Terrorist

[MooseMom]

Sorry.,..I've deleted my post because I was just repeating myself.  I agree to disagree.

[Hemodoc]

Dear MooseMom,

I will simply remind you that the military are the people that put their lives on the line.  If you as a civilian wish to prosecute the 911 folks, by all means, go get them.  But please don't ask my fellow military comrades in arms to put their lives on the line for your civilian wishes.  It is a job title that the military really does not need in addition to their serious duties.

So, not to be short, but if you want to prosecute these folks, then go get them at your own risk.  I have not personally been in the field of battle and feel quite grateful for that fact, but I have met literally thousands of folks who have.  It is not a task taken lightly.  To place the burden of the technicalities of a modern US style prosecution upon mainly 18 yo kids in the actually battle field is simply wrong in my opinion.  We can sit back in our civilian world which I do myself enjoy immensely with little thought for what the young military kids are doing over seas.  Yet the implications of civilian trials for what are in essence POWs has great implications that I believe will put our young kids in uniform at higher risk.

Lastly, you are missing the entire issue of protecting our own troops by treating our enemies captured on the field ethically and under the Geneva Convention.  Once again, doing a show trial for mainly political purposes of KSM does not in the least undo the damage that the enemy combatant status does to American troops who will be summarily executed by our enemies and tortured.  The Bible talks about reaping what we have sown, we have yet to see the affects of the new way of waging war.  War is never pretty, but this makes it even less so.  The civilian trials of those captured in foreign lands by our military does nothing for the first affront of not utilizing the Geneva Convention any longer.  That is the real issue of GITMO in my opinion.  911 was considered an act of war, which in many ways it was.   It is quite proper to treat those involved as such.

The enemy combatant status leads very readily to locking up our citizens as was done in WWII with Japanese, German and Italian US citizens.  History records correctly that this was incorrect.  Any US citizen could be declared an enemy combatant under the Patriot Act as well and denied Habeas Corpus rights.  Habeas Corpus rights need not be only protected in civilian courts.  Military justice assures this universal right as well.  In fact, it is quite common in military tribunals to have civilian lawyers representing the accused soldier.  One of the issues that I have with going to NY for a civilian trial is the implication it has on military justice which is also authorized under the constitution as well.  There are many forms of justice in this world and there are two well established systems in America already. 

To try and put these two different systems together is to invite a confusing mess at the level of the battlefield.  All we have to do is to look at the police officer and the confusion of interaction that they are confronted with in heated situations here in the US and how many times mistakes in passion and heat of conflict that have let many bad guys back on the streets.  Multiply this effect by a hundred fold and you get a glimpse of the battlefield.  It is an unrealistic expectation to have young and often immature 18 yo kids in the heat of the battle required to not mess up a prosecution by some technicality.  There are times and situations where cold steal is the rule of the law.  Doing both at the same time will lead to more coffins of our young men.  We have no draft at present, but I have two young sons that I would not want to have that burden should we face a draft in the next few years.

The purposes of this act of terrorism on 911 is if any thing a criminal act of war if we are going to look at the criminal aspects of this.  Once again, the military tribunals of WWII are examples of war criminals being brought to justice by a just people who treated them humanely under the Geneva Convention before executing the majority of them.  Once again, if you wish to have a trial in NY to show how our justice works, what does that do for the original issue of the Geneva convention that we have thrown away?  Your NY trial will not in any manner fix that issue, it actually makes it so that we will not continue in the future with the Geneva Convention.  It is in essence the final blow to this humane treatise on treatment of POWs including our own kids.  In addition, placing additional technical constraints on those in the field of battle is likely to lead to more dead American kids by simple virtue of reaction time and hesitation issues about technical Miranda rights that do not apply to a battlefield situation. 

Your civilian trial in NY has many implications beyond a simple showcase of American justice to the world.  We already have an internationally recognized method of criminal war crimes acts that is being tossed away.  In my opinion, it will not be for the better.  The NY trial is a final nail in the coffin of the Geneva convention in my opinion.  It should not be taken lightly.

[Wallyz]

I think the issue that Bill brought up bears repeating- 75% of the Guantanimo detainees who went through military tribunals (33 of 44) were released.  None of the 1993 WTC bombers were released. McVeigh was executed.

If you want these people prosecuted, you need to do it in a criminal proceeding.  Historically, a military tribunal gives them a  better chance of getting off.

[Hemodoc]

Historically, I go back to the Nuremberg trials where the large majority of the major war criminals were executed. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial

I believe that you can find justice in both venues, but that is not my objection to the civilian trials in NY.  As I noted before, it does not correct the abandonment of the Geneva Convention by our government.  Instead of fixing the original problem, they are using the civilian trials as a band aide over the larger Geneva Convention issue that I have not seen addressed directly.  That is my main objection.  Unless the Geneva Convention issue is addressed directly, it still places our troops in more danger should they be captured.  In addition, reading Miranda rights on the battlefield is a road that confuses the issues further at the point of the soldier in the field.  Instead of hunting bad guys, they will now also have to make sure that they do it in a way that a defense attorney in the US will not be able to rebut.  That places a burden difficult for seasoned police to comply with, let alone a young 18 yo kid fresh out of boot camp.

[MooseMom]

While I understand the argument that we need to be seen to comply with the Geneva Convention, it does not follow that trying KSM in the US would put our young troops in greater danger should they themselves be captured.  Are you so sure that some terrorist cell in Afghanistan is even going to know what the Geneva Convention is?  Do you really think that some legal convention is going to keep a young soldier safe in the hands of an enraged, illiterate peasant who has hooked up with the Taliban because he has nothing better to do with his life?  These people are not interested in the Geneva Convention.  If they are as dangerous as we are being told they are, they are not going to hesitate to torture and execute some 18 year old American soldier just because of the GENEVA CONVENTION!  Really?  These terrorists don't care if they have been labelled by Congress as POWs or "enemy combatants" or whatever noun you wish to concoct.  I agree that not following the convention has been to our detriment, but the result is not greater danger for our young troops on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Geneva Convention is not going to protect them there.
I am a bit worried that you show such concern about the youth and immaturity of our young troops.  Perhaps the military should rethink their age requirements.  If our young troops cannot do the job they volunteer or, perhaps we should keep them out of harm's way by not putting them there in the first place.  Again, they are not going to benefit from the protections provided by Geneva Convention.

[Hemodoc]

Dear MooseMom,

This is not going to be the only war we are involved in.  Russian, China, Korea?  You name it, we have many potential foes for future conflicts.  Dumping the Geneva Convention is a losing issue for us.  Once again, your NY trial does not restore this.

Secondly, 18 yo kids are who we send to war, but how many 18 yo kids would you want to be cops with only 12 weeks of training?  Being a police officer and understanding the intricacies of our US justice system is a much different issue than being a good soldier.  You are missing my point that the implications of civilian trials have far reaching implications beyond the trial itself especially to our young kids who fight our wars. It is a further burden that they should not be expected to bare.

If you wish to restore  America's moral high ground, then go back to the source of the loss of our high ground, not adhering to the Geneva Convention.  That is where it started.  That is where it should be fixed.

Lastly, the history of warfare is filled with retaliation for how the enemy treats your fellows in arms that are captured.  We look at the Indians scalping the "white man" failing to realize that it was the "white man" that started the practice against the Indians.  How we treat our enemies is important or at least it should be.  Forgive me, I thought that was the entire reason for the NY trial to showcase American justice?  That justice starts in the battlefield, not the Federal court room.  Do we stand for freedom and justice or are we just a bunch of thugs and mercenaries?  We already have rules of action well thought out and well practiced.  Adhering to the Geneva Convention does give diplomatic strength during  a conflict.  It has historically made a difference.  The Taliban march to a different drummer yet even here, they have allies among nations that we deal with in business and militarily.  It is not outside of reality to understand that not adhering to the Geneva Convention reduces our diplomatic powers.  The Geneva Convention is important historically as well as today.  Nevertheless, it appears to be a moot issue, I don't see it being restored any time soon.  We are entering a new era of warfare that is not a step forward.

[BigSky]

I think the issue that Bill brought up bears repeating- 75% of the Guantanimo detainees who went through military tribunals (33 of 44) were released.  None of the 1993 WTC bombers were released. McVeigh was executed.

If you want these people prosecuted, you need to do it in a criminal proceeding.  Historically, a military tribunal gives them a  better chance of getting off.

Going to need a reference to this 75% claim of 33 of 44.   

[Wallyz]

From David Frackt, one of the lawyers representing Gitmo detainees before the federal court of appeals.

fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf

[BigSky]

From David Frackt, one of the lawyers representing Gitmo detainees before the federal court of appeals.

fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf

From the article it was the federal court that granted habeas corpus petitions  and ordered the release of them, not military tribunals. 

[Wallyz]

The Federal court of Appeals is the Appeals court for all Military tribunals.

[Hemodoc]

Which means a military tribunal is already under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court system.