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

[JollyRoger]

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.

But the acts of KSM and the Underwear Bomber violate U.S. federal law which is easily enforced by the U.S. court system. Until you reinvent the wheel of the law of warfare, why use a spare tire of a system when you have one of the world's best wheels at your disposal?

 

[Smidlee]

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.

No doubt this is true today. We even give entitlements to those who has done absolutely nothing to earn them.

 

[GinandTonic]

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.

Yup, it was idiotic, counter-productive and illegal when the Brits did it, and were condemned by the Yanks for it. Millions of dollars channelled from America to the IRA.

Now the Yanks do exactly the same thing, and it's just as idiotic, counter-productive and illegal.

Simples!

 

[Cutlass]

No doubt this is true today. We even give entitlements to those who has done absolutely nothing to earn them.

Like Paris Hilton....

 

[MobBoss]

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

Actually, the prisoners status usually defines what rights they get or not, not where they are from, per the conventions and law of landwarfare...not the consitution. The constitution treats such treaties as binding and part of US law, thus we get stuck with having to use something that wasnt really very well written in consideration of terrorists and insurgents.

I mean, if you want to confer POW rights or status to these folks then the absolutely correct venue to try them would be a courts martial as that is what international treaty dictates should be done.

 

[JollyRoger]

No doubt this is true today.

It was true even at the founding. You should read the first dozen volumes of the United States Reports and see how crazily liberal we were on the issue.

 

[MobBoss]

But the acts of KSM and the Underwear Bomber violate U.S. federal law which is easily enforced by the U.S. court system. Until you reinvent the wheel of the law of warfare, why use a spare tire of a system when you have one of the world's best wheels at your disposal?

Like I said, there is already precendent to try them via tribunals as we did Nazis in WWII. No need to reinvent anything.

 

[warpus]

Would POWs even be tried, unless they committed some crime against humanity? (Almost) everything goes in a war, right?

 

[warpus]

Like I said, there is already precendent to try them via tribunals as we did Nazis in WWII. No need to reinvent anything.

The Nazis were tried in tribunals because the committed crimes against humanity. If it was a simple war with no genocide, the Nuremberg trials would have never happened.

Shower & dinner time, mofos! Would love to see you resopnd to some of my recent posts, MobBoss

 

[Mise]

Actually, the prisoners status usually defines what rights they get or not, not where they are from, per the conventions and law of landwarfare...not the consitution. The constitution treats such treaties as binding and part of US law, thus we get stuck with having to use something that wasnt really very well written in consideration of terrorists and insurgents.

I mean, if you want to confer POW rights or status to these folks then the absolutely correct venue to try them would be a courts martial as that is what international treaty dictates should be done.

But the US hasn't conferred PoW status to these folks, and you have already said that conventions held in past wars (such as WWII) cannot be applied when dealing with terrorists. So by your own logic, military trial based on precedents set in WWII (i.e. your Japanese bomber analogy) also cannot be applied with dealing with terrorists in the 21st century.

 

[MobBoss]

Would POWs even be tried, unless they committed some crime against humanity? (Almost) everything goes in a war, right?

No, everything does not 'go' in a war. Read up on the Massacre at Malmedy.

The purposeful targeting of innocent civilians on 9/11 is what we are talking about here.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually, the prisoners status usually defines what rights they get or not, not where they are from, per the conventions and law of landwarfare...not the consitution. The constitution treats such treaties as binding and part of US law, thus we get stuck with having to use something that wasnt really very well written in consideration of terrorists and insurgents.

I mean, if you want to confer POW rights or status to these folks then the absolutely correct venue to try them would be a courts martial as that is what international treaty dictates should be done.

But Bush didn't clarify the status to anything within the law. So what we are stuck with is the federal courts.

 

[JollyRoger]

Like I said, there is already precendent to try them via tribunals as we did Nazis in WWII.

What happened to your point about how much things have changed and we can't treat these detainees under the old archaic rules of war?

Besides, the Nazis were part of a nation state that we formally engaged in war against. The more on point precedent would be the succesful civil court prosecutions of captured terrorists involved in the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

No need to reinvent anything.

My point exactly.

 

[kosiosko 1]

No, everything does not 'go' in a war. Read up on the Massacre at Malmedy.

The purposeful targeting of innocent civilians on 9/11 is what we are talking about here.

I thought we were talking about military detaineers and tribunals as opposed to civil/criminal courts.

 

[Zelig]

Terrorists should be shot dead, no trials of any sort.

No, only the ones we are at war with. Like or not we are at with Al-Qaeda.

Drug dealers shouldn't get tried in civilian courts either, since we're at war with them too.

 

[Smidlee]

No, everything does not 'go' in a war. Read up on the Massacre at Malmedy.

The purposeful targeting of innocent civilians on 9/11 is what we are talking about here.

Actually I disagree they were targeting innocent civilians or they would have plan it when the towers were full. Their target was America itself as while they don't have a capital yet we do and they went straight for it.

 

[MobBoss]

But the US hasn't conferred PoW status to these folks, and you have already said that conventions held in past wars (such as WWII) cannot be applied when dealing with terrorists.

No, I didnt say this at all. If I gave that impression then I apologize, but as was stated a couple times already, Nazi spies were also tried via military tribunals during WWII although they didnt have POW status (spies =/= POWs).

So by your own logic, military trial based on precedents set in WWII (i.e. your Japanese bomber analogy) also cannot be applied with dealing with terrorists in the 21st century.

No, it can be, just not well. Its going to be like wearing a shirt either too big or too small, but maybe we can still make it fit.

But Bush didn't clarify the status to anything within the law. So what we are stuck with is the federal courts.

No we arent. Why not just confer to them POW status like we probably should have done to begin with, and go the courts martial route? That is most certainly within Obamas ability and actually makes a lot more sense given the current situation. And while no one favors giving these scumbags anymore rights than they deserve, making them POWs at least gives us some options in how to deal with them legitimately.

Btw, no one has come out yet and reasoned whats wrong with doing it via military tribunal or a courts martial. Again I ask whats wrong with military tribunal or courts martial.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually I disagree they were targeting innocent civilians or they would have plan it when the towers were full.

The attacks happened at 9 am in the morning. The towers WERE full. However, a lot of the people working inside were able to escape prior to the buildings collapse

How on earth can you not say they were targeting innocent civilians? Thats...thats just.....sigh.

Of course they were targeting civilians.

 

[Cutlass]

Btw, no one has come out yet and reasoned whats wrong with doing it via military tribunal or a courts martial. Again I ask whats wrong with military tribunal or courts martial.

Actually, JR pointed out the reason several times: The federal courts are simply more likely to get a solid conviction. What else could you possibly want?

 

[MobBoss]

What happened to your point about how much things have changed and we can't treat these detainees under the old archaic rules of war?

I didnt say we couldnt..I said it wasnt a direct fit.