Do you think that Terrorists should be put in front of a Military tribunal?

[warpus]

To try foreign combatants? I think not.

To try people who committed crimes on U.S. soil.

If I robbed a bank in the U.S. I'd be tried in a U.S. court, right?

What if I blew up a bank?

 

[MobBoss]

Can you link me to a formal declaration of war? Like it or not, we are not formally at war.

Formal declaration of war is not required. How many wars/conflicts has the USA been involved in without a formal declaration of war? Answer: lots.

Try again.

 

[Camikaze]

Try asking a serious question. Because that one is just silly.

Well, he said that the threshold was zero, so I would assume I can infer from that that he wants anyone who goes over that threshold, i.e. anyone who kills one person, to have to face a military tribunal.

 

[MobBoss]

To try people who committed crimes on U.S. soil.

If I robbed a bank in the U.S. I'd be tried in a U.S. court, right?

What if I blew up a bank?

Lets consider my earlier point.

Would we try a Japanese Pilot from the attack on Pearl Harbor in Civilian court?

Hell no.

Get the picture?

Point being there is a difference between combatants....and criminals. They are not the same thing, nor should they be considered the same thing. McVeigh was a terrorist yes....but he wasnt a combatant, he was a criminal, and thus tried in US federal court. KSM is an entirely different fish alltogether. He was indeed a combatant at war/conflict with the USA. Thats why he (and the other foreign terrorists) should be tried via military tribunal or courts martial.

 

[Camikaze]

Would we try a Japanese Pilot from the attack on Pearl Harbor in Civilian court?

Why would you try such a pilot at all? I can see an argument for trying Yamamoto in front of a military tribunal had he survived to the end of the war, since he would've been the representative of a party that the US can actually be at war with, and was at war with, but why would you try a random pilot?

 

[Mise]

So let me get this straight. We are at war with the terrorists, but prisoners taken during that war are not Prisoners of War, and treatment of these prisoners are not subject to the Geneva Convention.

Riiiiiight....

 

[Smidlee]

The Constitution is not universal nor meant to the voice of God. Thus constitutional rights applies to Americans and not some outsider who flying planes into buildings. That's why people who in the past came to America wanted to be an American citizen as then they can protected by our constitution and laws. Now we want to protected even attackers by our constitution. How insane is that?

 

[really]

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.

I suggest you read up on Operation Demetrius - better known as internment without trial.

It was very similar and included torture - it achieved the direct opposite of what was intended.

 

[kosiosko 1]

There is nothing that says military tribunals have to be secret or sequestered. We could go all Nuremberg on them if we want.

That IS my point-- "the if you want," but they haven't, a locale detainee got seven years, with time served got sent back home, to serve the last year. he finally confessed, yes he did hold a gun in AFGANISTAN, and was standing next to a tank there,pleads guilty, the guys a complete Rambo nut, discharged from the milartary with personality disorders, Most of the people detained are like that,

He was taken by afgannies sold to the U.S. sent to Gatamo, HE was guilty , A U.S citzen was simmually taken , he was with the Taliban but tried in the U.S.

I just think that to argue for the tribunals is to underestimate, the robustness of the U.S. justice system

 

[MobBoss]

Why would you try such a pilot at all? I can see an argument for trying Yamamoto in front of a military tribunal had he survived to the end of the war, since he would've been the representative of a party that the US can actually be at war with, and was at war with, but why would you try a random pilot?

Well, mainly because he engaged in an unlawful attack on US forces and civilians which killed around 3000 people.

You do agree that killing a couple thousand people a bad thing right?

 

[MobBoss]

I suggest you read up on Operation Demetrius - better known as internment without trial.

But we arent discussing internment without trial here....we are actually discussing what type of trial they should have.

Sigh.

 

[JollyRoger]

Formal declaration of war is not required. How many wars/conflicts has the USA been involved in without a formal declaration of war? Answer: lots.

Try again.

Sure, but the war power is divided between Congress and the President. When Congress decides not to get involved formally via declaration, then it cedes some of its co-existant power to the Executive branch. This gives the President some flexibility on how to deal with detainees resulting from the conflict as the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Military and also head of the executive branch where the power to prosecute federal crimes resides (DOJ).

Some Presidents decide the military commission route works best (Bush), and some are confident in the DOJ's ability to secure convictions (Clinton and O' Bama). I think these cases could be tried before military commissions, but am of the opinion that securing convictions via our Court system for war-on-a-concept detainees is better for us from a foreign relations standpoint. If we were at war with a nation-state, I would be more likely to lean towards military tribunals.

 

[warpus]

Lets consider my earlier point.

Would we try a Japanese Pilot from the attack on Pearl Harbor in Civilian court?

Hell no.

Get the picture?

Point being there is a difference between combatants....and criminals. They are not the same thing, nor should they be considered the same thing. McVeigh was a terrorist yes....but he wasnt a combatant, he was a criminal, and thus tried in US federal court. KSM is an entirely different fish alltogether. He was indeed a combatant at war/conflict with the USA. Thats why he (and the other foreign terrorists) should be tried via military tribunal or courts martial.

So try terrorists in who commit crimes on U.S. soil in civil courts, like McVeigh (Even though he did consider himself at war with the U.S. government, did he not?), and put enemy combatants in POW camps until the war is over. And if any of those combatants commit any crimes against humanity (genocide, or whatever), try them in tribunals.

Makes sense, right?

 

[Cutlass]

The Constitution is not universal nor meant to the voice of God. Thus constitutional rights applies to Americans and not some outsider who flying planes into buildings. That's why people who in the past came to America wanted to be an American citizen as then they can protected by our constitution and laws. Now we want to protected even attackers by our constitution. How insane is that?

The Constitution applies to everyone in US custody. Place of origin has never mattered before, why should it now?

 

[JollyRoger]

The Constitution is not universal nor meant to the voice of God. Thus constitutional rights applies to Americans and not some outsider who flying planes into buildings. That's why people who in the past came to America wanted to be an American citizen as then they can protected by our constitution and laws.

Go to any urban criminal courthouse for docket call and you will see non-Americans being subject to the jurisdiction of American courts and being given the same rights as Americans.

 

[Smidlee]

I was not aware we were. Please tell me, what is the capital of Al-Qaida? What is the population of Al-Qaida? What are the main exports and imports of Al-Qaida? Does it get nice weather in the summertime?

The fact that Al-Qaida can not be pin down on one spot on a map is a huge advantage for them. For Al-Qaida to survive and continue their attacks they must spread out into small groups.

 

[JollyRoger]

The fact that Al-Qaida can not be pin down on one spot on a map is a huge advantage for them. For Al-Qaida to survive and continue their attacks they must spread out into small groups.

Just like many criminal enterprises.

 

[MobBoss]

So let me get this straight. We are at war with the terrorists, but prisoners taken during that war are not Prisoners of War, and treatment of these prisoners are not subject to the Geneva Convention.

Riiiiiight....

No, thats part of the problem. The conventions were written when nation/states went to war, soldiers/combatants wore uniforms, carried unit insignia, etc. etc.

Things have changed while the conventions havent really caught up. As I have said before if todays 'terrorists' were caught doing what they have done during WWII, they would have been simply lined up and shot for being saboteurs. Point being while the conventions cover uniformed combatants (soldiers) very well, it does do all that great of a job covering what is now called 'illegal combatants' essentially terrorist or insurgents that fight with no uniform/insignia and dont conform to the laws of land warfare.

 

[warpus]

No, thats part of the problem. The conventions were written when nation/states went to war, soldiers/combatants wore uniforms, carried unit insignia, etc. etc.

Things have changed while the conventions havent really caught up. As I have said before if todays 'terrorists' were caught doing what they have done during WWII, they would have been simply lined up and shot for being saboteurs. Point being while the conventions cover uniformed combatants (soldiers) very well, it does do all that great of a job covering what is now called 'illegal combatants' essentially terrorist or insurgents that fight with no uniform/insignia and dont conform to the laws of land warfare.

That's pretty much the only way they can fight against the U.S. military and have a hope of inflicting any sort of significant damage. The Geneva conventions really should be updated to ensure that those people, when caught, are given a fair standing in front of the law.

The way things are done now, they are locked away and .. well.. they have no rights. That isn't right. They should have *some* rights.

That's why I think they might as well be tried in civil courts. U.S. civil courts are fair, right? Try them there until this grey-area "what do we do with combatants?" business is sorted out.

 

[Mise]

No, thats part of the problem. The conventions were written when nation/states went to war, soldiers/combatants wore uniforms, carried unit insignia, etc. etc.

Things have changed while the conventions havent really caught up. As I have said before if todays 'terrorists' were caught doing what they have done during WWII, they would have been simply lined up and shot for being saboteurs. Point being while the conventions cover uniformed combatants (soldiers) very well, it does do all that great of a job covering what is now called 'illegal combatants' essentially terrorist or insurgents that fight with no uniform/insignia and dont conform to the laws of land warfare.

The people taken prisoner during the invasion of Afghanistan (i.e. the war with Afghanistan, which was actually legally declared via UN resolution), but denied PoW status and held indefinitely in Gitmo -- are you saying that these people are not prisoners of war? Even though they were taken prisoner during war?

Anyway, it seems as though you are admitting that the term "war" has no meaning when dealing with terrorists. I'm glad you agree that it's impossible to wage anything resembling a conventional war against a terrorist organisation, and therefore the convention that, for example, Japanese pilots must be tried by military tribunals cannot be applied to a "war on terror".