Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[SteamWake]

The decision has been made to hold trials for the gittmor terrorists in public court.

This after the terrorists themselves have professed a 'guilty plea' and asked to be exicuted.

What is to be gained by doing this?

What are the motives?

To me I see two motives.

One... distraction, take the public eye of the healthcare, cap and trade, the economy and other issues.

Two... To put the Bush administration on trial.

[mookiemookie]

I'd say this about sums it up:

http://imgur.com/nAP3a.jpg

[Letum]

What's the point of public trials for any criminals when we know they did it?
If the police/army/etc have already found out they are guilty or they have confessed then why waste time and money with public trials?
Why not just lock them up/kill them.

What are the motives of people who support public trials?

Distraction from real issues?

Trying to set criminals free?

Earning lawyers money?

Public trials are unpatriotic.

- This message bought to you by the Ministry of Love

[SteamWake]

There NOT effin criminals for christs sakes there enemy combantants in a God Damn war.

Sorry but for cryin out loud it really tries my patience.

[SteamWake]

Now theres this


Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html

What the hell... Im going to have to go vote on the "have you ever visited the US" thread.

[Letum]

There NOT effin criminals for christs sakes there enemy combantants in a God Damn war.

Sorry but for cryin out loud it really tries my patience.

Either your in an army, in which case you are a POW or you are a civilian,
in which case you are a criminal.

"Enemy combatant" is just a euphemism for a member of a civilian
resistance or militia whom it is inconvenient to treat as a civilian.

[AVGWarhawk]

Two... To put the Bush administration on trial.
I would go with this one.

[mookiemookie]

There NOT effin criminals for christs sakes there enemy combantants in a God Damn war.

Sorry but for cryin out loud it really tries my patience.

So we throw out our principles of justice and a fair trial when its convenient?

[SteamWake]

So we throw out our principles of justice and a fair trial when its convenient?

Please explain to me ... how do you give a 'fair trial' to a plaintiff whom has already confessed to the crime?

[AVGWarhawk]

Please explain to me ... how do you give a 'fair trial' to a plaintiff whom has already confessed to the crime?

You missed one other important piece of information. Holder wants to hold these hearings in NY City. He got pasted about it a few days ago. Makes no sense to me either. Then again a lot of things Holder does and did makes no sense. Neither did his appointment by Obummer.

[Jimbuna]

....and here's me thinking only the UK had turned PC crazy :DL

[mookiemookie]

You missed one other important piece of information. Holder wants to hold these hearings in NY City. He got pasted about it a few days ago. Makes no sense to me either. Then again a lot of things Holder does and did makes no sense. Neither did his appointment by Obummer.

No, it makes perfect sense. The Sxith Amendment clearly states the accused is to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed"

[Sea Demon]

No, it makes perfect sense. The Sxith Amendment clearly states the accused is to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed"

Easy. Obama and liberals somehow believe that the mastermind of 9/11 is nothing more than a criminal, rather than what he is really is: an Islamic terrorist, an enemy combatant, and a prisoner of war. What we are seeing is the politics of the left trumping national security and common sense. No surprise there.

Bottom line: In the liberal lunacy mind...acts of war become mere criminal acts.

Most people can see this is going to turn into an absolute circus and make Obama look like an idiot. Well, more than usual. Holder got his a$$ handed to him by Graham the other day. The worst part is that Obama is clueless about what this portrays. This is American weakness on display. Weakness for providing these Islamic murderers with the same liberties as the Americans they targeted. It's sickening.

My biggest concern is what sources and methods will be needed to be displayed in order to conclude this case. It's going to be very damaging to the United States.

I always said my biggest concern regarding Obama and his gang of nutjobs is that they will have full access to our intelligence sources and methods. And now this...........:nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

I second Sea Demon's diatribe on the situation. :rock: This is a whole different breed than just a common criminal, combatant or war prisoner. This is new ground we are treading on. How this is handled will dictate how it will be handled in the future(hope there is none) and if it bungled as Holder is doing then look for the rest of it to be bungled from here on out. Truly, this is a delicate procedure and Holder is being as delicate as a bull in a China shop.

[mookiemookie]

Weakness for providing these Islamic murderers with the same liberties as the Americans they targeted. It's sickening.

You don't get to compromise your values when they are inconvenient. What YOU are advocating is weak and sickening.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think Mookie wants to hug these guys. Perhaps they are just misunderstood and had a poor childhood resulting in doing things beyond their control. :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

I think Mookie wants to hug these guys. Perhaps they are just misunderstood and had a poor childhood resulting doing things beyond their control. :hmmm:

So liberty and justice for all isn't something to live by, it's something to be mocked?

[Sea Demon]

You don't get to compromise your values when they are inconvenient. What YOU are advocating is weak and sickening.

American values have never included giving enemy terrorists or foreign combatants US Constitutional protections. This is unprecedented and disgusting.

The way liberals are so busy protecting the rights of murdering terrorists these days, cheapening US citizenship, all the while spitting in the faces of the families of those who died on 9/11 confirms one more thing to me. Somewhere in America today, a few hundred more people will scrape their Obama bumper stickers off their cars.

[SteamWake]

No, it makes perfect sense. The Sxith Amendment clearly states the accused is to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed"

For US citizens.

What is to be gained here really?

Convince radical muslim militants that were not the 'evil' they are led to believe?

My instinct tells me that wont accomplish a thing.

Military tribunals were already being prepaired and Holder launched a pre-emptive strike.

Im sorry but I question the motives here.

[mookiemookie]

American values have never included giving enemy terrorists or foreign combatants US Constitutional protections. This is unprecedented and disgusting.

Funny how you see the Bill of Rights as more like a "bill of perks, benefits and stuff that's kinda nice to have, but only for certain people" and not actually, you know, inalienable RIGHTS.

[Sea Demon]

So liberty and justice for all isn't something to live by, it's something to be mocked?

Hey dude, Tojo and other Japanese war criminals got what they deserved without circus show trials on US soil. No US Constitutional protections for them. Apparently you don't understand what "liberty and justice" is all about. How about justice for those attacked? Where did you get these notions about "liberty and justice" for foreign terrorist murderers or foreign combatants as applied by the US Constitution?

[Sea Demon]

Funny how you see the Bill of Rights as more like a "bill of perks, benefits and stuff that's kinda nice to have, but only for certain people" and not actually, you know, inalienable RIGHTS.

They had rights in the military justice system. This move to the public courts is a show trial. Apparently you are blind to the damage this will cause the US.

[AVGWarhawk]

So liberty and justice for all isn't something to live by, it's something to be mocked?

Since when do these guys get extented liberty? That is part of the American way. Is it part of his ways? Did his family die for these liberties that you and I enjoy? Sorry Mookie, this guy looses his liberities (not that he had any to begin with) just like any common criminal as you suggest they are. Once you break the laws life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to a grinding halt.

[AVGWarhawk]

Funny how you see the Bill of Rights as more like a "bill of perks, benefits and stuff that's kinda nice to have, but only for certain people" and not actually, you know, inalienable RIGHTS.


Mookie....these guys are not part of our country. The do not get these! The Bill of Rights do not pertain to terrorists. They are not American citizens. It was null and void as a result of their doings. Again, this is new ground and needs to be handled better then the circus Holder is planning.

[Sea Demon]

Since when do these guys get extented liberty? That is part of the American way. Is it part of his ways? Did his family die for these liberties that you and I enjoy? Sorry Mookie, this guy looses his liberities (not that he had any to begin with) just like any common criminal as you suggest they are. Once you break the laws life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to a grinding halt.

Correct. And to add to this, this guy has already pleaded guilty, and his attorneys have said he will use this trial as a stage to politically condemn America. I guess certain liberals believe he has an unalienable right to use taxpayer money to make a political mockery out of 9/11. I'm sorry if some liberals cannot see how disgusting this is and at what cost.

As I said before, he had rights in the military justice system. This move to a public court is just damaging.

[mookiemookie]

Mookie....these guys are not part of our country. The do not get these! The Bill of Rights do not pertain to terrorists. They are not American citizens. It was null and void as a result of their doings. Again, this is new ground and needs to be handled better then the circus Holder is planning.

If a foreign national commits a crime in the U.S., they are tried under the U.S. justice system. So no, you are incorrect.

[Sea Demon]

If a foreign national commits a crime in the U.S., they are tried under the U.S. justice system. So no, you are incorrect.

wrong.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1540885.html

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=8106

Roosevelt's proclamation applied to "enemies who have entered upon the territory of the United States [...] in order to commit sabotage, espionage, or other hostile or warlike acts" (p. 50). That applied only to the eight saboteurs of 1942 (and two more who tried their luck in 1945).

If a foreign national steals a beer out of a liquor store they would be dealt with in a US court. 9/11 was no simple theft. It was an act of war. As applied to "warlike acts"..9/11 fits the mold.

[Skybird]

Guilt is not to be believed or assumed, guilt has to be proven at court. That is one of the most fundamental principles of Western legal systems and that is one of the major characteristics that enobles us over the legal systems of other cultures there are, and we should be, very, very thankful for having it the way we do, although in the name of the anti-terror-measures after 9/11 - and in reality for increasing control options by the state - this principle in parts has been inverted.

However, needing to prove guilt is what "Rechtsstaatlichkeit" (law and order? the rule of legal law?) is about, Steam Wake.

Everything else is "rotating a bottle", and who gets pointed at, gets lynched.

But I admit that the bureaucrats have managed to pervert the process of justice far beyond reason and replaced justice and reason with the dictate of bureaucratic rules about rules on rules that govern rules. This is very, very bad, and in itself as damaging to justice as is lynching.

[Sea Demon]

Guilt is not to be believed or assumed, guilt has to be proven at court.

A person can plead guilty.

[Ducimus]

As far as im concerned, Terrorists are not covered under US Civil law or constitutional rights (they are not US citizens.. most of the time.), nor are they covered under the Geneva conventions, as they are not representing any branch of any armed forces of any country. They are completely outside the law is my understanding.

Frankly, here's my admittidly extreme take on it: If i had my way, as long as the evidence gathered is irrefutable, then these terrorists don't even qualify has human F'ing beings. Id have had the bastards put up against a wall and shot like a dog a long time ago. Then have them buried, face down, away from mecca, throw in a wheelbarrow's worth of pig entrails and blood, fill the graves in with a front end loader and be done with it.

Violence is the only language these bastards understand. We aren't communicating properly.

[Skybird]

Frankly, here's my admittidly extreme take on it: If i had my way, as long as the evidence gathered is irrefutable,

Prove that - at court, under monitoring and witnessing of the public.

That's what courts are for, you see. ;)

the problem you outline, btw, is not so much - or not only - a problem with the Geneva Convention, but the Hague Conventions from 1899 and 1907. In a conflict where one side does not apply to the rule of having it'S combatants in uniform, the side following the Hague Conventions unilaterally always is at a disadvantage that could decidce the outcome of the military fight. This affects practically all so-called asymmetrical conflicts (and may explain why we find it so very tough to win such wars, and only rarely, if ever, do). It makes little sense indeed to obey moral rules basing on the Geneva or Hague Convention, if these conventions get ignored and ridiculed by the other side, so that our morals get turned against us and kill our fighters. In that situation, the protection of innocents can be the only valid argument - to some certain degree - to still follow the conventions. wehre you declare that an imperative for acting, you probably have already decided your own defeat. But there you have to make a loss-gain-calculation, in other words you need to calculate how much risk to your soldiers or limitations of options or how many innocent lives saved you can justify in the face of either accepting even higher losses in innocent lifes in the long run, or allowing the enemy combat advantages. at present, public opinion tends to always favour the small short term wins in protecting lives even at the cost of much greater losses of life in the future. The debate imo is very irrational, and dominated by dangerous illusions about the nature and essence of war.

[Ducimus]

Prove that - at court, under monitoring and witnessing of the public.

That's what courts are for, you see. ;)


That can easily be done without making a big public fuss. Have a military tribunal decide if the evidence gathered is enough to merit action. Why a military tribunal? Because terrorists are (most of the time), foreign enemies to the country. It's the military's job to defend the country against all enemies foriegn and domestic. Terrorists do fall into this category, and it is not a civil matter. What's more, allowing terrorists a civil trial which they are not entitled to (where the hell would you find a jury of their peers in the US anyway?!?), is giving them a public acknowledgement and PR that they should not have. If the indications are clear, we should have done away with them a long time ago in a manner which befits their deeds.

[Sea Demon]

What's more, allowing terrorists a civil trial which they are not entitled to (where the hell would you find a jury of their peers in the US anyway?!?),.........

Excellent point! :up:

[mookiemookie]

(where the hell would you find a jury of their peers in the US anyway?!?)

The same way its done in every other instance of a foreign national being tried in U.S. courts every day. It doesn't seem to be an issue.

[SteamWake]

The same way its done in every other instance of a foreign national being tried in U.S. courts every day. It doesn't seem to be an issue.

:doh:

I'll just let this thread roll.

[Tribesman]

Easy. Obama and liberals somehow believe that the mastermind of 9/11 is nothing more than a criminal, rather than what he is really is: an Islamic terrorist, an enemy combatant, and a prisoner of war.
You don't understand the words you are using.

Hey dude, Tojo and other Japanese war criminals got what they deserved without circus show trials on US soil. No US Constitutional protections for them.
errrrr...those war crimes trials took two approaches, the major trials were done under international law, the minor ones were done under international law or local law depending on the location of the suspects and the location of the crimes, crimes which crossed jurisdictions were done under international law not local law.
So for America they had the American trials at Nuremburg where America had jurisdiction over territory as the mandated occupying authority with american judges and american lawyers , then they had the Dachau trials which were American judges and American lawyers but the difference was that they had jurisdiction because the crimes dealt with there had been commited against Americans.

wrong.

He is correct and your links are completely irrelevant.

This move to the public courts is a show trial. Apparently you are blind to the damage this will cause the US.
The damage was done when the idiots in power followed Gonzales crap legal advice, the problems that dumb advice caused are the reason why you are now stuck with the trials.
So Sea Demon you are very very wrong in just about every aspect of your arguement.
A simple question though, can you identify any of the many things that give them legal protection under the US constitution?
It may help if you look at your irrelevant links and work the dates out.




nor are they covered under the Geneva conventions, as they are not representing any branch of any armed forces of any country.They are completely outside the law is my understanding.

Wrong, either they are covered as fighters under one convention or they are covered as civilians under another.

where the hell would you find a jury of their peers in the US anyway?!?),.........
In exactly the same way as you do with any murderer

[August]

No, it makes perfect sense. The Sxith Amendment clearly states the accused is to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed"

Then Pennsylvania and Washington DC would be equally suitable.

[GoldenRivet]

I'm wondering what the odds are that someone out of this whole ordeal receives a presidential pardon. :doh:

probably not as impossible as you might think

[Sea Demon]

Since we seem to live in a world governed by the idiocy known as "political correctness" brought to you by liberal lunacy, allow me to serve up a potential scenario. Actually it's quite likely in light of the circumstances we've seen in emotional trials such as OJ, the cop killer Mumia, and others. My guess is that the politically correct mafia is going to come out swinging. And they're going to have their eyes on one thing.........jury selection.

These leftwing PC hacks are going to demand that there be Muslims on the jury as "peers". What if they succeed? What if one of the Muslim jurors decides that there is no way he can vote to convict a fellow adherent to Islam in an "infidel" courtroom. Won't matter what the evidence says. Oh sure, he can lie during jury selection and say the right things about reaching a fair verdict, of course all the while knowing that he is going to do what any good Muslim would do..... protect a fellow Muslim from the wrath of the non-believers of Islam. Result? Hung jury. No conviction. And then where do we go?



BTW, For you young Americans (who care about your country) who are trying to figure out who is on your side and who is not, the Republicans did try to prevent this damaging and expensive move from happening.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57140

House Republicans introduced legislation that would have prevented terrorists (detainees?:O:) from coming to the United States. But because Democrats have a majority, they didn't even allow the legislation to move out of committee. I'm just saying.....

[Torplexed]

Wasn't the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega tried in a US federal court after being overthrown and captured in 1989?

[Sea Demon]

Wasn't the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega tried in a US federal court after being overthrown and captured in 1989?

Well, yes. But other than drug and racketeering charges, I don't think Noriega attacked the US by force of terrorism or military action. We invaded Panama. After the invasion, I'm sure military tribunal could have been used, but they deemed a trial in Federal court appropriate due to the civil nature of drug movements as a federal offense, and money laundering. You'll recall we didn't try Saddam Hussein either in military tribunal. We served him up to Iraqi civilian court justice. In the case of International terrorism, and mass murder as an act of war, I would say that a military tribunal would have been the most appropriate forum for the Islamist "detainees". Especially in light of what we face bringing them to US soil for what is to become an admitted show trial by KSM's own defense team.

[Tribesman]

These leftwing PC hacks are going to demand that there be Muslims on the jury as "peers". What if they succeed? What if one of the Muslim jurors decides that there is no way he can vote to convict a fellow adherent to Islam in an "infidel" courtroom. Won't matter what the evidence says. Oh sure, he can lie during jury selection and say the right things about reaching a fair verdict, of course all the while knowing that he is going to do what any good Muslim would do..... protect a fellow Muslim from the wrath of the non-believers of Islam. Result? Hung jury. No conviction. And then where do we go?

Wow , koolaid anyone?

BTW, For you young Americans (who care about your country) who are trying to figure out who is on your side and who is not, the Republicans did try to prevent this damaging and expensive move from happening.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57140

House Republicans introduced legislation that would have prevented terrorists (detainees?:O:) from coming to the United States. But because Democrats have a majority, they didn't even allow the legislation to move out of committee. I'm just saying.....
You have already demonstrated that you don't understand the terms you use, but can you understand why that proposed legislation was rejected by the commitee that initially deals with the legality of proposed legislation under its jurisdiction?
Have a clue ...it couldn't have been legal.

Well, yes. But other than drug and racketeering charges, I don't think Noriega attacked the US by force of terrorism or military action. We invaded Panama. After the invasion, I'm sure military tribunal could have been used, but they deemed a trial in Federal court appropriate due to the civil nature of drug movements as a federal offense, and money laundering.
Noriega was arrested as a POW, he faced a trial on civil charges for civil crimes in a federal court. He is imprisoned with the status of a POW because that is what the law requires.

[Fish]

In the liberal lunacy mind

Obama and his gang of nutjobs

liberal lunacy

the politically correct mafia

These leftwing PC hacks

What a venom.

Do you know hate can kill you Seademon?:-?

[Platapus]

Then Pennsylvania and Washington DC would be equally suitable.

I don't thing Pennsylvania, but perhaps Mass, Virginia, and New Jeresy? as that is where the hijackings started.

[Sea Demon]

What a venom.

Do you know hate can kill you Seademon?:-?


Ah, yes. The ever present "dissent is hate" nonsense.

No Fish. I don't hate liberals. In fact I had to deal with many at Thanksgiving dinner tonight. I have a few in my family, God help me. :DL What you read is not hate. Ever been to a liberal demonstration/march out here in California?(Bay Area). If you did, you may understand where I'm coming from. Perhaps your advice would be more fitting for that crowd. I've never seen more raw hatred in my life than from those at liberal "gatherings" directed at Bush, conservatives, religious people, and people of the military. There's actually no comparison.

Don't talk to me about name-calling as venom. I, as a conservative, have been called much worse than what I've seen here. I chalk it up as it being a part of the American political reality.

And yes, I guess, you haven't been exposed to some of the nuts that have been or are now inside the Obama administration and things they espouse. People like Van Jones, Cass Sunnstein, Anita Dunn, Reverand Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.....It's like a circus side show. You telling me I'm being hateful simply won't stop me from expressing myself. It simply has no impact whatsoever. There is nothing here but opinion about the Obama administration and liberalism as a philosophy. No "hate" whatsoever.

With all due respect, sir, I heard nothing but silence from you regarding liberal "hate" when Mr. Bush was President.

Therefore you'll have to pardon me for being unimpressed by this posting of yours.

[Tribesman]

You telling me I'm being hateful simply won't stop me from expressing myself. It simply has no impact whatsoever.
Does telling you that much of what you write makes no sense at all and that you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding in the topics you rant about make any impact whatsoever?

The ever present "dissent is hate" nonsense.

Perhaps Fish should have gone with the line "nonsense is nonsense and venomous hate is just more nonsensical nonsense"

[goldorak]

There NOT effin criminals for christs sakes there enemy combantants in a God Damn war.

Sorry but for cryin out loud it really tries my patience.


Great I decide to call a cat a dog so from now on all cats are dogs. :woot:

Terrorists are criminals plain and simple, just because your old president decide to invent a new definition so that he could go ahead and declare "war" on them doesn't mean that the new definition holds any weight.
You (the US) decided to transform Osama Bin Laden as a kind of evil lord mastermind, and his minions as a "real" army. Just for pure convinience nothing more nothing less. Reducing terrorists to "evil masterminds" forgetting about the political, economical realities of the phenomenon will mean the US will never understand and therefore deal correctly with such problems.

Has the US declared war on its internal dissidents ? You know the American Militia Movements (now isn't that a patriotic name ? :haha: ) that from time to time decide to bomb federal buildings for instance in oklahama city killing nearly 200 people.
Why don't we hear the american government declare war on "internal terrorists" ? Yep, two weights two mesures thats for sure. And in the end its terrorism, wether supported by american patriots or by foreigners. There is no good terrorism and bad terrorism. When the US will come to realise this it will be a great day. And maybe they'll stop declaring war on drugs too although I thnk thats also a lost cause. Have you been winning that war lately ?

[August]

I don't thing Pennsylvania, but perhaps Mass, Virginia, and New Jeresy? as that is where the hijackings started.

No because mass murder is a much more serious crime than hijacking.

Goldoraks "advice" notwitshtanding however I say try them by military tribunal and then execute them, preferably in some cruel and unusual manner.

[Tribesman]

Excellent post goldorak.
The whole problem that has arisen with the trials(and detention) lies with the misuse of legal definitions, avoiding applicable laws, using the wrong laws based on the wrong definitions and then the complications of attempting to make laws fit where they don't fit and were never intended to fit.
They have painted themselves into a corner and the only way out is to make a mess of themselves and their efforts to date

I say try them by military tribunal and then execute them
under what law?

[Subnuts]

This is madness.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York. Imagine, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in American history, let loose just blocks from where it happened, and surrounded by millions of angry New Yorkers out for revenge.

Problem solved.

[August]

nt not worth it

[SteamWake]

Terrorists are criminals plain and simple,

Unbeleavable. :damn:

[Tribesman]

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York.
Really? When did he get a special immigration status which would allow him to walk out of court onto the streets?

Unbeleavable.
Believable, its people trying not to believe it that have put the government in the legal mess they are now in.

[Skybird]

This is madness.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York. Imagine, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in American history, let loose just blocks from where it happened, and surrounded by millions of angry New Yorkers out for revenge.
.

If he is guilty by evidence proving that, this scenario will not take place.

Again: guilt must be proven, not just assumed. Even a confession of a suspect may be not accepted by the police or the court, because it is possible somebody not guilty confesses to cover somebody else.

If the suspects in these cases get acquitted, then you may check the evidence that you believed to have, or the system.

Either the evidence is not as convincing and waterproof as you claim it is, in which case juristical principle is to assume the innocence of the accused, which can be a pain, but it is like that for good reason;

or investigation work messed things up, in which case the failure of the trial is your own fault due to dilletantism at work;

or your procedural courts standards and laws are such that they do not allow justice travelling down it's road and reasonably considering evidence, in that case again it is your own fault and your system needs corrections in laws and rules.

But one thing only dictatorships and police states do accept: to chose the conditions and laws for a trial according to what you can or cannot prove and according to the wanted sentence you hope to acchieve. The law is valid, always, and must be valid for all, under all circumstances. Either your evidence is sufficient, or it is not. But in both cases, the same laws and procedures must be respected. Their standards may not be lowered just becaseu your eviodence is of low, not convicning evidence, but you still want to see a verdict of "guilty".

If the evidence is based on information gained under torture, than this is dilletantism. One should not apply torture to produce evidence one wants to use at court, it only is useful for intel gathering in running operation, if the given info can be counterchekced whiole the delinquent is still available. Using information from torture for court proceedings always is very, very stupid, and only massively assists the defence in spreading doubts.

To try the suspects at a civil court is not only in respect of most profound principles of justice and laws, but also has another effect: to show the world beyond all doubt that america is not seeking just some random revenge, and does not want to hide anything, but sentences those responsible for the attack on the basis of evidence, according to legal standards that are generally accepted in the civilised world.

for this latter reason, it is wise to not decide the issues behind locked doors, in the hidden, under exclusion of the public, at a military tribunal. It is the more difficult way to go the public way, yes. But it is the necessary way.

If the evidence is solid, they will be found guilty. If the evidence is such that it does not prove their guilt, you have no point in claiming you are so very very sure they are guilty. If you think a claim is enough and evidence is not needed, than you are close to lynching customs.

[goldorak]

Unbeleavable. :damn:

Why ?

The US is not special as far as being a target for terrorism. We in europe had had to contend with terrorism for decades, in Ireland, in France, in West Germany, in Italy, in Spain and you know what ? The people that make bombings, etc... in the end are criminals with a political agenda. Thats what terrorists are. And the precise way to treat them is to treat them as criminals, have a trial and convicted them when they are caught.
Put them in prison for the necessay time.

[Shearwater]

Unbeleavable. :damn:

So what is terrorism then, other than a criminal act? It certainly can't be an act of war, since only countries can declar and wage wars. Don't confuse the legal status with the moral status here. Not one single person on this forum has any doubt as to the latter.
I'm just curious to hear your definition.

Do not allow terrorism to undermine your legal system.

[Platapus]

Why ?

The US is not special as far as being a target for terrorism. We in europe had had to contend with terrorism for decades, in Ireland, in France, in West Germany, in Italy, in Spain and you know what ? The people that make bombings, etc... in the end are criminals with a political agenda. Thats what terrorists are. And the precise way to treat them is to treat them as criminals, have a trial and convicted them when they are caught.
Put them in prison for the necessay time.


Excellent points. I fear that many of my fellow countrymen feel that because this involves "America" somehow it is different.

Treat them as the hirabi they are. :yep: Break their perversion of Islam to their followers. Expose them as mufsidoon instead of jihadists

That is how we need to fight them.

[Jimbuna]

This is madness.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York. Imagine, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in American history, let loose just blocks from where it happened, and surrounded by millions of angry New Yorkers out for revenge.

Problem solved.

Poetic justice...some might say :hmmm:

[Sea Demon]

Treat them as the hirabi they are. :yep: Break their perversion of Islam to their followers. Expose them as mufsidoon instead of jihadists

That is how we need to fight them.

This doesn't work against the Islamist mindset. They don't care how they are perceived in the Western mind or point of view. They are at war with us, and have let us know so in very explicit terms. Nation state or not, this is an enemy that we are fighting on many different battlefields. These are no simple criminal acts. This show trial proves nothing to no one. And is in no way "fighting" against the very core of the jihadists. They are not deterred or demoralized by public trials in NYC. In fact, it gives them a stage with which to spout their political angst against the USA. I'm amazed that some of my fellow Americans refuse to call this what it is (war) because it simply doesn't involve "nation states". War has been declared against us. Anybody who believes 9/11 was a simple case of homicide is incredibly deluded.

Plus nobody has adequately answered the question of just how we get them a jury of their "peers". Or the possibility of what I posted about potential Muslims on the jury that refuse to convict a fellow Muslim in an "infidel" court....resulting in hung jury...and no conviction. That scenario seems very plausible to me.

[Shearwater]

Plus nobody has adequately answered the question of just how we get them a jury of their "peers". Or the possibility of what I posted about potential Muslims on the jury that refuse to convict a fellow Muslim in an "infidel" court....resulting in hung jury...and no conviction. That scenario seems very plausible to me.

Don't you trust your legal system?

[Sea Demon]

Don't you trust your legal system?

Yes, when the venue is appropriate for it. In this case it's not. The military justice system is also a part of our legal system. And that's the appropriate place for these foreign terrorists.

The question then turns to you.....don't you trust our systems of legal justice? Including military justice? And don't you fear the potential problems with turning over to the public court system foreign terrorists at war with us, who are implicated of orchestrating an act of war against our nation, and plan to use any public court trial as a soapbox circus trial? Admitted by their defense teams. And where finding a jury of "peers" is going to become a difficult prospect itself. You can't see problems here?

[Platapus]

This doesn't work against the Islamist mindset.

And what are your citations or qualifications to be able to state that?

[Sea Demon]

For what it's worth....Gallup shows most Americans want military trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124493/Americans-Odds-Recent-Terror-Trial-Decisions.aspx?CSTS=tagrss

[Sea Demon]

And what are your citations or qualifications to be able to state that?

Historical precedent. We've put Muslim plotters on trial before, and it never slows them down. One can argue that it emboldens them, as there really is no severe consequences for their actions. Oh, they may have to spend the rest of their lives with 3 hots and a cot on the US taxpayers dime. Big deal. Historically, they actually continued to plot after one shot at the WTC.....and then a few years later, 9/11 occurs. What are your qualifications other than your own opinion?

[goldorak]

Yes, when the venue is appropriate for it. In this case it's not. The military justice system is also a part of our legal system. And that's the appropriate place for these foreign terrorists.

The question then turns to you.....don't you trust our systems of legal justice? Including military justice? And don't you fear the potential problems with turning over to the public court system foreign terrorists at war with us, who are implicated of orchestrating an act of war against our nation, and plan to use any public court trial as a soapbox circus trial? Admitted by their defense teams. And where finding a jury of "peers" is going to become a difficult prospect itself. You can't see problems here?

Whats the appropriate place for domestic terrorists ? :hmmm:
What about american born muslims that embrace the jihad against western values. Are they foreign or american terrorists ? Are they criminals or enemy combattants ?
What about american citizens that convert to the muslism faith and embrace the jihad, what to do with them ? As I remember there was a case of an american citizen that fought along the taliban in afghanistan. He was captured and then ? Is he an enemy combattant ?

[Sea Demon]

And the circus begins.......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125928395078865773.html

Whats the appropriate place for domestic terrorists ?

Irrelevant to this situation.

[Sea Demon]

As I remember there was a case of an american citizen that fought along the taliban in afghanistan. He was captured and then ? Is he an enemy combattant ?

I don't know about the law regarding these American citizen jihadists who are captured on the battlefield. That's an interesting question though. I would say that in my opinion, it wouldn't be a stretch to believe they could be tried in a military court as enemy combatants. I'm not sure how that would go. It's noted that John Walker Lindh (The American Taliban) was indicted by a federal grand jury. Although that still has no bearing on this particular case.

[Shearwater]

The question then turns to you.....don't you trust our systems of legal justice? Including military justice?

I trust it indeed. But I think that this whole issue is a litmus test.
It is the very thing that terrorism is targeted against - the belief in freedom and its ability to deliver justice, even under extraordinary conditions as these.
The aim of terrorists isn't to destroy the US physically. It is - as the name implies - about spreading fear and terror, and one of Roosevelt's great for freedomrs is now more important than ever: Freedom of fear. I'm not talking about a naive happy-go-lucky mentaility. But abandoning basic legal principles (i.e. a formal and regular trial) would elevate the terrorists to a status they don't deserve. They must not be given the feeling that, just because they have done an outrageously heinous and despicable crime, they are outside - and in their view above - the American legal system (be it civil or military). I believe devoutly in the United States' legal system and its ability to deliver justice in this case, and if given a chance to prove that it works even in such an extaordinary matter, I'm confident that it will succeed.

[Sea Demon]

I trust it indeed. But I think that this whole issue is a litmus test.
It is the very thing that terrorism is targeted against - the belief in freedom and its ability to deliver justice, even under extraordinary conditions as these.
The aim of terrorists isn't to destroy the US physically. It is - as the name implies - about spreading fear and terror, and one of Roosevelt's great for freedomrs is now more important than ever: Freedom of fear. I'm not talking about a naive happy-go-lucky mentaility. But abandoning basic legal principles (i.e. a formal and regular trial) would elevate the terrorists to a status they don't deserve. They must not be given the feeling that, just because they have done an outrageously heinous and despicable crime, they are outside - and in their view above - the American legal system (be it civil or military). I believe devoutly in the United States' legal system and its ability to deliver justice in this case, and if given a chance to prove that it works even in such an extaordinary matter, I'm confident that it will succeed.

I understand. And I agree with you in principle on a few things here. However, leaving these foreign terrorists in the military justice system wouldn't have done anything to destroy America's principles of legal justice, sense of fairness, or freedoms. I actually think that moving them to the public court system is something that can be damaging to "justice". To be honest, we already see the games beginning with "mental stability" and "fitness" to stand trial. And I think there will be games played in jury selection. I can almost guarantee it.

Not to mention things that may have to come out to prove guilt, which may be damaging to national security. Some dealing with sources and methods. That should concern you. It's not irrational "fear" we're dealing with. Let's leave emotion out of it. It's common sense and national security we need to consider. Military tribunals can deliver justice and fairness. And they don't need to potentially disclose sources and methods out in the open to do so. Nor do they give a stage and soapbox to those who seek it.

As such.....I see this as a grave mistake that the Obama administration is making.

[AVGWarhawk]

Whats the appropriate place for domestic terrorists ? :hmmm:
What about american born muslims that embrace the jihad against western values. Are they foreign or american terrorists ? Are they criminals or enemy combattants ?
What about american citizens that convert to the muslism faith and embrace the jihad, what to do with them ? As I remember there was a case of an american citizen that fought along the taliban in afghanistan. He was captured and then ? Is he an enemy combattant ?

1. Military Court is the place to conduct trials.
2. Jihad is Jihad, American born or not. Let's just call them Extremists for the moment that threaten to take lives. How do we handle the extremist? Let's take a look at the McGuire AFB incident with the Muslims running a pizza place video taping themselves with guns and talking of shooting soldiers at McGuire. These are criminals and should be handled like criminals in the judicial system.
3. If any American fights with the Taliban then this person is a turncoat. Die, get caught or languish with the enemy, either way this individual is the enemy and should be treated as such. I think in WW2 any traitor was basically shot for treason. So what is the problem here?

[jeremy8529]

I have no doubt in my mind that these men are guilty of the crimes that we convicted them of, and as thus we should not fear putting them on trail. If we don't give them a fair trail, we will be playing right in to the what they wanted in the end, and that would be changing most basic principles. Justice is not an ideal served on impulse or emotion, it should be the result a consistent and fair trail system that deals with the cold hard facts, and we should not make an exception for these criminals just because we are angry.

Remember, we give them a trail because it is how we serve justice here in the United States and for no other reason alone.

[Sea Demon]

I have no doubt in my mind that these men are guilty of the crimes that we convicted them of, and as thus we should not fear putting them on trail. If we don't give them a fair trail, we will be playing right in to the what they wanted in the end, and that would be changing most basic principles. Justice is not an ideal served on impulse or emotion, it should be the result a consistent and fair trail system that deals with the cold hard facts, and we should not make an exception for these criminals just because we are angry.

Remember, we give them a trail because it is how we serve justice here in the United States and for no other reason alone.

Don't confuse the issue jeremy. These people could have received a fair trial in a military court. Military tribunals do not come without rights and accountability. And military tribunals are actually a better venue due to some of the nature of the evidence. I know liberals pretend that there's no rights or a chance of a fair trial in a military venue. But the truth is, they would have protected rights and a fair trial in such a venue with no danger to classified information. Nor would the taxpayer be footing the bill to give these dirtbags a soapbox for political ranting as their defense team has already said they would use it for. I don't care what you think about it, they're not entitled to a political soapbox on my dime.

Here's the danger....I'm betting that some of this evidence will bring to light in a public court many things that have national security consequences, such as national intelligence....ie...sources and methods of intelligence gathering. Brought to light in a public venue, it could be detrimental to national security, and make years of establishing intelligence contacts a waste. And worse, potentially put sources lives in danger, and eliminate long established methods of intelligence gathering. This is dangerous. Extremely dangerous really. And this wouldn't happen in a military tribunal. This show trial is political. Nothing more than that. It is an attempt for liberals to feel good about providing foreign terrorists "justice", and feeling righteous about it.

You can bet it will come with a price as well. Especially if there's enough evidence to fill an 18 wheel truck, and one juror (a fellow Muslim of his peers) decides he can't convict a fellow Muslim in an infidel court, and it becomes a hung jury. The American people will not take that lightly. Don't think that's possible?

[OneToughHerring]

Irrelevant to this situation.

Why exactly?

[Tribesman]

Don't confuse the issue jeremy.
That rich since you are so confused over the issue that you are totally lost.
However, leaving these foreign terrorists in the military justice system wouldn't have done anything to destroy America's principles of legal justice, sense of fairness, or freedoms. I actually think that moving them to the public court system is something that can be damaging to "justice".
You simply don't understand, the government screwed up on the legal issues(basicly by trying to avoid the legal issues), it is as a result oftheir screw ups that now the detainees are having to go through the civil courts.
The damage done to the principles of legal justice was the attempt to dodge aspects of the legal system.
Moving them to the public couts isn't damaging justice , it's a belated attempt at damage limitation.


Military Court is the place to conduct trials.

I ask again. Under what law.
Jihad is Jihad
Can you define that word?
Can you then find one of the defininitions that would be relevant to a legal case?
I think in WW2 any traitor was basically shot for treason. So what is the problem here?
WW2 was a war, it was between states.
Since WW2 civil, military and international laws have all changed(in case you didn't realise that is why the legal example of US treatment of German agents was rejected as a precedent)

[Platapus]

What are your qualifications other than your own opinion?

Not a whole lot.

-28+ Years experience as a geo-political analyst (military and civilian)
-Masters Degree in Political Analysis
-Within one year of completing my Doctorate in international policy analysis
-Written two theses on Islamic governance. My dissertation will also be Islamic focused.
-For the past five years, my professional focus (as an FFRDC) has been on Islamic Issues. I brief military and civilian leadership on "such matters".

This is not a hobby with me, nor a passing interest. This is literally what I do for a living. This is one of the reasons I seldom opine on such matters on this board.

The complexities of these issues, is staggering. As a result of my education and experience, one thing is clear. I have just barely scratched the surface of these issues.

That is why I like to call people out when they make short generalizations. The issue is far too complex for sound bytes.

The reason I don't get too upset, is this is just a internet chat board, not a serious analytical forum.

[jumpy]

Any administration has 'got to be seen to be doing something'. And what better way than with a public show trial? (If I understand the situation correctly).
After all of this time with detention without charge I think they'd have a tough time killing these guys out of hand or keeping them incarcerated, guilty or not, without a public airing.
:hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

I ask again. Under what law.



As I posted a few days back, this is all new. Nothing to compare nor rules to follow. Right now we can only conduct a trial in a criminal court. Is it the correct why to handle it? I do not think so. I believe military court is more fitting. Currently it should be tried under US laws. Last time I checked these terrorist are caught and have really not much say in the matter.


Can you define that word?
Can you then find one of the defininitions that would be relevant to a legal case?



Ok, lets just change the word Jihad to lynching.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.


Ok, these terrorists said they planned and executed the taking down of the World Trade Centers. But Jihad is not on trial here. Killing people is. So you can call Jihad lynchings or whatever floats your boat. Fact remains Jihad as a holy war is not on trial. Killing is.

[Tribesman]

As I posted a few days back, this is all new.
No it isn't, its just a case of murder.
Nothing to compare nor rules to follow.
The problem is not a lack of rules to follow, but the silly attempts that were taken to avoid those rules.

Ok, lets just change the word Jihad to lynching
So the felony of participation in extrajudicial mob violence.
Sorry that doesn't fit the bill.

Ok, these terrorists said they planned and executed the taking down of the World Trade Centers. But Jihad is not on trial here. Killing people is. So you can call Jihad lynchings or whatever floats your boat. Fact remains Jihad as a holy war is not on trial. Killing is.
Killing? thats murder if it isn't legal or accidental isn't it, a simple crime, very straightforward to prosecute out to several degrees removed from the actual act of doing the killing.
Its a pity some idiots made the case a complicated mess instead of the straighforward case it should have been.

BTWJihad did ...... please don't quote Daniel Pipes, having one closed minded bigot commenting on other closed minded bigots isn't very constructive or informative

[Sea Demon]

Not a whole lot.

-28+ Years experience as a geo-political analyst (military and civilian)
-Masters Degree in Political Analysis
-Within one year of completing my Doctorate in international policy analysis
-Written two theses on Islamic governance. My dissertation will also be Islamic focused.
-For the past five years, my professional focus (as an FFRDC) has been on Islamic Issues. I brief military and civilian leadership on "such matters".

This is not a hobby with me, nor a passing interest. This is literally what I do for a living. This is one of the reasons I seldom opine on such matters on this board.

The complexities of these issues, is staggering. As a result of my education and experience, one thing is clear. I have just barely scratched the surface of these issues.

That is why I like to call people out when they make short generalizations. The issue is far too complex for sound bytes.

The reason I don't get too upset, is this is just a internet chat board, not a serious analytical forum.

Nice credentials and experience. I cede to your greater knowledge of the subject matter. I am not an analyst of this type. I work as an engineer in the commercial space industry. I also used to be an officer in the USAF and have dealt with information of a classified nature. I'm impressed and have a tremendous amount of respect for your experience. :salute: Nevertheless, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical of your approach.

I have seen us try this approach before, and it doesn't slow them down in any way. Doesn't appear to demoralize them, nor have I seen any evidence that points to that. When captured I have a hard time believing that bestowing upon them the same Constitutional rights as US citizens will have any impact. Nor do I see a military tribunal being a detriment to their human rights. Would trying them in a military court or a public court really make a difference to these Islamic murderers? I don't think so. Yet, giving them a stage in the public arena seems to give them what they want....a stage to spout, and a political soapbox to rant on. In other words attention. No amount of education on this subject matter will tell me that giving them a soapbox to air their views will aid in demoralizing them or will help in minimizing their impact on similar minded people. I don't buy it at all. It's apparent that what these people want is attention....and that's precisely what a public trial will give them.

Military tribunals also seems to be a more secure venue for information of a national security nature. Including sources and methods of intelligence gathering. I'm surprised and concerned any analyst wouldn't consider that aspect. You do know that keeping information of this type secure in a public court of record is almost impossible. And information of this type may need to be provided to prove guilt. Releasing information of this type may also be detrimental to long established and costly methods of intelligence gathering, and may also present a danger to lives of people being used as sources of information. Don't you find any of that troubling Platapus?

[Tribesman]

No amount of education on this subject matter will tell me that giving them a soapbox to air their views will aid in demoralizing them or will help in minimizing their impact on similar minded people. I don't buy it at all. It's apparent that what these people want is attention....and that's precisely what a public trial will give them.
Perhaps people should have thought of that before their silly attempts at avoiding the legal issues led them to the current situation.
Every single stupid step that was taken to make the process of bringing these people to judgement quicker and easier has made it slower and much harder.

[Platapus]

You do know that keeping information of this type secure in a public court of record is almost impossible. And information of this type may need to be provided to prove guilt. Releasing information of this type may also be detrimental to long established and costly methods of intelligence gathering, and may also present a danger to lives of people being used as sources of information. Don't you find any of that troubling Platapus?


First of all, it is possible to secure sensitive information in civilian courts. It happens much more often than you may read about. There are judicial
ways of sanitizing sensitive information and they work pretty well. We have had many trials where sensitive information was not leaked. The courts have recognized that sources of information can be evaluated in camera and the sanitized evidence admitted in court. It is cumbersome but viable.

However, the second point you raised is important and well worth discussing. What do we do when all the "evidence" we have on these people is inadmissible either due to security or judicial concerns?

This conflict is not new nor easy to mitigate. It illustrates the conflict in the relationship between Intelligence and Operations. Intelligence is designed to collect information, Operations is designed to take action. Frequently these are in conflict with each other. If I could come up with a solution to this conflict, I sure would not be working for my company earning the small bucks!

Would trying them in a military court or a public court really make a difference to these Islamic murderers?

Well first of all, not all of them have confessed and depending on the jurisdiction , it may still necessary for the prosecution to make their case. In most capital cases, it is necessary for the prosecution to make their case despite any confession. Second, you are absolutely right. It would make no difference to the defendants. However, there are more players than just the defendants.

It is important to the citizens of the United States to prosecute these people in an open court (security concerns recognized) as it demonstrates that we are a country of laws and that our respect for our is so important that we will ensure that all defendants have the benefit of a fair and open trial even though it may be a detriment to our nation.

That is what makes America strong. We do the right thing even though it is hard, even if it gives an advantage to our adversaries. This is where the true character of people comes out. Are we truly committed to our culture of freedom and equality or are we only committed when it is is convenient?

Are we morally above our adversaries or do we sink to their level? This is not a trivial question. Depending on our decision, we may win in the short term, but in the long term lose much more.

It is also important to recognize that Muslims around the world will be watching these trials. Despite a shaky start, the United States has verbally claimed that we are not at war against Islam, but against individual people who pervert Islam. How we treat these individuals will have an effect on how Muslims perceive the United State's intentions. This is a chance to demonstrate, via actions not just words, that we are a nation of laws and not a nation of vengeance.

Lastly, we should not be concerned that these extremists will use the courts as a sounding board. We should encourage it. Because then the United States can bring in, from other countries, highly respected Islamic scholars who can then, in public, refute what the extremists are saying.

Extremists, of any kind, do not survive intelligent logical arguments of their dogma. This is a powerful weapon against extremists. Bring their dogma out into the sunshine. Don't suppress it, call attention to it. Force the extremists to respond internationally respected Islamic Scholars. They will soon break down and expose themselves as what they are.... nutter extremists and not people fighting for Islam. They are, after all, only fighting for their perverted version of Islam.

This is something that we have not done before. One of the greatest sins in Islam is the sin of Apostasy. If the words of these extremists can be refuted, not by us but, by internationally recognized Islamic Scholars, these extremists can be exposed as Apostates. This is a powerful weapon.

We will never change the minds of the UBLs, but UBL needs minions. If, as a result of this public refuting of the extremist dogma, we can get just a few of the minions to have a spark of uncertainty, that can be the cancer that will kill al-Qaeda from the inside. All it takes is a few minions to just think to themselves "Is UBL right, or is there another way".

Without minions, UBL is just some old guy with wacky ideas hiding in a cave.

It will take time. al-Qaeda won't fall a week after the trials. Clearly, killing al-Qaeda minions is not getting us anywhere as al-Qaeda seems to be able to recruit them as fast as we can kill them. One could make the argument that our tactics is making it easier for al-Qeada to recruit.

This is why I feel we need to switch our weapons. They are perverting Islam to use it as a weapon against us, lets use Islam against them. If the perverted version of Islam is the prime motivator, then true Islam can be the motivator in a different direction. We stand to lose little and potentially gain a lot if we can "attack" the motivations if I can be excused for paraphrasing Clausewitz.

My opinions are not a perfect solution, nor is it guaranteed to be successful. :nope: But after 8 years, perhaps we could consider alternate means of combating al-Qaeda?

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
As I posted a few days back, this is all new.
No it isn't, its just a case of murder.



A case of murder? That resulted in what for the American people and American soldiers? It is more than just murder. There have been plenty of murders that resulted in war and this goes beyond just "murder".

[Tribesman]

A case of murder? That resulted in what for the American people and American soldiers? It is more than just murder. There have been plenty of murders that resulted in war and this goes beyond just "murder".
The main crime was murder, there were lots of other crimes commited at the same time but murder is top of the list.
If you want a new offence of "more than murder" then get your lawmakers to write a new law, get it passed, ensure it is applicable to the crimes by making it retroactive....then have the judges throw it out as unconstitutional, so change the constitution to allow it, then rewrite another law and make sure that passes then hope you don't run into another legal problem.
By which time the detainees will probably be dead from old age anyhow.

[Shearwater]

It is also important to recognize that Muslims around the world will be watching these trials. Despite a shaky start, the United States has verbally claimed that we are not at war against Islam, but against individual people who pervert Islam. How we treat these individuals will have an effect on how Muslims perceive the United State's intentions. This is a chance to demonstrate, via actions not just words, that we are a nation of laws and not a nation of vengeance.

Lastly, we should not be concerned that these extremists will use the courts as a sounding board. We should encourage it. Because then the United States can bring in, from other countries, highly respected Islamic scholars who can then, in public, refute what the extremists are saying.

Extremists, of any kind, do not survive intelligent logical arguments of their dogma. This is a powerful weapon against extremists. Bring their dogma out into the sunshine. Don't suppress it, call attention to it. Force the extremists to respond internationally respected Islamic Scholars. They will soon break down and expose themselves as what they are.... nutter extremists and not people fighting for Islam. They are, after all, only fighting for their perverted version of Islam.


I agree, although it's obvious that it will have an impact only on those who may gravitate towards radical Islamism but are not entrenched in it. I think that these people will doubt any validity of any trial held the in the US and will most likely see any scholars who attend such trails as compromising their beliefs (in the broad sense). My point is simply: It's not a naive ploy targeted at the radicals, but at those who are in doubt.
I know it sounds bit simplistic, but I don't try to compete with your expertise. Excellent post.

Another thing that came to my mind:
Does anyone see analogies to the Nuremberg Trials?
Just to make it clear, I don't want to compare atrocities here. I am referring to the problem of coming to a verdict without previous legislation.

[Tribesman]

Another thing that came to my mind:
Does anyone see analogies to the Nuremberg Trials?
Just to make it clear, I don't want to compare atrocities here. I am referring to the problem of coming to a verdict without previous legislation.
There was previous legislation though, the international trials, the national trials by occupying nations and even the national trials by former axis countries were all done through the basis existing arrangements and legislation.
They did run into problems as some of the legislation was poorly defined, some was very out of date and some areas were simply not covered.
The 4th convention went some way towards dealing in future with those areas that were not covered by existing legislation in WW2.
The irony now is that the Administrations efforts to avoid aspects of the 4th convention is one of the reasons why the proposed trials are in a mess now.

[Ducimus]

http://www.cagle.com/news/MohammedTrial/images/plante.jpg

[Sea Demon]

First of all, it is possible to secure sensitive information in civilian courts. It happens much more often than you may read about. There are judicial
ways of sanitizing sensitive information and they work pretty well. We have had many trials where sensitive information was not leaked. The courts have recognized that sources of information can be evaluated in camera and the sanitized evidence admitted in court. It is cumbersome but viable.


I hope you're right. I still disagree with it, but I understand your explanation. All it takes is one person associated with the case to leak any information which may be of a sensitive nature and could potentially be helpful to any number of those who seek to inflict harm upon the USA. This could happen days or weeks later. Could even be by accident. My biggest concern is still who they would choose as a jury of "peers". I don't believe any of this is going to go as smoothly as many here think. And it may just be the case that after the fact, a military tribunal will have proven to have been the best venue for the case. My big fear is that some people will die to prove that point. Puts a chill up my spine thinking about that.

[Tribesman]

I don't believe any of this is going to go as smoothly as many here think.
Who on earth thinks it is going to go smoothly?
Its a last ditch attempt at salvaging something from the mess.

And it may just be the case that after the fact, a military tribunal will have proven to have been the best venue for the case
What part of "they have screwed up that option and cannot possibly do it" is it that you don't understand?

My big fear is that some people will die to prove that point.
My big fear is that the sky is going to fall on our heads:yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

Who on earth thinks it is going to go smoothly?
Its a last ditch attempt at salvaging something from the mess.


What part of "they have screwed up that option and cannot possibly do it" is it that you don't understand?




Salvage what Tribeman? What could the US possibly be looking to salvage? As far as screwing up an option for military tribunal, Holder already has stated this will be tried in a criminal court of law found in NYC. He has stood firm on this and it would seem the White House is backing Holder on it.

[Tribesman]

Salvage what Tribeman?
The possibility of having a trial and getting a conviction.

Holder already has stated this will be tried in a criminal court of law found in NYC.
Indeed, and Holder got the job when exactly?

He has stood firm on this and it would seem the White House is backing Holder on it.
Really, wow.
Is that due to the supreme court rulings on the previous attempts which mean it is now the only real option available.

[AVGWarhawk]

The possibility of having a trial and getting a conviction.


Indeed, and Holder got the job when exactly?


Really, wow.
Is that due to the supreme court rulings on the previous attempts which mean it is now the only real option available.

The possibilities of having a trial and conviction??? This was never lost to be salvaged in the first place.

Holder was nominated by Obama and voted in. Not a matter of when but by whom put Holder there. This makes most suspicous to possible motive on having this held in NYC.

Supreme court rulings on previous attempts at what? Holding court for people who openly admitted designing and carrying out acts of terrorism? Just seems to be going through the motions to make it look like due process of law and probably more of a CYA for the administration that looks like it really does not know what to do with these detainees. BTW, the timeline of one year to closet Gitmo is drawing near. Seems the White House is a bit baffled on that declaration as well. Seems only fitting and what we should expect for the next three years.



Administration officials say 40 to 50 of the remaining detainees (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/closing-gitmo-feds-eye-state-military-prisons-detainees/story?id=9096392) will be transferred to the United States to face prosecution in federal courts or military tribunals. About 100 will be transferred to other countries.




Last month, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-eric-holder-defends-us-trials-911-suspects/story?id=9113757) that the Obama Administration is making progress in shutting down Guantanamo but that it will likely not meet a self-imposed January deadline (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Terrorism/story?id=6693079&page=1) for its closure.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/guantanamo-detainees-transferred-france-hungary/story?id=9217004

[Tribesman]

The possibilities of having a trial and conviction??? This was never lost to be salvaged in the first place.
Yes it was, when the supreme court said they was doing it wrong.

Holder was nominated by Obama and voted in. Not a matter of when but by whom put Holder there
No the matter is when, as in did he get the job before or after the supreme court rulings on the detainees.

BTW, the timeline of one year to closet Gitmo is drawing near.
:har::har::har::har::har:
He made that announcement on the 22nd on the 25th they said it wouldn't be possible to start the process as the paperwork on the detainees was missing. Where have you been for the past 10 months?
Six months ago they voted to take back the allocated funds because the close wasn't going to take place.
Please try and keep up to date.

[AVGWarhawk]

Where have you been for the past 10 months?
Six months ago they voted to take back the allocated funds because the close wasn't going to take place.
Please try and keep up to date.

I have. Do not pass over my link for an article from ABC with today's date a post back concerning closing Gitmo. :O:

Yes it was, when the supreme court said they was doing it wrong.


Who was doing what wrong? :hmmm: Problem is these individuals are provided a platform if the trails are held in NYC. Furthermore these bumbling idiots have cost enough money. The cost to hold these trials on men who already admit defeat will be astonishing. Security will be at a premium. Personally, it is a dumb move.

[Tribesman]

I have. Do not pass over my link for an article from ABC with today's date a post back concerning closing Gitmo.
and what has that to do with the price of cheese?
Wow they managed to get together enough of the paperwork to process a couple of prisoners.


Who was doing what wrong?
So many cases at so many different levels.
Well there was this case where it said that the Preseident did not have the authority to do what he had done, then there was this case that said the Executive couldn't do what it had done.
Then came the case that said the tribunal was doing it wrong, then that the investigators and prosecutors was doing it wrong.
Then you have the one that said it was unconstitutional what was being done
Oh and then they had another different one that said again the president was doing it wrong.

What they were doing wrong AVG was trying to cherrypick some aspects of military law and some aspects of civil law (while mixing both with international law) yet trying to ignore all the aspects of all the different laws which would get in the way.
It was the laws which they were trying to ignore that caused the legal problems and delays. And it is the attempt at mixing laws which have determined which laws now have to be followed(as in which set have there been less legal screw ups over so an image of due process may be partially preserved).

[AVGWarhawk]

and what has that to do with the price of cheese?
Wow they managed to get together enough of the paperwork to process a couple of prisoners.



I will quote it again for you:


Last month, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-eric-holder-defends-us-trials-911-suspects/story?id=9113757) that the Obama Administration is making progress in shutting down Guantanamo but that it will likely not meet a self-imposed January deadline (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Terrorism/story?id=6693079&page=1) for its closure.


The discussion turned to failure to close the base timely. Another rush decision so Obama can look good. Now another head long rush to get the detainees somewhere and about 50 to NYC for a trial. You find this all ok for some odd reason. For such a high profile case concerning NYC my last choice to try these detainees would be NYC. You said I needed to be up to date on this. The article is up to date and was posted before you made your suggestion. Read all that I posted and the links as well. Enjoy your cheese. :O:

[Tribesman]

I will quote it again for you:

And I will quote you.
I have. Do not pass over my link for an article from ABC with today's date a post back concerning closing Gitmo.
Can you tell me the date? do you mean the two articles from last month , the article from January or the article with the date of that day?
So unless you mean an article from ABC with a date other than that which you specified then the question remains....."what has that to do with the price of cheese?"

[AVGWarhawk]

And I will quote you.

Can you tell me the date? do you mean the two articles from last month , the article from January or the article with the date of that day?
So unless you mean an article from ABC with a date other than that which you specified then the question remains....."what has that to do with the price of cheese?"


You simply have not read my posts and only skimmed the article for ABC dated Dec 1, 2009.

[Tribesman]

You simply have not read my posts and only skimmed the article for ABC dated Dec 1, 2009.
If you are not refering to a specific news article then don't refer to a specific news article.
The only possible relevant article was that which preceeded the anouncement on January 22nd, which itself no longer has any relevance following the announcement on January 25th.
All following announcements and articles are relevant only to the 25th as that is when they initially declared that the announcement from the 3 days earlier would no longer be valid as they had found the legal paperwork dealing with the detainees was in a complete mess with many parts missing entirely.
The fact that the government recently had to repeat what they had said 10 months ago just demonstrates the poor quality of journalism and the short attention span and memory of much of the public.
The appearance of Holder before the commitee has no bearing on that as it was a regular scheduled event(though the fact that some on the commitee asked about the deadline shows the politicains to be really thick as not only was it announced in January that the deadline was not there but they themselves participated in the vote to re allocate the funds because the deadline was not there)

[VipertheSniper]

WTF is wrong with you Tribesman?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/guantanamo-detainees-transferred-france-hungary/story?id=9217004

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/guantanamo-detainees-transferred-france-hungary/story?id=9217004

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/guantanamo-detainees-transferred-france-hungary/story?id=9217004

Here's the f*cking article... what has that to do with cheese?

[Tribesman]

Here's the f*cking article...
Really , you mean the ABC article from the 1st december 2009 which says its the article from 1st december 2009 from ABC which AVG Warhawk mentioned as todays article from ABC on the 1st december 2009.
Thanks for pointing that out, I clearly got confused by thinking that the 1st december really meant the 1st december and that the article from ABC actually meant the artickle from ABC plus of course got very lost when AVG described it as in the link when he meant it was in the link.
I would be completely lost if you hadn't pointed that out :rotfl2:

But what has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Perhaps you had better ask the man on the Clapham omnibus.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.lesmonds.co.uk/forum/img/Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

RIGHT, THIS THREAD'S GOTTEN MUCH TOO SILLY. STOP IT. STOP IT NOW.

[Jimbuna]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Blackadder_IV_-_Goodbyeee.jpg

I couldn't agree more.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.lesmonds.co.uk/forum/img/Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

WIBBLE, YOU SAY?

http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/48446544/8518287

[Jimbuna]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Blackadder_IV_-_Goodbyeee.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2QJSeWQoKyA/R9raW7nerUI/AAAAAAAADOc/9Yn2YHiaoqU/s400/250px-Blackadder_4_captain_darling.jpg

What do you think darling?

[Tribesman]

You two with your newfagled humour from the televisual machine, try something related to the wireless instead.

The Archers Riots occurred in September 1912 when a leaf on the railway line from Brumingham caused the Archers' stories to be delayed for a whole three minutes. Middle England voiced its protests outside parliament, waving placards proclaiming "This simply isn't good enough" or "Why, oh, why, oh why?" Several protesters arrived via the Clapham Omnibus and the police felt it necessary to deploy plates of scones in order to disperse the rabble. No Britons were hurt.
It was reported that simple plain scones had to be used as recent fluctuations in the price of cheddar has made cheese scones off limits for crowd control

[AVGWarhawk]

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Jimbuna]

I much prefer Earl Grey these days

http://ridingpretty.com/blog_images/tweed%20colin.jpg

http://images.cafepress.com/image/11543087_400x400.jpg

[Aramike]

What's the point of public trials for any criminals when we know they did it?
If the police/army/etc have already found out they are guilty or they have confessed then why waste time and money with public trials?
Why not just lock them up/kill them.

What are the motives of people who support public trials?

Distraction from real issues?

Trying to set criminals free?

Earning lawyers money?

Public trials are unpatriotic.

- This message bought to you by the Ministry of LoveGoing back a ways, I have to comment on this: we DON'T have public trials of people who confess and plead guilty.

[AVGWarhawk]

Going back a ways, I have to comment on this: we DON'T have public trials of people who confess and plead guilty.

Due process of law. No matter if the accused confess or not, the trial must go on.

[Tribesman]

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
:up:

Going back a ways, I have to comment on this: we DON'T have public trials of people who confess and plead guilty.
Ah the plea bargain, where the defendant opts to do a deal instead of going to trial.
So that is where the defendant chooses to waive rights and either offer no contest or plead guilty in exchange for punishment within a pre negotiated range.
Have any of the detainees in question requested this option?

[Aramike]

Due process of law. No matter if the accused confess or not, the trial must go on.I should have said "plead guilty". If at the arraignment the defendent pleads guilty there is no trial, and the court proceeds to sentencing hearings.

Edit: I *DID* say "plead". Heh.

[Platapus]

I should have said "plead guilty". If at the arraignment the defendent pleads guilty there is no trial, and the court proceeds to sentencing hearings.

Edit: I *DID* say "plead". Heh.

It depends on the jurisdiction and the crime. In some jurisdictions, the prosecution still needs to plead its case.

[Letum]

I should have said "plead guilty". If at the arraignment the defendent pleads guilty there is no trial, and the court proceeds to sentencing hearings.

Edit: I *DID* say "plead". Heh.


Really?

There have been several cases in the UK where someone who pleaded
guilty was proven innocent.

[Aramike]

Really?

There have been several cases in the UK where someone who pleaded
guilty was proven innocent.Perhaps, but the topic isn't about the UK's prisoners at Gitmo. It's about the US'.

And in US FEDERAL COURT (to answer the question of jurisdiction), there is no trial for someone who pleads guilty.

In fact, I'm wondering what jurisdiction actually tries a case where the defendant pleads guilty, because that would make no sense.

By the way, when you say "really?", what part about what I said is not a fact? Yes, REALLY, when someone pleads guilty, there is no trial - regardless of whether or not that person is actually guilty.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I much prefer Earl Grey these days

http://ridingpretty.com/blog_images/tweed%20colin.jpg



Well, if you're talking about tea, why is there a photo of you outside the urologist's office?

[Platapus]

And in US FEDERAL COURT (to answer the question of jurisdiction), there is no trial for someone who pleads guilty.

Correct. In the case of US Federal Courts, the judge would have to first refuse the guilty plea.

In fact, I'm wondering what jurisdiction actually tries a case where the defendant pleads guilty, because that would make no sense.

The most applicable, to this thread, jurisdiction is the US Military. Under US Military law, a defendant accused of a capitol crime where the death penalty is authorized, the defendant is not allowed to plead guilty. The Prosecution must make its case despite any claims of guilt by the defendant.

In the case of the Gitmo detainees, this is one of the reasons why many people want them tried in civil court. In civil federal court, a defendant can plead guilty to a capitol case and there will be no trial.

http://www.911omissionreport.com/guilty_capital_pleas.html

[CaptainHaplo]

I admit, I am of 2 minds on this. If the defendants plead guilty - as they did previously, then there is no reason to have a public trial. The question is - does their wish for martydom outweigh their desire to publicly denounce the US? It is unlikely they will get the death penalty if there is a trial. However, that denies them martyrdom, since a death of natural causes in jail isn't the same as being killed.

Lets see what they plead. I don't fear them being tried in a civilian court. My only issue is that they are being given a set of rights that they do not have a claim to. Sets a bad precedent.