A verdict is close

[Peter1469]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080805132911.6fcwy4hg&show_article=1


A verdict was expected Tuesday in the war crimes trial of Osama bin Laden's former driver, in the first test of the controversial military tribunals created by President George W. Bush.

[-]

Let justice be served.


I didn't read up on it; what is this man being charged with?  Driving OBL around?

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

you just pull another thread from the cloth that is society.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

Let justice be served.


I didn't read up on it; what is this man being charged with?  Driving OBL around?

DWM -- Driving While Muslim

[Michael Aldrich]

Let justice be served.


I didn't read up on it; what is this man being charged with?  Driving OBL around?

DWM -- Driving While Muslim

You're an idiot.

[-]

you just pull another thread from the cloth that is society.

What?
Fine, I'll look it up myself if you're so snippy about it.  Thanks anyways, lettuce man.

[ChaosShard]

Osama Bin Laden's driver? Okay, I think they're reaching for someone to blame here. Though, if he was involved he should be tried.
It should just matter whether he's declared guilty or innocent.

He faces a possible sentence of life in prison if at least four of the six-member jury find him guilty. Even if found innocent, he might not be freed, since the US military reserves the right to indefinitely hold "enemy combatants."

That is just a mite worrisome.
At least they're finally starting the trials. This mess has stretched on far beyond what is reasonable. They should be tried, convicted or not, and imprisoned or executed or let go. I'm pretty sure the Constitution has rules about that. And yes, many of those men are not American citizens. There are still rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, which I always thought was synonymous with "enemy combatant", well, captured enemy combatant.

[Peter1469]

Why is it troublesome that if this guy is found not guilty of being a war criminal that he is not let go? 

Can you name a war where enemy prisoners were release outside of the context of a prisoner exchange?  According to the accepted rules of land warfare, enemy combatants can be held for the duration of the war.  If they have committed crimes prior to or in captivity that is a separate matter. 

[-]

Because it's bullshit.  Why hold somebody if they can't be found guilty of anything?  It doesn't matter what happened in the past.

Is it purely the motive of sending a message to those who would fuck with America?

[Peter1469]

So you advocate letting an enemy combatant go during a war?  This is a very strange position to take. 

[-]

I am not educated in war, so it's not surprising we would take different stances.

[Peter1469]

I am not educated in war, so it's not surprising we would take different stances.

During the US Civil War a prisoner, usually an officer, could be released on
“parole” – literally on his word that he would no longer take part in hostilities.  If captured after giving parole it was understood that you would be immediately executed if you broke your word. 

There was a story from one of the early battles- a Union captain was captured and release on parole- we was ridding back to D.C. when Union troops asked him where the enemy was.  He declined to provide an answer since to do so would break his word. 

Anyway the historical standard is that prisoners of war are held until the end of the conflict. 

[-]

Well that's better than holding them forever I guess.

[ChaosShard]

Keeping an enemy combatant is one thing.

But are we sure ALL of those men are enemy combatants? Without trials, and many of them aren't receiving trials, how can we be sure?

I just get the feeling all suspects have been bundled off someplace where our leaders don't have to think about them until it's convenient, or they die of old age, whichever.

Of course, the definition of "enemy combatant" does change in a war like this, because a terrorist is a different thing from an enemy soldier. They don't fight under the same rules. So I suppose the way we handle them should be different. I just say that we should be careful that we do not become as bad as those we fight. We should not stoop to the same tactics.

[gorknoids]

We should not take enemy combatants as prisoners.  We should kill them at every opportunity.  The people we need to be waterboarding are the bankrollers of the jihad.  We wasted a lot of money babysitting the ragheads at Guantanamo Bay, feeding them and making sure that they were absolutely pampered.  Most of them should have been beheaded on video and their carcasses fed to pigs, also on video.  Putting them up on a tropical paradise and giving them a higher standard of living than they would otherwise never have experienced is bullshit, and counter-productive to the war effort.
     They'll all be back in the shit-holes from which they came within 10 years, building bombs, speaking English, and dressing like humans instead of pushing up poppies like they should be.