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.
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.
It should not be about Bush. It is awful. What right does these people have? They are not Americans. Oh this angers me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its just a bunch of hype to get everyones mind off of some main agenda
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?
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.
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.
It makes no sense and should have been done along time ago by a military court.
How can anyone explain Obama and his current administration's stupidity?
I'm sure someone will be along to explain how this makes sense. I am waiting with baited breath.
I bet you that any fallout that comes from this, the dims will blame it on Bush somehow.
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.
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?!
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.
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!
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.
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.
I can complain plenty. It's people like you that make bad decisions who are responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today.
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
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.
"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.
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.
Thanks to not voting I suppose. I suppose you are helping by being a harbinger of future events?
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.
I bet it would have broken Thomas Jefferson's heart to know you wouldn't have voted for him.
It was different back then Randy, we actually had choices between bigger government and lesser government parties. Jefferson would have, for certain, gotten my vote. So would have Grover Cleavland for that matter.
Unless you lived then you cannot say for certain. No, you would have been afraid then too.
Sure you can Randy, it's called studying history. You might want to try it sometime, you could profit from it.
I don't know, it doesn't seem to have helped you much!
The mark of a weak intellect is to use witticism and word games to cover ignorance and lack of education.
Your wit is overwhelming to say the least.
How ever, since you want an opinion. I'll give mine. The problem stems from the people's tolerance for Government. The fact that not enough citizens can actually define their 'American View', much more than they can explain their religious beliefs. Why? Because it's based on perception.
Politics is the rule. Politics is based on the perception of the majority of the people. To be democratic and make the people believe they have a choice. You have a choice to live in America or live outside it.
With that choice, comes citizenship of America's government territory, which affords you American system of rights.
In the end, it's nothing but an altruistic idea gone bad. Government is control, dressed up to look civilized.
Yes, our government has it's problems, much as any countries government. And yes we do not have the freedoms or choices many of us would like, but we cannot allow everything corrupt to simply be covered up by having trials few will see. i am looking forward to the trial.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have they already been found guilty? I thought they had to have a trial first!
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already confessed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_She … onfessions
Do you think being waterboarded many times might have affected his confession? Oh never mind, it's time for sleep.
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?
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?
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.
Because you don't try people accused of acts of war in a criminal court. That's what you have military courts for. Why do you think the Cole bombing accomplices are being tried by the military? Like I said, this is a thinly veiled attempt by the Obama administration to put the Bush administration on trial. Like many of Obama's decisions, it's stupid and short sighted.
What is bad about a civilian trial and if Bush was corrupt don't you want him found out?
A civilian trial doesn't have the correct background to judge a military act of war.
Politicians are all corrupt. Look at how much access SEIU is getting from the President they elected. SEIU stands to win by shifting all of their legacy costs off the union and putting it on the American people, don't you consider that corruption?
I disagree, having a military background is not always an assurance of intelligence.
Given the low numbers of citizens who serve, you can almost guarantee that civilian courts don't have the ability to judge military matters.
Have you considered what they likely motions of the defense would be? They'll ask for a change of venue and had better get it. No appellate court should overlook the trial taking place in Manhattan. The very fact that they won't be able to find anyone who wasn't affected by 9/11 will force a change of venue. This is just another stupid political ploy and shows the lengths this administration is willing to go in order to play a political game. No matter how much danger it puts us in or the anguish it puts the victims of 9/11 in.
A total and complete incompetent made this decision.
This was not an attack on New York only, it was an attack on American conglomerates and businesses. Sure New Yorkers were killed, but so were people from all over the country. There are very few people who weren't affected by 911 in some way. On the other hand, the military has been screwing around with these countries inner workings for decades and the suspects will certainly not get a fair trial in a military court.
And what does this administration have to gain? And how does this trial endanger us. Military secrets being given away? Get real! It seems some people are afraid that our torture of these guys will come out while others fear Bush and his cronies may look bad. I look forward to some people being put under oath.
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!
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!
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.
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".
by Steven Escareno 7 years ago
Okay, I know this probably isn't that big of a deal to some folks, but i thought i'd bring it up anyway. On the radio the other day, I was listening to two political analysts, and one of them still insists on labeling O'Bama a moron for how he's handled things from day one of his...
by ib radmasters 6 years ago
Remember, an accomplishment is something that actually results in something good happening for the US. Something that is being used and taken advantage by the people. It is not just passing bills, or starting plans that won't take effect for several years. Something that is beneficial and solves a...
by Lions Den Media 7 years ago
Obama has used the Espionage Act, passed under Woodrow Wilson to shut down media opposition WWI, 6 times in 3 years, whilst it had been used 3 times since 1917, to target or shut down journalists that Obama targeted. In Syria journalists were killed and Obama praised their tough journalistic style,...
by Cassie Smith 5 years ago
Should a president be impeached for lying?Barack Obama lied to get his (un)Affordable Health Care Act passed. Why is no one in uproar over this? If this was Bush the dummycrats and (un)liberals would be asking for his head.
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
One of my biggest frustrations with the Obama administration is they are not good at promoting their achievements. Although that could be the fault of the so-called "liberal media" which is all corporate owned and anything but liberal.Anyway, I came across this article and thought I would...
by SonQuioey10 5 years ago
President Obama is determined to close Guantanamo Bay. People were angry about it, tweeting he should've been closed it. I tweeted that the President isn't a king here, he can't decree Guantanamo Bay closed etc... He should be able make executive orders without votes but that's not our system....
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|