N.Y. Governor: Sept. 11 Trial a Bad Idea

[bytor2112]

That doesn't really answer my questions, Bytor. I was saying to replace his name with yours.

And when was war declared? Who signed the declaration of war? Against what country? If not against country, who is the war against?

If you say 'Terrorism', then define what a terrorist is. I can promise you that when the UN asked the US to define terrorism, they were given the simple answer 'No'.

The senator refers to 'Bad history'. This whole war on terrorism is unprecedented history, since it doesn't involve declaring war on an actual country. Beating Iraq wouldn't stop terrorism any more than invading Switzerland would stop cheese production.

In fact, the closest 'war' that the War on Terrorism has to something that has happened in the past is the US War on Drugs. In that, Americans invaded Panama and arrested Manuel Noriega.

And Noriega was read his Miranda rights.

Bytor is a US citizen....KSM is an enemy combatant. Big difference and we are at war. The new US Attorney General said so yesterday.

Quote: "Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we're at war," he said. "We are at war and we will use every instrument of national power -- civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others -- to win."

And as for the UN.....

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions

As used in this section—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—

(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or

(ii) as a transit point; and

(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—

(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;

(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or

(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

Edited November 19, 2009 by bytor2112

[Guest]

That doesn't really answer my questions, Bytor. I was saying to replace his name with yours.

And when was war declared? Who signed the declaration of war? Against what country? If not against country, who is the war against?

If you say 'Terrorism', then define what a terrorist is. I can promise you that when the UN asked the US to define terrorism, they were given the simple answer 'No'.

The senator refers to 'Bad history'. This whole war on terrorism is unprecedented history, since it doesn't involve declaring war on an actual country. Beating Iraq wouldn't stop terrorism any more than invading Switzerland would stop cheese production.

In fact, the closest 'war' that the War on Terrorism has to something that has happened in the past is the US War on Drugs. In that, Americans invaded Panama and arrested Manuel Noriega.

And Noriega was read his Miranda rights.

I am still with you on the civilian vs. military court. I wasn't a fan of the military commission, although, I reserve judgement on it.

I do have to disagree with you on the war thing though. If a group of people blows up 3,000+ of your citizens and your Congress signs a bill to fund the use of force against these people that is called WAR under Article I Section 8 of the constitution enumerating the powers of congress. If that is not war, then I don't know what is! If the group of people is not tied to a specific country, then the war is not against a country but against a group of people and their support system. That's why we don't call it the war with Afghanistan, we call it the war IN Afghanistan. If you limit the definition of war engaged in by the US Military to only ecompass country vs. country, then Vietnam wasn't a war.

Now, if 3,000+ of your citizens perished from a foreign invasion would you care what the war is called? And would you care how the UN wants to call it? No, what we care about is that our military engage in actions to prevent the thing from happening again in our country and our allies. Now, we might disagree with the actions (I'm against Iraq) but I'm not going to minimize the efforts of the US military by parsing over word definitions and making even a smidgen of indication that the US military died in a foreign battlefield for any other reason except that we are at war.

Regardless of whether Bush was a good president or not or whether his actions after 9/11 was wise or not, the fact remains that there has not been a single incident in the 8 years he was in office of any terrorist strikes in American soil. And for that I give him due respect.

[boyando]

He would have more constitutional rights in a civilian court than he would in a military tribunal, and it's possible that he'd get a lighter sentence. On this, I agree with those who are objecting to this move. He's a war criminal and should be tried as such. o claiming, however, that giving him a trial in the US would put American lives at risk, and that's a bunch of reactionist hogwash.

Take it from a reactionist hog, there is a lot of security risk involved with this trial, in New York City, that you would not have at camp Gitmo.

The Gitmo's courtroom facility has one door, one corridor, one way in or out. American court rooms have many. We built Gitmo's court room to cut down on the risk of terrorist disrupting the trial.

When we give these war criminals, American rights, we give them the right to have visitor's. Add to the risk.

Having the trial in New York City, guaranties a change of venue motion. There is no guaranty that the motion will pass. It is all about the delays. The longer the trial goes on, the higher the risk of having some thing happen.

All information that was gathered by the Armed Forces, will be thrown out of court, because there was no Miranda rights given at the time of capture.

Information obtained from our intelligence agencies (AKA spies), will be subject to chain of evidence, here in the U.S.. In other words, the war criminals have the right to know how and who obtained the information.

So what is gained by moving the trials to New York. I might venture a guess, that it is to take the eye's of 55% of the people of the United States who don't want the current form of health care bill(s), passed, off of Congress.

But I'm just being reactionary. When it come's to the current administration, you should only believe what is said. Don't bother doing any thinking on your own.

[FunkyTown]

Yes, Boyando. Because if there's one thing that violent tyrannies are big on, it's Due Process.

Yeah. Stalin was hugely in favour of fair trials for his enemies, as were Genghis Khan and every other Tyrant in history.

I've heard that Mussolini would rant and rave about how we needed a transparent, fair trial for everyone regardless of what crimes they have been accused of.

Oh, wait... I just realized that I'm completely wrong. That Due Process is the second thing to go when a Tyranny wants to take power, right after the right to Bear Arms. I don't know why I would have said this, since it's so wrong. It's ridiculously wrong.

Take it from a reactionist hog, there is a lot of security risk involved with this trial, in New York City, that you would not have at camp Gitmo.

he Gitmo's courtroom facility has one door, one corridor, one way in or out. American court rooms have many. We built Gitmo's court room to cut down on the risk of terrorist disrupting the trial.

When we give these war criminals, American rights, we give them the right to have visitor's. Add to the risk.

Having the trial in New York City, guaranties a change of venue motion. There is no guaranty that the motion will pass. It is all about the delays. The longer the trial goes on, the higher the risk of having some thing happen.

All information that was gathered by the Armed Forces, will be thrown out of court, because there was no Miranda rights given at the time of capture.

Information obtained from our intelligence agencies (AKA spies), will be subject to chain of evidence, here in the U.S.. In other words, the war criminals have the right to know how and who obtained the information.

So what is gained by moving the trials to New York. I might venture a guess, that it is to take the eye's of 55% of the people of the United States who don't want the current form of health care bill(s), passed, off of Congress.

But I'm just being reactionary. When it come's to the current administration, you should only believe what is said. Don't bother doing any thinking on your own.

[Guest Godless]

Boyando, I've already stated that I don't like the move. I don't believe that the security concern is completely unfounded, just blown way out of proportion. There's a precedent for this, after all. Zacarias Moussaoui was tried here in the US, and he's currently serving a life sentence here in the US. Where was the outrage over that? I guess it's not as much of an outrage when the other side is calling the shots.

Personally, I believe that Moussaoui should have been tried under a military tribunal, just as I believe that KSM should. The fact remains though, that there were no security issues with that trial, and there is no reason to believe that KSM's trial will be any different.

[Just_A_Guy]

Bytor, thanks for posting the text of the Holder/Graham dialogue. It's painful to see this nation's Attorney General (whatever his party) get owned like that. But I do think it bears out the Volokh post I referred to yesterday: Holder's POV seems to be that if we can convict 'em civilly, we'll do it; but if the totality of the evidence is somewhat more flimsy we'll go before a military tribunal.

Funkytown, do you think military tribunals have a legitimate raison d'être in a proper context? Or would you do away with them entirely?

[Moksha]

Why not try them in Hurkin or LaVerkin, Utah. They have outlawed the UN down there, so it is doubtful they would hold with the Hague or the Geneva agreements on prisioners.

[FunkyTown]

The problem with a war on Terror, is that it wasn't perpetrated by a country: It was perpetrated by several individuals. Afghanistan was run by people who supported him, though they didn't have a say in the creation of this. Because of that, declaring war on Afghanistan just made sense: The leaders, despite not having control over their country, were culpable.

The events of September 11th were a tragedy and the US had to respond. There was no way they couldn't and I and the whole world understand why they chose to do what they did. There was no way someone wasn't going to pay for the deaths of those 3000 people.

However: Congress didn't sign a bill to go to war with 'Those people'. 'Those people' are an ideology that crosses international lines. In the same way that the US wasn't going to invade and conquer the US because libertarian Ted Kaczynski or stalwart US conservative Timothy McVeigh, you can't defeat an enemy which is an ideology instead of a nation. It's an entirely different type of war that can not be fought effectively with conventional means.

Worse, the 'War on Terror' is perceived by many to be the 'War on Moslems'. It's frustrating and frightening an entire group who rightfully point out the hypocrisy of the action. Bytor showed the UN's definition of Terrorist or Terrorist supporting nation. Sadly, Bytor would most likely have to admit that he doesn't hold to that definition, since George Bush, Sr. provided weaponry to contra fighters who hit civilian targets in Iran. By definition, George Bush, Sr. would have to be arrested for international crimes of terrorism, along with Oliver North and everyone involved in the whole Iran/Contra affair.

*****

Ultimately, if Justice is to prevail, we must apply it universally. If Justice and Due Process only applies to those people we like, then when we are no longer popular our own rules will come back to haunt us. That is a mistake we can not afford to make, either for ourselves or our children. Give him a real trial.

I am still with you on the civilian vs. military court. I wasn't a fan of the military commission, although, I reserve judgement on it.

I do have to disagree with you on the war thing though. If a group of people blows up 3,000+ of your citizens and your Congress signs a bill to fund the use of force against these people that is called WAR under Article I Section 8 of the constitution enumerating the powers of congress. If that is not war, then I don't know what is! If the group of people is not tied to a specific country, then the war is not against a country but against a group of people and their support system. That's why we don't call it the war with Afghanistan, we call it the war IN Afghanistan. If you limit the definition of war engaged in by the US Military to only ecompass country vs. country, then Vietnam wasn't a war.

Now, if 3,000+ of your citizens perished from a foreign invasion would you care what the war is called? And would you care how the UN wants to call it? No, what we care about is that our military engage in actions to prevent the thing from happening again in our country and our allies. Now, we might disagree with the actions (I'm against Iraq) but I'm not going to minimize the efforts of the US military by parsing over word definitions and making even a smidgen of indication that the US military died in a foreign battlefield for any other reason except that we are at war.

Regardless of whether Bush was a good president or not or whether his actions after 9/11 was wise or not, the fact remains that there has not been a single incident in the 8 years he was in office of any terrorist strikes in American soil. And for that I give him due respect.

[bytor2112]

Ultimately, if Justice is to prevail, we must apply it universally. If Justice and Due Process only applies to those people we like, then when we are no longer popular our own rules will come back to haunt us. That is a mistake we can not afford to make, either for ourselves or our children. Give him a real trial.

In America justice is often NOT blind. A real trial you say......lots of people get real trials and not justice. Justice is slanted toward the wealthy in this country....maybe everywhere. Many walk who should be jailed and more often many are jailed who should have walked.

KSM will get his trial and maybe some clever attorney may help him walk. After all, was he mirandized? Is his confession going to fly considering the whole issue of water boarding? What if he is convicted and sentenced to death....how many years of appeals will he get and how many families of 9-11 victims will he outlive in the process? Won't Muslims think the fix is in anyway?

What about Osama Bin Laden should he be brought to trial as well or will a military tribunal do for him? What about American servicemen that are tried under the UCMJ....should they get to be tried in Federal Court instead? Since there trials might not be fair..... why not?

Whether or not the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts should have occurred is an interesting debate and regardless of the side each of us come down on, I believe that America has liberated millions of Muslims and they will have the opportunity...if they seize it...to have a better life for future generations. Some Muslims may believe that we are at war against Islam, but, I suspect that is because of the propaganda that is fed to them daily by those who would have them hate America. That's not to say that we haven't made mistakes and missteps along the way.

Edited November 20, 2009 by bytor2112

[boyando]

Yes, Boyando. Because if there's one thing that violent tyrannies are big on, it's Due Process.

Yeah. Stalin was hugely in favour of fair trials for his enemies, as were Genghis Khan and every other Tyrant in history.

I've heard that Mussolini would rant and rave about how we needed a transparent, fair trial for everyone regardless of what crimes they have been accused of.

Oh, wait... I just realized that I'm completely wrong. That Due Process is the second thing to go when a Tyranny wants to take power, right after the right to Bear Arms. I don't know why I would have said this, since it's so wrong. It's ridiculously wrong.

Because we are both in the mood to be sarcastic, I am going to agree with you.

It's a great idea too add "Due Process" to war criminal trials. If the airplane don't flip, you must acquit.

Sure these terrorist will go free, but, we will hit them hard, were it hurts them the most. We will sue them for damages in civil court and take away all there goats. I know they have lots of money, but they are going to need that money for more lawyers, for there endless appeals.

And we will learn the lesson that the military serves no purpose. That if we are attacked by another country or people, all you need is a good police officer who can go over to that country and yell freeze. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney (lawyers don't take goats, you know) a lawyer will be provided for you. Oh wiat, our police officer can't go to another country, that would be against the law of that other country.

So it is pretty clear that the answer is to have that other country make the arrest. If President Bush had sent the state department to Afghanistan and asked nicely, we could have had the trial years ago. And we would be counting our goats, now.

Oh, and thank you for pointing out, how much our military is like that of Stalin's army or Genghis Khan's gang. It is very helpful to know that when you go after some one who is harmed you, for protection, and preventing them from doing it again, it is equal to the evil of pillaging, plunder and dictatorship.

And knowing that the U.S. military could not hold a fair trial is a real eye opener. I have wasted all those years watching JAG, only to find out it was all a lie (I know it's a TV show, but because I am suspending all reality, it just seemed to fit).

Thank You once again, Funky, for helping me realize that those who do evil deserve more fairness, than those who are innocent or do good in this life.

[FunkyTown]

Your concerns don't fall on deaf ears, Bytor. I know that most would rather Osama Bin Ladin be fed to wild dogs rather than be given a fair trial, but I believe he should.

Yes, if given a fair trial, he may walk free. Yes, if given a fair trial, he may spend years in appeals.

But... What if he's not guilty? Can American afford to walk down the road that states 'If a man is not popular and the government wants him dead, we don't have to treat that man fairly.'?

Can America afford to grant the government carte blanche to accuse, arrest, convict and execute a man with no transparency and no cause for the public to know how?

I know how you feel about the government, Bytor. You don't even want to let them run health care. You know there's the opportunity for corruption to creep in to government. If given the rights you're suggesting the government should have to prosecute in this manner, do you think a corrupt government would use this wisely?

We're not just talking about a single case here. Whatever decisions are made in how this prosecution will take place will be applied a thousand times more: A million. It will be the same whether the government is corrupt or innocent. Is that the world you want to live in? Regardless of whether this man did it, the rules applied to this trial will continue on in the American justice system. Forever.

It is a poor precedent for suspected terrorists to automatically lose their rights. Remember: Most terrorists in the past 30 years on American soil were American born.

When you really say you want an accused terrorist to have no rights, what you're really saying is you want nobody to have rights. Ever.

In America justice is often NOT blind. A real trial you say......lots of people get real trials and not justice. Justice is slanted toward the wealthy in this country....maybe everywhere. Many walk who should be jailed and more often many are jailed who should have walked.

KSM will get his trial and maybe some clever attorney may help him walk. After all, was he mirandized? Is his confession going to fly considering the whole issue of water boarding? What if he is convicted and sentenced to death....how many years of appeals will he get and how many families of 9-11 victims will he outlive in the process? Won't Muslims think the fix is in anyway?

What about Osama Bin Laden should he be brought to trial as well or will a military tribunal do for him? What about American servicemen that are tried under the UCMJ....should they get to be tried in Federal Court instead? Since there trials might not be fair..... why not?

Whether or not the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts should have occurred is an interesting debate and regardless of the side each of us come down on, I believe that America has liberated millions of Muslims and they will have the opportunity...if they seize it...to have a better life for future generations. Some Muslims may believe that we are at war against Islam, but, I suspect that is because of the propaganda that is fed to them daily by those who would have them hate America. That's not to say that we haven't made mistakes and missteps along the way.

[boyando]

Yes, if given a fair trial, he may walk free. Yes, if given a fair trial, he may spend years in appeals.

I guess it depends on what you call fair. In my mind, a fair trial means those who are innocent go free. And those who are guilty,pay for there guilt.

Maybe I have it wrong, but I can't see the need for appeals, if the first trial was fair.

[FunkyTown]

I guess it depends on what you call fair. In my mind, a fair trial means those who are innocent go free. And those who are guilty,pay for there guilt.

Maybe I have it wrong, but I can't see the need for appeals, if the first trial was fair.

Yes. That's not really what we're debating - If given a fair trial, it may end up in appeals for years. That's the nature of the beast.

The question is whether or not they should have trials that are open, transparent and bound to the same rules we want everyone accused to have.

[jadams_4040]

Bad idea? I think so.....

I beleive its the best way to go; no

'behind the back" secret trials; lets put this up for the whole world to see; lets show the world that we do stand with our constitution. Are we afraid of these people and possible retributions? if so then they win. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I'd still be interested to know, Funkytown, whether you oppose military tribunals in all circumstances or just the present situation.

[Guest Godless]

I beleive its the best way to go; no

'behind the back" secret trials; lets put this up for the whole world to see; lets show the world that we do stand with our constitution. Are we afraid of these people and possible retributions? if so then they win. :)

A military tribunal doesn't have to be secret. Just because the rules are different doesn't mean that fairness is completely thrown out the window. Bureaucracy and legal loopholes are the primary things missing in a military tribunal, and that's fine by me.

[FunkyTown]

I'd still be interested to know, Funkytown, whether you oppose military tribunals in all circumstances or just the present situation.

Hey Jag, I know I haven't answered your question. Don't think it's because I'm avoiding it, but rather because when I log in I usually have a half dozen people bombarding me with questions, or things that I need to answer. Unless I spend 3 hours answering everything, I need to pick and choose.

No, I don't oppose military trials on principle. For instance, if someone were in the US military, I would expect them to be tried in a military court for military crimes.

However, I do find the idea of providing the government carte blanche to arrest, imprison, prosecute and eventually execute with minimal oversight is the beginning of a screaming pit to Hell.

Forget whether or not you think the government is corrupt now. Even if you think we have the most honest, perfect government in the history of man and that it would never abuse a power like that, to allow a power like that to exist is to say you trust every iteration of government that will ever come to use that power wisely.

And I guarantee you that when corruption comes, they will not choose to limit their power simply because they won't use it wisely.

[Just_A_Guy]

No problem, Funky.

How about the idea of a military tribunal to be used for uniformed soldiers caught in what might undeniably be deemed a war zone--e.g., the authority of an American tribunal to try a German caught sneaking around an American military encampment in liberated France late in World War II?

(I'm not trying to entrap you; I'm just trying to flesh out the contours of your position).

[FunkyTown]

No problem, Funky.

How about the idea of a military tribunal to be used for uniformed soldiers caught in what might undeniably be deemed a war zone--e.g., the authority of an American tribunal to try a German caught sneaking around an American military encampment in liberated France late in World War II?

(I'm not trying to entrap you; I'm just trying to flesh out the contours of your position).

I would say that the contours of my position line up exactly with that of the Supreme Court in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld. The crux of the problem is this:

1) If the enemy are legally a nation at war and this really is a war on terror, then 'conspiracy' is not a war crime. If these people are treated, in fact, as uniformed combatants, then they must be charged with crimes that can be tried by military commissions. If they are treated as uniformed combatants, then attacks on civilian targets are not necessarily war crimes in the same way that the attacks on Dresden by the US during World War II would not be a war crime.

2) If they enemy are legally treated as a uniformed combatant at war, then both the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention apply. This means that the accused has the right to hear evidence against him.

So the crux of the problem is: Are they an enemy combatant at war, in which case they can not be tried for things that one would do while at war, or are they common criminals, in which case they need to be treated like any other violent criminal?

The simple fact is: The government wants to set the rules so that they can, without telling what you're being charged with or why, take you away in the night for an indefinite period of time. Is that really a power you want the government to have?

[Just_A_Guy]

I would say that the contours of my position line up exactly with that of the Supreme Court in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld.

But under the regimen implemented in 2006 specifically to comply with Hamdan, it would be perfectly acceptable to try KSM in a military commission. If you're saying KSM shouldn't be tried militarily, then it seems to me your position must be based either in policy concerns or in values that (while not necessarily invalid) haven't been read into the US Constitution by our paramount legal authorities.

1) If the enemy are legally a nation at war and this really is a war on terror, then 'conspiracy' is not a war crime. If these people are treated, in fact, as uniformed combatants, then they must be charged with crimes that can be tried by military commissions. If they are treated as uniformed combatants, then attacks on civilian targets are not necessarily war crimes in the same way that the attacks on Dresden by the US during World War II would not be a war crime.

Isn't the logical conclusion to this, that the US couldn't hold German or Japanese POWs unless the US intended to either a) try those particular POWs in military commissions for crimes above and beyond the practices normally committed in wartime, or b) take every one of those POWs back to American soil and try them before an Article III judge?

2) If they enemy are legally treated as a uniformed combatant at war, then both the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention apply. This means that the accused has the right to hear evidence against him.

Indeed; but those protections can be given in military commissions--as, indeed, they were by Congress after Hamdan came down.

The simple fact is: The government wants to set the rules so that they can, without telling what you're being charged with or why, take you away in the night for an indefinite period of time. Is that really a power you want the government to have?

I don't much like the alternative, either. That's why I'm hoping we can establish some common ground somewhere.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

I don't much like the alternative, either. That's why I'm hoping we can establish some common ground somewhere.

Now that's a tough question: I believe, ultimately, if we have two sets of laws: One for people we like and one for people we don't like, then no man has the protection of law as they could ultimately end up in the second group.

The war on terror is something that can't be treated as a war, simply because we don't know who the enemy -is-. A terrorist can and (In the US), more often is a native bred caucasian. Why? I don't know, but for every Osama Bin Ladin, you have a Ted Kazcinski and a Timothy McVeigh.

If the government defeats this nameless, faceless foe by stripping its rights, where does it stop? Do they decide Gangbangers strike civilians, so they are classified as terrorists? But wait - We don't know who they are. Maybe it's everyone who owns a gun illegally. But how do you find out that? Only by spying on everyone.

Or maybe it isn't gangbangers. Maybe it's those who are classified as subversive. Have you read the list of classified subversives? It's pretty big. I would bet that you are classified in there somewhere.

I don't know what the answer is. Give him a fair trial and he might walk free. Don't give him a fair trial and nobody walks free.

[Just_A_Guy]

I appreciate your point, Funkytown. But it seems to me you're saying we shouldn't even capture and hold a POW in a "classical" war like World War II without shipping him back to the States for a trial before a jury of twelve civilians. Is that your argument?

[FunkyTown]

I appreciate your point, Funkytown. But it seems to me you're saying we shouldn't even capture and hold a POW in a "classical" war like World War II without shipping him back to the States for a trial before a jury of twelve civilians. Is that your argument?

Not at all. In a classical war, a PoW is held with the express intention of releasing them after hostilities with the target nation.

In the current 'war', there -is- no target nation. There can be no cessation of hostilities because there is no leader, no country and no one to sign the cease fire. The very nature of the war is such that these people will either be held indefinitely or tried in court.

I have asked this before and I'll ask it again: When will the war on terror stop? Who can sign the declaration of peace? What person can put pen to paper and say 'War is over! Terrorists lost!'?

No one. This is an eternal war with no clear enemy and no clear enemy leadership and no clear way to end it beyond shrugging and stopping it. It's like the war on drugs and, frankly, if there were 'PoWs' held during the war on drugs, I would have argued that they should receive a trial as well. Manuel Noriega did.

Edited December 1, 2009 by FunkyTown

[Guest]

Not at all. In a classical war, a PoW is held with the express intention of releasing them after hostilities with the target nation.

In the current 'war', there -is- no target nation. There can be no cessation of hostilities because there is no leader, no country and no one to sign the cease fire. The very nature of the war is such that these people will either be held indefinitely or tried in court.

I have asked this before and I'll ask it again: When will the war on terror stop? Who can sign the declaration of peace? What person can put pen to paper and say 'War is over! Terrorists lost!'?

No one. This is an eternal war with no clear enemy and no clear enemy leadership and no clear way to end it beyond shrugging and stopping it. It's like the war on drugs and, frankly, if there were 'PoWs' held during the war on drugs, I would have argued that they should receive a trial as well. Manuel Noriega did.

It took me a while to get your point FT. Now I do. And you are right on.

What we need is more trust in our justice system. I believe THAT is the problem here. If we can't even trust that our courts will hand out justice then we have a much bigger problem here.

Unfortunately, there has been too much craziness in our courts - that needs to be fixed before we can even think of using it for the war on terror.

[FunkyTown]

I can agree to this, Ana. By all means, if a military tribunal is the just system, move everyone to a military tribunal. Have every man, woman and child - American and non - Subject to the same laws and mores.

But if the reason we're handing them over is because it's easier to get a conviction for the very reason that it is unjust, then we can not allow it. Unfortunately, that seems like the reason people want a military tribunal: Because they think the evidence is too flimsy to stand up in court.

It took me a while to get your point FT. Now I do. And you are right on.

What we need is more trust in our justice system. I believe THAT is the problem here. If we can't even trust that our courts will hand out justice then we have a much bigger problem here.

Unfortunately, there has been too much craziness in our courts - that needs to be fixed before we can even think of using it for the war on terror.