MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Where your inconsistency wouldn't be so obvious?
Where am I being inconsistent?
Do you think that Terrorists should be put in front of a Military tribunal?
- Thread starter NBAfan
- Start date
Where am I being inconsistent?
So then you are retracting your justification based on thousands of targets then?
By dodging whether Christian foreign terrorists should be treated with equal disregard to due process as Muslim foreign terrorists.
So should all murderers be placed before military tribunals?
No, only the ones we are at war with. Like or not we are at with Al-Qaeda.
Mise
isle of lucy
Only if the perpetrator is cold blooded. Mammalians should be tried in civilian courts.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not dodging it at all. There are going to be some obvious differences in how other nations handle the situation, but this isnt really part of the OP here.
Do you even know if the UK has the equivalent of miltary tribunal or courts martial available to foreign combatants? Do you know UK military law that well?
I dont. Thats why I know I havent commented either way about it before.
However, in this situation, there is indeed historical precedent. But it seems you are determined to ignore that to play games.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
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?
So if a member of Jemaah Islamiah randomly came to America and blew about a couple of dozen people, you would be fine with letting them go to a federal court?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Because that's why civil courts exist in the U.S.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Do you doubt Al Qaeda isnt at war with US? I mean we have that on record from the mouth of OBL himself....do you think he is lying?
To try foreign combatants? I think not.
Mise
isle of lucy
Mostly terrorists.
kosiosko 1
King
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 992
Thats my point, sort of
it's because it dosn't recogise it, chooses not to, holds the trails in secrete, that a lot of people want criminal, civil trails, many of the "detainnees" have been releaesed, sent home, under the present systemThe concepts of Americian justice are held in high reguard the world over, are a shinning becon on the hill, to argure against it because it will give the "B's'' some sort of right or vioce because they are not citizens, or whatever other reason.
That just dosn't sit right, feels a bit off to a LOT of people,
charge them openly , try them openly and if guilty punnish them openly,
--- everyones fine with that
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Mostly? Given its a terrorist organization, I would pretty much say all of its population are terrorists.
Can I just mention, I think my government is at war with inflation and climate change. Suffice to say, war in the legal sense is not the same as war in the common sense. So saying you are at war with someone does not actual mean that you are. My government is not going to put the CPI in front of a military tribunal.
Oh wait, here's a better example- the war on drugs. Should drug dealers be put in front of military tribunals?
Oh wait, here's a better example- the war on drugs. Should drug dealers be put in front of military tribunals?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Thats my point, sort of
The concepts of Americian justice are held in high reguard the world over, are a shinning becon on the hill, to argure against it because it will give the "B's'' some sort of right or vioce because they are not citizens, or whatever other reason.
That just dosn't sit right, feels a bit off to a LOT of people,
charge them openly , try them openly and if guilty punnish them openly,
--- everyones fine with that
There is nothing that says military tribunals have to be secret or sequestered. We could go all Nuremberg on them if we want.
Mise
isle of lucy
Cold blooded terrorists?Mostly? Given its a terrorist organization, I would pretty much say all of its population are terrorists.
Can you link me to a formal declaration of war? Like it or not, we are not formally at war.
Since Congress has not formally declared war, then the executive has more discretion on how to handle detainees - including deciding the forum for prosecution.
Of course not. They committed a crime against Americans and/or on American territory. They are in American custody. Therefor they get a trial. There are no ifs, ands, or buts, on the subject. The US government does not have a legal right to imprison without trial.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Try asking a serious question. Because that one is just silly.
