06-01-2002 08:33									#1
	Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's? Full PM-box? Change here!

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?

	06-01-2002 08:44									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Horsie you commie?

	06-01-2002 08:51									#3
	Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's? Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	06-01-2002 08:52									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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.

	06-01-2002 08:58									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	06-01-2002 09:06									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

	06-01-2002 09:17									#7
	Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's? Remove this text

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	06-01-2002 11:39									#8
	Got spare money?

Yes. As always. Rhetorical question.

	06-01-2002 11:54									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

AH is best at rhetorical questions. Often proceeded a

	06-01-2002 12:00									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	06-01-2002 13:23									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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

	06-01-2002 16:27									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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...

	06-01-2002 17:46									#13
	Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's? Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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)

quote: 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.

	06-01-2002 18:43									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

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?

	06-01-2002 19:22									#15
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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

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

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

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

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

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

European justice system.

	06-01-2002 19:37									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

the US can't execute POWs just like that, since it will have to respect the Geneva Convention, and it can only execute POWs after they recieve a trial, or something resembling a trial, and have been found guilty. However, after this has happened the POWs are no longer POWs but warcriminals. So to answer your question, the US shouldn't and can't execute POWs.

	06-01-2002 19:40									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Mark L the US can't execute POWs just like that, since it will have to respect the Geneva Convention, and it can only execute POWs after they recieve a trial, or something resembling a trial, and have been found guilty. However, after this has happened the POWs are no longer POWs but warcriminals. So to answer your question, the US shouldn't and can't execute POWs.

Mark, the Tallies and Bin Laden boys never signed the convention, remember?

It doesn't apply to them, nor does any other leagal convention, because they don't represent a country, but a criminal organization.

I thought you would have picked up on this by now.

	06-01-2002 19:43									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The US signed the convention, and the POWs are in US custody. It doesn't matter if the party of the POWs signed it or not.

	06-01-2002 19:44									#19
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Mark L the US can't execute POWs just like that, since it will have to respect the Geneva Convention, and it can only execute POWs after they recieve a trial, or something resembling a trial, and have been found guilty.

Which Military Tribunals will serve the purpose of admirably.

quote: So to answer your question, the US shouldn't and can't execute POWs.

Perhaps you could be persuaded to explain in greater detail than AH has done so far becuase I fail to see how the death penalty is in violation of international law.

	06-01-2002 19:51									#20
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Mark L The US signed the convention, and the POWs are in US custody. It doesn't matter if the party of the POWs signed it or not.

Irrelevant.
The convention only applies to signatories.

Bin Bozo and One eye never signed, therefore, they cannot gain it's protection, they are CRIMINALS, not war prisoners, but your welcome to try again.

	06-01-2002 20:03									#21
	Tired of ads?

Personally, I agree completely with Bush on the matter. These terrorists don't deserve the right to a normal trial, even though this trial has many things that are not so military trial-like. For these terrorists, they should get the death penalty. Why should they enjoy the right to live, when they have removed that from so many others? But preferably, I would like something else done, but it never will be because of the US legal system. I would really like to see them go to forced labor camps, building roads and public works for us. That would make something think twice about committing terrorism. And we wouldn't be wasting money on executing them, but they would be saving us money doing these works.

	07-01-2002 00:20									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Having the status of a Prisoner of War does not magically absolve you from any crimes you may have commited, in uniform or out. Nor does it prevent trial for those crimes by the capturing power. Assuming that its court-martial meets the basic standards of civilized justice, then any prisoners who appear to have organized or helped carry out acts of international terror can be justly tried by such courts, and punished. If the crimes are sufficiently severe, and the guilt sufficiently established, the death penalty is a long established punishment to which there is absolutely no legal impediment.

With that said, it would certainly would be impolitic, and probably unjust, to execute large numbers of Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners. Only the ringleaders and those in on the planning or carrying out of actual terror incidents deserve death. But there doesn't seem to be any question that this is exactly what is planned. So what's the complaint?

	07-01-2002 01:29									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Personally, I agree completely with Bush on the matter. These terrorists don't deserve the right to a normal trial

Ie; 'you' are no better than 'them'. Convictions without and beforehand a fair trial is just what 'they' did when they flew a couple of planes into centers of economic and military power.

	07-01-2002 02:17									#24
	Re: Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's? Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc 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.

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 they are CRIMINALS, not war prisoners, but your welcome to try again.

?

Criminal -> fair open trial
PoW (Geneva) -> Military Tribunal
PoW (non-Geneva) -> Who the hell cares?

yeah?

	07-01-2002 02:22									#25
	Support Apolyton

This reminds me of the end of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when the police break in and arrest both armies on possession of weapons.

First, this is a war, correct? It doesn't matter if the Taliban have not signed the Geneva Convention, the US signed it. The US therefore held human life in high respect. Therefore, why are you going to execute POWs? Secondly, POWs cannot be held before trial. Trial for what? I thought all people were innocent until proved guilty, not the other way around. Most of these men fighting the Americans are privates. Should we then round up all the soldiers in the SS and shoot them for "Aid in the Holocaust"? No, these men were following orders, that's why you only try high officials. Even then, war tribunals can only take place once the war is over, when the men are no longer POWs.

quote: What defense can be offered if your ass was dragged from an Al Quida cave, that you were a tourist?

Why have a phoney trial then if all their death warrants have been signed already?

POWs are prisoners taken from the other side regardless whether they Taliban, Al-Qaeda or anything else. Unless they are caught doing acts deemed of espionage, they have to be held prisoners until the war is over. Once the US pull out, they will have to be returned, unless there's evidence that they are criminals. You can't start executing people after a phoney trial just because they live in a cave, own an AK-47, have a beard and wear a turban.

	07-01-2002 02:58									#26
	Re: Re: Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's? Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat yeah?

What's so confusing about what I said? It's not like we would be able to bring these defendants before an International tribunal as some hear would apparently prefer. The shear number of potential defendants would overwhelm the realistic ability of international courts to handle them. As an example, only 31 individuals have been tried by the Yugoslav tribunal in 8 years, at a cost of $400 million. Imagine the costs of opperating with jurisdiction in this area. There are other faults with international courts but that one is the most glaring.

	07-01-2002 03:02									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If they didnt sign the geneva convention its irrelevant. Look what the Vietnamese Pig **** ers did to our POWS? They didnt sign the Geneva crap...so its irrelevant..


I dont think Talib and Al-Queda should be treated like humans...they never gave anyone under there leadership that privelege.

Without a doubt, they should be put to death, lest the re-corrupt the arab populace with there hatred.

	07-01-2002 03:05									#28
	Suffering from ads?

nm

Last edited by DinoDoc on 07-01-2002 at 08:36

	07-01-2002 03:40									#29
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by faded glory If they didnt sign the geneva convention its irrelevant. Look what the Vietnamese Pig **** ers did to our POWS? They didnt sign the Geneva crap...so its irrelevant..

Good that you bring those Vietnamese Pig****ers up. I seem to remember a certain American Army Captain who was responsible for the execution of a lot of Vietnamese Pig****er woman and children in My Lai. I still remember the photo's in Life magazine at the time. I also seem to remember that said Captain got away with a slap on the wrist. But then again, those people didn't sign the Convention. Serves them right I guess...

quote: I dont think Talib and Al-Queda should be treated like humans...they never gave anyone under there leadership that privelege.

So you are no better than them? They didn't think of the people they killed on 911 and on other occassions as people so you have the moral right to do the same?

quote: Without a doubt, they should be put to death, lest the re-corrupt the arab populace with there hatred.

Maybe, just maybe you should ask yourself where that hatred comes from?

	07-01-2002 03:55									#30
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Good that you bring those Vietnamese Pig****ers up. I seem to remember a certain American Army Captain who was responsible for the execution of a lot of Vietnamese Pig****er woman and children in My Lai. I still remember the photo's in Life magazine at the time. I also seem to remember that said Captain got away with a slap on the wrist. But then again, those people didn't sign the Convention. Serves them right I guess...

So sad to see pathetic people like yourself, think its ok to tie american pilots down, beat them, burn them, and then urinate in there mouths.....Your freakin pathetic...as for the army captain, wasnt that accident? I cannot say the same for the actions of your Pig-**** ing/Goat ramming friends..

quote: So you are no better than them? They didn't think of the people they killed on 911 and on other occassions as people so you have the moral right to do the same?

tsk.....tsk.....to the victor goes the spoils. And look who won? No mercy, weeks before there capture they talked of jihad and genocide against babies and women in buildings...now the irony is they are crying like women and babies.

These people are too dangerous to lock up...besides, who wants to pay for them?

quote: Maybe, just maybe you should ask yourself where that hatred comes from?

So its ok to blow 4,700 people up in buildings?


In case you havent been paying attention to the new lately, the is from a few fringe, disenchanted fanatics of a largely peaceful religon. Oh ya, or are you wanna of those people who thinks "US policy" is too blame. Just because we have supported Israel...Bombed Iraq?? Pa'h.....


We(america) once again, will have the last word. Its only a matter of time before fix some of the issues I mentioned above.