Gitmo tribunal president: 'I don't care about international law'

In a transcript from the tribunal of a Gitmo detainee, the tribunal president blatantly declared he had no regard for international law:


With comments like these made by our officials, it's no wonder the rest of the world is becoming more and more fearful and angry. While I'm sure there are some detainees there that are fanatics and dangerous to others, I'm sure there are also some that are not, and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Either way, for a presumably high ranking military official to just come out and say we are not concerned with international law is not a good thing, I hope things change for the better real soon. But like they say, you can hope in one hand, crap in the other, and see which one fills up first. I just wonder how bad things may be by the end of Bush's term.

Sounds like a drum end court..
Not to jump at this but the whole "we are not interested in international law" does kind of speak for itself....there are members in the US who have power that dont care about rules...

Why should we oblige by International Law? We're at war here.

American laws serve us fine. ACLU lawyers will make mince-meat out of any evidence shown and they can call witness's that are not available (soldiers) and they would turn the court into a media circus....each trial for each terrorist lasting for months! We don't have time for this CRAP!.....after WW II we hanged the Nazis and moved on.

I can already picture the college demonstrations supporting the terrorists on trial...I can even picture the signs they will be waving....."Free Mohammed"..."Abdul is a real Hero"..."Death to America"

Give em a quick trial and Hang em.


Maximu§

That'd be great 'Maximus', apart from the slight flaw that America judges the rest of the world by the same international standards it itself subscribes to.
'Hypocrisy' is then what comes to mind.

Or is it a case of "God Bless Us, We're Special!"


*Paging Irans PR, Paging Irans PR...*

No, we gave them trials, first in Nuremberg, now, wherever we can find them. We'll even drag 80 year-olds in for a trial.



Geez, make-up your mind! Do you want to hang them with or without a trial?
A trial? Great! I agree!

Because we live in an international community. An organization of criminal religious extremists attacked us, not the international community. If somebody commits a crime against you, does that mean you no longer have to obey the law? If somebody stole your car would you think you had the right to kick in any of your neighbors doors and take anything you like, even if you just suspected they possibly had something to do with it, or may want to steal from you?



At war with the entire international community? Not yet, but if we all felt as you do, we probably would be. This "war on terror" can't be won this way, it is essential that the international community be on our side, or terrorist organizations will have safe haven almost everywhere but here.



So these men, many of whom are innocent on everything except being muslim, should not have any chance to prove they've done nothing wrong? I hope you really just post these views to get a rise out of everybody.



Crap? Giving a fellow human being an honest chance to prove they are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before executing them is crap that we don't have time for? It's funny you should mention Nazis.



They're not terrorists just because they're named Mohammed or Abdul, and by your logic it seems to be a penalty punishable by death to hate America anywhere on earth, even if you're not on American soil threatening us. So, why don't you judge me, your family, and yourself as enemy combatants because of Timothy McVey's actions, he was an American. So we must be guilty, or at least imminently planning the bombing of a government building, by your logic.



I thought you posted that you were a christian.

Why would a christian call for such an unfair and brutal shattering of the first commandment? It's okay to break god's number one rule on a whim as long as there's a good chance the person being killed hates America? Do you really think that would be acceptable in the eyes of Christ? Do you think if there is a heaven that there is a place for those who hate so deeply and indiscriminately?

Here's more of the transcript, regarding compelling evidence on one man who, according to you, should be given a quick trial and hanged:



So the government should be able to execute whomever they choose based on "classified" evidence that cannot be heard or viewed by anybody? Somebody said they might have seen this man in Afghanistan, and that's all the evidence they feel they need to provide in order to keep this man prisoner indefinitely. That's just wrong. They should make ALL the evidence known to prove they are right to hold this man, how would you feel if other governments started detaining American citizens indefinitely based on "classified" evidence? Honestly, what would your reaction be?




[edit on 9-4-2005 by 27jd]

Judges Say The Darnedest Things

As far as I know, the military tribunals are not authorized to rule on matters of international law nor is that the basis for their jurisdiction.

They are military tribunals with very limited jurisdictions.

As for the quotes, I've seen much better. A little googling can turn up all sorts of gems.

The AP article is definitely designed to drum up steam, and whenever I see an obvious agenda in a "news" story -- an all too common event these days -- my skepticism tends to be piqued.

I'm not saying the matter doesn't deserve attention, but I prefer more context and less foregone conclusions from my sources.

AP tends to be a mixed bag in that department, as this article demonstrates, so I don't intend to let them dictate opinions to me about things they haven't told me enough about.

America is international law! Now before you say that was the most arrogant quote you have ever read please just think about it. Who won World War II? Who won the Cold war? Who emerged in the 21st century as the worlds only superpower?

You might not like but America is the shiz! America is the only nation who can enforce these laws so they can change them and not abide by them themselves.

Is it right? First of all are those "laws" right to splinter a nations sovereignty away to a foreign court.

This is my favorite courtroom exchange of all.

I'm inclined to agree that since america enforces international law, and we support 90% of it. If we choose to bend the law, than the rest of the world will just have to deal with that. There are many americans who think this way,why'd you think bush got a second term.

I think the argument that international law exceeds the jurisdiction of the military tribunal in question is the correct answer. Those who would make a big deal out of the miliary officers declaration, attribute to him the power to create national policy, when in fact, he is only concerned with facts of the case at hand.

International law really isn't "law" and has absolutely no power to hold us accountable aside from the congeniality of other nations to us.

They are simply agreements made in the interest of whatever country is in them. If they cease to be in our interest, then we should disregard it.

I believe we should follow international law that serves our interest though.

Main problem here? I disagree with those who chose what is and isn't in our best interest.

The U.S. can stop practicing these international laws if we choose to. They are agreements like someone said, if we don't like them anymore we don't have to follow them.

As for this give the terrorist a fair trial BS. Can you imagine 15 years of appeals and 2 years of trial for every terrors, no only would it cost us money but it would be an unreflective way of dealing it he issue. Like someone said give them a quick military trial so sensitive information is not leaked, and either keep them locked up till they die or hang em.

Oh goody, we're going to the international supermarket today! however instead of fruit and vegetables we can buy laws and international treaties! huzzah!! we can pick and choose here and there tweak things this way and that, we can leave behind things we don't like, the Geneva Convention for instance, and buy things we do like, except that isn't very much... infact this supermarket kind of sucks, it has such poor selection, only one brand and its a bit too high class for us. I think its a better idea if we just made our own laws and treaties that apply to everybody even if they don't agree, infact if they don't agree even more reason to apply them!what a stupendous idea!

Now incase you didn't notice i was being sarcastic. I think its quite funny how the US wants to defend its peoples rights and freedoms but feels quite justified in denying other people theirs.



That seems to be a common theme in American foreign policy, dream up a reason to support some guys, then when things get a bit messy move away like nothing ever happened.


Also on a more relevant point, what exactly is this tribunal supposed to do? determine guilt or innocence? or has it some other purpose, because if it does then i could understand the tribunal president said, international law might have no relevance to the proceedings that are taking place, whatever they may be.

Of course you can, as can everyone else. Where though, does it leave you?
Western nations have formed themselves as a moral "father figure" of international politics, a self created illusion made for the sole purpose of keeping, or creating, international stability. It works, to a degree, because we have laws and rules that define what is and is not acceptable and the power to back it up. Our 'enemies' know that we work, politically and diplomatically at least, inside a certain moral framework.

Remove that, and you have anarchy. Remove the moral basis in which we work, and watch the stoppers come out with everyone else.

Military Tribunals: Facts Versus Speculation


The purpose of the military tribunals is anything but a secret, and has been the subject of a great deal of publicity.

The most authoritative source of information regarding their purpose would be the President of the United States, and here's what he had to say about them over three years ago:

President Issues Military Order

If you prefer a different perspective, here's some of what the Council on Foreign Relations has to say about them:

Military Tribunals

There's no shortage of information available online about the military tribunals, as well as the history of their use in the past, which has been extensive.

However, some sources are more honest than others, which is why it's always a good idea to be a skeptic.

Laws Of War

Those astute members who actually read what those links point to will note that the tribunals exist to enforce the “laws of war”. Here's a link for what that means:

Wikipedia: Laws Of War

The “laws of war” can be considered a subset of “international law”, but in both cases, the definition and applicability of them varies from one country to the next, depending on what treaties they are signatories to, as well as other factors.

An important term to be familiar with in the case of “detainees” held by the U.S. is unlawful combatant. A lot of controversy is centered on that term and its applicability. For an example, you need look no further than the discussion page for that same article.

International Law Enforcement

Predictably, there are several lamentations in this thread regarding international law from members who seem to have no idea about what international law actually is. Here's a fairly good overview:

Wikipedia: International Law

Since there is currently no One World Government, the nature and enforcement of international law is a matter for nations and treaty organizations to work out among themselves, and there is by no means a great deal of consensus on the details.

Thus vague invocations of international law as a form of protest are patently absurd and ultimately meaningless.

So, Do The Military Tribunals Rule On Matters Of International Law?

The shortest and most correct answer is “no”.

However, the tribunals do rule on the applicability and violations of the laws of war, which are founded on international treaties and conventions considered to be incorporated into international law -- but again, with reasonable caveats against false assumptions.

Complicating things is the fact that various U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have made rulings affecting various aspects of the functions of the military tribunals, and several relevant cases are still pending, so there are still many things which can change based on what results from them.

The Value Of Perspective

In both the source article and this thread I see examples of incomplete information and distortions which result in erroneous conclusions and opinions.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, and rightly so, basing them on ignorance or falsehoods ultimately leads to rendering them not only worthless to others, but also destructive to one's own personal integrity.

When in doubt, I recommend performing research and developing an informed opinion before indulging in indignant chest beating.

At least, the more I do of the former and the less I do of the latter (and I've done plenty), the happier I tend to be.

Your Mileage May Vary.

In regards to my incomplete knowledge of international law, I never once in this thread stated I was an expert or even well versed in matters of law. And the "indignant chest beating" I engaged in was to voice my opposition to treating these unlawful combatants any differently than we would a lawful combatant or a criminal here in the U.S. Many on this thread have called for quick trials and hangings of men, many of whom may very well just have been doing what they saw as defending their country from what they saw as an invading force and not members of any terrorist organizations, or may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. And we should just execute them without being as sure as we can that we're not killing innocent human beings? How can we have come to this as a nation?

I acknowledge there are men detained there who should be, and if proven beyond a reasonable doubt they have murdered innocents or carried out terrorist attacks, they should be executed. I just think that we should give those whose cases are not cut and dry a chance not to be executed for something they are not guilty of.

[edit on 10-4-2005 by 27jd]

There is one thing abut military court I think is rather....dodgey.....They :

"will admit evidence—including secondhand evidence and hearsay, which are banned from traditional courts—so long as it would have “probative value to a reasonable person"


If thats so...what defines a "reasonable person"?
And also....they are admitng "hearsay"....I mean the use of it can lead to a lot of bad rulings...

And that is exactly what the Terrorist are using to their advantage, they think we will pamper them up and spend years on their trials so at the end they can either get acquitted or keep issuing appeals. Sometimes in order to deal with such situations certain laws are inappropriate and should not be followed.

Once we disobey one law whats to stop us disobeying a second one?
Or another?
Laws and rules are there for a reason...