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

[NBAfan]

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.

So we have be "fair" to those who purposefuly target helpless innocent civilians? You also want to defend someone would kill you? The law also does not protect those who kill others.

 

[MobBoss]

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?

Actually, this isnt true either. Military courts martials carry a conviction rate in the high 90s (98 percent or so). Federal court simply cant meet that percentage of conviction.

So now that I have shot down that falsehood....got another?

 

[Cutlass]

Actually, this isnt true either. Military courts martials carry a conviction rate in the high 90s (98 percent or so). Federal court simply cant meet that percentage of conviction.

So now that I have shot down that falsehood....got another?

This has nothing to do with courts martial. What has the rate been for military tribunals of terror suspects?

 

[Mise]

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.

No, I didnt say this at all. If I gave that impression then I apologize

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.

You certainly gave that impression. I'm ready to accept your apology for this post

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).

Nobody has argued that only POWs are allowed to be tried by military tribunals. What you have argued is that established conventions of WWII do not apply when assigning Prisoner of War status to Afghans taken prisoner during the Afghanistan War. But you are also saying that the same conventions held during WWII (i.e. trial of spies/sabateurs) mean that the same prisoners must be tried by military tribunal. That is clearly contradictory. You can't completely disregard established conventions in one breath and then expound their absolute adherence in another.

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.

So you admit that you are attempting to fit the law to your preferred outcome, rather than fitting the outcome to the established laws?

If established conventions cannot be applied when considering terrorists as POWs, they also cannot be applied when considering trial by military tribunal. It's a matter of consistency, which is apparently not your strongest suit

 

[Smidlee]

So we have be "fair" to those who purposefuly target helpless innocent civilians? You also want to defend someone would kill you? The law also does not protect those who kill others.

If you really want to be fair then you should at least have one jury that's a Al-Qaidi member.

 

[kosiosko 1]

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.

after 9/11 , the world stood with the U.S., "shoulder to shoulder" , There was the "coalition of the willing" joint invasion of Irak, Afganistan, Sharing of inteligence, (changing of laws in OTHER countries,lessen civil liberties ) all in suport of the U.S., and rightly so, Americans seemed to apreciate this, there was a new world order,A morale support for the states. This is aroding fast in 10 years, several reasons, one of the main ones for ordinary people, OUTSIDE the U.S., is this it dosn't matter what we do, THEY are not U.S. citzens , we won't give them U.S. justice, which i said is held in high reguard.

even thoe it's the butt of so many jokes about suing over coffee being to hot

You ask whats wrong , its up to the U.S. how much they value world oppion and admiration

 

[NBAfan]

You ask whats wrong , its up to the U.S. how much they value world oppion and admiration

Who cares what the other Liberals of the world think? These are dangerous men who will kill anyone.

If you really want to be fair then you should at least have one jury that's a Al-Qaidi member.

Then we have to get him a lawyer from NYU who will say he killed other people his because country is bad shape.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is no different than what we did to the American Indians in many instances. Even the Lincoln conspirators were spared the inconvenience of a fair trial since the assassination happened during a time of war.

Spoiler :

The Union used military tribunals during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War[2]. Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during the Indian Wars which occurred during the Civil War; the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal. The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865. The most prominent civilians tried in this way were Democratic politicians Clement L. Vallandigham, Lambdin P. Milligan, and Benjamin Gwynn Harris. All were convicted, and Harris was expelled from the Congress as a result. It must be noted that all of these tribunals were concluded prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Milligan.

The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings. Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President. The U. S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).

While tribunals can provide for quick trials under the conditions of war, many critics say this occurs at the expense of justice.

Time constraints and the inability to obtain evidence can greatly hamper a case for the defense. Others have tried to use this argument in favor of commissions, as issues such as chain of evidence and hearsay, which are applied in civilian and criminal trials, could preclude conviction if such rules were applied (e.g., how to claim a bomb was in proper custody from a battlefield to a courtroom?) Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret. Because conviction usually relies on some sort of majority quota, the separability problem can easily cause the verdict to be displeasing not only to the defendant but also to the tribunal.

Decisions made by a military tribunal cannot be appealed to federal courts. The only way to appeal is a petition for a panel of review (which may or may not include civilians as well as military officers) to review decisions, however the President, as commander-in-chief, has final review of all appeals. No impartial arbiter is available.

Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Who could possibly argue that justice isn't best served by deliberately circumventing all the mechanisms we have in place to assure it actually occurs as frequently as possible?

 

[JollyRoger]

So we have be "fair" to those who purposefuly target helpless innocent civilians? You also want to defend someone would kill you? The law also does not protect those who kill others.

The law does provide some protections for those accused of murder.

 

[Perfection]

My primary concern is that alleged terrorists get a fair trial; precedence doesn't indicate to me fairness, just longevity.

My big fear is that there isn't enough independence between the prosecution (military personnel) and the jurors (other military personnel), with a civilian trial, I would presume there should be more independence.

The cynical side of me suspects that a lot of the support for military tribunals comes with an awareness of the reduced independence and is in fact encouraged to prevent false negatives (guilty people going being found not-guilty) even at the expense of false positives (not-guilty people being convicted).

So questions for Mobby:
1. Can you assuage my fears of this independence
2. Other then the virtues of precedent and established procedure (and forgive me if you've touched on this earlier, I haven't gone through all the responses) what reasons are there for holding a military tribunal instead of a civilian ones?

 

[NBAfan]

The law does provide some protections for those accused of murder.

What has KSM done to deserve those protections?

 

[Camikaze]

People don't have to 'deserve' rights. Especially when they haven't been convicted of anything.

 

[NBAfan]

People don't have to 'deserve' rights. Especially when they haven't been convicted of anything.

Don't you know who KSM is? Don't you know what he did? He only came up with the plan that killed 3000 people.

 

[Camikaze]

Don't you know who KSM is? Don't you know what he did? He only came up with the plan that killed 3000 people.

I'll repeat:

People don't have to 'deserve' rights. Especially when they haven't been convicted of anything.

 

[Perfection]

Don't you know who KSM is? Don't you know what he did? He only came up with the plan that killed 3000 people.

NO! YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

We are all for puttin' terrorists in little cells or killin' 'em! But first we gotta figure out who's the terrorist! That's where fair trials come in. We make sure that KSM is in fact a terrorist and then WE MAKE HIM PAY!

I mean being wrong about this would totally friggin' suck. That's why we gotta be careful and do it right!

 

[civver_764]

Yes. Either a military tribunal or an actual courts martial. They dont have any business being in civil court.

You just love to disagree with common sense, don't you?

Of course they should be put in a regular court. They committed a crime within America so to call it anything but a domestic case is stupid.

 

[JollyRoger]

What has KSM done to deserve those protections?

What has any murderer done to deserve them? If you are too terrorized to advocate upholding our ideals, then I suppose it's time for you to admit that the terrorists have defeated you.

 

[NBAfan]

NO! YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

We are all for puttin' terrorists in little cells or killin' 'em! But first we gotta figure out who's the terrorist! That's where fair trials come in. We make sure that KSM is in fact a terrorist and then WE MAKE HIM PAY!

I mean being wrong about this would totally friggin' suck. That's why we gotta be careful and do it right!

So we STILL don't know who did it? What the heck was the 9/11 commision for?

 

[civver_764]

What rights? They are not American citizens.

I can't believe you just said that.

 

[JollyRoger]

What the heck was the 9/11 commision for?

Displace blame for security shortcomings.