POLL: Does a defendant's nationality now determine the quality of justice?

Remove all ads!

Well, an interesting article I found here raised this question for me.
Monsieur Moussaoui (And How a Defendant's Nationality May Determine the Quality of his Trial)

So the question here is as follows, and please explain your opinions below.

Poll Information
This poll contains 3 question(s). 20 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Does a defendant's nationality now determine the quality of justice? (20 votes.)

Should the US make a difference between US citizens and others in court? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 20% (4)
* No - 80% (16)

Do you think a double standard for justice is adequate for terrorist cases? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 20% (4)
* No - 80% (16)

Do you think closed military tribunals are the right way to handle this? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 25% (5)
* No - 75% (15)

 

Allthough i'm not a lawyer and will never be or interested to be i know one thing. Justice is blind so as not to see who is in trial and that means his nationality too.
Furthermore i hate this two levels thing the US administration has created the last couple of years: US and them (rest of the world). It is wrong and it causes more fear and anger than they think.

Yeah doesn't this looks like a racist issue or is it my imagination.

 

I agree it's starting to get a little ridiculous. Reminds me of medieval witchhunts. I can understand to a certain degree that the authorities don't wanna take any chances, but this is just absurd. I keep hearing stranger stories every day.

I know a guy on another board, who recently got questioned by the FBI. Why ? Because he has a tan and a beard, so he looks a little Muslimish.

I hope the world will come to it's senses soon, this is getting bizarre.

 

The real problem is that the US have detained an unkown number of people in undisclosed locations. These people just disappear in US military installations on foreign soil such as Bagram, Guantanamo and iirc another one in Iraq.
Some are said to be handed over to 'friendly' services who aren't that particular when it comes to their methods.

They don't get lawyers and in their trial at the military tribunal they'll sure get an attorney - but find a witness of defence, who happened to disappear to an undisclosed location? Of course, it's a question of national security so the material is unfortunately TOP SECRET and so the attorney doesn't get access.

So where may he be today? Dead? Or like caught in afganistan, brought to Bagram, and then handed over to the saudi security ...

The problem are of crucial importance for the rule of law. Radicals in Washington, like probably Bush, Rumsfeld and certainly Pipes think that the arab terrorists are barbarians and that the US should discard war's rules for them.
Swell. And how about the innocents? Not everyone caught was a terrorist. I actually don't even doubt in the integrity of the judges in the military courts, it's just that they work in an unfair system, denying basic procedural rights - and if not for law and right - then consider it a serious blow for the integrity of the US claim on moral superiority.

Like: We are morally superior, that's why we can even violate basic rights without loosing this superiority ... ... it doesn't work that way I fear ...

 

Yes. David Hicks is being treated badly by his US captors because he is a foreigner. I wonder what the US government would do to Australia if the Australians did this to an American?

 

This is a basic question, but not a difficult one by any means. United States are a sovereign country and thus their citizens may only be tried on US territory etc etc. But of course many US courts have nothing better to do than deal with lawsuits that have only one thing to do with US territory: they've been handed in to a US court.

Politics. Nothing to do with justice. They want their revenge, they want blood, they don't really care whose blood it is so long as they can tell themselves that it might be this blood. They're kids.

That would be a murder. Let's use proper terms.

I partake of this fear. I differ (or even not) in one point: there's already no moral superiority to lose. Ask anyone in Middle or South America.

 

An interesting article on the british reaction on this: http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006DE52.htm

 

What are we talking about when there are many people detained to these facilities for a period of time that can reach even two years (and as the years pass by this period will increase) without even have been brought in front of even a military court .
Is this quality of justice or quality of power abuse

 

Human rights violations committed by the USA during 2002 according to Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Usa-summary-eng

The world is not "good vs evil", it is a matter of degrees which is practically impossible to measure. Evil is displayed in different areas by different countries. For the most part it's not even possible to agree on if something is evil or not.

One thing is for certain though, USA is not the "good guys". I'm not even sure there are any "good guy" nations.

 

Justice should be blind, yet these days it does not seem to be so. There are bribes and lies everywhere you look sometimes. *sigh*

 

http://www.thememoryhole.org/gitmo/no-gitmo-records.htm

US gvt lawyers have reported they don't actually know the names or even exact numbers of people detained in Guantanamo, the US detention camp in public focus.
That doesn't give much hope for the people held at Baghdad airport, Bagram or other locations. And that doesn't even include detained immigrants in the US. More on that here.

Innocent? Want a lawyer? Shut the f*uck up and go back to your container. We'll lock you up you immigrant/ terrorist/ whatever until we know what you're up to (or not).

The US excuse " These people are on foreign soil ... sorry, beyond our juridiction " is just outragous. They are guarded by US authorities aren't they? But the US gvt can't be held accountable? In a democratic republic? Since when? It's a disgrace.
People disappear - that's not any different than in Chile in the days of Pinochet. Would any other country do this to US citizens Bush would probably order to bomb it immediately - if it's small enough.

Goodbye Habeas Corpus - we are in the new millenium! Who anymore cares about a silly brit-rule from 1679 ?! America just *can't* do harm, so these processual nonsense isn't necessary anymore ...
Or is it just that there are two classes: US and ROW citizens?

 

In being the first openly US person to join this lovely discussion I feel rather. . . representative shall we say. So while disagreeing with the "Patriotic Act" to the point where I joined Amnesty International and bugged every Senator who'd accept my letters because I got so completely furious, I do feel a little defensive of my country.

1) My Dad was a lieutenent long before the War on Terrorism but he has since explained to me the purpose of military tribunals and in some cases, I agree with them. (Though politically I have to agree that the British and Australians should be tried under their respective countries jurisdiction with some understanding that should they be let off despite sufficient proof, the FBI will keep tabs on them and probably assassinate them unless the governments choose to protect them themselves.) I do NOT agree with general over-all miliatary tribunals. However, in some cases, I beleive they are nessessary. No, I'm not blood-thirsty. In fact, I'm being quite cold-hearted logic about this.

When a terrorist leader is being held, the terrorist organization decides to increase their attacks demanding that their leader is let free. This is not a rational attempt on their part of course because obviously the country would only want to hold onto the terrorist all the more -- however they do it nevertheless. And what it comes down to is even though I feel sympathy towards the terrorist leader, I honestly don't believe that his life is worth 20 innocent children's lives. I know, evil of me but there you are. If a military tribunal is conducted, it is assumed that if the person is found guilty he is executed. This protects the innocents. However, the person isn't always killed especially if the miliatary thinks that the person many at some point reveal information after several years of only guards and agents to talk to. (Note: I do not approve of the death penalty and I do not approve of "mild torture methods" such as 24 hours of light etc. I do however approve of solitary confinement with talks with a guard or agent every day in the case of terrorist leaders -- though not ones who are simply *suspected* of funneling money.)

2. A lot of American's also hate the US vs. them belief that *cough* some of the Americans have taken on. We are NOT the only country fighting against terrorism and the Arab countries themselves suffere from constant terrorism so not all Muslims are terrorists -- they're getting a little better at getting that down but it was disgusting how many people thought that after September 11th. And yes, I believe that things went too far with the (Un)Patriotic Act where they jumped all over tons of innocent people and were able to snatch them up into custody, solitary confinement, for an indefinite amount of time without even being told what they were arrested for and without anyone else being told where they were going. (Sound like South American dictator policies to anyone???) Since then the government discovered exactly what was happening and how EXTREMELY unconstitutional it was and renigged a little (thank God.)

But before you all get cozy in the belief that you didn't cause this belief of US vs. them (blame the Arabs) It did start somewhere and spread when everyone began taking on an anti-American attitude. If you pause and think for a moment, you'll realize that if everyone turns on you, you become defensive, reclusive and feel that everyone's out to get you. Is it any wonder the US became so suspicious and irrational?? When 9/11 happened, several countries held rallies and cheered the death of over 2000 Americans. And when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, how many countries expressed their displeasure with this? I do not in any way suggest that becoming irrational and suspicious was the right thing to do (hello? It's irrational) But the U.S. didn't randomly decide to become this way. They were gradually pushed in this direction and push anyone enough times and they'll push back. And the U.S. was never patient to begin with. (We seem to think we still have something to prove and apparently, we do)

3. As for a defendent's nationality determining their quality of justice, I believe that their nationality shouldn't affect how their judged at all but they should be judged according to what country they offended. For instance if an American boy in Kuwait vandalizes a whole bunch of cars and Kuwait decides that he should be whipped then so be it. The kid should be smart enough to have know that not only is vandalism wrong and stupid in the extreme but it's even stupider in a country where he's going to get whipped. And so, it's his fault and he should be tried and whipped for being an *******. Well I feel the same goes here. So in the case of Moussaui I believe he should be tried under U.S. jurisdiction -- not French. Of course for puretly political reasons the British and Australians would have to be given seperate condsideration. HAVE TO BE. But not Moussaui. Sucks for him. *total lack of sympathy for him*

And please... do not even try to suggest that Americans don't disappear and aren't being "tried" the way the other terrorists were. That was the reason adjustments were made to the Patriotic Act. (See section 1 of this)

So that's all I have to say, I think.