Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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.