5 Reasons Not To Hold Terror Trials In New York City

[toastywombel]

I don't know... under what authority did we snatch up foreign civilians in the first place?

 

That's why pre-emption is a bad policy. You pick someone up because they may attack American targets in the future, but you can't try them because they have yet to commit any crime, but then you can't release them because you afraid they may attack American targets in the future and now they are even more likely too because you essentially captured and held them for no reason.

[SH3RL0CK]

That's why pre-emption is a bad policy. You pick someone up because they may attack American targets in the future, but you can't try them because they have yet to commit any crime, but then you can't release them because you afraid they may attack American targets in the future and now they are even more likely too because you essentially captured and held them for no reason.

 

 

Except they may well have committed a crime. Perhaps they provided financial aid, or technical assistance to AQ. This is why a trial of some sort is necessary.

 

Additionally, our work in Afganistan is not pre-emptive. If you will recall, 9-11 happened first.

 

AFAIK, Osama Ben Laden, responsible for 9-11 was not in the USA during the attacks, or even for any of the groundwork which set up this horrific crime. Suppose we happen to catch him in Afghanistan tomorrow?

 

To bascule's point, we are snatching up foreign AQ members under US Military authority. Therefore, isn't a military tribunal appropriate?

Edited December 15, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[toastywombel]

I agree, those who have committed a crime should be picked up, but you cannot pick someone up just because they might have committed a crime, or might commit a crime in the future. It creates for a legal quagmire.

[SH3RL0CK]

I agree, those who have committed a crime should be picked up, but you cannot pick someone up just because they might have committed a crime, or might commit a crime in the future. It creates for a legal quagmire.

 

 

? You always pick people up who might have committed a crime, charge them for the crime, then try them in a court of law to determine if they actually did commit the crime. You cannot presume their guilt... it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove guilt during the court procedings.

 

The problem is that we have picked people up and are holding them without any charges being filed and without any trial. I completely agree these actions are wrong.

[jackson33]

The Third Geneva Convention, enacted 1950...

Article 4; Prisoners of war.

 

Paragraph 2;

 

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

 

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

 

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

 

that of carrying arms openly;

 

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

Article 84

 

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offense alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

 

Section 2; Release of prisoners at close of Hostilities;

 

Prisoners of war against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offense are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings, and, if necessary, until the completion of the punishment. The same shall apply to prisoners of war already convicted for an indictable offense.

 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_5

 

Under the Geneva Convention;

 

Any designated terrorist group (as a movement) is subject to the Geneva Convention (this includes Hammas, Al Qaeda, The Taliban and a couple others, if and when in combat), as a COMBATANT, implied in the rights reserved. The Geneva Convention, indirectly protects, otherwise known and called civilians. The connection to Civil Authority under the SC decision, is in section 84, "unless existing laws of the detaining Power" expressly the civil courts." Section 2, clearly ask that all detainees are released or those charged be held, until any legal action and sentence be completed.

 

Again to show the connection NOW, with the Military and Civilian Court systems, as addressed in 1950, a combatant can now be tried under the Federal US Criminal Court System.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." . . . In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants." [/Quote]

 

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/12/101629/333

 

Al Qaeda is a civilian organization. If you claim they are not, then by definition they are not terrorists; they're soldiers of a foreign military.[/Quote]

 

They are not solders of any Nation, but of many and are terrorist, part of a movement listed in the Geneva Convention Agreement.

 

Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة‎, al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[5] and late 1989/early 1990.[6] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm[7] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad.

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries. The most notable believed to be the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The US government responded by launching the War on Terrorism. Between 3,000 and 4,000 members of the network have been captured, and many thousands more killed on the front in Afghanistan.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

 

bascule, I'm having trouble understanding your position. Are you trying to show terrorism, other than a terrorist group and that NATO has invaded a sovereign Territory...

[bascule]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_5

 

Under the Geneva Convention;

 

Any designated terrorist group (as a movement) is subject to the Geneva Convention (this includes Hammas, Al Qaeda, The Taliban and a couple others, if and when in combat), as a COMBATANT, implied in the rights reserved. The Geneva Convention, indirectly protects, otherwise known and called civilians.

 

Source? You're just linking to the Geneva Convention and giving your interpretation here.

 

Given that you're doing that, perhaps you can scroll up to Article 4 and tell me which of those groups Khalid Sheikh Mohammed falls under.

[Mr Skeptic]

Al Qaeda is a civilian organization. If you claim they are not, then by definition they are not terrorists; they're soldiers of a foreign military.

 

Can't soldiers commit acts of terrorism?

[bascule]

Can't soldiers commit acts of terrorism?

 

Under what useful definition of terrorism can soldiers commit acts of terrorism? Soldiers commit war crimes.