Gitmo prisioners face NY trial

[hamster mk 4]

According to Yahoo, the ?Master Minds? of the September 11th attack are going to be tried in New York and possibly executed there if found guilty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_guantanamo_us_trial

My take on this, is that that it should have been done long ago. Holding terrorists in a military prison makes the statement that their cause is legitimate. That they are at war with the United States and are entitled to the rights that are given to all enemy combatants. Running them through the civilian legal system says they are nothing more than murderers and criminals. Also that their cause is no more legitimate than that of David Koresh or Timothy McVeigh.

I know there are many people screaming the opposite thing; that these people are a danger and should not be brought on American soil, but I don?t see it that way. One argument is that they are animals and don?t deserve the same due process US citizens enjoy. They look human enough to me and treating them like animals will not endear us to their relatives who may still be undecided about following in their crazy uncle?s foot steps.

There are other arguments against my point of view and I welcome hearing them, flame bait though this may be.

 

[fix-the-spade]

This is a bad idea.

They're taking men who've been repeatedly totured and putting them into what will essentially be show trial then giving them the death penalty.

Whatever happens the only people who are going to come out of this looking bad will be Americans. I don't even see what they intend to achieve doing this. Is it justice for the people and their families who died in the attacks? Some kind of vendetta or point to prove?

As it happens I think these men should be put in a prison, in solitary, then left there on a permanent basis. Assuming they're the right people, at the moment all we have is the confession and bragging of a man who was tortured nearly 200times in the process of getting it, that hardly makes for a convincing case.

They way this is being done the US government seems to be uttely stupid. They almost certainly are very evil men who deserve all that's coming to them and then some. But the way it's being handled is only going to serve as a massive rallying cry for every anti-US anti-West voice on the planet.

 

[Lullabye]

hmm....so much controversy....I guess bringing them to a country they hate is punishment enough. But then to stick em in the legal system? Now that is torture.
I dunno, kill 'em if it lets you sleep at night.

 

[hamster mk 4]

This is a bad idea.

They're taking men who've been repeatedly totured and putting them into what we all know will essentially be show trial then giving them the death penalty.

Whatever happens the only people who are going to come out of this looking bad will be Americans. I don't even see what they intend to achieve doing this. Is it justice for the people and their families who died in the attacks? Some kind of vendetta or point to prove?

The death penalty thing is no guarantee, but New York still uses the death penalty and IMO the accomplices of the 9/11 attackers are deserving of such a fate. I think a civilian trial makes the US look better than a military tribunal or simply "loosing" these men some where at the bottom of the Atlantic.

 

[Ixal]

Its not that Obama had much choice in that matter as the previous government had already declared that those criminals are not war criminals to escape breaching the Geneva Convention.
That means they have to be tried in court and NY is rather symbolic.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Good.
This is how things should be done.
Not making up bullshit classifications to avoid international treaties so you can torture and abuse prisoners, a good portion of which are probably innocent.

 

[lostclause]

The death penalty thing is no guarantee, but New York still uses the death penalty and IMO the accomplices of the 9/11 attackers are deserving of such a fate. I think a civilian trial makes the US look better than a military tribunal or simply "loosing" these men some where at the bottom of the Atlantic.

I agree with this. The military tribunals don't reflect well on the US. Whilst I think they shouldn't be tried by the US (I'd have said the UN, but I think their mandate is limited to crimes against humanity and genocide) there really is no other way.

 

[Wadders]

Hmm interesting, I agree with what you say about a military trial, it would make their attacks seem more justified in their eyes, better just to try them as common scum.

As far as execution goes, fuck that, they're not worth it and they'll just become martyrs to their cause. Allow them the rest of their miserable existance in solitary confinement in a cell. Let 'em rot.

 

[Nickolai77]

As far as execution goes, fuck that, they're not worth it and they'll just become martyrs to their cause. Allow them the rest of their miserable existance in solitary confinement in a cell. Let 'em rot.

This^ Execution just makes martyrs out of them, and in doing so we could be giving them an honourable death.

I think a better alternative would be to send them to a hard labour camp in some inhospitable place like the Arizona Desert or something like that. They can work there until the day they die.

 

[Skeleon]

About damn time that they got their trial.

 

[Baron Khaine]

Now, I don't consider myself an expert of religion or anything, but wouldn't killing these people be making them into Martyr's? Something considered quite a high honour in there religion?

Let em rot in solitary confinement. And no Hard Labour, no nothing, just sit there, alone for 23 hour's of the day.

 

[SilentHunter7]

This is a bad idea.

They're taking men who've been repeatedly totured and putting them into what will essentially be show trial then giving them the death penalty.

Whatever happens the only people who are going to come out of this looking bad will be Americans. I don't even see what they intend to achieve doing this. Is it justice for the people and their families who died in the attacks? Some kind of vendetta or point to prove?

As it happens I think these men should be put in a prison, in solitary, then left there on a permanent basis. Assuming they're the right people, at the moment all we have is the confession and bragging of a man who was tortured nearly 200times in the process of getting it, that hardly makes for a convincing case.

They way this is being done the US government seems to be uttely stupid. They almost certainly are very evil men who deserve all that's coming to them and then some. But the way it's being handled is only going to serve as a massive rallying cry for every anti-US anti-West voice on the planet.

So denying men the constitutional right to a trial is preferable to looking bad?

Actually, holding men indefinitely without a trial probably makes us look just as bad to the world. So it's either try the men, preserve Habeas Corpus, and look like assholes, or don't try the men, set a dangerous precedent, and look like assholes. To me, the choice is obvious.

 

[DracoSuave]

I find it -very- difficult to condone the torture of and a military tribunal for a prisoner who is:

1) A child soldier at the time of arrest
2) Was found pinned down beneath a pile of rubble when he commited his alleged crime
3) His only crime was allegedly throwing a grenade in a live combat zone, which officers at the time did not liken to him.
4) Oh, and happens to be a prisoner of war.

So. Yeah.

You can take your 'these are all evil men' bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Your own country's laws state 'Innocent until proven guilty' in your own constitution as signed by the United States.

They are prisoners of war, and not 'terrorists' if you have invaded the country they are in, as per UN treaties signed by the United States.

They are 'child soldiers' and not 'terrorists' if they are under a certain age, as signed by UN treaties signed by the United States.

When a country's government refuses to follow it's own laws in the -enforcement- of its own laws, it is corrupt.

 

[hamster mk 4]

In the case of the "child soldier" if it can be proven he was planning on throwing a grenade in at US soldiers he should be convicted of attempted murder. If a 15 year old gang member takes a pot shot at a cop during a gang shoot out he would get the same. The jury would be able to take into consideration special circumstances during sentencing. But as far as I know that guy's fate is still unknown. This article is about the people accused of causing a lot of deaths on US soil.

 

[fix-the-spade]

So denying men the constitutional right to a trial is preferable to looking bad?

Actually, holding men indefinitely without a trial probably makes us look just as bad to the world. So it's either try the men, preserve Habeas Corpus, and look like assholes, or don't try the men, set a dangerous precedent, and look like assholes. To me, the choice is obvious.

There's a trial and there's a show trial. To everyone outside the US (even the BBC) this just looks like being a McArthy style show trial.

It's the placing and media round the trial, why a court in New York a few hundred meters from ground zero? Putting the men 'who confessed to planning 9/11' in front of a stand of New Yorkers and asking whether they're guilty is asking for trouble. Why not somewhere else that's going to be at least vaguely detached and not openly hell bent on revenge (I'll go looking for the link, but there was an brief interview with an NY resident that amounted to 'We'll give them a fair trial alright, all the way to the gas chamber,').

From the outside it looks like every possible disadvantage is being put on the accused and the outcome is already known and prepared for. It looks even worse than leaving them in Guantanamo because it's trying to put a veneer of legitemacy over a foregone conclusion. It's just going to bring every bad thing the US did on the way to get here out into the open (and if they don't allow anything into the open for 'national security' will be even worse, it will look like men sent to their death on nothing but the say so of the US government), plus anyone who wants it is getting a perfect example of US and western hypocrisy and oppression, which will come back to haunt us.

I understand why New Yorkers want to see these guys strung up from a flag pole, but you don't hold a trial where the victim is the judge, the jury and the excecutioner.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

This is a bad idea.

They're taking men who've been repeatedly totured and putting them into what will essentially be show trial then giving them the death penalty.

Whatever happens the only people who are going to come out of this looking bad will be Americans. I don't even see what they intend to achieve doing this. Is it justice for the people and their families who died in the attacks? Some kind of vendetta or point to prove?

As it happens I think these men should be put in a prison, in solitary, then left there on a permanent basis. Assuming they're the right people, at the moment all we have is the confession and bragging of a man who was tortured nearly 200times in the process of getting it, that hardly makes for a convincing case.

They way this is being done the US government seems to be uttely stupid. They almost certainly are very evil men who deserve all that's coming to them and then some. But the way it's being handled is only going to serve as a massive rallying cry for every anti-US anti-West voice on the planet.

The very existence of the West is a rallying cry for every anti-Western voice on the planet. Sod them, we have bigger and better guns. Oh, and soldiers who can actually aim an assault weapon.

 

[fix-the-spade]

The very existence of the West is a rallying cry for every anti-Western voice on the planet. Sod them, we have bigger and better guns. Oh, and soldiers who can actually aim an assault weapon.

Yes the west is, for a little irony most of the people we have been fighting are people we are responsible for putting in power.

Sassam Hussein? America funded him to power.
Taliban? See Charlie Wilson.
Iran? That would be us Brits ousting the elected leader and installing the Shah, who wasn't a nice man to say the least.

We have a long history of fucking around with the middle east and an equally long history of fucking it up, ultimately it always comes back to kill our own people. Who'd have thought giving money, power, training and weapons to corrupt, obsessively violent groups would ever come back to haunt us? All the marksmanship in the world counts for shit when you drive over a mine.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

This makes me feel a little worse about the American legal system for reasons mentioend above of "Show trial" etc. Big cases make for bad laws, that's always true, and once there's precedent things spiral out of hand quickly.

Also, wasn't it America who declared 'The War on Terror'? They fired the first shot, but had it been dealth with differently then, it might have been more acceptable. Either America is at War with terrorists, in which case these men are prisoners of that war and should be treated accordingly, or it isnot at war with them, should stop its militaristic movements, and treat this as a civilian matter. You can't have it both ways to suit whatever you want to do, because then you're a playground bully.