Do accused terrorists have the right to a fair trial?

[Thunder]

Some people are arguing that the 9-11 suspects, and others accused of terrorist acts around the world, do not have the right to a jury trial, a lawyer, the right to see evidence being used against them, and the right to present evidence and witnesses in their defense.

But I believe, that for the most part, these rights are Universal, and should be afforded to anyone accused of any crime, including mass murder and terrorism.

thougths? am I wrong here?

 

[leftysergeant]

Of course they are entitled to a fair trial. A fair trial keeps the government from making false accusations and then torturing people to create the illusion that the suspects were guilty as charged. To do otherwise dooms a democracy to deteriorate into a vile sort of despotism...

uh-oh.

 

[Sporanox]

Some people are arguing that the 9-11 suspects, and others accused of terrorist acts around the world, do not have the right to a jury trial, a lawyer, the right to see evidence being used against them, and the right to present evidence and witnesses in their defense.

But I believe, that for the most part, these rights are Universal, and should be afforded to anyone accused of any crime, including mass murder and terrorism.

thougths? am I wrong here?

I'll assume you're talking about the treatment of terrorists by the US. Those rights you mentioned are granted to US citizens - usually.

I don't see many problems with trying non-US terrorism suspects in a military tribunal.

 

[Thunder]

I'll assume you're talking about the treatment of terrorists by the US. Those rights you mentioned are granted to US citizens - usually.

I don't see many problems with trying non-US terrorism suspects in a military tribunal.

i am confused as to why terrorism suspects are not tried in an international court. perhaps the UN needs to make a new court for terrorists.

 

[Sporanox]

i am confused as to why terrorism suspects are not tried in an international court. perhaps the UN needs to make a new court for terrorists.

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'll assume you're talking about the treatment of terrorists by the US. Those rights you mentioned are granted to US citizens - usually.

I don't see many problems with trying non-US terrorism suspects in a military tribunal.

The U.S. Constitution grants the rights of the accused to all people and not just U.S. citizens. I can show you several places where the Constitution specifies citizens when that's what it means. By contrast, the 5th Amendment, for example starts "No person. . ." and the 6th, "In all criminal prosecutions. . . " and the Seventh "In Suits at common law. . . "

In some places, both "persons" and "citizens" are used in such a way that it is clear they refer to two different groupings and are not interchangeable terms (ETA: see, for example, the 14th Amendment).

Boumedine v. Bush agrees with what I'm saying. (I can find the exact language, but IIRC it said that the Bill of Rights applies to any person in U.S. jurisdiction or custody, and citizenship or lack thereof was not an issue.)

The way I learned this stuff in civics class in high school, these basics rights are seen as explicit limitations on government and not as rights that pertain only to a certain group or class of people. Try, for example, arguing that the First Amendment applies only to citizens, and you'll see it simply isn't so.

 

[Sporanox]

The U.S. Constitution grants the rights of the accused to all people and not just U.S. citizens. I can show you several places where the Constitution specifies citizens when that's what it means. By contrast, the 5th Amendment, for example starts "No person. . ." and the 6th, "In all criminal prosecutions. . . " and the Seventh "In Suits at common law. . . "

In some places, both "persons" and "citizens" are used in such a way that it is clear they refer to two different groupings and are not interchangeable terms (ETA: see, for example, the 14th Amendment).

Boumedine v. Bush agrees with what I'm saying. (I can find the exact language, but IIRC it said that the Bill of Rights applies to any person in U.S. jurisdiction or custody, and citizenship or lack thereof was not an issue.)

The way I learned this stuff in civics class in high school, these basics rights are seen as explicit limitations on government and not as rights that pertain only to a certain group or class of people. Try, for example, arguing that the First Amendment applies only to citizens, and you'll see it simply isn't so.

Thanks for the summary. I forgot most of the deliberations. With the legality of military commissions established as of now, though, the question comes back to who is considered an "unlawful enemy combatant." I believe non-citizen terrorists qualify.

 

[T.A.M.]

Personally I think if a particular Country is going to hold people prisoner and then try them, then those prisoners should have the same rights as anyone tried in that countries judicial system. If you feel that offers them too many rights, then what you are saying is that a persons inherent rights are based on where they were born, not the morals that your society has deemed applicable.

So Charles Manson is entitled to those rights, but not an ALLEGED terrorist.

And no, I am not commenting at this moment on their guilt or innocence.

TAM

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

They require an American Solution, but should not be held to American Standards of fairness and human rights? Is that right?

Well **** them, just put them against a wall and shoot all of them, regardless of the evidence against them...Strawman yes, but you get my point.

TAM

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks for the summary. I forgot most of the deliberations. With the legality of military commissions established as of now, though, the question comes back to who is considered an "unlawful enemy combatant." I believe non-citizen terrorists qualify.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, but Boumediene was not a U.S. citizen and was designated as an enemy combatant, and he won the case. As a result of this decision, he was ordered freed and has since been transferred to France. From the decision:

Petitioners are aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There are others detained there, also aliens, who are not parties to this suit.

Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, a privilege not to be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2. We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege.

The SCOTUS said that in this case the DTA did not provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. Since the DTA wasn't an adequate substitute, the MCA acted "as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."

Linky.

I've seen nothing to support the legal theory that the basic rights (the Lockian "natural rights") guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens except where the Constitution specifies something is a privilege of citizens.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Crimes against Americans require an American solution.

The question was whether these accused criminals have the right to a fair trial--specifically, "the right to a jury trial, a lawyer, the right to see evidence being used against them, and the right to present evidence and witnesses in their defense."

Are you saying it's an "American solution" to hold unfair trials?

 

[theprestige]

The U.S. Constitution grants the rights of the accused to all people and not just U.S. citizens.

Wait, what?

If that's the case, then this whole idea of giving a guy a uniform and a gun, and sending him out onto the battlefield to just shoot people willy-nilly is all wrong. Turns out the United States has been violating people's rights ever since its inception. Plus, "prisoners of war"? Clearly that's just weasel-words for "illegally detained without trial".

Thanks for clearing that up, Joe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

i am confused as to why terrorism suspects are not tried in an international court. perhaps the UN needs to make a new court for terrorists.

The primary problem with that is that the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC. (See also the Wiki article.)

My understanding, though, is that the ICC has guarantees to protect the rights of the accused at least as strong as U.S. law, though the U.S.'s excuse for staying out has always been that we're afraid of frivolous cases against U.S. citizens. So, the people who want to keep these accused out of U.S. courts would definitely not want them to have access to the ICC.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wait, what?

If that's the case, then this whole idea of giving a guy a uniform and a gun, and sending him out onto the battlefield to just shoot people willy-nilly is all wrong. Turns out the United States has been violating people's rights ever since its inception. Plus, "prisoners of war"? Clearly that's just weasel-words for "illegally detained without trial".

Thanks for clearing that up, Joe.

You obviously misread your copy of the Constitution.

These basic rights are protected without due process of the law. (And yes, the Constitution has provisions for the authority to use the military for warfare and defense.) Nowhere does it say the U.S. government cannot take someone's life or liberty or property under any circumstances whatsoever, and I never claimed that it does.

Prisoners of war are not accused of any crimes. The standards for their treatment are governed by the Geneva Conventions. Being a prisoner of war is not at all equivalent to being accused of a crime. If these "enemy combatants" had been declared prisoners of war, then their treatment would not have been a problem--we'd know for sure that the Geneva Conventions apply. And, unless someone had another theory of why to try them (other than being enemies captured during a war), they would not face any trial, but would have to be freed when the major fighting is over. ETA: The point is that the status "prisoner of war" doesn't say anything about the rights of the accused.

 

[WildCat]

The question was whether these accused criminals have the right to a fair trial--specifically, "the right to a jury trial, a lawyer, the right to see evidence being used against them, and the right to present evidence and witnesses in their defense."

Are you saying it's an "American solution" to hold unfair trials?

There is nothing either unfair nor un-American in a military tribunal, and they are specifically allowed under the Geneva Conventons.

Could they be tried in domestic civilian courts? Yes.

Should they be? IMHO, no. Certainly not while the war rages on.

 

[hgc]

There is nothing either unfair nor un-American in a military tribunal, and they are specifically allowed under the Geneva Conventons.

Could they be tried in domestic civilian courts? Yes.

Should they be? IMHO, no. Certainly not while the war rages on.

Yes, but the government has claimed that these particuar prisoners are not POWs, and don't have rights under Geneva. So why would anyone who supported such a position claim that Geneva grants the USA the right to try them by military tribunal? (Perhaps there is some other, valid claim that military tribunals are proper here, but I can't see how Geneva for this, but not for that, makes sense.)

 

[Eyeron]

nm

 

[Sporanox]

I'm not sure what you're arguing, but Boumediene was not a U.S. citizen and was designated as an enemy combatant, and he won the case. As a result of this decision, he was ordered freed and has since been transferred to France. From the decision:



The SCOTUS said that in this case the DTA did not provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. Since the DTA wasn't an adequate substitute, the MCA acted "as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."

Linky.

I've seen nothing to support the legal theory that the basic rights (the Lockian "natural rights") guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens except where the Constitution specifies something is a privilege of citizens.

The MCA was amended in '09 in response to this case and others. Hence, why the current administration is trying some detainees in the tribunals.

Are you saying it's an "American solution" to hold unfair trials?

I was responding to parky's mulling of an international court. Fair or unfair, a trial in an American court is still an appropriate American response. That was my point.

As to whether it is unfair, I do not think so.

ETA

Yes, but the government has claimed that these particuar prisoners are not POWs, and don't have rights under Geneva. So why would anyone who supported such a position claim that Geneva grants the USA the right to try them by military tribunal? (Perhaps there is some other, valid claim that military tribunals are proper here, but I can't see how Geneva for this, but not for that, makes sense.)

That goes back to the definition of the term "unlawful enemy combatant."

 

[leftysergeant]

I don't see many problems with trying non-US terrorism suspects in a military tribunal.

They are in opur custody. They are either criminal suspects or they are prisoners of war. If POWs they are not even subject to criminal trial.

If criminal suspects, it is essential that we PROVE that they committed a crime.

Our laws are so designed that , when all works right, there must be proof of a crime. Unless you know what has been said against you, you cannoot defend yourself. A real criminal can pin the blame for a crime on you, and you would not know it without knowing who accused you.

Get a clue. The accused have rights because it keeps the wrong people from going to jail while the guilty walk.

 

[I Ratant]

It was obvious from the first that many of those "enemy combatants" were merely pawns in social disagreements between the tribes and families that are the substance of Afghanistan society.
"Bounty hunter" fodder many of them.
As for trials, it is repugnant to the ideals of America to not grant these prisoners the rights any person accused of a crime is guaranteed by our laws, if we as Americans are going to try them at all.
As most of them have been held for many years with -nothing- to indict them for, any judgments now are likely to be in their favor, if the trials are fair.
And we will have created a large number of very unhappy people who will not laugh this off.