Support NeoGAF

Roi · Jun 6, 2009

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.

The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention.

The proposal would ease what has come to be recognized as the governments difficult task of prosecuting men who have confessed to terrorism but whose cases present challenges. Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret C.I.A. prisons. In any proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment.

Some experts on the commissions said such a proposal would raise new questions about the fairness of a system that has been criticized as permitting shortcuts to assure convictions.

David Glazier, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who has written about the commission system, said: This unfortunately strikes me as an effort to get rid of the problem in the easiest way possible, which is to have those people plead guilty and presumably be executed. But I think its going to lack international credibility.

The draft legislation includes other changes administration officials disclosed last month when President Obama said he would continue the controversial military commission system with changes that would increase detainees rights. It is not known whether the White House has approved the proposed death penalty provision. A White House spokesman declined to comment.
.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/us/politics/06gitmo.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

I can't believe this... Do you still dare to call your country a democracy if this will be accepted?

Instigator · Jun 6, 2009

He wasn't kidding.

mAcOdIn · Jun 6, 2009

I don't know if I'd have ever called us a democracy.

Personally, I don't see much difference between indefinite detention without a trial and execution without a trial.

Anyways democracies can be evil democracies you know? I think it's a bad idea, I think if Obama goes through with either this or making a legal framework to legally hold people indefinitely without a trial, if he does that I will say he's the worst President ever.

Ignis Fatuus · Jun 6, 2009

Roi said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/us/politics/06gitmo.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

I can't believe this... Do you still dare to call your country a democracy if this will be accepted?

I think you misunderstand what "pleading guilty" means, sir.

Defendants can do it here in the US and avoid a full trial.

ElectricBlue187 · Jun 6, 2009

Why can't we have a POW camp like every other fucking war that's ever been fought goddamnit

mAcOdIn · Jun 6, 2009

I.F. said:
I think you misunderstand what "pleading guilty" means, sir.

I think the point is, how can you be sure a guilty "plea" is a legitimate one when done in secrecy and may have been provided under torture.

ElectricBlue187 said:
Why can't we have a POW camp like every other fucking war that's ever been fought goddamnit

Because the "war on terror" has the ability to never end. There were Islamic terrorists airline hijackings and bombings in the '70's, had we started a war on all "terror" then we could have potentially had people who we thought were guilty in prisons already for over 50 years with no trial.

Kinitari · Jun 6, 2009

Well - it says if they plead guilty. But even then, if they pleaded guilty under duress, that's not cool. In general, I don't think it'll pass - because it is dumb.

Ignis Fatuus · Jun 6, 2009

mAcOdIn said:
I think the point is, how can you be sure a guilty "plea" is legitimate one when done in secrecy and may have been provided under torture.

There is a separate issue of transparency (which I wholeheartedly agree with), but I'm assuming here that the detainee would have to appear in person to enter the plea - you can't just write "guilty" on a slip. The thread title therefore is a hysterical overreaction.

I see nothing sinister in allowing people to enter in a plea of their choice. The issue here is transparency in the proceedings, which is not new.

empty vessel · Jun 6, 2009

Government-assisted suicide. Conservatives should be outraged.

ElectricBlue187 said:
Why can't we have a POW camp like every other fucking war that's ever been fought goddamnit

The problem is we're not really at "war." It's a glorified international law-enforcement campaign.

JimmyV · Jun 6, 2009

If they openly admit to the 9/11 attacks, do they even deserve a trial? I realize its under the conditions of torture, but it doesnt change the fact that if they did it they do not deserve a trial. Its like giving Hitler a "fair" trial. Come on now. Even if he denied the stuff he did we should just have had executed him without the trial. Lucky for him he took the easy way out.

Kreed · Jun 6, 2009

What was the point of using "Germany/Australia/Florida" in the title?

smurfx · Jun 6, 2009

jimmbow said:
If they openly admit to the 9/11 attacks, do they even deserve a trial? I realize its under the conditions of torture, but it doesnt change the fact that if they did it they do not deserve a trial. Its like giving Hitler a "fair" trial. Come on now. Even if he denied the stuff he did we should just have had executed him without the trial. Lucky for him he took the easy way out.

yes they do without question. if not then what the hell do we have all of our rules and laws?

Kipz · Jun 6, 2009

Kreed said:
What was the point of using "Germany/Australia/Florida" in the title?

Should have been Guantánamo Bay/Australia/Florida

mAcOdIn · Jun 6, 2009

Lets not pretend this is all about 9/11.

Gitmo is a clusterfuck. We've got Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and probably people who just wanted the US off their soil. Some we captured and some were captured and given to us.

Guybrush Threepwood · Jun 6, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

JimmyV · Jun 6, 2009

smurfx said:
yes they do without question. if not then what the hell do we have all of our rules and laws?

or i guess what I meant was....will it even be fair? if they admit to it, I cant see anyone on any jury going with "not guilty". Its kind of like that Drew Peterson case coming up in Il., that guy really isnt gonna get a "fair" trail.

Edit: I did guess Germany tho

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Jun 6, 2009

Everyone deserves a trial. Everyone. Whether it be Saddam Hussein or some bum on the street. It doesn't matter if they admit to crime.

ZAK · Jun 6, 2009

I don't understand? Why does it matter if the case against them is difficult if they plead guilty anyway?

DieNgamers · Jun 6, 2009

jimmbow said:
Edit: I did guess Germany tho

We don't even have death penalty around here...

Support NeoGAF

"Let's execute suspects without trial!" Germany/Austria/Florida??

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Black Canada Mafia

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

get some go again

massive bear, tiny salmon

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Similar threads