Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts

[Universe Prince]

But these are largely folks killing, or trying to kill, or helping to kill our soldiers, at a time of war,

Then proving that should be no problem.

So how much money are you willing to put down now on that Sahara land deal? I've got lots of investors lined up, so this opportunity won't last long, but I like you, and I'm willing to let you get in ahead of all the rest. You'll double your investment, at the very least. Guaranteed.

[sirs]

But these are largely folks killing, or trying to kill, or helping to kill our soldiers, at a time of war,

Then proving that should be no problem.

In a tribunal court.  I've been on record indicating they should be moving on those faster, then again, I'm not too tweeked about it given the indefinate detention we applied to the POW's of previous wars, but it should go faster.  I can only speculate that the administratiuon believes it's better to get those trying to kill our soldiers and citizens out of the battle all together, similar to prior wars.  But this is a war, make no mistake about it, and they are non-uniformed enemy combatants in this war.

So how much money are you willing to put down now on that Sahara land deal? I've got lots of investors lined up, so this opportunity won't last long, but I like you, and I'm willing to let you get in ahead of all the rest. You'll double your investment, at the very least. Guaranteed.

Ummmm, yea, whatever you say, Prince     

[Plane]

I do enjoy responding appropriately to asanine premices

Then you'll understand completely what I'm about to say.

Either Congress reasserts itself, or terror-friendly bedlam ensues.

That is complete adult male bovine excrement. It's fearmongering nonsense that is entirely political. If you really believe we're risking "terror-friendly bedlam", I'd like to get you in on the ground floor of a business to sell lake front property that is going to sky rocket in value once they get that man made river and lake finished in the Sahara.

Twenty thousand years ago the Sahara didn't include much desert , it was grassland and forest , if the weather is changeing again perhaps that Sahara land will be worth something again.

But seriously , I would like you to consider the case of the 93 World trade center bombing. All of the conspiritors that we could catch were treated like criminals and jailed after conviction.

But fromn that trial Osama Bin Laden learned that we could listen to his cell phone , Al Queda learned who most of our scorces were, Al Quieda learned who we knew of their names , and etc.... The right of discovery was used to discover how to hide Osama and Al Quieda better.

This is a tried and false model , it failed very much to discourage Al Queda and it is very wrong to return to it.

[Universe Prince]

But seriously , I would like you to consider the case of the 93 World trade center bombing. All of the conspiritors that we could catch were treated like criminals and jailed after conviction.

But fromn that trial Osama Bin Laden learned that we could listen to his cell phone , Al Queda learned who most of our scorces were, Al Quieda learned who we knew of their names , and etc.... The right of discovery was used to discover how to hide Osama and Al Quieda better.

This is a tried and false model , it failed very much to discourage Al Queda and it is very wrong to return to it.

Bin Laden learned that in 1993? Then why all the fuss a year or so back when some newspaper or other published a story about wiretapping? I thought that was supposedly when al-Qaeda learned about the U.S. listening in on their cell phones and all that. Huh.

Anyway, I don't buy your argument. That the enemy might learn something useful to them is not sufficient reason to trample people's rights. That someone is suspected of terrorist activity is not grounds for holding people indefinately, or for trying them in a manner that leaves them little to no means of defending themselves against the charges. Yes, that position does make life difficult for the government representatives who have to deal with the situation, but then it is supposed to be. That is why we have innocent until proven guilty as part of the foundation of our system of justice. Maybe a sense of security is more important to you than justice, but it isn't to me. Which is why I do not buy your argument.

[Universe Prince]

In a tribunal court.  I've been on record indicating they should be moving on those faster, then again, I'm not too tweeked about it given the indefinate detention we applied to the POW's of previous wars, but it should go faster.

But these are not prisoners of war, so we are told. So comparing their situation to POWs doesn't make much sense to me.

I can only speculate that the administratiuon believes it's better to get those trying to kill our soldiers and citizens out of the battle all together, similar to prior wars.  But this is a war, make no mistake about it, and they are non-uniformed enemy combatants in this war.

I'm not at all opposed to getting people trying to kill U.S. soldiers and citizens out of the way. But we need some grounds to do so. If they are not POWs because they belong to no state military and wear no uniform, then we damn well need to have some means of proving these people are who we say they are. Rounding people up and claiming they're all terrorists without any proof is not good enough. And the notion that allowing them to challenge their incarceration somehow going to result in "terror-friendly bedlam" or some similar disaster is nothing but propagandistic, political fearmongering.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I seriously doubt that Bin Laden would have remained ignorant about cellphones from 1993 until 2000 or so because of the Blind Sheik trial. They are radios, for Heaven's sake. None of the people jailed in 1993 were involved in 2001, because they were in jail.

The people who really didn't learn a thing from the 1993 bombing were the Juniorbushies, especially the most Incompetent National Security Officer in history, Condi Rice. After all, everyone knew that (1) Middle Eastern terrorists wanted to blow up the WTO, and (2) that they were noted for hijacking airplanes, and (3) were willing to commit suicide to deliver bombs. Apparently Condi just could not figure out what might happen if they hijacked a pane and flew it into a building. Or were they? Because there was  a memo in which it was suggested that extra care be taken to prevent AQ from hijacking planes. We knew that Hitler had plans for suicide million, aircraft-delivered, skyscraper-busting bombs during WWII.

That is why National Security Directors are paid the Big Bucks.

[Plane]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005215.php


Sometimes I am shocked and sometimes I just sigh.

Yes , The people who rented a truck and packed it with explosives are in jail.

This is what Al Queda thinks of as acceptable loss.

Yes it was reveiled during the trial that we were tracking Osama Bin Laden by his cell phone , which he promptly ditched.

Locking up Al Queda five or six at a time is not going to be effective in any respect at all.

This Suprieme Court Decision has the potential for killing a lot of people , after which we will dissect the event and point fingers.

Just as we did after 9-11 , apparently learning very little in the process.

Lets not wait for the aftermath of the next big attack , lets look over the last few.

Al Queda attacks ..... The agents of the attack die or are captured and the Al Queida learns from experience .

Then they attack again.

[Universe Prince]

This Suprieme Court Decision has the potential for killing a lot of people

I respectfully submit that the SCOTUS decision will not kill anyone.

Lets not wait for the aftermath of the next big attack , lets look over the last few.

Al Queda attacks ..... The agents of the attack die or are captured and the Al Queida learns from experience .

Then they attack again.

So... instead let's just round up anyone who might possibly remotely be connected with terrorism, assume they are all completely guilty of terrorism and lock them away, no trials, no hearings, no justice? Beyond calling them pirates, what, exactly, is your solution?

[Plane]

This Suprieme Court Decision has the potential for killing a lot of people

I respectfully submit that the SCOTUS decision will not kill anyone.

Thank you for trhe respect , but how can you possibly think so? This has as much potential for causeing trouble as the Dred Scott decision.

Lets not wait for the aftermath of the next big attack , lets look over the last few.

Al Queda attacks ..... The agents of the attack die or are captured and the Al Queida learns from experience .

Then they attack again.

So... instead let's just round up anyone who might possibly remotely be connected with terrorism, assume they are all completely guilty of terrorism and lock them away, no trials, no hearings, no justice? Beyond calling them pirates, what, exactly, is your solution?

No ,That would be expensive.

Lets win the war in the shortest possible time , every other choice kills more people.

Don't be hard hearted about that.

When we find them and we are not sure they are guilty , I would not mind a statutory limit on their incarceration , but it should be very long .

When we are sure they are guilty we should treat them as Pirates , those rules are still on the books , and they are Pirates.

[Universe Prince]

Thank you for trhe respect , but how can you possibly think so? This has as much potential for causeing trouble as the Dred Scott decision.

Unless SCOTUS decisions are living entities with a will of their own, they are not capable of killing people. People kill people. If the government cannot make a compelling case as to why a detainee should remain a detainee, that is not the fault of SCOTUS.

Lets win the war in the shortest possible time , every other choice kills more people.

Don't be hard hearted about that.

I'm not. But frankly, we're supposedly fighting a war against terror, and I don't expect it to be a war much more successful than the "war on drugs". And for similar reasons. It's misdirected and ignores underlying problems.

When we find them and we are not sure they are guilty , I would not mind a statutory limit on their incarceration , but it should be very long .

So, if we're not sure, we just assume they are anyway? I'm not seeing anything good about this plan.

When we are sure they are guilty we should treat them as Pirates , those rules are still on the books , and they are Pirates.

Pirates still get trials, don't they?

[Plane]

When we are sure they are guilty we should treat them as Pirates , those rules are still on the books , and they are Pirates.

Pirates still get trials, don't they?

Not always , Ship Captains in the regular Navy were empowered to hold these "trials", we and the English and French and Spanish got fed up and shot or hanged them all , untill Piracy became a joke.

Why can't terrorism become a joke the way that Piracy did?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Bin Laden Cheers Court Decision

[hnumpah]

When we are sure they are guilty...

And isn't that the key, rather than just locking them up willy-nilly and denying them their rights to have a trial and prove otherwise?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Oh look, children! CU4LG has posted another pirated poster!

What a great debater! Put the believers in habeas corpus in Ay-rab scarves! How very clever!

Now we know they aren't real Christians.
I bet they aren't for less government, either.

[Universe Prince]

Not always , Ship Captains in the regular Navy were empowered to hold these "trials", we and the English and French and Spanish got fed up and shot or hanged them all , untill Piracy became a joke.

And yet, piracy still exists. And while I'm sure dispensing with trials seems like a fun idea, given the number of people who end up wrongfully imprisoned in this country alone, and in light of the many stories I've read of people who ended up in jail because they were defending themselves from law enforcement agents who appeared at first to be attackers or robbers, I find myself reluctant to agree to just start shooting and hanging on the spot anyone suspected of terrorism. You might make piracy a joke that way, but you will also make our justice system a joke that way. And I would rather we not do that. As I said before, and apparently it bears repeating, maybe a sense of security is more important to you than justice, but it isn't to me.