• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

Rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not restricted to U.S. citizens.

So what? That doesn't mean they're extended to foreign terrorists.

If you think a foreign terrorist is entitled to the same legal protections as a US citizen, then why aren't you upset about the predator drone strikes President Obama orders almost daily? None of those terrorists are read their rights or given a day in court. They just get a hellfire missile up their ass. So, if that's okay, then what's wrong with sending KSM to a military tribunal?

Your position makes no damn sense. It's all based in this silly emotional need to see through an extremist leftist agenda.
 
Maybe Coulter was right all along


She said NYers are wussies and would run if attacked ....


I hate the bitch but seeing this debate makes ya wonder



Yeah .... the "terrorists are coming ... stock up on duct tape ..."
 
Then educate yourself on the subject. Everyone of them we've tried except 3 has been in civilian, federal, court. Only 3 have been tried and convicted in a military tribunal. 2 of them got less than a year and are out free right now.

But that's not what you said. You said 99% of terrorists have been processed through civilian courts. But what about the terrorists that are being detained indefinitely or the ones who are handed over to foreign intelligence agencies for "interrogation"? None of them were afforded the protections of the American legal system, do they not count?

Distraction. That's war.

Well duh! That's the whole point of trying KSM in a military tribunal as opposed to a civilian court. Foreign combatants are not entitled to the same legal protections as a US citizen, a fact you just admitted by justifying extra judicial killings (predator drone strikes).

By the way, labeling everything I say as a "distraction" is doing nothing to further your position. It just makes you look like a petulant child.

:) Part of me does like this. :) But, what if they're innocent?

Well, gee, welcome to reality. It's called war and mistakes happen. Even your beloved civilian trials have put innocent men to death. I guess we should just get rid of the entire criminal justice system because some innocent people might die...

I look at it like we are showing them, right up in their faces, that we are not afraid of them. We are strong enough to try them all, as we have tried more than 300 already!, in public. Then, when they are convicted, they are sent away never to be seen from again.

The idea that you're going to send a bunch of psychopathic terrorists a message by affording them an extra layer of legal protections is ludicrous...

Terrorist henchman: Osama, Osama! I have terrible news!

Osama: What is it?

Terrorist henchman: The Americans, they're...they're-

Osama: Spit it out already!

Terrorist henchman: They're trying Khalid Sheik Mohammad in a civilian court!!!

Osama: Oh no!!! The Americans really mean business, now! Hold me!
 
Maybe Coulter was right all along


She said NYers are wussies and would run if attacked ....


I hate the bitch but seeing this debate makes ya wonder



Yeah .... the "terrorists are coming ... stock up on duct tape ..."

Do you have anything to contribute besides inane partisan commentary?
 
Live w/Facts ....

that is what Coulter said so go blame it on The Muslim Lover Coulter


This is a non story and a waste of time even being discussed by the
public and the Right Owned Media in this country
 
ann coulter?

who gives a darn about ann coulter?

where the heck did she come from?

oh, that's right---cfr

LOL!
 
obama SURRENDERING his initiative to move ksm to civil venue is a NON STORY?

LOL!

LOLOLOL!

well, let's all talk about BUSH

and ANN COULTER!
 
Proferless:


that is exactly what Coulter said and this whole thing is a damn joke


What? Like the "big bad" terrrorists are gonna blow up NYC?


JFC ... this is why the terrorists have got to love life
 
nope, sorry

losing ksm is a huge political loss for this empty suit of a president

just like gitmo, iran, health care, cap and trade, reg reform, don't ask don't tell, the bank tax, the debt commission, the spending freeze, the detention, the rendition, the stimulus, the cia prosecution, the climate accords...

all humiliating defeats

here on earth, that is

in the year 2010

it is 2010, you know
 
Ohhh yeah .... huge defeats


LOL ....


Well you would be an expert since one defeat after another would summarize the 8 yrs that Cheney ran this country from Nazi bunker
 
yup, huge defeats

gitmo

cap and trade

health care

etc

pretty big defeats

absolutely
 
Yep

Cheney's defeats:


Iraq

Afghanistan

Katrina

Doubling the National Debt

Leaving office with 18% approval numbers

4500 dead American soldiers

3000 Americans dead on 9-11

Bin Laden still not captured

Scotter Libby

WH Employee arrested for Shop Lifting

Busted for buying off the Media in the USA

Running scared when NK launed numerous missles over 4th July weekend

Finally admitting GW is real after busted for trying to silence scientists
 
no one cares

cheney's out of power

obama's a loser
 
and so was Bush .....


you should love the guy ...


Cheney said in 2002 that "deficits" don't matter so why are you pissed off?
 
who's pissed, doc?

LOL!
 
I think its great


The Right is showing no recollection of how we got into this mess and hell you don't even know what the hell the CFR is and why nothing was going to change and nothing will if Romney gets in the WH


I find it funny as hell to watch the idiot Testicle Suckers scream they don't want govt running HC when they are too damn dene to understand who runs SS/ Medicare
 
obama's a loser

his entire big agenda was taken from him by massachusetts

all that was left was a little teeny platform---bank tax, debt commission, spending freeze and another stimu...

and all that is now no go

actually, he literally seems to have forgotten most of it

even tho he laid it all out only a month ago in his sotu

obama's very funny

but he's a loser
 
The Bush "Legacy"???


Educate me as a lot of words come to mind talking about Bush


Legacy ain't one of them ...


My God ... the Right and their "Bush protected this country" is laughable considering Clinton protected this country for a longer period of time after the 93 WTC attack than Bush did after 9-11

I could care less about right or left or whatever but you should at least try to get your facts straight. It really is not that hard to take an objective viewpoint.



Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.


Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.


April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.


Quite a few US targets were hit during the Clinton Administration.


CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION

Glad to help you out there.
 
Last edited:
Then educate yourself on the subject. Everyone of them we've tried except 3 has been in civilian, federal, court. Only 3 have been tried and convicted in a military tribunal. 2 of them got less than a year and are out free right now.



Distraction. That's war.



:) Part of me does like this. :) But, what if they're innocent?



I look at it like we are showing them, right up in their faces, that we are not afraid of them. We are strong enough to try them all, as we have tried more than 300 already!, in public. Then, when they are convicted, they are sent away never to be seen from again.
I think the trials should take place in your town.
 
Why are all you people so afraid of trying this guy, or anyone, in a civilian court?

Nobody is "afraid" of anything - that's just a ridiculous trope put out by the Dems as some sort of feeble attempt to turn the tables on Reps re: the public's view of each party's handling of terrorism.

I'm opposed to the trials because I can look at the alternatives and make a reasoned decision.

On the one hand we have a sham civilian trial that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, cause substantial congestion and disruption in the heart of the financial district, take several years, risk the disclosure of sensitive information, and do a disservice to the principles of our civilian judicial system.

On the other hand we have a military tribunal that will cost maybe a million dollars, cause no disruption, be resolved relatively quickly, limit the risk of disclosure, and protect the integrity of our civilian judicial system.

Once you drop the childish rhetoric and look at the reality of the situation, it's pretty obvious which approach is better.

I mean, seriously. We've done it before, in fact we've done it for 99% of terrorists.

I've pointed out the dishonesty in this statement several times, and yet you keep on reciting it as if it's true. While the vast majority of terrorists who have been tried to completion may have gone through the civilian system, that says nothing about those who are either 1) currently in the military process or 2) currently being detained indefinitely. Perhaps even more importantly, it says nothing about the capabilities of the civilian system, since there is a fairly obvious selection bias.

Imagine that you're in charge of prosecuting terrorists, and that we've captured 1,000 of them. You know of that 1,000, there are 300 who are relatively minor figures and for whom the evidence is admissible and overwhelming, there are another 300 for whom the evidence is not admissible, but whom you don't want to release, and another 400 for whom you haven't decided what to do yet. Imagine that you process the first 300 through the civilian court with little trouble, but decide to hold off on the other 700.

Now, using your flawed logic, you would point out that 100% of the terrorists who have been prosecuted have gone through the civilian system and thus conclude that all terrorists can/should go through the civilian system. That's obviously an unwarranted assumption.

The reality of the situation is that we've funneled the easy cases through the civilian system while punting on the hard cases. It's absolutely foolish to claim that this is proof that the hard cases can be handled the same way.

The Geneva Conventions cover people even if they don't follow it themselves. :doh

No, they don't (at least not the portions you're trying to refer to).

Impartial jury requirement.

Which only applies to criminal prosecutions, not military tribunals.

It's not that I'm obsessed for it. I don't understand why you rightees are so against it when that's what has been used for ALL terrorist convictions except for THREE (3). You guys say these terrorists are not soldiers yet, you want them to be treated as soldiers in a military tribunal. They don't deserve the honor of being tried as a soldier.

More hilarity - there is no "honor" in military tribunals. Actual soldiers don't get prosecuted in them - they're reserved for sabateurs, spies, and traitors. If you don't know how the tribunal system works, you should refrain from making broad pronouncements about its "honor.

You wish. Most people want the civilian trials.

Not that it really matters as to the legality, but this is demonstrably false.

A majority of Americans also disagree with President Obama's plan to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in civilian courts, a Quinnipiac University poll found.

By a 59% to 35% margin, voters prefer that Mohammed and his cohorts face justice from military tribunals instead of in federal courts.

Read more: Poll: Americans don't want 9/11 terror trials in New York - or any court

Almost two-thirds of Americans disagree with the decision by President Barack Obama's administration to try the suspected 9/11 mastermind in a civilian court, a poll showed Monday.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, while only 34 percent agreed with Obama that the civilian judicial system was the best way forward, the CNN poll said.

AFP: Suspected 9/11 bomber should face military trial: poll

By switching to the untried and very new military tribunal we will be rolling the dice as to how this will effect us.

And by "very new," you mean literally hundreds of years old, right?

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.

I wouldn't exactly call myself obsessed with this issue. The guy's gonna be executed either way.

Which is argument #1 for why he shouldn't be tried in the judicial system. It makes a mockery of our courts to try someone when the result is preordained.

Rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not restricted to U.S. citizens.

Some constitutional rights are available only to citizens. Some are available to all persons. Some are restricted by age or by birth status. Some are dependent on the situation. Contrary to your claims, the right to a civilian trial in all circumstances for all persons does not exist.

For someone who keeps on telling others to educate themselves, you don't seem to understand much about this topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom