Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

(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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

I'll just let this thread roll.