jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (71 posts)

Can someone explain this to me?

  1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    Why are the world's most notable terrorist being tried in civil court and not military court?  What rights are they entitled too?  They're not Americans?  Why is this allowed?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14 … wt=nytimes


    I just don't get it.  I personally feel this should be handle in a Military court, just like they did in Abe Lincoln's trial.  It is a matter of national security isn't it?  Isn't the military ultimately in charge of America's security? 

    Can you tell this really angers me?  I simply do not understand it.

    1. jiberish profile image78
      jiberishposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I understand it, it's to put Bush on trial, and to rub the 9/11 event into the faces of those people who suffered and died.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It should not be about Bush.  It is awful.  What right does these people have?  They are not Americans.  Oh this angers me.

      2. profile image0
        Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Jiberish has it exactly right.  My great hope in this matter is that this "show trial" effort backfires big time on those who made the decision.

    2. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      When these people were held in Cuba, military courts were the only option.

      Now- some are no longer in Cuba, but on American soil, therefore advocate groups rally for rights. This way these idiots go to prison, instead of getting executed for their crime, if found guilty.

      Yes, nice how 'business', lobbyists, and advocates have taken control of how we exercise our legal system.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Just because they are on American soil, should not change how the military handles things.  These people are not Americans.  There were things done to these people, that only a military court can handle.  Like waterboarding for confessions.  I think they terrorist have a good shot now of being let off on technicalities.  That is wrong.  Who gave these lobbyists, business people, lawyers, civil liberty rights groups an opportunity here?  Why?  This is a military court situation.  Is it not?  Oh it's crazy.  I really scared that these mass murders are going to get off scott free.  Now how is that fair? 

        Concerning, concerning, concerning indeed.  Man- can you imagine how the 9/11 families must be feeling?  I can't. Oh this angers me.  Talk about your injustices.

    3. Beth Solomon profile image58
      Beth Solomonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Non-Americans are tried in civil courts all the time.  There are illegal aliens, people here on visas, or resident aliens (green card holders) that commit crimes.  We don't try these people in military tribunals when they commit a crime.

      That said, I do believe these people should face a military tribunal because of the _type_ of crime they are accused of.  They should have faced tribunals _years ago_.  However, I also believe that the outcomes of any tribunal/trial that will end up happening are predetermined, they'll all be found guilty, whether they're actually guilty or not.

    4. starme77 profile image86
      starme77posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Its just a bunch of hype to get everyones mind off of some main agenda

    5. ledefensetech profile image68
      ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It's because Obama wants to put the Bush administration on trial.  It can't be done outright in a real trial, because then the possibility would exist for Obama to be brought to trial on actions he takes in office.  So instead, he's going to bring them here, with all the rights of citizens, including the right of discovery, which will bring out all of the methods used by the Bush administration to gain intel on possible terrorist plots. 

      If they are given the rights of Americans, they should be released because it's illegal to torture Americans according to the Constitution.  But Holder also said that they never would have done this if they weren't confident about the outcome of the trial.  In other words, these guys will get acquitted no matter what comes out in the trial.  Comrade Obama is using more and more of the same techniques that Comrade Stalin did during his tenure as leader of the Soviet Union.  Coincidence?

    6. Michael Willis profile image78
      Michael Willisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It should be in a military court only!!!
      There will obviously be other scenarios thrown in for political agendas and personal agendas, but you are right to question this.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        What are the reasons it should only be in military court?

    7. bukan profile image58
      bukanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Its really makes angry anyone, the terrorists has no right to do this in civilian area. If any time i got the chance i will shoot them. No one has any right to protect themselves just shoot them no Mercy for them.

  2. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    It makes no sense and should have been done along time ago by a military court.

  3. Flightkeeper profile image73
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    How can anyone explain Obama and his current administration's stupidity?

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This has some twisted political ploy behind it, no doubt. Hey Flightkeeper!

      1. Flightkeeper profile image73
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Hey Sneak!

  4. Jeffrey Neal profile image78
    Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago

    I'm sure someone will be along to explain how this makes sense.  I am waiting with baited breath.

  5. Flightkeeper profile image73
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    I bet you that any fallout that comes from this, the dims will blame it on Bush somehow.

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'll be the first to admit that I do not hold the Bush Presidency in high regards.  It's quite the opposite really, but be that as it may, it would be a hard stretch of the imagination to blame Bush for this one.  Bush has nothing to do with the fact that these killers are not being tried in a military court as they should be.  However, whose fault is it? 

      I think the fall-out over this could potentially be a pivotal point in our nation's history, and not in a good way either.  If the American people are willing to riot over who won a basketball game, can you imagine the chaos if these terrorists are freed on technicalities?  Very scary.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image73
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think there will be a riot.  Those people frankly aren't worth it. But probably something else will happen to get them back to some court.  Also what will happen is that Obama and his dim party will have hell to pay for, they will have no mandate to pass anything.  They will be loathed and they'll be lucky if any dim is going to be a president in the next four elections.  As you can see, they are already distancing Obama from Holder. Can you imagine the huge lie that we are expected to believe...that Holder didn't consult with Obama in bringing those people to NY?! lol

  6. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Unless they are accidentally killed afterwards.....

  7. mythological1 profile image71
    mythological1posted 7 years ago

    They are being tried in civilian criminal court because technically they are considered civilians not military. They were not uniformed Government Military combatants so therefore they fall under civilian rule instead of Military rules.           
        Officially, however the members of the Taliban should be considered a Military Organization since the Taliban was the ruling Government of Afghanistan. Under this administration they will not be considered Military though. I doubt they would be under any administration. However, with the current administration it works to their advantage to have these people viewed as civilians. If they were to be viewed as Military it would add to the validity of the War. This way, to a some people it would seem as though we were fighting civilians rather than actually at War with an organized group of people.

  8. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    With all of the embarrassing happenings related to the previous administration such as torture of enemy combatants, no-bid contracts, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths and injuries, Abu Garib, lying Attorney Generals, and the list goes on and on, why worry about if Bush's crimes come out? 

    We need to let the world know we do not condone this type of behavior.  Or perhaps some of you would just like to cover it up, especially if you voted for the guy.  I notice many say they didn't agree with his policies, but they don't admit to voting for him.  This is because they don't wish to accept any responsibility for putting him into office.  If they do admit it, it makes taking them seriously about their political opinions almost impossible.     

    I personally want to know the truth and it would not be forthcoming under military tribunals.  As stated previously, these people are not considered military personnel.  I personally think Bush needs to go on trial, along with his henchmen.  I would love it!

  9. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    I don't vote Randy.  A choice between bad and worse is no choice.  Personally I could care less how they treat the guys behind 9/11.  I think it's typical of this administration that they're so oblique about how they do things.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I know you don't vote LDT, and so I do not really take your opinions very seriously because of it.  Sure, this allows you to be able to criticize either parties in political discussions, but it's kind of like you are afraid you will be on the losing side.  Don't vote, don't complain.

      1. ledefensetech profile image68
        ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I can complain plenty.  It's people like you that make bad decisions who are responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Not me, I didn't vote for Bush!  It's people like you who are scared to make a decision about anything because they are afraid of failure and then have the nerve to criticize those that do.  Than goodness everyone isn't like you or or we would still be trying to write the Declaration of Independence.  Do nothing and bitch about the results. LOL

          1. ledefensetech profile image68
            ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Sooner or later you're going to have to stop living in the past.  Bush is gone, Obama is the problem now.  It's not that I'm afraid to make a decision, it's that we're not given much of one to begin with.  You might be comfortable making bad decisions and forcing others to live with the consequences of those bad decisions, but I'm not.  Oh things are going to happen, but I doubt it's going to be to the liking of our political leadership.  Nullification is making a comeback and there's rumors that the states are talking about calling a Constitutional Convention and take Washington to task over the stupidity that's coming out of the Beltway these days.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "These days" ?  The stupidity has been going on for years precisely because of people like you.  Millions of people do like you.  They refuse to do their patriotic duty because no one can satisfy their own ideas about how this country should be run.  I may not agree totally with either party, but doing nothing is the worse thing of all.  So talk your talk, but don't try to walk.

              1. ledefensetech profile image68
                ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The stupidity has gone on because of the existence of political parties.  Don't you think that between the two of them, Republicans and Democrats , have sewn up the competition between the two of them?  Why do you think they both control the way elections are run?  It's so that they can control who gets approval to run and nobody gets that approval without the blessing of one of the parties.  That's what made Hoffman's run so surprising in NY.  For the first time I can remember, the anointed one of one of the political parties had to withdraw because they didn't have the political support necessary to run effectively.  Things could be changing for the first time in a very long time.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks to not voting I suppose.  I suppose you are helping by being a harbinger of future events?

                  1. ledefensetech profile image68
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm just glad there are alternatives to the use of force.  That, of course, has been the real limiting factor for change in this country.  Thomas Jefferson said it himself:  "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

                    Plus it takes events to remind people what things are like when you move away from the form of government our Founders gave us.  It takes collectivists like Obama and his ilk, fascists like Bush and his ilk to remind us what happens when you give political leadership too much power.

                2. Michael Willis profile image78
                  Michael Willisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  ledefense...I can agree with this. Political support of a party says how a person will do in politics. You may know this, that Mike Hucakabee has strong support for Rep. for 2012? I am from Arkansas. I know his record here and He is not what he seems to be to the party.

                  1. ledefensetech profile image68
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    One of the things to remember about the Republican Party of the 20th century, at least, is that there is a strain of what has been come to be called the Old Right in the party.   These were the guys who opposed FDR's policies during the long night of the Depression and the Second World War.  It's been their influence that has kept the Party from becoming total collectivists like the Democratic party has become.

                    It would seem that this remnant of the Old Right is gaining power, especially since the so-called "moderate" Republicans lost so heavily over the last few years.  That is the part of the Republican party that I think guys like Huckabee and several others stand for rather than the part of the party that gave us Bush and the neocons.

                    So while we may not have had much of a choice in the past, that may be changing.  May be.

        2. profile image0
          Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Ledefensetech, I generally enjoy your posts, and I even comprehend the anti-voting apathy you understandably profess.  However, "abstain" and "absolve" are not synonyms.  Let's not forget that old and ugly but still functional saying that, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  If you can assist in solving the country's problems without voting, that's fine.  No, that's GREAT.  But I don't appreciate being pointed out as one of those responsible for the "mess we're in" because of our "bad decisions".  At least we who vote do actually make decisions!

          "No decision" is also a decision...and not always a great one.

          1. ledefensetech profile image68
            ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So tell me Ghost, who was the better choice: Obama or McCain?  They both pretty much said the same things and wanted to move the country in the same general direction, but McCain wanted to do it more slowly and Obama wanted what amounts to a revolution.

            How is choosing one over the other in that situation making any kind of a difference at all?  Especially to someone who believes that a government that governs least, governs best.  How do you effectively fight a government which can appropriate from one group of people and give to another group, what amount to bribes in exchange for votes?

            1. profile image0
              Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this


              For me, the answer was really simple and deeply personal:  McCain/Palin was the preferred ticket. Best possible?  Hardly; I'd agree with you to that extent.  Here are a few of the details:

              1.  Gun control.  Obama has never made a secret of his anti-gun beliefs.  I respect him for that, but if I ever have to be a one issue voter, that's my issue.  That ALONE would have settled it for me.

              2.  Big government in general.  I'm not a fan of Bush's jumping on the "let's spend our way out of the recession" bandwagon, believe me, but it was clear that greater explosion of spending under Obama/Biden than under McCain/Palin was likely.

              3.  Health Care Reform:  That infuriates me beyond belief.  Though the details weren't put forth prior to the election itself, I could smell 'em coming.  The very worst item in the bill (for me) is the provision that forces individuals to buy health coverage whether they want it or not.  I was already pretty much an indentured servant in this country; that will move me to either full slave status or open rebel status.

              4.  Energy production.  Colorado's Ken Salazar is high on my list of "most hated politicians", and now he's Inferior--un, Interior--Secretary...and is killing produce production in California by protecting a variety of smelt--and blocking delivery of water from the Sacramento Delta to growers.  At election time, I was driving big rigs in the natural gas drilling fields in western Colorado.   Sarah Palin's "Drill Here, Drill Now" stance was music to my ears.  If the Republicans had won, I'd still be driving--instead of seeing my former house in Colorado sold at foreclosure on Dec. 2.  The gasfield boom in western Colorado seemed unstoppable...but the moment Obama was elected, it went into a steep nosedive.  I didn't get laid off but did lose 12 hours of overtime per  week at $34.50 per hour.  My disabled wife even lost her medical care, because here in Arizona (where we moved as a survival tactic), we've yet to find a doctor who will take her on as a patient.

              There's more, but this is "enough" for one post, eh? big_smile

              1. ledefensetech profile image68
                ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                McCain would have been worse.  He would have done this stuff slowly and under the radar of the American people.  The one good thing about Obama is that he's doing all of this at once and it's such a radical change, so fast, that people are finally waking up.  2010 is going to be interesting, 2012 more so.

  10. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I think a lot of you are crazy! Half the people in This alcatraz are there because America offered money for dobbing people in, when the money was more important than morals. If tried in a proper system that is fair some of the innocent may be set free. Scary eh? Innocent people running around loose! Some of you guys are scary ignorant!

    1. ledefensetech profile image68
      ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If you feel so strongly about it, how about we deport those accused terrorists to Australia.  Since you're more enlightened than us, you can show us how it's done.

    2. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Some people want noting better than to cover their asses, Earnest.  Many do not care if innocent people suffer in prison as long as they themselves do not share in the blame.  These same people do not want the truth to come out, especially if the criminals are themselves.

  11. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    They are not all terrorists! That is the whole point. You guys amuse me. The only time the government is right is when it involves vengeance. smile

    1. ledefensetech profile image68
      ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I fail to see how you can consider the guys behind 9/11 to not be terrorists.  Of course innocents got swept up in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.  Instead of moving speedily and getting the situation resolved, Gitmo became akin to a political football being tossed around by various politicians for their own purposes.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Have they already been found guilty?  I thought they had to have a trial first!

        1. ledefensetech profile image68
          ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already confessed:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_She … onfessions

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Do you think being waterboarded many times might have affected his confession?  Oh never mind, it's time for sleep.

            1. ledefensetech profile image68
              ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Nope.  This guy masterminded a plan that murdered thousands.  He was fully withstand torture and pain if he were captured, just for the chance to spread is doctrine of hate.

              Surely you don't think he's innocent, do you?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Unlike you, I would prefer to hear the evidence and how it was obtained.  Only then can I make a judgment.  Old fashioned I guess, but I still believe in hearing the whole story.  Why is everyone afraid of a trial in which we may learn a little of the truth about 911?  What are they afraid of?

                1. ledefensetech profile image68
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I've never said he shouldn't get a trial.  I just think that a criminal trial is the improper venue for such a thing.  The man is not accused of a crime but an act of war.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    And it is improper because....

  12. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    As I said before they are not all terrorists!
    The same "lets kill em all" mentality may well mean that guilty parties get lighter sentences because of forced confessions. It has happened to innocent British, and I believe long term the Australian will tell his story too!

  13. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Hi, Ghost. I hate that about the two-inch minnow shutting off the water to all those farms. Many of these people's families have been farming the same land for generations - now they're standing in line at food banks. Sad.

    I'm all for ecology and animals, but people should come first!

  14. hacsar profile image57
    hacsarposted 7 years ago

    Combatants who fight out of uniform are considered spys and are usually executed. If the Taliban and other terrorists choose not to be forthright and and fight a stealth war by hiding as civilians let them pay the price of such a choice and die without trial judged by a military court.

    All this is just going to undermine the national strength of this country further. As it is now anyone in this country illegally has more rights than a natural citizen. Soon we'll all be better off denouncing citizen ship and declaring ourselves alien residents.

    There will be no riots if the terrorists are set free on technicalities. Most people in this country care more about sports than they do about national security. They want it, but they don't want to hear about it, or do anything to support it.

    As they say,"All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Well, most in this country would prefer to do nothing, but that doesn't make them good men in my eyes.
    hacsar

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So you are saying they shouldn't have a fair trial before being executed?  Why are you afraid of a civilian trial?

  15. h.a.borcich profile image60
    h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago

    Hi,

       I can see there are many opinions on the where and what court etc for trying the suspects behind 911, I have little understanding as to how that is determined.

       But what really concerns me is the financial resources to be spent on it and the circus likely to come. I think of some of huge past trials and it makes me ill. We spent way too much to hear a man finally say "define sex".

                        Holly

 
working