It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Leaked Emails From Prosecuters Claim Guantanamo Trials Rigged

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   
this wont convince the BushHawks that something is wrong, nothing will be done and it'll be last weeks news in no time. They probably think these people dont deserve fair trials.

thanks,
drfunk




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Not.

The only suprise here is that there is still enough decent prosecuters out there that won't abandon their principles.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Grady, what would be your estimation of the motives behind the Captain sending those emails? What would he gain by risking his career to speak out against his own military with respect to the Guantanamo Bay trials?

The evidence is slowly mounting and I dont care what any one says, this will come to head and head's will roll. Its happend before and it will happen again. No one is above scrutiny you hear me, no one.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I'm finding the debate over semantics and minute inconsistencies to be irellevent to fact of principle; Gitmo is an unethical insitution tatamount to the Gulags, a system of indiscriminate kidnapping of persons of numerous soveriegns without charge or trial. The veracity of these emails may be under charge, but truth of guilt of persons in Gitmo is aswell, and it's becoming more and more apparent that America has taken a road of impunity of thier own accord for unaccountability to thier own crimes.

Debate emails all you want, but do not debate the fact that these persons have been stripped of the very rights lauded by Americans each and every day.

Luxifero



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
From Reuters Today:

Pen tagon dismissed challenges by Gitmo prosecutors



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Complaints by two former military prosecutors about the fairness of trials for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were dismissed by Pentagon investigators, a senior defense official said on Monday, but he left open the possibility of changing trial procedures.

The official was responding to reports in The New York Times which said the two Air Force officers had charged last year that the trial system was designed to improve the chance of convicting detainees.

"That matter was thoroughly vetted (investigated) and it is closed," Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told reporters.

Well Thats it from this Story.

The Matter is Closed.

NEXT CASE!



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
It is up to the people to make sure this case isn't closed or downplayed....


MAXINE McKEW: First tonight, the Australian Government has moved to downplay emails obtained by the ABC in which US military prosecutors complain that the military tribunals or detainees at Guantanamo Bay are improper and even appear rigged against defendants.

In March 2004, Major Robert Preston wrote:

"I consider the insistence on processing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared, to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even fraud on the American people. Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."



www.abc.net.au...


David Hicks's father Terry, along with his son's legal team, have also voiced concern.

Terry Hicks is pessimistic about the new revelations influencing the Australian Government's view on the military commissions.

"This is what the Australian Government wants regardless of what the prosecution says," he said.

"If it's rigged from the inside as they say or criticising the system, the Australian Government seems to still say that's okay to go ahead, that they're a fair system."

The documents, written by two former US military prosecutors, say the military commission is a fraud on the American people and that the commissions are rigged to ensure a conviction.

The Pentagon says the remarks are a result of misunderstanding and personality conflicts.


www.abc.net.au...


It makes me really angry actually..day by day we are being played as fools

they think we are idiots and we are getting treated accordingly....
Hey Just call us mushrooms

Who the hell do they think they are...above power? above the law? above justice?

Don't get me wrong here...If laws were broken, then trials should be held..but fair honest and just trials, not this farce of steamrolled poop

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It's called Selective Ignorance I guess, either that or somehow "they" have found a way to brainwash half of the population into not caring or paying attention to all the lies told by this administration.
Somehow very important issues get brushed aside, downplayed and forgotten into our media for "live in fear" mentality that is being pushed on us.

Will this be the straw that breaks the camel back? I hope so, but somehow I feel it won't. More straws are to come and we'll have to live with it, because half of this country believes this is what they want.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by worldwatcher]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Grady, what would be your estimation of the motives behind the Captain sending those emails? What would he gain by risking his career to speak out against his own military with respect to the Guantanamo Bay trials?


I don't know what his motives are. No one but the Captain knows that. I'm not saying that any of this correct or not. My only contention was that military justice is generally fair.

I don't know what's going on in Gitmo, but I do have faith that the government is looking out for our well-being, that abuses are being dealt with and that the detainees are being treated more fairly than any American POW has ever been.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Prisoner abuse. The non-existent scandal.



Yeah - that's why several members of the military admitted guilt in the Abu Ghraib case.

Sivits, Cruz and Frederick (amongst others) are now serving time. For those same admissions of guilt.

(yes, I know this doesn't necessarily imply the same about Gitmo - just pointing out the obvious)



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know what his motives are. No one but the Captain knows that. I'm not saying that any of this correct or not. My only contention was that military justice is generally fair.

I was asking your opinion as a former marine. Is this kind of thing precedented? How often do officers write emails to newspapers criticising the militaries actions? It would have to lend atleast some credence to the emails. He is basing his career on them.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know what's going on in Gitmo, but I do have faith that the government is looking out for our well-being, that abuses are being dealt with and that the detainees are being treated more fairly than any American POW has ever been.

Your faith is admirable but thats all it is - faith. There is evidence that both the British and American people were lied to about Iraq. Irrelevant of the fact that Saddam was an awful dictator, we expect to be told the truth by our governments.

Faith becomes a problem though when you become blinkered to the obvious truths that things are not how they should be.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There are no civilians subject to the UCMJ. If you are speaking of prisoners at Gitmo, then you are speaking of combatants against the US, who do not have the benefit of the UCMJ and are subject to military tribunals. So, I would say that these individuals chose to carry out acts of war against the US outside the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva convention is very clear on this subject. Regardless of whether your prisoners adhered to, or were party to, the Geneva conventions, you have to abide by them. The United States is bound to treat ALL PoW's according to the Geneva conventions, irrelevant of whether they are from a country that isnt a signatory to it.


Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Part 1 Article 2
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Text of the Geneva Convention (PoW)

That means that the United States has to treat any PoW's (enemy combatants) according to the Geneva conventions regardless of whether or not they are a party to the convention.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Bleeding hearts might not like it, but they're getting good treatment and justice far beyond what any US military captive might hope for.

Thats not the point. The United States does not have its moral standards dictated by the injustices of foreign nations. You know that.

Are the Gitmo detainees being treated humanely and with dignity? Have they been given a speedy and fair trial? The answer is no.

[edit on 1/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The Captain did wrong to go outside the chain of command to air his discontent. Except for specific abuses that have been addressed, I have no reason to believe that the prisoners are not granted the treatment to which they are entitiled.

Although, it might not be currently fashionalbe, when it comes to disputes between our enemies and our government, I will always side with our government until adequate evidence is available. Personally, I don't think you know anymore about what is going on at Gitmo than I do. The primary difference between me and you is that I give the benefit of the doubt to America. You give the benefit of the doubt to the enemy.

It is my understanding that prisoners of war are held for the duration and are not entitled to speedy trials. Isn't that the way it has always been?


[edit on 2005/8/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
subz - isn't that part of the problem though? The inmates aren't classed as prisoners-of-war...and thus aren't covered by the protection of the Geneva Convention?

(As appalling as that is, it might be the legal loophole being used, correct?)

I thought part of AI's beef was because they weren't afforded the protections therein; because they've never been given POW status?

(I could be wrong. Help? Anyone?)



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The primary difference between me and you is that I give the benefit of the doubt to America. You give the benefit of the doubt to the enemy.

I beg your pardon? Im giving the benefit of the doubt to a Captain of the United States Army. Is he the enemy now? Is he the enemy because he's speaking out against the military?

I think the real primary difference between me and you is that I can entertain the notion that our political overlords are capable of lying to us to further themselves. You, on the other hand, refuse to believe such things are possible inspite of evidence showing otherwise. (these emails, FBI accounts of abuse, Downing Street Memo etc)

Tinkleflower, I think you'll find that these detainees are PoW's or the United States administration has to reword their War on Terror and the powers granted to them therein. They cannot be at war against terrorists unless those terrorists captured are afforded PoW status under the Geneva Convention.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

"The cracks in the foundations just keep getter wider," Mr McLeod said.

"Any credibility that the military commission might have had has now evaporated.

"This is a scandal of major proportions. It is an indictment on the US military commission process and a fraud on the Australian people."

Law Council of Australia president John North meanwhile said the leaked emails provided a damning insight into a flawed process.

"This scathing criticism from within is a damning endorsement of the entire military commission system," Mr North said.

www.news.com.au...



Rigged military tribunals which ensure a guilty verdict, not a fair trial, are the blunt political instruments of authoritarian regimes - not healthy democracies. The US State Department reports annually on the progress or otherwise of human rights around the globe, citing the promotion of freedom and the rule of law as a central goal of American foreign policy.

www.smh.com.au...

www.themoderatevoice.com...

www.smh.com.au...
Geez nothing mentioned at all in the breaking news...one tiny entry on page 2 of breaking news about Hicks

Its being wiped under the mat very fast.








[edit on 1-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
. They cannot be at war against terrorists unless those terrorists captured are afforded PoW status under the Geneva Convention.


That's what I'd hoped - I just seem to recall reading elsewhere that it had been decided that the inmates were not prisoners-of-war under the usual definitions, in part because they were not soldiers of any particular nation with whom we were at war. I'm going to see if I can dig up the relevant bits; the general gist though was that as the War on Terror is not against any particular nation, the captured combatants are not automatically afforded the same rights.

Off to search now...but thanks for clarifying so far, anyway!

Edit: from a random google-ation (paraphrased): The Bush Administration argues these fighters are "illegal combatants," and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners' rights.

Terribly one-sided link, but a link nonetheless

Another link here

Excerpt: "The new memorandum, now in final draft, is known as the ”Joint Doctrine for Detainee Operations: Joint Publication 3-63”, and is dated Mar. 23, 2005.

”If the draft memorandum is approved, it will formalize 'enemy combatant' as a class of prisoner that the Bush administration says has no protections under the Geneva Conventions,” HRW attorney John Sifton told IPS. ”There are no categories of prisoners unprotected by one or another of the Geneva Convention.” "

(Has this draft been dropped since that website was published?)


[edit on 1-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Captured combatants are disregarded from Geneva for Gitmo does not geographicaly abide by it's conventions; it's simply an edifice of loopholes; a modern gulag wrapped in complex illegalities. It should also be noted that Cuba owns, as contract has been breached, the land in which Gitmo abides. It's an illegal real estate not too mention countless others.



Luxifero



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
It seems to me that 2 differing lines of logic is being used to justify doing whatever is desired. Are they POW's, thus giving the US the right to hold them indefinately, treated in accordance with the GC, trial not required, OR are they just prisoners that require a speedy trial, cannot be held indefinately and are not covered by the GC.

It seems to me that it's a pick and choose so that whatever the Gov't wants to do will happen. If I'm wrong, please tell me.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I'm starting to think this is bogus. I'm finding it hard to believe that I can find both lawyer's names with the correct rank in historically significant documents.

I'm not saying this couldn't happen, but what are the odds?

search for "major robert preston"

www.google.com...

search for "captain john carr"

www.google.com...

So I guess we have to find the Major and the Captain who are both conveniently no longer where they were supposed to be when the emails were sent. I'm very suspicious of this all right now.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz


I think the real primary difference between me and you is that I can entertain the notion that our political overlords are capable of lying to us to further themselves. You, on the other hand, refuse to believe such things are possible inspite of evidence showing otherwise. (these emails, FBI accounts of abuse, Downing Street Memo etc)



Au contraire, mon ami. First of all, I don't consider our political leaders "overlords," which really betrays a very strong anti-American bias on your part and I don't dismiss the fact that sometimes government lies. However, I have been around long enough to take everything with a grain of salt. Just because the individual who has sent these emails is a Captain doesn't really say a whole lot. Maybe he's honest; maybe he has an ax to grind.

I don't deny that abuses occur. They do, but I know that when they do occur and the information comes to light, people are held accountable. That's how America works. I dare you to show me a government with a better human rights record than America.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I agree with Valhall, this has the stench of Dan Rather all over it.

Only the Australian press and al Jazeera seems to picking up this story, it's probably fake or at least very questionable.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join