Yes Crosscheck, this is the very Hipocrisy I speak of. Every one of these terrorists were headed for military tribunals until March of this past year when Obama's administration dropped the term enemy combatants and labeled them as criminals. That is where the change happened.
Once they bled the rock dry of information, military tribunals should have been initiated and Justice and Retribution served upon them.
But, with the same zeal, I do not fear the outcome of civil trials for these people at all. The protections afforded to them in civil court present some issues that the judge will sort out. I see the same outcome as if it were a tribunal.
Ya, know, its funny, I am well aware of how slanted and unevenly balanced this great nations justice system is, but as with everything about this country I love, I find myself filled with "hope" that the ship will be righted and America will stand upon the moral high ground she once did. I'll have to wait until the citizens awaken from their slumber, open their eyes and see just what has gone on in their name and behind closed doors. The only thing "we" have to fear, is fear itself.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

My feeling on tribunals vs. civilian trials is simple: tribunals are more secretive, and thus give the appearance of less fairness. Defense attorneys are not given the same resources they are in a civilian trial. The government can hide its evidence much more easily by claiming releasing it would violate national security. It's my belief that no corners should be cut in trying to convict these criminals if the US is trying to maintain that it is on the "right" side of this conflict. Open the proceedings up and let the sun shine in.

So your only concern is the appearance of unfairness?

Don't you think the ACLU lawyers representing the prisoners would complain if something were grossly unfair?

You know...like in a full page op-ed in the NY Times?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Question: If by your logic military tribunals are less fair, less just, and less credible than civilian trials, should we not be doing away with military tribunals altogether?

It seems to me that if it is more fair, more just, more transparent, and more favorable in the eyes of those nations who don't like us to handle matters of national security under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system than why don't we?

If by extending all the rights given in our constitution to enemy combatants and terrorists captured around the world, wouldn't we ingratiate ourselves and make our country safer by subtracting enemies and winning hearts and minds?

Wouldn't we be far better served on the world stage if we decided to replace our military branches with divisions of police? The military way is less compassionate, less fair, and less transparent than the public law enforcement way, and America should be able to shine our light among the nations, no?

The military way includes fighting battles where innocent civilians often are lost as collateral damage. Well, this would not happen if those who were dropping the bombs, firing the weapons, and giving orders to shoot would understand that they may be subject to murder charges themselves for any innocent lives that are taken, just as they would be if they smart bombed a building where suspected criminals were hiding out and killed innocent people in the process who just happened to get in the way.

All we need to do is remember that in this new "just war" there are no terrorists to hunt down, only suspects to apprehend and bring forward before a civilian jury with the full presumption of innocence.

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

See, this is why I don't bother with much with these political "conversations" anymore. You ask my opinion on something, I give it, and you respond by ridiculing my opinion in the guise of "clarifying" your opinion.

But yes, I do believe tribunals for non-uniformed "enemy combatants" should be done away with.

Did Timothy McVeigh get tried in a military tribunal? John Allen Mohamed?

I'm honestly not ridiculing, Stuuu. What part of my post did you not support or agree with? Please "clarify"!

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

I was unaware KSM is a US citizen and was on US soil when captured.

apples and oranges.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

The part where you say why not replace the army with police out of fairness. That to me seemed like obvious sarcasm, maybe I was wrong.

And once more, yes, I am advocating that no military tribunals are used to try terrorists. Why? Because as much as you all might disagree, I think that this is not some standard "war". These men made the choices to do what they did. They were not ordered to do it, or at least not in the traditional military sense where there is a clear chain of command. They represent no country, and thus cannot be tried for violating any specific country's military regulations. The crimes that they are accused of are not unprecedented IMO, as they resemble McVeigh's. No one felt that justice was not served in his case right? So use the same process and if the evidence is compelling (or maybe even if not) they will be convicted.

OK Stuuuuuuu
You've clearly laid out why you hold your position...how would you prefer the Ft. Hook shooter be tried?

He wasn't representing a foreign government.
He killed a bunch of US citizens on US soil.

He seems to fit your standards a la McViegh for a civil trial.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Pretty much. The one difference there being that major Hasan did make the choice to join the military, and thus forfeited his civil rights to some degree. There is a clearly established process for trials of US military members in a way that there is not for "enemy combatants".

So I'd prefer that he be tried in civilian court, but he is not part of a group (enemy combatants) that was created specifically to avoid granting the rights that would be granted a prisoner of war (Geneva Conventions) or a civilian (US Constitution).

So you'd be ok with KSM being tried in a military tribunal if he had been labeled a POW and afforded his rights under the Geneva conventions?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Probably. At the very least I'd be much more comfortable with the idea.

Fair enough.

Although we still both agree... doing this in NYC is, at best, a mistake.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

The more I thought about this last night, the more I kept coming back to George W.

I mean, how telling is it that none of you Obama-bashers even tried to counter the argument put forth by slesh that Bush lied to the American public and the world in the lead-up to Iraq, or my assertion that it was a bullshit war? None of you did, which to me is tantamount to an admission.

Taken further, why in the fucking world should I believe any evidence gathered against "enemy combatants" in the last 8 years when I know that this is a category created specifically to circumvent the normal judicial process, whether military or civilian? More specifically than that even, the main reason this bullshit group was created was so the US could use "enhanced" interrogation techniques, that the world believes, as well as I, were basically torture. So because of all this that Bush and Alberto Gonzales sowed, we are now reaping this stupid controversy that people are trying to lay at the feet of Obama and Eric Holder. No matter how much Obama and Holder fuck things up, you really can't blame this on them. You set yourself up for this with this thread and terrible biased poll question ETC. If we accept that Bush would lie to the American people about something as serious as going to war then, again, how can anyone expect to believe evidence that might have been collected against KSM in Guantanamo under a completely shady system designed to deny prisoners their rights?

I hate to play the W. card, but in this specific instance, how can I avoid it?

Stuuu, I seriously doubt that you hate to play the "W" card, because i have yet to ever see someone on the far left experience anything short of titillation in playing the "W" card.

At least you are effectively conceding that the entire purpose of the civilian courts being used is to put the policies of George W Bush and his administration on trial for the attacks on 9/11, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that followed.

Also, just because people choose not to engage you in your presumptions doesn't mean they are necessarily agreeing with you; it may just mean they don't want to bother arguing every point when there is no possibility of consensus. I choose to ignore about 80% of the comments that I disagree with...maybe more, for just that reason.

Sometimes agreeing to disagree has its merits.

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

No, I'm not at all agreeing that the trial will be putting the Bush administration on trial. What I'm saying is that any controversy about tribunal vs. civilian trial is due to Bush's policies, not the 9/11 attacks, not the war in Afghanistan. Yes, the Iraq war is the result of Bush administration policies, but that's a separate issue. Surely, this trial will bring the issue of "enemy combatants" to the fore. Going from there to putting the administration on trial for the 9/11 attacks and for the two wars is a massive jump in logic that to me signifies either a guilty conscience or some real paranoia issues on your part.

Stuuu, I think my leaps are good, you think not. Nanny-nanny boo-boo.

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

The reason no one challenged your assertions is because it doesn't matter.

We're there.
We broke it, we bought it.

Continuing to lament how we got there is pointless.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Actually, Stuuuuuu is correct. Afghanistan is and always should have been the focus for the war on terror. You cannot do to these people what the Bush admin. did in Gitmo and retain the moral high ground. We didn't do it in WWII, we didn't do it in the Korean conflict. We did it in Vietnam and this most recent Iraq conflict. The point here is that how can you win a people over and get them to take on the responsibility of rebuilding their own nation through the U.S. guidance when they don't even trust us due to our actions. There is no incentive to do so for the population at at large. Its often easy to armchair quarterback when you sit over here in the states removed from the situation. I speak from first hand experience, they don't like us and don't want us in Iraq.

As tragic as that situation is, every soldier in uniform will tell you we should "mean what we say". When Bush said we will hunt you down no matter where you are, he should have backed that sass up with action by invading Afghanistan in force with 100,000 strong and persued the Taliban and Al-Quiada into Pakistan, sweeping all opposition out of the way in the process. The same for Somilia, Sudan and Yemen also strongholds of Al-Quiada. I don't see Obama as a better choice for executing a successful campaign against the terroists, but I see him attempting to get other nations to bare the burden with us as they are at risk also. Any help we get is what we want. Preventing another 9/11 or any attack for that matter is what it is all about.

With all of that said, this whole fear thing over where these guys get tried is pretty much academic in nature, they are going to be found guilty and sentenced to death.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

hang the bastards from the statue of liberty, a warning to all who fuck with the united states.

_________________
"Tis The Season, Fa la la la la LaFontaine" - Rick Jeanneret