Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

[Alexander's Horse]

Most Western countries have abolished the death penalty as barbaric. There are Western country citizens amongst the prisoners taken in Afghanistan - 2 Australians and 3 Brits have been reported. Neither country has the death penalty.

What about the Geneva Convention? Many of those captured surrendered in battle.

What about other international law? The International Court of Justice doesn't execute war criminals. Could the US find itself before the ICJ if it executes prisoners?

Why is the US planning to use closed military tribunals to try prisoners? Is that allowed under international law? How do you get a fair trial in a closed court?

[Bereta_Eder]

Horsie you commie?

[Lonestar]

Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Most Western countries have abolished the death penalty as barbaric. There are Western country citizens amongst the prisoners taken in Afghanistan - 2 Australians and 3 Brits have been reported. Neither country has the death penalty.

What about the Geneva Convention? Many of those captured surrendered in battle.

What about other international law? The International Court of Justice doesn't execute war criminals. Could the US find itself before the ICJ if it executes prisoners?

Why is the US planning to use closed military tribunals to try prisoners? Is that allowed under international law? How do you get a fair trial in a closed court?

Presumably, the Western Country citizens will be sent back to their home countries for trial/whatever there.

However over, if we find Al-Qaeda personnel (or for that matter, Mur-shaddaf{sp} Filipino insurgents) more likely than not, we will haul them home.

Military Tribunals are certainly legal, there are precedents for it. As these would be under *American* Jurisdiction, the terrorists would probaly get a whole lot of "Consipiracy to... charges." Those who were the deepest in the planning would probaly get the Death penelty.

[General Ludd]

I wonder... why does the USA so readily execute it's own citizens - and now people from anywhere in the world, yet if another country where to execute an american, it'd be some sort of shocking atrocity.

[Wiglaf]

I wonder... why does the USA so readily execute it's own citizens - and now people from anywhere in the world, yet if another country where to execute an american, it'd be some sort of shocking atrocity.

Depends on what the American did. No one cares, for example, about the one arrested for rape in Japan, even though there's a 95% conviction rate over there. Generally we just don't get in that sort of international trouble as often as many rogue nations do.

Why is the US planning to use closed military tribunals to try prisoners? Is that allowed under international law? How do you get a fair trial in a closed court?

You have the option of a jury, the ability to present evidence, an attorney, and a direct appeal to the watching President. Quite a bit for someone with no rights to begin with.

[DanS]

First off, you're assuming that the prisoners will stand trial in American courts. Further, you assume that the US will seek the death penalty on a subsection of those detainees (namely Australians and Brits). None of these assumptions are good ones, but OK. Let's play along.

"What about the Geneva Convention? Many of those captured surrendered in battle."

The prisoners rights under the Geneva Convention will be respected. I think you're insinuating that those rights will not be respected, which sticks in my craw not a little.

"What about other international law? The International Court of Justice doesn't execute war criminals."

Yes, but the ICJ doesn't have control over these prisoners.

"Why is the US planning to use closed military tribunals to try prisoners?"

Let's disaggregate. There are a number of reasons for using closed proceedings, mostly having to do with disclosing publicly intelligence and means of gathering that intelligence. These proceedings need not be open in order to be fair.

Re military tribunals, the biggest reason to use them is because it is next to impossible to collect evidence in a manner that would satisfy a civilian tribunal. Our soldiers haven't been trained as policemen, but rather as soldiers. There are a number of other reasons, such as the safety of a jury.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Is that allowed under international law?

If we opperate under Bush's assumption that the 9/11 attacks were an act of war then the use of military tribunals is black letter law internationally.

How do you get a fair trial in a closed court?

The trial will be conducted under the rules of the UCMJ which is more than fair for POWs.

[SlowwHand]

Yes. As always. Rhetorical question.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yes. As always. Rhetorical question.

AH is best at rhetorical questions. Often proceeded a

[orange]

I voted banana simply because it's not a simple yes or no. People are executed for crimes, even outside the US in world court. I'd personally prefer life in jail, becuase I think that is much worse a punishment for anyone convicted of a heinous crime. But, as long as they are tried outside the US in a 'neutral' setting, I don't see a problem with it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
Re military tribunals, the biggest reason to use them is because it is next to impossible to collect evidence in a manner that would satisfy a civilian tribunal.

A very revealing answer

[Kropotkin]

The Nürnberg trials where one of the best ways of securing the defeat of the nazis in Germany back in the days as I see it. A real trial where the terrorists are convicted without reasonable doubt will ensure that it's not seen as just a political conviction set up by the US and it's allies. No need for more martyrs here...

[Chris 62]

Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Most Western countries have abolished the death penalty as barbaric.

The USA takes the postion that allowing killers to have the life they deny others is monsterous, and the most inhumane act possible.

There are Western country citizens amongst the prisoners taken in Afghanistan - 2 Australians and 3 Brits have been reported. Neither country has the death penalty.

Were they Al Queda or Taliban?
It makes a huge difference.

What about the Geneva Convention? Many of those captured surrendered in battle.

The convention only applies to legit military forces from countries who signed it.
Don't remember Osama being the head of a country, and only a handful recognized Mullah Omar, and neither signed anything, so this point is moot.

What about other international law? The International Court of Justice doesn't execute war criminals. Could the US find itself before the ICJ if it executes prisoners?

They might find themselves before the US courts, on obstruction charges.
Seriously, international law concerns real governments, not terror organizations.
Terrorists don't recognize these bodies, so they cannot hide behind them to save their sorry asses.
(that is, unless a few euro-idiot bleeding hearts try to defend mass murderers, which I'm sure will be the case, on this board, if nowhere else)

Why is the US planning to use closed military tribunals to try prisoners? Is that allowed under international law? How do you get a fair trial in a closed court?

Why do you assume it won't be fair?
What defense can be offered if your ass was dragged from an Al Quida cave, that you were a tourist?

Use your head for something other then a hatrack, for god's sake man!

10-1 some dumb-ass will take umbridge at my post.

[Alexander's Horse]

Justice not only requires fairness but it requires that fairness to be seen to be done - in other words in public court. This is part of a legal principle as old as Magna Carta - habeous corpus.

How are you going to achieve that with closed military tribunals?

I know what people all over the world are going to say

What's the U.S. equivalent of kangaroo court?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Justice not only requires fairness but it requires that fairness to be seen to be done - in other words in public court. This is part of a legal principle as old as Magna Carta - habeous corpus.

If you notice, they have losened up about closed courts, it's in the papers

How are you going to achieve that with closed military tribunals?

Again, it's an assumption on your part they won't be fair.

I know what people all over the world are going to say

If these boards are any example, something stupid and callous.

What's the U.S. equivalent of kangaroo court?

European justice system.