Federal law is federal law and a Federal court can impose a death sentence if a Federal statute so allows. The state where the trial is held doesn't matter on that point.
Do you think that Terrorists should be put in front of a Military tribunal?
- Thread starter NBAfan
- Start date
I don't see others killing thousands of people. Not to mention helpless people on an airplane
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Yeah, but then your talking about state/city court........not federal court.
Like has been said several times now there is a ton of historically precedent for military tribunals or courts martial to apply in this situation (i.e. foreign terrorism/sabotage/espionage).....not so much for civil court.
Uh, what does killing thousands of people have anything to do with losing your constitutional rights?
Are you arguing that only those accused of killing thousands should be tried before a military tribunal? I thought your argument was broader than that. You can retreat to narrower ground if you would like.
Same goes for Federal courthouses in urban areas.
So no matter they do they can still go free?
TheAlamo
Prince
No. Putting them in civilian courts and trying them as criminals is refusing to recognize they have a cause they are fighting for. By trying them in military courts, you are recognizing that they have a cause, and in a way legitimizing that cause.
I don't understand why anyone would want to raise terrorists to the level of military tribunals. That gives them way more credit than they are due.
Giving them constitutional rights does not mean letting them go free.
Giving them constitutional rights does not mean letting them go free.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I think his point was why should we give foreign terrorists contstutional rights to begin with?
Again, I fail to see why a military tribunal or courts martial isnt good enough for someone who wants to kill as many Americans as they possibly could.
Actually, your wrong. The reverse is true. The families of the 9/11 victims dont want them to be tried in civil court because it will give them a venue to speak and justify what they did. Their ability to do so in a military forum can be much more restricted.
kosiosko 1
King
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 992
then its a matter of accepting that they are a legitamite military force, the criminal civil court option sees them as murders , the critism of the current system isn't so much what does happen , its that it wont accept some of the other prisoner of war treaties the U.S. has signed up for, give them a fair trail then shoot them ( or jail them for several years)
Mise
isle of lucy
As has already been stated, terrorists are cold blooded killers. They aren't even human.
I am arguing that any non citizen who has or tried to kill many people should be put before a military tribunal. That would mean KSM and the Christmas day bomber.
He did not address that point in the response we are talking about. Insrtead, he retreated to a quantity-killed threshold that is likely narrower than the argument he originally made.
So you are conceding that a run-of-the-mill Islamic terrorist that only tried to kill some lower number of Americans should get Federal Court, right?
Well, it's in the constitution, for one.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No, the military tribunal doesnt have to recognize that or even state it.
Not sure where you got that idea. Remember, tribunal were also used to try spies and sabotuers during WWII...it didnt legitimatize what they did.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Well the IRA were after all international terrorists.
Just to clear up the coherency of your position I want to know if you at the time thought they should be denied a civil trial? It seems to me the US would have blown a gasket at the mere suggestion. And what I'm struggling to see is how an Irishman blowing up a pub in Guildford are less deserving of legal process than a Saudi blowing up a plane in the US.
So the question is should the IRA have been given due process in UK courts?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
As I said, I dont think I ever commented on it either way. What the UK does is their business and has utterly no bearing on this particular issue we are now discussing.
This topic is best discussed in another thread if you wish. But honestly, what the UK did in regards to the IRA doesnt mean crap in this situation.
Where your inconsistency wouldn't be so obvious?
Merkinball
Deity
Terrorism is an act of war. So yes.
That threshold would be 0.
What is wrong with giving them a tribunal anyway?
