Regarding the decision to try the terrorists in NYC under civil law, I strongly suggest that you read this.
Theirs was an act of war, NOT a civil crime. They should be tried in a military court, as were the leaders of the Axis powers after WWII.
Ebook Download User Guide Manual For Windows 10
5 years ago
5 comments:
Thanks for the comments and the link.
Who cares as long as they get what they deserve. This idea that terrorists are going to swoop down on NYC and try to free them or attck the courthouse is crazy. First, there will be more security there than anywhere in the world. Second, that is not what terrorists do. They function on the element of surprise and hit where and when they are least expected. This is much ado about nothing by people that want to complain about Obama no matter what he does.
anon 11/18. It DOES make a difference. We will now spend years of defense attorneys attacking the USA, interrogation, the CIA, and every thing else that they dislike about the USA, rather than the actual goal of trial of the terrorists. Additionally, they will try to force the gov't to reveal state secrets, at the risk of getting a mistrial or acquittal if the gov't refuses. Furthermore, decisions made at this trial then get treated as case law for future trials, so that any decisions used to avoid releasing information or sources, or for refusing to change venue or any of 1,000 things, can all be sited as case law in future trials, trials that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Historically, adversaries in war have always been tried by military courts and never in civilian courts, and never have they been given the rights of a US citizen. This is a very bad decision, one that has a great probability of coming back to bite us in the future. And the justification, that it will show off the wonder of our judicial system, is certainly NOT going to change the feelings of the radicals toward us, the same radicals who routinely behead or stone those who are found guilty of such heinous crimes as showing their face, or going out in public without the husband present. Do you really think they gives a rat's pituie about our judicial system?
Anon 11/18, see here what I'm trying to say:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTE3ZGUzYzc5NzI2OWYxMWFlMjVhNDk3M2Q0YTlmMzk=.
They say it a whole lot better.
Post a Comment