Comments on: Potential new obstacle to Hamdan trial

By: Tom Shardlow

Tom Shardlow — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:19:08 +0000

The Judge did not rule that the constitution requires a hearing in this case, he ruled that Congress required a hearing when it enacted the Geneva Convention by treaty. What Congress can do, it can undo. But it hasn’t, and for good reason. No Congress is going to deny a person the ability before a duly constituted court to claim that he/she should be treated as a prisoner of war, because if it did then our enemies would take the same position with out soldiers. How would the U.S. feel if one of its soldiers, in or out of uniform, was put on trial for murder because it shot an enemy in the course of a war? (and do you think that our soldiers always wear uniforms when they do surveillance on the ground in Syria/Iran/North Korea/etc.?) Our soldiers need to have due process rights to defend their actions as being legitimate wartime conduct, which requires that we give our enemies the same procedural rights. We did not execute German soldiers for murder (summarily or otherwise) because they killed American soldiers, and some of the people in Guantanamo seem to bein the same position. Many are not(in fact, the vast majority of them are probably simple criminals, not soldiers), but that is why we have hearings, to decide such issues.

By: James Meguerian

James Meguerian — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:31:37 +0000

good argument to be made that his principles might be similar to our Vice President’s

By: Kenneth Kraszewski

Kenneth Kraszewski — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:06:29 +0000

I’m sure you’re aware that Robespierre led the Reign of Terror. From this period came the French word ‘le terroriste’, as applied to Robespierre and like-minded Jacobins. In English, it became the word “terrorist.”

By: Jacques MacKenzie

Jacques MacKenzie — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:56 +0000

No, Robespierre did not think that. Robespierre had principles, unlike this judge.

By: Roberta Armstrong

Roberta Armstrong — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:32:31 +0000

Seriously? Quoting Robespierre? The author of the Terror in defense of (dubious) tactics to suppress terror? What’s next- John Locke on why liberties must be curtailed?

By: Harry Gower

Harry Gower — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:46:14 +0000

I agree with the first poster, Mr. Oh-Willeke.

The U.S. had a golden opportunity to show the world just how different we were from our enemies, by trying those enemies in the light of day and according to our constitutional principles. It would have been over long ago.

But Bush and Cheney, et al. do not really believe in our Constitution and our justice system, because they don’t trust them to deliver the “correct” results. So they tossed everyone in a hole, with secret tribunals. Just like the good ol’ U.S.S.R.

Due process is easy to support when things are going smoothly. At a time when America needed to stand tall and stick to our guns, show the world what we’re really made of, we caved. It’s just a damn shame.

By: David Graham

David Graham — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:01:53 +0000

Read the opinion. The holding is merely that Hamdan is entitled to a hearing whether he is to be classified as an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Since Hamdan was apparently never enlisted in the armed forces of any sovereign state, that determination seems almost certain. Those who have already determined that Hamdan is a “bad guy” will almost certainly be vindicated anyway. Those who dispute the president’s untrammeled discretion to determine who is a “bad guy” by executive fiat will have established a precedent (all assuming that the U.S. Court of Military Commision Review does not reverse “Judge” Allred’s ruling). Hamdan still will be subject to the full rigors of ex post facto law, applied with no territorial jurisdictional limitations. The ironic thing is that Hamdan will almost certainly be convicted and punished in pursuit of the “war on terror” only with a fig leaf of due process to garnish the package. The kangaroo court is still in session.

By: James Meguerian

James Meguerian — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:15:10 +0000

I wonder if Robespierre thought of retracting that statement as he stood on the steps of the guillotine?

By: Stephen Jaros

Stephen Jaros — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:58:46 +0000

IMO the bottom line is that various judges and courts keep making rulings on this and rulings on that, but guys like hamdan remain exactly where Bush wants them.

That’s likely to continue, and it’s probably not a bad thing:

How can an enemy invoke the constitution?
His goal is to annihilate it …
In a state of war, courts and legal proceedings
are only for members of the same side, not the enemy.

- Robespierre

By: James Meguerian

James Meguerian — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:52:00 +0000

Why are some Americans so distressed at the prospect that our fundamental law, our Constitution, and our criminal law should be applied to those who we consider to be criminal combatants. I offer this for consideration: Hamdan, even if he is who the government says he is, may be only incrementally worse than John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer? Why bother having a Constitution if we do not trust it?

By: Jacques MacKenzie

Jacques MacKenzie — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:22:58 +0000

This judge sounds like an ass.

By: Andrew Oh-Willeke

Andrew Oh-Willeke — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:38:06 +0000

It is appropriate at this point to note that a civil habeas corpus proceeding with a hearing on the factual merits, followed by a criminal jury trial or full blown court martial of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, would be long over by now. It takes more time and more money to avoid due process than it does to follow it, and the ultimate result’s validity is less certain when one tries to cut corners. And, this is all putting aside the diplomatic, domestic political and military costs of the current system.