Comments on: David Kris: Our Only Military Commission Convictions May Be Illegal

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:08:16 +0000

If the Bill of Rights were up for vote before our present day Senate, I doubt that it would pass. There is real contempt for the most basic rights and protections from abuse of governmental powers. Watch that webcast of that hearing for awhile and you will see that contempt in almost every statement and question by the Senators.

By: lysias

lysias — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:32:30 +0000

What possible reason can they have for continuing to hold military commissions, now that they’ve made clear they feel they have the right to continue to hold these people indefinitely? They already have their solution to the alleged problem of releasing dangerous terrorists, so what’s the point of going on with the kangaroo courts (which they’ve made clear they’ll only use for those against whom they don’t have evidence they can use that would be admissible in a regular court)?

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:30:44 +0000

“Verdict first, trial after!” cried the Red Queen.

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:26:15 +0000

That’s about the size of it. Obama said that the MC would be used only for charges that could be brought under the Laws of War and they don’t include material support and conspiracy. But they can be charged in civilian courts.

I watched the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the MCA revisions this afternoon and was struck by the assurance given by Jeh Johnson to the Senators that even if they were not convicted, not to worry because they could still be held indefinitely under the legal authority provided by the AUMF….with periodic reviews, of course. (wink, wink,nod, nod, we don’t need no stinkin’ evidence or convictions to keep them as long as we want) McCain was the most upset with the notion that these terrorists would have the same Constitutional rights as an American citizen even though he was repeatedly assured that the detainees would not have all the same rights, just the ones that the SCOTUS has spelled out so far under due process. All the way through the hearing, the assumption was that all detainees were terrorists and guilty of terroristic acts. There was no consideration that some of them should never have been detained or had no convincing untainted evidence against them.

Some of them actually expressed concern that a terrorist would have his conviction overturned because the had not been read his Miranda rights when he was captured at the point of a rifle after a soldier had kicked down the door to his house. Well, it’s a good thing we have that AUMF for backup that says we can keep them locked up forever no matter what the courts do.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:09:16 +0000

Let me see if I have this right. The new reality is to be that ‘material support’ is a non-starter in a kangaroo court MC, but ‘material support’ under USAPatriotAct et seq. is still a viable charge in US Federal court, even if the alleged perp had absolutely zero awareness of any actual connection to the end-beneficiary alleged terrorist or terrorist-linked organization?

Frickin’ Calvinball.

By: fatster

fatster — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:57:41 +0000

Thanks so much, skdadl. I just bookmarked the Move to Canada site and will look it over later. During the Vietnam debacle, thousands of us (I didn’t, of course, but certainly identified with all resisters, so am using ‘us’) fled to Canada. I guess Canada would get kinda grumpy about being the haven for resisters to US gubmint policies of going to war/going to war/going to war during one decade or another, but for many of us Canada was almost like a promised land. Sad to leave one’s native country, but in exile just because you don’t want to die as a result of horrendously stupid decisions your gubmint makes–well, what else can I say? Great gratitude to you and all Canadians who got hearts as big as your awesome mountains.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:44:11 +0000

I’m not sure I follow what I said that you are responding to ?

My comment was on Kris’ testimony and positions on Executive decisions re: the commissions and legislation/language they want to see - so I’m kind of lost on running cases. ?

By: x174

x174 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:32:57 +0000

my take on the David Kris testimony is a little different but only in terms of emphasis.

from my reading, the implemented practices and policies instituted by the Bush clowns in the matter of counterterrorism prosecutions is such that the very “activities” (material support of terrorism) that they are holding up as evidence cannot meet the standard of traditional law of war offense, i.e., more evidence of inept policy-making.

the irony therefore isn’t so much that these people are being held on bogus charges in a gross mockery of a judicial system, but that the very apparatus set up to implement these clearly unfair practices is internally contradictory.

precisely the nature of arbitrary rule of law: the system from the policy on down provides the justiciable evidence itself of the system’s own inherent illegality and unfairness.

Go Team U.S.A.!

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:47:59 +0000

I wish Obama would explain how he arrived at that.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:44:02 +0000

a minor quibble: in gov’t one is required and restrained by position and law as to how to deal with some problems; for example, a Dem president will more likely delegate to the AG many issues which a Repub president might wish to control, but in any event the DoJ runs cases, not the prez.