Trial of 9/11 defendants

It’s understandable that Republicans despise President Obama for bringing the 9/11 defendants to New York (11/19, A1, “Holder takes heat for terror trials decision”).

That decision seems to prove we didn’t need to jail terror suspects overseas, thus keeping them outside the jurisdiction of American courts that would not allow torture. Obama’s decision says we didn’t need torture any more in the endless war on terror than we did in previous wars. It says we didn’t need to imprison hundreds of suspects overseas for many years without trial, without evidence of their guilt, and then just set them free.

Republican cries about the deadly dangers of trials in America do puff out a wonderful smokescreen. Truly, they need it to hide the torture and unjust imprisonment without trial that the Bush administration inflicted at Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq.

Charles Hammer
 Shawnee

I understand that the alleged conspirators now facing trial in New York have many who believe that the U.S. civilian courts are the place to properly try these men. The argument is that these non-enemy, non-combatant civilians charged with crimes committed on U.S. soil should be “brought to justice” in U.S. civilian courts.

Given this line of thinking, one would expect to argue in federal court that the idea of using armed, uniformed soldiers of the U.S. Armed Forces to bring in civilians to U.S. courts for “justice” is unconstitutional and all of these alleged conspirators — civilians — should be immediately released because they were seized, transported and held improperly (see the Bill of Rights, Articles IV, V and VI).

Otherwise, the next time I allegedly break a federal law, I should expect the U.S. military to be dispatched to strafe my house, pull up on my lawn in loaded tanks, blow open any remaining doors and extract any survivors to be carted off to a military base to await a civilian trial. The precedent is being set.

Charles Brents
Greenwood

Comments

[GCYL]

“What are you calling our enemies today oh enlightened one?” - I need enlightenment

Enlightened Americans are not using the term “criminals”. Definitely not criminals fit for a Civilian Court.

Try terrorist. Terrorists that are having a good laugh right now.

[KC Educator]

Are you guys seriously believing that the criminals have no rights under military law? The procedures are different, but the defendants have similar rights. The issue is a jurisdictional issue. The only terrorists that the military has jurisdiction for are the ones that were captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan.

[Wild Man]

PeeWee,

What are you calling our enemies today oh enlightened one?

[Kee]

Look back to the era dipstick, we did not call them Japanese or German. Your average GI called his enemy exactly that. Get a stepladder and climb down off your high horse, your arrogance is showing.

[Great American]

"Jap or Kraut"...must be a conservative. Remember... only white's go to heaven!! According to Kee anyways.

[Kee]

I would say it is a crescent moon Jimbo.

Tell me why some of the terrorists are being tried by military tribunal, and some are not? Holder said it was because some attacked "military" targets,e.g. the Cole; but the Pentagon was civilian target Jimbo? Huh?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, etc. etc.

[Great American]

Again...a true American moron. It does not matter what FDR, JFK, George Bush or any "man" has done or chosen to do. You can't refute anything so you commence to bashing. Typical right-winger. You are no matter than the jihadists when you condone these things. You can't even see past your own ignorance. But God will. It does not matter whether YOU think you are a Christian. It only matters if God believes you are one. I would love to be there on that judgement day!!

[Jim]

BuddyKee gives examples of enemy soldiers who fought in uniform under the flag of a nation. Tell us, Buddy, which flag or nation do these terrorists fight under?

[Kee]

Wow, did you see the stunning logic in the rant by, gasp, choke, excuse the expression, "Great American".

I would point out to you, that FDR tried, convicted, and exccuted via military tribunal during WWII. He did not conduct "trials" as far as I know for any captured Jap or Kraut. How do you explain that dipstick?

Oh, and listen, I don't recall trials for NVA, or N. Koreans either.

Oh, wait, let me guess, we aren't war now. Tell that to the families of the 3000 lost on 9/11, or just shut up.

[Great American]

The consrvative take....no rights, no trials. Just kill them. That goes against your tirades of this being a Christian nation of course. But having your cake and eating it too is what conservatives love the most. The ignorance of this country is proven every day. They can't even see that they are no better than the ones screaming jihad. The Sean Hannity idolizers are in full force!! What's next? Celebrating the massacre and removal of millions of Natives that were here before the first deists came with their eyes set on personal wealth and materialism??? You conservatives are right. Just ask them. They'll tell you how great they are. Turn off the radio, turn off Fox News and do some real research for yourself. No wonder we are the most ignorant country on the planet.

[Kee]

Just a couple of question for my friends on the lefty side.

Did we Mirandize these guys? If not, can they still be found guilty? If so does that mean Miranda no longer applies in our courts and US citizens can be convicted if not Mirandized? Must our troops in Afghanistan Mirandize every captive they take there? Must they be give lawyers and "bail hearings"?

Did you hear KSM's attorney his client is now pleading "not guilty" so he can put the US on trial along with him?

If New York suffers a display terrorist attack during these show trials, on whose head will the blame lay?

This is the most blatant and hateful political attack on our country by a setting President in a time of war, he and his party will pay dearly for it. The amazing thing is that he and his minions can't see it coming. Talk about over-playing your hand.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Well KCE, murder is not murder when it's performed at Planned Parenthood.

[KC Educator]

The day after 9/11 I wrote a letter that was published in which I stated that the actions that day were an act of war. Today I believe that I was wrong. Saying that we are at war and proceeding with war time tribunals only gives the terrorists credibility in their recruitment campaigns when they tell young Muslims that the actions of the US are nothing more than a modern Crusade. If you look in most dictionaries, the primary definition of war states it is conflict between two or more nations or states. War is a legitimate process under international law. Almost every dictionary that I read mentioned that crimes on the other hand were acts of evil against individuals and states forbidden by law. What the criminals did on 9/11 was an act of evil on an unprecedented level and should not be given the legitimacy of being an act of war. Murder is murder even when it occurs on a mass scale. There is no precedent, which I know of, to try civilian common criminals in this country in military tribunals. These criminals do not deserve the honor.

[Zeno]

David Beamer ranted in a rambling statement on FOX News. Beyond being the father of a brave man, what are this man's credentials?

Posted by: hajkar | Nov 24, 2009 8:17:32 AM

About the same as Cindy sheehan's and you and the rest of the radical left loved to see her on TV cursing at President Bush. I guess it does seem like as much fun when they are after your messiah.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

The funny thing is Obama is perfectly fine with indefinite detainment of American father's as guilty until proven innocent.

[Stifled Freedom]

Like I said, they need to frame them on a sex crime. Then, we can throw out all the rules and have a lynch mob. Poeple get harsher treatment for consensual sex than they do for plotting to kill 3000 people.

[Dan Beyer]

He's articulate, he has his priorities right, and he has common sense.

He's the antithesis of you.

[Keith Williams3]

damned if he does damned if he dont.

[ChotoCK]

Does Senator Graham's credential meet your criteria hajkar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y

[hajkar]

David Beamer ranted in a rambling statement on FOX News. Beyond being the father of a brave man, what are this man's credentials?