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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

A person can plead guilty.

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.

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.

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.

Excellent point! :up:

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.

You don't understand the words you are using.

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.

He is correct and your links are completely irrelevant.

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.




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

In exactly the same way as you do with any murderer

Then Pennsylvania and Washington DC would be equally suitable.

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

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.....

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