• 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!

Captured ISIL prisoners- where should they face trial?

US Citizen captured in Iraq – trial held where?

  • Us Citizen -Trial in Iraq Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • US Citizen- Extradited to US for trial - Yes

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Other foreign nationals -Trial in Iraq? Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other foreign nationals -Trial in Iraq? No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Extradited to country of origin for trial - Yes

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Extradited to country of origin for trial – No

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Case by case basis, decided by Iraqi’s - Yes

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Case by case basis, decided by Iraqi’s - No

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Not sure where trial to be held

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Total voters
    15
Thrilla said:
no.

most often American who commit crimes in other countries are arrested by the local police, making it a local issue, with the host country having jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Agreed - Some think differently.
So ISIL is no different.
 
Deuce said:
Ummm sometimes in war people get captured, and once you capture them it's a war crime to just murder them.
Click to expand...

Correct. However, since those people are also guilty of war crimes, they fall subject to international courts. I would say that Nuremburg would be a pretty good place to try them.
 
KevinKohler said:
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but citizens have to be held to the laws of their country. Corrupt or no, US law is not international law. US courts are not international courts.
Click to expand...

Tried in the country where they committed their crimes- Yes??- Then I agree.
 
Van Basten said:
No American should have to stand trial in some foreign court that may not respect their full, constitutional rights.

They're terrorist swine, but still Americans.
Click to expand...

If they are guilty of terrorist, which is a war crime, then they should be tried by a military court. Which can be set up pretty much anywhere.
 
JANFU said:
So any US Citizen, charged anywhere in the world should be extradited to the US for trial. Yes -no -
Click to expand...

Depends on the crime. A simple act of murder? Extradited and tried in the US. A war crime, military court, wherever the crime was located, for expediency.
 
KevinKohler said:
If caught in the act?




Kill them.
Click to expand...

You won't have me disagreeing with that. But what of the ones that are captured? Which legal mechanism and court to hear their case?

In the case of Gitmo and detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq, during military operations, yeah, a military tribunal was proscribed, and delivered. Going forward from here, with the type of action now more prevalent, still seems to be an open question to me.
 
KevinKohler said:
Depends on the crime. A simple act of murder? Extradited and tried in the US. A war crime, military court, wherever the crime was located, for expediency.
Click to expand...
We try murderers from the US - Same as the EU- same as other countries where the justice system sucks.
Why -where - how does a US Citizen get the right to be tried in the US when the crime was committed in another country?
 
JANFU said:
Tried in the country where they committed their crimes- Yes??- Then I agree.
Click to expand...

Well, so long as we are referring to violations of international law, yes. Like acts of terrorism.


Somebody gets busted stealing a candy bar in cambodia while on vacation, then I feel they have the rights offered them by their home country.
 
KevinKohler said:
Well, so long as we are referring to violations of international law, yes. Like acts of terrorism.


Somebody gets busted stealing a candy bar in cambodia while on vacation, then I feel they have the rights offered them by their home country.
Click to expand...

No, I am not.
But the fallout from ISIL, trials and such is yet to come.
 
eohrnberger said:
You won't have me disagreeing with that. But what of the ones that are captured? Which legal mechanism and court to hear their case?

In the case of Gitmo and detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq, during military operations, yeah, a military tribunal was proscribed, and delivered. Going forward from here, with the type of action now more prevalent, still seems to be an open question to me.
Click to expand...

POW's should be treated like POW's. What did we do with the POW's from all the other wars we fought? What happened to Nazi war criminals, how did we treat them (those that weren't shot on site)? I see little reason to treat new ones any differently.
 
KevinKohler said:
POW's should be treated like POW's. What did we do with the POW's from all the other wars we fought? What happened to Nazi war criminals, how did we treat them (those that weren't shot on site)? I see little reason to treat new ones any differently.
Click to expand...

Different war- at the end of WW2 if I recall correctly- Germany had 8 million under arms.
 
JANFU said:
We try murderers from the US - Same as the EU- same as other countries where the justice system sucks.
Why -where - how does a US Citizen get the right to be tried in the US when the crime was committed in another country?
Click to expand...

If the crime is not a violation of international law, but only a violation of the law of the land they are in, they retain, or at least, SHOULD retain, the rights they enjoy as defined by the government of their home country. In some cases, extradition, yes. In other cases, tried at the location of the crime, but with a lawyer provided by the US embassy. There is no right or wrong, blanket answer to this, it's all based on the details and variables involved. I mean, look, would you want to be a tourist simply ACCUSED of murder in, say, Mexico city, and from there, simply subject to their justice system, their police work, etc? Innocent until proven guilty is not an internationally accept idea. Likewise, someone accused of terrorism in France, should NOT get a get out of jail free card to skip back on home where they'll likely not only not be convicted, but will get a promotion, as a result.

Terrorism is inherently an act of war, while murder isn't. Commit an act of war, no MATTER WHAT soil you are on, and you should be shipped out to face a trial NOT by a jury of your peers, a MILITARY trial.

Commit murder, your situation will need to be reviewed on an individual basis, and a determination made based on the details of that situation.
 
KevinKohler said:
POW's should be treated like POW's. What did we do with the POW's from all the other wars we fought? What happened to Nazi war criminals, how did we treat them (those that weren't shot on site)? I see little reason to treat new ones any differently.
Click to expand...

Well, that'd mean that Gitmo is a POW camp, and since hostilities haven't ceased, they should all still be in there waiting for that.

I believe that being deemed as (what did they call it?) Illegal combatants, no uniform, and such, a military tribunal was the correct action to take.
 
Fearandloathing said:
What?

Since when does an American have American rights when in a sovereign country? You break the law in Mexico, you face their laws, their ways. You break the law in Canada, you do the time in Canada.

Any American goes to fight with the terrorists, let them try him for murder under Sharia law.
Click to expand...

Where on earth did you get that from?

Sharia?

Y'all are cruel.
 
JANFU said:
No, I am not.
But the fallout from ISIL, trials and such is yet to come.
Click to expand...

Well, so long as we are talking about non war crimes, than I lean towards extradition. You see, I have to allow that I would want to be treated as I am willing to treat others. I would NOT want to be traveling, and have some random law officer of whatever country accuse me of just anything, and due to the legal system of that country, have my life ended, just like that. We have due process in this country, and so very very very many countries do NOT. We have habeas corpus, and so many DO NOT. It's WHY we have GITMO in the first place...to get AROUND our own laws concerning the treatment of suspected criminals. If I am accused of something in some other country, I want my OWN legal system to determine my guilt and my sentence. As such, I have to allow others the same courtesy. If some dude from Iraq is accused of raping a girl in the US, I have to allow him to be extradited, because I would not want to be stuck in Iraq for the rest of my life because I was accused of drinking a beer there.
 
JANFU said:
So any US Citizen, charged anywhere in the world should be extradited to the US for trial. Yes -no -
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be ideal.

KevinKohler said:
If they are guilty of terrorist, which is a war crime, then they should be tried by a military court. Which can be set up pretty much anywhere.
Click to expand...

Haven't we tried foreign terrorists in our civilian courts?
 
JANFU said:
As we have seen those tribunals do not work well.
Click to expand...
there is a 0% recidivism rate among the 9 that have been convicted by military commission....
How many convictions?
Click to expand...
9 convictions, 14 pending trials.
How long to trial.
Click to expand...
a very very very long time
Gitmo should be closed
Click to expand...
irrelevant opinion is irrelevant..... and they're no way in hell they are going ot ever close down Gitmo... camp-Xray, maybe, but they aren't closing the whole base

regardless of your opinion, if ISIS members are detained by the US military, it's a military matter... military detainees, right now, go to Gitmo...... unless federal law enforcement has a case open against them already, which in that case would end up with the military remanding them into the FBI's custody.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, that'd mean that Gitmo is a POW camp, and since hostilities haven't ceased, they should all still be in there waiting for that.

I believe that being deemed as (what did they call it?) Illegal combatants, no uniform, and such, a military tribunal was the correct action to take.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think that we should have processed them much much much faster. The other issue we have with GITMO is that, with your typical POW, there are a great many witnesses (enemy soldiers) who witnessed their crime (fighting for the other team). A decent few of the people rotting away in GITMO were only ever SUSPECTED of POSSIBLY being involved with terrorist activities. That's pretty thin, especially when we are engaging in the act of extraditing american citizens there to be held indefinately.
 
Thrilla said:
there is a 0% recidivism rate among the 9 that have been convicted by military commission....
9 convictions, 14 pending trials.
a very very very long time
irrelevant opinion is irrelevant..... and they're no way in hell they are going ot ever close down Gitmo... camp-Xray, maybe, but they aren't closing the whole base

regardless of your opinion, if ISIS members are detained by the US military, it's a military matter... military detainees, right now, go to Gitmo...... unless federal law enforcement has a case open against them already, which in that case would end up with the military remanding them into the FBI's custody.
Click to expand...

Was not referring to closing the complete base.
The Military screwed up numerous times taking people to trial.
if they cannot get it right after a decade, they will never get it right.
Does the US have a law, SCOTUS ruling of a right to a fair and speedy trial. I am referring to taking an accused thru a 6 or 8 year trial.
 
Van Basten said:
I'm sure, but back to the point, it's ideal for Americans to be tried in America. It's the proper way.
Click to expand...
And it is impossible as the US is asking other countries to subjugate their sovereignty to the US.
 
I think their are a lot of issues to take into consideration. I would say in most cases the country that the terrorist act was committed in should in most cases handle the situation. If multiple countries are involved then there is a problem. What if a terrorist destroys a building in Russia then escapes to Germany where he commits another terrorist act and finally gets caught in France. What if the person was already wanted by the US for a terrorist attack on one of our Embassies. No matter who France turns the terrorist over to they will have someone ticked off at them. I think international terrorist whether a group or individual that has terrorized more than one country should fall under the jurisdiction of the UN. I think we need to unite most of the world against terrorism if we have any hope of stopping it. No 1 country will even put a dent in world wide terrorism. Those days are over whether we choose to believe it or not.
 
I voted case by case basis, but NOT decided by Iraqis. It would be a negotiation between their authorities and our embassy. I mean, technically, every single US soldier who gets drunk during off time in most of the middle east, is committing a crime. How then are we to allow those people, who's laws and ways and ideals are so very different than our own, to determine our guilt, and our penance?


You may as well close the US borders, and announce that tourism is dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom