So... I'm trying to get past that "shoot the bastards" instinct philosophically. Help me out here.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Okay, the decision to have trials for terrorists in non-military courts?
Yea? Or Nay. What is the opinion on the Forum? I'll start. I think it's good in some cases, not in others. Depends on the nature of the evidence. And I'll admit that there is a part of me that feels some of those boys should have been shot on site. That's my version of a proper "military trial."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Are we the world's best last hope or just another fascist country?
It depends where their crimes were committed. Bin Laden, KS-, their crimes were perpetrated against civilians. They're criminals, and they must be tried in criminal court. Military trials are for crimes perpetrated against our troops overseas. We didn't try Eric Rudoph, Timmothy McVeigh, or Terry Nichols in a military tribunal, because our laws don't allow it. The fact that these guys are foreign and have slightly darker skin doesn't mean you can simply abandon the laws of the United States, despite statements to the contrary from supposed "Law and Order" Republicans.
That being said, I would have zero problem if Bin Laden were to be "accidently killed during the course of arrest."
Dittos. Let's show our faith in our legal system.
I agree in general. Even so, I'm guessing there might be some trials wherein the evidence being made public could pose a risk to the safety of our soldiers or jeopardize covert activity in some way, and thus warrant a less public judicial process. Can't think off hand what that would be specifically, but I'll allow that such could sometimes be the case.
I place this debacle on the steps of Bush. We caught KSM back in 2003, he admitted guilt and is proud of his military attack on civilians. We should have put him to death either in 04,05,06,07,08.
BTW, they are fine in Gitmo.
Go farther back than Bush. This debacle could be placed on Clinton - he could have taken Osama when the Saudi's offered him, but chose not to. Would have saved the whole world a heap of trouble if Clinton had paid attention to the problem at hand then.
And I don't think it's wise to bring them here. They are not US citizens and do not deserve the protections of our legal system. IMO, and the opinion of most others, this is a ploy to again go after Bush and the CIA and weaken our nation, which a trial like this will do. And it will endanger our troops overseas and our ability to perform counter-intelligence. There might not even be a trial; because of Holder's and Obama's prejudicial remarks, the whole thing could be thrown out.
Leave them in Gitmo. Try them militarily or not, I don't care. Just leave them there. They get better treatment there than our US prisoners anyway.
I have some stress with a military combatant being tried before a New York jury, where the last jury to impose the death penalty was at the Rosenberg trials.
Were the terrorists read their rights? Will KSM retract his "confession" (read brag) now that it could be thrown out of US courts.
Will the judge declare a mistrial because our Attorney General said to the world that the defendants are guilty and that a New York jury won't have difficulty convicting them and sentencing them to death. That's mistrial stuff. And, there's no place to which to change the venue, when it's the U.S. Attorney General who fragged the trial.
I think he needs to be tried in a military tribunal. But Holder did not consult with me.
Too many "what ifs" there Mike. You can pretty well bet that if a civilian court can't convict them, then a military court will under the realm of something else. No one and no administration is going to simply let them go on a technicality. As evidenced by all the discussions, the people would not stand for it.
We still need to show the world that we are no long bush/cheney, and that we do follow our own rules and laws that we try to make everyone else follow.
"And I'll admit that there is a part of me that feels some of those boys should have been shot on site. That's my version of a proper "military trial."
So... I'm trying to get past that "shoot the bastards" instinct philosophically. Help me out here."
You can get past that "instinct" by recognizing that it is not instinct but a male revenge fantasy cultured as a tempo-task.
Anonymous 12:26, Good info. Thanks for it.
As far as I can tell, these are people of color who havn't held a job on 6 years. I think the numbers show that there is almost no chance they won't be convicted of something, even if we have to make them drive across South Dakota in a car with California plates!
""""Military trials are for crimes perpetrated against our troops overseas.""""
Braden, how in the world did you come up with this line. It was a crime against our nation, perped by non-citizens of our country based upon goals of radical islam. I call that war. I don't just want to shoot the bastards but do feel this needs to be put behind us. They deserve a trial (military).
And then Braden: """That being said, I would have zero problem if Bin Laden were to be "accidently killed during the course of arrest.""" it looks to me like justice is just what happens to suit you. Im no legal scholar and you, regardless of your knowledge need to examine your motives!
BTW, faith in our legal system? Where are you coming from Cory? You say ditto to the above and now ask for faith in our legal system. Whose faith?
This having been said, when are we going to stop acting like 5th graders and do what is in front of us rather looking where to place blame for jobs not done. Thad, even though I agree with you, you're bottom feeding, that will not win you 2nd place at the county fair.
If we have faith in our legal system, we support that the defendants are entitled to competent legal representation.
Which competent attorney out there would not move for a mistrial because the defendants were not read their rights? Which competent attorney would not move for a mistrial on the grounds that their clients can't get a fair trial in the United States? Which competent attorney would not move for a mistrial based on the Attorney General of the United States making prejudicial remarks in the press, previnting a fair trial?
Which competent judge (N.Y. Bleating Heart Liberal) would not have to carefully consider these motions in light of the fact that they would all be legit motions?
Holder has crapped off the paper.
Post a Comment