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

[NBAfan]

Do you believe that Terrorists or enemy combatants should be tried by a Military tribunal? Or what reasons would you have to give them a trial in a civil court?

Example, KSM masterminded the plot to kill 3000 people on September 11th, 2001. For some reason Eric Holder wants to put him in a civilian court instead of a Military tribunal. Remember that even the leftist FDR put Nazi spies found in America Military tribunals and executed.

Please keep discussion civil.

 

[MobBoss]

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

 

[JollyRoger]

The military has not executed anyone in decades, so the Federal Court system has a better recent track record (the execution of Timothy Mcveigh comes immediately to mind).

 

[warpus]

If the crime was committed on U.S. soil - send them to a civilian court. That seems fair.

Timothy McVeigh was after all convicted in a civilian court, wasn't he? You could argue that that happened because he's American.. but if a Canadian blew up the mall of America, he'd probably be tried in a civilian court. Right?

 

[GinandTonic]

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

Did you at the time hold that the IRA should be tried by the British military?

 

[NBAfan]

I was not refering to McVeigh. I was refering to Islamic Terrorists.

 

[GenMarshall]

Terrorists, if they comit the crime on US soil. They should be put infront of a civil court.

 

[GinandTonic]

I was not refering to McVeigh. I was refering to Islamic Terrorists.

Should Islamic terrorists be subject to a different system of justice to survivalist, neo-nazi or separatist terrorists?

If so why?

 

[NBAfan]

If the crime was committed on U.S. soil - send them to a civilian court. That seems fair.

Terrorists, if they comit the crime on US soil. They should be put infront of a civil court.

Can you give your reasons?

Should Islamic terrorists be subject to a different system of justice to survivalist, neo-nazi or separatist terrorists? Why?

Islamic terrorists shold be put in Military Court because are at war with them.

 

[JollyRoger]

I was not refering to McVeigh. I was refering to Islamic Terrorists.

I wasn't referring to Muslims - I was referring to those accused of violating our laws.

 

[MobBoss]

The military has not executed anyone in decades, so the Federal Court system has a better recent track record (the execution of Timothy Mcveigh comes immediately to mind).

I think there is a distinct difference in domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism. The military doesnt have any business investigating or pursuing stuff that is done by American citizens on American soil.

But thats not what we are talking about here. There is precedent for tribunals.

As for it happening on American soil being a reason to have it in civil court: No. As was already pointed out earlier, German spies on American soil were tried via military tribunals, not civil court.

Would we have tried a captured Japanese pilot from the attack on Pearl Harbor in civil court? Hell no.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think there is a distinct difference in domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism.

And I see a distinct difference between a system willing to carry out the death penalty on terrorists and one that has not carried out an execution in my lifetime.

IAs was already pointed out earlier, German spies on American soil were tried via military tribunals, not civil court.

Would we have tried a captured Japanese pilot from the attack on Pearl Harbor in civil court? Hell no.

Those were formally declared wars between nation states, not wars on a concept. We try war on drug suspects in American courts and do not haul foerigners engaged in such "hostilities" before military tribunals. I see no justification for treating suspects in another war on a concept any different.

 

[Shadylookin]

If the people in Gitmo attacked military targets then they're prisoners of war and should have been released once major combat operations ended. If they are "terrorists" then they should be tried as such in front of a civilian jury.

I honestly don't understand the right's desire to keep them out of a fair trial.

I was not refering to McVeigh. I was refering to Islamic Terrorists.

A terrorists is a terrorists regardless of his particular religious beliefs.

 

[MobBoss]

Did you at the time hold that the IRA should be tried by the British military?

I dont think I ever commented on it at all.

 

[MobBoss]

If the people in Gitmo attacked military targets then they're prisoners of war and should have been released once major combat operations ended. If they are "terrorists" then they should be tried as such in front of a civilian jury.

I honestly don't understand the right's desire to keep them out of a fair trial.

I honestly dont understand the left's idea that a military tribunal or court martial would be unfair.

Why dont you explain it to me why a military tribunal or courts martial would be so unfair?

 

[NBAfan]

If the people in Gitmo attacked military targets then they're prisoners of war and should have been released once major combat operations ended. If they are "terrorists" then they should be tried as such in front of a civilian jury.

I honestly don't understand the right's desire to keep them out of a fair trial.



A terrorists is a terrorists regardless of his particular religious beliefs.

What rights? They are not American citizens.

Islamic Terrorists are cold blooded killers. They use their religion as sheld as they kill more Moslems then non Moslems.

 

[MobBoss]

And I see a distinct difference between a system willing to carry out the death penalty on terrorists and one that has not carried out an execution in my lifetime.

Will you gurantee they will be tried in Texas then?

Those were formally declared wars between nation states, not wars on a concept. We try war on drug suspects in American courts and do not haul foerigners engaged in such "hostilities" before military tribunals. I see no justification for treating suspects in another war on a concept any different.

We werent at war with Japan when Pearl Harbor occurred. We werent 'formally' at war with them until a few days after that. Just sayin.

 

[JollyRoger]

What rights? They are not American citizens.

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.

Islamic Terrorists are cold blooded killers.

Go to any urban criminal courthouse for a reasonable period of time and you will see a cold blooded killer on trial.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

No. They should be in a civilian court. For what nation was Al-Qaida acting?

 

[GenMarshall]

I honestly dont understand the left's idea that a military tribunal or court martial would be unfair.

Mainly the reasoning is because they lack the rights normally given in a civil court. Anyone in a military tribunal would simply make up evidence and/or force the defendant to admit to the crimes. Also the other reasoning is that terrorists aren't exactly "orthodox" combatants (eg. a member of an armed force) Also, to most people, courts-martial typically only involve personnel within the military.

Islamic Terrorists are cold blooded killers.

So are non-Islamic Terrorists.