Trybunaly Busha

[Gość: Zbyszek]

To dla takich (a)merykanow jak Swiatlo i jemu podobni.

www.iht.com/articles/52205.html

War captives could be held if acquitted
Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times

[...]
.Don Rehkopf, a lawyer in Rochester, New York, who is co-chairman of the
military law committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
said the idea of holding someone who was acquitted showed that the tribunal
process was set up for a predetermined outcome. ."They create a tribunal that
they say is fair, but then they can say, 'We don't like the results and the
hell with it, we're going to hold you anyway.'" Rehkopf said that the rules of
the tribunals were so stacked against the defendants that "if I came out of the
woods after 20 years and saw these rules, I'd think Adolf Hitler or Joseph
Stalin wrote them."

[Gość: Zbyszek]

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000020453mar21.story

[...]
These rules leave the president in a role more reminiscent of a Caesar than a
civil servant. With a gesture, the president can send a defendant to a real
trial or a makeshift trial. Some defendants such as Zacarias Moussaoui will be
sent to federal court to receive a full trial with paid civilian counsel.
Others will be sent back to their own countries. And some will be sent to Cuba
and the tribunals.

This is not what our framers had in mind. Although it is true that the Supreme
Court generally has not applied constitutional protections to foreign nationals
outside our borders, the new tribunal raises a new and fundamental challenge to
the separation of powers. President Bush has asserted the right to create a
wholly independent judicial system. Not only will the president maintain his
own courts but presumably his own prisons. The assertion of such authority by a
president is dangerous and alien to our system.

The framers expressly denied the president the right to create and mete out his
own form of justice. They created a carefully balanced government of checks and
balances, including an independent judiciary. They gave the right to
create "inferior courts" exclusively to Congress. Yet the administration has
steadfastly refused to ask for the creation of such a court despite the
willingness of many members to consider it.

[Gość: Jurek]

Gość portalu: Zbyszek napisał(a):

> <a href="www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000020453mar21.story
> "target="_blank">www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000020453mar21.stor
> y</a>
>
> [...]
> These rules leave the president in a role more reminiscent of a Caesar than a
> civil servant. With a gesture, the president can send a defendant to a real
> trial or a makeshift trial. Some defendants such as Zacarias Moussaoui will be
> sent to federal court to receive a full trial with paid civilian counsel.
> Others will be sent back to their own countries. And some will be sent to Cuba
> and the tribunals.
>
> This is not what our framers had in mind. Although it is true that the Supreme
> Court generally has not applied constitutional protections to foreign nationals
>
> outside our borders, the new tribunal raises a new and fundamental challenge to
>
> the separation of powers. President Bush has asserted the right to create a
> wholly independent judicial system. Not only will the president maintain his
> own courts but presumably his own prisons. The assertion of such authority by a
>
> president is dangerous and alien to our system.
>
> The framers expressly denied the president the right to create and mete out his
>
> own form of justice. They created a carefully balanced government of checks and
>
> balances, including an independent judiciary. They gave the right to
> create "inferior courts" exclusively to Congress. Yet the administration has
> steadfastly refused to ask for the creation of such a court despite the
> willingness of many members to consider it.

Proponuje tytul: Trybunaly Bushewikow

[Gość: Zbyszek]

Moze byc. Bedzie jakas ciaglosc.

[kochanka]

Zbysiu, dlaczego nie napisales o trybunale ktory spotkal Daniela Pearla?
Pojebal pies tych zboczencow na Guntanamo. Trybunal??? Nalezy ich torturowac.
Wybic z nich informacje. A potem podciac im gardlo i pokazac z tego film calemu
swiatu. Potem znalezc ich rodziny i zrobic to samo. Dlaczego my mamy sie zajmowac
prawami czlowieka w stosunku do ludzi ktorzy ludzmi gardza. Wojny z terroryzmem
nigdy nie wygrasz przestrzegajac miedzynarodowe prawa. Za oko my musimy mordowac
setki. Czym szybciej tym lepiej.


Gość portalu: Zbyszek napisał(a):

> To dla takich (a)merykanow jak Swiatlo i jemu podobni.
>
> <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/52205.html"target="_blank">www.iht.com/art
> icles/52205.html</a>
>
> War captives could be held if acquitted
> Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times
>
> [...]
> .Don Rehkopf, a lawyer in Rochester, New York, who is co-chairman of the
> military law committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
>
> said the idea of holding someone who was acquitted showed that the tribunal
> process was set up for a predetermined outcome. ."They create a tribunal that
> they say is fair, but then they can say, 'We don't like the results and the
> hell with it, we're going to hold you anyway.'" Rehkopf said that the rules of
> the tribunals were so stacked against the defendants that "if I came out of the
>
> woods after 20 years and saw these rules, I'd think Adolf Hitler or Joseph
> Stalin wrote them."

[Gość: U]

Glownym oskarzycielem ma byc Charlie Manson.