Pete Theisen wrote: > On Saturday 05 April 2008 19:34, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: > > >> Why not use the traditional criminal justice system to determine guilt. >> > > Hi Leland! > > Because these are not traditional criminals, to begin with. They bore arms > against the United States, were captured in so doing but they were by no > means part of an "army" - no uniforms and no traditional chain of command > leading to a clearly defined enemy organization. > It seems you have already acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner. How do you know whether they are traditional criminal, not traditional criminals, or not criminals at all. That is what a court should decide, and I'm talking about a Constitutional Court, not a military tribunal.
> It may be that we don't know what to do with them, but they are not > traditional criminals, that is for sure. It may be that there are no laws to > try them under, but they have proven themselves enemies and a threat of > continued danger. They have not proven themselves to be criminal. It is the DA that must prove them guilty of something. The prisoners of Guantanamo have never been charged with a crime. They were indiscriminately classified as enemy combatants under new laws and imprisoned. They were striped of "The writ of habeas corpus, which has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action, (eg Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of /habeas corpus ad subjiciendum/ is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado, may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.) > It would be irresponsible to give them any kind of trial or > to let them go while the hostilities remain active. > Terrorism has existed in the days of the Old Testament, it exist today, and it will exist forever. The war on terrorsim is an arbitary, ill defined term that has become misleading and much misunderstood. It has been defined in the context of how it might best support the agenda of those seeking power. Today, about anything including hostility can be label terrorism. Are we to keep the men at Guantanamo in prison forever? Regards, LelandJ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
