9/11 an act of War or mass crimnal murder?

[B5C]

Right now both sides of the political isle are divided on what to do with the terrorist at GITMO. Obama clearly states that the 9/11 attacks are criminal offense and they must got through the civilian courts in New York City. The Republicans are saying that these are enemy combatants in war time and they must go through the military court system (Which is actually much fairer to defendants in murder cases) and be tried in Cuba.

To me I believe that the attacks are an act of war. In such we should treat the prisoners as war time prisoners and go to a military tribunal like the Nuremberg Trials.

http://www.komonews.com/news/national/70156042.html

[Wilder]

To me I believe that the attacks are an act of war. In such we should treat the prisoners as war time prisoners and go to a military tribunal like the Nuremberg Trials.

I am inclined to think of this as a criminal act, because war implies some sort of cogent political structure on behalf of both belligerents, but provided the trials actually do happen, are fair, and occur in a timely matter, I have no major objections to a military tribunal.

My only real concern about that though is if we are unwilling to start trials until the war is over. But when it comes to fighting such a poorly defined foe, what is the definition of a victory? It is, unfortunately, not simple.

[s.rwitt]

I'm still wondering how we are going to find a "jury of peers" for accused terrorists who aren't even citizens. Are we flying in non citizens or using illegal aliens?

[Wilder]

I'm still wondering how we are going to find a "jury of peers" for accused terrorists who aren't even citizens. Are we flying in non citizens or using illegal aliens?

Actually a jury of peers is not necessary, that is one of the great myths about our rights here in the states. people just have a right to an "impartial jury" of course that will be hard to find too.


As to the torture point, I think there will be enough evidence without it. If not, bummer, rule of law, shouldn't torture people.


Also, I would never want to be put in the position of defending these people, but you know there are some ACLU lawyers that are just drooling to get their hands on that case.

[Phier]

I'm still wondering how we are going to find a "jury of peers" for accused terrorists who aren't even citizens. Are we flying in non citizens or using illegal aliens?

I'd suggest members of CAIR.

[Katsumoto]

Terrorists = Criminals = Criminal Offense.

[B5C]

Terrorists = Criminals = Criminal Offense.

If an non-government entity declares war on us. Which Obama Bin Laden clearly did say that he and he organization is at war with the United States. It is an act of war. We have been fighting his armies in Middle East and Central Asia.

I'm still wondering how we are going to find a "jury of peers" for accused terrorists who aren't even citizens. Are we flying in non citizens or using illegal alie

It will be US citizen.


What we have here is a show trial just like the other trial of the century OJ Simpson.

[Simon Cashmere]

The trials could easily descend into farce. The first motion the defence will file will be suppress most of the evidence because it was obtained under torture. As forward thinking as we may all believe we are, extracting information using torture (however heinous the crime) has been frowned upon by the US Supreme Court for some time now.

Once you have the evidence excluded (or alternatively, break some new ground with a decision permitting police stations everywhere to waterboard suspects), will there be enough evidence left to convict Khaled Sheikh Mohammed?

[Mangalore]

If an non-government entity declares war on us. Which Obama Bin Laden clearly did say that he and he organization is at war with the United States. It is an act of war. We have been fighting his armies in Middle East and Central Asia.

...

Just because you call something a "war on drugs" doesn't mean you send in the troops, does it? Equally some lunatics can call it whatever they want and it still doesn't make it so.

It was an act of terrorism as such mainly a criminal act (on an unprecedented scale though). The US made it a conventional war mainly because a) they had other fish to fry and b) they are good at it. It's pretty uncomfortable to have the biggest, baddest military and a situation where all these gadgets are essentially worthless. The whole affair could have been pursued without any military means and in the case of Al Qaeda still have yieled high results instead of two wars.

[s.rwitt]

Terrorists = Criminals = Criminal Offense.

Murder is a criminal offense as well but soldiers that commit it are tried by the military, not civilians. These guys were captured by the military as well *I believe* and should be tried by the military.

[Mangalore]

Murder is a criminal offense as well but soldiers that commit it are tried by the military, not civilians. These guys were captured by the military as well *I believe* and should be tried by the military.

Doesn't change that it was a crime, not an act of war. They are not tried for breach Article 51 of the UN Charta or crimes against humanity, are they? Thus they are tried according to national law, not according to the standards of a country in international affairs or a statesman representing one.

I don't quite see why they should be tried by the military because they were only the guys who apprehended them in some cases.

[Didz]

I don't quite see why they should be tried by the military because they were only the guys who apprehended them in some cases.

I would argue that its an extremely bad decision to have them tried by the military. The most obvious reason being that it gives credence to their own misguided belief that they are fighting a war. They are criminals, pure and simple, and they should be tried as criminals and not even given the satisfaction of claiming themselves to be 'war criminals'.

[blackwatersix]

Combatants give them legitimacy. Treat them as criminals.

[Jabberwock]

Why weren't drug lords and their goons enemy combatants with the "War on Drugs"?

Are we still in that "war"?

[blackwatersix]

Declare them spies and line them up against the wall then. hahaha

[motiv-8]

The motion to have them tried in a military tribunal is two-fold. One is the speculation that a trial in a regular civilian court would not be fair due to the emotional fall-out reflecting the extreme malice and destructiveness behind the attack, particularly since the trial has to be in New York State. Two is the equal speculation that such a trial would become a circus in which the defendants get to spew their propaganda and hatred to the world.

Regarding the post above mine, AFAIK (and if ABC News is correct) the FBI has already established that it has compiled evidence for a solid case without referencing that which was obtained under duress.

Either way I pity the men and women that have to defend these sorry s.

The Republicans are saying that these are enemy combatants in war time and they must go through the military court system (Which is actually much fairer to defendants in murder cases) and be tried in Cuba.

I do want to comment on this, because this appears to be a huge logic gap if it is being described accurately. Before 9/11 there was no "time of war" as recognized by the US Government, meaning that it does not make sense to treat the accused as combatants. Bin Laden's "declaration" of war against the United States is irrelevant in terms of international and domestic law, again AFAIK. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the whole thing occupies a fuzzy grey area in terms of jurisdiction, which is why there has been debate as to where and how to hold the trials in the first place.

[B5C]

The motion to have them tried in a military tribunal is two-fold. One is the speculation that a trial in a regular civilian court would not be fair due to the emotional fall-out reflecting the extreme malice and destructiveness behind the attack, particularly since the trial has to be in New York State. Two is the equal speculation that such a trial would become a circus in which the defendants get to spew their propaganda and hatred to the world.

Regarding the post above mine, AFAIK (and if ABC News is correct) the FBI has already established that it has compiled evidence for a solid case without referencing that which was obtained under duress.

Either way I pity the men and women that have to defend these sorry s.

Yet the only way for them to win would be the Chewbacca defense, but Johnny Cochran is dead.

[Armenum]

it's no way act of war because they people don't represent nation, they represent a radical group. No nation supported this act also.

[Monarchist]

It depends upon the individual jurisprudence of the nation in question. America tends to ignore international laws and sticks to its own laws, with only few exceptions. F.D.R.'s insane persecution and murder of the alleged German "terrorists" in July, 1942 was according to Geneva Conventions, however. In America, politicians tend to use international law when they like it, and condemn it when it conflicts with their agenda. Either way, if America follows international law in this case it will have to classify them as terrorists. The only problem about calling 9/11 an "Act of War" is that these despicable rats didn't actually represent any national government. There were no uniforms for them to wear, and thus they can't be called spies for wearing civilian clothes behind the lines of some war.

They all just want to be executed anyway - by their own obsessive and constant admission - so I say blow their heads off without trial.

[Wilder]

They all just want to be executed anyway - by their own obsessive and constant admission - so I say blow their heads off without trial.

The problem with that is that it implies that all accused are guilty, and the US has already made a mistake our two in identifying the terrorists. In fairness we have been generally ready to admit those mistakes, but executions without trials are, oh what's the Phrase? oh yeah, stupid, that's it.