quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I really cant see why these trials will be held where the court cant hand out the death penalty. Any other outcome, if the defendants are found guilty will result in a public outcry in the US. On the otherhand, a trial in a court which can hand out the death penalty will make these criminals martyrs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Hmmmmm. If thats your idea of logic perhaps you need to brush up on the rules of logic. Conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of consistent facts.

War on terrorism.....non-citizens
Drug dealers and users....citizens
War on poverty...citizens


FAIL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I do wonder whether the fact that they're being tried in New York isn't to make sure the jury finds them guilty, yes.

One of the basic tenets of our justice system is that crimes are tried in the jurisdiction they are committed…that would be New York.

Don’t you think that is as it should be?

I believe we can trust the honesty and integrity of the people of New York and the United States to judge fairly…If you think otherwise what are you trying to say about the people of America?

Butch

Another basic tenet of our justice system is that venue should be changed when the jury pool is compromised by pre-trial publicity. The enormity of the attacks is such that, if it is to be tried in a civilian court, there is NOWHERE in the country where an impartial jury could be formed. That will be one of the earliest arguments in the Holder-Obama Three Ring Circus. What does that say about the people of America? That they are justly outraged by an act of war, that should be tried as such.

I don't believe that only because I know myself. I would be fair and I am just an average American. I would put my preconceived notions aside and judge the facts I was given in court. There is a vast pool of jurors to choose from and it will not be hard to get an unprejudiced jury.

Now tell me could you be unprejudiced?…I think you could.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Another basic tenet of our justice system is that venue should be changed when the jury pool is compromised by pre-trial publicity. The enormity of the attacks is such that, if it is to be tried in a civilian court, there is NOWHERE in the country where an impartial jury could be formed. That will be one of the earliest arguments in the Holder-Obama Three Ring Circus. What does that say about the people of America? That they are justly outraged by an act of war, that should be tried as such. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

So motivation and intent should determine the treatment of the crime? Interesting considering that the conservative position on hate crimes is that the motivation and intent should be irrelevant, that only the act should be considered. conservatives are not monolithicBut taking the logic you seem to be using, was not Timothy Mcvey's act of blowing up a building in OK an act of war? no, but it was an act of terrorism. If he was sponsored by a foreign entity than it would be an act of warIn fact an act of treason? In that case, why was he not treated as a treasonous citizen trying to overthrow the government by an act of war.

The problem with your logic is the basic flaw that has existed since the beginning of this "war on terrorism" Terrorism isn't a country, it is not a government, it is not a religion. Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot declare war upon a tactic. Those who follow the tactic are not soldiers. The problem with your logic is that those tactics of terrorism were sponsored and taught by people. They are soldiers representing an ideology, and you can declare war on the ideology and those who sponsor it. The claim that you cant declare war on terrorism is a distraction used to deflect focus from the perpetrators.

Once again I say you cannot have it both ways. Either these people are enemy combatants in which case the Geneva convention applies or they are criminals in which case the justice system applies. You cannot conveniently create a third category that allows anything and everything to be done to these people without ethical consequences to the captors as well as the perpetrators captured. I didnt create it, it is a category recognized under international law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Kd, the problem with that is that 9/11 was an act of war, not simply "a crime."

No it wasn't, Popeye.
The alleged mastermind of the September 2001 atrocities whose being tried and the half bearded halfwit who put him up to it are both private citizens, rather than leaders of a nation that has declared war on your country. It follows from that that the attack can't possibly have been an act of war, is it wasn't carried out by a uniformed national militia of any sort. Sorry, but during the IRA bombing campaigns during the '70s and '80s, the perpetrators were tried under civil rather military law, as doing otherwise would be to recognise them as a military force, which they weren't, whatever they called themselves.
See if you can cite a terrorist who was tried under military rather than civil law?

quote:

The problem with your logic is that those tactics of terrorism were sponsored and taught by people. They are soldiers representing an ideology, and you can declare war on the ideology and those who sponsor it. The claim that you cant declare war on terrorism is a distraction used to deflect focus from the perpetrators.
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

The problem with your logic is that those tactics of terrorism were sponsored and taught by people. They are soldiers representing an ideology, and you can declare war on the ideology and those who sponsor it. The claim that you cant declare war on terrorism is a distraction used to deflect focus from the perpetrators.
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

In this case, the teachers of the man behind the attack, Bin Laden, was the CIA. Let's not quite forget that in our "foreign bad guy" paranoia.irrelevant

What is profoundly disturbing about your view is it puts us in a state of war without winable objectives and without any chance that it will ever end. A perpetual state of war is not acceptable, especially when we have non military means of dealing with it. So far, our police departments and fbi have done far more to thwart terrorist plans on US soil than the troops we've deployed or the results of our tossing out our national principles.

quote:


Treating terrorism as a criminal problem, avoiding even calling it terrorism, disguises its true nature and leads to the same complacency that led to 9/11. We are less safe now than we were a year ago, and we will be even less safe after civilian trials for war crimes.
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:


Treating terrorism as a criminal problem, avoiding even calling it terrorism, disguises its true nature and leads to the same complacency that led to 9/11. We are less safe now than we were a year ago, and we will be even less safe after civilian trials for war crimes.
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And we might be "safer" if we declared marshal law and continued it towards some time, not in our lifetimes, when there is no madman who thinks that strapping a bomb to his chest is a good idea. I personally am not willing to give up that amount of what being an American means for the amount of "safety" it would provide. I suppose it is a matter of priorities.

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today.

quote:

Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today.

quote:

Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today.
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Of course there are winnable objectives and of course it will end. Not in our lifetimes, but it will most assuredly end.

quote:



And the successes of the FBI and CIA were not possible under Janet Reno, it took the Bush administration to correct that.

quote:



It also took wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep the terrorist networks in disarray and too occupied with survival to succeed on any large scale.

quote:



Treating terrorism as a criminal problem, avoiding even calling it terrorism, disguises its true nature and leads to the same complacency that led to 9/11. We are less safe now than we were a year ago, and we will be even less safe after civilian trials for war crimes.

quote:

I would also like to point out that franklin qualified his comments "essential liberty". What essential liberties have been lost?
ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Of course there are winnable objectives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Kd, the problem with that is that 9/11 was an act of war, not simply "a crime."

No it wasn't, Popeye.
The alleged mastermind of the September 2001 atrocities whose being tried and the half bearded halfwit who put him up to it are both private citizens, rather than leaders of a nation that has declared war on your country. It follows from that that the attack can't possibly have been an act of war, is it wasn't carried out by a uniformed national militia of any sort. Sorry, but during the IRA bombing campaigns during the '70s and '80s, the perpetrators were tried under civil rather military law, as doing otherwise would be to recognise them as a military force, which they weren't, whatever they called themselves.
See if you can cite a terrorist who was tried under military rather than civil law?