Originally Posted by claire

I had a heated discussion today in my journalism class about the Gitmo Detainees receiving a trial. I was shocked that multiple students believed the terrorist suspects should be executed without trial because they committed a heinous crime and were not American citizens. (The argument behind the American citizen business was supposed to be that the constitution--right to speedy trial--doesn't apply to them.)
It's disturbing that we so easily cast out the constitution when we come upon a threat. If anything, I think this has been one of the biggest symbols of America's weakening. At least they're getting trials (however fair or not) now so some sort of progress is being made.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...humbnails.html

They deserve a fair trial, but how will they get one in NY?

Do you really think they will find a fair and unbiased jury in NY for them?

Then there is the fact that all the confessions were after long periods of torture. How do they prove that they were true confessions, and not just them giving the answers that were wanted to stop the torture.

Should we send them to The Hague for a trial?
Everything is done just so and perfectly there.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

They deserve a fair trial, but how will they get one in NY?

Do you really think they will find a fair and unbiased jury in NY for them?

Then there is the fact that all the confessions were after long periods of torture. How do they prove that they were true confessions, and not just them giving the answers that were wanted to stop the torture.

I'm sure they won't! I've long been suspicious of the American justice system; too many loopholes and ways that political pressure can be applied for my liking.

But what I do find particularly alarming is Claire's remark concerning the opinions of her classmates; if those totally biased and unrealistic views are typical of many upcoming Americans, heaven help that country, and the rest of the world, once they start to get into positions of power and influence!! I hope you can try to make them aware of this Claire!

I agree. We need some serious reforms. The trials won't be fair in the first place, but I'm still shocked that we have kept people detained for this long without a trial. That's the real kicker.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm sure they won't! I've long been suspicious of the American justice system; too many loopholes and ways that political pressure can be applied for my liking.

But what I do find particularly alarming is Claire's remark concerning the opinions of her classmates; if those totally biased and unrealistic views are typical of many upcoming Americans, heaven help that country, and the rest of the world, once they start to get into positions of power and influence!! I hope you can try to make them aware of this Claire!

The fact that alot of people call them terrorists shocks me. Aren't they meant to have the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in the court of law. In any-other country calling them terrorists before they have been convicted would be seen as completely inappropriate.

Originally Posted by Barry

Should we send them to The Hague for a trial?
Everything is done just so and perfectly there.

But it would be fairer than one in the USA.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

But it would be fairer than one in the USA.

But fairness doesn't matter, these people to be tried have already confessed and will likely confess again during the trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the self described 'mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks, he wants to be executed as a martyr. So there are two facets to this, the legal one, stating that the accused should be tried at the place where the crime was committed, and the strategic element of the war against terror (or T.W.A.T. as MN calls it).

In the first instance they are absolutely right to go ahead with a public trial. The second instance is more muddled, as although America can at least then be said to have brought the attackers to justice, its giving Mohammed martyrdom and no doubt accusations of torture at Gitmo will come out as well. So I'm confused over the issue basically.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

But fairness doesn't matter, these people to be tried have already confessed and will likely confess again during the trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the self described 'mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks, he wants to be executed as a martyr. So there are two facets to this, the legal one, stating that the accused should be tried at the place where the crime was committed, and the strategic element of the war against terror (or **** as MN calls it).

In the first instance they are absolutely right to go ahead with a public trial. The second instance is more muddled, as although America can at least then be said to have brought the attackers to justice, its giving Mohammed martyrdom and no doubt accusations of torture at Gitmo will come out as well. So I'm confused over the issue basically.

The confessions were the result of torture and in a fair judiciary would be invalid.

If he wants to be a martyr wouldn't killing them be the stupidest thing the USA can do?

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

The confessions were the result of torture and in a fair judiciary would be invalid.

We have no way of knowing this for sure until he is tried in a court. Then again, America has legally re-classified waterboarding as not being torture, so...I don't know what they'll find there. Just because Gitmo is terrible doesn't mean they didn't catch the guy who planned 9/11, he might well have actually done it. Even if he didn't, but they can legally prove he did (and he confesses) then isn't that just applying the law?

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

If he wants to be a martyr wouldn't killing them be the stupidest thing the USA can do?

Pretty much. But if he's guilty, not punishing him to the full extent of the law would be pretty stupid too.

So as I said before, there are two sides to this, and they are mostly in opposition to oneanother. Of course there is the argument that if America does execute the 9/11 attackers then, in theory the war on terror should be over?

Right?

If I may, I see some serious logic problems here. First, the terror suspects, terrorists, or whatever other name that can be applied here are not criminals. They did not commit mass murder; they committed a politically motivated attack against a sovereign nation, the United States of America. They were part of a pseudo-military unit that attacked the US. More specifically, they attacked civilian targets and civilians. The notable exception is the attempted attack on the USS Cole and the Pentagon, although that in the case of the latter civilians were also targeted through the use of a commercial airplane. I would also like to point out that the Geneva Convention does not apply here. All terror suspects have been classified as unlawful combatants.

With that being said, the proper place for this trial, in the US, is a military tribunal. The idea that these people are being tried in a civilian court is ridiculous. This is not based on the idea that they are excluded Constitutional rights based on being foreigners. As an example if a French civilian committed a crime in the US they would be afforded the exact same rights granted to a US citizen, at least in principle. These people should not be in the civilian criminal justice system, nor should they be allowed to be in a civilian prison.

No, by executing them the War On Terror would not be over, because they are only members of the unlawful combatant network. They are not the entirety of the network.

Originally Posted by Tourmaline

If I may, I see some serious logic problems here. First, the terror suspects, terrorists, or whatever other name that can be applied here are not criminals. They did not commit mass murder; they committed a politically motivated attack against a sovereign nation, the United States of America. They were part of a pseudo-military unit that attacked the US. More specifically, they attacked civilian targets and civilians. The notable exception is the attempted attack on the USS Cole and the Pentagon, although that in the case of the latter civilians were also targeted through the use of a commercial airplane. I would also like to point out that the Geneva Convention does not apply here. All terror suspects have been classified as unlawful combatants.

With that being said, the proper place for this trial, in the US, is a military tribunal. The idea that these people are being tried in a civilian court is ridiculous. This is not based on the idea that they are excluded Constitutional rights based on being foreigners. As an example if a French civilian committed a crime in the US they would be afforded the exact same rights granted to a US citizen, at least in principle. These people should not be in the civilian criminal justice system, nor should they be allowed to be in a civilian prison.

No, by executing them the War On Terror would not be over, because they are only members of the unlawful combatant network. They are not the entirety of the network.

I'll tell you what, I'll get all my mates together and we'll distroy your entire life, eh. I won't be guilty, it's just politics. You understand. Nothing personal. Have a nice day. And may Allah and his paedo mate Muhammed bless you with great boils and rashes.

First, I never said they were not guilty. I only said they are not guilty of a crime punishable by the civilian court system in the US. Second, I do not understand the aggressiveness of your post. You make it seem that I support the terrorist attacks, which I most assuredly do not.

I will state it again, the people should be tried in a military tribunal, which was the type of system set up in Guantanamo Bay.

Originally Posted by Tourmaline

First, I never said they were not guilty. I only said they are not guilty of a crime punishable by the civilian court system in the US. Second, I do not understand the aggressiveness of your post. You make it seem that I support the terrorist attacks, which I most assuredly do not.

I will state it again, the people should be tried in a military tribunal, which was the type of system set up in Guantanamo Bay.

Yes Tourmaline, but the 'collective you' voted for Barack Hussein Obama, the latest false messiah, who plainly stated his objectives were change, change, change and to close down Gitmo.
So now you have to put up with what he is doing. He isn't George W Bush, as all the world is finding out. He is a a narcissistic apologist, showing weakness to the enemies of America around the world.
One sure way to get badly biffed.

I couldn't agree with you more. I have my own issues with George Bush; however, I am greatly concerned with the way my country is going these days.

Please don't get me started on the election, by the way.

Originally Posted by Tourmaline

First, I never said they were not guilty. I only said they are not guilty of a crime punishable by the civilian court system in the US. Second, I do not understand the aggressiveness of your post. You make it seem that I support the terrorist attacks, which I most assuredly do not.

I will state it again, the people should be tried in a military tribunal, which was the type of system set up in Guantanamo Bay.

My most sincere appology for my aggression, Tourmaline. My anger is set at the mindset that you have displayed, shared by many who seem to give more thought to the perpetraitor rather than the innocent. It isn't to you, or any other individual.
Please accept my appology, and understand that in future threads I may be seen to be aggressive. Don't take it personally.

No worries British.

My anger is set at the mindset that you have displayed

I do not understand this.

I exhaust very little effort on behalf of those who harm the innocent. I would also like to point out that I have personally known many individuals who have been killed, injured, or have a loved one killed or injured due to the actions of some of these terrorists. My heart is always with them.

Perhaps you don't understand how a military tribunal differs from a civilian trial.

The standards for evidence are much different for one. In a tribunal, there would be no question as to the admittance of any confession or other information gathered. The result would be swift punishment, which should give the victims some closure. Moreover, by parading these people through a public trial we only make the victims suffer more. For example, the people who were up for trial just before Obama became the President were the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing. The survivors and families were greatly upset, and rightfully so, at the trial in Cuba being cancelled.

We seem to share the same point of view; however, I am attempting to argue it from a different perspective. I find that logical arguments work well for me when I discuss my viewpoint with those whose differs somewhat.

Originally Posted by Tourmaline

If I may, I see some serious logic problems here. First, the terror suspects, terrorists, or whatever other name that can be applied here are not criminals. They did not commit mass murder; they committed a politically motivated attack against a sovereign nation, the United States of America. They were part of a pseudo-military unit that attacked the US. More specifically, they attacked civilian targets and civilians. The notable exception is the attempted attack on the USS Cole and the Pentagon, although that in the case of the latter civilians were also targeted through the use of a commercial airplane. I would also like to point out that the Geneva Convention does not apply here. All terror suspects have been classified as unlawful combatants.

The USA is notoriously contemptuous of international law; the fact that it unilaterally chooses to class those involved in the 9/11 attack as "part of a pseudo-military unit" does not make them so, a fact recognised by the majority of other countries. It was a criminal act carried out by civilians and should be treated as such.

With that being said, the proper place for this trial, in the US, is a military tribunal. The idea that these people are being tried in a civilian court is ridiculous. This is not based on the idea that they are excluded Constitutional rights based on being foreigners. As an example if a French civilian committed a crime in the US they would be afforded the exact same rights granted to a US citizen, at least in principle. These people should not be in the civilian criminal justice system, nor should they be allowed to be in a civilian prison.

I agree that since the crime took place in the USA, the USA should be the venue for the trial, however I have the gravest of doubts the trial will be fair, in particular if the trial is under military law. As with its contempt for international law, the USA has often been criticised for the harshness and non-transparency of its military law. In fact during WWII there were so many complaints (over 100,000 I believe) that in 1951 the law was changed to try to rectify that, however under successive Republican leadership the military have risen to such power within the country that they can demand, and are given, virtually anything they wish, seemingly including the right to deny civil detainees of even the most basic of human rights. To claim that such civilians, regardless of their crime, should receive a military trial with all the loss of rights that involves is a classic case of the US government yet again hiding behind that military power to do what it wants regardless of either technicalities, legalities or world opinion.

The USA is notoriously contemptuous of international law

I would have to agree with you on that one. I personally have no care or concern for international law. It is simply there as an ever fluctuating body of agreements between sovereign nations, that are subject to change at any given moment.

International law is not superior to the US Constitution, in the United States. We are a sovereign nation, and as such we can, and do, make laws for our interests.

it unilaterally chooses to class those involved in the 9/11 attack as "part of a pseudo-military unit"

That is actually my classification, not the US government in any era. I believe the official US classification is "unlawful enemy combatant," which is accurate in all respects.

It was a criminal act carried out by civilians and should be treated as such

They are an organized military unit. They are not civilians. A civilian that engages in a armed operation against a country is no longer a civilian. 9/11 qualifies. The perpetrators made it clear that they were fighting the United States; not an airline, not to kill people, but for political reasons. It was a covert action, and a direct attack on US soil. This difference between these guys and past terrorist bombings is that these guys not a small group of one or two. They are apart of a large organization that wishes to engage in open warfare with the US. If you think they are not a military unit just ask Pakistan.

I agree that since the crime took place in the USA, the USA should be the venue for the trial

Agreed.

I have the gravest of doubts the trial will be fair

This is clearly not my greatest concern.

To claim that such civilians, regardless of their crime, should receive a military trial with all the loss of rights that involves is a classic case of the US government yet again hiding behind that military power to do what it wants regardless of either technicalities, legalities or world opinion.

They are not civilians, and military trials are not all that bad. There are just fewer legal technicalities that civilian trial lawyers have put into place. They are far from a show trial. The US government does not hide behind its military. We utilize it for our own benefit. "War is a continuation of politics by other means." I don't see our world opinion getting us very far these days, even after the President traveled the world working on it. I would rather have foreign countries realize we back up what we say then thinking they can run us over because we are weak.