Politics.

If you're trying someone for the 9/11 attacks. Where would they be most likely to be convicted? I'm gonna guess where people were the most directly affected.

If you're trying someone for the 9/11 attacks. Where would they be most likely to be convicted? I'm gonna guess where people were the most directly affected.

They do not belong in the civil court system. Period. The only reason they are doing this is politics.

They do not belong in the civil court system. Period. The only reason they are doing this is politics.

LOL, so you are saying that your belief is right because its right, but any other perspective HAS to be politics.

 

They do not belong in the civil court system. Period. The only reason they are doing this is politics.

 

Why exactly? What's the difference between KSM and a guy that murders someone in Illinois and then bolts for another country? Does it really matter that the military happened to pick the murderer up?

 

And yes, I think the security costs of doing this trial in a temporary federal jurisdiction (think 30k people county courthouse in the middle of the country) would be much cheaper than doing it in the middle of manhattan.

LOL, so you are saying that your belief is right because its right, but any other perspective HAS to be politics.

There's actually an extensive argument in favor of doing it and the logic is kind of hard to argue, most arguments against seem to be based on raw emotion.

Why exactly? What's the difference between KSM and a guy that murders someone in Illinois and then bolts for another country? Does it really matter that the military happened to pick the murderer up?

 

And yes, I think the security costs of doing this trial in a temporary federal jurisdiction (think 30k people county courthouse in the middle of the country) would be much cheaper than doing it in the middle of manhattan.

 

 

There's actually an extensive argument in favor of doing it and the logic is kind of hard to argue, most arguments against seem to be based on raw emotion.

First of all, Guantanamo was set up due to a supreme court decision in the first place. Bush was following the law. No one wants to remember that.

 

Second, KSM is an enemy combatant according to the supreme court as well. Therefore, he does not belong in the civil UNITED STATES court system. He belongs in the military court system. You can't give the guy the same rights that you and I have. You just can't. You immediately cheapen the rights that we as citizens have to this piece of s***.

 

Third, it sort of does matter that the military picked this guy up. This isn't a police action. I guess that's why we can't win any wars - we have to mirandize these guys, "just in case". We have to gather evidence, "just in case". Right? Why even have the notion that exists for turning this into a civil matter? It shouldn't be there.

 

So we can just continue use our illegal surveillance on US citizens, arrest whoever we want for whatever reason, and lock them up indefinitely? Sounds like a great plan.

First of all, Guantanamo was set up due to a supreme court decision in the first place. Bush was following the law. No one wants to remember that.

 

Second, KSM is an enemy combatant according to the supreme court as well. Therefore, he does not belong in the civil UNITED STATES court system. He belongs in the military court system. You can't give the guy the same rights that you and I have. You just can't. You immediately cheapen the rights that we as citizens have to this piece of s***.

 

Third, it sort of does matter that the military picked this guy up. This isn't a police action. I guess that's why we can't win any wars - we have to mirandize these guys, "just in case". We have to gather evidence, "just in case". Right? Why even have the notion that exists for turning this into a civil matter? It shouldn't be there.

And then there were subsequent Supreme Court decisions that followed that seem to just not matter to some people.

So we can just continue use our illegal surveillance on US citizens, arrest whoever we want for whatever reason, and lock them up indefinitely? Sounds like a great plan.

 

Or we can just randomly sort them according to whatever logic fits the public opinion best at the moment.

I'm just happy more of them are getting trials, of one kind or another. This holding them indefinitely thing is awful on multiple levels.

 

I'm just happy more of them are getting trials, of one kind or another. This holding them indefinitely thing is awful on multiple levels.

I agree with this - it just doesn't belong in the civil court system.

And then there were subsequent Supreme Court decisions that followed that seem to just not matter to some people.

Really? Like which ones?

 

And I'm talking about pre Guantanamo - which is what was set up due to the laws as they were interpreted (even) by the courts at the time. You can't cherry pick new interpretations.

 

Eisentrager is the one that set this up. They later ruled against it but that's not the point when it was originally set up.

 

Edited December 17, 200916 yr by kapkomet

Really? Like which ones?

 

And I'm talking about pre Guantanamo - which is what was set up due to the laws as they were interpreted (even) by the courts at the time. You can't cherry pick new interpretations.

 

Eisentrager is the one that set this up. They later ruled against it but that's not the point when it was originally set up.

The 2006 rulings, I don't remember specifically. One saying the system was unconstitutional, or that the detainees couldn't be held indefinitely. In the beginning there was nothing wrong with Guantanamo existing in and of itself, or the idea of military tribunals in general, the problem was the actual procedures themselves were blown so badly. Eventually it got to be overrun with both legitimate flaws and just plain old politics that Guantanamo became unworkable. The end result will be the same, KSM's guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion honestly.

The 2006 rulings, I don't remember specifically. One saying the system was unconstitutional, or that the detainees couldn't be held indefinitely. In the beginning there was nothing wrong with Guantanamo existing in and of itself, or the idea of military tribunals in general, the problem was the actual procedures themselves were blown so badly. Eventually it got to be overrun with both legitimate flaws and just plain old politics that Guantanamo became unworkable. The end result will be the same, KSM's guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion honestly.

That's all nice... they could and should get that same verdict under a military tribunal. They just want to make a spectacle of this.

 

Why exactly? What's the difference between KSM and a guy that murders someone in Illinois and then bolts for another country? Does it really matter that the military happened to pick the murderer up?

 

And yes, I think the security costs of doing this trial in a temporary federal jurisdiction (think 30k people county courthouse in the middle of the country) would be much cheaper than doing it in the middle of manhattan.

 

Just wondering out loud here, but aren't there more resources already in place in Manhattan that would have to be moved to Anytown USA?

First of all, Guantanamo was set up due to a supreme court decision in the first place. Bush was following the law. No one wants to remember that.

 

Second, KSM is an enemy combatant according to the supreme court as well. Therefore, he does not belong in the civil UNITED STATES court system. He belongs in the military court system. You can't give the guy the same rights that you and I have. You just can't. You immediately cheapen the rights that we as citizens have to this piece of s***.

 

Third, it sort of does matter that the military picked this guy up. This isn't a police action. I guess that's why we can't win any wars - we have to mirandize these guys, "just in case". We have to gather evidence, "just in case". Right? Why even have the notion that exists for turning this into a civil matter? It shouldn't be there.

 

First off, we have that whole pesky innocent until proven a piece of s*** thing we value as Americans. I'm not certain we want to start turning that on and off.

 

Don't we usually return prisoners of war after the conflict? How would that fit in?

 

Are there civil trials in the military courts or only criminal?

KSM is guilty than a motherf***er, lol. Almost to the point of his trial being a show trial.

First off, we have that whole pesky innocent until proven a piece of s*** thing we value as Americans. I'm not certain we want to start turning that on and off.

 

Don't we usually return prisoners of war after the conflict? How would that fit in?

 

Are there civil trials in the military courts or only criminal?

A military tribunal doesn't "turn that on and off".

 

The Eisentrager case dealt with "enemy combatants" and was the standard for years, until Eric Holder's law firm sued the government to get it changed. (Miiiiiiiiiiiight be a conflict of interest, no? Of course not.)

 

If prisoners of war are found guilty for crimes against the state, they would serve time. Ironically, they'd get treated better in our prisons then their own country, but that's another story as well.

 

And when I say "civil" I mean the US court system. I'm not trying to distinguish "civil" vs. "criminal" cases here. The better word should have been "federal (public)" vs. "military" court system.

 

 

 

That's all nice... they could and should get that same verdict under a military tribunal. They just want to make a spectacle of this.

Doesn't the fact that we've already tried them in completely phony and totally illegitimate military tribunals provide a reason to try doing it in a better way?

Doesn't the fact that we've already tried them in completely phony and totally illegitimate military tribunals provide a reason to try doing it in a better way?

No they haven't.

 

No they haven't.

Not all of them, but a lot of them got the sham version.

No they haven't.

You aren't even trying kap.

I believe the Bill of Rights are unalienable rights that all humans should have. When we travel the globe holding up our form of government and telling everyone this is the best way, we then should apply those rights to everyone we can. Otherwise, we are admitting this isn't the best system. So I am in favor of due process, speedy trials, and all of the rights we hold dear to us.

 

And when we elevate it to all humans we elevate ourselves as well. Shining that light of democracy for all the world to see. When we decide which humans it should apply to, we expose ourselves as self serving hypocrites.

I believe the Bill of Rights are unalienable rights that all humans should have. When we travel the globe holding up our form of government and telling everyone this is the best way, we then should apply those rights to everyone we can. Otherwise, we are admitting this isn't the best system. So I am in favor of due process, speedy trials, and all of the rights we hold dear to us.

 

And when we elevate it to all humans we elevate ourselves as well. Shining that light of democracy for all the world to see. When we decide which humans it should apply to, we expose ourselves as self serving hypocrites.

 

Maybe in the meantime they can start collecting taxes from the whole world to pay for all of that freedom?

Maybe in the meantime they can start collecting taxes from the whole world to pay for all of that freedom?

 

 

Exactly.