9/11 families outraged by Obama's suspension of Gitmo trials

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like there are at least a few people who don't think all is sweetness and light with Barack Obama as our new President.

Might they have reason?

Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/

9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials

Families of victims of terrorist attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's call to halt the trials of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

"To me it's beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists," said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. "Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again."

Obama's request on the first full day of his presidency came as a draft order was being prepared ordering the closing of the Guantanamo prison within a year. A judge responded by halting the case against a Canadian detainee accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, issuing a 120-day continuance in the case.

"I see no reason why we should delay these proceedings. Let justice be served," said Jefferson Crowther, whose 24-year-old son, Welles, was killed in the Twin Towers after he saved the lives of several others.

Critics blasted Obama's decision, which they said would delay justice in cases that have already been waiting for the better part of a decade.

"There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can't conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people," said former Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who lost 17 sailors during a suicide bombing attack on the USS Cole in 2000. A suspect in the case is being held at Guantanamo.

"It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed," Lippold told FOXNews.com.

[Noir]

Do the famlies not want justice? Trying them in a military court will not give justice.

[bullypulpit]

Justice delayed is justice denied. The Bush administration had seven years to hold judicial proceedings for the detainees at GITMO, yet failed to do so in any meaningful manner. This is because they were focused, not on serving justice, but on expanding executive power. Had they simply held military courts martial under the UCMJ, it would be a moot point. The guilty would get their due and the innocent would be free and justice would be served. It is the Bush administration which denied justice for the families of 9/11 victims.

[bullypulpit]

ooops.

[Kathianne]

Do the famlies not want justice? Trying them in a military court will not give justice.

Why not?

[Noir]

Why not?


Though I can not quote a specific amendment I'm pretty sure it is in the constitution that everyone deserves to have their case heard by their peers. If you are gonna do it you may aswell do it right, then there can be no cries of unfair play by anyone, If these folk are guilty and their is evidence that proves it then let their peers find them guilty and lock em up. Don't do it by military courts, it undermines the whole system.

[Kathianne]

Though I can not quote a specific amendment I'm pretty sure it is in the constitution that everyone deserves to have their case heard by their peers. If you are gonna do it you may aswell do it right, then there can be no cries of unfair play by anyone, If these folk are guilty and their is evidence that proves it then let their peers find them guilty and lock em up. Don't do it by military courts, it undermines the whole system.

Oh no, nothing about foreign combatants in the constitution. Someone earlier rightfully pointed out, that military is not police. They operate on premise of kill or be killed in hostile situations. While the police too have the right to meet deadly force with the same, they are trained to be ever mindful of the future legal questions.

[Noir]

Oh no, nothing about foreign combatants in the constitution. Someone earlier rightfully pointed out, that military is not police. They operate on premise of kill or be killed in hostile situations. While the police too have the right to meet deadly force with the same, they are trained to be ever mindful of the future legal questions.

So because they are not US citizens they do not have the right to a fair trail by their peers? You can't jsut make the rules up as you go, not only have these people been held against habous corpous, some have been tortured, and they also do not have he right to a fAir trail. But don't worry, it's all ok, cus they are not Americans, right?

I can only assume that if this was happening to a US citizen in another country it would be fine, right?

It brings shame upon the US and shame upon the systems of democracy it is trying to defend, as someone once said 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'

[Gaffer]

So because they are not US citizens they do not have the right to a fair trail by their peers? You can't jsut make the rules up as you go, not only have these people been held against habous corpous, some have been tortured, and they also do not have he right to a fAir trail. But don't worry, it's all ok, cus they are not Americans, right?

I can only assume that if this was happening to a US citizen in another country it would be fine, right?

It brings shame upon the US and shame upon the systems of democracy it is trying to defend, as someone once said 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'

They are not US citizens, therefore they have no peers. They were captured in combat against US forces. They get NO protection from our Constitution, their only protection is under the GC. And that is pretty shallow as the GC doesn't cover terrorists.

Bush screwed up. He should have had quick trials and executions of all those captured. He was too worried about the politics of doing that. Gitmo is a political football for both parties here. Neither one really wants to do anything decisive as it may hurt them in future elections. What's best for the people and even the world takes second place to holding on to the seat in government.

[Little-Acorn]

their only protection is under the GC. And that is pretty shallow as the GC doesn't cover terrorists.


Yes, the Geneva Convention DOES cover terrorists.

It stats that any person found engaging in hostile acts in a war, without wearing a uniform, if captured can be executed in the field as a spy.

I'd imagine that rule is in place, so combatants can easily be distinguished from civilians who are not fighting, so as to spare the civilians from harm. It's the first rule the terrorists tossed in the trash can, of course, in their efforts to hide behind women and children (and then complain that we are harming women and children when we try to shoot back).

The Geneva Convention also contains severe penalties for people who deliberately harm civilians... and those penalties get worse if the people doing the harm are not wearing uniforms, same reason.

If we abide by the Geneva convention instead of what we have been doing, those tangos might start wishing we hadn't closed down Gitmo. Maybe it's not such a bad place after all, compared to what international law allows us to do to them if we want to.

But it will be too late... as is so often the case when hysterical liberals try to run things.

[Classact]

Do the famlies not want justice? Trying them in a military court will not give justice.US soldiers charged with killing innocent Iraqis were tried in a military court.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The Bush administration had seven years to hold judicial proceedings for the detainees at GITMO, yet failed to do so in any meaningful manner. This is because they were focused, not on serving justice, but on expanding executive power. Had they simply held military courts martial under the UCMJ, it would be a moot point. The guilty would get their due and the innocent would be free and justice would be served. It is the Bush administration which denied justice for the families of 9/11 victims.Obama just delayed justice for four more months.

[DragonStryk72]

Looks like there are at least a few people who don't think all is sweetness and light with Barack Obama as our new President.

Might they have reason?

Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/

9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials

Families of victims of terrorist attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's call to halt the trials of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

"To me it's beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists," said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. "Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again."

Obama's request on the first full day of his presidency came as a draft order was being prepared ordering the closing of the Guantanamo prison within a year. A judge responded by halting the case against a Canadian detainee accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, issuing a 120-day continuance in the case.

"I see no reason why we should delay these proceedings. Let justice be served," said Jefferson Crowther, whose 24-year-old son, Welles, was killed in the Twin Towers after he saved the lives of several others.

Critics blasted Obama's decision, which they said would delay justice in cases that have already been waiting for the better part of a decade.

"There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can't conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people," said former Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who lost 17 sailors during a suicide bombing attack on the USS Cole in 2000. A suspect in the case is being held at Guantanamo.

"It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed," Lippold told FOXNews.com.

I do understand the want for justice, but justice means making certain you have the right guys, then as well, that you've held yourselves to what is just, and are not simply acting out of vengeance. They're not going anywhere currently, so I see no particular issue with this, speaking as one of those who had family that work and passed through the towers.(Brother went to Regis high school in the city from Jersey, Sister worked in tower 1, brother in law had a contract job in tower 2. I got lucky, I'm not an only child, but it doesn't change day for me.)

I refuse to hate them, it won't change a thing for me as far as what it means to be just, to find justice. Though they would not see it as such, their opinions are dangerously biased, assuming guilt where none has been proven. We need to let justice be done, and if that means we wait a little longer, well, we've already waited 7 years, a few extra weeks is much to ask

[Noir]

@ClassAct

Is it just their job that the court could take away from the or could they sentance the men and women to jail time?

If the former then it doesn't matter.

If the latter then there seems to be a rather odd situation, do they sign away their normal citizen rights when they sign on the military dotted line? In any case I don't like the sound or practice of these military courts.

[Classact]

@ClassAct

Is it just their job that the court could take away from the or could they sentance the men and women to jail time?

If the former then it doesn't matter.

If the latter then there seems to be a rather odd situation, do they sign away their normal citizen rights when they sign on the military dotted line? In any case I don't like the sound or practice of these military courts.OK the US constitution states the congress will raise armies and navies and write rules for their function. The army works outside of the constitution under the rules of those written by congress. When the military goes to war, unlike police they do not need probable cause to shoot at an enemy but rather follow rules of engagement with root in the US congress. International Laws of War indicates how combatants will be treated if captured, lawful may be held until the end of hostilities, unlawful combatants may be held (as long as the capturing force decides) and then given a military hearing and disposed of in accordance to the findings of the military authority. So POW's in jail for the time of the war, no trial... unlawful combatants in jail under the same conditions with the exception that if the capturing nation desires to try the unlawful detainee then he could be sentenced to death, life or any period they decide. The intent is all captured combatants will be held to the end of hostilities so there is no rush to conduct a trial for the unlawful combatants that are of a lesser level of rights than the lawful combatants. War has nothing to do with US civil law and everything to do with international laws of war.

[bullypulpit]

Obama just delayed justice for four more months.

Given that the Bush administration figuratively shat the bed...repeatedly...and rolled around in it for the last seven years,with regards to this issue, it seems optimistic to think that it will only take four months for the Obama administration to clean up the mess.

[DannyR]

They get NO protection from our Constitution, their only protection is under the GC. And that is pretty shallow as the GC doesn't cover terrorists.

Geneva conventions aren't the only treaties we've signed that bear on the issue. USA has signed and ratified other treaties protecting any person, part of a war or not, from being held indefinitely without trial.

[Kathianne]

They get NO protection from our Constitution, their only protection is under the GC. And that is pretty shallow as the GC doesn't cover terrorists.

Geneva conventions aren't the only treaties we've signed that bear on the issue. USA has signed and ratified other treaties protecting any person, part of a war or not, from being held indefinitely without trial.

Got some links?

[Classact]

Got some links?Try this, the detainees never had any rights until the US Supreme Court gave them to them through a reversal of established law.


The court reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had held that the Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager barred Guantanamo detainees from bringing actions challenging their detentions in U.S. courts because they were foreign nationals outside U.S. sovereign territory.
Eisentrager involved German nationals who, in the closing days of World War II, violated the terms of Germany's surrender by continuing to wage war against the allies in the Pacific theater. The Eisentrager plaintiffs had been tried and convicted by a military commission (with some of their alleged confederates acquitted), and imprisoned at a U.S. military base in Germany. Eisentrager was an arguably tangled opinion in which the Supreme Court purportedly declined to recognize petitioners' right for habeas corpus review, only in fact to review the facts of their case. It set out elements detailing why the Eisentrager petitioners were not entitled to further threshold procedural steps such as habeas corpus, finding among other things that they were enemy aliens duly charged and convicted for violating the laws of war by a lawfully constituted tribunal. http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm