, trusting "Private Schmukatelli", would change very much in an American civilian court.

You missed the point. What a surprise.

[TheHammer]

Well a couple of things. Firstly, I don't have answers to any of those questions. I merely wanted to point out the aspects you highlighted about Military Tribunals that were based on out-dated information.

If you do not have answers to those questions, then you are effectively conceding the information was very much up-to-date (well, maybe not in the case of torture evidence).

Your information was out of date on the things I highlighted. In addition to information gained via torture:

"no real judges" - Military Judges yes, but judges trained in the law none the less - and the ability to appeal to higher civilian courts where additional "real judges" will be found.

"secret evidence" - As noted, Ex parte evidence -- evidence that is shown to the fact-finder but not the defendant -- is not permitted.

"judge jury prosecuter part of same chain of command" - While that may initially be true, the right to appeal to civilian (DC court of appeals) courts does exist now where as it did not before.

I'm not debating whether or not that makes it a "fair trial", however I would go so far as to say its more fair than the Bush era tribunals. I'd expect many of your questions will be answered as time goes on and we see the results of the new tribunals.

How? How will we see the results? All we will hear is a verdict. There will be no publicity, no reporters present. In short, what makes you think we will hear any of it except from statements by the Army, which has in the past lied through its teeth about these things.

Don't be surprised if the press is granted a lot more access than you might think. They will no doubt be fighting for it in any way they possibly can. Beyond that, once the first appeal is made following a guilty verdict (a virtual guarantee), I expect we'll learn a lot more about how "fair" or "unfair" these trials were.

I would fully expect that the testimony of Army members (right or wrong) will carry more weight with the judges, in much the same way the testimony of police officers (right or wrong) tends to carry more weight in civilian courts. While thats not neccessarily fair, it tends to go with human nature. I doubt that aspect of it, trusting "Private Schmukatelli", would change very much in an American civilian court.

You missed the point. What a surprise.

You seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make. That while not perfect, these tribunals are improved over what we saw with Bush and we should see how they are actually conducted before assuming that the Military is simply going to railroad every detainee brought before it.

[Thanas]

"no real judges" - Military Judges yes, but judges trained in the law none the less - and the ability to appeal to higher civilian courts where additional "real judges" will be found.

An appeal is worthless considering it will only deal with questions of law, not with fact. And the judges are still not what I would consider "real judges", meaning impartial members that are not part of an organization that has a stake in this.

"secret evidence" - As noted, Ex parte evidence -- evidence that is shown to the fact-finder but not the defendant -- is not permitted.

Missed the point once more. Go back and read what problem I highlighted there. Your reply does not cover it. Nor does "no ex-parte evidence" equal "no secret evidence".

"judge jury prosecuter part of same chain of command" - While that may initially be true, the right to appeal to civilian (DC court of appeals) courts does exist now where as it did not before.

Again, appeals are worthless here. If the commission decides that "guy X is a terrorist", meaning a factual judgement, then all the appeal process can do is to check whether they correctly applied the legal consequences of that fact. It is nearly impossible to get facts reconsidered or changed on appeal, especially in a case where the court's decision process will not be made public.

Don't be surprised if the press is granted a lot more access than you might think. They will no doubt be fighting for it in any way they possibly can. Beyond that, once the first appeal is made following a guilty verdict (a virtual guarantee), I expect we'll learn a lot more about how "fair" or "unfair" these trials were.

How will the appeal process work considering the decision process will be kept secret?

You seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make. That while not perfect, these tribunals are improved over what we saw with Bush and we should see how they are actually conducted before assuming that the Military is simply going to railroad every detainee brought before it.

If the military is not planning to railroad people, why hold trials in secret? And "more fair" does not equal "fair".

[TheHammer]

"no real judges" - Military Judges yes, but judges trained in the law none the less - and the ability to appeal to higher civilian courts where additional "real judges" will be found.

An appeal is worthless considering it will only deal with questions of law, not with fact. And the judges are still not what I would consider "real judges", meaning impartial members that are not part of an organization that has a stake in this.

An appeal also includes admissability of evidence. Dodgy facts surrounding evidence could very well result in overturned convictions. And it is at least some oversight and a chance for appeal compared to the previous tribunals which had no such mechanism.

Impartiality is an issue, but the same could be said of a civlian trial held in the US against alleged foreign terrorists. Quite frankly, if a detainee happened to draw an ultra conservative civilian judge he might be even worse off.

"secret evidence" - As noted, Ex parte evidence -- evidence that is shown to the fact-finder but not the defendant -- is not permitted.

Missed the point once more. Go back and read what problem I highlighted there. Your reply does not cover it. Nor does "no ex-parte evidence" equal "no secret evidence".

Read the particulars - For the evidence to be admited it must also be shown to the defendant, therefore it cannot be "secret". The defense will have the opportunity to see and challenge what is being used.

"judge jury prosecuter part of same chain of command" - While that may initially be true, the right to appeal to civilian (DC court of appeals) courts does exist now where as it did not before.

Again, appeals are worthless here. If the commission decides that "guy X is a terrorist", meaning a factual judgement, then all the appeal process can do is to check whether they correctly applied the legal consequences of that fact. It is nearly impossible to get facts reconsidered or changed on appeal, especially in a case where the court's decision process will not be made public.

Well as I noted, once the first tribunal conviction is had, and the first appeal is made we'll have a much better idea as to how fair or unfair the process has been.

Don't be surprised if the press is granted a lot more access than you might think. They will no doubt be fighting for it in any way they possibly can. Beyond that, once the first appeal is made following a guilty verdict (a virtual guarantee), I expect we'll learn a lot more about how "fair" or "unfair" these trials were.

How will the appeal process work considering the decision process will be kept secret?

We'll find out together. All I know is that there is supposed to be a process for appeals. I can't really answer that question since we haven't seen the process in action yet. So I'm reserving judgement and further comment until I do. To do otherwise would be speculation on my part, and yours, and quite frankly a useless exercise.

You seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make. That while not perfect, these tribunals are improved over what we saw with Bush and we should see how they are actually conducted before assuming that the Military is simply going to railroad every detainee brought before it.

If the military is not planning to railroad people, why hold trials in secret? And "more fair" does not equal "fair".

There is no guarantee that the trial is going to be held in secret. They could do that certainly, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that they will. After all, it would be in the Obama Administration's best interest to show that the trial as as forthright as possible. There may be situations where you have closed testimony, but the same is true for certain civilian cases with sensitive information as well.

And I never said "more fair" equated to "fair". You are still free that to think that the changes made are wholely inadequate and unacceptable. I'm not defending the tribunals as a whole, rather I just wanted to clarify facts regarding the new tribunals since I felt some of your points were based on outdated information. Hell, the article I cited still had a few things that were still rather suspect - such as admissible hearsay evidence. But I still consider the reforms a step in the right direction.

[Thanas]

An appeal also includes admissability of evidence. Dodgy facts surrounding evidence could very well result in overturned convictions. And it is at least some oversight and a chance for appeal compared to the previous tribunals which had no such mechanism.

To your first, you seem to have little to no experience with the appeal process. Getting facts reconsidered is already close to impossible when considering typical criminal convictions. And I fail to see why you continue to insist that "some improvement" is good enough.

Even further, it is clear that the Obama administration is not following your line of thinking. Consider this - if the appeal process would be so wide-reaching, it would essentially serve as a second trial - when in fact the opposite is supposed to happen. The aim of this is not to create civiian trials.

Impartiality is an issue, but the same could be said of a civlian trial held in the US against alleged foreign terrorists. Quite frankly, if a detainee happened to draw an ultra conservative civilian judge he might be even worse off.

How so? He will be judged by his peers, otoh a military judge is essentially judged by his superior officer. And given that ultra-conservatives are over-represented in the Army, chances are way higher the judge will be conservative anyway.

Read the particulars - For the evidence to be admited it must also be shown to the defendant, therefore it cannot be "secret". The defense will have the opportunity to see and challenge what is being used.

How do you challenge "The CIA has information from an undercover source that this guy is a very bad man. No, we cannot produce the source, but here is completely truthful written testimony." Oh, and hearsay evidence is admissable, meaning such "secret evidence" is still used.

Well as I noted, once the first tribunal conviction is had, and the first appeal is made we'll have a much better idea as to how fair or unfair the process has been.

How could we judge that? All we would have is the verdict.

We'll find out together. All I know is that there is supposed to be a process for appeals. I can't really answer that question since we haven't seen the process in action yet. So I'm reserving judgement and further comment until I do. To do otherwise would be speculation on my part, and yours, and quite frankly a useless exercise.

This is weasel-think. We already know how appeals in the USA work, what makes you think this will be some kind of "super-appeals" process? All this is you weaseling out of something you do not know about.

There is no guarantee that the trial is going to be held in secret. They could do that certainly, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that they will. After all, it would be in the Obama Administration's best interest to show that the trial as as forthright as possible. There may be situations where you have closed testimony, but the same is true for certain civilian cases with sensitive information as well.

And you base this on what? The media has not been allowed to cover any such military commission before. Past precedent is against you and you seem to fully base your view on a highly idealistic view of the Obama administration.

And I never said "more fair" equated to "fair". You are still free that to think that the changes made are wholely inadequate and unacceptable. I'm not defending the tribunals as a whole, rather I just wanted to clarify facts regarding the new tribunals since I felt some of your points were based on outdated information. Hell, the article I cited still had a few things that were still rather suspect - such as admissible hearsay evidence. But I still consider the reforms a step in the right direction.

Admissable hearsay evidence? And you think this is any improvement? Any trial where there is admissable hearsay evidence is a kangaroo court. There is no other way to describe it.

[TheHammer]

An appeal also includes admissability of evidence. Dodgy facts surrounding evidence could very well result in overturned convictions. And it is at least some oversight and a chance for appeal compared to the previous tribunals which had no such mechanism.

To your first, you seem to have little to no experience with the appeal process. Getting facts reconsidered is already close to impossible when considering typical criminal convictions. And I fail to see why you continue to insist that "some improvement" is good enough.

I fully acknowledged that many people would not view it as "good enough".

But are you finally conceding that there has been "some improvement"? Thats been my only contention all along.

Even further, it is clear that the Obama administration is not following your line of thinking. Consider this - if the appeal process would be so wide-reaching, it would essentially serve as a second trial - when in fact the opposite is supposed to happen. The aim of this is not to create civiian trials.

I'm not arguing that it was. Merely that steps were taken to provide at least some civilian oversight.

Impartiality is an issue, but the same could be said of a civlian trial held in the US against alleged foreign terrorists. Quite frankly, if a detainee happened to draw an ultra conservative civilian judge he might be even worse off.

How so? He will be judged by his peers, otoh a military judge is essentially judged by his superior officer. And given that ultra-conservatives are over-represented in the Army, chances are way higher the judge will be conservative anyway.

Point being that its kind of a crap shoot depending on what judge you'll get.

Read the particulars - For the evidence to be admited it must also be shown to the defendant, therefore it cannot be "secret". The defense will have the opportunity to see and challenge what is being used.

How do you challenge "The CIA has information from an undercover source that this guy is a very bad man. No, we cannot produce the source, but here is completely truthful written testimony." Oh, and hearsay evidence is admissable, meaning such "secret evidence" is still used.

The defense will be allowed to hear and challenge the particulars of the testimony. It is not therefore secret. It won't be a situation where "We showed the judge and jury some testimony that you don't get to hear because its classified. But trust us, it was all factual and there was nothing you could say to counter it."

Hearsay is another matter entirely, and I've already acknowledged it is still a problem. But that has nothing to do with "secret evidence" as was used in the past.

Well as I noted, once the first tribunal conviction is had, and the first appeal is made we'll have a much better idea as to how fair or unfair the process has been.

How could we judge that? All we would have is the verdict.

That is an assumption on your part.

We'll find out together. All I know is that there is supposed to be a process for appeals. I can't really answer that question since we haven't seen the process in action yet. So I'm reserving judgement and further comment until I do. To do otherwise would be speculation on my part, and yours, and quite frankly a useless exercise.

This is weasel-think. We already know how appeals in the USA work, what makes you think this will be some kind of "super-appeals" process? All this is you weaseling out of something you do not know about.

No, its not weasel think. I refuse to go down the road with assumptions and hypotheticals. Waiting until we have some actual results of the trials is perfectly reasonable, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you then. IF it turns out you are right then you and I could be on the same side. But I'm not going to do as you have done and base my opinions solely on worst case scenarios.

There is no guarantee that the trial is going to be held in secret. They could do that certainly, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that they will. After all, it would be in the Obama Administration's best interest to show that the trial as as forthright as possible. There may be situations where you have closed testimony, but the same is true for certain civilian cases with sensitive information as well.

And you base this on what? The media has not been allowed to cover any such military commission before. Past precedent is against you and you seem to fully base your view on a highly idealistic view of the Obama administration.

The media was not allowed to cover Bush era tribunals. And Bush era tribunals are specifically what Obama was trying to move away from so your "past precedent" doesn't carry much weight. No official word has been given on how much press access will be allowed. Once again, you wish to ASSUME the worst where as I'm going to wait and actually see how things are done before forming an opinion.

And I never said "more fair" equated to "fair". You are still free that to think that the changes made are wholely inadequate and unacceptable. I'm not defending the tribunals as a whole, rather I just wanted to clarify facts regarding the new tribunals since I felt some of your points were based on outdated information. Hell, the article I cited still had a few things that were still rather suspect - such as admissible hearsay evidence. But I still consider the reforms a step in the right direction.

Admissable hearsay evidence? And you think this is any improvement? Any trial where there is admissable hearsay evidence is a kangaroo court. There is no other way to describe it.

Did I not just acknowledge this was a problem? It doesn't invalidate the other improvements in the tribunal system. Whether or not YOU still consider them to be good enough is irrelevent. My contention, and the evidence I've presented, is to point out the inaccuracies of your initial statements regarding the tribunals. Please continue to say how horrible they still are based on what they still do (hearsay evidence, etc.). You'll get no argument from me there.

[Thanas]

I fully acknowledged that many people would not view it as "good enough".

But are you finally conceding that there has been "some improvement"? Thats been my only contention all along.

Then you have to be the stupidest person on this board, as I already noted that there has been miniscule improvement several pages ago.

I'm not arguing that it was. Merely that steps were taken to provide at least some civilian oversight.

Which is near worthless.

Point being that its kind of a crap shoot depending on what judge you'll get.

The likelihood of getting a non-biased judge is however much more likely, especially in a public civilian trial

The defense will be allowed to hear and challenge the particulars of the testimony. It is not therefore secret. It won't be a situation where "We showed the judge and jury some testimony that you don't get to hear because its classified. But trust us, it was all factual and there was nothing you could say to counter it."

Hearsay is another matter entirely, and I've already acknowledged it is still a problem. But that has nothing to do with "secret evidence" as was used in the past.

This does not address my point in any matter.

That is an assumption on your part.

Really? You show me the part where it provides for media coverage then. Otherwise this is an argument from ignorance.

No, its not weasel think. I refuse to go down the road with assumptions and hypotheticals. Waiting until we have some actual results of the trials is perfectly reasonable, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you then. IF it turns out you are right then you and I could be on the same side. But I'm not going to do as you have done and base my opinions solely on worst case scenarios.

Ah, so blind trust as well as ignorance. Why are assumptions based on every appeal process in the USA suddenly invalid? And you fail to counter the most important argument - if the appeals are intended to be comprehensive, then why not go the route of civilian trials right from the start, if the appeals proces will essentially be another trial?

The media was not allowed to cover Bush era tribunals. And Bush era tribunals are specifically what Obama was trying to move away from so your "past precedent" doesn't carry much weight. No official word has been given on how much press access will be allowed. Once again, you wish to ASSUME the worst where as I'm going to wait and actually see how things are done before forming an opinion.

They are not allowed to even cover the detainee hearings live at Guantanamo. Given how these are less secret, I fail to see how an exception would be made.

Did I not just acknowledge this was a problem? It doesn't invalidate the other improvements in the tribunal system.

Which are? So far you have produced nothing tangible whatsoever.

[Edi]

TheHammer, restating your opinion as if it were fact is not going to get you anywhere. You have produced absolutely nothing that addresses any of the salient points raised about the flaws of the military commissions system as it currently stands. Despite the very few and very cosmetic alterations the current ones have to the ones Bush initially established, there is no meaningful differences in terms of quality of due process.

You are arguing from a position of total ignorance of

• constitutional law
• the basic principles underlying constitutional law
• the organization of the court system
• the process of appeals
• the principles of the independence of the judiciary

and those are just for starters. You're utterly and completely outclassed and relying on assumptions that have already been proven false several times in the past, both during the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency, yet you have the gall to whine that you don't like hypotheticals when your entire goddamn argument is nothing but a hypothetical scenario that runs counter to all observations of fact.

What the hell is your objection to trying terrorism subjects in civilian courts through the normal process? That you would be forced to witness and acknowledge all the unpleasant, illegal shit worthy of authoritarian third world tin-pot dictatorships that the US has been pulling? All that stuff that you seem to be completely okay with as long as it is done out of sight and you won't be forced to watch or acknowledge any of it?

Your obstinate clinging to your position and deliberate ignoring of evidence inconvenient to your position leads me to the conclusion that you are either too stupid to understand what you're talking about at any level or you're nothing but a lying sack of shit.

[TheHammer]

Edi, you and Thanas seem to keep trying to spin what I'm saying into something its not.

constitutional law
the basic principles underlying constitutional law
the organization of the court system
the process of appeals
the principles of the independence of the judiciary

All of which is completely irrelevent. I'm not arguing the legality of the current tribunal system, I'm simply drawing comparison to the previous system and pointing out the changes made to move the current tribunal system more towards what you'd expect to see in civilian courts.

You're utterly and completely outclassed and relying on assumptions that have already been proven false several times in the past, both during the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency, yet you have the gall to whine that you don't like hypotheticals when your entire goddamn argument is nothing but a hypothetical scenario that runs counter to all observations of fact.

Wrong. I'm the only one NOT making assumptions. Rather I'm looking at the changes that have stated to be made, and I'm reserving judgement until I see some actual results. The arguments I'm getting in return are "Yeah well the US Military lies!". That's not much of a fucking argument.

What the hell is your objection to trying terrorism subjects in civilian courts through the normal process? That you would be forced to witness and acknowledge all the unpleasant, illegal shit worthy of authoritarian third world tin-pot dictatorships that the US has been pulling? All that stuff that you seem to be completely okay with as long as it is done out of sight and you won't be forced to watch or acknowledge any of it?

And what is it you think I'm arguing? That because the changes were made that I think everything was "OK"?

NO! I've made no such statement.

I've made no objection to trying terrorism in civilian courts. And I never said the current system was "ok", merely that it was an improvement over past tribunals.

Your obstinate clinging to your position and deliberate ignoring of evidence inconvenient to your position leads me to the conclusion that you are either too stupid to understand what you're talking about at any level or you're nothing but a lying sack of shit.

My position is that the current tribunal system has improvements not seen in the previous system. I've seen no evidence presented to counter it other then "well I don't trust the US government". At which point what else can I say other than "Well I guess we'll see".

Basically you are saying that the Obama Tribunals are bank robbers, rapists, and murderers.

When I say, NO while they may be bank robbers they aren't murderers and rapists. You are thinking of their older cousins the Bush Tribunals.

And then I get some stupid fucking retort about why I think its ok they are bank robbers. Which is clearly NOT what I'm saying at all.

So I have to restate what I'm saying, but in a different way because you CLEARLY DIDN'T FUCKING GET IT.

[TheHammer]

I fully acknowledged that many people would not view it as "good enough".

But are you finally conceding that there has been "some improvement"? Thats been my only contention all along.

Then you have to be the stupidest person on this board, as I already noted that there has been miniscule improvement several pages ago.

You gave a half assed back handed acknowledgement.

I'm not arguing that it was. Merely that steps were taken to provide at least some civilian oversight.

Which is near worthless.

That is your opinion which remains to be seen. Otherwise, provide proof that its worthless.

Point being that its kind of a crap shoot depending on what judge you'll get.

The likelihood of getting a non-biased judge is however much more likely, especially in a public civilian trial

I'm not arguing that point. But i'd dare say a "foreign terrorist suspect" isn't going to get the same impartiality that a US citizen would, even in a civilian court.

The defense will be allowed to hear and challenge the particulars of the testimony. It is not therefore secret. It won't be a situation where "We showed the judge and jury some testimony that you don't get to hear because its classified. But trust us, it was all factual and there was nothing you could say to counter it."

Hearsay is another matter entirely, and I've already acknowledged it is still a problem. But that has nothing to do with "secret evidence" as was used in the past.

This does not address my point in any matter.

Your point being what? You said you didn't like secret evidence, I pointed out that there was not any secret evidence then you tried to spin your argument into saying you don't like hearsay evidence.

Ok we agree. I don't like hearsay evidence either. I'll even let you think that was the original argument you were making to begin with.

That is an assumption on your part.

Really? You show me the part where it provides for media coverage then. Otherwise this is an argument from ignorance.

The matter has not been addressed yet. Which is why I said it was an "assumption on your part" rather than simply saying you are wrong.

I do know that several media outlets have openly stated that they will be fighting for access to these tribunals so, again, I'm saying "lets see what happens".

I'm not saying I'm not concerned, but since the Obama administration wanted to do a public civilian trials for most detainees, don't be surprised if you see unprecedented media access.

No, its not weasel think. I refuse to go down the road with assumptions and hypotheticals. Waiting until we have some actual results of the trials is perfectly reasonable, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you then. IF it turns out you are right then you and I could be on the same side. But I'm not going to do as you have done and base my opinions solely on worst case scenarios.

Ah, so blind trust as well as ignorance. Why are assumptions based on every appeal process in the USA suddenly invalid? And you fail to counter the most important argument - if the appeals are intended to be comprehensive, then why not go the route of civilian trials right from the start, if the appeals proces will essentially be another trial?
[/quote]

Where did I say anything about blind trust? Merely that I want to see some actual results? I have no idea if you follow a sport thanas, but as the old saying goes that's "why they play the games". To see what actually happens rather than simply decided at the beginning of the season who wins and who loses based on paper.

As to why no civilian trials initially, well as has been noted in the past there was stiff opposition to bringing detainees state side for trials from congress. That is why we've reached this point. Yeah it sucks. But that's life.

The media was not allowed to cover Bush era tribunals. And Bush era tribunals are specifically what Obama was trying to move away from so your "past precedent" doesn't carry much weight. No official word has been given on how much press access will be allowed. Once again, you wish to ASSUME the worst where as I'm going to wait and actually see how things are done before forming an opinion.

They are not allowed to even cover the detainee hearings live at Guantanamo. Given how these are less secret, I fail to see how an exception would be made.

Did I not just acknowledge this was a problem? It doesn't invalidate the other improvements in the tribunal system.

Which are? So far you have produced nothing tangible whatsoever.

Already stated them time and again. Apparently you skimmed over or ignored them.

As for producing something tangible, all you have are your opinions and assumptions that these will be "Just like the Bush Tribunals". Which would be akin to assuming the "Bush Tribunals" would be like other military tribunals in the past which they clearly were not.

[Thanas]

You gave a half assed back handed acknowledgement.

Thank you for conceding that your reading comprehension is near zero.

That is your opinion which remains to be seen. Otherwise, provide proof that its worthless.

No, you prove that the improvements are in any way effective. I am not going to do your job for you, you made that assertion.

Point being that its kind of a crap shoot depending on what judge you'll get.

The likelihood of getting a non-biased judge is however much more likely, especially in a public civilian trial

I'm not arguing that point. But i'd dare say a "foreign terrorist suspect" isn't going to get the same impartiality that a US citizen would, even in a civilian court. [/quote]

Thank you for conceding that the US military judges are more likely to be biased than the civilian ones.

Your point being what? You said you didn't like secret evidence, I pointed out that there was not any secret evidence then you tried to spin your argument into saying you don't like hearsay evidence.

Ok we agree. I don't like hearsay evidence either. I'll even let you think that was the original argument you were making to begin with.

Thank you for conceding once more that your reading comprehension is still outlawed. I argued about a specific kind of secret evidence (which is the CIA telling the judges "yeah, we got secret sources that all tell us the guy is a very, very bad terrorist"). I fail to see how this evidence would be disallowed from the system, especially as it would most likely fall under the hearsay evidence. NOTE: Even the UMCJ does not allow hearsay evidence, but apparently being worse than a court martial is still an improvement in your book.

The matter has not been addressed yet. Which is why I said it was an "assumption on your part" rather than simply saying you are wrong.

I do know that several media outlets have openly stated that they will be fighting for access to these tribunals so, again, I'm saying "lets see what happens".

I'm not saying I'm not concerned, but since the Obama administration wanted to do a public civilian trials for most detainees, don't be surprised if you see unprecedented media access.

Thank you for conceding that you have nothing to back up your assertion with.

Where did I say anything about blind trust? Merely that I want to see some actual results? I have no idea if you follow a sport thanas, but as the old saying goes that's "why they play the games". To see what actually happens rather than simply decided at the beginning of the season who wins and who loses based on paper.

As to why no civilian trials initially, well as has been noted in the past there was stiff opposition to bringing detainees state side for trials from congress.

So once more, a mere restatement of your opinion with nothing to back it up.

That is why we've reached this point. Yeah it sucks. But that's life.

I hope that one time in your life, you are at the complete mercy of a hostile state. Only so that little guys like you can go "Life sucks". The complete apathy at what essentially is the state going back on over 300 years of enshrined legal, moral and political principle never fails to astound me.

As for producing something tangible, all you have are your opinions and assumptions that these will be "Just like the Bush Tribunals". Which would be akin to assuming the "Bush Tribunals" would be like other military tribunals in the past which they clearly were not.

No, they were worse. Just like any other politic of Obama in this regard is worse than any other Government policy since WWII.

[TheHammer]

You gave a half assed back handed acknowledgement.

Thank you for conceding that your reading comprehension is near zero.

I read and comprehended it personally. You only acknowledged part of the improvement and did so in a deragatory manner. Hence, the "half ass backhanded acknowledgement".

That is your opinion which remains to be seen. Otherwise, provide proof that its worthless.

No, you prove that the improvements are in any way effective. I am not going to do your job for you, you made that assertion.

You are asking me to prove something that hasn't happened yet. So, my magic eight ball answer to you is "Ask again later". And don't worry, I will answer it either way when the time comes.

I will say that if said improvements are followed in good faith, then they should be effective.

Thank you for conceding that the US military judges are more likely to be biased than the civilian ones.

I never disputed that they would be more likely to be biased. I was pointing out that having Military Judges, who have at least some legal training and are "Real judges" biased or not, under the new tribunals was better than having the no judges under the Bush Tribunals. How much better remains to be seen.

Your point being what? You said you didn't like secret evidence, I pointed out that there was not any secret evidence then you tried to spin your argument into saying you don't like hearsay evidence.

Ok we agree. I don't like hearsay evidence either. I'll even let you think that was the original argument you were making to begin with.

Thank you for conceding once more that your reading comprehension is still outlawed. I argued about a specific kind of secret evidence (which is the CIA telling the judges "yeah, we got secret sources that all tell us the guy is a very, very bad terrorist"). I fail to see how this evidence would be disallowed from the system, especially as it would most likely fall under the hearsay evidence. NOTE: Even the UMCJ does not allow hearsay evidence, but apparently being worse than a court martial is still an improvement in your book.

The lack of reading comprehension is on your part. "Secret evidence" is evidence that the defendant doesn't get to see. It is shown only to the judge and jury. Meaning the defendant has no chance to respond in any way. That is not the same as hearsay evidence which still must be read aloud in an open court room. The defense still gets to hear the testimony and respond in some fashion. That presents problems of its own but is not the same thing as "secret evidence".

So I say again, if your problem is with HEARSAY evidence then I whole agree. But get your facts straight.

The matter has not been addressed yet. Which is why I said it was an "assumption on your part" rather than simply saying you are wrong.

I do know that several media outlets have openly stated that they will be fighting for access to these tribunals so, again, I'm saying "lets see what happens".

I'm not saying I'm not concerned, but since the Obama administration wanted to do a public civilian trials for most detainees, don't be surprised if you see unprecedented media access.

Thank you for conceding that you have nothing to back up your assertion with.

What assertion are you referring to? That its still possible media will be permitted at the trial? You keep stuffing these strawmen and knocking them over Thanas.

How about you provide proof that press will be banned from the trial? Oh you have none because no decision has been announced. Thanks for conceding.

Where did I say anything about blind trust? Merely that I want to see some actual results? I have no idea if you follow a sport thanas, but as the old saying goes that's "why they play the games". To see what actually happens rather than simply decided at the beginning of the season who wins and who loses based on paper.

As to why no civilian trials initially, well as has been noted in the past there was stiff opposition to bringing detainees state side for trials from congress.

So once more, a mere restatement of your opinion with nothing to back it up.

Christ, I thought this was common knowledge by now but ok:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/h ... 4fjwSXTzmL

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/12/8/23360/5205

That is why we've reached this point. Yeah it sucks. But that's life.

I hope that one time in your life, you are at the complete mercy of a hostile state. Only so that little guys like you can go "Life sucks". The complete apathy at what essentially is the state going back on over 300 years of enshrined legal, moral and political principle never fails to astound me.

Yeah it would suck. Just like it sucks when anything bad in the world happens.

As for producing something tangible, all you have are your opinions and assumptions that these will be "Just like the Bush Tribunals". Which would be akin to assuming the "Bush Tribunals" would be like other military tribunals in the past which they clearly were not.

No, they were worse. Just like any other politic of Obama in this regard is worse than any other Government policy since WWII.

Feel free to continue to Bash Obama's policies. But get your facts straight. There is still plenty to pick apart without adding other details that admittedly pertained to the Bush era Tribunals but are no longer relevent to the Obama era tribunals.