• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do accused terrorists have the right to a fair trial?

Sporanox said:
Crimes against Americans require an American solution. We don't attempt to try the British bus bombers.

I haven't heard about the subject in a while, but IIRC international courts are hobbled by extra difficulties.
Click to expand...

That post works really well at answering itself with just slight re-shuffling of the words. ;) An international court for terrorists would be an interesting idea. Of course no one could allow the legitimacy of a court ruling to back an accused terrorist's cause (like proving his innocence). I wonder who would control if it ever became real, etc.
 
Sporanox said:
We are at war, lefty. Some of these rights seem to conflict with the ability to win that war most efficiently.
Click to expand...

Winning the war "most efficiently" is not something to try and achieve at the expense of our values. We could have won the war quite quickly by just turning all of Afghanistan into a sea of glass with our large nuclear arsenal. Sure it would have killed every man, woman and child there but it sure as hell would have been won very "efficiently."
 
Sporanox said:
We are at war, lefty. Some of these rights seem to conflict with the ability to win that war most efficiently.
Click to expand...

well, honestly, this is not a real war. real wars are between nations. this is a battle with states on one side, and criminal terrorist organizations on the other.

real wars involve armies in uniform fighting each other. it is not a crime to fight and conquer land, while serving in an army while in uniform.

these people that we are at "war" with, do not represent a state and do not wear a uniform. they are accused of crimes that unlike regular soldiers, could bring about long prison sentences or the death penalty.

it is for this reason, that they have the right to a trial by jury, a lawyer, to present evidence and witnesses, to see the evidence against them. because they face penalties that no regular soldier in a real war would face.

yes, it is quite paradoxical that because they are accused of being soo much more evil and criminal then soldiers in a regular army, that they actually deserve more rights then if they were just regular old soldiers in a regular old army.
 
Last edited:
"Those people" are in many instances paying the price of what one of their family did 300 years ago to some other family,clan, tribe.... Killed one of them, robbed, raped, stole a goat, looked askance at.. and are merely seeing retribution for deeds no one alive has done.
If the prosecution hasn't weeded out these victims of bounty hunting in 7 years, their prosecution of any actual "enemy combatants" is going to be pathetic, absurd, and a miserable failure.
Defending their family, clan, tribe (there's no "country" there) against foreign invaders is their duty.
It's not a crime.
The criminals in the area are Taliban and Al Queada. How many actual members of these organizations have been captured and are set for trial?
Members of the local militia don't count.
 
its very simple: people accused of crimes and may face prison or execution, deserve a fair trial and representation and witnesses and evidence. people captured as POWs have no need for such rights, as they are not accused of any crime and will go home once the conflict has ended.
 
Sporanox said:
We are at war, lefty. Some of these rights seem to conflict with the ability to win that war most efficiently.
Click to expand...

And your point is?

Is it more efficient to stop being America while we are at war?

How long will we not be America?
 
if we can put Nazis on trial, many of whom were released from prison less then 10 years after their sentences began, I think we can put these Al Qaeda guys on trial.
 
This isn't a "capture the flag, we win" war.
It's hearts and minds, not territory.
Until the bedrock of the culture can be raised to a sensible level from the Stone Age, all the acres occupied won't accomplish diddly!
A unified country is not composed of families, tribes and clans with only their self-interests paramount, but a melding of those interests into a common goal of bettering life for everyone, not just those that live on your block.
This concept is so foreign to the mores of the area that it will take a genuine miracle to accomplish in anyone's lifetime.
 
parky76 said:
if we can put Nazis on trial, many of whom were released from prison less then 10 years after their sentences began, I think we can put these Al Qaeda guys on trial.
Click to expand...
.
The trials in Nuremberg and other venues began the year the war ended, not 7 years later!
The accused were afforded all the rights of any accused.
There's no comparison in reality between then and now.
Now, the prosecution side is behaving in a non-Constitutional anti-America mode, which is disgraceful on its very face!
 
I Ratant said:
There's no comparison in reality between then and now.
Now, the prosecution side is behaving in a non-Constitutional anti-America mode, which is disgraceful on its very face!
Click to expand...

um...the accused 9-11 conspirators are going to be tried in a civilian court, with a civilian jury, in NYC. maybe you didn't read the fine print.
 
parky76 said:
um...the accused 9-11 conspirators are going to be tried in a civilian court, with a civilian jury, in NYC. maybe you didn't read the fine print.
Click to expand...
.
By this time, with the allegations of torture, and the extensive time between capture and trial, the chances of a conviction of any of the accused are slim at best.
It's no longer a criminal proceeding, but political, and the prosecutorial side will be paying more attention to the political aspects than the legal, and they -will- screw it up.
 
I Ratant said:
By this time, with the allegations of torture, and the extensive time between capture and trial, the chances of a conviction of any of the accused are slim at best.
Click to expand...

that is your opinion. AG Holder is a damn fine prosecutor and is confident of conviction.
 
Yeah, I can still have one of those.
Any "confession" will be inadmissable. It's the LAW!
Read up on it.
It's #5 in an iron-clad list of rights.
The perpetrators of the Malmedy massacre, although convicted and many sentenced to death, had their sentences commuted because of precisely that "improper pre-trial behavior" on the part of the accusers.
The AG in this situation will be playing to the audience, looking at his political future as the guy that got all those ragheads convicted.
 
hgc said:
What rights do they have? Name one.

OK. I'll admit that they apparently have the right to life-sustaining food and water. And probably some level of medical care. But name another.

Oh, and just so we're using the same definitions, I think of "rights" as the proof is in the pudding. If they are being exercised, then they're rights. Theoretical rights are useless.
Click to expand...
It's well defined, nothing theoretical.

All captured combatants are covered under Common Article 3, POWs get a whole host of rights as spelled out in the 3rd Geneva Convention.

And let's not forget that the extra rights afforded to POWs are intended as a reward and incentive for abiding by the Laws of Armed Conflict. If you decide to award POW status to everyone, regardless of whether or not they abide by the LOAC, then you put civilians in war zones at greater risk.
 
parky76 said:
if we can put Nazis on trial, many of whom were released from prison less then 10 years after their sentences began, I think we can put these Al Qaeda guys on trial.
Click to expand...
The Nuremburg trials were military tribunals, not a civilian court. And those accused had far fewer rights than those afforded to those prosecuted under US military tribunals.
 
I Ratant said:
.
The trials in Nuremberg and other venues began the year the war ended, not 7 years later!
Click to expand...
What war ended 7 years ago? Last I checked the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing.

The accused were afforded all the rights of any accused.
Click to expand...
Apparently you are another person who doesn't know that the Nuremberg trials were military tribunals.

There's no comparison in reality between then and now.
Click to expand...
Correct. Those prosecuted at Nuremberg had far fewer rights than those prosecuted by US military tribunals.

Now, the prosecution side is behaving in a non-Constitutional anti-America mode, which is disgraceful on its very face!
Click to expand...
It would be disgraceful if your accusation were true, which it isn't.
 
I Ratant said:
.
By this time, with the allegations of torture, and the extensive time between capture and trial, the chances of a conviction of any of the accused are slim at best.
Click to expand...

So, since we have already violated all of our principles, we should just continue to do so? I don't get it.
 
parky, if you go back to when Gitmo opened, one of the reasons people were put there was to avoid the jurisdiction of US criminal courts, since once the prisoners were on US soil, a number of protections would be activated that the Bush administration felt were an obstacle to the propaganda war against Islamists. This loophole exploitation tactic was risky, and as it turns out, the risk blew up in the Bush administration's face, in America's face, and President Obama, and AG Holder, are trying to make the best of a crap situation.

So, your question is almost irrelevant. Once on US soil, standard US jurisdictions and legal processes are expected to be undertaken. Whatever argument DoD or others have made, that KSM is a POW and is thus not entitled to a criminal style court proceeding for acts of war, seems to have been overcome by events.

DR
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom