Putting 9/11 terrorists on trial in New York

[bigdaddy2003]

It seems that the government has opted to put the men responsible for the attacks on 9/11 on trial like everyday criminals instead of letting a military court handle it. Apparently President Obama feels that the attacks were the result of years of America's arrogance around the world which is totally absurd.

What do you think of this move? I personally think it's a horrible move.

[Writerbuckeye]

It's politically motivated, which is all you really need to know.

The sensible thing would have been to just proceed with military trials and executions.

Obama and his cronies don't do sensible, however.

[derek bomar]

won't executions be easier to attain in civil proceedings?

[derek bomar]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/federal-death-penalty/page.do?id=1101082

The U.S. military has its own death penalty statute, although no executions have been carried out since 1961

[Glory Days]

I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of technical problems if this goes to a civilian court.

[jmog]

Bad Idea for many reasons, here's a few...

1. Its 100% politically motivated, if you don't believe that your VERY naive.

2. It will heighten terrorism alerts in NYC the whole time the trial is going on, both on the terrorists planning attacks and on the authorities trying to stifle their plans.

3. It will be mainly used to put the US government (mainly what was done during the Bush Admin) on trial. Hence back to #1, it is politically motivated.

4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.

5. This is the very reason military tribunals were created, for WAR CRIMES. This is not a crime committed by some US citizen on US soil, this was a war crime and should be handled like every other war crime.

[CharlieHog]

4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.



Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.

[Writerbuckeye]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/federal-death-penalty/page.do?id=1101082

The U.S. military has its own death penalty statute, although no executions have been carried out since 1961


Your link would lead me to believe if tribunals had done the trials under that relatively new law (related to Gitmo) we don't know how long it might be before an execution would occur.

However, I'd rather have the military in charge of this since it's related to an attack on our country and not a civil infraction; and these are not US citizens so they do not deserve to be treated as such.

[jmog]

4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.



Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.


Do you really think this administration cares that much if they walk or not? Or do they care more about making Bush/Cheney look really bad?

The defense lawyers will get every bit of interogation used against these guys out there in open court and THAT is why this is going to our public criminal system and NOT a military trial.

[BCSbunk]

The Constitution covers this. Article 3 section 2 it includes foreigners who commit crimes against the US.

Section 2.


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

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.

or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. FROM 1st paragraph
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 FROM last paragraph.

I think ALL CRIMES is very very clear. I have seen many unamerican people though who wish to destroy the Constitution which I swore to defend as a soldier.

IF Bush/Cheney are brought into this then so be it. They should have handled this on their watch and failed to do so.

[CenterBHSFan]

Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.

From what I understand, they can gather up a billion pages worth of evidence and it wouldn't necessarily mean a dang thing. Evidence still needs to be judged whether it's admissible. Evidence is thrown out of civil court proceedings all the time. (I have a relative who is a d-lawyer)
..........

I say it's a bad idea. Mainly for all the reasons listed above.

[BoatShoes]

It will be interesting to see some of the evidence the Court finds admissible in this case. Personally, considering that the Feds have elected to try other detainees in military tribunals which aren't bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence, it leads me to believe that Holder doesn't foresee much of a problem in getting in the crux of the evidence against Mohammed. the Tribunals generally adhere to the FRE, but they're not strictly bound like the Federal District Court is.

For instance, one exception to hearsay is the "excited utterance exception," which means you can get an out of court statement in during instances when say, the declarant was frightened or in some way, not in a position to likely lie about it, etc. It'd be interesting to see an argument that statement's made after waterboarding fit this excpetion to hearsay! Could you imagine! There'd be prosecutors waterboarding perps every where! haha :P

Personally, I doubt the U.S. attorneys will even have to go there.

[eersandbeers]

Apparently President Obama feels that the attacks were the result of years of America's arrogance around the world which is totally absurd.




Actually that is a huge part of the problem. Our intervention in foreign nations directly contributed to 9/11. It's called blowback.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with why they decided to put these men on trial in NYC.

I have absolutely no problem with it. We tried Moussaoui in New York, so I don't see why we can't do the same with KSM.

[fish82]

It's an awesome idea...mainly due to the residual teeth marks in Obama and Holder's glutes when it's all said and done.

[ccrunner609]

THis is an easy situation to disect. Obama doesnt want the military court involved in this because he doesnt want the US to appear to be anything but passive in that matter.

International views will be tha tthe US military is weak and they cant get the job done.


Pretty stupid move.

[dwccrew]

The Constitution covers this. Article 3 section 2 it includes foreigners who commit crimes against the US.

Section 2.


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

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.

or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. FROM 1st paragraph
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 FROM last paragraph.

I think ALL CRIMES is very very clear. I have seen many unamerican people though who wish to destroy the Constitution which I swore to defend as a soldier.

IF Bush/Cheney are brought into this then so be it. They should have handled this on their watch and failed to do so.


This pretty much sums it up, as far as the 9-11 suspects go. Are some people really this dense? Read the CONSTITUTION, it clearly states that these guys be tried in the US. Now the guys they caught in foreign lands attacking the military, those can be tried by military tribunal.

People are so set in thinking it makes the US look weak (trying the 9-11 suspects in NY) when in fact the founders of the country have set it up to be that way. Get over yourselves and your egos. This is how they, the founders, intended it to be. I'd say they did a pretty good job setting this country up and that we have done a good job screwing the country up. Maybe we should follow their model instead of some of the suggestions on here to deviate away from that.

[cbus4life]

Remember.

People only believe in the Constitution when it fits perfectly with their own specific ideology, and this certainly goes for both sides.

[cbus4life]

4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.


Rofl, you honestly believe that the administration will let the people responsible for effing 9/11 walk if it fits their political motives?



Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.


Do you really think this administration cares that much if they walk or not? Or do they care more about making Bush/Cheney look really bad?

The defense lawyers will get every bit of interogation used against these guys out there in open court and THAT is why this is going to our public criminal system and NOT a military trial.

[dwccrew]

Remember.

People only believe in the Constitution when it fits perfectly with their own specific ideology, and this certainly goes for both sides.


+1

[BCSbunk]

4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.


Rofl, you honestly believe that the administration will let the people responsible for effing 9/11 walk if it fits their political motives?



Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.


Do you really think this administration cares that much if they walk or not? Or do they care more about making Bush/Cheney look really bad?

The defense lawyers will get every bit of interogation used against these guys out there in open court and THAT is why this is going to our public criminal system and NOT a military trial.



This is a baseless assertion. You have no idea if this administration cares if they walk or if it is about making Bush/Cheney look bad.

This administration needs no help with making Bush/Cheney look bad they did that all by themselves.

This administration is now following the constitution which is the only right thing to do.

This fear mongering by the Republican party is nothing more than hyperbole.

It would not surprise me to see them plead guilty and this be done very quickly. If not then we will follow the constitution not pervert it at someones whim.

[jmog]

BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.

[CharlieHog]

This article makes some good points (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_ plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html) arguing against the civilian trial.

[derek bomar]

This article makes some good points (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_ plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html) arguing against the civilian trial.


link doesn't work - regardless, all that's going on with people against this is feam mongering. Our courts can try them, and if they can't than they don't deserve to be held due to lack of evidence.

[LJ]

I've tried and tried to get CharlieHog's link to work, and for some reason it just won't.

[BCSbunk]

BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.


I have been paying very close attention.

I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.

When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.

Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.

[BCSbunk]

This article makes some good points (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_ plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html) arguing against the civilian trial.


If it is arguing against a civilian trial then it arguing against The Constitution of the United States of America.

[jmog]

BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.


I have been paying very close attention.

I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.

When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.

Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.


Ok BCS, find me one situation we are currently in, from the economy, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to this trial, to 9/11, to terrorist, to our foreign affairs, that this admin hasn't blamed even a little bit on Bush?

[CharlieHog]

Sorry about that, not sure why the link isn't working. Here's the crux of the argument:

The foolhardiness of President Obama's decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 and four cohorts in civilian court grows ever clearer as the outlines of the proceedings take shape.

It is offensive that Obama gave his blessings to designating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his Al Qaeda crew as common criminals rather than as enemy combatants, perpetrators of the worst attack on American soil from abroad.

But that offense, high as it is, pales in comparison with the serious practical and legal consequences of hauling these avowed enemies of the nation into Manhattan Federal Court with all the rights and protections under the Constitution.

Such as Mohammed's right to rummage through the government's intelligence and investigative files for information that is purportedly useful to his defense - but will be more helpful to Al Qaeda operatives in the field.

(Oh, so that's what the CIA has been up to!)

Such as Mohammed's right to mount a defense that attempts to put the U.S. on trial for supposed human rights violations in the detention and interrogation of prisoners.

Such as Mohammed's right to act as his own lawyer even as he perverts protections he has been granted by making a circus of the trial.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_ plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html#ixzz0XEGjej Pj

[CenterBHSFan]

Wouldn't a military base be considered part of the US?

[Gobuckeyes1]

If you believe in our Constitution and Judicial system, you should have no problem with this. To me, it's that simple.

[dwccrew]

Wouldn't a military base be considered part of the US?


It would, but the military court system is different than the US court system. Under the Constitution, the 9-11 suspects would be considered foreign combatants that committed acts against the US in the US. Therefore, under the US Constitution, they should be tried in a US court, not a military court.

The suspects accused of attacks on US troops in foreign lands should not be tried in US courts, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the military courts.

[BCSbunk]

BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.


I have been paying very close attention.

I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.

When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.

Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.


Ok BCS, find me one situation we are currently in, from the economy, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to this trial, to 9/11, to terrorist, to our foreign affairs, that this admin hasn't blamed even a little bit on Bush?


Sorry Jmog it does not work like that. That is why I called your statement a baseless one.

He who made the original assertion has the burden of proof.

Show me where Obama states in every one of his addresses that it is Bush's fault?

I have watched many of his speeches where Bush was not mentioned nor even alluded to.

In fact I will go ahead and show you a speech 8 full pages long on healthcare reform that does not blame Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html

I suppose now you come back with that does not count eh?

[LJ]

On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.

And as per the rules, if you want to claim something as fact, that proof needs to be provided upfront, this back and forth is a good example of why this rule is in place. You can offer anything up as your opinion, but you have to show proof if you claim it as fact.

[BCSbunk]

Sorry about that, not sure why the link isn't working. Here's the crux of the argument:

The foolhardiness of President Obama's decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 and four cohorts in civilian court grows ever clearer as the outlines of the proceedings take shape.

It is offensive that Obama gave his blessings to designating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his Al Qaeda crew as common criminals rather than as enemy combatants, perpetrators of the worst attack on American soil from abroad.

But that offense, high as it is, pales in comparison with the serious practical and legal consequences of hauling these avowed enemies of the nation into Manhattan Federal Court with all the rights and protections under the Constitution.

Such as Mohammed's right to rummage through the government's intelligence and investigative files for information that is purportedly useful to his defense - but will be more helpful to Al Qaeda operatives in the field.

(Oh, so that's what the CIA has been up to!)

Such as Mohammed's right to mount a defense that attempts to put the U.S. on trial for supposed human rights violations in the detention and interrogation of prisoners.

Such as Mohammed's right to act as his own lawyer even as he perverts protections he has been granted by making a circus of the trial.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_ plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html#ixzz0XEGjej Pj



Not only does this person want to violate the Constitution he is guilty of special pleading.

The Constitution has spoken IMO that is the end of the matter.

[BCSbunk]

On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.


Exactly, when Jmog claims that this administration has been ALL about blaming Bush it is his burden to prove that statement if someone should call him out on it.

[eersandbeers]

Charliehog,

That article doesn't really make any sense. It is basically arguing that those who are accused of a crime should not have access to the evidence against them. Let's say for example a rich warlord gave us KSM. Should he not have access to that info to defend himself against a detention based on flimsy evidence.


Again I will mention, we already successfully tried Moussaoui and there was no outrage.

I don't know how any American could argue against granting someone the right to defend their innocence. Regardless of who it is.

[CenterBHSFan]

dwccrew,

Do we know where the thoughts to do the act originated? For example, if the original plans were inititated in another country, but further elaborated on in this country, which country, exactly, do we want to zero in on? Would that decision be politically motivated? Would that decision be a "statement"?

See, I don't think this is as cut and dried as some people, including myself, would like to think. That's why I continue to ask questions. Now, that doesn't mean that I've changed my mind and think it is a good idea to put the terrorists on trial in NY. I still think its a bad idea, but willing to learn more and keep an open mind.

[fish82]

On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.


Exactly, when Jmog claims that this administration has been ALL about blaming Bush it is his burden to prove that statement if someone should call him out on it.


Fine. They've been mostly about blaming Bush. Happy?

[fish82]

If you believe in our Constitution and Judicial system, you should have no problem with this. To me, it's that simple.


Dude. :rolleyes:

[LJ]

I think the debate over whether or not this administration is all about blaming Bush and his administration will be treated as opinion on here, as there is no way to determine one way or the other which is totally factual.

[CenterBHSFan]

If anybody is interested, this will especially catch the eye of those who want to argue every little thing...
A great example of "Bush bashing" and the "Presidential blame-game" can be found in the video of Rachel Maddow. In the video, she clearly points out how President Obama blames/rebukes President Bush for doing something out of one side of his mouth, and then says that he will continue to do the same thing in addition to improving the wording of the current laws to make this more acceptable.
Now, if somebody from MSNBC finds it ridiculous enough to point that out, that says quite alot, don't ya'll think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9zRBGPR8o

Just one example. I know I put it out there alot, but it seems that people don't acknowledge it alot LOL!
But it really is an important thing to keep in mind, because it has such a pivotal meaning on a few different things. Also, it's a good example that is't hearsay. It's something actually caught forever on tape and cannot be refuted.

[dwccrew]

dwccrew,

Do we know where the thoughts to do the act originated? For example, if the original plans were inititated in another country, but further elaborated on in this country, which country, exactly, do we want to zero in on? Would that decision be politically motivated? Would that decision be a "statement"?

See, I don't think this is as cut and dried as some people, including myself, would like to think. That's why I continue to ask questions. Now, that doesn't mean that I've changed my mind and think it is a good idea to put the terrorists on trial in NY. I still think its a bad idea, but willing to learn more and keep an open mind.



It doesn't matter where the idea was originated, it matters where the act was carried out. It's cut and dry in the Constitution.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html

[majorspark]

The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.

During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.

Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?

If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?

[fish82]

It was an act of war. Anyone thinking otherwise has a major malfunction.

[majorspark]

It was an act of war. Anyone thinking otherwise has a major malfunction.


Exactly. These people that are trying to use the constitutuion to justify this will turn a blind eye when confessions and unconstitutionally collected evidence is presented at trial.

Added bill of rights. Pay attention to Amendements IV, V, VI, VIII. Those of you that are demanding that we follow the constitution will you demand that these parts be followed as well.
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#4

[Glory Days]

Great post majorspark!




It would, but the military court system is different than the US court system. Under the Constitution, the 9-11 suspects would be considered foreign combatants that committed acts against the US in the US. Therefore, under the US Constitution, they should be tried in a US court, not a military court.

The suspects accused of attacks on US troops in foreign lands should not be tried in US courts, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the military courts.


if these people are higher ups in terrorist organizations, i am pretty sure we can pin some foreign attacks on our troops on these guys, shouldnt be hard if they are telling their goons to blow us up right?

[Captain Cavalier]

The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.

During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.

Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?

If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?


Agreed.

This will be a media circus putting America "on trial" to a lot of radical Muslims and could end up as another "Rodney King Riot" in the worst sense.

[dwccrew]

The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.

During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.

This is a good question. I'm not sure what it is considered by the government. In my eyes, it is an act of war. Not saying I don't believe you, but could you provide a link that supports your
statement that we can kill enemy operatives that have been captured?



Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?

Herein lies the problem. As you said, which parts of the Constitution do we throw out? We already have thrown them out! The fact that they were not read their rights, given a lawyer present during questioning, etc.,etc. supports the argument of some that say we have violated the Constitution. In my last post I provided an excerpt and link from Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution.


If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?


Again, this just supports the fact that the way this situation was handled was totally botched. The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that foreign combatants are granted habeas corpus. This is the fault of the former administration and current one. They neglected to follow proper procedure and now we are in this big mess.

I certainly want these guys to face punishment, but if they did walk on technicalities (which I don't think they will), it would be the fault of our government.

Many other "terrorist suspects" that have been caught plotting or planning ahve been tried in the US court system, what is the difference between them and these guys?

[Glory Days]

^^^^^because i believe they were caught inside the US. for the example the last hijacker that didnt make the trip. what other terrorists have been tried so far?

[dwccrew]

^^^^^because i believe they were caught inside the US. for the example the last hijacker that didnt make the trip.


Very true. I'm not real sure how this should be tried. I just know that justice needs to be brought swiftly.

[2trap_4ever]

I have to say this may be a really good idea, what a better and legal way of torture than to get this cowards in twined in the American legal system, if we are lucky they will hang themselves in their holding cells waiting to go to court.

[majorspark]

This is a good question. I'm not sure what it is considered by the government. In my eyes, it is an act of war. Not saying I don't believe you, but could you provide a link that supports your statement that we can kill enemy operatives that have been captured?

I could have been a little more clear here. I did not say captured. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to say. Lets say the FBI learned of a gathering of leaders of an organized crime sydicate. They would not under civilian law be able to rig the place with explosives thus killing those attending the meeting.

Under martial law military intelligence could learn of a gathering of suspected enemy combatants. A military officer(or group of them) could authorize the killing of those individuals by ordering the air force to drop a bomb on them. All this with no trial and proof other than intellegence provided to them on the field of battle that those in attendance are guilty as charged. In the case of martial law those military officers decide the guilt and sentence the individuals to death based on the evidence presented them abscent of public scrutiny.

As I have stated before our government not officially declaring a state of war on al qaeda, once an act of war was committed against us, allows for confussion of the issue. This is why the governement declares a state of emergency. It allows legal powers not allowed to them under common law.


Herein lies the problem. As you said, which parts of the Constitution do we throw out? We already have thrown them out! The fact that they were not read their rights, given a lawyer present during questioning, etc.,etc. supports the argument of some that say we have violated the Constitution. In my last post I provided an excerpt and link from Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution.

Again, this just supports the fact that the way this situation was handled was totally botched. The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that foreign combatants are granted habeas corpus. This is the fault of the former administration and current one. They neglected to follow proper procedure and now we are in this big mess.

I certainly want these guys to face punishment, but if they did walk on technicalities (which I don't think they will), it would be the fault of our government.

Under civilian law and the constitution they should walk. Otherwise it sets a legal precedent that some can be convicted and sentenced to possible death without following the protections afforded by the constitution.


Many other "terrorist suspects" that have been caught plotting or planning ahve been tried in the US court system, what is the difference between them and these guys?

Nothing other than the government did not recognize them as acts of war. Evidence was gathered under the rules of civilian law.

Some examples of those tried by military tribunals during war against the US on US soil.

John Wilkes Booth and fellow conspiritors
http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln75.html
German saboteurs WWII
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=5244

[Captain Cavalier]

I have to say this may be a really good idea, what a better and legal way of torture than to get this cowards in twined in the American legal system, if we are lucky they will hang themselves in their holding cells waiting to go to court.


And send radical Islam into an even more frenzy.

Bad idea.

[cbus4life]

If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.

[majorspark]

If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.


Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.

[dwccrew]

I could have been a little more clear here. I did not say captured. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to say. Lets say the FBI learned of a gathering of leaders of an organized crime sydicate. They would not under civilian law be able to rig the place with explosives thus killing those attending the meeting.

Under martial law military intelligence could learn of a gathering of suspected enemy combatants. A military officer(or group of them) could authorize the killing of those individuals by ordering the air force to drop a bomb on them. All this with no trial and proof other than intellegence provided to them on the field of battle that those in attendance are guilty as charged. In the case of martial law those military officers decide the guilt and sentence the individuals to death based on the evidence presented them abscent of public scrutiny.

As I have stated before our government not officially declaring a state of war on al qaeda, once an act of war was committed against us, allows for confussion of the issue. This is why the governement declares a state of emergency. It allows legal powers not allowed to them under common law.

Under civilian law and the constitution they should walk. Otherwise it sets a legal precedent that some can be convicted and sentenced to possible death without following the protections afforded by the constitution.

Nothing other than the government did not recognize them as acts of war. Evidence was gathered under the rules of civilian law.




Again, herein lies the problem. The government has screwed this situation up so bad, that these guys could possibly walk. That is why people (myself included) have said Gitmo should have been closed long ago.

As you said, they have not declared war, so how are these detainees supposed to be treated? Like war criminals that have little to no rights under the Constitution or like foreign combatants that do have some limited rights under the Constitution? I really don't know and I think that the previous and current administration have really fouled this up by not making it clear.

If they are considered war criminals, then by all means try them through military tribunal. I think what needs to happen is a concrete definition on what their status as prisoner is.

Regardless, they need to be brought to justice quickly, whether it be by tribunal or whatever. I truly believe that some of the detainees at Gitmo had nothing to do with any acts committed against the US and our troops. That they were falsely accused by warlords and rivals. I would like the US to sort through them and send them back to where they came from and to bring justice to those that did conspire or act against the US and our military.





If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.


Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.


I definitely feel that the US acts as imperialist nation. There is no reason to "spread democracy". Spreading your way is imperialism.

I also feel that the government has many socialist tendencies and that we become more of a socialist country every day.

I think both terms can apply to the US.

[cbus4life]

If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.


Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.


Maybe because they aren't socialist, or, if they are, not even on the same level as European-style Democratic Socialists. So yes, i don't think it is accurate to call members of our government socialists. In the grand scheme of things, we're not even close.

And, i mostly like to jump on people who through around idiotic statements that Obama is some sort of communist, or Marxist, or calling America "Amerika," etc.

[majorspark]

Again, herein lies the problem. The government has screwed this situation up so bad, that these guys could possibly walk. That is why people (myself included) have said Gitmo should have been closed long ago.

As you said, they have not declared war, so how are these detainees supposed to be treated? Like war criminals that have little to no rights under the Constitution or like foreign combatants that do have some limited rights under the Constitution? I really don't know and I think that the previous and current administration have really fouled this up by not making it clear.

If they are considered war criminals, then by all means try them through military tribunal. I think what needs to happen is a concrete definition on what their status as prisoner is.

Regardless, they need to be brought to justice quickly, whether it be by tribunal or whatever. I truly believe that some of the detainees at Gitmo had nothing to do with any acts committed against the US and our troops. That they were falsely accused by warlords and rivals. I would like the US to sort through them and send them back to where they came from and to bring justice to those that did conspire or act against the US and our military.

Our opinions are not that far apart on the matter. I feel much greater harm will come to the constitution through a civil trial. We have tried combatants and conspiritors in past "undeclarled wars". But no doubt an actual declaration of a state of war would have made this crystal clear.

As for the underlined part of your reply, I agree 100% it is time sort through these detainees and send those home that may have been falsely accused and punish those that deserve it.

[majorspark]

If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.


Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.


Maybe because they aren't socialist, or, if they are, not even on the same level as European-style Democratic Socialists. So yes, i don't think it is accurate to call members of our government socialists. In the grand scheme of things, we're not even close.

And, i mostly like to jump on people who through around idiotic statements that Obama is some sort of communist, or Marxist, or calling America "Amerika," etc.


Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.

[cbus4life]

If we don't want them to go into a frenzy, the USA and the West should probably stop acting like modern-day Imperialists.


Its funny how you so freely can use the word imperialist to describe the USA, but jump on anyone who uses the word socialist to describe members of its government.


Maybe because they aren't socialist, or, if they are, not even on the same level as European-style Democratic Socialists. So yes, i don't think it is accurate to call members of our government socialists. In the grand scheme of things, we're not even close.

And, i mostly like to jump on people who through around idiotic statements that Obama is some sort of communist, or Marxist, or calling America "Amerika," etc.


Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.


Well said, my friend. :D

[eersandbeers]

Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.



You are correct that we do not have a Euro style imperalist system. Mostly because that type of system is too costly and does not have good results. We have a neo-imperialist system that is much cheaper and far more effective.

[Footwedge]

Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.



You are correct that we do not have a Euro style imperalist system. Mostly because that type of system is too costly and does not have good results. We have a neo-imperialist system that is much cheaper and far more effective.


LOL Eers. If the US neoimperialism is "a lot cheaper", I'd hate to see what an expensive version would look like.

[cbus4life]

Indeed.

[eersandbeers]

Maybe some of us believe the USA is not an imperialist nation, or, if it is, not on the same level as the European style colonial era or Imperial Japan etc. So I don't think it is accurate to call the USA imperialist. In the grand scheme of history we are not evan close.

I always chuckle when I see a someone post the word marxist or communist. I know it will be bringing cbus out the woodwork.



You are correct that we do not have a Euro style imperalist system. Mostly because that type of system is too costly and does not have good results. We have a neo-imperialist system that is much cheaper and far more effective.


LOL Eers. If the US neoimperialism is "a lot cheaper", I'd hate to see what an expensive version would look like.



Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.

[majorspark]

Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.


Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.

[cbus4life]

Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.


Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.


And you think we don't profit monetaritly from our imperialist policies?

[fish82]

Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.


Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.


And you think we don't profit monetaritly from our imperialist policies?


Please don't say Halliburton.

[majorspark]

Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.


Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.


And you think we don't profit monetaritly from our imperialist policies?


There you go again using that word "imperialist".

I was giving eersandbeers an answer as to how Britain and France were able to afford to maintain control of their colonies.

And to answer your question. Yes we do and should profit from the money we spend on foreign policy. Not saying I agree with every dollar we spend. But when we do decide to invest our treasure over seas it should be to gain a return on our investment. Exeption being acts of charity or good will.

[eersandbeers]

Well think of how much money it would cost to occupy a dozen Afghanistans. I have no idea how the British and French did it for so long in Africa.


Colonial empires actively governed their colonies. They profited from the natural recources that their colonies held.


Agreed, but if there were that many profitable resources in Africa those countries shouldn't be in shambles.

To be fair, Britain and France are still very much imperialist powers in Africa. They left, but still maintain a great deal of control.