Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

You telling me I'm being hateful simply won't stop me from expressing myself. It simply has no impact whatsoever.

Does telling you that much of what you write makes no sense at all and that you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding in the topics you rant about make any impact whatsoever?

The ever present "dissent is hate" nonsense.

Perhaps Fish should have gone with the line "nonsense is nonsense and venomous hate is just more nonsensical nonsense"

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

There NOT effin criminals for christs sakes there enemy combantants in a God Damn war.

Sorry but for cryin out loud it really tries my patience.

Great I decide to call a cat a dog so from now on all cats are dogs.

Terrorists are criminals plain and simple, just because your old president decide to invent a new definition so that he could go ahead and declare "war" on them doesn't mean that the new definition holds any weight.
You (the US) decided to transform Osama Bin Laden as a kind of evil lord mastermind, and his minions as a "real" army. Just for pure convinience nothing more nothing less. Reducing terrorists to "evil masterminds" forgetting about the political, economical realities of the phenomenon will mean the US will never understand and therefore deal correctly with such problems.

Has the US declared war on its internal dissidents ? You know the American Militia Movements (now isn't that a patriotic name ? ) that from time to time decide to bomb federal buildings for instance in oklahama city killing nearly 200 people.
Why don't we hear the american government declare war on "internal terrorists" ? Yep, two weights two mesures thats for sure. And in the end its terrorism, wether supported by american patriots or by foreigners. There is no good terrorism and bad terrorism. When the US will come to realise this it will be a great day. And maybe they'll stop declaring war on drugs too although I thnk thats also a lost cause. Have you been winning that war lately ?

[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.

Excellent post goldorak.
The whole problem that has arisen with the trials(and detention) lies with the misuse of legal definitions, avoiding applicable laws, using the wrong laws based on the wrong definitions and then the complications of attempting to make laws fit where they don't fit and were never intended to fit.
They have painted themselves into a corner and the only way out is to make a mess of themselves and their efforts to date

I say try them by military tribunal and then execute them

under what law?

[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.

[August]

nt not worth it

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Terrorists are criminals plain and simple,

Unbeleavable.

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.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Unbeleavable.

Why ?

The US is not special as far as being a target for terrorism. We in europe had had to contend with terrorism for decades, in Ireland, in France, in West Germany, in Italy, in Spain and you know what ? The people that make bombings, etc... in the end are criminals with a political agenda. Thats what terrorists are. And the precise way to treat them is to treat them as criminals, have a trial and convicted them when they are caught.
Put them in prison for the necessay time.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Unbeleavable.

So what is terrorism then, other than a criminal act? It certainly can't be an act of war, since only countries can declar and wage wars. Don't confuse the legal status with the moral status here. Not one single person on this forum has any doubt as to the latter.
I'm just curious to hear your definition.

Do not allow terrorism to undermine your legal system.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Why ?

The US is not special as far as being a target for terrorism. We in europe had had to contend with terrorism for decades, in Ireland, in France, in West Germany, in Italy, in Spain and you know what ? The people that make bombings, etc... in the end are criminals with a political agenda. Thats what terrorists are. And the precise way to treat them is to treat them as criminals, have a trial and convicted them when they are caught.
Put them in prison for the necessay time.

Excellent points. I fear that many of my fellow countrymen feel that because this involves "America" somehow it is different.

Treat them as the hirabi they are. Break their perversion of Islam to their followers. Expose them as mufsidoon instead of jihadists

That is how we need to fight them.

[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

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Treat them as the hirabi they are. Break their perversion of Islam to their followers. Expose them as mufsidoon instead of jihadists

That is how we need to fight them.

This doesn't work against the Islamist mindset. They don't care how they are perceived in the Western mind or point of view. They are at war with us, and have let us know so in very explicit terms. Nation state or not, this is an enemy that we are fighting on many different battlefields. These are no simple criminal acts. This show trial proves nothing to no one. And is in no way "fighting" against the very core of the jihadists. They are not deterred or demoralized by public trials in NYC. In fact, it gives them a stage with which to spout their political angst against the USA. I'm amazed that some of my fellow Americans refuse to call this what it is (war) because it simply doesn't involve "nation states". War has been declared against us. Anybody who believes 9/11 was a simple case of homicide is incredibly deluded.

Plus nobody has adequately answered the question of just how we get them a jury of their "peers". Or the possibility of what I posted about potential Muslims on the jury that refuse to convict a fellow Muslim in an "infidel" court....resulting in hung jury...and no conviction. That scenario seems very plausible to me.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Plus nobody has adequately answered the question of just how we get them a jury of their "peers". Or the possibility of what I posted about potential Muslims on the jury that refuse to convict a fellow Muslim in an "infidel" court....resulting in hung jury...and no conviction. That scenario seems very plausible to me.

Don't you trust your legal system?