Military Tribunals

Do you think military tribunals are wrong, and that Ashcroft is unconstitutionally suspending civil rights?

 

I'd say that the Nuremburg trials were pretty necessary...as for what you are talking about, I have no idea...

 

He's referring to the military tribunals that George Dubya wants to put in place to try Taliban members. From what I understand, they don't have to meet the same burdens of proof as they would in a normal criminal trial. They are also conducted secretly, and punishments include execution.

I've refrained from commenting on this so far, because I'm admittedly not as informed as I should be. That being said, here's my uninformed opinion.

I think Dubya and Ashcroft are playing with fire here. They don't seem to grasp that we're going to alienate other countries by denying these terrorists a fair trial. Oh sure, we have government assurances that the trial will be fair, but with the proceedings being secret all we can do is take their word for it. Not only is that sort of attitude against American ideas, it invites other countries to do the same.

What can we say when Saddam Hussein (or anyone else for that matter) has executed American citizens? Who are we to argue when he calmly looks into the camera and says "They were terrorists. We gave them a trial by military tribunal and found them guilty. Their sentence is death." We won't be able to say a thing, because we're planning on doing the same thing.

I want to see the terrorists punished just as much as the next guy. I wouldn't shed a tear if I heard tomorrow that Bin Laden himself was shot dead in Tora Bora or wherever he's hiding. BUT... it concerns me that my own government is acting in such a reactionary way. They have to think of the political consequences of what they're doing, and it just doesn't see like they are.

...

And in regards to Ashcroft... Sometimes that guy seems like he's on a witch hunt. If Dubya's smart, he'll reign this guy in before he turns into another McCarthy.

 

Well, seeing as I'm not American, I don't understand who you are really talking about, apart from McCarthy. The most slanderous and libellous politician in history! The doctorer of photo's! The bane of communism! The bane of American industries! The bane of pretty much everything! The raging lunatic! The tool of madness!

Um, yeah, he was a psycho. This Ashcroft guy must be pretty bad to be compared to McCarthy...Who is Ashcroft and Dubya?

 

We should kill them in the field or try them under International Law, for what that's worth.

I don't trust Dubya.

I started to write a lengthy post, but there are so many things to say, I gave up. I'd rather discuss particulars.

 

"Dubya" is none other than our dubiously elected President of these here United States of America, George W. Bush. We call him "Dubya" because that's how he pronounces his own middle initial.

Ashcroft is... to tell the truth, I'm not exactly sure what his title is. From what I hear, he's the one spearheading the detaining of suspicious people around the country, and is in the business of denying citizens of their civil rights for the good of the nation.

 

Ashcroft is Attorney General. Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary. I get them confused sometimes, because they're both singing the same song...no, no song about this...They're singing the Dubya Polka. They'll do anything he wants.
The main reason I don't trust Dubya is that he's reneged on every promise he made, except for the one's that appealed to Conservatives and BIG BUSINESS.

And by the way, Mr. Ashcroft, my previous post was about killing Taliban in the field. The guy has me paranoid already.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Feldon Kane on 2001-12-08 19:45 ]</font>

 

Good job on that edit, bro. Always remember: ECHELON is watching... Anyone of us might be a "terrist."

Was that a knock at my door?

 

ROTFL

As for the topic I consider it to be a wrong approach. Even though many people (and me among them when I hear abou tcrimes all the time) would often like not only terrorists but also common criminals to be taken care of firmly and efficiently even sacrificing some liberties. Especially when we see criminals laughing at justice only because evidence was not gathered properly or they get laughable sentences or they suddenly fall sick and cannot be tried. But it's just the voice of emotions and not reason. However trial guarantees are not there to make it easier for guilty people to avoid punishment but to make sure that no innocent person will be sentenced.

I actually heard those ideas at CNN lately and they were as follows:

- people could be arrested for 7 days w/o charges presented
- suspect-lawyer conversations could be eavesdropped to based on suspicion w/o proof of illegal activity
- in those Military Tribunals there would be no right to obligatory defense
- no appeals from sentences in MT
- mentioned in earlier post: death penalty in MT
- they'd be only for foreigners
- even gossip could be a proof
- death penalty could be decided by anonymous jury

I might be wrong about some of these as I heard them only once but it still reeks of inquisition strongly.

 

I'm all for killing off certain members of the gene pool (rapists, murderers, terrorists etc) but at least give them a fair trial! I mean, some people could just have a grudge against a guy, send him off to a MT and their problem disappears. That just ain't right. Not every single terrorist is a slavering, bloodthirsty murderer. Everyone should be given the chance for a fair trial, because, really has anyone seen the supposed evidence against Osama bin Laden?

Until that is brought out into the open, the US government shouldn't be allowed to condemn anyone they want.

 

I have to take exception to one thing you said, Jarinor. Every terrorist is a slavering, bloodthirsty murderer. That's pretty much what terrorists do. They don't threaten people with candy canes. They threaten them with death.
The trick is proving that someone is a terrorist in a legal manner.

 

No, I have to disagree with you Feldon. Not every terrorist has killed or things like that. So not every terrorist can receive the same sentence, because some of them may not be as bad as others. Just lumping people all together in one big group is a bad idea. I will now take a quote from Under Siege 2 - "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups". It was something like that anyway.

If you just point out a group of people and say "You all get 30 years jail for crimes that you may or may not have committed", that just a bad thing to do, for what I should think are obvious reasons (that and I'm too lazy to list them now :smile.

 

I'm not pointing at any group of people. All I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "good" terrorist. And, yes, even terrorists should get a fair trial.
You seem to draw a distinction between the person who trains a guy to blow himself up in a crowd and the suicider himself. They are both culpable, and they are both terrorists.

 

I agree with Jarinor that there are terrorist that deserve to be put for life and ones that don't look at greenpeace activists, what they are doing is also a type of terrorism, but it's not like it's warranting a death sentence now is it?

 

That's because there is a line. The trainer is much worse than the trainee. The trainee kills a few people once, and usually doesn't know any better/has been brainwashed/is a psychopath anyway, whereas the trainer does know the difference, because why else would he be training suicide bombers?

 

What has Greenpeace done that you would consider terrorism, Jinxed? I really don't know much about them. Have they killed anyone?

 

No, they haven't killed anyone, but technically speaking they are terrorists. Just 'terrorists' for what they see as a good cause (just like 'proper' terrorists do coincidentally, how about that?).

Some Greenpeace-like activists even refer to themselves as 'eco-terrorists' - people who disrupt the normal running of companies that cut down forests etc etc etc. Yet they don't get hauled up to MT's, just to the nearest court of law. See the difference?

 

terrorism does not necessarily involve killing people.

_________________
Iyaan-na Kanji Nigecha dame da
I'm gonna dance on your grave

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jinxed on 2001-12-09 15:53 ]</font>

 

Terrorism means instilling fear in people. To make them act the way you want them to because they fear the consequences. What does Greenpeace do to instill fear in people?

 

the companies fear them. Simple. They appear out of nowhere and disrupt work. Often putting countless lives in jepardy. Theirs and bypassers