Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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?) 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]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

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.

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?) 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]

Originally Posted by SeaDemon

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?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Fish

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. 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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.