Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[Subnuts]

This is madness.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York. Imagine, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in American history, let loose just blocks from where it happened, and surrounded by millions of angry New Yorkers out for revenge.

Problem solved.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York.

Really? When did he get a special immigration status which would allow him to walk out of court onto the streets?

Unbeleavable.

Believable, its people trying not to believe it that have put the government in the legal mess they are now in.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

This is madness.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York. Imagine, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in American history, let loose just blocks from where it happened, and surrounded by millions of angry New Yorkers out for revenge.
.

If he is guilty by evidence proving that, this scenario will not take place.

Again: guilt must be proven, not just assumed. Even a confession of a suspect may be not accepted by the police or the court, because it is possible somebody not guilty confesses to cover somebody else.

If the suspects in these cases get acquitted, then you may check the evidence that you believed to have, or the system.

Either the evidence is not as convincing and waterproof as you claim it is, in which case juristical principle is to assume the innocence of the accused, which can be a pain, but it is like that for good reason;

or investigation work messed things up, in which case the failure of the trial is your own fault due to dilletantism at work;

or your procedural courts standards and laws are such that they do not allow justice travelling down it's road and reasonably considering evidence, in that case again it is your own fault and your system needs corrections in laws and rules.

But one thing only dictatorships and police states do accept: to chose the conditions and laws for a trial according to what you can or cannot prove and according to the wanted sentence you hope to acchieve. The law is valid, always, and must be valid for all, under all circumstances. Either your evidence is sufficient, or it is not. But in both cases, the same laws and procedures must be respected. Their standards may not be lowered just becaseu your eviodence is of low, not convicning evidence, but you still want to see a verdict of "guilty".

If the evidence is based on information gained under torture, than this is dilletantism. One should not apply torture to produce evidence one wants to use at court, it only is useful for intel gathering in running operation, if the given info can be counterchekced whiole the delinquent is still available. Using information from torture for court proceedings always is very, very stupid, and only massively assists the defence in spreading doubts.

To try the suspects at a civil court is not only in respect of most profound principles of justice and laws, but also has another effect: to show the world beyond all doubt that america is not seeking just some random revenge, and does not want to hide anything, but sentences those responsible for the attack on the basis of evidence, according to legal standards that are generally accepted in the civilised world.

for this latter reason, it is wise to not decide the issues behind locked doors, in the hidden, under exclusion of the public, at a military tribunal. It is the more difficult way to go the public way, yes. But it is the necessary way.

If the evidence is solid, they will be found guilty. If the evidence is such that it does not prove their guilt, you have no point in claiming you are so very very sure they are guilty. If you think a claim is enough and evidence is not needed, than you are close to lynching customs.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

This is madness.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is acquitted, he'll be released into the streets of New York. Imagine, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in American history, let loose just blocks from where it happened, and surrounded by millions of angry New Yorkers out for revenge.

Problem solved.

Poetic justice...some might say