Comments on: War Heroes

By: graywolf

graywolf — Sat, 17 May 2008 03:37:14 +0000

"....sometimes at an enormous cost to their careers."

Yeah, real f****** heroes, and smart too.
Throw their careers under the bus for a terrorist who wants to kill them and their families.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:59:15 +0000

And I chose the words "show trials" carefully, because that's what too many people in the government are trying to turn them into.

Who, exactly?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:39:54 +0000

The Constitution doesn't apply here, Alex! The prisoners aren't being held in America, hence, the reason they are in Guantanamo Bay! And the soldier lawyers and judges are doing what they are supposed to be doing, defending them. Having a defense doesn't grant the detainees non-existent rights, it just gives them a defense.

Gawd you liberals are too much! Bleeding hearts all of ya! I bet if you were on the battlefield, Alex, voluntarily charged with protecting Americans and even yourself, you would let the other guy shoot you dead before you ever fired a shot. You liberals are pathetic!

By: c. wagener

c. wagener — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:43:24 +0000

How are "show trials" and a concern for "bodies would do their work in secret" reconcilable. Show trails are very public and used for propaganda purposes. The closest thing we have to that in the U.S. are congressional hearings of companies involved in oil, tobacco, etc. The fact that many Gitmo detainees have returned to the battle field doesn't point to an assembly line of guilty verdicts, rather the opposite.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:30:46 +0000

Beldar, It's not just defense attorneys. It's prosecutors and judges there, too. And I chose the words "show trials" carefully, because that's what too many people in the government are trying to turn them into. They may not end up that way, but that's still up in the air. If they don't, it will be because of the military upholding its proudest traditions.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:11:25 +0000

BTW, Alex, your characterization of these as "show trials" is a pretty good clue that you've already reached a final judgment about them, notwithstanding the fact that none of the trials have yet proceeded to final judgment. "Show trials" are what went on in the Soviet Union under Stalin. By parroting that term, you're underestimating (and, I hope, unintentionally) insulting all of the participants on both sides of these proceedings -- which assuredly will not extend all of the elaborate protections of the normal, non-military American criminal justice system, but will nevertheless provide (in accordance with Congress' specifications) more due process and procedural rights to these accuseds than most accuseds get anywhere else in the world. I hope you'll re-think that choice of words (and its strongly implied comparison to "show trials" conducted by genuinely authoritarian regimes).

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:02:42 +0000

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that the defense counsel for the detainees aren't in the tank. Even in this unusual context, the adversary system depends on the advocates for each side doing their respective best, within the confines of the law and the canons of ethics, to diligently argue their respective side's positions. On the other hand, some of the present or former defense counsel involved have strayed outside their appropriate bounds by miscontruing or taking out of context certain high-level officials' comments in an attempt to argue that the outcomes of the proceedings are being pre-determined (uniformly in favor of conviction). By pretending that there's corruption where, in fact, none exists, they are not ultimately advancing their clients' interests. Put another way: I don't presume that just because some of the defense counsel are speaking out against "the system" or "the powers that be," all of their criticisms are automatically proved thereby to be justified. And I think that's the assumption Ms. Lithwick is making and urging, without adequate critical thought. In short, Ms. Lithwick will always root against the team that she perceives to be aligned with George W. Bush, merits be damned.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:37:07 +0000

And the Court did, belatedly, rule that practice unconstitutional in ex parte Milligan.

By: DL

DL — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:57:26 +0000

Speaking of show trials by the government, someone ought to compare this stuff to the abomination of justice show trials of the Lincoln conspirator's trial. Civilians forced into a military trial (only needed a 60% to hang them that way)ordered by new President Sam Johnson whose Secretary of War said he wanted them tried and executed before Lincoln was buried. Headed up by a military friend of Lincoln. The accused were not allowed to speak on their own behalf. Over the six week long trial, every objection their attorneys raised was overruled. Every objection by the prosecution was sustained. President Johnson (himself a target of the assassination attempts} ignored a DC Supreme Court Judge's writ of habeus corpus(trying to get it moved to a civilian court), forcing him to withdraw it. The accused's attny's were allowed a farcical three days to prepare their case and interview hundreds of witnesses - And those were citizens of the USA - non combatants so to speak. But then again, Lincoln won the war and was a loved president. (at least in the victorious north) What constitution?