|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 28, 2009 10:12:44 GMT -5
Right, because trying these people would be so easy. Lets see. First there's the evidence. Of course the evidence is half the world away and is in fact, not a crime scene, but a battle ground. So besides the difficulty of sending Gil Grissom to Afghanistan or Iraq to do his CSI thing, there's also the fact that it's overlaid with a lot of other things that would indicate - well, you know, the standard things, bullets, gunpowder residue, craters left behind by hand grenades. Witness testimony? I doubt we'll get any jihadi's to testify against their fellows, so it'd fall to the soldiers to testify against them. Of course, that the soldiers are half a world away engaged in an armed conflict.... I don't know, might be hard to subpeona them. I don't have time at the moment to respond to the rest of your post (and I suspect everyone else is getting bored with our little exercise in sophistry) so I'll just respond to this part. I think you are overestimating how difficult it would be to convict these guys, especially in an American court. There is currently a man serving life in prison with no chance of parole for lending his car to a friend who subsequently committed murder. He wasn't even there, but he is spending the rest of his life behind bars. To take, for example, Omar Khadr, they don't have to prove that he himself threw the grenade that killed the American medic, they merely have to prove that he was working with whoever did, be it Khadr or an associate. And they found Khadr in a remote enemy fortress from which gunfire and explosives were fired, the gunfire and explosives that killed the medic, he was carrying a bunch of enemy weapons, he is an admitted Al Quada sympathiser if not actual member, and they have video of him training to fight and plant mines. What possible defense could he come up with that wouldn't at the very least make him guilty of participating in a murder? "I just happened to be here delivering pizza?" If you are engaging in a criminal activity and a murder is committed then you are guilty of murder, whether you pulled the trigger or not. It wouldn't be difficult to convict these guys. Maybe, maybe not. In Khadr case, the sharks would turn to "child soldier" defense. At the very least, it would turn into a circus, at the very worse, he would go free and the majority of people would believe that justice is not working. Witness how many people feel about the Simpson case. Then there are the endless costs to the public. I think that the solution lays in a military type court. It will serve our conscious about serving justice and it will speed up the prosecution of what is basically, foreigners with an agenda. As for the sophistry comment, what can I say, we are GOOD at it. On the other hand, this is a hockey board and there is just so many times we can chew on Breeze's a$$ before our teeth get bored. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 28, 2009 10:18:23 GMT -5
Bush biggest problem is that he did not foresee consequences of his actions. While some of the center and everyone on the left saw this as actions and reactions of a "stupid man", I see it as someone who is not conniving enough to run the most powerful nation on earth. Instead of bobbing and weaving to get things done his way, he stepped into right hooks. Carter would probably fall into the same traps and no one called him stupid. Or the answer could be the simple one, that Dubbya really is just a silly, foolish man who hasn't yet grown up and wanted to be something in which he has absolutely no skills to succeed. Kinda like really, really stupid. But full of ambition. I know other guys like that and unless they have rich parents, they usually top out at collecting EI. You really think that I'm going to fall for a debate about how "not bad" he was? Seriously? LOL! To begin with, I don't like Bush BUT on the other hand, so many anti-Bush comments are nothing more then uninformed bashing. My favorite is how he "destroyed the economy" when every Western and many non Western countries are in the same boat. I guess it takes a lot more work to actually understand what happened then blurting "Bush did it". |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 28, 2009 12:25:07 GMT -5
I think you are overestimating how difficult it would be to convict these guys, especially in an American court. There is currently a man serving life in prison with no chance of parole for lending his car to a friend who subsequently committed murder. He wasn't even there, but he is spending the rest of his life behind bars. To take, for example, Omar Khadr, they don't have to prove that he himself threw the grenade that killed the American medic, they merely have to prove that he was working with whoever did, be it Khadr or an associate. And they found Khadr in a remote enemy fortress from which gunfire and explosives were fired, the gunfire and explosives that killed the medic, he was carrying a bunch of enemy weapons, he is an admitted Al Quada sympathiser if not actual member, and they have video of him training to fight and plant mines. What possible defense could he come up with that wouldn't at the very least make him guilty of participating in a murder? "I just happened to be here delivering pizza?" If you are engaging in a criminal activity and a murder is committed then you are guilty of murder, whether you pulled the trigger or not. It wouldn't be difficult to convict these guys. Well, you bring up an interesting situation - and another problem that would have to be hurdled before you could try any of these people in the U.S. You're example is the interesting case of Mr. Holle, a Florida man who got drunk and loaned his car to friends who then proceeded to attempt to steal some weed, killing a young girl (by stoving in her skull) in the process. Mr. Holle was charged under Florida's "felony murder" rules, as he admited (in his statement to police) that he had been told by his friends who were asking for a loan of the car that they had intended to commit robbery, and in fact, that it might be necessary to "knock out" Jessica Snyder (the young woman who was killed). So it's not quite the same as loan your car, go to jail. He had foreknowledge of what the car was going to be used for (although he claimed at trail that he believed they were joking - take that for what it's worth). The other issue to be raised of course, is you'll notice I said Florida's "felony murder" laws. I said that for a reason. Because Florida has a different set o laws from other states. What state, exactly, has jurisdiction on non-American nationals who did not commit their crimes on U.S. soil? But back to the topic at hand, it's all well and good to think that each and every one of these people would be thrown into the (already severely overstressed) American Prison System, but there are several key legal tenets which would not, could not be ignored. First off, they have a right to a speedy trial. Now, we've kinda missed the boat on that one, but let's imagine - for a second - if we had just skipped Gitmo and went right with your plan. You "arrest" five or six insurgents and technically, you're supposed to have them arraigned within 24-48 hours (depending on the state I believe). That's tough to do. But lets say we make an exception because of the distance and effort that will go into moving them back to the U.S. It's not too bad. It's one exception. But they're going to start piling up. Next comes legal representation. Easy right? Nope. Because it's supposed to be competant legal aid. And really, how many legal aid lawyers have experience dealing with crimes committed on the field of battle in Afghanistan or Iraq? How many law schools cover that? How many bar exams ask questions about that? The answer is pretty close to zero. But just a competant trial lawyer should be able to do something right? Another exception. Keep rolling. Lets see, lets try the right to confront the accuser. The soldier. In Afghanistan or Iraq. Yeah - not happening. Another exception. Keep rolling. How about other basic rights. You know Jihad Johnny could just say I was in my home. Did the soldiers have a warrant? No. Ugh. Hot pursuit? Well, maybe sometimes - but not always. Double ugh. Alright, pile more exceptions. See how this is going? Miranda rights? Not on the field of battle. Right to an unbiased jury? Oh... you're a arabic-looking fellow who was shooting at an American soldier - guilty. Eventually judges, who are sworn to uphold the law, are going to throw these things out. Because there's no way in hell a competant trial judge would risk his career by letting all these things slide. Aside from the impracticality BC, aside from the cost - it's just not going to work. It can't work, because the civil legal system is not designed to deal with the realities of combat. So again I ask - find me a better solution! |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 28, 2009 13:30:09 GMT -5
If Obama doesn't come out against this "stimulus" package, 90% of which is absolutely useless and NONE of which will create a single job before 2011, I'll wouldn't go so far as to declare his presidency an abrupt failure, but seriously question what use he's going to be for the next 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 28, 2009 17:08:37 GMT -5
I have yet to see any argument for throwing out the US Constitution other than “its too hard and expensive.”
Personally I think those are weak excuses for ignoring the law, but that’s just me.
Right. So if you know that your actions or the actions of the people you are with might result in a crime and/or murder being committed then you are guilty. Applies pretty much to anybody holed up in an Al Qaeda stronghold firing weapons at a US soldier, no? “Oh, I had no idea those bullets would actually kill!” Also applies to anybody who supplies weapons, ammunition, or shelter. Aiding and abetting, and all that.
If anything this strengthens my argument. It wouldn’t be that hard to convict these guys.
The federal court of course. Countries routinely extradite people accused of murdering their nationals. In fact courts won’t even look at how the accused ended up before them, in case you were thinking of arguing that their arrest/kidnapping in a foreign country was illegal.
I recommend “International Law” by John O’Brien if you want some heavy reading. Answers and refutes many of your questions.
Doesn’t apply in extradition or deportation cases. Suspects can and are arraigned on arrival at the country doing the prosecution.
You’re not seriously going to argue that we don’t have enough lawyers, are you? There is a whole body of law that deals with international legal issues like these (see the above book) and there would be no shortage of high profile lawyers lining up for the chance to work high profile cases like this. Most, if not all, pro bono.
The accuser is the United States government, as it is in any murder case, or crime against the state like espionage or sedition. You can’t confront somebody who is dead, right? If this were the case no murderer would ever go to jail.
They could argue that if they wanted. They wouldn’t win, of course, but they could argue it. Cops routinely go into houses where crimes are being committed; if somebody starts shooting at passing cars from their bedroom window nobody is going to go running for a warrant before barging into the house. If there is no gunfire and they were going into the house for the express purpose of arresting Jihad Johnny then I would have to assume that they were doing so for a reason, that they had some evidence against him. I would hate to think that they were just arresting him because he looked like a terrorist. So any reason they have would most likely be more than enough to get a warrant. Often “I saw him doing…” is enough for a warrant.
Okay, so now we’re not going to try them because we can’t find an unbiased jury?? Seriously? “We’ll just lock you up indefinitely without trial because if we send you to trial you’ll be convicted and locked up indefinitely?” Should we release Omar Abdel-Rahman?
I have yet to see anything that is not, or could not be, in accordance with international law, or even American law. Heck, the entire court set up in the Hague deals with these exact issues. The legality of it all is sound.
It can work, and has worked in the past. Take Manuel Noriega. Or Adolph Eichmann. It continues to work in hundreds of court rooms around the world where people have been extradited to face charges. You’re still arguing that it’s too hard, that it costs too much. I don’t buy it. Guantanamo was set up as a short-cut, as a way to avoid all those messy things like laws, and due process and justice. Because it IS hard. It’s so much easier just to throw them in prison, beat them a little bit, and hide behind the “national security costs too much” excuse.
And I don’t think that’s right. The mechanisms to do what is right are there. Use them. Try, convict, lock away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 28, 2009 17:43:34 GMT -5
If Obama doesn't come out against this "stimulus" package, 90% of which is absolutely useless and NONE of which will create a single job before 2011, I'll wouldn't go so far as to declare his presidency an abrupt failure, but seriously question what use he's going to be for the next 4 years. Eh tu Brutus? I was reading that they expect the unemplyoment to be the same by 2014 REGARDLESS if they spend 3 trillion dollars in the next four years. This is not from some "right wing" think tank but from Obamanation OWN TEAM! The difference is MAYBE a few million unemplyed in between. Now a few million sounds like a lot but in reality, it not much our of 180 million employed. It couldn't be because he has an agenda could it? Or use the economic problems to ram through a slew of entitlements? Nah.....  Do you hear any of this getting questioned in the media? Not a peep...nothing that will take the DayGlow paint off the Messiah. Anywho....the day of economic reckoning is coming..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 28, 2009 17:44:43 GMT -5
And I don’t think that’s right. The mechanisms to do what is right are there. Use them. Try, convict, lock away. You forgot "execute". |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 28, 2009 20:10:08 GMT -5
Ahhhh but he could argue Duress .... "What was I suppose to do your honor, say no, and have them kill me?" OR .... "I was there against my will, I was their prisoner, I am Canadian, an infidel in their eyes, I carried those weapons so they wouldn't kill me ...." It wouldn't be difficult to shoe reasonable doubt either .... Maybe so, but if he was thought of as an infidel he'd have been killed or imprisoned. Not given access to weapons. Why is that? Is there proof they were loaded? What better way to have him killed then "his" side do it for them ....oh look there is a Muslim looking guy carrying weapons ... bang ... Do we now think it is beyond Al Quaida to laugh at us imprisoninf "one of our own" ... I am not saying these are true or even possible, but they are "reasonable" (since I can even make them up, and I dont even play a lawyer on TV) .... trying any of them is a one way street to letting them go, cause there is no way you can prove anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 28, 2009 20:24:14 GMT -5
Doesn’t apply in extradition or deportation cases. Suspects can and are arraigned on arrival at the country doing the prosecution. I direct you to read up on the Shirley Turner case here in Newfoundland. The fact is, that Canada pretty much refuses to allow the US to extradite any Canadian citizen that is being tried in a capital offense where the state/federal government are seeking the death penalty .... because the death penalty is against OUR constitution. The extradition of Shirley Turner took almost 2 years!!! She committed suicide before it even occurred. Extradition is not as cut and dry or easy as you say .... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 28, 2009 20:34:21 GMT -5
Right. So if you know that your actions or the actions of the people you are with might result in a crime and/or murder being committed then you are guilty. Applies pretty much to anybody holed up in an Al Qaeda stronghold firing weapons at a US soldier, no? “Oh, I had no idea those bullets would actually kill!” Also applies to anybody who supplies weapons, ammunition, or shelter. Aiding and abetting, and all that. In a gun fight on a field of battle ... how do you prove who fired what bullets? As I said before, Khadr could argue that he was being held against his will .... also, and I am not trying to be funny, ignorant or prejudice here, but everyone on a battlefield looks alike. Them in their white robes, us in our green fatigues ... you try selecting the accused out of a lineup .. So let's say GI Joe says I saw Johnny Jihad doing such and such, and was lying? You ok with him lying to get into that house? GI Joe can not say he "saw" , GI Joe has to have "reasonable grounds". Mr. Bush said he saw oodles of WMDs on the covert satellites being moved, are you saying he had reasonable grounds to invade Iraq? Remember they found none ... Actually it's the opposite ... "We aren't going to try you, because under our Constitution you have a right to a fair trial of your peers, and if we try you , on appeal you will be set free on a technicality ... " |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 28, 2009 22:18:54 GMT -5
The prisoners at Gitmo do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, as they do not meet any of the qualifying conditions listed under GC III Article IV. Actually they do ... which is why I say the US are justified in keeping them locked up. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
Al Quaida is a resistence movement and has a clear leader ... and you'll notice that at every turn the Geneva Convention says that the other army must respect the rules of War to be a prisoner of war .... ... so "technically" I guess they are not prisoners of war since they don't respect the rules of war. You know we must have law and order .... so NO WHERE in the Geneva Convention does it say we can't kill them on site because they are not respecting the rules of war. But some would prefer we risk OUR soldiers and have them play fair ... I think not. I want OUR boys to do what they can to survive over there, and ask questions later. The more we lock up, the less on the field. Haven't read the rest of the thread as yet, but I work with guys who will carefully point out that Afghanistan is not a war. Therefore, things like the Geneva Convention don't apply. Is this the wrong approach? Depends on what your point of view is I guess. Convenient? You bet. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 28, 2009 22:58:30 GMT -5
It wouldn't be difficult to convict these guys. BC, I've noticed a pattern in the thread. There's many references to soldiers and civilians. Just to clarify, sometimes soldiers are referred to as combattants; however, a lot of times not all combattants are soldiers. A lot of times they're civilians. Just a quick example. There have been countless civilians caught up in firefights who only want to get to a safe area. It depends on the rules of engagement, but if they pick up a weapon even if only to defend themselves, they become combattants. And it doesn't necessarily just pertain to firearms. Weapons can be homemade devices, or even handgrenades. But it's important to remember that once they're combattants then anything goes. Having said that, if these guys can be proven to be combattants, then convicting them shouldn't be a problem at all. However, it's difficult when politicians are involved. More often than not, I find it's more about politicians trying to be heard, rather than an honest attempt at trying to uphold our values as a society. You're right, though, militaries are subservient to civilian laws moreso, it seems, when they are at war. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 29, 2009 8:04:30 GMT -5
Haven't read the rest of the thread as yet, but I work with guys who will carefully point out that Afghanistan is not a war. Therefore, things like the Geneva Convention don't apply. Is this the wrong approach? Depends on what your point of view is I guess. Convenient? You bet. Cheers. According to the Geneva Convention the guys you work with would be right in saying it isn't a war .... the Geneva Convention clearly states that in a war, both sides follow the laws and customs of war for the Geneva Convention to apply. What is happening in Afghanistan isn't defined anywhere ..... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 29, 2009 8:43:14 GMT -5
In a gun fight on a field of battle ... how do you prove who fired what bullets? As I said before, Khadr could argue that he was being held against his will .... also, and I am not trying to be funny, ignorant or prejudice here, but everyone on a battlefield looks alike. Them in their white robes, us in our green fatigues ... you try selecting the accused out of a lineup .. That's the point though, you don't have to prove who fired the bullets. You need to only prove that you were with, working with, or knew about the plan to fire the bullets. That you were an accomplice to the crime. Again, that Florida guy wasn't even there when his buddies murdered that woman, he merely lent them his car. As the prosecutor said "no car, no murder." If you are committing a bank robbery, and your buddy shoots the teller, you will be charged with murder. At law, an accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties.www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Accomplice Khadr could argue that he was being held against his will, but how did he get to Afghanistan? Why is he in those Al Quaeda training videos? Why was he found in a remote Taliban hideout, surrounded by weapons and dead Talibani? Sure, he could argue it, but beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so... So let's say GI Joe says I saw Johnny Jihad doing such and such, and was lying? You ok with him lying to get into that house? GI Joe can not say he "saw" , GI Joe has to have "reasonable grounds". Mr. Bush said he saw oodles of WMDs on the covert satellites being moved, are you saying he had reasonable grounds to invade Iraq? Remember they found none ... We were talking about getting a warrant, not about convicting. To get a warrant, yes a judge need only hear GI Joe say he saw Johnny Jihad doing such and such. If GI Joe has a history of lying, and everybody knows this including the judge, the judge may decide GI Joe is not reliable and refuse the warrant. Otherwise though, if GI Joe is deemed to be reliable enough, then the judge will decide there is probable cause, and issue the warrant. And for there to be "probable cause" the judge need only decide that there is a "fair probability of criminal activity". Again, we're not talking about convicting, merely about getting a warrant. And actually, in most of these cases you wouldn't even need a warrant. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article14788.htmlI think this pretty much covers any battlefield scenario. Actually it's the opposite ... "We aren't going to try you, because under our Constitution you have a right to a fair trial of your peers, and if we try you , on appeal you will be set free on a technicality ... " Which technicality? Is the original World Trade Center bomber free? I still haven't seen any real challenge that would stand up in court. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 29, 2009 10:20:25 GMT -5
Khadr could argue that he was being held against his will, but how did he get to Afghanistan? Why is he in those Al Quaeda training videos? Why was he found in a remote Taliban hideout, surrounded by weapons and dead Talibani? Sure, he could argue it, but beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so... So Khadr isn't allowed to take a trip to his "homeland", the land of his ancestors? Is HA not allowed to visit Greece then? As I said, any and all excuses (viable, surreal, or not) would be attempted in court. You don't have to sway 12 people, you need only sway ONE person. All I need to ask myself is this, if I was held against my will, if I was taken into custody, or met up with some friends I wasn't aware at first were in the Taliban ... and we went out and they told me who they were ... and I decided "whoa, maybe I shouldnt be here" ...and then they held a gun at me and said "maybe you arent what we thought you were, you either join or we kill you" ... well I think I listen and do as I am told, hoping to one day find a way out of it ... so, you'd choose death? Is it possible? Probable? I don't know ... but it is a point that could be argued in court, AND a point that could sway ONE person ... Well, if you are not tried by a jury of your peers, it is deemed an unfair trial and would be declared a mistrial or at the very worst thrown out ... thats a technicality |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 29, 2009 10:40:33 GMT -5
So Khadr isn't allowed to take a trip to his "homeland", the land of his ancestors? Is HA not allowed to visit Greece then? As I said, any and all excuses (viable, surreal, or not) would be attempted in court. You don't have to sway 12 people, you need only sway ONE person. All I need to ask myself is this, if I was held against my will, if I was taken into custody, or met up with some friends I wasn't aware at first were in the Taliban ... and we went out and they told me who they were ... and I decided "whoa, maybe I shouldnt be here" ...and then they held a gun at me and said "maybe you arent what we thought you were, you either join or we kill you" ... well I think I listen and do as I am told, hoping to one day find a way out of it ... so, you'd choose death? Is it possible? Probable? I don't know ... but it is a point that could be argued in court, AND a point that could sway ONE person ... Is that enough for reasonable doubt? Possibly, but I would doubt it. But even if it was, and it did sway ONE juror, then all you have is a hung jury. Not an aquittal. Khadr stays in jail and goes back to trial with another jury. Anf IF he is acquitted, then so be it. That's the system. That's the law. Its not perfect, and it does make mistakes, but its the best system ever put in place. Well, if you are not tried by a jury of your peers, it is deemed an unfair trial and would be declared a mistrial or at the very worst thrown out ... thats a technicality That's not actually true. No where in the constitution is a defendant afforded the right to trial "by a jury of his peers." If it were, then the World Trade Center bomber would have been tried by 12 Islamic Fundamentalists, which obviously wasn't the case. What the constitution does grant you is a trial "by an impartial jury." Now you could argue that finding 12 people who are impartial is impossible, but you could argue that for any high profile case, or heck, any case in general. But in a country of 300 million its not all that hard to find 12 impartial people. If it were, then we might as well scrap the jury system all together, because nobody would ever get a "fair" trial. Besides, how would you even begin to define "peer?" Same age? Sex? Religion? Nationality? Culture? Political leanings? Education? |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 29, 2009 11:23:03 GMT -5
Besides, how would you even begin to define "peer?" Same age? Sex? Religion? Nationality? Culture? Political leanings? Education? I was about to jump in with that very question. Carry on.  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 29, 2009 11:23:32 GMT -5
Is that enough for reasonable doubt? Possibly, but I would doubt it. But even if it was, and it did sway ONE juror, then all you have is a hung jury. Not an aquittal. Khadr stays in jail and goes back to trial with another jury. Anf IF he is acquitted, then so be it. That's the system. That's the law. Its not perfect, and it does make mistakes, but its the best system ever put in place. I guess ... but it would be trial after trial after trial after trial ... how many trials before his "rights" are infringed. And let's not forget the bail hearings .... Now I am not arguing that money should be considered, because I agree with you that should not be considered , but locking him away indefinitely or locking him away after mistrials in perpetuity .... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 29, 2009 11:35:26 GMT -5
] That's not actually true. No where in the constitution is a defendant afforded the right to trial "by a jury of his peers." If it were, then the World Trade Center bomber would have been tried by 12 Islamic Fundamentalists, which obviously wasn't the case. What the constitution does grant you is a trial "by an impartial jury." Now you could argue that finding 12 people who are impartial is impossible, but you could argue that for any high profile case, or heck, any case in general. But in a country of 300 million its not all that hard to find 12 impartial people. If it were, then we might as well scrap the jury system all together, because nobody would ever get a "fair" trial. Actually, this is not true. In the United States, under the 6th Admendment, a person has the right to a trial by jury. The jury does not have to have 12 people, you can elect to have a jury by 6 people. And in 6 person juries, defendants can be convicted only if the jury is unanimous in favor of guilt. And the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a state law providing for less-than-unanimous verdicts by 12-person juries in non-death penalty cases. Say for instance, the Canadian government requests (since it is against our constituition) the American government not to apply the death penalty to Khadr. So maybe it could be easy to convict him ... I don't know ... all I know is that I don't want them let go (not if there is the remotest possibility of them getting set free). |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 29, 2009 12:35:02 GMT -5
I have yet to see any argument for throwing out the US Constitution other than “its too hard and expensive.” Personally I think those are weak excuses for ignoring the law, but that’s just me. The expensive part? Okay - I'll drop it. I just like mentioning the fact that it's not very cost effective. The hard part? It's not just hard. It's literally impossible. The rules of war and the rule of law don't mesh. That's why most military forces have their own judicial system, their own law enforcement officers and their own prison system. Because it's impossible to judge the actions of a soldier from the point of view of a civilian. You seem to misunderstand how felony murder works. Simply being in some place is not sufficent to charge someone with felony murder even under the most draconic applications of that law (I believe Florida and Texas have the most potent felony murder laws, but that's just a factlet from memory). Even loaning the car to the criminals would not have been enough for the State of Florida to convinct Mr. Holle of felony murder. It was that he loaned it with foreknowledge of what would happen. And that he was stupid enough to confess to loaning it with foreknowledge afterwards. Felony murder would not allow anyone holed up in an Al Qaeda stronghold to be charged with murder. Unless there were witnesses who can categorically say that Jihadi John discharged a weapon in the general direction of me and my fellow soldiers (not likely - besides the near impossibility of calling soldiers serving overseas as witnesses, how many are going to get a good enough look at an enemy to provide a positive id in court) you can't charge them for simply being there. You can't charge them for providing weapons if the weaponsmith says "he told me he was going to use it to hunt camels". The federal court of course. Countries routinely extradite people accused of murdering their nationals. In fact courts won’t even look at how the accused ended up before them, in case you were thinking of arguing that their arrest/kidnapping in a foreign country was illegal. I recommend “International Law” by John O’Brien if you want some heavy reading. Answers and refutes many of your questions. An extradition trial is something quite different from a standard criminal court case you realize. For one, in Canada (don't know about other countries) you don't need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to face extradition - only a prima facie case needs to be made to warrant an extradition. Evidentiary rules are also relaxed - hearsay is admissable in a hearsay case. Finally, the justice system plays second fiddle in extradition hearings - once the justice system approves of the trial it may still be denied by the government. Also, and perhaps most significantly, you've just drifted over from civilian law into international law, which is a completely different boat (one of the points I've been trying to make). Comparing them is like comparing pots to oranges - two completely different species. For one, international law is not at all governed by Common Law (which is what most of the Laws in Canada are based on, save for provincial laws in Quebec) - it's based on treaties between countries (in this case extradition treaties). Doesn’t apply in extradition or deportation cases. Suspects can and are arraigned on arrival at the country doing the prosecution. Leaving aside the whole "international law is not civilian law" you do realize that the clock starts ticking on the whole speedy trial thing when the local authorities arrest you - not when the forigen authorities arrest you. You’re not seriously going to argue that we don’t have enough lawyers, are you? There is a whole body of law that deals with international legal issues like these (see the above book) and there would be no shortage of high profile lawyers lining up for the chance to work high profile cases like this. Most, if not all, pro bono. I was going to say "you do realize" again, but I've said it a number of times too many already in this post. So let me be plain. No. You're wrong. There are not a countless "high profile lawyers" who would be "lining up for the chance to work high profile cases like these". Why not? Well, let me let you answer the question. Name one lawyer who specializes in international law. I'm taking you on your honour here too - no Googling (or Yahooing or whatever your search engine-ing of choice is) to find one. Name one "high profile" international lawyer. When you fail, I'll tell you why. Because international law is not glamourous. International law is not "high profile". International law is working with another group of international lawyers to make submissions to the WTO or the ICJ to talk about tariffs or what have you. There's no Johnny Cochrane's here. No Ken Starr's. And that's why you'll fail terribly in your attempt to apply international law here. It just doesn't apply. Besides a few basic rules - the Geneva Conventions, among them - there are no real rules to regulate how wars are conducted. Occasionally you have these grand war crimes trials, but how many of them are actually conducted for violation of civilian law - which is what all the lawyers and judges in the USA (and any country) are gearer towards. But more on war crimes trials in a little bit... The accuser is the United States government, as it is in any murder case, or crime against the state like espionage or sedition. You can’t confront somebody who is dead, right? If this were the case no murderer would ever go to jail. And the right to confront and cross examine witnesses (the soldiers)? I mistyped with the accuser quote - I apologize. I meant the right to question evidence, not confront the accuser. They could argue that if they wanted. They wouldn’t win, of course, but they could argue it. Cops routinely go into houses where crimes are being committed; if somebody starts shooting at passing cars from their bedroom window nobody is going to go running for a warrant before barging into the house. If there is no gunfire and they were going into the house for the express purpose of arresting Jihad Johnny then I would have to assume that they were doing so for a reason, that they had some evidence against him. I would hate to think that they were just arresting him because he looked like a terrorist. So any reason they have would most likely be more than enough to get a warrant. Often “I saw him doing…” is enough for a warrant. That's why I mentioned "hot pursuit" which is the counter example you're intimating. Unfrotunately "hot pursuit" doesn't always apply. Often the military will conduct an operation or a raid based on limited and sometimes unreliable intel. Stuff that wouldn't get a warrant in the US. They hear that insurgents, including a key insurgent general, are hiding out in Jihad Johnny's house and, rather than waiting for approval, they move out. They have to because of time concerns - the target may move on, or it may get wind of the military operation - but that's no excuse to simply ignore the warrant. Unless a crime is in progress you'll wind up bounced out of court. A better work around would be to grant operational commanders the right to grant warrants in their theatre of operations. Of course, it's another exception, but its a milder one than abrogating something written clearly into the Bill of Rights. Okay, so now we’re not going to try them because we can’t find an unbiased jury?? Seriously? “We’ll just lock you up indefinitely without trial because if we send you to trial you’ll be convicted and locked up indefinitely?” Should we release Omar Abdel-Rahman? I'm not saying we're not going to try them. I'm saying it's an additional difficulty. One of many. I have yet to see anything that is not, or could not be, in accordance with international law, or even American law. Heck, the entire court set up in the Hague deals with these exact issues. The legality of it all is sound. Try again BC. Because you're dead wrong on this too. The ICJ at the Hague has jurisdiction only on matters between states - not on individuals versus states. So the ICJ is out. The ICC at the Hague only has jursidiction on Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide and War Crimes. Crimes Against Humanity is out. Genocide is out. That leaves War Crimes. Except the ICC only has jurisdiction on War Crimes if they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes". And then it can only try those responsible for the implimentation of the policy. Sorry, the Hague is not an option It can work, and has worked in the past. Take Manuel Noriega. Or Adolph Eichmann. It continues to work in hundreds of court rooms around the world where people have been extradited to face charges. You’re still arguing that it’s too hard, that it costs too much. I don’t buy it. Guantanamo was set up as a short-cut, as a way to avoid all those messy things like laws, and due process and justice. Because it IS hard. It’s so much easier just to throw them in prison, beat them a little bit, and hide behind the “national security costs too much” excuse. And I don’t think that’s right. The mechanisms to do what is right are there. Use them. Try, convict, lock away. You mention two names who are two very different cases, neither of which you should really be associating yourself with if you want to have a leg to stand on. Noriega is a perfect example of how the civilian legal system can not address the realities of soldiers in war. After he was captured the Panamanian people demanded Noriega be placed on trial for War Crimes. Was he ever tried for War Crimes? Crimes committed during the American invasion of Panama? Anything of that nature? Nope. Manuel Noriega was tried and convicted of Drug Trafficking. His sentence officially ended September 9th, 2007, although he remains in jail pending extradition trials to both France and Panama. The civilian courts, as I have said countless times, could not cope with war-based charges. So they found him guilty of other crimes he had committed prior to the war. Eichmann, on the other hand - well we all know Adolf was not a nice person. You may think that he met a fair and just end for his crimes. I will give you all that. But if you advocate the conduct of the Israeli government in the Eichmann affair - if you think sending secret agents to another country to caputre and kidnap a criminal to be brought back to a third country (the first being where the crimes were committed, the second where the capture took place) to stand before a kangaroo court (a court where anyone who might have testified in his defense would also be subject to arrest) and finally recieve the sentence of death is a better dispensation of justice than simply holding someone in a cell indefinitely - well, you have a queer sense of what 'justice' is my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 29, 2009 17:52:42 GMT -5
So then try them using the existing military laws if that’s what floats your boat. Again, there are ways. LEGAL ways. Really? And you think “I got him the rocket launchers and hung out with him in his remote hideout where I saw and helped him plant anti-personnel mines because I thought he was going to hunt camels” is going to be enough to create reasonable doubt? In the words of Dick Cheney these are allegedly the “worst of the worst” and yet we can’t get enough evidence against them to know that their actions were illegal? Really?? And as a matter of fact, you CAN charge them for simply being there, as an accomplice. They don’t even have to be holding a gun, their mere presence in a criminal activity is more than enough to charge them. Again, they would have to fall back on the “just delivering pizza” defense, which would not create reasonable doubt. So? I don’t get your point? You’re saying that it would be easy to extradite them? I agree. And once they are extradited you bring them here and arrest them. That’s not accurate either. Google “extradite arraign”. Lots of cases of people who were arrested in another country, had lengthy extradition hearings, and were then arraigned once they arrived in the US. If the delays are due to the actions of the defense team, then the “speedy trial” is not applicable. Like, if the defense fights extradition. Heck, there is even a “reasonable excuse” provision in the constitution, with which the prosecution can use to explain the delay in an arraignment. And if all THAT doesn’t work, then you simply arraign them by video. Which is also legal. Louise Arbour. I kept thinking “L’Amour” but I knew that wasn’t right. I could have also said John O’Brien, but I figured that wasn’t fair as I had quoted him above. And while Michael Ignatieff isn’t a lawyer, he was director of the Carr Center for Human Rights, who have “developed a focus on genocide, mass atrocity, state failure and the ethics and politics of military intervention, and measurement and human rights.” Okay, I googled Ignatieff. I remembered he was big on the human rights thing, but couldn’t remember his actual involvement. Anyways, now you name one high profile lawyer in divorce law. Or a personal injury lawyer. Or heck, a criminal lawyer, now that Johnny is gone. In fact, before the Simpson trial, or the Clinton impeachment had you ever heard of Johnny Cochrane or Kenneth Starr? I doubt it, because that world is of little interest to us in our daily lives, and if you had, you were in the very small minority. But it doesn’t mean they didn’t exist and only popped into being the second OJ hopped into his Bronco. They are not high-profile to us. But if you travel within those circles, believe me there are high profile people that everybody in that industry knows. Just because you and I don’t know them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. International law is a branch of law, taught in most major law schools. Go ahead, google international law degree. Won’t be hard to find some hits. The evidence is plain to see. Google Khadr videos and pictures. You’ll see him training with Al Qaeda, and lying wounded in an Al Qaeda stronghold. What’s he going to do, question his medical records from Afghanistan? If he does, then subpoena the doctor who worked on him. Set up a video link for her to testify. Its done all the time. And if there is no evidence… then what the heck are we holding him for?? Goes back to the question I kept asking Skilly, if they had his wife wouldn’t he want to know why? And if there was no “why” shouldn’t she be released? No, it won’t be bounced, police (or law enforcement shall we say) do not ALWAYS need a warrant. An arrest by a police officer without a warrant is proper if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed a crime.criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrest_warrant_needed.htm Even if you do not agree to a search, the police are permitted to search your home without a warrant if there are sufficiently exigent circumstances--that is, if there is an emergency situation in which the police have reason to believe someone's life is in danger, a suspect is about to escape, or you might destroy the evidence (flush illegal drugs down the toilet, for example) if they do not conduct the search immediately. In cases such as these, when there is no time to get a warrant from the court, the police can search your home without permission.public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-15-2-7.htmlSo all they would have to is say we had reasonable grounds to suspect a crime (like, you know, gunfire coming from the building) or “the target may move on” as you put it. And bingo, no warrant. All legal. Not necessary, the LAW already provides this exception. Bill of Rights doesn’t apply. Follow the train of the thread. You said that there is very little “International Law” as it were, that it’s not taught in schools, nobody deals with it, you couldn’t find a competent lawyer to defend these guys, and therefore the judge would have no choice but to toss the case. Not glamorous, and all that. It does exist. Its quite popular these days, actually, and getting more popular as people try to bring criminals from Rwanda, Serbia, and Darfur to justice. Or deal with international trade, environmental issues and globalization. Again, follow the thread. You are maintaining that there is no legal basis for trying these guys, that there is no precedent, that what these guys are doing is unheard of in the history of the world, and in the history of law, and therefore law cannot be applied to them. You’re wrong. There is plenty of precedence, rulings, treaties and laws that deal with these very things. But then you contradict yourself… you say that he was never tried for war crimes but that the people of Panama want to extradite him… to try him for war crimes. The Americans didn’t allow the Panamanians to try him right away because they wanted him first. Happens all the time, somebody is charged for something in one jurisdiction, and then charged in another for something else. Its like, every second Law and Order episode – “We want him when you’re done with him.” Look up “universal jurisdiction”, which according to wikipedia is a “controversial principle in international law.” Hmph. There’s those words again. International law… States can also in certain circumstances exercise jurisdiction over acts committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory. This form of jurisdiction tends to be much more controversial. Bases on which a state can exercise jurisdiction in this way:
* The least controversial is that under which a state can exercise jurisdiction over acts which affect the fundamental interests of the state, such as spying, even if the act was committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory…
* More controversial is the exercise of jurisdiction where the victim of the crime is a national of the state exercising jurisdiction. In the past some states have claimed this jurisdiction (e.g., Mexico[citation needed]), while others have been strongly opposed to it (e.g., the United States, except in cases in which an American citizen is a victim[citation needed]). In more recent years however, a broad global consensus has emerged in permitting its use in the case of torture, "forced disappearances" or terrorist offences (due in part to it being permitted by the various United Nations conventions on terrorism); They weren’t going after him for war crimes which wouldn’t have made sense anyways, as there was no war before they invaded. They were going after him for drug crimes. You know, felonies. Which is what you would be charging these guys with. Murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, drug trafficking, money laundering, arson, destruction of public property… no shortage of things you could charge them with, aside from war crimes. Is Khadr being charged with genocide, or the murder of a medic? And if you DO want to try them for war crimes or genocide, there is that non-existent court in the Hague there, the one that nobody wants to work for because its not glamorous, with all those UN conventions on terrorism. Requires a whole other set of evidence, I agree, but then its up to you to decide what to charge them with. So where did the Israeli courts perform an “unethical” or “illegal” action? Why was it a “kangaroo court?” I’m curious, because most believe that the Israelis bent over backwards to accommodate Eichmann, to make sure all appearances of legality were maintained, so that they COULD execute him and not make him a martyr to his cause. They even offered immunity to numerous Nazi officials to allow them to travel to Israel to testify on behalf of Eichmann, and while all refused, some 90 of them did send in their depositions which were read before the court. TV cameras from around the world filmed the entire trial. He was given a full an open trial, two appeals and a request for clemency was reviewed on his behalf by the Prime Minister of Israel. His trial, sentence and execution were all legal. Why do you think it was a kangaroo court? His kidnapping, it could be argued, was illegal, but again according to precedence in international law courts will ignore the manner in which an accused is brought before them, and rule on only the crimes presented. Eichmann is the most famous example, but there are others. Why, most of the people in Guantanamo were not captured on a battlefield in the traditional sense, but by the US or its allies who sent secret agents to another country to capture and kidnap a criminal to be brought back to a third country (the first being where the crimes were committed, the second where the capture took place). Check out any list Guantanamo prisoners; most are accused of crimes in one country (like Saudi Arabia, Yemen or the US), captured in another (like Afghanistan) and moved to a third (Cuba/Guantanamo). Again, I recommend “International Law” by O’Brien. Covers all this and more. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 29, 2009 18:55:02 GMT -5
I'm going to pick and choose here now (I hope you don't mind) because we've rehashed much of this over a couple times, and as you say people are probably getting a bit bored. Not that I'm getting tired of it mind you, but I want to keep my posts short and to the point, because otherwise I'm afraid I'll go on and on. Really? And you think “I got him the rocket launchers and hung out with him in his remote hideout where I saw and helped him plant anti-personnel mines because I thought he was going to hunt camels” is going to be enough to create reasonable doubt? In the words of Dick Cheney these are allegedly the “worst of the worst” and yet we can’t get enough evidence against them to know that their actions were illegal? Really?? Beyond a reasonable doubt? No, I don't think we can. It's the nature of war - confusion, violence - that makes it impossible. I think that a fair trial (which, as I've said, I don't think they'll get) honestly there such much doubt there that no judge looks at it longer. "Sure I had a rocket launcher your honour. You Americans sold it to me to use against the Russians. And when those men came - well, I thought they were trying to kill me. What with the automatic weapons and the loud voices. No they didn't announce themselves your honour - at least not that I heard. I speak Pashtun though, and I don't think any of them did." There's evidence - but how much is circumstantial? "No, I'm not a jihadist. That's my brother Bill. He's the one that painted "Death to America" on the walls. He's the one that planned to blow up your people. Me, I'm just a simple camel merchant. But you guys blew up my house - so where am I going to live? At my brother's - that's where." Few criminal cases are slam dunk, open and shut matters. And that here, in our world, where people have access to crime scenes and standard investigative techniques and stuff like that. Stuff that just doesn't happen on the field of battle. And as a matter of fact, you CAN charge them for simply being there, as an accomplice. They don’t even have to be holding a gun, their mere presence in a criminal activity is more than enough to charge them. Again, they would have to fall back on the “just delivering pizza” defense, which would not create reasonable doubt. That's on-site, during the commission of a crime. How many of these people were captured during the commission of the crime they were captured for? What about those who just happened to be in the wrong cave at the wrong time? The evidence is plain to see. Google Khadr videos and pictures. You’ll see him training with Al Qaeda, and lying wounded in an Al Qaeda stronghold. What’s he going to do, question his medical records from Afghanistan? All Khadr has to say in a civilian court is: "I was trained by Al Qaeda forces, but had long since left the organization. I was wounded during training. I have never participated in any action against the United States or her allies, nor have I known any one who did. Please prove otherwise." Reasonable doubt, right there. And if there is no evidence… then what the heck are we holding him for?? Goes back to the question I kept asking Skilly, if they had his wife wouldn’t he want to know why? And if there was no “why” shouldn’t she be released? Because the US has reason to believe that they would resume hostile actions against the U.S.A. should they be released. Much the same as POW's in that respect (however not in other respects - this is why they are so difficult to deal with) - a POW is guilty of no crime, and is instead imprisoned until the end of the war to prevent him or her from returning to the enemies forces. Follow the train of the thread. You said that there is very little “International Law” as it were, that it’s not taught in schools, nobody deals with it, you couldn’t find a competent lawyer to defend these guys, and therefore the judge would have no choice but to toss the case. Not glamorous, and all that. It does exist. Its quite popular these days, actually, and getting more popular as people try to bring criminals from Rwanda, Serbia, and Darfur to justice. Or deal with international trade, environmental issues and globalization. I don't see how this addresses the fact that the ICC and ICJ have no jurisdiction in this case. Please clarify? Again, follow the thread. You are maintaining that there is no legal basis for trying these guys, that there is no precedent, that what these guys are doing is unheard of in the history of the world, and in the history of law, and therefore law cannot be applied to them. You’re wrong. There is plenty of precedence, rulings, treaties and laws that deal with these very things. But then you contradict yourself… you say that he was never tried for war crimes but that the people of Panama want to extradite him… to try him for war crimes. The Americans didn’t allow the Panamanians to try him right away because they wanted him first. Happens all the time, somebody is charged for something in one jurisdiction, and then charged in another for something else. Its like, every second Law and Order episode – “We want him when you’re done with him.” The people of Panama want to try him for crimes he committed on Panamanian soil. I've never once suggested that the first WTC bomber could not be tried. Or the Shoe Bomber. Or Tim McVeigh. I've said crimes committed outside the country, as an act of war (or something resembling it) can not be tried in civil courts. Much the same as the US could not try Noriega for 'war crimes' he committed during the invasion. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 16, 2009 12:05:53 GMT -5
No point starting another thread for this one. Check this article out when you have time. Go Obama Go!! ====================================================================================== Angry Obama will seek to curb AIG bonuses
Mar 16, 2009 12:51 PM
TOM RAUM
The Associated PressWASHINGTON – President Barack Obama declared Monday that insurance giant American International Group is in financial straits because of "recklessness and greed" and said he intends to stop it from paying out millions in executive bonuses. "It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million (dollar figures U.S.) in extra pay," Obama said at the outset of an appearance to announce help for small businesses hurt by the deep recession. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat," the president said. Obama spoke out in the wake of reports that surfaced over the weekend saying that financially strapped American International Group Inc. was paying substantial bonuses to executives. Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole." Said Obama: "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules."
"This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents," he added. ``It's about our fundamental values."The $165 million was payable to executives by Sunday and was part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. The company has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue. AIG reported this month that it had lost $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history. The bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence." "These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. Frank noted that the Federal Reserve Board, using a Depression-era statute, was the institution that gave AIG its initial government bailout, before Congress passed legislation providing for additional assistance and said that no enough safeguards were built into the deal. It also was revealed over the weekend that American International Group Inc. used more than $90 billion in federal aid to pay out foreign and domestic banks, some of whom had received their own multibillion-dollar U.S. government bailouts. Some of the biggest recipients of the AIG money were Goldman Sachs at $12.9 billion, and three European banks – France's Societe Generale at $11.9 billion, Germany's Deutsche Bank at $11.8 billion, and Britain's Barclays PLC at $8.5 billion. Merrill Lynch, which also is undergoing federal scrutiny of its bonus plans, received $6.8 billion as of Dec. 31. The money went to banks to cover their losses on complex mortgage investments, as well as for collateral needed for other transactions. "We ought to explore everything that we can through the government to make sure that this money is not wasted," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "These people brought this on themselves. Now you're rewarding failure. A lot of these people should be fired, not awarded bonuses. This is horrible. It's outrageous.'' Frank said he was disgusted, asserting that "these bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously." "Maybe it's time to fire some people," he said. "We can't keep them from getting bonuses but we can keep them from having their jobs. ... In high school, they wouldn't have gotten retention (bonuses), they would have gotten detention.'' AIG has agreed to Obama administration requests to restrain future payments. Geithner had pressed the president's case with AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy, last week. "He stepped in and berated them, got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this," said Austan Goolsbee, staff director of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Obama did note in his remarks Monday that Liddy "came on board after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agr3eed to last year.'' In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes,'' Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did not address the bonuses but expressed his frustration with the AIG intervention. "It makes me angry. I slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG," Bernanke said. "It's – it's just absolutely – I understand why the American people are angry.'' In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy said outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so. www.thestar.com/business/article/602940 (link) |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Mar 16, 2009 13:04:47 GMT -5
Probably wouldn't be much of an issue if the "bonuses" were called what they actually are -- annual performance-adjusted salary incentives.
At least, not as much of an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 16, 2009 14:06:23 GMT -5
Probably wouldn't be much of an issue if the "bonuses" were called what they actually are -- annual performance-adjusted salary incentives. At least, not as much of an issue. or more correctly "annual sub-performance adjusted salary incentives". I have no problem with rewarding performance. If they make the bank money, by all means pay them 2-3-4% (or whatever the incentive is) of whatever they brought in as a reward. But conversely, if they lose money, then they did not perform. Hence you pay them 0% for their non-performance, and leave them with their annual salary, which is huge to begin with. If they lose grotesque amounts of money, or lose money over consecutive years, then they should be fired or at the very least not eligible for salary incentives. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Mar 16, 2009 16:59:52 GMT -5
Probably wouldn't be much of an issue if the "bonuses" were called what they actually are -- annual performance-adjusted salary incentives. At least, not as much of an issue. or more correctly "annual sub-performance adjusted salary incentives". I have no problem with rewarding performance. If they make the bank money, by all means pay them 2-3-4% (or whatever the incentive is) of whatever they brought in as a reward. But conversely, if they lose money, then they did not perform. Hence you pay them 0% for their non-performance, and leave them with their annual salary, which is huge to begin with. If they lose grotesque amounts of money, or lose money over consecutive years, then they should be fired or at the very least not eligible for salary incentives. Except that what is never published is that these "bonuses" usually have a base minimum annual bonus negotiated into the contracts, and these employees often work for a pittance during the rest of the year. As someone with many friends in the field including many who -- even with these "bonuses" -- have already seen their annual pay go from mid 6 figures to low 6 figures while working 60 and 70 hour weeks in profitable portions of the bank/firm. Now, none of them work at AIG (which is specifically the target of this article) but it's commonly assumed the same practices go on everywhere. Now, the employers still have the option of firing everyone (probably with a year or two severance) and re-hiring them all without these "bonus" clauses. Maybe that costs less in the long run. Short term it's bad publicity and costs a lot at the same time. Truthfully, I think this was all engineered. AIG pays out, Obama comes in all "white knight"-like and cancels the payments. Saves AIG money and makes Obama look like a superstar. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Mar 16, 2009 17:32:49 GMT -5
Financial institutions and politicians "engineering" things? Unheard of.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 17, 2009 6:53:02 GMT -5
Truthfully, I think this was all engineered. AIG pays out, Obama comes in all "white knight"-like and cancels the payments. Saves AIG money and makes Obama look like a superstar. Me, I don't think so. Just like I don't think his initiatives to pulling the troops out of Iraq is being done to make him look like a hero either. All troops out by December 2011. I think he's gaining points with the ordinary John-Q-Citizen, but he's also doing it at the expense of some rather well-to-do citizens in the process (citizens who are used to getting their bonuses). There hasn't this much hope and expectations put on a president since JFK. JFK wanted to kybosh the Vietnam War and there are those who feel this was the main reason for his assassination. Obama want's to do the same thing in Iraq, but at the same time he's beefing up Afghanistan (hopefully with the intent of going after Bin Laden again). Granted, JFK had his share of enemies; every president does. But, Obama has only started and he's far from being finished. And as I was saying before, I really hope his enemies allow him to follow through on a lot of his plans. This AIG thing? Hopefully, it's only a start. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 17, 2009 9:51:22 GMT -5
Financial institutions and politicians "engineering" things? Unheard of..... Bingo! Obamanation is now yideing about "unfair" compensation to further his share the wealth BS. How convenient is it for him to demonize those that make big money while trying to bilk them AND at the same time giving billions to their bosses to keep their banks afloat. All around garbage that NEVER seems to end. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2009 14:41:14 GMT -5
Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocentSAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday. "There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."
Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.(the rest)
|
|
