Should Terrorist Trials be Held in Civilian or Military Courts?

pat: you appear to present a rational arguement save for this: civilians get killed in wars. always have and still do. also they get killed in conventional wars by military, and quasi-military agents. here's a question for you: (((((were the nurenburg trials conducted by the military or civilians?))))) also, this occured at war's end and by the victors of that war (however unfair that may seem). in the current war, our enemy can't seem to afford uniforms. kind of like our own revolutionary war, although many of our militia then did have uniforms. also our enemy uses their lack of uniforms as a tactic to blend in with civilians.neither is guerilla warfare a brand new tactic. simply because new tools are used, doesn't negate that it is guerilla warfare. HOWEVER: you've heard of the term sleeper cell, have you not? so, these types of individuals, which were linked to 9/11 "combatants", "terrorists" , spies or what have you, were actually spies and sabotours(sp?). they infiltrated our country and executed an act of war. and so execution/shooting/hanging is relevant, as we are still at war. there is sufficient data to suggest that sleeper cells can still exist today (one being, they weren't detected until too late) there is an abundance of info in regards to this on the net. admitedly, i'm not interested in doing your homework for you, nor convincing you of what you won't believe. you can find a working definition of whatever term you want to. try an online dictionary for the newer terms, or wikipedia. as to trials,the u.s. should continue to follow the precedences set by the nurenburg trials, and also adhere to the geneva convention. the geneva convention didn't keep us from winning wwII or the korean war(if you agree with the spin); so i see no significant impediment now either.there is also enough justification to try and execute prisoners of the iraq war, as our former president has already declared victory. not sure why he didn't do that once victory was declared by him. perhaps that would be a foreign relations debacle.(tongue meet cheek)

The Nuremberg Trials were a travesty of justice, too. Any legitimate legal expert knows and agrees with this. Like I said before, 'Military Tribunals' are not much more than Kangaroo courts. The defendant is not afforded normal protections of a civilian court and is at the mercy of this so called "court." More times than not, the end result is the death of the defendant. So, a 'Tribunal,' therefore, is not much more than a death sentence.

However, the problem here is both complex and perceptual. You use the word "Terrorist" as though there is a universally agreed upon notion of what it is, it's meaning, and who constitutes one. One man's 'Terrorist' is another man's 'Freedom Fighter.' Just as American colonial revolutionaries were "terrorists" in the eyes of King George III (you and I would disagree with that), Iraqis defending their nation and people from invading U.S. forces are 'Freedom Fighters' to their people, and "terrorists" or "insurgents" in official U.S. lingo.

And I think you confuse legitimate 'Spies' and 'Saboteurs' with the people who perpetrated 9-11. 'Spies' and 'Saboteurs' are usually aligned with a nation and/or an official army. The 9-11 "terrorists" were mainly from Saudi Arabia, with one being from Egypt. Several of the others' nationality was never published. So, there is no clear indication that any one nation was to blame (unless you want to blame Saudi Arabia, which had the most nationals involved, for the attacks).

No "act of war" was committed because - again - no nation is responsible. 9-11 was a clear act of criminality by individuals acting either on their own, or through a criminal element (like a Mafia, or Columbian Drug Cartel, etc.).

Also, we are not LEGALLY "at war" with anyone. Iraq did not attack us, declare war on us, nor had anything to do with 9-11. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. However, the Bush administration concocted phony "evidence" and LIED to the American people, the UN, and the world about Iraq being involved in 9-11 and possessing 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that they (Iraq) were supposedly planning on using to attack American and Israeli targets in the Middle East. None of this was true.

Also, when you make the statements, "the u.s. should continue to follow the precedences set by the nurenburg trials, and also adhere to the geneva convention," I take exception to both contentions, and here's why.

Understand I'm not lecturing you, but trying to give you facts to correct your thinking. This is going to take a bit of reading, so stay with me on this.

1. If there is anything we DO NOT want to emulate it is the Nuremberg Trials which was a sham of "justice." The Nuremberg trials, in fact, violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the defeated Germans. Germany - defeated, starving, and prostrate - was in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.

Some leading Allied figures, such as Sir Norman Birkett, British alternate judge, Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor and a former US Attorney General, and Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, vice-chairman of the supreme court of the USSR, all privately acknowledged at the time, the Nuremberg trials were organized NOT to dispense impartial justice, but for purely political purposes.

Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. He stated, "If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here. The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident."

In short, the Nuremberg Trials were guilty of allowing perjured testimony, allowing testimony derived through torture, disallowing critical evidence on the defendants' behalf, allowing unproven evidence against the defendants, and tying the hands of the defense attorneys' to present evidence, ask pertinent questions, produce witnesses, etc. In short, a KANGAROO COURT.

2. As for your statement about regard for the Geneva Convention, I agree...,except the U.S. has been one of the chief violators of the Geneva Convention in the following areas:

a. Illegally attacking a sovereign nation (Iraq).
b. Producing false evidence
c. Engaging in Torture
e. Precipitating Death Squads
f. Abuse of Prisoners
g. Engaging in clandestine operations which include assassination, sabotage,
and kidnapping.

Also, listen to what you say; "there is enough justification to try and EXECUTE prisoners of the Iraq War...". So, just being a soldier in an opposing army immediately dooms them as CRIMINALS to be "EXECUTED"? Did you really mean to say this? You also used the phrase "Try and Execute". You mean, like a KANGAROO COURT would 'Try and Execute' individuals? A 'Trial' just a formality before you kill them?

This is what I'm talking about; the attitude that EVERYONE on the opposing side is 'Guilty' of just being the opposition, and EVERYONE on our side is clean and pure. It just doesn't work that way, nor should it.

Our laws of justice go all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215, and have been a unique beacon of unusually decent and humane judicial endeavor that few in the world have - or could - emulate. It has always been a source of pride on the part of Anglo/American civilization. We MUST do all we can to safeguard our unique heritage of law and justice, and met it out evenly and fairly to ALL who we bring before it. We cannot allow exceptions or we risk undermining these laws to the point our own people fall victim to their degeneration.

Well, I didn't say we didn't "declare" it, I said "We're not at War with...." However, YEAH, you can "DECLARE" anything you want, but that doesn't mean jack!

And you CAN'T REALLY "declare War" on "Terrorism" because there is no "winning" against it! You don't know much about 'Terrorism,' do you Herbo?

Unlike an Army, there is not a single entity to "go after." You can "go after" INDIVIDUALS, but they are not the ONLY participants, and - unlike an Army - have no 'Base,' or 'Headquarters' which - if you take it out - ends the conflict.

You can't even gauge the number of "terrorists" there are, nor even WHO they are. And you rarely know WHERE they are. Look at what the 9-11 guys did? The got past every single defense mechanism we had in place, and they did it fairly easy.

And, you keep saying "They" like you know who "They" are. Who are "they," Herbie? WHERE are "THEY," Herbie? When are "They" likely to strike again, Herbie? You don't have the answers, and neither does the Military, the CIA, the FBI, or anyone else. That is NOT the kind of "enemy" you can "declare" shit on because there IS NO central nerve center you can get to.

You ask, what are we to do? "Just say I give" No, Herbie, we need to STOP FEEDING THE FIRE THAT INFLAMES THESE "TERRORIST." Bin Laden made it clear why the U.S. was being targeted. He basically referenced our foreign policy, especially as it related to the Palestinians and the Middle East in general.

I'll turn around a position Bush advanced in referring to his illegal preemptive war plan. When we stop going over there (Middle East) and interfering in their lives, invading their countries, and killing their people, they will stop trying to "blow us to bits."

Yes, it's THAT easy.

the president takes an oath to defend and protect the constitution and the people . bush was told by at least 5 different nations that saddam had wmd's. they had u.n. resolutions up the butt violated . he acted on our behalf when he went in . what he did wrong was stay . he found no weapons so should have left . iran must not be allowed to possess nukes . period . the leader wackajob is hell bent on destroying isreal . our only true democratic ally in the region . it is what it is . we will likely go to war . i no further want my boys to go fight than you do . i'd prefer to protect this country but in this age we live in; borders mean nothing ; our interests lie in who will fall to nut job reshigms next and who will fall to communism next . look at the imf. just a huge siphoning of money to be given to third world countries . let them take care of themselves . we are not responcible for theire plight. could bush be impeached for going in ? no way in hell . could he be impeached for staying? absolutely .but the original debate is the war on terror . you're a president and you're besett with attacks from non uniformed groups of terrorists. the geneva convention protects them as they dont have sovereignty . you cant destory them and protect american lives with police actions after the fact . you cant attack them with strikes legallywith any real good outcome (case in point; clintons pathetic attempt with a hell fire) . so you declare war on what they are . with congresses blessings . in fact you know you'll be demonised but you do it anyway to protect those you took an oath to protect .