That is the reason for the tribunals...to make that determination of guilt/innocence...finally.
But this is fundamentally compromised if such is determined in anything but an open court.
You have one country secretly / quasi-secretly trying people from a second country, who were arrested in a thrid country, being held in a fourth country.
There is nothing 'finally' about any of it!
First, the premise for detaining people is that they are a threat to the U.S., so that is the basis for U.S. action.
Well this is of course dismissed as being course of the trial. But as precedent, we examine those who have thus far been released scott free…..
I agree that the U.S. need not exercise exclusive jurisdiction, but as the primary target, we have the primary interest to prevent additional attacks against this country
But are the majority / entirety of those held not being held for the actions in war zones? Ie nothing to do with 'terrarist' efforts agaisnt public domains?
I don't know anything about international law, but I would not object to an international tribunal provided it: (i)did not have an anti-U.S. bias
Bias can swing both ways. And thus far for as long as the current is maintained, there is palpable pro-US bias. The concession that hearsay and torture induced confessions are no longer admissible is to fall waaaay short of the simple base expectation.
(iii) did not compromise ongoing efforts by the U.S. to defend itself from further attacks. This country was attacked by ruthless killers and will defend itself, to expect otherwise is silly. Of course, root causes are separate matter and are now being dealt with also.
But are those held, being held for domestic terrar efforts, or for their alleged participation in a foreign conflict, into which the US military willingly placed themselves into harms way; hence the US 'jurisdiction'?
Exercising executive authority /= overriding judicial authority. The judiciary exists to interpret the law...it does not have primary responsibility for safeguarding military troops in our system of checks and balances... the executive does Different responsibilities generate different perspectives.
Judges are responsible for deciding the legal question presented to them...that is all. They are not elected by the people to govern the country.
And there lies a conflict of interest for which each ought to be exclusively concerned by; otherwise a copromise of both positions is unavoidable. Their judgement has been made and now efforts are underway to undermine the results of this judgement.
I certainly do not respect what Bush did as president...whether he is a criminal is a legal question and I would not object to having a U.S. court rule on that question.
The crimes were not committed in the US, but were simply commissioned there. Many corrupt bankers and 'terrarists' have been extradited for similar such scenarios. The US ought not be the ones to judge Bush on his war crimes; it would be like friends and family being asked to judge an accused!
Constantly painting him with a Bushbrush may provide some emotional gratification to some, but I don't think it is honestly productive.
There is no spite for Obama in my mind. I share the hopes held by many. But whilst I am disinclined to draw any comparison to him to Bush, other than due to close chronological proximity, I maintain that political leaders (and not just american ones) are all cut from the same cloth.