Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") remarks on the absurdity of trying Gitmo detainees in federal courts.
Money quote(s):
"There is lots of "information" in the world, but very little admissible evidence, a distinction essential to many politicians and to all courts. The difference is also at the heart of the argument over whether jihadis detained on the battlefield by soldiers ought to be treated as illegal combatants or as criminals. One needs evidence (as opposed to mere information) to detain the latter, but not the former."
&
"Soldiers are not trained, ordered, or even gently encouraged to gather evidence, and if they should happen to come into possession of some their own institution lacks the procedures to maintain a chain of custody suitable to admit that evidence in a United States criminal trial."
Showing posts with label war criminals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war criminals. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
re: "How about a “You can’t handle the truth!” Commission?"
Karl at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") evaluates the likelihood.
Money quote(s):
"Pres. Obama does not want a “truth commission” looking into the Bush Administration’s harsh interrogation of high-value enemy combatants. People may think his flip-flop on having the Justice Dept. look into the matter is a cave to hysterical, Sullivan-esque self-soilers, but that is only half-accurate. The point of fobbing this issue off on Holder & Co. is precisely to try to remove everyone else from the equation, including the media. This was a common tactic of the Clinton Administration: “Sorry, as you know, this matter is under investigation, so I am not at liberty to comment.”"
&
"(C)riminal charges against the lawyers who drafted the interrogation memos is exceedingly unlikely. The case for pursuing war crimes charges is only marginally better. The waterboarding that went on here is not the “water cure” administered by US soldiers in the Philippines, or the Asano war crimes case, both of which involved pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects, which is considerably more harsh and dangerous.
The Democrats know as much as anyone that this issue already polls badly with likely voters. Trying to pretend that the Bush Administration was like the Third Reich simply would not play with anyone less unhinged than the Andrew Sullivans of the world (who would likely end up disappointed with the outcome). If Congressional Democrats pursue this, it will most likely be with the expectation that the GOP would rise to prevent any sort of bipartisan effort, allowing the Dems to retreat, while blaming the GOP."
Money quote(s):
"Pres. Obama does not want a “truth commission” looking into the Bush Administration’s harsh interrogation of high-value enemy combatants. People may think his flip-flop on having the Justice Dept. look into the matter is a cave to hysterical, Sullivan-esque self-soilers, but that is only half-accurate. The point of fobbing this issue off on Holder & Co. is precisely to try to remove everyone else from the equation, including the media. This was a common tactic of the Clinton Administration: “Sorry, as you know, this matter is under investigation, so I am not at liberty to comment.”"
&
"(C)riminal charges against the lawyers who drafted the interrogation memos is exceedingly unlikely. The case for pursuing war crimes charges is only marginally better. The waterboarding that went on here is not the “water cure” administered by US soldiers in the Philippines, or the Asano war crimes case, both of which involved pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects, which is considerably more harsh and dangerous.
The Democrats know as much as anyone that this issue already polls badly with likely voters. Trying to pretend that the Bush Administration was like the Third Reich simply would not play with anyone less unhinged than the Andrew Sullivans of the world (who would likely end up disappointed with the outcome). If Congressional Democrats pursue this, it will most likely be with the expectation that the GOP would rise to prevent any sort of bipartisan effort, allowing the Dems to retreat, while blaming the GOP."
Friday, March 27, 2009
TO - Father of Miss Oregon investigated on suspicion of visa fraud
The Oregonian
Father of Miss Oregon investigated on suspicion of visa fraud
by Michelle Roberts, The Oregonian
Friday March 13, 2009, 5:30 AM
U.S. immigration officials are investigating the father of the reigning Miss Oregon on suspicion of visa fraud after an international war crimes tribunal reported that he had served in a military unit that slaughtered unarmed Muslims in Bosnia in 1995.
Read the whole article here.
Snippet(s):
"Federal prosecutors say that Serbian national Milenko Krstic, 52, father of Miss Oregon Danijela Krstic, 24, lied in 1998 when he was applying for refugee status, stating under oath that he had never served in the military.
Six years after Krstic settled in Beaverton in 1999 with his wife and two daughters, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported to U.S. immigration authorities that Krstic had, in fact, served in the Army of Republika Srpska.
Krstic's militia, also known as the Bosnian Serb Army, has been designated by the International Court of Justice in The Hague as having participated in war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian civil war in the early 1990s."
"A three-judge panel rejected Krstic's argument that he couldn't be prosecuted for possessing an authentic immigration document, or "green card," even though it had been obtained by means of a false statement."
&
"In 1998, three years after leaving the military, Krstic and his family emigrated to the United States. As part of a refugee application, he filled out an I-590 form, which requires, among other things, applicants to disclose foreign military service.
Krstic contends that "someone wrote 'not served' in English" on the form. Federal officials, however, say that Krstic denied having served in the military "during a sworn, personal interview administered in Belgrade."
Krstic and his family were granted refugee status and admitted to the United States. They settled in the Portland area.
In 1999, the family applied to become lawful permanent residents. As part of the application, Krstic filled out an I-485 form, which also asks applicants to report any prior foreign military service. Krstic again did not disclose his service. He was issued an alien registration receipt card, also called a green card.
In 2005, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported Krstic's military service to U.S. immigration authorities. Federal agents entered Krstic's home and interviewed him. He admitted to serving in the military but denied committing war crimes."
Father of Miss Oregon investigated on suspicion of visa fraud
by Michelle Roberts, The Oregonian
Friday March 13, 2009, 5:30 AM
U.S. immigration officials are investigating the father of the reigning Miss Oregon on suspicion of visa fraud after an international war crimes tribunal reported that he had served in a military unit that slaughtered unarmed Muslims in Bosnia in 1995.
Read the whole article here.
Snippet(s):
"Federal prosecutors say that Serbian national Milenko Krstic, 52, father of Miss Oregon Danijela Krstic, 24, lied in 1998 when he was applying for refugee status, stating under oath that he had never served in the military.
Six years after Krstic settled in Beaverton in 1999 with his wife and two daughters, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported to U.S. immigration authorities that Krstic had, in fact, served in the Army of Republika Srpska.
Krstic's militia, also known as the Bosnian Serb Army, has been designated by the International Court of Justice in The Hague as having participated in war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian civil war in the early 1990s."
"A three-judge panel rejected Krstic's argument that he couldn't be prosecuted for possessing an authentic immigration document, or "green card," even though it had been obtained by means of a false statement."
&
"In 1998, three years after leaving the military, Krstic and his family emigrated to the United States. As part of a refugee application, he filled out an I-590 form, which requires, among other things, applicants to disclose foreign military service.
Krstic contends that "someone wrote 'not served' in English" on the form. Federal officials, however, say that Krstic denied having served in the military "during a sworn, personal interview administered in Belgrade."
Krstic and his family were granted refugee status and admitted to the United States. They settled in the Portland area.
In 1999, the family applied to become lawful permanent residents. As part of the application, Krstic filled out an I-485 form, which also asks applicants to report any prior foreign military service. Krstic again did not disclose his service. He was issued an alien registration receipt card, also called a green card.
In 2005, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported Krstic's military service to U.S. immigration authorities. Federal agents entered Krstic's home and interviewed him. He admitted to serving in the military but denied committing war crimes."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
re: "War Crimes"
Olli at Olli In Munich ("a serial expat currently living in Munich") has some news relating to immigration fraud.
Money quote(s):
"Ivan Demjanjuk might soon be appearing in a courtroom in Munich charged with war crimes. Demjanjuk, originally from The Ukraine, was a Red Army soldier captured by the Germans in 1942 who then chose to ally himself with his captors. After the war Demjanjuk settled in Germany, but left in 1951 and moved to the US."
"His US citizenship, which he had lost some years before his extradition, was restored. The US Justice Department appealed against this on the grounds that Demjanjuk had indeed been a concentration camp guard, even if not the one believed by the Israeli prosecutors. The court agreed and removed his citizenship once more. Demjanjuk's final appeal against the decision was rejected by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal in 2004. As a stateless person Demjanjuk was liable to deportation if a country could be found willing to take him. However, neither Ukraine not Poland - where his alleged crimes were perpetrated were willing either to take or to put him on trial."
&
"(I)f Demjanjuk were acquitted I would assume that since he would have been deported rather than extradited and since he is no longer a US citizen the Germans would be stuck with him, either having to look after him until he dies or find another country willing to take him - which seems unlikely."
Money quote(s):
"Ivan Demjanjuk might soon be appearing in a courtroom in Munich charged with war crimes. Demjanjuk, originally from The Ukraine, was a Red Army soldier captured by the Germans in 1942 who then chose to ally himself with his captors. After the war Demjanjuk settled in Germany, but left in 1951 and moved to the US."
"His US citizenship, which he had lost some years before his extradition, was restored. The US Justice Department appealed against this on the grounds that Demjanjuk had indeed been a concentration camp guard, even if not the one believed by the Israeli prosecutors. The court agreed and removed his citizenship once more. Demjanjuk's final appeal against the decision was rejected by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal in 2004. As a stateless person Demjanjuk was liable to deportation if a country could be found willing to take him. However, neither Ukraine not Poland - where his alleged crimes were perpetrated were willing either to take or to put him on trial."
&
"(I)f Demjanjuk were acquitted I would assume that since he would have been deported rather than extradited and since he is no longer a US citizen the Germans would be stuck with him, either having to look after him until he dies or find another country willing to take him - which seems unlikely."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
re: "Guantanamo"
David Warren of DavidWarrenOnline ("ESSAYS ON OUR TIMES ") explains why we intern terrorists.
Money quote(s):
"(I)n principle, some inmates may have been captured by mistake, and in practice military tribunals were proceeding, in which guilt had yet to be formally established. Such trials have been suspended for 120 days"
"Guantanamo was selected, by the Bush administration, to intern terrorists, because no better solution could be found. The military commissions were created, ditto. Under actual international and American law, the inmates have no certain rights whatever: they were not proper soldiers, and therefore not legitimate prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. They may thank their stars they were not shot upon capture."
There's still time. After all, they're still war criminals.
"As people understood, in the shadow of the World Trade Center, and as they still understand in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are dealing with monstrous enemies -- with people who not only kill our allied soldiers, but kill defenceless non-combatants gratuitously; who employ terror, to impose tyranny. The insistence on fine points of juridical etiquette in the heat of battle would be insane. But insisting on it later in the calm of a prison camp betrays only a failure of perspective.
It is right of the law to prohibit torture. It is right in almost every circumstance to obey the law (and accept the consequences in any other). There will, however, always be tight corners where "the law is a ass," and to pretend this were never the case is to assume a disingenuous posture. Moreover, as when Guantanamo opened, there are circumstances in which no existing law has been written or can be applied, and yet the principle of retribution remains: that the innocent will be vindicated, that the guilty will be punished."
&
"To set any of the Guantanamo inmates free, on some jurisprudential technicality, is to smear one's hands with the blood of their victims when they return to their trade. This is not a hypothetical proposition: for while the numbers are disputed, a proportion of "low risk" inmates already freed from Guantanamo have returned to action."
That proportion is already known to be at least ten percent. Which would be a pretty darn low "recidivism" rate for ordinary criminals but is unacceptable for terrorists bent on mass murder.
Money quote(s):
"(I)n principle, some inmates may have been captured by mistake, and in practice military tribunals were proceeding, in which guilt had yet to be formally established. Such trials have been suspended for 120 days"
"Guantanamo was selected, by the Bush administration, to intern terrorists, because no better solution could be found. The military commissions were created, ditto. Under actual international and American law, the inmates have no certain rights whatever: they were not proper soldiers, and therefore not legitimate prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. They may thank their stars they were not shot upon capture."
There's still time. After all, they're still war criminals.
"As people understood, in the shadow of the World Trade Center, and as they still understand in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are dealing with monstrous enemies -- with people who not only kill our allied soldiers, but kill defenceless non-combatants gratuitously; who employ terror, to impose tyranny. The insistence on fine points of juridical etiquette in the heat of battle would be insane. But insisting on it later in the calm of a prison camp betrays only a failure of perspective.
It is right of the law to prohibit torture. It is right in almost every circumstance to obey the law (and accept the consequences in any other). There will, however, always be tight corners where "the law is a ass," and to pretend this were never the case is to assume a disingenuous posture. Moreover, as when Guantanamo opened, there are circumstances in which no existing law has been written or can be applied, and yet the principle of retribution remains: that the innocent will be vindicated, that the guilty will be punished."
&
"To set any of the Guantanamo inmates free, on some jurisprudential technicality, is to smear one's hands with the blood of their victims when they return to their trade. This is not a hypothetical proposition: for while the numbers are disputed, a proportion of "low risk" inmates already freed from Guantanamo have returned to action."
That proportion is already known to be at least ten percent. Which would be a pretty darn low "recidivism" rate for ordinary criminals but is unacceptable for terrorists bent on mass murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
