Gitmo Terrorist Acquitted on all but One Charge

[Tawnos]

Are our rights just ideas that can be suspended on the whim of a government unconcerned with due process? How do you decided who "these people" are that don't deserve a trial? What prevents the very same suspension of rights and holding in an offshore torture facility from happening to you, or those you care about?

 

[Daylen]

Are our rights just ideas that can be suspended on the whim of a government unconcerned with due process? How do you decided who "these people" are that don't deserve a trial? What prevents the very same suspension of rights and holding in an offshore torture facility from happening to you, or those you care about?

For me its easy. If the answer to the question "are they citizens of the United States of America?" is yes then they deserve a civilian trial. If the answer to the question "were they captured outside the boarders of the United States of America" is yes and the answer to the previous question is no then they deserve and are entitled to nothing except arguably a quick death. If they are not citizens they should not be automatically protected by our civil system and if they are not part of a foreign state's military then they are not protected by the rules of war. By performing an illegal war they should not get extra rights.

 

[Dreamer]

The one count he was convicted of was "conspiracy to destroy US buildings and property."

My only question is who was he conspiring WITH, and why aren't they named, indicted, and tried as well...

But then again, I doubt Dick Cheney really wants to spend his holidays in Gitmo, unless it's to gleefully watch a bunch of his patsy's get tortured...

 

[eye95]

For me its easy. If the answer to the question "are they citizens of the United States of America?" is yes then they deserve a civilian trial. If the answer to the question "were they captured outside the boarders of the United States of America" is yes and the answer to the previous question is no then they deserve and are entitled to nothing except arguably a quick death. If they are not citizens they should not be automatically protected by our civil system and if they are not part of a foreign state's military then they are not protected by the rules of war. By performing an illegal war they should not get extra rights.

To me, the key is easier: Are they making war on the US for another nation or for an external terrorist organization? If yes, the the action is not a law enforcement issue, they are a war-fighting issue. One is dealt with by the police and the courts, the other by the military. It has been such since the beginning of the Republic and should be now.

 

[PrayingForWar]

The one count he was convicted of was "conspiracy to destroy US buildings and property."

My only question is who was he conspiring WITH, and why aren't they named, indicted, and tried as well...

But then again, I doubt Dick Cheney really wants to spend his holidays in Gitmo, unless it's to gleefully watch a bunch of his patsy's get tortured...

Damn, I need an asprin now. That comment is so insipid it actually caused a headache.

 

[since9]

To me, the key is easier: Are they making war on the US for another nation or for an external terrorist organization? If yes, the the action is not a law enforcement issue, they are a war-fighting issue. One is dealt with by the police and the courts, the other by the military. It has been such since the beginning of the Republic and should be now.

I'd write that as: Are they making war on the US as sanctioned by another nation, for an external terrorist organization, or are they citizens of the U.S.?

If they're citizens of the U.S., it's treason, punisheable by death (though they're usually just given life sentences).

If they're sanctioned by another nation, that constitutes an act of war by that nation, whether the nation has made a declaration of war or not. At that point, they're prisoners of war and must be handled appropriate.

If they're acting on behalf of an external terrorist organization and not citizens of the U.S., then it's an illegal act of war and should be tried in international courts which exist in part for that very purpose.

 

[eye95]

...If they're acting on behalf of an external terrorist organization and not citizens of the U.S., then it's an illegal act of war and should be tried in international courts which exist in part for that very purpose.

I do not hold with our Republic giving up its sovereignty in such matters. National defense is our responsibility, not that of a court over which we reasonably exert no control and naturally doesn't care one whit about our security.

Those who make war on us should be answerable to us.

 

[HvyMtl]

Hmm. Constitution and the laws based off of the Constitution do not take terrorists as enemy combatants.

This said, by the laws and Constitution of this nation, he is a civilian, not a soldier.

Due to this fact, we must either, 1) Amend the Constitution to enable military prosecutions of civilians, or 2) work with what we have.

I would rather not allow some politician, or members of the government, to declare me, or you, a terrorist, and therefore get the military tribunal, instead of civil courts with their Constitutional Protections...

Yet, you allow this adjustment, that is what you will get. (Example: TSA illegal search and seizures... I am waiting on the cavity searches, as soon as someone tries a butt bomb...)


Besides, did Timothy McVeigh get away with it in Civilian Criminal Court? No.

I would rather say this: The fellow got off of the counts because 1. Lack of Evidence 2. Lack of a good prosecutor. 3. Length of time held and lack of Habeas corpus rights given to the claimed terrorist.(Both the time and the denial of rights Constitutional violations? Yes.)

I bet we will find there are a lot of non-terrorists being held in Gitmo... And we will reap the benefit of that in the eye of the world...

International Court? No, thank you. The moment we rely on them, is the moment our justice system will become secondary to them...

 

[eye95]

Hmm. Constitution and the laws based off of the Constitution do not take terrorists as enemy combatants.

This said, by the laws and Constitution of this nation, he is a civilian, not a soldier.

Due to this fact, we must either, 1) Amend the Constitution to enable military prosecutions of civilians, or 2) work with what we have.

I would rather not allow some politician, or members of the government, to declare me, or you, a terrorist, and therefore get the military tribunal, instead of civil courts with their Constitutional Protections...

Yet, you allow this adjustment, that is what you will get. (Example: TSA illegal search and seizures... I am waiting on the cavity searches, as soon as someone tries a butt bomb...)


Besides, did Timothy McVeigh get away with it in Civilian Criminal Court? No.

I would rather say this: The fellow got off of the counts because 1. Lack of Evidence 2. Lack of a good prosecutor. 3. Length of time held and lack of Habeas corpus rights given to the claimed terrorist.(Both the time and the denial of rights Constitutional violations? Yes.)

I bet we will find there are a lot of non-terrorists being held in Gitmo... And we will reap the benefit of that in the eye of the world...

International Court? No, thank you. The moment we rely on them, is the moment our justice system will become secondary to them...

Under the law, he is an enemy combatant. Whether or not he is treated as a POW and afforded those privileges depends on the manner in which he was fighting us. Acting as a terrorist, outside international treaties covering how war is conducted, he forfeits those privileges established under those treaties. Whether or not he is a "civilian" is irrelevant. He is a combatant not due POW status. Either as an uncovered enemy combatant or a POW, he can be tried by a military court and, regardless of the outcome of any military trial, held for at least the duration of hostilities (even if no trial were ever held).

The only way the Constitution enters into the matter would be for the courts to decide that this person was indeed a not a combatant (civilian status is irrelevant) and therefore cannot be held or tried as such. Should the courts decide that he is not a combatant, then the only recourse would be the civilian courts.

The courts have not held this to be true for any of the terrorists which the Obama administration is trying to decide whether to try in civilian or military courts. These terrorists can lawfully be tried in military courts. The only question is whether that would be best in our national security interests or not. It would be.

The Obama administration foolishly decided otherwise. We can see the result.

On edit: Timothy McVeigh is an inapt analogy. He was handled by law enforcement and the matter was treated as a criminal investigation from the get. In the case of the terrorists, they were (rightly) treated as a national security problem from the get. Arrest procedures were not (and should not have been) followed. Rights were not (and should not have been) read. Interrogations were not (and should not have been) conducted for the purpose of investigation, but instead to collect intelligence. All of this, rightly done, makes a civilian trial impossible, as much of the evidence that is reasonably admissible against combatants in a military trial are inadmissible in a civilian trial.