[Developer]

The alleged al Qaida member Mounir al-Motassadeq - who had been accused of assisting pf thousands times murder - has been released from prison yesterday in Hamburg.

The American government is criticizing the German justice.

Now, we must understand that al-Motassadeq was released after he could not been convicted because the American government is witholding important evidence. In particular the USA will not let al-Qaida terrorist Binalshibh (who is in American custody) testify in court or deliver his interrogation protocols. Al-Motassadeq's defense claims that Binalshibh's testimonial would be in the defendant's favour, the prosecution believes not.
Because important evidence is withheld, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that al-Motassadeq can not be convicted. A principle called due process (Rechtsstaatlichkeit). Germany is not Cuba.

The US department of justice is disappointed and sarcastically declared to "continue to fully support the German authorities".
The German ministry of justice understood the message; a spokesperson said today: "We can not expect any help from the Americans."

[SimeyTheLimey]

The German authorities once again release somebody they consider to be a dangerous threat to their country, and to their "allies,'" but it's America's fault.

And I guess America would also be wrong to screen visitors at our borders too.

This is exactly why you don't fight a war as a law enforcement problem. The tools are inadequate and the enemy uses that against you.

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The German authorities once again release somebody they consider to be a dangerous threat to their country, and to their "allies,'" but it's America's fault.

The Americans are withholding evidence, so yes, it's their fault.

This is exactly why you don't fight a war as a law enforcement problem. The tools are inadequate and the enemy uses that against you.

So do you oppose the principle of Rechtsstaatlichkeit?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
The Americans are withholding evidence, so yes, it's their fault.

No, that's your excuse. But it's your courts, your decision to prosecute on evidence that was inadequate, your decision to release someone you know to be dangerous. If you want to do that, that's fine. Just don't expect us to trust your authorities and let your citizens and residents in to our country without additional screening. It would be nice if for once you would take some responsibility for yourselves instead of blaming everything on the US.

So do you oppose the principle of Rechtsstaatlichkeit?

Not for common criminals, no. But this isn't a common criminal and it's a mistake to think that he is and think that you are going to be able to convict given that most of the evidence would never be releasable in open court. There is a truism that I am not sure who to attribute to that goes that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.* I'd say the same thing applies here.

And by the way, what's wrong with the English term "due process?" This is an English language board. Most people aren't fluent enough in German to know a term like Rechtsstaatslichkeit. I had to look it up too. I know what Rechts and staats means, but had no idea in this case what the "lichkeit" did to the compound (other than make it feminine).





* This got me interested enough to look it up. The quote (actually a paraphrase) was from Justice Goldberg, significantly, one of the US Supreme Court's greatest civil libertarians. He upheld the US stripping citizenship from a draft dodger who left the US to evade the draft in a time of war. Goldberg said: "while the Constitution protects against the invasions of certain rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 160 (1963). I think Goldberg had it right.

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, that's your excuse.

The court reviews the evidence, then decides whether it is sufficient for a conviction or not. It doesn't need an excuse.

Not for common criminals, no. But this isn't a common criminal and it's a mistake to think that he is and think that you are going to be able to convict given that most of the evidence would never be releasable in open court.

If you lift the principle for some people that can be randomly labeled as "non-common criminal", you lift it for everybody.

And by the way, what's wrong with the English term "due process?"

It has different implications. In a Rechtsstaat ("law-state") the forces of the state are regulated by law. A "due process" is a due process, but it doesn't sound like this might not be complemented by a "not due process".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
It has different implications. In a Rechtsstaat ("law-state") the forces of the state are regulated by law.

And did it occur to you to inquire whether the reasons the US had for "withholding" evidence might also have justifications in US law?

No, I don't think it did. You just blamed the US for everything, as usual.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And did it occur to you to inquire whether the reasons the US had for "withholding" evidence might also have justifications in US law?

No, I don't think it did. You just blamed the US for everything, as usual.

Or that releasing such information would hamper or compromise on-going investigations?

Damn, some of you Europeans really need to grow up and stop blaming other people for your issues.

[Spliffdaddy]

One more reason to not trust Germany.

as if the list wasn't long enough already.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And by the way, what's wrong with the English term "due process?" This is an English language board. Most people aren't fluent enough in German to know a term like Rechtsstaatslichkeit. I had to look it up too. I know what Rechts and staats means, but had no idea in this case what the "lichkeit" did to the compound (other than make it feminine).

Jag tycker att det inte �r bra att l�ter s� etnocentrisk, t.ex. med fraser som du har skrivit h�r (och m�nga liknande du har skrivit tidigare). Det �r en stor v�rld. Jag �r inte r�dd f�r att l�ra mig n�gonting nytt om v�rlden och andra nationer.

Om vi ska diskutera lite om straffr�tt i Tyskland, kanske det �r okej att anv�nda ett tyskt ord eller tv� - eller hur?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
One more reason to not trust Germany.

"Don't suspect a friend - Report him!"

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
One more reason to not trust Germany.

as if the list wasn't long enough already.

Pretty much the case. My German heritage disgusts me (as if two world wars weren't enough to cause this on its own).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Jag tycker att det inte �r bra att l�ter s� etnocentrisk, t.ex. med fraser som du har skrivit h�r (och m�nga liknande du har skrivit tidigare). Det �r en stor v�rld. Jag �r inte r�dd f�r att l�ra mig n�gonting nytt om v�rlden och andra nationer.

Om vi ska diskutera lite om straffr�tt i Tyskland, kanske det �r okej att anv�nda ett tyskt ord eller tv� - eller hur?

[netgear]

BORK! BORK! BORK!

[Ayelbourne]

A puppet show. Who says America doesn't have culture?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Developer:
It has different implications. In a Rechtsstaat ("law-state") the forces of the state are regulated by law. A "due process" is a due process, but it doesn't sound like this might not be complemented by a "not due process".

Maybe you can organise a puppet show to explain it?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Jag tycker att det inte �r bra att l�ter s� etnocentrisk, t.ex. med fraser som du har skrivit h�r (och m�nga liknande du har skrivit tidigare). Det �r en stor v�rld. Jag �r inte r�dd f�r att l�ra mig n�gonting nytt om v�rlden och andra nationer.

Om vi ska diskutera lite om straffr�tt i Tyskland, kanske det �r okej att anv�nda ett tyskt ord eller tv� - eller hur?

[nonhuman]

I don't get it. It sounds like there's no evidence against this man. So what's the problem?

If the evidence does exist, and the German courts were prevented from having access to it or even knowing the nature of it, then it is in no way the fault of the German courts. The government (and yes, even the military) is bound by law. If German law says that someone can't be held when there's no evidence against them then they had no choice but to let him go. If the reason there was no evidence was that the US refused to give it to them, then it is indeed the US' fault. Even if he is guilty, the courts still did the right thing. Sometimes a criminal is let free, this is the price we pay for being free ourselves. Rabid nationalism and paranoia are not tools for encouraging freedom or safety.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
If the evidence does exist, and the German courts were prevented from having access to it or even knowing the nature of it, then it is in no way the fault of the German courts. The government (and yes, even the military) is bound by law. If German law says that someone can't be held when there's no evidence against them then they had no choice but to let him go. If the reason there was no evidence was that the US refused to give it to them, then it is indeed the US' fault. Even if he is guilty, the courts still did the right thing. Sometimes a criminal is let free, this is the price we pay for being free ourselves. Rabid nationalism and paranoia are not tools for encouraging freedom or safety.

Nicely put. Bra jobbet!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Even if he is guilty, the courts still did the right thing. Sometimes a criminal is let free, this is the price we pay for being free ourselves. Rabid nationalism and paranoia are not tools for encouraging freedom or safety.

As I said, if Germany plans on dealing with terrorists as nothing but common criminals, then that is Germany's choice. Just don't complain when we look at German passport holders with suspicion. And of course, Germany shouldn't expect any terrorists we hold to be extradited to them any time soon since their courts, for whatever high-sounding reason, basically aren't participating in the war on terror.

[cpt kangarooski]

Nonhuman--
I'm inclined to agree. I feel much safer when I am protected by due process, even though this sometimes results in a failure to convict alleged criminals than I would if we locked up people without due process.

And I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate that regular criminal procedures would amount to suicide. OTOH there have been plenty of governments that did not respect due process, and which had to be brought back into line or put down.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
And I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate that regular criminal procedures would amount to suicide. OTOH there have been plenty of governments that did not respect due process, and which had to be brought back into line or put down.

That depends on what the evidence is, and how much protection the German courts were willing to grant it. If their price was exposure of intelligence methodologies, then that's not a price worth paying to convict one individual.

The flipside is how dangerous this individual is personally. I don't know enough about the case to know whether he remains personally much of a threat. He may not be much more than a footsoldier. If he is, then he's now an identified footsoldier, which means he's probably not much of a threat anymore. He has zero chance of ever entering the US at this point, so if he tries to kill again, it will be Europeans. And since that is a risk they seem happy to take, then I say let them. It's their continent.

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As I said, if Germany plans on dealing with terrorists as nothing but common criminals, then that is Germany's choice.

What's you're choice? What do you think should have been done with him?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
What's you're choice? What do you think should have been done with him?

There are several options. One is to treat him as what he is: a POW fighting a war. If you did that, you have the option of not trying him at all (i.e. giving him the immunity traditionally give a combatant), or trying him for war crimes. But that trial could be in a military tribunal per the Geneva Convention, which means you could introduce intelligence evidence in a way that would ensure it is protected.

Another option is to create safeguards in civilian court that would protect the evidence. A number of European coutries over the years have created special terrorism courts for that purpose.

A third option is simply to tail him, which would pretty much neutralize him as a threat. That would have been a good option because you could have used evidence that your police gathered, instead of hanging the case on US evidence.

A fourth option is assassination. I.e. really treat him as a combatant. I wouldn't do that, but it's an option.

The best option would probably have been to extradite him to the US. The murders he was accused of took place in the US and were of American citizens. You could have given him to us. We have provisions for intelligence to be handled in our civilian courts that would have protected the intelligence.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Developer:
What's you're choice? What do you think should have been done with him?

Well, I suppose they could put him in a dog kennel for two or three years...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Or that releasing such information would hamper or compromise on-going investigations?

Damn, some of you Europeans really need to grow up and stop blaming other people for your issues.

Well, if the evidence is withheld for a good reason, and our courts had to release him for equally good reason (lack of evidence), then what is America complaining about?

Hmm?

-s*

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A fourth option is assassination. I.e. really treat him as a combatant. I wouldn't do that, but it's an option.

Send out "Task Force 20", eh? Encouraging! Personally, I don't consider assassination or the use of assassination squads an option for a civilised nation.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The best option would probably have been to extradite him to the US. The murders he was accused of took place in the US and were of American citizens. You could have given him to us. We have provisions for intelligence to be handled in our civilian courts that would have protected the intelligence.

Yeah, there's heaps of due process going on down in Cuba.

Also, citizens of other countries besides the U.S. were killed on September 11th, including German nationals.

And, if I may say so, your intelligence hasn't exactly been all that protection-worthy lately...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yeah, there's heaps of due process going on down in Cuba.

I said civilian courts as one option. Guantanamo-style POW camps are another of the options I meantioned. You are confusing things.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I said civilian courts as one option. Guantanamo-style POW camps are another of the options I meantioned. You are confusing things.

No, Simey, respectfully, I'm not. I'm saying that given the sorry recent track record of American intelligence in your "War on Terror" (and the resultant credibility deficit) and the sorry recent track record of America in human and civil rights, I wouldn't be surprised to find another country reluctant to hand someone over to the U.S. for "justice". Especially if the U.S. administration actually considers assassination a viable option.

Many of your neighbors in this world have had our confidence in "American justice" severely eroded in the past three years. I know certain Americans could care less, but there it is.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, if the evidence is withheld for a good reason, and our courts had to release him for equally good reason (lack of evidence), then what is America complaining about?

Hmm?

-s*

We aren't complaining, Germany is. They should have simply extradited him to the US if they saw that their evidence was going to be shakey. YOUR courts are the ones who screwed up.

But, hey, it's your problem now, he's running around loose in your country and I know we won't let him in over here... unless it's in cuffs.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Especially if the U.S. administration actually considers assassination a viable option.

Who said they do? I was the one who said it was a possibility, but not one I would condone. I've never seen anything that remotely suggests that is considered anywhere. I just hypothetically listed it as a theoretical possibility.

Your projection aside, the US and European justice sytems do cooperate. That's probably just as well, because what you are suggesting would be tantamount to Germany withdrawing from the war on terror altogether. I don't think that in reality things have become that disfunctional.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
No, Simey, respectfully, I'm not. I'm saying that given the sorry recent track record of American intelligence in your "War on Terror" (and the resultant credibility deficit) and the sorry recent track record of America in human and civil rights, I wouldn't be surprised to find another country reluctant to hand someone over to the U.S. for "justice". Especially if the U.S. administration actually considers assassination a viable option.

Many of your neighbors in this world have had our confidence in "American justice" severely eroded in the past three years. I know certain Americans could care less, but there it is.

then deal with all of your domestic matters yourself and don't gripe when the terrorists are running around loose in your countries.

And yes, assassination is a viable option, snipers are always used in war.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
One is to treat him as what he is: a POW fighting a war. If you did that, you have the option of not trying him at all (i.e. giving him the immunity traditionally give a combatant), or trying him for war crimes. But that trial could be in a military tribunal per the Geneva Convention, which means you could introduce intelligence evidence in a way that would ensure it is protected.

What war? Even on your own screwball version of justice, this guy isn't covered. The acts he's accused of were committed BEFORE any War on Terrorism started. What, are you now telling us that not only can a country declare war on terror but it can do so with retroactive effect? This attempt of your to introduce legal principles to a political slogan just gets more and more bizarre.

You need to see "War on Terror" as political marketing and forget about trying to justify it with reference to laws that you apply to generate completely bizarre results ... such as declaring certain parts of Hamburg at war with terror in early 2001. They are two separate things. One is about commitment to fighting terrorism, the other is about how to do that without stomping on people's civil liberties. You are free to decide that you want your liberties stomped on. Germans aren't and they don't seem to be doing a worse job of protecting themselves than you do!

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
then deal with all of your domestic matters yourself and don't gripe when the terrorists are running around loose in your countries.

And yes, assassination is a viable option, snipers are always used in war.

Oh really? How would shooting an unarmed person in civilian dress not be a war wrime under the Geneva Conventions?

[nam_pog]

They released him, but he isn't really "free".

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh really? How would shooting an unarmed person in civilian dress not be a war wrime under the Geneva Conventions?

When terrorists decide to adhere to the Geneva Conventions then perhaps assasination won't be an option to be considered.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who said they do? I was the one who said it was a possibility, but not one I would condone. I've never seen anything that remotely suggests that is considered anywhere. I just hypothetically listed it as a theoretical possibility.

Your projection aside... *snip*

I sincerely hope I am wrong on this...

U.S. Considers Assassination Squads

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
What war? Even on your own screwball version of justice, this guy isn't covered. The acts he's accused of were committed BEFORE any War on Terrorism started. What, are you now telling us that not only can a country declare war on terror but it can do so with retroactive effect?

Wars begin with a state of hostilities, not a declaration of war. Think of Pearl Harbor. The war began with the initiation of the attack, not with Congress' declaration of war a day later.

Al-Queda was engaging in hostilities with the US long before the "war on terror" was officilly mentioned. But the hostilities had commenced -- going back in the case of al-Queda at least to 1993 and the first WTC attack.

It's especially clear in this case if this person was indeed involved in the 9/11 attacks -- as the German prosecutors apparently believed. That makes him part of the very act that by your overly narrow calculation precipitated the war on terror. So there is nothing retroactive here. If there were, then it should also be impossible for Germany to have indicted him since you are arguing that he had not yet committed any crime.

Consider it by analogy to conventional war. Once an attack is set in motion (think of Pearl Habor, for example), the laws of war come into effect. It does not wait until the first bullet strikes the first victim. This guy's actions were a part of the attack. The dates upon which the first throat were slit and the first plane was crashed are irrelevant. By the narrowest definition, limiting things to this attack only, what matters is when the attack began, and that was far earlier than when it ended.

Of course, Germany isn't obligated to recognize that a state of war exists. They can pretend otherwise as long as they like. I merely listed this as a possible way to deal with this character. It's not that there were no choices but to release him, it was that a choice was made not to consider the other choices.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I sincerely hope I am wrong on this...

U.S. Considers Assassination Squads

Good.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh really? How would shooting an unarmed person in civilian dress not be a war wrime under the Geneva Conventions?

If a combatant is a combatant, he's a legitimate target. Dress or whether he's presently armed has nothing to do with it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh really? How would shooting an unarmed person in civilian dress not be a war wrime under the Geneva Conventions?

It's fine, when the combatants have resorted to wearing civilian dress.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If a combatant is a combatant, he's a legitimate target. Dress or whether he's presently armed has nothing to do with it.

Um, Simey? I know you've read the Geneva Convention at least as closely as I had. I'm pretty sure it says specifically, that the indicators of whether or not someone is a combatant is if their either in uniform (counting things like head/arm bands) or armed (or both, of course). Those are the indicators. If they're dressed as a civilian and not carrying arms, then they aren't classified as combatants.

Is there something I'm missing?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Good.

The end is nigh.

And I'm not ****ing kidding, either.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Um, Simey? I know you've read the Geneva Convention at least as closely as I had. I'm pretty sure it says specifically, that the indicators of whether or not someone is a combatant is if their either in uniform (counting things like head/arm bands) or armed (or both, of course). Those are the indicators. If they're dressed as a civilian and not carrying arms, then they aren't classified as combatants.

Is there something I'm missing?

No, you have it backwards. Those are the requirements for a combatant to be able to claim POW status. Combatants can't claim not to be combatants simply by the expedient of not wearing uniforms or not carrying their arms openly.

The humanitarian legal idea is to reward combatants for openly identifying themselves as combatants. That helps prevent the genuine non-combatants from being shot at by both sides. Mitigation of the suffering of war is the main reason for humanitarian law. In this example, the war criminal is the combatant who fights in civilian clothes or who hides among civilians endangering them. That's the reason the use of human shields is considered a war crime.

Your way would reverse the incentive, and endanger civilians by making it rewarding for combatants to hide among non-combatants. You've got it backwards.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The end is nigh.

And I'm not ****ing kidding, either.

That's why I keep insisting that people need to enjoy life instead of merely waiting for death.

Yep, our days are numbered.

Always were. Always will be.

[Developer]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
We aren't complaining, Germany is.

The US-government was not enthusiastic about the work of the German justice. "We are disappointed", a spokesman of the US state department commented without diplomatic deviation. Facing the gravity of the crimes it would have been better to keep "that dangerous guy" in custody, teached Adem Ereli the German authorities. [...] "We believe evidence against him is strong enough"

-- http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,294577,00.html

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, you have it backwards. Those are the requirements for a combatant to be able to claim POW status. Combatants can't claim not to be combatants simply by the expedient of not wearing uniforms or not carrying their arms openly.

The humanitarian legal idea is to reward combatants for openly identifying themselves as combatants. That helps prevent the genuine non-combatants from being shot at by both sides. Mitigation of the suffering of war is the main reason for humanitarian law. In this example, the war criminal is the combatant who fights in civilian clothes or who hides among civilians endangering them. That's the reason the use of human shields is considered a war crime.

Your way would reverse the incentive, and endanger civilians by making it rewarding for combatants to hide among non-combatants. You've got it backwards.

So it's ok to shoot a soldier who's on leave and in civvies? They don't get the protections that they would get otherwise? That's the part I don't get. Your interpretation would seem to say that anyone who looks like a civilian should still be considered a combatant because we don't know if they're just pretending to be a civilian or not. This would seem to undermine the efficacy of the Geneva Convention at protecting civilians.

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If a combatant is a combatant, he's a legitimate target. Dress or whether he's presently armed has nothing to do with it.

And isn't it a violation of Geneva Convention for armed combatants to disguise themselves as civilians or non-combatants?

[netgear]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So it's ok to shoot a soldier who's on leave and in civvies? They don't get the protections that they would get otherwise? That's the part I don't get. Your interpretation would seem to say that anyone who looks like a civilian should still be considered a combatant because we don't know if they're just pretending to be a civilian or not. This would seem to undermine the efficacy of the Geneva Convention at protecting civilians.

A solider on leave is still a soldier. Soldiers always must carry their military IDs on the person at all times. You are always a solder whether in uniform or not until you are discharged or retire from military service (in the same fashion that a policeman is always a policeman whether on duty or not).

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Jag tycker att det inte �r bra att l�ter s� etnocentrisk, t.ex. med fraser som du har skrivit h�r (och m�nga liknande du har skrivit tidigare). Det �r en stor v�rld. Jag �r inte r�dd f�r att l�ra mig n�gonting nytt om v�rlden och andra nationer.

Om vi ska diskutera lite om straffr�tt i Tyskland, kanske det �r okej att anv�nda ett tyskt ord eller tv� - eller hur?

Amerikanere er ikke s� etnocentriske som det du tror, noe jeg er bevis p�.
Nei, Herregud, dette er da et Amerikansk Debatt side, og hvorfor skal det forventes at man skal skrive kunne Tyske ord. Her er det Engelsk som gjelder, her i g�rden. Men nok om det.

Those Germans definitely screwed it up this time. Whining about some lack of American evidence, or whatever pathetic reasons they had for letting that terrorist dude out on the streets.

Ok, so the guy is supposed to be getting a retrail. Fair enough, but why in the world didnt they keep the moron locked up ? You dont let potential massmurderers out on bail, or let them roam the streets.

Oh, wait a second, obviously, the Germans do.

I hope somebody is keeping this guy under surveilence.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by netgear:
A solider on leave is still a soldier. Soldiers always must carry their military IDs on the person at all times. You are always a solder whether in uniform or not until you are discharged or retire from military service (in the same fashion that a policeman is always a policeman whether on duty or not).

Yes, but you can't just shoot someone who's dressed as a civilian because you suspect they might actually be a soldier. I'm pretty sure that would violate an international law or two as well.