Military Tribunal

[rdean]

Dear Republicans,

Please help me if I'm wrong, but ever since Clinton, hasn't there only been three convictions in a "military tribunal" and didn't Bush let two of those convicted go to return to the battle field against us?

That's

ONE

TWO

THREE

With a 33% incarceration rate?

I'm not sure how many terrorists are in prison using the US Justice System. I think it's over three hundred. Isn't the conviction rate like 100%?

Please correct my numbers and please tell me why "military tribunals" are more "safe".

Thanks,

rdean

There is a rumor circulating that Obama has caved in to the Republicans and is going for Military Tribunal. If tribunals fail once more, will Obama be blamed or Republicans?

 

[rdean]

Funny, Republicans push this "military tribunal" because they insist it will make us more "safe", but when asked "how", they can't answer.

 

[slackjawed]

Hey rdean,
While I am not republican, I will post my opinion. I am nonpartisan, I probobly fall into the 'libertarian' camp, but even that doesn't apply to me all the time.

I am basing my post on the assumption that the underlying premise of your OP is about the proposed trials in NY City.

Personally, I hold the opinion that everyone, not just US citizens, are entitled to the right to a trial. I base my opinion on the fact that our constitution just says 'people' with no designation made between citizens and non-citizens.
I also hold the opinion that we have done a poor job in our handling of those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, as defined in your OP. (returned to the battlefield ect)
I understand our criminal detainment has a pretty good record, prisoner escapes are relatively uncommon.
I would think our military justice system would be tougher on those they try and sentence, but based on the fact that there have been those that have returned to battle, maybe that is not the case.
I understand the argument between those that believe terrorism is an 'act of war, and those that believe it to be a 'crime'. I would think it is a little of both.
It looks to me that the most valid argument against trials in civilian courts for these guys is the cost.
I don't know exactly what the difference in cost may be, but based on the logic that there are already military personnel in place on military bases, it would stand to reason that the cost would be less in those locations.
The question then becomes, 'what kind of country are we?' and further 'what kind of country do we want to be?'
Both methods of trial and punishment do send a message to the rest of the world in regards to the above two questions.
When i first heard the announcement that they would be tried in NYC, I was against it. However, after hearing the reasons given, I can see justification for doing so. mainly, it takes the 'title' "warrior" away from these clowns and designates them to be nothing more than common criminals.
I also see the argument that trying them in civil court, and making the more or less common criminals in some ways belittles our military personnel in the same way it does these terrorists.
I can see both sides of this argument now, and I don't know what side of the argument is the best.
It also looks to me that our so-called leaders don't know either, there is no agreement on this even at the highest levels.
I can only hope that our so-called leaders seek out advice from the best minds we have in the field of constitutional law and procedure.
More than anything, I would like to see our constitution upheld. While I have little faith in our so-called leaders, I do have faith in the US Constitution.

 

[rdean]

I think the point "reduces them to the status of a common criminal" is a good one.

However, there are those on the right that are concerned that a "trial" would also give the bad guys a "soapbox" to stand on and while that is also a valid point, what is it that you can say that justifies "murder"?

Remember the president of Iran talking at a American University? The right was outraged that he was given that right, but the audience kept laughing at him. Probably a bigger insult than refusing to let him speak.

The real problem I have is the "military tribunal". Three convictions? Out of hundreds of suspects? And then two of the three let go? And this is the rights's preferred method of dealing with terrorists? Letting two thirds go AFTER convicting them? It sounds like something from the Twilight Zone.

I have never heard of anyone escaping from a Maximum security prison. Also, if they are moved to Illinois, part of the prison would be leased and run by the military and that is where the terrorists would be kept.

I think it's a set up. Right now, Obama is working with Lindsey Graham. The plan is to scrap the trials in favor of military tribunals, the compromise would be to close Gitmo. Does that mean another 3 convicted? And then let go by the military? Who would people blame? Obama or the Republicans?

Graham to Obama: scrap New York terror trial, I'll stand with you / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the burkah don't fit, you must acquit

 

[slackjawed]

I think the point "reduces them to the status of a common criminal" is a good one.

However, there are those on the right that are concerned that a "trial" would also give the bad guys a "soapbox" to stand on and while that is also a valid point, what is it that you can say that justifies "murder"?

Remember the president of Iran talking at a American University? The right was outraged that he was given that right, but the audience kept laughing at him. Probably a bigger insult than refusing to let him speak.

The real problem I have is the "military tribunal". Three convictions? Out of hundreds of suspects? And then two of the three let go? And this is the rights's preferred method of dealing with terrorists? Letting two thirds go AFTER convicting them? It sounds like something from the Twilight Zone.

I have never heard of anyone escaping from a Maximum security prison. Also, if they are moved to Illinois, part of the prison would be leased and run by the military and that is where the terrorists would be kept.

I think it's a set up. Right now, Obama is working with Lindsey Graham. The plan is to scrap the trials in favor of military tribunals, the compromise would be to close Gitmo. Does that mean another 3 convicted? And then let go by the military? Who would people blame? Obama or the Republicans?

Graham to Obama: scrap New York terror trial, I'll stand with you / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

I don't know if it is a "set-up" or not. It does smell bad.
In the short term, the partisans would simply blame the "other side".
In the long term, history would blame the American Government, without regard to the 'r' or the 'd'.
There has been escapes from maximum security prisons, but it is very rare, and they are almost always killed or caught.
I don't think that giving a "soapbox" to these guys is a good idea, as you say, it is a valid point. If everyone was a logical and reasonable thinking person, what they said would simply be laughed at. It is hard to justify murder.
However, the world is full of those that hold extremist views. There are also a large number of "loons" in the world who can in no way be deemed logical and reasonable.
It only takes one loon to go berserk and kill 12 people on a military base.