Posted on 11/15/2005 3:22:43 PM PST by Valin
The United States suspended its controversial military trials for 'war on terror' detainees after a ruling by a federal judge. Following the judge's action on Monday, the Defense Department said it had postponed the first trial hearing of accused "Australian Taliban" David Hicks, which was scheduled to start Friday at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. "The courts have intervened, as I understand it, and things are off for a period until the courts sort through things," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the government has not decided whether to appeal the ruling by US District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly. "This is something that happened last night. The government will obviously review the rulings of the court and make its decision from there," he said.
Kotelly ruled that the Hicks trial be suspended ahead of an anticipated ruling by the US Supreme Court on the legality of the special military tribunals set up after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Whitman stressed that the ruling applied only to Hicks, but no dates have been set for any other trials to start. Kotelly said the suspension would remain in effect "pending the issuance of a final and ultimate decision by the Supreme Court in that case." The Supreme Court has said it would give a ruling in 2006 on the military trials, which have faced criticism at home and abroad.
Hicks, 30, was the first of nine detainees to face trial by the special military commissions, which have been condemned by civil legal groups and even many of the military lawyers defending the detainees. A convert to Islam who was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, Hicks faces charges of conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy. He has denied the charges.
Despite the Supreme Court intervention, the Pentagon had wanted Hicks' trial to proceed, while officials said they were aware that a court could order a suspension. The Supreme Court said last week it would rule next year on the legality of the military commissions in response to a challenge by lawyers for another detainee, Saleh Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni. There have been a series of court challenges to the tribunals.
A federal appeals court in July reaffirmed President George W. Bush's authority to order trials of "war on terror" detainees by the commissions in Hamdan's case. Hicks' lawyers filed a petition in federal court last week seeking a stay of his trial pending the Supreme Court ruling. The Pentagon brought war crimes charges against five more detainees a week ago, bringing to nine the number who face trial by military commission, on the same day that the Supreme Court said it would rule on the legality of the process.
Nearly 500 other detainees are being held without charge at the military-run prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Most of the inmates were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a US-led offensive toppled the Taliban government in Kabul in late 2001. The United States has declared the detainees illegal enemy combatants who are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
No. Capture them and learn as much as you can from them, THEN execute them as enemies of the state.
ROTFL!
You presume incorrectly.
Yes. Why would we execute innocent taxi drivers caught up in the detentions, and is this the shining "freedom" we are trying to show the rest of the world?
Who??
Name some with a source please.
Please source the bounty info too..haven't heard that one yet, even at DU.
Generally speaking, at least in this context, a tribunal is a military court. You see, the basic charge against these people are violations of the law of land warfare.
Traditionally, such violations have been held to be beyond the reach of civilian courts since they lack both jurisdiction and the expertise to try such cases. Those brought before military tribunals do have most legal protections such as legal representation and due process. The rules of evidence can be different. For example, Miranda warnings are not required.
The Nuremburg tribunals were civilianized since the violations were not against the law of land warfare (generally speaking) but were considered to be crimes against humanity.
BTW, a trial is process, ie, being tried for a certain crime. A tribunal is a form of a court, ie, a forum for holding a trial.
Oh, this B---h again. Her name frequently pops up on FR.
Thank you for the explanation
Taxi drivers? Since when?? Have you been drinking the koolaid at DU????
No trials? Fine, then shoot the pig turds.
ping
replace one of the 5 votes on the SCOTUS for stuff like this, and it can stop.
"ping". I know. The box has been opened. It cannot be shut, gig is actually over.
these prisoners will never be given full access to US criminal trials. the worst that can happen is that the appeals process will prevent the military from trying them - so they stay in indefinite detention. let's just see how it plays out.
You are very very wrong. Congress makes laws regulating the military (it is in the Constitution). Also, the Geneva convention, ratified by the Senate, stipulates how Prisoners of War are to be treated.
Heck, why have trials and find out who's guilty when you can just keep punishing innocent and guilty together!
snip ======================================================
"Jim Robinson has since informed us that MD4BUSH signed on with an email address that points to the Maryland Democratic Party. "
Response: "Free Republic has evidence that an mddems.org (Maryland Democratic Party) e-mail address is associated with the MD4BUSH account. This is not just coincidence."
snip ======================================================
Response: Reagan plagiarized a lot, nearly as much as MLK or Biden.
snip ======================================================
Why would he be going to his girlfriend's house carrying a gun? I can't think of a good reason.
Well, if the father had "shown his gun collection" and made threats against him like advocated by many FReepers, perhaps carrying a gun for self-protection would have been prudent. Unfortunately, it seems that there was something other than a good reason in this case. :-(
snip ======================================================
Why would solid Republicans be against ANWR?
Maybe they care about America's future and believe that we should be exploiting other country's resources first and conserving our own for last use. That would be called being conservative .
that's true regarding the congress, but where does any of that say the courts have jurisdiction? the courts have simply inserted themselves into this situation arbitrarily on the side of the detainees - the 6-3 giving these prisoners habeas rights was the start of it. we've got one branch of government that, so long as it can get 5 people to agree, can basically make it up as they go along.
Justice in a liberal judicial system:
Child molesters and rapists get cable tv
Terrorists are set free
What we are seeing now is his real legacy.
Becki
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.