Where/How should 'terrorists' be tried?

[LunarRay]

Now this will seem quite ... well, not nice and legal like... but, if we've a very strong case but for non mirandizing or extraction of evidence outside the ummm... accepted manner, methods and means issues and all that we could try them in Article 3 courts. I'd propose we have this never ending 'war' on terrorism see these folks as combatants and hold them till next century.. IF we don't have evidence of crime we cut them loose...

 

[Patranus]

Didn't the government try it the Democrats way in civilian court when the WTC was bombed the first time?
Huh, that "civility" didn't seem to change the terrorists thinking around the world.
Not really sure why the Democrats think it will do anything this time.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Huh, that "civility" didn't seem to change the terrorists thinking around the world.
Not really sure why the Democrats think it will do anything this time.

Thats because its not the underlying issue.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Didn't the government try it the Democrats way in civilian court when the WTC was bombed the first time?
Huh, that "civility" didn't seem to change the terrorists thinking around the world.
Not really sure why the Democrats think it will do anything this time.

What should we have done? Gone Jack Bauer on the terrorists and ignored the laws of our society? Only follow our rules of justice when it's convenient, right?

Plus, we tried and convicted Yusef, the main guy behind the bombing and now he's serving a life sentence in a super-max prison. Is there something else you would have done differently? Just lock someone up without giving himself a chance to defend himself should we have implicated the wrong person?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
What should we have done? Gone Jack Bauer on the terrorists and ignored the laws of our society? Only follow our rules of justice when it's convenient, right?

Plus, we tried and convicted Yusef, the main guy behind the bombing and now he's serving a life sentence in a super-max prison. Is there something else you would have done differently? Just lock someone up without giving himself a chance to defend himself should we have implicated the wrong person?

I am just saying that the logic that "they will like us more" doesn't hold water and since there is no gain to moving the prisoners, there is no reason to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
What should we have done? Gone Jack Bauer on the terrorists and ignored the laws of our society? Only follow our rules of justice when it's convenient, right?

Plus, we tried and convicted Yusef, the main guy behind the bombing and now he's serving a life sentence in a super-max prison. Is there something else you would have done differently? Just lock someone up without giving himself a chance to defend himself should we have implicated the wrong person?

I am just saying that the logic that "they will like us more" doesn't hold water and since there is no gain to moving the prisoners, there is no reason to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars.

We're not doing it "so they like us more." We have trials because that is how our justice system works. What would you have us do instead?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
We're not doing it "so they like us more." We have trials because that is how our justice system works. What would you have us do instead?

Exactly what is being done now. Trials in military court.
Not really sure why there is a need to mirandize terrorists caught on the battle field.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
We're not doing it "so they like us more." We have trials because that is how our justice system works. What would you have us do instead?

Exactly what is being done now. Trials in military court.
Not really sure why there is a need to mirandize terrorists caught on the battle field.

You do need to mirandize to use evidence legally 'confessed' to by the subject if you wish to use it in Article 3 courts... I think Article 1 courts... is the same... but ya know I'm not sure... cuz of the venue issue.. and them not citizens...

 

[Patranus]

In any event, nothing is accomplished by moving these people to the US and trying them in civilian courts except the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Patranus
In any event, nothing is accomplished by moving these people to the US and trying them in civilian courts except the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars.

We elected a disaster for 8 years. He ruined our reputation around the world. He did damage in the trillions. For eight years I lived in a country governed by a filthy worthless swine who tortured people to stay in office. I am overjoyed your tax money is going to help repair the damage.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Patranus
In any event, nothing is accomplished by moving these people to the US and trying them in civilian courts except the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars.

We elected a disaster for 8 years. He ruined our reputation around the world. He did damage in the trillions. For eight years I lived in a country governed by a filthy worthless swine who tortured people to stay in office. I am overjoyed your tax money is going to help repair the damage.

Senate hearing..

I think if you have a couple hours you'll hear some expert opinion on all sorts of stuff including where to try the terrorists in custody...

 

[DealMonkey]

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.

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?

The war's over when the U.S. withdraws the majority of its troops and hands over predominant control of the nation's security to native forces. As in Iraq right about now...

I think handling it in this simplistic way, allows us to deal with detainees in widely-acceptable terms, rather than trying to create this mythical gray area (i.e. enemy combatant) that no one recognizes and even we can't figure out how to deal with.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Patranus
In any event, nothing is accomplished by moving these people to the US and trying them in civilian courts except the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Obama needs to pay back the trial lawyers for their contributions somehow!

 

[piasabird]

If combatants are captured during wartime, then they have some kind of status as war criminals, similar to spys. As such they should be considered Prisoner's of War. Therefore prisoners must be guarded and controlled by the Military in non-civilian prisoner camps. Also they need to be tried in a Military Court of Law according to UCMJ. Some of this is not really covered in a Military UCMJ, and maybe the books should be edited to define how these prisoners should be housed and how they should be tried. However, one thing is clear if they are released, they should be sent back to their country of Origin, so Why bring them to the United States? It just does not make sense.

It does not matter if we declared war, because the U.S. Congress approved and funded the action. So Pelosi can put up or shut up. This is a problem created by Congress.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

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:

Yeah that shit cracks me up too...when's the last time someone has escaped from this prison?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

It would never happen and this is where they should put these terrorists after they receive a fair trial.

They can join their buddy who was convicted in criminal court of the 1993 world trade center bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

 

[StageLeft]

Criminal court. This is not a military issue despite the military/gov trying to make it one to use the streamlined and comparatively immature justice system of the military.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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.

My statement was general in nature. Just as if I was to say those on death row are guilty. Generalities are generally true.

And no need for a reminder, we're all well aware. But I will remind YOU that YOUR traitor and liar in chief is continuing the same practices which makes him equally as guilty. Would you give a racist white gang member a pass for killing blacks because after all he didnt found the gang? I think not.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

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:

Not quite. Sig sauer in the night stand though

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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

Yeah, but its not GITMO. "New look, same great taste!"

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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"?

Anyone?

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.

When?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

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.

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?

The war's over when the U.S. withdraws the majority of its troops and hands over predominant control of the nation's security to native forces. As in Iraq right about now...

I think handling it in this simplistic way, allows us to deal with detainees in widely-acceptable terms, rather than trying to create this mythical gray area (i.e. enemy combatant) that no one recognizes and even we can't figure out how to deal with.

So you are saying that to treat the situation we are in as anything other than war is wrong and dangerous. That is an opinion I can maybe agree with. Branding them POWs means we would not be compelled to release any person we detained until the conflict is over (which means all our detainees would likely die in captivity -or be old men- because this conflict against terrorism isn't ending anytime soon). We would have the right to run illegal combatants through military tribunals and execute them when necessary. But, we would not have the right to interrogate our prisoners (prohibited by the Geneva Conventions).

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Criminal court. This is not a military issue despite the military/gov trying to make it one to use the streamlined and comparatively immature justice system of the military.

You could be right. Trying them in military courts provides them with tacit POW status. There has long been a grey area in the Law of War that permits nations to not provide POW status to detainees who do not meet the criteria of combatants (generally: wear a uniform, carry arms openly, have a chain of command). It is probably not in our best interests to provide the terrorists with POW status, nor is it in our or our friends' and allies' interests to create such a precedent.

And I have a sense that it is improper to use the military justice system as a weapon against folks who are neither subject to our laws, nor are military members. Ex post facto applies in this case -- no one from a country other than the US and no one other than a member of the US military should be subject to the UCMJ, in my opinion. The fact that we can "declare" that someone is subject to the UCMJ because we are holding them does not make it legitimate. This is not the same as applying military justice to POWs, as POWs are legitimate members of a military organization and must obey their "new chain of command," within limits.

It is my view that the UCMJ is for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline withing the several services, and by extension, maintaining good order and discipline in POW camps. Trying terrorists for terrorism is somebody else's responsibility, and we really, really, really need to not contaminate our military justice system and bismirch its reputation by doing this task on order from above.

I will be happy receive broadsides from any JAGs out there who see this in a different light.