Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 19, 2009 16:21:56 GMT -5
Speaking as a conservative, I can say that the portrayal of my criticisms as "these guys are somehow superhuman," is not at all accurate.
There is nothing superhuman about them, but we have a much more secure and swift form of justice --- that follows the rule of law --- for enemy combatants that is much better for these individuals in military tribunals.
I am not a fan of Michael Gerson, but he made a very good point yesterday. There is very little about switching from military tribunals to civilian court that will radically change the views either of those who are abhorred by or enamored of their actions. Does anyone really believe that al Qaeda isn't still going to use these trials as a recruiting tool as much as they would have had they been military trials? Of course they are. They're going to point to this and say "look at the infidels martyring our holy jihadists." Is anyone from the West going to feel a lot better about this because it is in open court -- other than those obsessed with morbidity? No.
Chuck Schumer himself said back in 2001 that it would be "ludicrous" to try those we captured in arms against us in a civilian court. His words, not mine. The Moussaoui trial had a good outcome but it WAS a circus, and who knows if it would have had a good outcome if he had not pled guilty (for reasons people still are not sure about). Classified documents from the 1993 WTC trials DID end up in al Qaeda hands.
There are simply no advantages to this form of justice that I can see. It does not mean I think that KSM is suddenly going to break loose his bonds and climb up the Empire State Building breathing fire and waving a flag to call in hijacked jets.
It means that I think we are risking the leaking of information, risking a much more tenuous justice system and creating a multi-year circus atmosphere for no evident reason.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 19, 2009 16:22:53 GMT -5
I am troubled only by Eric Holder's flat-out lie that he only consulted his wife and brother before making this decision. That statement is both ridiculous and offensive. Did he consult you or someone you know? Do you actually believe for one minute that he did not consult Barry O or any of the political animals in the Executive offices? Please. Why make the asinine statement that he only consulted his wife and brother. The idea that the president had no role in this is more scary than the fact that Holder has any role in it. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 19, 2009 17:33:09 GMT -5
Speaking as a conservative, I can say that the portrayal of my criticisms as "these guys are somehow superhuman," is not at all accurate. There is nothing superhuman about them, but we have a much more secure and swift form of justice --- that follows the rule of law --- for enemy combatants that is much better for these individuals in military tribunals. I am not a fan of Michael Gerson, but he made a very good point yesterday. There is very little about switching from military tribunals to civilian court that will radically change the views either of those who are abhorred by or enamored of their actions. Does anyone really believe that al Qaeda isn't still going to use these trials as a recruiting tool as much as they would have had they been military trials? Of course they are. They're going to point to this and say "look at the infidels martyring our holy jihadists." Is anyone from the West going to feel a lot better about this because it is in open court -- other than those obsessed with morbidity? No. Chuck Schumer himself said back in 2001 that it would be "ludicrous" to try those we captured in arms against us in a civilian court. His words, not mine. The Moussaoui trial had a good outcome but it WAS a circus, and who knows if it would have had a good outcome if he had not pled guilty (for reasons people still are not sure about). Classified documents from the 1993 WTC trials DID end up in al Qaeda hands. There are simply no advantages to this form of justice that I can see. It does not mean I think that KSM is suddenly going to break loose his bonds and climb up the Empire State Building breathing fire and waving a flag to call in hijacked jets. It means that I think we are risking the leaking of information, risking a much more tenuous justice system and creating a multi-year circus atmosphere for no evident reason. You're still making your point here. If you don't view terrorists as so special, why do they need special justice? Why do we need to throw the Geneva conventions out the window? You very obviously think terrorists are a special case that require extraordinary methods. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 19, 2009 17:36:36 GMT -5
risking a much more tenuous justice system Yeah, what the founding fathers really wanted was a system of justice where it would be easiest for the government to obtain convictions. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 19, 2009 17:37:08 GMT -5
It is not special justice.
As Lindsey Graham informed our AG yesterday, this is how we have ALWAYS tried those who we classified as enemy combatants.
The exception is civilian court, not military tribunals.
And if military tribunals do not follow the rule of law, how come we are still using them for some terrorists, but not for others?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 19, 2009 17:40:42 GMT -5
risking a much more tenuous justice system Yeah, what the founding fathers really wanted was a system of justice where it would be easiest for the government to obtain convictions. No, you're right. They didn't want that......for American citizens. But hey. I'll be happy to go back to "what the Founders wanted" when it comes to foreign enemies of the state. I'm pretty sure we can round up a firing squad in short order. |
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Nov 19, 2009 17:43:48 GMT -5
See my post above. There are strong arguments that Miranda rights would not apply for various reasons. 1) enemy combatant 2) interrogated overseas 3) potentially not interrogated by law enforcement officials As Strummer said, constitutional protections do not automatically apply to KSM or like-positioned individuals |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 19, 2009 18:20:13 GMT -5
risking a much more tenuous justice system Yeah, what the founding fathers really wanted was a system of justice where it would be easiest for the government to obtain convictions. Bingo. I'm with Austin on this one. You can't simultaneously wrap yourself in the flag and invoke the founding fathers and then trample pretty much their central driving force -- the prevention of governmental tyranny. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 19, 2009 18:30:51 GMT -5
[bangs head against wall]
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CITIZENS!!!!
I can guarantee you that the founding fathers of our nation would have executed these people a long time ago and not have worried a whit about any Constitutional ramifications. The Constitution -- which surely does provide protections against tyranny -- was not written with terrorists (foreign national terrorists at that at least EDIT: sorry, meant to write 'at least' there, not 'at that') in mind.
[/bangs head against wall]
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 19, 2009 19:17:50 GMT -5
Legally, we can make a case for not giving them Constitutional rights. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do.
I think this is a great way to prove that our country is better than those we're fighting against. Sure, we could throw them in the electric chair and execute them without a trial, just like people we're fighting against kill people without trials. But we're the freaking USA, we're better than that, we're going to give those people rights and protections, even though they don't deserve it, because we're better than they are. And you know what? Our justice system is good enough to handle that. We'll get the convictions we need, and we'll give them the justice they deserve. And we'll fell damn good about doing it, because we know that unlike our enemies, we can give those who we capture a fair trial and still bring them to justice.
[/rant]
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Nov 19, 2009 19:27:25 GMT -5
Speaking as a conservative, I can say that the portrayal of my criticisms as "these guys are somehow superhuman," is not at all accurate. Maybe not yours, but how about easyed's - or more importantly since it is coming from an elected representative, John Shadegg's? They are definitely posing scenarios where you basically have to assume that KSM is Magneto and the trial will be attacked by blonde brother-sister twin mutants, or KSM's trial is motivating other terrorists to commit acts like Hans Gruber on behalf of the Asian Dawn. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 19, 2009 20:05:11 GMT -5
I think this is a great way to prove that our country is better than those we're fighting against. I wasn't aware that this was something in dire need of proving. And for the last time, because this is getting really frustrating..... ....I am not calling for us to throw these people into a vat of boiling oil with no legal proceedings. I will try to lay this out once more: - The point was made that conservatives must think these people are superhuman and that is why conservatives argue that we cannot try them in civilian courts. - I responded by saying, no that is not the case (at least for me). It is stupid to try them in a civilian court because we already have an established legal framework for trying them (military courts), which has historical precedent, does not violate the rule of law, and which is far less risky (in case you haven't heard, a motion to dismiss is already being filed because of comments made by the President and AG). - It was then argued that military courts in and of themselves are a special case, to which I responded, no they are not a special case, civilian courts are the special case. Military courts are the standard, based on history. - It was further sarcastically argued that since I noted that civilian courts add additional risk, that I must be arguing that the founders wanted a court system that gave the state every advantage in getting a conviction. I responded that the founders were concerned with American citizens in writing the Constitution, not enemy combatants, and that -- if the founders had their way -- these people would have already been executed, most likely without trial. - I then had to repeat that same argument again, while drilling a bit into my skull (and apparently wrapping myself in the Constitution -- which I maintain does not apply). But by saying that does not apply, that does not mean that I feel no legal framework applies. At no point did I argue for the abandonment of legal proceedings to convict these terrorists. We have a legal framework. We are currently using that for many terrorists. There is no benefit to changing that. I am now going to drink. Prost, zipperheads! |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 19, 2009 23:15:44 GMT -5
I'm going to split the difference here and say that if this were 2002 and we had just found KSM, I would say that a military tribunal IS IDEAL. I think that in general, military hostiles like terrorists, should be handled via military justice. The problem is that since 2001, the United States has proven itself unable to craft a military tribunal that conforms with the Constitution. The 5-4 conservative Supreme Court has said on multiple occasions that the way we handled terrorists for several years was in violation of the Constitution. SO NOW, I think that we do need to handle a few of these in the public to reaffirm to the world that we do and will provide justice in compliance with the Constitution and with the ideals of this country. In a few years when we've moved farther beyond an administration that treated the Constitution and the Laws of War like toilet paper, THEN we can go back to military tribunals. Military tribunals require a degree of faith from the American people and from the world where we say "Yes, our government does respect rights and liberty, so with sensitive matters, we will trust the military to do justice." That trust was broken too many times in the last 8 years. Now, we earn it back with public trials and shows of Due Process. Then we return to military tribunals when people again have faith in this country's ability to do proper justice. And if you don't believe that our country deserves to have had the world lose faith, read stories like this: www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/21guantanamo.html. This same judge who admitted that 5 men were held without cause for YEARS is one of the same judges who very early on said that detainees didn't even deserve habeas rights. He's a conservative who ultimately did admit that what we were doing was wrong. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 20, 2009 7:21:08 GMT -5
Military tribunals are better than nothing, but as strummer said the attempts to form Gitmo tribunals haven't exactly gone swimmingly.
My other problem with tribunals is that military tribunals are used for soldiers and spies fighting for a recognized country. Treating Al Qaeda members like that grants them a semblance of legitimacy. After all, they consider themselves an army that's at war with the United States on behalf of Islam. The same goes for the term "War on Terror" - it feeds straight into the radical Islamist mentality that there's a war going on and they have to defend Islam against the aggressor United States.
I say we treat Al Qaeda members like the criminals they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 20, 2009 10:49:41 GMT -5
Boz: First, sorry for using the phrase "the Founding Fathers," which I typically abhor because it's a phrase most often used by guys like these. Here's my deal: I can't figure out why you don't want to drop KSM and his cronies into a vat of boiling oil. Obviously, we know the Constitution applies to American citizens. It also applies to non-citizens, including those who have entered or stayed in the United States illegally. The only class of person found within the nation's borders to whom it does not apply to is an "enemy combatant." (To be clear, I think KSM clearly qualifies as one.) So I agree that we have the option of trying KSM in a military court (yes, even at Guantanamo Bay). Those advocating this option are concerned about the release of confidential secrets of our Nation-State. They think that a military tribunal will make it easier for the United States to obtain a conviction and an execution (a notion I'm not convinced is correct). It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that those advocating a secret military tribunal seem to be advocating it because it is a system in which conviction is all but guaranteed and government secrets don't have to be disclosed. I think you're probably right that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson would have executed these Editeds by firing squad in Boston Common at dawn, sans any judicial process. But I don't think they would be fond of a process, run by the military, that pretends to achieve justice behind closed doors. If we're going to give these guys trials that are clearly intended to favor and protect the government, why give them trials at all? I prefer the vat of boiling oil to a railroad track. If we're going to give these guys trials, in America, I think they should be real trials. To me, any process termed "judicial" or "trial" should not overly favor the government. It is better to have no trial at all. Hang 'em or try 'em, I say. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 20, 2009 11:00:37 GMT -5
Austin:
The problem I have with criminal trials is that they're not designed to address actions committed during war, which is why we have separate military tribunals.
The problem with trying terrorists in a military tribunal is that military tribunals function according to the laws of war, which al Qaeda and its associated scum have refused to obey.
I'd default to military tribunals, due to the need to keep so many of the parts of the trial classified (a part of the reason that military tribunals exist). This is a BIG deal - defense lawyers consistently leak information, even classified information, to supporters of the accused. The defense of KSM WILL lead to the release of classified information to al Qaeda - bank on it.
Other countries have begun to adopt "terrorism courts" - if Obama and Holder continue to pursue this policy, they may need to accept that US criminal law is not designed for terrorists and may establish a separate avenue in which to try them.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 20, 2009 11:08:11 GMT -5
I agree that our legal system has to figure out a third option, or make changes to our existing options. I think all of us, whether we favor a military tribunal or trial in a Federal courtroom, are really choosing what we think is the lesser of two evils.
What's the procedure in "terrorism courts" in other countries?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 20, 2009 11:20:49 GMT -5
This is a very interesting read from way back in 2004. The liberals should enjoy it because it is pretty much a screed against the Bush administration for a full page, before the case for terrorism courts begins to be made on page 2. I can't say I agree with everything here, and there are some things I disagree with strongly, but he does make a good case, IMO: www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/562vydnj.aspOf course, I think reality says that civil liberties groups will probably be just as outraged at a terrorism court as they were against Obama when he made the decision last spring to continue -- in some cases -- the Bush administration's use of military commissions, even though he modified the approach somewhat. The ACLU will tolerate nothing less than federal civilian court. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 20, 2009 11:38:49 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 21, 2009 0:18:20 GMT -5
There seem to be 2 main concerns about using civilian courts over military tribunals:
1. Classified information will be leaked during the trial.
2. Dangerous terrorists will be found not guilty.
On the first one, military tribunals really don't offer much help. In order for the evidence to stay secret, the trial would have to be 100% closed. If we give KSM a closed trial, all he has to do is claim that he didn't get a fair trial, and nobody will be able to disprove him. With an open trial, the entire world will see that we give him a fair trial.
On the second issue, we've only gotten 3 terrorism convictions through military tribunals since 9/11. We've gotten 523 through civilian courts. The SDNY has a 100% conviction rate on terrorism cases. I don't think we have to worry about dangerous terrorists getting away with this.
Of course, KSM and his buddies and their lawyers will try to pull some legal stunts, but I'm sure the SDNY folks are more than used to that. They'd do the same in a military tribunal - constantly claiming that the tribunal is illegal and unconstitutional. It would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court, and would probably be a bigger circus than what we'll see in NYC.
|
|
