C-PALSY Archives

Cerebral Palsy List

C-PALSY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
ken barber <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Cerebral Palsy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:05:26 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (148 lines)
they will be as per the military code of justice. they
will have lawyers, but, unlike in the civilian courts,
in the discovery process a judge will have to decide
on how much information can be given based on what is
highly clasified and could compromise agents in the
field. this will keep some things away from the new
york times. and as per congression act, now there will
be an appeal right to the federal circuit for DC.
considered to be the 2nd highest court in the U.S.
this is a right never given to enemy fighters in our
history. this is to stike a balence between no appeals
and the endless appeals process in our civil courts
and the practice of shopping for the best court likely
to rule one way or the other that goes on in our civil
courts system. 

--- Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Monday 30 October 2006 16:56, ken barber wrote:
> > the trials will determine what is done to them.
> your
> > remarks about the not being proven killers ignores
> who
> > they are and where and how they were captured. but
> > they are going to get trials that will not ignore
> > these things.
> >
> 
> Ken,
> 
> How do you envisage these "trials" working?
> 
> It doesn't seem to be like a normal trial, where the
> burden of guilt proof is 
> on the prosecution, defendant gets told exactly the
> crime of which he is 
> accused, and, perhaps most important of all,
> proceedings occur in public.
> 
> Perhaps you envisage something more in line with the
> Nuremberg Trials after 
> WWII. Held in public, filmed, overwhelming physical
> evidence, multiple eye 
> witness accounts, cast iron identification evidence.
> Noone was found guilty 
> at Nurembourg just because they were an SS Officer,
> it was always tied to a 
> particular criminal action which it could be proved
> beyond any doubt was 
> perpetrated by the person accused. Just being a
> soldier who had shot at 
> Allied soldiers would not have led to a prosecution.
> 
> Are the Guantanamo prisoners in this sort of
> category? Lets look at the facts 
> as released by the US Govt.:-
> 
> The Govt says all the prisoners are "Enemy
> Combatants" and defines that 
> as "The definition of an enemy combatant is in the
> implementing orders,
> which have been passed out to everyone. But, in
> short, it means anyone who is 
> part of supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces or
> associated forces 
> engaging in hostilities against the United States or
> our coalition 
> partners.". So just aiding the Taliban/aQ gives the
> status of "Enemy 
> Combatant". Taking in, caring for, a wounded
> Talibani, would classify you 
> as "Enemy" - to be locked up for years.
> 
> According to released US Govt information over 50%
> of the prisoners are not 
> accused of "hostilities" but just "supporting"
> Taliban/Aq. The Govt says that 
> only 8% have been classified as "fighters" and 60%
> are simply "Associated 
> with" Taliban/Aq.
> 
> Now, what counts as "engaging" in hostilities? Again
> the US Govt have told 
> us:-
> 
> 1. The detainee fled, along with others, when the
> United States forces
>    bombed their camp.
> 2. The detainee was captured in Pakistan, along with
> other Uigher
>    fighters.
> 
> (I think I'd flee my camp if bombed!!!) So "camp
> cook" is hostile act.
> 
> Only 5% were actually captured by US forces so it
> seems most of the prisoners 
> were just "handed over" by other Pakistanis or
> Afghans including Bounty 
> Hunters (since the US gave large bounties for
> prisoners received).
> 
> The Govt admits that the following reasons were
> sufficient for accepting the 
> prisoners from Bounty Hunters:-
> 
> "Associations with unnamed and unidentified
> individuals and/or organizations;
> Associations with organizations, the members of
> which would be allowed into 
> the United States by the Department of Homeland
> Security;
> Possession of rifles;
> Use of a guest house;
> Possession of Casio watches; and
> Wearing of olive drab clothing."
> 
> The number of "dangerous" detainees is surprisingly
> small, the vast majority 
> should never have been incarcerated for this length
> of time. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Deri
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
> 
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates 
(http://voice.yahoo.com)

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy

ATOM RSS1 RSS2