Why is the Obama administration allowing a terrorist who was involved in 9/11 be brought to USA soil

Obamanism

I heard that, that person has once said he would agree to pleed guilty in a military tribunal and be excuted. If that is so, why bring him to New York and conduct a trial in civilian court and seek the death penalty? Why not just have him pleed guilty in a military tribunal and executed him? Your thoughts?

BadMouth

But I don't think anyone can guarantee that the guilty party will definately plead guilty in a military court. He says he will but he may withdraw from that at the last minute.

lolfighter

Also, it has been repeatedly claimed that alleged terrorists are not "enemy combatants." Doesn't that mean you HAVE to try them in a civilian court?

Rob

<!--quoteo(post=1738453:date=Nov 20 2009, 07:53 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 20 2009, 07:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, it has been repeatedly claimed that alleged terrorists are not "enemy combatants." Doesn't that mean you HAVE to try them in a civilian court?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Probably in a world where definitions mean something.

Anyway, there's somewhat of a statement made when trying a criminal in the region he/she committed the crime in. That's why we'd rather hold the trial in New York. If all this is true anyway. I haven't been watching the "news" lately...

TychoCelchuuu

He only pled guilty in the military tribunal to protest the way it was carried out; he said it was an unfair, unjust proceeding that was an affront to justice everywhere and that he would not consent to be tried in it.

Sops

Mohammed insisted he would not be represented by any attorneys. The other detainees quickly followed suit and said they too wanted to represent themselves.

When judge warned Mohammed that he faces execution if convicted of organizing the attacks on America, Mohammed said he welcomes the death penalty. "Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time," Mohammed declared. "I will, God willing, have this, by you."

-Wikipedia

Its politics, in the end it doesn't matter. They will get death or life in prison.

Obamanism

<!--quoteo(post=1738877:date=Nov 23 2009, 05:42 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Nov 23 2009, 05:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738877"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Mohammed insisted he would not be represented by any attorneys. The other detainees quickly followed suit and said they too wanted to represent themselves.

When judge warned Mohammed that he faces execution if convicted of organizing the attacks on America, Mohammed said he welcomes the death penalty. "Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time," Mohammed declared. "I will, God willing, have this, by you."

-Wikipedia

Its politics, in the end it doesn't matter. They will get death or life in prison.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So don't you think that it is a bad idea to try this in New York in civilian court where there is media coverage? Does the Attorney General think it is ok to allow these individuals to be allowed a platform where they can talk all they want and perhaps make a mockery of what they did to those that died and what horrible things transpired over it? In a military tribunal, wouldn't it be less out there and give less opportunity for those individuals to use the legal process as a platform for whatever they want?

lolfighter

And what would that bring them, other than derision and scorn? "Look at these people, how they give me a fair and just trial despite the crimes I have committed against them! Look at how they remain steadfast in their conviction that due process must be observed despite all my attempts to scare them into destroying the foundations of their society! Truly they sucketh muchly!"

puzl

<!--quoteo(post=1738879:date=Nov 23 2009, 07:09 AM:name=Obamanism)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Obamanism @ Nov 23 2009, 07:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So don't you think that it is a bad idea to try this in New York in civilian court where there is media coverage? Does the Attorney General think it is ok to allow these individuals to be allowed a platform where they can talk all they want and perhaps make a mockery of what they did to those that died and what horrible things transpired over it? In a military tribunal, wouldn't it be less out there and give less opportunity for those individuals to use the legal process as a platform for whatever they want?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


If you don't support freedom of expression for the people you disagree with then you don't agree with freedom of expression at all.
There are many reasons to not prosecute these guys in a civilian court, but fear of what they /might/ say is certainly not one of them.

If these guys are enemy combatants then they were entitled to treatment under the Geneva conventions.
If they are non-combatants then they need to be tried in a civilian court.

What the W.Bush administration tried to do was to treat them as both and neither simultaneously. This hypocrisy needs to be corrected in order to help restore the reputation of the US around the world.

lolfighter

So what are the many reasons not to prosecute them in a civilian court, puzl? Do you mean that they are enemy combatants, or are there other reasons?

puzl

The general principal would be that civilian courts assume innocence, and in a time of war you don't have the luxury of asking endless questions through endless appeals.

I do think these people should have been held as combatants and given their rights as prisoners of war. Given that they weren't treated as prisoners of war, I think they should be tried in civilian courts - more importantly, I think the US public has a right to hear their cases in public to hopefully understand when, if and how Bush etc. broke the system.

So I was basically saying that of all the spurious reasoning I've heard for trying them in a military court, the "fear of what they'll say" is about the most bogus reason I've heard.

lolfighter

I'm confused. You say there are many reason <i>not</i> to prosecute them in a civilian court, yet you say they <i>should</i> be prosecuted in a civilian court rather than a military one because they were treated as civilians rather than enemy combatants and because the "fear of what they'll say" is nonsense? So what are the many reasons <i>not</i> to prosecute them in a civilian count?

TychoCelchuuu

Reasons <b>for</b> trying terrorism detainees in a military court:
<ul><li>The court, because it is made up of military personnel, can hear classified evidence easily without compromising the intelligence or whoever provided it.</li><li>The court has lower evidentiary standards, which befits trials like this where we shouldn't have to provide things like a full accounting of the exact location of all of our evidence from the moment we acquired it, like we would have to do in a civilian trial.</li><li>The military tribunal can be conducted outside of the US or at least in relative privacy, avoiding a public spectacle and the air of a show trial.</li><li>The detainees are suspects in the war on terror, and because it is a war, we should use military tribunals.</li></ul>
There are other justifications but they are, like puzl noted, pretty much nonsense. There are of course counterarguments as to why they should be tried in civilian courts, which in this case have clearly prevailed because that's what we're doing.

Chris0132

<a href="http://forums.empiresmod.com/search.php?searchid=259101" target="_blank">This guy was just on the empires forums spamming a load of obama threads</a>, he is quite possibly one of our unsanitary lot trolling just so you know.

Sops

I think we all figured he was a troll.

TychoCelchuuu

Few people sign up on a random forum and start asking highly charged questions who aren't trolls. In fact it's pretty much impossible to do that without by definition trolling.

Thansal

oh well, my post got hit with the roll back:

NYS Doesn't have a death penalty currently (well, we have the law, but it is unconstitutional, and thus can't be used). His trial can ONLY end in life in prison.

Thoughts?

TychoCelchuuu

That's a debate about the death penalty more than it is civilian trials v military tribunals. Anyone who is for the death penalty probably wants him dead, anyone against the death penalty clearly doesn't.

Thansal

<!--quoteo(post=1740502:date=Nov 26 2009, 10:04 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 26 2009, 10:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1740502"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a debate about the death penalty more than it is civilian trials v military tribunals. Anyone who is for the death penalty probably wants him dead, anyone against the death penalty clearly doesn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a Military trial would have executed him, by moving the trial to NYS that is no longer an option. I am honestly unsure of what to make of this.

TychoCelchuuu

What you make of it largely depends on what you think about the death penalty. If you think it's good, then clearly this guy deserves death and to the degree that he won't get it, the civilian trial is worse. If you don't like the death penalty, a civilian trial is better than a military tribunal when it comes to the worst possible punishment.