Rule 1. Authority to Promulgate Rules.
The present Rules of Proeedure of the International Military Tribunal for the trial of the major war criminals (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") as established by the Charter of the Tribunal dated 8 August 1945 (hereinafter called "the Charter") are hereby promulgated by the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of the Charter.
Rule 2. Notice to Defendants and Right to Assistance of Counsel.
(a) Each individual defendant in custody shall receive not less than 30 days before trial a copy, translated into a language which he understands, (1) of the Indictment, (2) of the Charter, (3) of any other documents lodged with the Indictment, and (4) of a statement of his right to the assistance of counsel as set forth in sub-paragraph (d) of this Rule, together with a list of counsel. He shall also receive copies of such rules of procedure as may be adopted by the Tribunal from time to time.
(b) Any individual defendant not in custody shall be informed of the indictment against him and of his right to receive the documents specified in sub-paragraph (a) above, by notice in such form and manner as the Tribunal may prescribe.
(c) With respect to any group or organization as to which the Prosecution indicates its intention to request a finding of criminality by the Tribunal, notice shall be given by publication in such form and manner as the Tribunal may prescribe and such publication shall include a declaration by the Tribunal that all members of the named groups or organizations are entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Charter. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to confer immunity of any kind upon such members of said groups or organizations as may appear in answer to the said declaration.
(d) Each defendant has the right to conduct his own defense or to have the assistance of counsel. Application for particular counsel shall be filed at once with the General Seeretary of the Tribunal at the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany. The Tribunal will designate counsel for any defendant who fails to apply for particular counsel or, where particular counsel requested is not within ten (10) days to be found or available, unless the defendant elects in writing to conduct his own defense. If a defendant has requested particular counsel who is not immediately to be found or available, such counsel or a counsel of substitute choice may, if found and available before trial be associated with or substituted for counsel designated by the Tribunal, provided that (1) only one counsel shall be permitted to appear at the trial for any defendant, unless by special permission of the Tribunal, and (2) no delay of trial will be allowed for making such substitution or association.
Rule 3. Service of Additional Documents.
If, before the trial, the Chief Prosecutors offer amendments or additions to the Indictment, such amendments or additions, including any accompanying documents shall be lodged with the Tribunal and copies of the same, translated into a language which they each understand, shall be furnished to the defendants in custody as soon as practicable and notice given in accordance with Rule 2 (b) to those not in custody.
Rule 4. Production of Evidence for the Defense.
(a) The Defense may apply to the Tribunal for the production of witnesses or of documents by written application to the General Secretary of the Tribunal. The application shall state where the witness or document is thought to be located, together with a statement of their last known location. It shall also state the facts proposed to be proved by the witness or the document and the reasons why such facts are relevant to the Defense.
(b) If the witness or the document is not within the area controlled by the occupation authorities, the Tribunal may request the Signatory and adhering Governments to arrange for the production, if possible, of any such witnesses and any such documents as the Tribunal may deem necessary to proper presentation of the Defense.
(c) If the witness or the document is within the area controlled by the occupation authorities, the General Secretary shall, if the Tribunal is not in session, communicate the application to the Chief Prosecutors and, if they make no objection, the General Secretary shall issue a summons for the attendance of such witness or the production of such documents, informing the Tribunal of the action taken. If any Chief Prosecutor objects to the issuance of a summons, or if the Tribunal is in session, the General Secretary shall submit the application to the Tribunal, which shall decide whether or not the summons shall issue.
(d) A summons shall be served in such manner as may be provided by the appropriate occupation authority to ensure its enforcement and the General Secretary shall inform the Tribunal of the steps taken.
(e) Upon application to the General Secretary of the Tribunal, a defendant shall be furnished with a copy, translated into a language which he understands, of all documents referred to in the Indictment so far as they may be made available by the Chief Prosecutors and shall be allowed to inspect copies of any such documents as are not so available.
Rule 5. Order at the Trial.
In conformity with the provisions of Article 18 of the Charter, and the disciplinary powers therein set out, the Tribunal, acting through its President, shall provide for the maintenance of order at the Trial. Any defendant or any other person may be excluded from open sessions of the Tribunal for failure to observe and respect the directives and dignity of the Tribunal.
Rule 6. Oaths; Witnesses.
(a) Before testifying before the Tribunal, each witness shall make such oath or declaration as is customary in his own country.
(b) Witnesses while not giving evidence shall not be present in court. The President of the Tribunal shall direct, as circumstances demand, that witnesses shall not confer among themselves before giving evidence.
Rule 7. Applications and Motions before Trial and Rulings during the Trial.
(a) All motions, applications or other requests addressed to the Tribunal prior to the commencement of trial shall be made in writing and filed with the General Secretary of the Tribunal at the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany.
(b) Any such motion, application or other request shall be communicated by the General Secretary of the Tribunal to the Chief Prosecutors and, if they make no objection, the President of the Tribunal may make the appropriate order on behalf of the Tribunal. If any Chief Prosecutor objects, the President may call a special session of the Tribunal for the determination of the question raised.
(c) The Tribunal, acting through its President, will rule in court upon all questions arising during the trial, such as questions as to admissibility of evidence offered during the trial, recesses, and motions; and before so ruling the Tribunal may, when necessary, order the closing or clearing of the Tribunal or take any other steps which to the Tribunal seem just.
Rule 8. Secretariat of the Tribunal.
(a) The Secretariat of the Tribunal shall be composed of a General Secretary, four Secretaries and their Assistants. The Tribunal shall appoint the General Secretary and each Member shall appoint one Secretary. The General Secretary shall appoint such clerks, interpreters, stenographers, ushers, and all such other persons as may be authorized by the Tribunal and each Secretary may appoint such assistants as may be authorized by the Member of the Tribunal by whom he was appointed.
(b) The General Secretary, in consultation with the Secretaries, shall organize and direct the work of the Secretariat, subject to the approval of the Tribunal in the event of a disagreement by any Secretary.
(c) The Secretariat shall receive all documents addressed to the Tribunal, maintain the records of the Tribunal, provide necessary clerical services to the Tribunal and its Members, and perform such other duties as may be designated by the Tribunal.
(d) Communications addressed to the Tribunal shall be delivered to the General Secretary
Rule 9. Record, Exhibits, and Documents.
(a) A stenographic record shall be maintained of all oral proceedings. Exhibits will be suitably identified and marked with consecutive numbers. All exhibits and transcripts of the proceedings and all documents lodged with and produced to the Tribunal will be filed with the General Secretary of the Tribunal and will constitute part of the Record.
(b) The term "official documents" as used in Article 25 of the Charter includes the Indictment, rules, written motions, orders that are reduced to writing, findings, and judgments of the Tribunal. These shall be in the English, French, Russian, and German languages. Documentary evidence or exhibits may be received in the language of the document, but a translation thereof into German shall be made available to the defendants.
(c) All exhibits and transcripts of proceedings, all documents lodged with and produced to the Tribunal and all official acts and documents of the Tribunal may be certified by the General Secretary of the Tribunal to any Government or to any other tribunal or wherever it is appropriate that copies of such documents or representations as to such acts should be supplied upon a proper request.
Rule 10. Withdrawal of Exhibits and Documents.
In cases where original documents are submitted by the Prosecution or the Defense as evidence, and upon a showing (a) that because of historical interest or for any other reason one of the Governments signatory to the Four Power Agreement of 8 August 1945, or any other Government having received the consent of said four signatory Powers, desires to withdraw from the records of the Tribunal and preserve any particular original documents and (b) that no substantial injustice will result, the Tribunal shall permit photostatic copies of said original documents, certified by the General Secretary of the Tribunal, to be substituted for the origfnals in the records of the Court and shall deliver said original documents to the applicants.
Rule 11. Effective Date and Powers of Amendment and Addition.
These Rules shall take effect upon their approval by the Tribunal. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the Tribunal from, at any time, in the interest of fair and expeditious trials, departing from, amending, or adding to these Rules, either by general rules or special orders for particular cases, in such form and upon such notice as may appear just to the Tribunal.
1. The Tribunal sets its own rules: in effect, it legislates for itself.
2. The defense "may" apply for the production of witnesses and documents - there is no compulsion, as there is in American constitutional law, that documents and persons for the defense to testify/be produced.
3. The Tribunal will rule during the trial whether or not evidence is permissible in court.
4. Original documents can be withdrawn is no "substantial" injustice is caused.
It would take, of course, a lawyer to figure out all the ins and outs of this, but it seems pretty clear to me that justice as Nuremburg was whatever the Tribunal said it was, and there was no appeal, in any real sense, from the sentences handed down.
Keep in mind that the trials started in Nobvember of 1945 - only six months after the Nazi surrender...just try and get a major murder case to trial six months from the arrest date. The sentences of death were carried out in October of 1946, only 11 months after the Tribunal got up and running...once again, try that in American law.
High security prison = welcome mat. Wanna come to a party at my house? I'll put out the welcome mat for you.
Matt:
The welcome mat is to a military brig, where these people will be tried in a court of law.
If found guilty after a fair trial where the accused have access to lawyers and a presumption of innocence there is no way anyone can criticize the outcome.
This is the American way, the way of justice. The Democrats seem to be the party that is truly fighting to preserve these values. Often the are also battling Republicans who seem to disrespect the notion of justice and equality.
So yes, roll out the welcome mat to fair trials. It is the American way.
Wade
Jim Moran is Jack-off Murtha's key ally in the House; he's a Northern Virginia kook lib.
Moran and Murtha: M&M...
Why should anyone believe you, The Current Occupant, or any of his cronies? Here what we have them (and you) to thank for so far:
The stolen 2000 election. Katherine Harris. Bush v. Gore. Halliburton. The Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing. "My Pet Goat", Jack Abramoff. David Safavian. Ken Tomlinson. The manipulation of terror alerts. The suppression of science on global warming. The case for war in Iraq. The Downing Street memo. Ohio in 2004. Voting machines. Claude Allen. Jeff Gannon. The lack of planning for "postwar" Iraq. Dusty Foggo. Katrina. Michael Brown. Enron. Wiretaps. Bank records surveillance. The $8.8 billion (300 tons of money) that went missing in Iraq. Destruction of Habeus Corpus. Torture. Illegal wiretapping/data mining. The politicization of the AIDS prevention, science, the Justice Department, and economic statistics tracking.
Cheney's energy task force, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, "Extraordinary Renditions", Mark Foley (covered up by the White House/Rove), 9/11 Workers Health Risk suppression, shooting people in their face then obstructing an investigation, pay for positive political coverage, the destruction of Iraq antiquities, lack of body armor up-armored Humvees and training, Walter Reed, U.S. attorneys purge, Scooter Libby, destruction of the covert CIA Brewster-Jennings operation.
In six-plus years they have not done ONE THING that has been good for the USA. They, and anyone who still blogs for Bush should be put in prison, perhaps executed for the damage they have done to our beloved nation.
Matt,
your just a plain idiot. How can a maximum security prison be a welcome mat??? hahaha..I would hate to be in your shoes, America losing the war, no republican majority at home, and desperation starting to set in on your blogs. Even your facebook pic looks funny.
So, the Democrats want to bring these terrorists to America. That's extremely dangerous. But, I'm sure the terrorist supporters already living in Canada would be overjoyed to welcome these jihadists to North America.
12% of Canadian Muslims Believe Terrorism is Justified
"Canada's Jihadist Fifth Column", (3/1/07)
i am sure the dems want the terrorists here so they can make an issues out of civil liberties and all that... blah blah blah..why can't dems put our security ahead their desires to politicize issues?
Ya know, It's really sad, that more Americans don't realize and understand how dangerous the Democratic/Liberal party really is.
Maybe when they've taken all our rights away, then maybe America will awaken.
God help America!!!
Jeremiah
I see Sambo the Suicide Bomber is back AKA GT Grad. Go back to tehran..please!
Matt, ignore GT...he's an udder (on purpose) hate-filled moron.
The left has the worst ostrich syndrome I've seen in decades. Next they'll lobby for a terrorist style outpatient rehab program, then jump on the entitlement band wagon with guys like GT grad and the other bozos that get thru life by leeching off our tax dollars.
Moran or is that Moron states: "It will enhance our reputation to close it (Gitmo)down and to apply our system of justice to all of these detainees,"
No Jimbo, what would enhance our status in the world is if your side would STFU so we could win this freaking war and retain our badest mofo on the block status. But your type wouldn't understand why it is we need that status, now would ya Jimbo...idiot.
Matt, I'm guessing this thread is going to get picked up on the lefty blogs as an illustration of how ludicrous the thinking is on right wing blogs. That may increase your bandwidth for a while, but is that really a good thing?
When does your book come out again?
Ricorun,
No, the outrage is genuine - we are flabbergasted that the left in this country wants Gitmo closed and those terrorists brought to America where the ACLU can go to work on getting them released.
Then again, it isn't too shocking...after all, the left also champions such cop-killers as Mumia...
Matt,
your just a plain idiot.
your, you're, and yore. The three most misued words on this blog. And GT misuses one to call someone else an idiot.
How ironic...
Mark: "we are flabbergasted that the left in this country wants Gitmo closed and those terrorists brought to America where the ACLU can go to work on getting them released."
Explain to me again why the ACLU's influence would change if only the location, not the individuals themselves, changes. I'm not a lawyer, but all of the commentary I've seen, on this site and others, has to do with the status of the individuals involved, not their location. So what's the big deal? Can you explain that to me? And if you can't, then your inability is performed at your peril, not mine. That's all I'm saying. Good luck.
We are at war. These guys were captured as a result of that war. They deserve no lawyers, no trial, no release. Screw 'em.
And screw Jim Moron and Jack-off Murtha...
Yet again GT wallows in his enjoyment that the muslim middle east might yet be allowed to continue on in its tenth century vein.
Hey thats great GT, 320 million people have the chance to keep living like savages; slaughtering one another, being ruled by despots and religious nutjobs, living in poverty, forsaking science, relying on the west for 99% of its needs and contributing nothing of substance to the world.
This is a bright shining chance for the mideast to finally, FINALLY drag itself into the modern day, and deluded minds such as yourself shriek happily at the thought that it might not happen. I dont get it.
You remind me of Hezbollah, who surveyed the destroyed landscape of Lebanon and then crowed that they killed a few dozen Israeli soldiers. There is no honor in a Pyrrhic victory, all you gain are more decades of self-imposed ruin.
I believe the big deal is that groups such as the ACLU would argue, if the terrorists were on U.S. soil, that they should be accorded certain rights in the same category as those that are demanded for illegal immigrants.
The Gitmo location is perfect because its impossible access were terrorist cells desiring to perhaps take a stab at freeing their brethren; there is a definite public safety concern which is mitigated by Gitmo's remoteness.
Think also of the pure headache created by the groups that would protest outside the prison and generally create havoc during the legal process. Not a huge deal in itself but still a pain in the butt.
I really like how you guys talk about the ACLU as if it were some anti-American institution.
It is an organization whose sole purpose is to protect the rights that are accorded to us in the constitution..
http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html
Its just sad that for all you rant and rave about being true blooped Americans - you don't realize that this organization sole purpose is to protect the rights accorded to you...
Please, kblack, stop spoofing here. Go away.
There's no way anyone is as stupid as kblack.
Is there?
Sure, thats why they oppose using metal detectors in airports. The ACLU charter doesnt seem well adapted to sensibile rationale.
Nice to know the ACLU is out protecting our rights no matter the cost, Im certain that realization would come in handy during the next hijacking by some psycho who smuggled a gun past the non-existent metal detectors.
Ricorun,
It is the same reason why there were Nuremburg tribunals but not, say, Boston tribunals...why the heck hold trials in a bombed out city when there were perfectly good courtrooms in France, Britain and the United States to try the Nazis in? Because in each of those nations, trials such as the Nuremburg tribunals would have been illegal and thus null and void. They were tried in Germany because we could apply much more strict, anti-defendant standards.
The Gitmo detainees, transported to America, automatically become the beneficiary of each and every judicial right that you and I have (its in our constitution, which makes no differentiation between persons...a great thing, but not appropriate for terrorists). We might very well not have enough evidence to hold a really bad guy in the face of an ACLU lawsuit for his release...and under US law, we'd have to let him go...and off he goes to plot the next 9/11.
No, Ricorun, these are terrorists - enemy combatants. They deserve respect, mercy and justice...but we cannot afford to apply US law to them...that would be a suicide pact on our part.
kblack,
The ACLU is dedicated to eliminating the right of free exercise, and is only selective in defending other rights...it is a mere arm of the political left, and beneath contempt.
God bless you President Bush for capturing these terrorists and keeping us and our loved ones safe for over 5 1/2 years. You are the greatest president in american history.
Mark -
If you just make statements and don't support them - in any way shape or form - they are not very meaningful or interesting..
"
.but we cannot afford to apply US law to them...that would be a suicide pact on our part."
Why? Why would this be a suicide pact for us? We have tried American terrorists in the US and as far as I can tell it didn't do us any harm. If you believe this then present - at least in some form - an argument with reasoning or evidence. Making hollow statements like this without any backing doesn't get us anywhere
Mark - again with regard to the ACLU - if you believe this is true - present some EVIDENCE.
kblack--again--are you as stupid as you act?
Hey, it's dark outside--need some proof?
you guys can name call as much as you want...
if its so easy to present the evidence DO IT
Mark, could you provide some sources for your contentions? Let me save you some effort... your contention that the rights of law were different in Nuremburg than in, say, Boston or France or whatever is interesting from an historical perspective -- and as a dedicated history buff I'd like to hear what you have to say about that. But as a point of law, it's largely irrelevant.
The relevant legal argument would be why individuals incarcerated in a facility in an American protectorate would be subject to laws fundamentally different than those incarcerated in a facility within the US itself. You seem to imply that somehow their status as individuals, be they defined as "enemy combatants" or "terrorists" or whatever, would somehow change as a result of their change in venue. Why say you that? I'm guessing you don't know. And if you don't, why bring it up until you do? That's what I'm saying.
1) Never in the history of warfare has any government extended civilian law to military combatants.
2) Never in the history of warfare have combatants been told when they would be released other than to say when the war was over.
3)Never, as in borne by historical precidence, are those caught in civilian clothes in a war zone ever been afforded civilian rights. In fact the case was always made, such an act was found to be that of a spy, espionage etc.. the individual was interogated then a military court was quickly convened to try and then shoot/hang said individual.. In one case it wasn't even required the individuals be caught in a war zone. During WWII germans who'd been dropped off by subs were caughts after one turned on the others. They were rounded up, interrogated, then room was made at the FBI building for a quick trial. They were tried under military law... then hung...
Again on US soil...same was true of escaped Nazi's in Arizona... military trial..then hung..
Both of the above were personally approved by FDR and without any opposition... Then again people wanted to win a war... not pariticpate in partisan or we hate Bush politics..
Those advocating bringing these people to the USA are either in capable of logic or unwilling to attempt it..
Lastly oh wise black...
The ACLU has yet to ever defend the basic right as guaranteed under the 2nd amendment... The right for an individual to bear arms.. You will find no case history of their having defended this explicit right
They have also failed to really work to suppress hate speech laws which, while well intentioned, are a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.....
I may find the words used repugnant etc... but I'm more afraid of the individuals who think like you to decide what is "defined" as hate speech...
oh and it's wsie not bringing them here for another reason... On the island where they are currently housed... there is no possibility of escapes being facilitated by outside help whereas on the mainland that possibility becomes very real and a general danger to the entire country.. This says nothing of the fact idiots like black, aztec etc who lack critical thinking skills, would cry all day they deserve milk, cookies etc...
There is a war going on folks... a war not started by us... but I want it finished on our terms..not the terrorists nor the leftists wackos.
The "combatants" weren't on vacation in Afganistan or Iraq they were there to train as killers and do just that kill....period.. to think otherwise is to be blind or blindly stupid.
Let our service men and women do their job..and tell the politicians to stay the hell out of their way...
sorry for the typos..
This from FindLaw:
RASUL et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, et al.
As Lord Mansfield wrote in 1759, even if a territory was "no part of the realm," there was "no doubt" as to the court's power to issue writs of habeas corpus if the territory was "under the subjection of the Crown." King v. Cowle, 2 Burr. 834, 854-855, 97 Eng. Rep. 587, 598-599 (K. B.). Later cases confirmed that the reach of the writ depended not on formal notions of territorial sovereignty, but rather on the practical question of "the exact extent and nature of the jurisdiction or dominion exercised in fact by the Crown." Ex parte Mwenya, [1960] 1 Q. B. 241, 303 (C. A.) (Lord Evershed, M. R.).14
In the end, the answer to the question presented is clear. Petitioners contend that they are being held in federal custody in violation of the laws of the United States.15 No party questions the District Court's jurisdiction over petitioners' custodians. Cf. Braden, 410 U. S., at 495. Section 2241, by its terms, requires nothing more. We therefore hold that §2241 confers on the District Court jurisdiction to hear petitioners' habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
For all you non esquires out there on Terra that means the real Constitutional rationale for according any enemy under detention the full rights of any defendant is written not in where they are being held but by whose sovereignty. The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact nor is it an occasional document to be defended vigorously when not under seige by an enemy that the federal government and its corporate masters are clearly terrified of.
And as far as the ACLU is concerned, here is what they strive to protect:
"Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."
I have no idea why Noonan finds them so base but it must have something to do with abortion, It always seems to come down to that federally protected right in the end.
Is there some way you could put abortion on the ballot up or down in 2008 nationally to solve the problem once and for all? Oh, but that's right either way that would remove the entire political nature of the procedure would it not?
Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!
I really like how you guys talk about the ACLU as if it were some anti-American institution.
Posted by: kblack77 at March 8, 2007 07:46 PM
The ACLU is against traditional family values such as marriage between one man and one woman, parental notification before an abortion, human life on all levels, religion in general, but especially Christianity, and Christmas carols in schools, to name just a few.
The ACLU is in favor of abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy, up to and including time of natural birth, child pornography, the homosexual agenda taught to our children in schools at the earliest grade, homosexuals in the military and pedophiles(NAMBLA), again, to name just a few.
They want to be able to protest, disrupt, and dishonor the funerals of our fallen warriors, stop us from listening to the phone calls from terrorists, give terrorist prisoners the same legal rights that US citizen have, and give all illegal aliens US citizenship.
The goals of the ACLU, as indicated by the writings of its founder, Roger Baldwin: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.”
Yes indeed the ACLU is a anti-American institution all right.
Read “The ACLU vs America” by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, it’s well sourced and may open your eyes.
Oh, and one more thing, the ACLU’s trying to destroy the Boy Scouts too.
right - but
a) they still deserve not to be tortured and due process even if they are guilty
b) there were many people who were detained and tortured for years and then the government released them after they realized they maid a mistake!
kblack, "maid" is someone who cleans your room. And noone was tortured at Git'mo. We, however, are enduring much torture, reading your posts.
Bugger off, wanker...
yes my spelling is bad...
so you consider water boarding a legitimate interrogation technique ?
right - but
a) they still deserve not to be tortured and due process even if they are guilty
b) there were many people who were detained and tortured for years and then the government released them after they realized they maid a mistake! kblack77
You know what is ironic about your entire argument kblack77? That fact that the terrorist would not give YOU due process or argue among themselves about how you should have a fair trial. In fact, they wouldn’t spend one cent making sure you had three square meals a day, a place to sleep, a book of your choice, exercise time, television or any of the comforts afforded to GITMO detainees. Do you think they would allow a red cross rep to come in and make sure you were being treated humanely? Do you actually think a red cross rep would even show up? The only reason the American red cross reps who visit GITMO aren’t killed by the terrorist when they visit is because they have AMERICANS protecting them. And what law did you break? None you were just an American.
For them due process is having you kneel before them in front a video where they can scream alah akbar while sawing your head off with a dull knife or running into a crowd of men, women and children who are just trying to get jobs and blow themselves up, ending the lives of many innocent people. Or would you prefer they flew a plane straight up your keister with out even asking your name? Or does that not mean as much because they didn't blow any of your own family members apart? Do you think, given the chance, they wouldn't love to torture and kill the youngest in your family? Do you think they would ask, are you republican or democrat, before killing you? They don't give a crap, they side with the Democrats because the Democrats are making their arguments for them. Democrats have turned into terrorist propaganda puppets. If the democrats would back this country in the war they voted FOR it wouldn’t embolden them.
You don't need me to posts facts about that do you? Since you see it on the news almost daily. Whether you like it or not, whether neo-con or liberal, its US against THEM.
Hey GTgrad? Is that a grade school madrassa you gradu are ated from? Man, wouldn't you like to lay some Marine whoop-ass on that liberal excrement. Oh, of course, his is civil discourse ..right? Well, soon we'll have had enough of playing defense, and the libs better prop up those rocks they crawled out from. Wanna bet GT isn't working, or if he is, his boss is about ready to can him. Certainly his degree is in global warming fraud.
Ricorun,
Here are the rules of procedure for the Nuremburg Tribunal:
Some points:
1. The Tribunal sets its own rules: in effect, it legislates for itself.
2. The defense "may" apply for the production of witnesses and documents - there is no compulsion, as there is in American constitutional law, that documents and persons for the defense to testify/be produced.
3. The Tribunal will rule during the trial whether or not evidence is permissible in court.
4. Original documents can be withdrawn is no "substantial" injustice is caused.
It would take, of course, a lawyer to figure out all the ins and outs of this, but it seems pretty clear to me that justice as Nuremburg was whatever the Tribunal said it was, and there was no appeal, in any real sense, from the sentences handed down.
Keep in mind that the trials started in Nobvember of 1945 - only six months after the Nazi surrender...just try and get a major murder case to trial six months from the arrest date. The sentences of death were carried out in October of 1946, only 11 months after the Tribunal got up and running...once again, try that in American law.
so you consider water boarding a legitimate interrogation technique ?
kblack, since you're all into people providing proof for their assertions, could you provide me with proof that waterboarding was performed at Git'mo?
Isn't waterboarding when you drive your car off a bridge, leaving a young girl to die?
btw, kblack--tomorrow is Osama's 50th. Did you and your kook friends remember to send him a card?
sure - i will give you references a bit later - i have run.. quickly...
1) many former detainees have reported the technique
2)
Here is a white house interview with Cheney
about a detainee and the practice:
Hennen: "...And I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?"
Cheney: "I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that."
...
Hennen: "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?"
Cheney: "Well, it's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."
I don't know what could be clearer other than showing it on national televisoin
Sorry, dumbass, but that incident did not occur at Git'mo, and besides, it was the mastermind of 9/11. He folded like a cheap accordian after his treatment, too.
You're an idiot, kblack, and I suspect you're very young and uneducated in the world of life. Maybe reality will someday bite you in the ass. I wouldn't bet on it...
"kblack, "maid" is someone who cleans your room. And noone was tortured at Git'mo."
Ok, so who is noone?
My posts rarely make it up, so this is probably an exercise in futility, but to summarize a longer post that hasn't appeared:
1. If they are guilty and it can't be proven by a prosecutor, that prosecutor isn't doing such a good job.
2. If they are POWs, as some suggest, the Geneva Conventions apply. If they are not POWs, then civil law would apply. "Enemy combatant" is a term with no legal meaning.
3. As others have pointed out, placing someone in a military prison and trying them for crimes is not generally characterized as "rolling out the welcome mat."
4. There have been instances where other countries have objected to extraditing people to the U.S. (ie the Unicorn guy). It would be illegal for many governments to turn over someone to a nation where that person cannot receive a fair trial, or will be punished without trial (ie the U.K. refusing to turn Rachid Ramda over to Algeria, and dragging it's collective heels on sending him to France to stand trial). If we hold people without trial, we create a perfectly valid legal reason why other suspected terrorists or criminals cannot be extradited to the U.S. I fail to see that as beneficial.
In the interest of saving time, I'll agree I'm unpatriotic, evil, deluded, ugly, a bad dancer, a personal friend of Bin Laden's and whatever other ad hominem attacks are launched are probably true if it leads to an intelligent response.
Wait a minute. I'm sure I read that Speaker Pelosi stated that we have not brought one individual responsible for 9/11 to justice (ignoring, of course, the fact that 19 of those responsible died in the attacks). Now Matt goes and informs us that no less than 4 of those who planned and financed the 9/11 attacks are "detain" at GITMO. Who should we believe, Mother Pelosi or Matt?
This says nothing of the fact idiots like black, aztec etc who lack critical thinking skills, would cry all day they deserve milk, cookies etc...
High security prison = milk and cookies. And I'm the one lacking critical thinking skills? Do you believe in the U.S. justice system? The terrorists who attacked the WTC the first time are in prison. The system worked. If you have such little faith in the Justice Department, maybe changes should be made there.
"The terrorists who attacked the WTC the first time are in prison. The system worked. If you have such little faith in the Justice Department, maybe changes should be made there."
Uhhhh, slight difference...
In case you forgot...the Twin Towers were on US soil, and they were aprehended by police.
What does that have to do with armed combats captured in a foreign field of battle?
It is not suprising that the same democrats who voted for the war all claimed they were duped when in fact they were looking at the same intelligence the President was looking at, and the same intelligence that many other countries looked at. One thing is certain Saddam kicked out inspector's numerous times, and if we had nothing to hide why would he do it. Also he had connections to Syria who also has a Batthists regime and probably delivered the weapons to them and that would explain Irans sudden nuclear technological surge. Im not suprised that the same democrats who pretend they were tricked are now welcoming islamic fundamentalists. There is a deep break down as to why the war in Iraq is justified on UNDISPUTEDANDUNBIASED.BLOGSPOT.com, and all the reasoning behind the Saddam/terrorist link which the democrats also deny!
In case you forgot...the Twin Towers were on US soil, and they were aprehended by police.
What does that have to do with armed combats captured in a foreign field of battle?
Well I think the twin towers were still on US soil in 2001 but the second point is a good one. What is the protocol for this? What did we do with Manuel Noriega when he commited crimes against the US? Is there an International court for this situation? Do we just make up the rules as we go? What justice system would you expect to be used against a US citizen outside the US?
I beleive in our justice system, I'm just a little puzzled why people who wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism are so afraid of the American court system. Is it only the Executive branch which deserves loyalty?