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.