Judge you know what constitutes a fair trial, notice and opportunity to be heard. These blokes can’t have that much to say that would negate their guilt and they have had plenty of notice of a trial. Still, they will get their chance to speak their piece and if it influences anybody to find them not guilty, well, that is for the finder of fact to determine.
Why not have a drone fly over and be done with it?
Certainly those assassinated in Pakistan didn’t get any form of a trial at all. So to many our system of justice is a farce.
The one you agree with.
Bleeeech. I like the Judge on most things but we are not talking about ‘criminal’ acts we are talking about acts of war. Prisoners of war do not have rights as such.
It is a wonderful academic exercise to chat about natural rights and due process. These POWs are getting better than most since in times past the trial (if one was held) was usually on the field of battle with execution shortly thereafter.
As to torture....water boarding may or may not be torture. But I will tell you what give me a man like Allen West who protected the lives of his men by invoking ‘scary’ techniques rather than the milk toast wimpy crier against torture.
With due respect, Judge, none of these subjects are Americans, ratehr they are enemy combatants at best, illegal combatants at worst.
Did we subject any non uniformed nazis captured outrside teh US tro our jurisprudence system or did we try them via military tribunal?
US constitional rights and protections are afforded to those who are criminals, captured and charged with crimes against persons in thUS or via extradition. Never before have we thouoght of affording due process reserved for such situations for illegal combatants. Normally, they are captured, exploitred for intelligence value, then shot on the battle field, per the Laws of Land Warfare.
The precedent you seek is to destroy the separation of citizenship and non-citizenship, and criminal action and illegal warfare.
They must never be thought as the same.
Look at the reports of the antics of the accused in front of the military court-they mock the whole proceeding (do we expect otherwise? No), nor do they submit to its or any jurisdiction, they are extreme in all facets and beyond civility in any form.
When we captured a terrorist bomber on an aircraft over theUS, he qwas tried as a criminal in federal court. Catch them here, try them here, catch them anywhere else, for crimes against our country and our citizens, try them there via military tribuanal as we have done for centuries.
American civil rights for Amrican jurisdiction, Military courts for those perpetrating crimes or captured otherwise on foreign soils. The very arguement you make is validated by this long standing and prudent practice.
Of course, I stand with you in regard to American citizens who may be considered as such, unless they are actually in the practice of bearing arms against our military or government interests overseas; then they are combatants and not activtists or criminals.
That having been said, the judge has some great points here. I knew that the Obama Administration's commitment to genuine due process was phony when the Hildebeast claimed that had one guy who was acquitted on all but one his over 200 counts would not have been released in any event. Huh? If you get past a civilian trial with acquittal, how does the government have a right to hold you?
That's why indefinite detention is appropriate for these scum. But let's skip the theater, shall we?