Well, a couple points. First I was responding to Tri N OC's assertion that a fair trial isn't required in a war. I'm saying (and I think you guys dont really disagree) that in the cases we're talking about, these aren't conventional POWs and a trial to ensure that they really are bad guys is required before we detain them for life.

The second issue is whether the current system actually does ensure a "fair" trial, considering that the lawyers and judges involved are all essentially agents of the executive branch (notably an executive branch that has quite a reputation of trampling on individual rights so as to not inconvenience the GWOT).

I'm not personally sure if the current tribunals are fair or not. I guess we'll see what the Supreme Court says in a little bit.

---

_______________________________________________

"I'm not personally sure if the current tribunals are fair or not."

I guess I'm not sure what is "fair" for these guys. My understanding of the process, from having worked with and discussed this with guys who have worked both in country during the detainment phase, and at Gitmo during the holding phase, is that these guys are caught on the battlefield, and then they go through quite a bit of trouble to get the officers or soldiers that were involved in the detainment, as well as any physical evidence (grenades or weapons seized during the detainment) and the detainee is provided representation to try to determine whether or not this person was actually an illegal combatant at the time he was seized. The accounts I have been given include plenty of occasions on which the person was released before being removed from the country in which he was captured based on lack of evidence. I don't think they follow a standard of proof like you would need for conviction here, but it seems like they do an ok job of making the effort to determine who these guys are before they send them to Gitmo.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)