u.s. military tribunals in WWII

[nokhor]

this was news to me. the u.s. captured some german sabateurs during WWII on american soil, tried them with military tribunals and electrocuted most of them within months.

http://uboat.net/ops/agents1942.htm

[Watchman]

Yeah, well, isn't the basic approach of law to enemy spies in wartime roughly summed up as "SUX 2 B U" about everywhere ?

[Papewaio]

On American Soil...

[Grey_Fox]

Yup, read about it in 'Armageddon' by Max Hastings. They were sent on a very vague mission to do a bit of sabotage. Nothing illegal about it, the Geneva Convention says that enemy spies caught in a time of war are to be executed.

In the US military there are seven crimes for which an officer can execute a man without the need of a trial as well.

[Hurin_Rules]

Indeed. Trials, charges, defenders... all things the detainees at Guantanamo have been denied.

[Watchman]

Isn't progress nice ?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

How barbaric! Executing spies!?

No wonder the US is losing friends among the world community. I hope they lose the war!

[Red Harvest]

Indeed. Trials, charges, defenders... all things the detainees at Guantanamo have been denied.

I agree, they should be tried ASAP. They should be treated in the traditional manner, quick military tribunal and execution of those found guilty of being non-uniformed irregulars. I don't like the idea of warehousing them, creates an ongoing thorny problem. And any who were caught in error would have a chance of being released as they should be. No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.

If you want to keep some around because they have information or rolled on others, you can work out stays of execution, etc.

[Xiahou]

I agree, they should be tried ASAP. They should be treated in the traditional manner, quick military tribunal and execution of those found guilty of being non-uniformed irregulars. I don't like the idea of warehousing them, creates an ongoing thorny problem. And any who were caught in error would have a chance of being released as they should be. No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.

If you want to keep some around because they have information or rolled on others, you can work out stays of execution, etc.

Indeed, the precident is there to do just that- try and execute them all. However, I dont think that would make Gitmo critics any happier.

[Tribesman]

No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.
yeah right . so if someone is arrested in Gambia because they didn't have any evidence to arrest him in Britain he is captured in a war zone eh .

[Red Harvest]

No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.
yeah right . so if someone is arrested in Gambia because they didn't have any evidence to arrest him in Britain he is captured in a war zone eh .

Don't know what Gambia has to do with this. If they were captured as part of military operations in war zone, they are fair game. Sucks to be them.

[Adrian II]

No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.

That is just war propaganda.

There are dozens of detainees who were not arrested in war zones. In one of the first cases to reach an American court, this was clearly established. Idir has been deported directly from prison in Bosnia after he had been found not guilty of a terrorist plot. Heaven knows how many more innocents are being tortured in Guantanamo.

Washington Post
February 1, 2005

Judge Rules Detainee Tribunals Illegal

by Carol D. Leonnig

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the Bush administration must allow prisoners at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to contest their detention in U.S. courts, concluding that special military reviews established by the Pentagon as an alternative are illegal.

U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green said that the approximately 550 men held as "enemy combatants" are entitled to the advice of lawyers and to confront the evidence against them in those proceedings.

[..]

Green quoted extensively from the tribunal proceeding against Mustafa Ait Idir, 34, an Algerian living in Bosnia who was accused of plotting with others to blow up a U.S. embassy there. Idir noted that a Bosnian court found no evidence against him and repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked tribunal officials to present their evidence that he was an al Qaeda fighter. He argued he could not prove a negative, and that he would hit a person who claimed he was a terrorist in the face, which prompted the tribunal members to laugh.

The exchange "might have been truly humorous had the consequences of the detainee's 'enemy combatant' status not been so terribly serious and had the detainee's criticism of the process not been so piercingly accurate," the judge wrote.

Link

[Watchman]

And you know, assorted European nations have recently started wondering just what business exactly assorted CIA-linked passenger planes have been on when they've landed on their airfields for refueling...

[Adrian II]

And you know, assorted European nations have recently started wondering just what business exactly assorted CIA-linked passenger planes have been on when they've landed on their airfields for refueling...

We need more Spanish judges.

[Xiahou]

I suspect the SCOTUS wouldve overturned that- since the precident was set in WW2 for it by the same body. But it's moot now since the congress passed a bill allowing them 1 chance to contest their status in the DC courts- then they are left to the tribunals.

[Adrian II]

I suspect the SCOTUS wouldve overturned that- since the precident was set in WW2 for it by the same body. But it's moot now since the congress passed a bill allowing them 1 chance to contest their status in the DC courts- then they are left to the tribunals.

Possible. But Idir and other detainees were not 'caught in a war zone' as the propaganda has it.

[Xiahou]

You don't need to be caught 'in theatre' though- as the Nazi sabateurs found out. It just needs to be proven that they were agents of the enemy forces. In that respect, it may be best for federal judges to be allowed to weigh the evidence of their status- we'll see how it goes. However, if a judge found them to be unlawful combatants, would you accept their lawful execution?

[Red Harvest]

That is just war propaganda.

There are dozens of detainees who were not arrested in war zones. In one of the first cases to reach an American court, this was clearly established. Idir has been deported directly from prison in Bosnia after he had been found not guilty of a terrorist plot.

No, because I'm not referring to those. I'm not discussing the perhaps 10% that might be held taken from outside that zone. I'm talking about the ones in the war zones. You can talk about others if you like, it isn't relevant to my point, I'm referring to the others. This is one of the reasons I would like to keep them segregated and dealt with promptly.

[Devastatin Dave]

Alright, who the hell has hacked into Red's account, he's making sense.

[Adrian II]

However, if a judge found them to be unlawful combatants, would you accept their lawful execution?

Good question. No, I wouldn't. Those caught fighting the U.S. Army in a war theatre should be treated as prisoners of war in accordance with the Conventions and , consequently, in accordance with U.S. military law. Those caught during police operations (which is essentially what the U.S. is now doing in Afghanistan and Iraq) should be dealt with by the local authorities according to the law of the land, provided that law does not violate their basic rights (as was clearly the case with the prisoners discovered yesterday in the secret Iraqi government facility). You are either at war and treat your prisoners as prisoners of war, or you are not, in which case you treat insurgents like criminals.

[Xiahou]

Ah- but they are being held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions if they're unlawful combatants. We've covered this territory before- none of them would qualify as legitimate POWs.

[Adrian II]

We've covered this territory before- none of them would qualify as legitimate POWs.

In that case, hand them over to the local authorities. Ask yourself this question: if you hand over Saddam Hussein, who must be one of the worst crooks alive in Iraq today, to the Iraqi authorities to be judged according to their laws, what legitimate reason do you have to not to treat lesser (suspected) crooks in the exact same way?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In that case, hand them over to the local authorities.

I thought you wanted us to follow the rules of war? Besides werent we already critisized for sending some of them back to nations where they maybe tourtured? Many of them prefer to stay at Camp Gitmo rather than be sent to a real prison in their own country where the jailers dont have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks or how they treat their prisoners..

[Xiahou]

If they are unlawful combatants, we're not required to turn them over to anybody- as said earlier, they could even be executed. Saddam was a big fish, and it makes sense to turn him over to the Iraqis to try for symbolic reasons, if nothing else. I also doubt that Afghanistan wants the detainees captured in their country. Their government has enough on its plate without housing and trying hundreds of dangerous enemy combatants. There would also be concern over their ability to keep them securely- its entirely possible that taliban fighters could try to break them out.

[Adrian II]

If they are unlawful combatants, we're not required to turn them over to anybody (..)

As long as you are fighting in someone else's land, you are. Iraq is a sovereign nation.

Anyway, I have to sign off now. I may not agree with many of your answers, but you often ask precisely the right questions that make me think hard, Xaihou.
My pleasure.

[Xiahou]

Here's an article on FindLaw that I thought was fairly insightful on the matter.

[Papewaio]

You don't need to be caught 'in theatre' though- as the Nazi sabateurs found out.

It is kind of useful if a spy has been in your country... as it is rather difficult to accuse someone of being a spy when they have not been in your country.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is kind of useful if a spy has been in your country... as it is rather difficult to accuse someone of being a spy when they have not been in your country.

Wrong. All you have to do is be behind enemy lines. Take those Germans during the battle of the bulge for instance who dressed up as US MPs. They were caught and executed in very short order.

[Papewaio]

But you couldn't have executed them if they were playing dress up within Germany or a neutral country could you?

[Red Harvest]

Wrong. All you have to do is be behind enemy lines.

...and out of uniform IIRC. Just being behind the lines doesn't make one a spy/saboteur (otherwise all aircrew in hostile territory could be summarily shot.) Being in civilian dress or captured uniform does.