DJ In basic we had to take briefings on the uniformed Code of Military Justice. Which is the military courts illustrated in a few good men.
My impressions were that there is no standard of disclosure. Anything and everything is sealed and will never see the light of day. Most findings are considered "national security" and are heavily guarded. When you get sentenced you can disappear into a hole and never be seen again.
Maybe this was said to scare us, but my impression was that military justice is a joke.
0
DJ In basic we had to take briefings on the uniformed Code of Military Justice. Which is the military courts illustrated in a few good men.
My impressions were that there is no standard of disclosure. Anything and everything is sealed and will never see the light of day. Most findings are considered "national security" and are heavily guarded. When you get sentenced you can disappear into a hole and never be seen again.
Maybe this was said to scare us, but my impression was that military justice is a joke.
It also brings to mind those people in Gitmo that have been exonerated of all charges, yet they are rotting in one of the most secretive jails under no charge.
0
It also brings to mind those people in Gitmo that have been exonerated of all charges, yet they are rotting in one of the most secretive jails under no charge.
DJ In basic we had to take briefings on the uniformed Code of Military Justice. Which is the military courts illustrated in a few good men.
My impressions were that there is no standard of disclosure. Anything and everything is sealed and will never see the light of day. Most findings are considered "national security" and are heavily guarded. When you get sentenced you can disappear into a hole and never be seen again.
Maybe this was said to scare us, but my impression was that military justice is a joke.
You are raising different issues and scenarios. Unless you went AWOL and fought for the enemy, you would have been tried in a military court (because your action occured while a member of the military). You would have been entitled to counsel, and supplied discovery under the federal rules (believe me, not defendant friendly). You would have been allowed a minimal review (not necessarily an appeal). But much of the secrecy you stated above is correct.
An enemy combatant is held by a military tribunal. They are not entitled to counsel. They are not entitled to know the charges against them. They are not entitled to a trial (although they cannot be indefinitely held...whatever that means). They are entitled to a habeas proceeding in the federal court to challenge their status as an enemy combatant.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
DJ In basic we had to take briefings on the uniformed Code of Military Justice. Which is the military courts illustrated in a few good men.
My impressions were that there is no standard of disclosure. Anything and everything is sealed and will never see the light of day. Most findings are considered "national security" and are heavily guarded. When you get sentenced you can disappear into a hole and never be seen again.
Maybe this was said to scare us, but my impression was that military justice is a joke.
You are raising different issues and scenarios. Unless you went AWOL and fought for the enemy, you would have been tried in a military court (because your action occured while a member of the military). You would have been entitled to counsel, and supplied discovery under the federal rules (believe me, not defendant friendly). You would have been allowed a minimal review (not necessarily an appeal). But much of the secrecy you stated above is correct.
An enemy combatant is held by a military tribunal. They are not entitled to counsel. They are not entitled to know the charges against them. They are not entitled to a trial (although they cannot be indefinitely held...whatever that means). They are entitled to a habeas proceeding in the federal court to challenge their status as an enemy combatant.
Habeas proceedings but not necisarilly a trial? Weird.
How do you feel about the issue?
How do you think he should be tried.
Habeas proceedings could lead to a trial. It is a determination if someone is being wrongfully held. If the court determines one is not an enemy combatant and thus, is wrongfully held, a trial would be necessary in Federal (or possibly State) Court.
I favor detainer for enemy combatants. I am not sure I agree that the person in this case qualifies.
I do think the best of both worlds could exist here. Interrogate to determine if public safety interests apply (other members, bombs, etc.) knowing such statements would not be admissible (and this not necessary).
Appoint counsel for subsequent proceedings and move to trial.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Habeas proceedings but not necisarilly a trial? Weird.
How do you feel about the issue?
How do you think he should be tried.
Habeas proceedings could lead to a trial. It is a determination if someone is being wrongfully held. If the court determines one is not an enemy combatant and thus, is wrongfully held, a trial would be necessary in Federal (or possibly State) Court.
I favor detainer for enemy combatants. I am not sure I agree that the person in this case qualifies.
I do think the best of both worlds could exist here. Interrogate to determine if public safety interests apply (other members, bombs, etc.) knowing such statements would not be admissible (and this not necessary).
Appoint counsel for subsequent proceedings and move to trial.
how long will it take to figure out what the older brother was doing in Chechnya. Why did the Russians warn us of this guy? Very possible the older brother was an enemy combatant with ties to extremist and the younger one a mere associate in the plan which then I think would make him an enemy combatant as well.
Obviously something was very concerning about the big bro
0
rick.....length of time....good question.
how long will it take to figure out what the older brother was doing in Chechnya. Why did the Russians warn us of this guy? Very possible the older brother was an enemy combatant with ties to extremist and the younger one a mere associate in the plan which then I think would make him an enemy combatant as well.
Obviously something was very concerning about the big bro
You mean like a waiver of rights for a specific period, in which nothing is admissible in court to determine if any exterior threat exists?
Seems like a slippery slope
How long would it be?
If it is a public safety question, who knows. I guess the point is that I have no issue with immediate questioning absent 5th Amendment requirements. I do have an issue with indefinte detentions.
How long? I guess the answer would be the usual legal jargon (a resonable time under the circumstances).
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
You mean like a waiver of rights for a specific period, in which nothing is admissible in court to determine if any exterior threat exists?
Seems like a slippery slope
How long would it be?
If it is a public safety question, who knows. I guess the point is that I have no issue with immediate questioning absent 5th Amendment requirements. I do have an issue with indefinte detentions.
How long? I guess the answer would be the usual legal jargon (a resonable time under the circumstances).
I think this thread has lost sight of something here.
Miranda is a set of rules the government can chose to follow if they want to admit a person’s statements in a criminal case in court, not a set of rules they have to follow in every case. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Further, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement can be excluded.
The fact of the matter is that the DOJ ordering this, the bomber then immediately shutting up, is a complete outrage.
0
I think this thread has lost sight of something here.
Miranda is a set of rules the government can chose to follow if they want to admit a person’s statements in a criminal case in court, not a set of rules they have to follow in every case. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Further, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement can be excluded.
The fact of the matter is that the DOJ ordering this, the bomber then immediately shutting up, is a complete outrage.
He confessed and was talking before this judge took over.
After roughly 16 hours of questioning, investigators were surprised when a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered the hospital room and read Tsarnaev his rights, the four officials and one law enforcement official said. Investigators had planned to keep questioning him.
It is unclear whether any of this will matter in court since the FBI says Tsarnaev confessed to a witness and U.S. officials said Wednesday that physical evidence, including a 9 mm handgun and pieces of a remote-control device commonly used in toys, was recovered from the scene.
Two officials with knowledge of the FBI briefing on Capitol Hill said the FBI was against stopping the investigators' questioning and was stunned that the judge, Justice Department prosecutors and public defenders showed up, feeling valuable intelligence may have been sacrificed as a result.
He confessed and was talking before this judge took over.
After roughly 16 hours of questioning, investigators were surprised when a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered the hospital room and read Tsarnaev his rights, the four officials and one law enforcement official said. Investigators had planned to keep questioning him.
It is unclear whether any of this will matter in court since the FBI says Tsarnaev confessed to a witness and U.S. officials said Wednesday that physical evidence, including a 9 mm handgun and pieces of a remote-control device commonly used in toys, was recovered from the scene.
Two officials with knowledge of the FBI briefing on Capitol Hill said the FBI was against stopping the investigators' questioning and was stunned that the judge, Justice Department prosecutors and public defenders showed up, feeling valuable intelligence may have been sacrificed as a result.
On Saturday, several Republican lawmakers called on Obama to try Tsarnaev as an "enemy combatant" under terms of war, without entitlement to Miranda rights - usually given by police to suspects before they are interrogated so statements can be admissible in court.
I knew the partisan lemming would rear its ugly head eventually...
funny to watch a non-american try to talk about the american way...
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
did the unibomber get his miranda rights... and he faced justice in the end...
and before the Partisan lemmings start pointing fingers... Lets establish that this seems to be a bipartisan effort
On Saturday, several Republican lawmakers called on Obama to try Tsarnaev as an "enemy combatant" under terms of war, without entitlement to Miranda rights - usually given by police to suspects before they are interrogated so statements can be admissible in court.
I knew the partisan lemming would rear its ugly head eventually...
funny to watch a non-american try to talk about the american way...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.