Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[jumpy]

Any administration has 'got to be seen to be doing something'. And what better way than with a public show trial? (If I understand the situation correctly).
After all of this time with detention without charge I think they'd have a tough time killing these guys out of hand or keeping them incarcerated, guilty or not, without a public airing.

[AVGWarhawk]

I ask again. Under what law.

As I posted a few days back, this is all new. Nothing to compare nor rules to follow. Right now we can only conduct a trial in a criminal court. Is it the correct why to handle it? I do not think so. I believe military court is more fitting. Currently it should be tried under US laws. Last time I checked these terrorist are caught and have really not much say in the matter.

Can you define that word?
Can you then find one of the defininitions that would be relevant to a legal case?

Ok, lets just change the word Jihad to lynching.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Ok, these terrorists said they planned and executed the taking down of the World Trade Centers. But Jihad is not on trial here. Killing people is. So you can call Jihad lynchings or whatever floats your boat. Fact remains Jihad as a holy war is not on trial. Killing is.

As I posted a few days back, this is all new.

No it isn't, its just a case of murder.

Nothing to compare nor rules to follow.

The problem is not a lack of rules to follow, but the silly attempts that were taken to avoid those rules.

Ok, lets just change the word Jihad to lynching

So the felony of participation in extrajudicial mob violence.
Sorry that doesn't fit the bill.

Ok, these terrorists said they planned and executed the taking down of the World Trade Centers. But Jihad is not on trial here. Killing people is. So you can call Jihad lynchings or whatever floats your boat. Fact remains Jihad as a holy war is not on trial. Killing is.

Killing? thats murder if it isn't legal or accidental isn't it, a simple crime, very straightforward to prosecute out to several degrees removed from the actual act of doing the killing.
Its a pity some idiots made the case a complicated mess instead of the straighforward case it should have been.

BTW

Jihad did ......

please don't quote Daniel Pipes, having one closed minded bigot commenting on other closed minded bigots isn't very constructive or informative

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Not a whole lot.

-28+ Years experience as a geo-political analyst (military and civilian)
-Masters Degree in Political Analysis
-Within one year of completing my Doctorate in international policy analysis
-Written two theses on Islamic governance. My dissertation will also be Islamic focused.
-For the past five years, my professional focus (as an FFRDC) has been on Islamic Issues. I brief military and civilian leadership on "such matters".

This is not a hobby with me, nor a passing interest. This is literally what I do for a living. This is one of the reasons I seldom opine on such matters on this board.

The complexities of these issues, is staggering. As a result of my education and experience, one thing is clear. I have just barely scratched the surface of these issues.

That is why I like to call people out when they make short generalizations. The issue is far too complex for sound bytes.

The reason I don't get too upset, is this is just a internet chat board, not a serious analytical forum.

Nice credentials and experience. I cede to your greater knowledge of the subject matter. I am not an analyst of this type. I work as an engineer in the commercial space industry. I also used to be an officer in the USAF and have dealt with information of a classified nature. I'm impressed and have a tremendous amount of respect for your experience. Nevertheless, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical of your approach.

I have seen us try this approach before, and it doesn't slow them down in any way. Doesn't appear to demoralize them, nor have I seen any evidence that points to that. When captured I have a hard time believing that bestowing upon them the same Constitutional rights as US citizens will have any impact. Nor do I see a military tribunal being a detriment to their human rights. Would trying them in a military court or a public court really make a difference to these Islamic murderers? I don't think so. Yet, giving them a stage in the public arena seems to give them what they want....a stage to spout, and a political soapbox to rant on. In other words attention. No amount of education on this subject matter will tell me that giving them a soapbox to air their views will aid in demoralizing them or will help in minimizing their impact on similar minded people. I don't buy it at all. It's apparent that what these people want is attention....and that's precisely what a public trial will give them.

Military tribunals also seems to be a more secure venue for information of a national security nature. Including sources and methods of intelligence gathering. I'm surprised and concerned any analyst wouldn't consider that aspect. You do know that keeping information of this type secure in a public court of record is almost impossible. And information of this type may need to be provided to prove guilt. Releasing information of this type may also be detrimental to long established and costly methods of intelligence gathering, and may also present a danger to lives of people being used as sources of information. Don't you find any of that troubling Platapus?

No amount of education on this subject matter will tell me that giving them a soapbox to air their views will aid in demoralizing them or will help in minimizing their impact on similar minded people. I don't buy it at all. It's apparent that what these people want is attention....and that's precisely what a public trial will give them.

Perhaps people should have thought of that before their silly attempts at avoiding the legal issues led them to the current situation.
Every single stupid step that was taken to make the process of bringing these people to judgement quicker and easier has made it slower and much harder.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You do know that keeping information of this type secure in a public court of record is almost impossible. And information of this type may need to be provided to prove guilt. Releasing information of this type may also be detrimental to long established and costly methods of intelligence gathering, and may also present a danger to lives of people being used as sources of information. Don't you find any of that troubling Platapus?

First of all, it is possible to secure sensitive information in civilian courts. It happens much more often than you may read about. There are judicial
ways of sanitizing sensitive information and they work pretty well. We have had many trials where sensitive information was not leaked. The courts have recognized that sources of information can be evaluated in camera and the sanitized evidence admitted in court. It is cumbersome but viable.

However, the second point you raised is important and well worth discussing. What do we do when all the "evidence" we have on these people is inadmissible either due to security or judicial concerns?

This conflict is not new nor easy to mitigate. It illustrates the conflict in the relationship between Intelligence and Operations. Intelligence is designed to collect information, Operations is designed to take action. Frequently these are in conflict with each other. If I could come up with a solution to this conflict, I sure would not be working for my company earning the small bucks!

Would trying them in a military court or a public court really make a difference to these Islamic murderers?

Well first of all, not all of them have confessed and depending on the jurisdiction , it may still necessary for the prosecution to make their case. In most capital cases, it is necessary for the prosecution to make their case despite any confession. Second, you are absolutely right. It would make no difference to the defendants. However, there are more players than just the defendants.

It is important to the citizens of the United States to prosecute these people in an open court (security concerns recognized) as it demonstrates that we are a country of laws and that our respect for our is so important that we will ensure that all defendants have the benefit of a fair and open trial even though it may be a detriment to our nation.

That is what makes America strong. We do the right thing even though it is hard, even if it gives an advantage to our adversaries. This is where the true character of people comes out. Are we truly committed to our culture of freedom and equality or are we only committed when it is is convenient?

Are we morally above our adversaries or do we sink to their level? This is not a trivial question. Depending on our decision, we may win in the short term, but in the long term lose much more.

It is also important to recognize that Muslims around the world will be watching these trials. Despite a shaky start, the United States has verbally claimed that we are not at war against Islam, but against individual people who pervert Islam. How we treat these individuals will have an effect on how Muslims perceive the United State's intentions. This is a chance to demonstrate, via actions not just words, that we are a nation of laws and not a nation of vengeance.

Lastly, we should not be concerned that these extremists will use the courts as a sounding board. We should encourage it. Because then the United States can bring in, from other countries, highly respected Islamic scholars who can then, in public, refute what the extremists are saying.

Extremists, of any kind, do not survive intelligent logical arguments of their dogma. This is a powerful weapon against extremists. Bring their dogma out into the sunshine. Don't suppress it, call attention to it. Force the extremists to respond internationally respected Islamic Scholars. They will soon break down and expose themselves as what they are.... nutter extremists and not people fighting for Islam. They are, after all, only fighting for their perverted version of Islam.

This is something that we have not done before. One of the greatest sins in Islam is the sin of Apostasy. If the words of these extremists can be refuted, not by us but, by internationally recognized Islamic Scholars, these extremists can be exposed as Apostates. This is a powerful weapon.

We will never change the minds of the UBLs, but UBL needs minions. If, as a result of this public refuting of the extremist dogma, we can get just a few of the minions to have a spark of uncertainty, that can be the cancer that will kill al-Qaeda from the inside. All it takes is a few minions to just think to themselves "Is UBL right, or is there another way".

Without minions, UBL is just some old guy with wacky ideas hiding in a cave.

It will take time. al-Qaeda won't fall a week after the trials. Clearly, killing al-Qaeda minions is not getting us anywhere as al-Qaeda seems to be able to recruit them as fast as we can kill them. One could make the argument that our tactics is making it easier for al-Qeada to recruit.

This is why I feel we need to switch our weapons. They are perverting Islam to use it as a weapon against us, lets use Islam against them. If the perverted version of Islam is the prime motivator, then true Islam can be the motivator in a different direction. We stand to lose little and potentially gain a lot if we can "attack" the motivations if I can be excused for paraphrasing Clausewitz.

My opinions are not a perfect solution, nor is it guaranteed to be successful. But after 8 years, perhaps we could consider alternate means of combating al-Qaeda?

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
As I posted a few days back, this is all new.
No it isn't, its just a case of murder.

A case of murder? That resulted in what for the American people and American soldiers? It is more than just murder. There have been plenty of murders that resulted in war and this goes beyond just "murder".

A case of murder? That resulted in what for the American people and American soldiers? It is more than just murder. There have been plenty of murders that resulted in war and this goes beyond just "murder".

The main crime was murder, there were lots of other crimes commited at the same time but murder is top of the list.
If you want a new offence of "more than murder" then get your lawmakers to write a new law, get it passed, ensure it is applicable to the crimes by making it retroactive....then have the judges throw it out as unconstitutional, so change the constitution to allow it, then rewrite another law and make sure that passes then hope you don't run into another legal problem.
By which time the detainees will probably be dead from old age anyhow.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It is also important to recognize that Muslims around the world will be watching these trials. Despite a shaky start, the United States has verbally claimed that we are not at war against Islam, but against individual people who pervert Islam. How we treat these individuals will have an effect on how Muslims perceive the United State's intentions. This is a chance to demonstrate, via actions not just words, that we are a nation of laws and not a nation of vengeance.

Lastly, we should not be concerned that these extremists will use the courts as a sounding board. We should encourage it. Because then the United States can bring in, from other countries, highly respected Islamic scholars who can then, in public, refute what the extremists are saying.

Extremists, of any kind, do not survive intelligent logical arguments of their dogma. This is a powerful weapon against extremists. Bring their dogma out into the sunshine. Don't suppress it, call attention to it. Force the extremists to respond internationally respected Islamic Scholars. They will soon break down and expose themselves as what they are.... nutter extremists and not people fighting for Islam. They are, after all, only fighting for their perverted version of Islam.

I agree, although it's obvious that it will have an impact only on those who may gravitate towards radical Islamism but are not entrenched in it. I think that these people will doubt any validity of any trial held the in the US and will most likely see any scholars who attend such trails as compromising their beliefs (in the broad sense). My point is simply: It's not a naive ploy targeted at the radicals, but at those who are in doubt.
I know it sounds bit simplistic, but I don't try to compete with your expertise. Excellent post.

Another thing that came to my mind:
Does anyone see analogies to the Nuremberg Trials?
Just to make it clear, I don't want to compare atrocities here. I am referring to the problem of coming to a verdict without previous legislation.

Another thing that came to my mind:
Does anyone see analogies to the Nuremberg Trials?
Just to make it clear, I don't want to compare atrocities here. I am referring to the problem of coming to a verdict without previous legislation.

There was previous legislation though, the international trials, the national trials by occupying nations and even the national trials by former axis countries were all done through the basis existing arrangements and legislation.
They did run into problems as some of the legislation was poorly defined, some was very out of date and some areas were simply not covered.
The 4th convention went some way towards dealing in future with those areas that were not covered by existing legislation in WW2.
The irony now is that the Administrations efforts to avoid aspects of the 4th convention is one of the reasons why the proposed trials are in a mess now.

[Ducimus]

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

First of all, it is possible to secure sensitive information in civilian courts. It happens much more often than you may read about. There are judicial
ways of sanitizing sensitive information and they work pretty well. We have had many trials where sensitive information was not leaked. The courts have recognized that sources of information can be evaluated in camera and the sanitized evidence admitted in court. It is cumbersome but viable.

I hope you're right. I still disagree with it, but I understand your explanation. All it takes is one person associated with the case to leak any information which may be of a sensitive nature and could potentially be helpful to any number of those who seek to inflict harm upon the USA. This could happen days or weeks later. Could even be by accident. My biggest concern is still who they would choose as a jury of "peers". I don't believe any of this is going to go as smoothly as many here think. And it may just be the case that after the fact, a military tribunal will have proven to have been the best venue for the case. My big fear is that some people will die to prove that point. Puts a chill up my spine thinking about that.

I don't believe any of this is going to go as smoothly as many here think.

Who on earth thinks it is going to go smoothly?
Its a last ditch attempt at salvaging something from the mess.

And it may just be the case that after the fact, a military tribunal will have proven to have been the best venue for the case

What part of "they have screwed up that option and cannot possibly do it" is it that you don't understand?

My big fear is that some people will die to prove that point.

My big fear is that the sky is going to fall on our heads

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Who on earth thinks it is going to go smoothly?
Its a last ditch attempt at salvaging something from the mess.


What part of "they have screwed up that option and cannot possibly do it" is it that you don't understand?

Salvage what Tribeman? What could the US possibly be looking to salvage? As far as screwing up an option for military tribunal, Holder already has stated this will be tried in a criminal court of law found in NYC. He has stood firm on this and it would seem the White House is backing Holder on it.

Salvage what Tribeman?

The possibility of having a trial and getting a conviction.

Holder already has stated this will be tried in a criminal court of law found in NYC.

Indeed, and Holder got the job when exactly?

He has stood firm on this and it would seem the White House is backing Holder on it.

Really, wow.
Is that due to the supreme court rulings on the previous attempts which mean it is now the only real option available.