James Yee

[Matabiri]

What's this all about then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1180726,00.html

"When Guantánamo chaplain Captain James Yee was arrested allegedly with secret documents about the prison, he was threatened with execution and branded a traitor. So why after 200 days in jail was he only charged with adultery and quietly released?"

Is this an American citizen, arrested on US land, and shackled up in solitary confinement for 80-odd days? Can anyone in the US tell me what the media over there are saying about cases like this?

 

[rikzilla]

What's this all about then?



Is this an American citizen, arrested on US land, and shackled up in solitary confinement for 80-odd days? Can anyone in the US tell me what the media over there are saying about cases like this?

An American soldier does not enjoy the Constitutional rights that he protects. US Soldiers are covered under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Since his confinement was under UCMJ it was completely legal. There's not much there for the "media" to complain about.

-z

 

[Matabiri]

Re: Re: James Yee

An American soldier does not enjoy the Constitutional rights that he protects. US Soldiers are covered under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Since his confinement was under UCMJ it was completely legal.

Okay. Thanks.

There's not much there for the "media" to complain about.

-z

Apart from the fact that he appears to have been innocent. I was wondering if there was more to the story than was reported here.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: James Yee

Okay. Thanks.



Apart from the fact that he appears to have been innocent. I was wondering if there was more to the story than was reported here.

Who knows? He might have been guilty, but offered up some info or some person in a kind of plea bargain. When the Gitmo tribunals finally get cranked up it'll be interesting to see if he shows up as a witness for the government.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

I searched Google for more on Yee, however the shrill "human-rights" pages outnumbered actual news articles 10 to 1. I did find an article in the Washington Times which pretty much supports my suspicion that Yee made a secret deal. Alot of people embroiled in espionage cases get to make deals in exchange for info.

Capt. James Yee and prosecutors are near an agreement under which the Army would drop its most serious criminal charges against the Muslim chaplain and he would agree to undergo up to 30 days of counterintelligence interrogations and a polygraph test.

The Link

-z

Funny tho, how interregators rely on the pseudo-science of polygraphy. I guess it impresses those poor saps who've spent their lives steeped in woo-woo beliefs??

If only Mr. Randi would run for the Presidency!!

 

[Cleon]

I searched Google for more on Yee, however the shrill "human-rights" pages outnumbered actual news articles 10 to 1. I did find an article in the Washington Times which pretty much supports my suspicion that Yee made a secret deal. Alot of people embroiled in espionage cases get to make deals in exchange for info.

Dude, you know, if you go to news.google.com you can search news stories only. Saves time.

If only Mr. Randi would run for the Presidency!!

I think I can safely say that's the only time you and I would both be casting a vote for the same guy. Of course, being Canadian by birth, he can't get elected. Ah, well...

 

[Matabiri]

Dude, you know, if you go to news.google.com you can search news stories only. Saves time.

You know, that's a really good idea. Why didn't I think of that...?

 

[rikzilla]

Dude, you know, if you go to news.google.com you can search news stories only. Saves time.

Me too...thanks Cleon.

-z

Hey, maybe we can get a Constitutional ammendment allowing a Randi Presidency? However, as an objectively honest man, I doubt Randi would be interested in the job. Politicians tell the people what they want to hear....I doubt Randi would be any good at that.

PS: I almost voted for Kodos...but Kang is soo much more Presidential!

 

[Agammamon]

The Yee case is drawing to a close (if it's not already finished). The score so far is that all of the orginal charges of espionage have been dropped. The charge of mishandling classified material is up in the air, since the Army can't say for certain if the list of names he had was actually classified. Right now he is pretty much being charged with adultery and conduct unbecoming (for having pornography on his computer at work) - charges that were brought from information gathered during the investigation of his alleged espionage. And let's keep in mind that the original espionage charge was brought because he had a list of the Gitmo detainees, something the Army can't even say for certain is classified material.

As for being "shackled in solitary confinement for 200 days", I pretty much doubt this. He's had access to a lawyer at the very least (something the Gitmo detainees do not I would like to point out). Pre-trial confinement without bail is not unheard of (or even uncommon) in civil courts for similar cases (potentially dangerous defendents/those who pose a high flight risk).

For rikzilla - The UCMJ is not a carte blanche for prosecutors. There are specific limitations on treatment of accused, legal protections, limits on punishments, etc. These can and are (occasionally) abused. While I don't think this is quite the case here, saying that his detention is legal merely because he's under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ is a vast over-simplification.
An American soldier does enjoy nearly full protection of the constitutional rights he protects. The only real area that military law and civil law part ways is in the 1st amendments right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble, and ( in very limited measure) the 4th's protections against unreasonable search and seizure and the 6th's right to a speedy trial.
Even with the above exemptions, partial protections of the various amendments are still afforded the servicemember.

 

[Matabiri]

As for being "shackled in solitary confinement for 200 days", I pretty much doubt this. He's had access to a lawyer at the very least (something the Gitmo detainees do not I would like to point out). Pre-trial confinement without bail is not unheard of (or even uncommon) in civil courts for similar cases (potentially dangerous defendents/those who pose a high flight risk).

I didn't say "shackled for 200 days", I said "shackled for 80-odd days", based on this part of the article:

At first, Yee was considered to present a high security risk, and for many of his 76 days in confinement he wore manacles and leg-irons.

 

[Agammamon]

My apologies for misquoting you.
I must say that while the manacles seem over the top, it is pretty much up to the discretion of the jailers. Though I would have to say that that was overzealousness on their part, the stuff I've seen on Yee never in any way indicated that he was dangerous or a Houdini.

 

[rikzilla]

For rikzilla - The UCMJ is not a carte blanche for prosecutors. There are specific limitations on treatment of accused, legal protections, limits on punishments, etc. These can and are (occasionally) abused. While I don't think this is quite the case here, saying that his detention is legal merely because he's under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ is a vast over-simplification.
An American soldier does enjoy nearly full protection of the constitutional rights he protects. The only real area that military law and civil law part ways is in the 1st amendments right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble, and ( in very limited measure) the 4th's protections against unreasonable search and seizure and the 6th's right to a speedy trial.
Even with the above exemptions, partial protections of the various amendments are still afforded the servicemember.

Okay Ag...

First, what exactly does "nearly full protection" mean? Once you take those rights away, it truly does seem like you've lost your rights. I know first hand.

First, when I was in AIT at Ft. Gordon, GA I met a lovely GI "Jane" at the EM Club. We danced, we drank,...we slipped off into the woods behind the club and got high on some weed that the aforementioned young lady somehow aquired. Stoned, drunk, half undressed, we were accosted by MP's. Buzz-kill!

Under the good old UCMJ I was charged with "Possession of an undetermined amount of marijuana". See, I had no pot, no one saw me smoke any, but since the MP's said I was "stoned" I must therefore be in possession of some unquantifiable amount of the drug. Now, you tell me who but the government via the UCMJ could make a B-S charge like that stick?

Some years later in W. Germany I was arrested for a drunk and disorderly charge. Basically I was a passenger in a car driven by a friend who was being roughed up by MP's as they arrested him. I objected to his treatment, and was therefore arrested as well. I rode in the floor of an MP M151 with my hands cuffed behind me while the young MP's held me down with their feet. Then prior to being lodged in the "drunk tank" they took me out back and beat me up some. Hey, I understood...it was a common thing...I was lucky they weren't REALLY pissed at me. Luckily I was a good soldier and my Lt. Colonel knew it....he was able to get the charges lifted, but the MP's were never punished.

That was in 1978, and 1981...perhaps the service has changed? Perhaps the UCMJ is no longer abused? I doubt it.

Although I am no fan of Capt. Yee, I do understand his predicament. Under the UCMJ his options for exhonoration are two: slim and none.

-z

 

[Agammamon]

It means that each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights lists more than one right. In those that I mentioned, protections provided by parts of the amendments are retained (ie the 5th protections against self-incrimination) while others are lost (ie the 5ths right to a grand jury in capital cases). Or in the case of the 1st amendment, some limitatons on free speech and public associations have been upheld for military members while other limitations have not.

And yes the military has change in the last twenty years. they no longer beat people up (well not often anyway).
I'm not saying that the UCMJ isn't abused, I've seen at least three guy get shafted by our courts in the 12 years I've been in. Just that it is abuse and not an inherent feature of the military justice system.

Giving a drug case as an example of military prosecutorial abuses vice civilian one's is a bad one. The civil courts are rife with exactly the same crap. Have you heard of civil asset forfeture, where your stuff can be taken on mere suspicion of a drug connection - oftimes without any charges being filed. Oh, and you have to prove that the item/money had no connection to drugs. What you did or did not do is irrelevant, the property is considered guilty. The act formally known as R.A.V.E, where your stuff (including your home/business) can be seized if someone else has drugs on it.
Or how about the deadbeat dad legislation. Where you can be pointed out as the father of a child and then you have a limited time to prove your innocence. Oh, did I mention that there is no requirement for proof of service of the papers and they only have to be delivered to your last known address. After the time limit the courts will issue a summary judgement against you and your wages will be garnished. After that you have to sue to get the judgement reversed. or how once you've accepted responsiblity as a father you can never renounce it, even if it later turns out the woman lied and you aren't.
How about violations of the 5th amendment protections against property seizure, 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, 8th amendment rights to trial by jury.
All these and more are common in the civil court system.

 

[Agammamon]

And I have to admit that I misunderstood the tone of your posts. I originally answered while under the misapprehension that you were one of those that feel that military members justly lose all right upon joining and that the government should feel free to run roughshod over us.

 

[rikzilla]

And I have to admit that I misunderstood the tone of your posts. I originally answered while under the misapprehension that you were one of those that feel that military members justly lose all right upon joining and that the government should feel free to run roughshod over us.

Understandable given my conservative stance on many issues. Well, now you know,..I have had something of a mis-spent youth. However, I was given several chances in the Army, and came out of it with a good career and a hearty respect for the sacrifices made by, and imposed on my brothers in uniform.

As you can see, I also harbor a deep suspicion of the abuses possible under the UCMJ. I don't know anything about Capt. Yee's guilt or innocence...but the way they've handled his case is highly irregular. Downloaded porn? C'mon...gimme a break!

Everyone here knows I've no mercy in my heart for terrorists, or even suspected ones. But it looks like all this guy did was mishandle a list of detainees that was originally ambiguous as to whether or not it was classified at all. Makes me wonder if his commanders had a hard-on for the muslim chaplain?

-z

 

[Chaos]

I think I can safely say that's the only time you and I would both be casting a vote for the same guy. Of course, being Canadian by birth, he can't get elected. Ah, well...

Perhaps we can hope for a Penn & Teller candidacy (Penn for President and Teller for VP) ...

 

[Grammatron]

Perhaps we can hope for a Penn & Teller candidacy (Penn for President and Teller for VP) ...

That sounds like it would be a great press conference to watch, not to mention the state of the Union.