From: Gary Britt 


I've already said he should get a hearing of some kind (like the Military
Tribunals for Guantanamo) where he can contest his classification as an
enemy combatant/illegal enemy combatant.  That is a far cry from the either
charge him with a violation of USA criminal law or set him free standard
adopted by the majority in the Al Marri case.  So its not just on Bush's
say so and Nuremberg is a proper example for the specific matter it was
used as an analogy (i.e. the fact that war criminals can be tried for
violations of the rules of war and given a sentence that allows them to be
locked up for longer than the duration of the conflict).  If you don't want
to lock them up for longer than the duration of the conflict they aren't
entitled to a trial, however as I've said above and before this in this
particular kind of war when people are picked up outside of an active
battlefield they should be given a hearing of some kind to challenge their
classification as an enemy combatant.

Gary

Rich Gauszka wrote:
> Bad example. At Nuremberg the three major wartime powers agreed on a format
> for punishment for war crimes ( France was awarded a place on the
> tribunal ). Here it's just trusting in Bush's judgment  ( and we all know
> how good that is ) to lock someone out without the benefit of Habeas Corpus.
>
>  .
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:467168cb$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You are wrong.  Prisoners of War can be tried for violating the normal
>> rules of war.  See Nuremberg.  Others can be held for the duration of the
>> conflict without any trial seeking a sentence of confinement.  Those tried
>> and found guilty of some violation of the normal rules of war can be held
>> BEYOND the term of the conflict in accordance with their sentence.  Again
>> see Nuremberg.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> Adam > wrote:
>>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>>> So you are saying that german prisoners of war in WWII
were entitled to
>>>> a trial before a federal judge and proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that
>>>> they violated some applicable USA criminal statute??   
You are saying
>>>> that if they were apprehended on the battlefield or as
spies in the USA
>>>> by the military without proper search warrants they must
be set free???
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure that's what you are saying??  You are either
saying that or
>>>> you are acknowledging that there are TWO applicable systems one for
>>>> CRIME and one for WAR.  Each with different rules and standards for
>>>> people apprehended and detained.  You can't have it both
ways, so is it
>>>> one system or two systems?
>>>>
>>> But that is precisely what the Bush admin has been trying to do.
>>>
>>> Are these people prisoners of war or criminals. If the former then
>>> attacking US etc troops or aiding those doing so is their duty
& is not
>>> something they can be tried for.
>>>
>>> Adam
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5