Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?
 

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.

I'd say this about sums it up:

http://imgur.com/nAP3a.jpg

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

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.

Now theres this

Quote:

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.

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.

I would go with this one.

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?

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.

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

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:

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.

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