Where/How should 'terrorists' be tried?

[cwjerome]

Terrorists like McVeigh or those involved in the first WTC bombing were tried in normal civilian courts, and that's a different issue. What about those combatants captured on the battlefield?

It is my opinion that many people on both sides argue from frustration (as all of us are probably frustrated in some sense) over having to deal with a relatively new phenomenon which isn't strictly a crime (though our legal system calls it a crime), but not outright war (at least in our definition). We have been watching our legal system adapt and we have been watching policy evolve to meet this adaptation... what we see is a normal process of recognizing what is ineffective and striving to improve.

I see two issues that may play a role in determining opinions here 1) Are they POWs? (and most can agree they are not) and 2) Have we declared war? (the answer being no).

It's easy to have an automatic opinion, but let's try and back it up with something besides repeating a one-line talking point. And it may help your position if you focus on a good argument meant to persuade as opposed to continuous attacks on how the other side is stupid and evil.

 

[Moonbeam]

The question is too hard for me. I don't know and my opinion is worthless because I don't know shit from shinola about the real issues.

 

[IronWing]

Your point about fighting in a non-declared war is really the problem. If we were in legally declared war with a defined enemy then the folk captured in battle would be POWs and we have an established legal framework for dealing with POWs. Since we didn't follow our own laws when we went to war, we're left with a legal mess. It wouldn't be appropriate to declare these folks criminals under US law as they were not in US territory and they were fighting an invading army, not a situation usually handled under criminal law, the very reason the Bush administration didn't want them in civilian courts as the Bushies knew the courts would have to let these folks off as there would be no legal basis for holding them under criminal law.

My thought is that we go ahead and declare the detainees to be POWs. POW status takes them out of legal limbo and we then have the ability to re-patriate them at will or hold them in a manner consistent with our laws.

 

[Xellos2099]

The problem with treatihng them like POW is that they don;t really belong to any single country.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

What about those combatants captured on the battlefield, like those at Gitmo?

That assumes all of those held at Guantanamo were "combatants" or even that they were actually "captured on the battlefield." Many weren't. For example, many, including the Chinese Uighurs, weren't guilty of any planned or real hostilities against American forces. They were captured by local mercenary Iraqis and handed over to U.S. for the bounty money. Some Iraqis may have simply pointed to neighbors they didn't like.

Before you can discuss how they should be tried, you'd better figure out which of them actually did anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and how you start making reparations to those whose lives were so fscked over by such a fuster cluck of injustice... at least for those who didn't die, there, before anyone bothered to pay attention.

Guantanamo is just one more example of the Bushwhackos' piss poor planning and execution of a war that should never have been started and yet another of the burdons they've left for others to resolve.

The best thing we could do with Guantanamo is use it to imprison every member of the Bushwhacko administration who is tried and convicted of crimes committed starting and pursuing their war of LIES.

 

[OrByte]

hold them indefinitely in a detention center that is a part of the US but not really....

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Terrorists like McVeigh or those involved in the first WTC bombing were tried in normal civilian courts, and that's a different issue. What about those combatants captured on the battlefield, like those at Gitmo?

It is my opinion that many people on both sides argue from frustration (as all of us are probably frustrated in some sense) over having to deal with a relatively new phenomenon which isn't strictly a crime (though our legal system calls it a crime), but not outright war (at least in our definition). We have been watching our legal system adapt and we have been watching policy evolve to meet this adaptation... what we see is a normal process of recognizing what is ineffective and striving to improve.

I see two issues that may play a role in determining opinions here 1) Are they POWs? (and most can agree they are not) and 2) Have we declared war? (the answer being no).

It's easy to have an automatic opinion, but let's try and back it up with something besides repeating a one-line talking point. And it may help your position if you focus on a good argument meant to persuade as opposed to continuous attacks on how the other side is stupid and evil.

A trial requires a crime alleged.
A crime alleged requires a rule of a law broken.
A rule of law requires that a jurisdiction created one.
Look within that jurisdiction for your answer. If you don't find one, let them go.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Your point about fighting in a non-declared war is really the problem. If we were in legally declared war with a defined enemy then the folk captured in battle would be POWs and we have an established legal framework for dealing with POWs. Since we didn't follow our own laws when we went to war, we're left with a legal mess. It wouldn't be appropriate to declare these folks criminals under US law as they were not in US territory and they were fighting an invading army, not a situation usually handled under criminal law, the very reason the Bush administration didn't want them in civilian courts as the Bushies knew the courts would have to let these folks off as there would be no legal basis for holding them under criminal law.

My thought is that we go ahead and declare the detainees to be POWs. POW status takes them out of legal limbo and we then have the ability to re-patriate them at will or hold them in a manner consistent with our laws.

And who, pre tel, would we declare against to make it "official"?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: cwjerome

What about those combatants captured on the battlefield, like those at Gitmo?

That assumes all of those held at Guantanamo were "combatants" or even that they were actually "captured on the battlefield." Many weren't. For example, many, including the Chinese Uighurs, weren't guilty of any planned or real hostilities against American forces. They were captured by local mercenary Iraqis and handed over to U.S. for the bounty money. Some Iraqis may have simply pointed to neighbors they didn't like.

Before you can discuss how they should be tried, you'd better figure out which of them actually did anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and how you start making reparations to those whose lives were so fscked over by such a fuster cluck of injustice... at least for those who didn't die, there, before anyone bothered to pay attention.

Guantanamo is just one more example of the Bushwhackos' piss poor planning and execution of a war that should never have been started and yet another of the burdons they've left for others to resolve.

The best thing we could do with Guantanamo is use it to imprison every member of the Bushwhacko administration who is tried and convicted of crimes committed starting and pursuing their war of LIES.

I wonder why your hero isnt letting all these "innocent" people go then?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Terrorists like McVeigh or those involved in the first WTC bombing were tried in normal civilian courts, and that's a different issue. What about those combatants captured on the battlefield, like those at Gitmo?

It is my opinion that many people on both sides argue from frustration (as all of us are probably frustrated in some sense) over having to deal with a relatively new phenomenon which isn't strictly a crime (though our legal system calls it a crime), but not outright war (at least in our definition). We have been watching our legal system adapt and we have been watching policy evolve to meet this adaptation... what we see is a normal process of recognizing what is ineffective and striving to improve.

I see two issues that may play a role in determining opinions here 1) Are they POWs? (and most can agree they are not) and 2) Have we declared war? (the answer being no).

It's easy to have an automatic opinion, but let's try and back it up with something besides repeating a one-line talking point. And it may help your position if you focus on a good argument meant to persuade as opposed to continuous attacks on how the other side is stupid and evil.

A trial requires a crime alleged.
A crime alleged requires a rule of a law broken.
A rule of law requires that a jurisdiction created one.
Look within that jurisdiction for your answer. If you don't find one, let them go.

I'm not sure it's that simple, and if it were such an obvious answer, this wouldn't be an issue.

Illegal noncombatants can be and have been tried in military tribunals, often executed because they are essentially murderers conducting unsanctioned actions by any recognized government in a war zone. They are distinct from POWs who are recognized combatants. Both can be tried in tribunals, but POWs have special status and greater rights under the geneval conventions.

Because they are in a war zone, the military commander usually has authority, outside the U.S. Normally civil authorities and courts are nonexistant in the country where action occurs. The military justice system can therefore be the right place to try them, because it is the only system available to administer justice and the only competent authority, in most cases, available is the military commander.

The answer to your response is: yes a crime was alleged, yes a rule of law was broken, the jurisdiction is the military justice system, but there is no clear cut answer as to what to so with them... that's the issue, the gray area we're dealing with. So let them go?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Your point about fighting in a non-declared war is really the problem. If we were in legally declared war with a defined enemy then the folk captured in battle would be POWs and we have an established legal framework for dealing with POWs. Since we didn't follow our own laws when we went to war, we're left with a legal mess. It wouldn't be appropriate to declare these folks criminals under US law as they were not in US territory and they were fighting an invading army, not a situation usually handled under criminal law, the very reason the Bush administration didn't want them in civilian courts as the Bushies knew the courts would have to let these folks off as there would be no legal basis for holding them under criminal law.

My thought is that we go ahead and declare the detainees to be POWs. POW status takes them out of legal limbo and we then have the ability to re-patriate them at will or hold them in a manner consistent with our laws.

Interesting take. It is a matter of jurisdiction and legal status. Which law did the terrorist violate? Most likely it is the internationally recognized laws of war. Is the terrorist a lawful combatant or an unlawful combatant? If the terrorist is a lawful combatant, then they must be accorded POW status and are exempt from prosecution under civil law for acts during combat. If the terrorist is an unlawful combatant, then they can be tried for all crimes. If the terrorist violated the law of war in action against the US, that act falls under the jurisdiction of a military commission.

I am not sure how you reconcile designating them as POWs even though they don't fit the criteria. It seems like a short-cut to makes things easier, but it would probably end up making things a lot more difficult by convoluting the definitions further.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I wonder why your hero isnt letting all these "innocent" people go then?

well he is closing gitmo. Thats a start.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: cwjerome


The answer to your response is: yes a crime was alleged, yes a rule of law was broken, the jurisdiction is the military justice system, but there is no clear cut answer as to what to so with them... that's the issue, the gray area we're dealing with. So let them go?

Me thinks the answer is within the jurisdiction you cited. The problem is that there are others that believe they have rights that extend beyond that.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I wonder why your hero isnt letting all these "innocent" people go then?

The problem with the Uighurs is that they'd be persecuted if they were returned to China. Obama administration officials have relocated some in Bermuda, and others elsewhere. One problem is finding nations willing to accept those who should be freed, even those who committed no offense, whatsoever, against us.

Please remember, "my hero" didn't create the problem; your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals did that and left us to pay the price for their criminal folly. :thumbsdown:

And you can wipe the "quotes" from around the word, innocent. Many, including the Uighurs and others, really are innocent. You do them a disservice, and you disrace yourself and dishonor our nation by claiming otherwise about those who really are innocent.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Harvey
You do them a disservice, and you dishonor yourself and our nation by claiming otherwise for those who really are innocent.

He doesn't care about that. He just wants to feel safe in bed at night with his only fear being that black men will rob his home while he sleeps. Of course he probably sleeps with a 12 gauge under the bed to cover that fear :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

If they're captured on the battlefield, treat them like POW's. If they're capture plotting against us in the U.S. in a non-combat situation, prosecute them in civilian courts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What about those combatants captured on the battlefield, like those at Gitmo?

You've got a problem with your intorduction, since most of the people if I've heard correctly were not 'captured on the battlefield' but handed over by other groups.

That includes groups wanitng the $5,000 or so 'bounty', and groups who handed over their enemies for their own reasons.

I'm generally for trying them in civilian courts. I think that should be the default to start with and any other plan needs to prove why it's needed and better.

The bottom line is that a main reason for wanting other systems is the desire for increasing the chances of conviction and the speed of the penalty.

Things that many have the same concerns about our criminal justice system but can't do much about, but see a chance to demand for these people.

I do think that the issues are pretty much the same for the people who demand our criminal system 'streamline' trials and speed up punishment, and this issue.

And the opponents - my position - is pretty much the same as well, to try to do the best we can for a fair trial to happen, for everyone possible and protect civil rights of all.

Those who demand 'streamlined trials' tend not to understand how their streamlining tends to put their own rights at risk as well - not that that's the main objection.

The first choice could be for them to be prosecuted under a local system if one exists, and if it doesn't, to try to get one working.

Ultimately the idea of our own legal authority to be in their country, trying them by our laws, begs for the miilitary agenda to defeat the enemy to corrupt the trial process.

You ask a good question, and I'd like to see real and independant legal experts examine the issue for a good solutoin that protects the legitimate needs of both sides.

 

[Jhhnn]

What about those combatants captured on the battlefield, like those at Gitmo?

Clearly, you believe that to be true. It's not. The sad truth is that many detainees were sold for reward money. They were foreigners in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and may or may not have been involved w/ Al Qaeda. When the locals found out about rewards, they rushed to collect, because there would be no payback, no clan vendetta, just yankee dollars... Others were collected at the beloved patriot border, trying to leave, after the American invasion, when the climate for muslim foreigners turned sour in Afghanistan.

The whole purpose of Gitmo never really was for actual anti-terrorist purposes, but rather for domestic political mileage, to show that the Bush Admin was tough on terror, that they were doing something, anything, even if it was lying as usual. So anybody fingered for the reward got scooped up- they'd have taken Mother Theresa, had she been there, alive, and similarly accused.

The reason there have been no trials is because our govt can't make a case against more than a few, particularly if coerced confessions are ruled out... Actual evidence is virtually non-existent, the rest tainted by our own govt's conduct, as we'll all find out when they're actually brought forth in front of any sort of public trial.

The Obama Admin's problem is twofold. They know full well that what I wrote, above, is true. So they're trying to depopulate Gitmo, except that many of the detainees come from countries who torture, so we can't send 'em there, and nobody else will take 'em, rightfully so. It's our problem. And because of the rabid fearmongering still afoot in our own country, we can't release them here, either... or at least the Obama Admin is convinced that's true.

Meanwhile, of course, hundreds of people are still held in limbo, a situation that Washington, Jefferson and the rest would have decried...

So much for "Free! Freedom! and Liberty!", at least the version put forth by people who want "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court...

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I wonder why your hero isnt letting all these "innocent" people go then?

well he is closing gitmo. Thats a start.

He is also proposing something called "preventative detention" and lets all forget about the inconvenient fact that Bagram Theater Internment Facility holds more inmates than the much talked about Gitmo. No Habeus Corpus for you

 

[cwjerome]

OK, let's not get wrapped up around Gitmo, a separate issue in itself. Yes, some of the people at Gitmo were scooped up as illegal enemy combatants in a warzone. Right now, three times as many prisoners are at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The idea here is to discuss what we do with these people. I apologize for saying "like those at Gitmo," knowing that many arrived there under different circumstances than what the OP is talking about. I edited the OP to avoid tangents and confusion.

 

[Jhhnn]

Afghanistan. Baghram prison. We should have been out of there years ago, and could have been, if not for the Bush Admin's utter ineptitude in supporting an excrably corrupt govt there. It's been nearly 8 years, guys, and we're probably further away from that today than at any time since we invaded...

Dubya and Dickie are gone, but they left the pooch behind, if you know what I mean...

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If they're captured on the battlefield, treat them like POW's. If they're capture plotting against us in the U.S. in a non-combat situation, prosecute them in civilian courts.

If you change the terms and grant them POW status then they will certainly be subject to military courts (and can be held until the "war" is over, which is quite ambiguous in this type of warfare).

A major argument against the current system is that if they are not POWs, they are not subject to military courts (ours or anybody else's), period. It should be a civilian manner. So, are you sure you want to grant them POW status?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If they're captured on the battlefield, treat them like POW's. If they're capture plotting against us in the U.S. in a non-combat situation, prosecute them in civilian courts.

Unless bin-Laden were somehow killed during an attempt to capture him he would be arrested, brought to the US, read his Miranda rights, and would be arraigned before a federal judge in lower Manhattan. A Grand Jury has already handed down a federal indictment and a federal arrest warrant has been issued.

If we catch him on the battlefield, is he a POW?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If they're captured on the battlefield, treat them like POW's. If they're capture plotting against us in the U.S. in a non-combat situation, prosecute them in civilian courts.

Unless bin-Laden were somehow killed during an attempt to capture him he would be arrested, brought to the US, read his Miranda rights, and would be arraigned before a federal judge in lower Manhattan. A Grand Jury has already handed down a federal indictment and a federal arrest warrant has been issued.

If we catch him on the battlefield, is he a POW?

He can easily be both a criminal and a pow at the same time. Witness the warcrimes trials after WW2.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
He is also proposing something called "preventative detention" and lets all forget about the inconvenient fact that Bagram Theater Internment Facility holds more inmates than the much talked about Gitmo. No Habeus Corpus for you

It's a tough question that I don't have the answers to. If it were up to me I would ship them all to Canada