quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

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.

The martyrs are the 3,000 they killed

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:



ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Cadenas, by that I meant that the "military" doesn't have the power of "arrest" under the posse committatus rule.

But they do under the constitution as it were.

But, that apparently only applies to U.S. Citizens in the U.S. I just don't think it's a good thing to have them "arrest" pirates 8,000 miles away and bring them to the U.S. for "trial."
No, it applies to combatants, treason and so on.

What happened there, did the SEALS run out of bullets or something?
pffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttt!!!!!!!!!

Again, having our military perform "arrests" is a very slippery slope!
Don't know why, they been doing it since before the constitution was ratified.

Of course they're "under" our civilian govt. but we can't have them going around "arresting" people.
why might that be, I am sure there is no reason for that.

And if you remember during the Clinton Administration , Clinton said that "He" would cover anyone under the Geneva Accords whether or not they were a signatory to it. The Bush Administration took the opposite tack.

If we're going to cover "anyone" under the G.C's then it effectively renders the document worthless as there is no impetus for countries and organizations to sign onto it. Why should they if we and the other signatory countries are going to extend to them the priviledges "anyway?"
It's just common sense.
Because we have a nation of laws. Why have murder laws? People are going to murder anyhow......

The G.C's is not a "one-way" document, *you* don't get to kill and torture *my* guys and expect *me* to treat your guys with respect.

Fuck it ain't, read it.

Otherwise, why bother to have it in the first place? All it would do would be to tie the hands of the signatory countries and organizations but non-signatories would have no such limits.

But as signatories we agree that we abide by it, and the non-signatories can be hauled up before the world court (jesus, to bad we are not a member, because we were petulant about a ruling went against us.)

I think Clinton was wrong to extend that protection and he set a bad precedent by doing so.
Yes, it is a bad precedent to deal in the world as a honorable nation.

The I.R.A. and al qeada could,'t care less about the G.C.'s, why "reward" them for not doing so? Just because it makes *some* people feel "superior" to terrorist groups? Because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
I don't want to watch a dog and pony show trial! Is there supposed to be some "entertainment value" in it like the O.J. trial?
Will the govt. "force" us to watch it?


Is there some "doubt" that these savages actually did it? "Wait! It could have been those Philipino terrorists!"

Uh, you haven't one fucking clue who is on trial do you? There is a great amount of reservations about the bulk of these people having anything to do with it. For a couple, no, but it was fucked by waterboarding and other tortures.

Funny thing is that the very people who want to show the world that we're "fair" are the very ones who go on a rant about the U.S. "exploiting" other countries!
And that is funny how?

This is rediculous and it's going to open up a lot of old wounds for a lot of people unneccessarily!
Tough shit, that is the way of the world. Sorry that our unnecessary justice system makes you get crying jags.

President Obama is way out of line on this.
He's a lawyer, lawyers want to have "trials" for *everything!*

*The Whole Fucking World* knows that those savages did it but "He" wants to have a trial?
No, no such thing is even remotely true.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bill Clinton a "lawyer" too?

You are right about this one thing, everything else, you are as wrong as a terrorist about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Well gee, right off the top of my head how about the Nuremburg Trials? Now the Nazis wearn't terrorists?
I wasn't aware that one had to be carrying a certain type of I.D. card on them to perpetrate an act of war.
As for the I.R.A. the things they did were certainly acts of war! Ambushing uniformed soldiers, planting bombs in London killing innocent civilians, smuggling weapons to and from foreign countries, things like that have to be "sanctioned" by foreign countries to be considered "acts of war?"
What do they do take a "vote" on it or something like that?

First, the Neurembug trials were not an American internal opperation. It was a joint military tribunal conducted by the victorious allies. Second, those tried at Neuremburg were all officials of the Hitler government and/or military. The two situations have nothing in common with one another.

Once again, though no one seems to want to address the matter: If these terrorists are soldiers, they must be treated as captured enemy soldiers and subject to the Geneva Convention. If they are not soldiers they must be treated as criminals and subject to our juctice system. It is ethically indefensible to treat them one way when it suits us and then another when it suits our convenience. That is not what a country that operates under the rule of law should do.

Spinner, agreed, but, they wearn't wearing uniforms and thus they can and should have been shot as spies.
Just take them to Fort Dix or whatever and execute them! The nearest military base.
What good is a "trial" going to do? It's not neccessary and it's going to put the 9/11 families through more pain that they shouldn't have to be subjected to.
What are they going to do, have a "dog and pony show" to demonstrate to future terrorists how "fair" we are?
Last time I checked al qeada wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions anyway.
They certainly shouldn't be getting any "protections" from it!
That was the whole idea behind it, to get everyone "onboard" by offering a "carrot" by way of "protections."
If you don't sign, you don't get any "protections." Some people seem to think that "everyone" is protected under the G.C's.
If that was so then why would they create it in the first place? It wouldn't make any sense to do it.
You need to be, "a member of the club" to get the "benefits."
Why should the I.R.A. be "covered" under the G.C's if they're not a "signatory?" Or any other country or organisation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Ron, Clinton said that because he knew that not "everyone" was covered by the G.C.s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Ron, Clinton said that because he knew that not "everyone" was covered by the G.C.s.

That is a fact, and when the united states of america says we are going to enforce it, we dont give a fuck if you signed it or not.......we is just the fellers what can make that stick, ANYWHERE on this planet.

Good Job, BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


Politesub, that's correct, the I.R.A. was never a signatory to the G.C's and the Brits could have done with them what they would.
I think they executed three of them at a petrol station in broad daylight if I'm not mistaken on their way to blow something up!
Is there a problem with that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Politesub, that's correct, the I.R.A. was never a signatory to the G.C's and the Brits could have done with them what they would.

quote:

I think they executed three of them at a petrol station in broad daylight if I'm not mistaken on their way to blow something up!
Is there a problem with that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

once again, I think the idea is to follow the constitution:

A snip from Article III, section 2.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Those issues have been addressed Nihilus...a little late in the day....but addressed.