Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Shearwater

Don't you trust your legal system?

Yes, when the venue is appropriate for it. In this case it's not. The military justice system is also a part of our legal system. And that's the appropriate place for these foreign terrorists.

The question then turns to you.....don't you trust our systems of legal justice? Including military justice? And don't you fear the potential problems with turning over to the public court system foreign terrorists at war with us, who are implicated of orchestrating an act of war against our nation, and plan to use any public court trial as a soapbox circus trial? Admitted by their defense teams. And where finding a jury of "peers" is going to become a difficult prospect itself. You can't see problems here?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

This doesn't work against the Islamist mindset.

And what are your citations or qualifications to be able to state that?

[Sea Demon]

For what it's worth....Gallup shows most Americans want military trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124493/Am...px?CSTS=tagrss

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

And what are your citations or qualifications to be able to state that?

Historical precedent. We've put Muslim plotters on trial before, and it never slows them down. One can argue that it emboldens them, as there really is no severe consequences for their actions. Oh, they may have to spend the rest of their lives with 3 hots and a cot on the US taxpayers dime. Big deal. Historically, they actually continued to plot after one shot at the WTC.....and then a few years later, 9/11 occurs. What are your qualifications other than your own opinion?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Yes, when the venue is appropriate for it. In this case it's not. The military justice system is also a part of our legal system. And that's the appropriate place for these foreign terrorists.

The question then turns to you.....don't you trust our systems of legal justice? Including military justice? And don't you fear the potential problems with turning over to the public court system foreign terrorists at war with us, who are implicated of orchestrating an act of war against our nation, and plan to use any public court trial as a soapbox circus trial? Admitted by their defense teams. And where finding a jury of "peers" is going to become a difficult prospect itself. You can't see problems here?

Whats the appropriate place for domestic terrorists ?
What about american born muslims that embrace the jihad against western values. Are they foreign or american terrorists ? Are they criminals or enemy combattants ?
What about american citizens that convert to the muslism faith and embrace the jihad, what to do with them ? As I remember there was a case of an american citizen that fought along the taliban in afghanistan. He was captured and then ? Is he an enemy combattant ?

[Sea Demon]

And the circus begins.......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125928395078865773.html

Originally Posted by goldorak

Whats the appropriate place for domestic terrorists ?

Irrelevant to this situation.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by goldorak

As I remember there was a case of an american citizen that fought along the taliban in afghanistan. He was captured and then ? Is he an enemy combattant ?

I don't know about the law regarding these American citizen jihadists who are captured on the battlefield. That's an interesting question though. I would say that in my opinion, it wouldn't be a stretch to believe they could be tried in a military court as enemy combatants. I'm not sure how that would go. It's noted that John Walker Lindh (The American Taliban) was indicted by a federal grand jury. Although that still has no bearing on this particular case.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The question then turns to you.....don't you trust our systems of legal justice? Including military justice?

I trust it indeed. But I think that this whole issue is a litmus test.
It is the very thing that terrorism is targeted against - the belief in freedom and its ability to deliver justice, even under extraordinary conditions as these.
The aim of terrorists isn't to destroy the US physically. It is - as the name implies - about spreading fear and terror, and one of Roosevelt's great for freedomrs is now more important than ever: Freedom of fear. I'm not talking about a naive happy-go-lucky mentaility. But abandoning basic legal principles (i.e. a formal and regular trial) would elevate the terrorists to a status they don't deserve. They must not be given the feeling that, just because they have done an outrageously heinous and despicable crime, they are outside - and in their view above - the American legal system (be it civil or military). I believe devoutly in the United States' legal system and its ability to deliver justice in this case, and if given a chance to prove that it works even in such an extaordinary matter, I'm confident that it will succeed.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Shearwater

I trust it indeed. But I think that this whole issue is a litmus test.
It is the very thing that terrorism is targeted against - the belief in freedom and its ability to deliver justice, even under extraordinary conditions as these.
The aim of terrorists isn't to destroy the US physically. It is - as the name implies - about spreading fear and terror, and one of Roosevelt's great for freedomrs is now more important than ever: Freedom of fear. I'm not talking about a naive happy-go-lucky mentaility. But abandoning basic legal principles (i.e. a formal and regular trial) would elevate the terrorists to a status they don't deserve. They must not be given the feeling that, just because they have done an outrageously heinous and despicable crime, they are outside - and in their view above - the American legal system (be it civil or military). I believe devoutly in the United States' legal system and its ability to deliver justice in this case, and if given a chance to prove that it works even in such an extaordinary matter, I'm confident that it will succeed.

I understand. And I agree with you in principle on a few things here. However, leaving these foreign terrorists in the military justice system wouldn't have done anything to destroy America's principles of legal justice, sense of fairness, or freedoms. I actually think that moving them to the public court system is something that can be damaging to "justice". To be honest, we already see the games beginning with "mental stability" and "fitness" to stand trial. And I think there will be games played in jury selection. I can almost guarantee it.

Not to mention things that may have to come out to prove guilt, which may be damaging to national security. Some dealing with sources and methods. That should concern you. It's not irrational "fear" we're dealing with. Let's leave emotion out of it. It's common sense and national security we need to consider. Military tribunals can deliver justice and fairness. And they don't need to potentially disclose sources and methods out in the open to do so. Nor do they give a stage and soapbox to those who seek it.

As such.....I see this as a grave mistake that the Obama administration is making.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Whats the appropriate place for domestic terrorists ?
What about american born muslims that embrace the jihad against western values. Are they foreign or american terrorists ? Are they criminals or enemy combattants ?
What about american citizens that convert to the muslism faith and embrace the jihad, what to do with them ? As I remember there was a case of an american citizen that fought along the taliban in afghanistan. He was captured and then ? Is he an enemy combattant ?

1. Military Court is the place to conduct trials.
2. Jihad is Jihad, American born or not. Let's just call them Extremists for the moment that threaten to take lives. How do we handle the extremist? Let's take a look at the McGuire AFB incident with the Muslims running a pizza place video taping themselves with guns and talking of shooting soldiers at McGuire. These are criminals and should be handled like criminals in the judicial system.
3. If any American fights with the Taliban then this person is a turncoat. Die, get caught or languish with the enemy, either way this individual is the enemy and should be treated as such. I think in WW2 any traitor was basically shot for treason. So what is the problem here?

[jeremy8529]

I have no doubt in my mind that these men are guilty of the crimes that we convicted them of, and as thus we should not fear putting them on trail. If we don't give them a fair trail, we will be playing right in to the what they wanted in the end, and that would be changing most basic principles. Justice is not an ideal served on impulse or emotion, it should be the result a consistent and fair trail system that deals with the cold hard facts, and we should not make an exception for these criminals just because we are angry.

Remember, we give them a trail because it is how we serve justice here in the United States and for no other reason alone.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by jeremy8529

I have no doubt in my mind that these men are guilty of the crimes that we convicted them of, and as thus we should not fear putting them on trail. If we don't give them a fair trail, we will be playing right in to the what they wanted in the end, and that would be changing most basic principles. Justice is not an ideal served on impulse or emotion, it should be the result a consistent and fair trail system that deals with the cold hard facts, and we should not make an exception for these criminals just because we are angry.

Remember, we give them a trail because it is how we serve justice here in the United States and for no other reason alone.

Don't confuse the issue jeremy. These people could have received a fair trial in a military court. Military tribunals do not come without rights and accountability. And military tribunals are actually a better venue due to some of the nature of the evidence. I know liberals pretend that there's no rights or a chance of a fair trial in a military venue. But the truth is, they would have protected rights and a fair trial in such a venue with no danger to classified information. Nor would the taxpayer be footing the bill to give these dirtbags a soapbox for political ranting as their defense team has already said they would use it for. I don't care what you think about it, they're not entitled to a political soapbox on my dime.

Here's the danger....I'm betting that some of this evidence will bring to light in a public court many things that have national security consequences, such as national intelligence....ie...sources and methods of intelligence gathering. Brought to light in a public venue, it could be detrimental to national security, and make years of establishing intelligence contacts a waste. And worse, potentially put sources lives in danger, and eliminate long established methods of intelligence gathering. This is dangerous. Extremely dangerous really. And this wouldn't happen in a military tribunal. This show trial is political. Nothing more than that. It is an attempt for liberals to feel good about providing foreign terrorists "justice", and feeling righteous about it.

You can bet it will come with a price as well. Especially if there's enough evidence to fill an 18 wheel truck, and one juror (a fellow Muslim of his peers) decides he can't convict a fellow Muslim in an infidel court, and it becomes a hung jury. The American people will not take that lightly. Don't think that's possible?

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Irrelevant to this situation.

Why exactly?

Don't confuse the issue jeremy.

That rich since you are so confused over the issue that you are totally lost.

However, leaving these foreign terrorists in the military justice system wouldn't have done anything to destroy America's principles of legal justice, sense of fairness, or freedoms. I actually think that moving them to the public court system is something that can be damaging to "justice".

You simply don't understand, the government screwed up on the legal issues(basicly by trying to avoid the legal issues), it is as a result oftheir screw ups that now the detainees are having to go through the civil courts.
The damage done to the principles of legal justice was the attempt to dodge aspects of the legal system.
Moving them to the public couts isn't damaging justice , it's a belated attempt at damage limitation.

Military Court is the place to conduct trials.

I ask again. Under what law.

Jihad is Jihad

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

I think in WW2 any traitor was basically shot for treason. So what is the problem here?

WW2 was a war, it was between states.
Since WW2 civil, military and international laws have all changed(in case you didn't realise that is why the legal example of US treatment of German agents was rejected as a precedent)

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

What are your qualifications other than your own opinion?

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.