PDA

View Full Version : Civilian court Vs military tribunal


peacepipe
01-11-2010, 07:49 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/gop-criticism-of-obama-on_n_419203.html

James Cullen, a retired brigadier general who served as a JAG officer, tells the Huffington Post that there are narrow differences between the legal and interrogation proceedings Abdulmutallab was subjected to and those which would have happened in a military commission.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the suspect would have been granted access to a lawyer if he had been put in a military system. In fact, he may have had easier access to an attorney.
"The military is not some type of Soviet show-trial kangaroo court," said Cullen. "Absolutely he would have gotten a lawyer."


But, the next question goes: isn't there a difference -- with regard to the civilian and military systems -- in the time that can elapse between when a suspect is captured and when he or she has to be granted legal representation? Not all that much, says Cullen. Abdulmutallab, for starters, was questioned for 30 hours before requesting a lawyer. Military personnel might have had more time. But not all that much.
More broadly, even in a civil system, authorities can question a suspect without reading them their Miranda rights for a limited amount of time as long as there is "no intention to try the person" and it is "purely for intelligence purposes." This is little different then in a military setting, where -- if the detaining authority wants to prosecute the detainee -- the impetus is on bringing legal counsel into the equation early on. "If you want to prosecute you can't foul up the process," explained Cullen

"The military is not some type of Soviet show-trial kangaroo court," said Cullen. "Absolutely he would have gotten a lawyer."

all that needed to be said.

Bronx33
01-11-2010, 08:38 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6957485/Detroit-bomber-singing-like-a-canary-before-arrest.html

peacepipe
01-11-2010, 09:21 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6957485/Detroit-bomber-singing-like-a-canary-before-arrest.html

You are going to have to do better than that. Now you are Going to the UK to get U.S.news.ROFL! He would've lawyered up regardless.

DBruleU
01-11-2010, 10:20 PM
You are going to have to do better than that. Now you are Going to the UK to get U.S.news.ROFL! He would've lawyered up regardless.

??

You can't get news from UK media? Some would argue they do a better job presenting the facts then our pathetic media.

peacepipe
01-12-2010, 06:07 AM
??

You can't get news from UK media? Some would argue they do a better job presenting the facts then our pathetic media.

What does this conservative propagandist article say of any facts as to how a military tribunal works,or what rights a prisoner gets? none There are several media outlets spewing the same garbage here in the US. None of which disputes the facts on military tribunals.

Garcia Bronco
01-12-2010, 07:40 AM
The rules of engagement in an MT are much more strict than a public court. Either way he should be executed for attacking my countrymen.

peacepipe
01-12-2010, 08:26 AM
The rules of engagement in an MT are much more strict than a public court. Either way he should be executed for attacking my countrymen.
Bullsh!t, he would've lawyered up in a military tribunal just like did in the civilian court. At the end of the day MTs have to follow the constitution as well.

Garcia Bronco
01-12-2010, 09:06 AM
Bull****, he would've lawyered up in a military tribunal just like did in the civilian court. At the end of the day MTs have to follow the constitution as well.

You seem to be hung up on the lawyer....yes he can get a lawyer either way or represent himself. The difference is the protocal in the actual ****ing court room. The MT is much more strict with what is allowed to be said and infered. The Judge is not like public court Judge.

peacepipe
01-12-2010, 09:25 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jan/07/military-tribunals-civilian-courts-terrorism


The Bush administration -- in which Liz Cheney's papa held a fairly high position, you might recall -- prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.
With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! -- to five and half years.

yavoon
01-12-2010, 10:06 AM
You are going to have to do better than that. Now you are Going to the UK to get U.S.news.ROFL! He would've lawyered up regardless.

your spamming huffpo links and you're crying about someone elses news source?

peacepipe
01-12-2010, 10:13 AM
fair enough but what I'm posting relates how MTs actually works, as opposed to the propaganda being pushed by the right. They push there opinion of MTs as if somehow Civilian courts were never used & it's outragous that a civilian court is trying the case. The facts don't support it.

Garcia Bronco
01-12-2010, 10:22 AM
fair enough but what I'm posting relates how MTs actually works, as opposed to the propaganda being pushed by the right. They push there opinion of MTs as if somehow Civilian courts were never used & it's outragous that a civilian court is trying the case. The facts don't support it.

I bet an MT would be cheaper on this one...just sayin


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/challenge_for_chuck_crew_ZW2txcna98Oj7kX9QEW5jM

peacepipe
01-12-2010, 10:44 AM
I bet an MT would be cheaper on this one...just sayin


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/challenge_for_chuck_crew_ZW2txcna98Oj7kX9QEW5jM

Considering what has been spent so far on the war on terror,it would be silly to worry about the cost of a trial now. just saying.

Garcia Bronco
01-12-2010, 11:10 AM
Considering what has been spent so far on the war on terror,it would be silly to worry about the cost of a trial now. just saying.

That's the dumbest thing you've ever posted and perfectly illustrates why you have no concept of economics. It's a billion dollars. I guess they could just print more


-