The UK may take the Gitmo prisoners, resettle them in EU

[MicroBalrog]

Why can't criminal courts try crimes of terrorism?

[roo_ster]

Why can't criminal courts try crimes of terrorism?

For most terrorism across most the world, a criminal trial is wholly inappropriate.

We have accounts of how such trials become a goat rodeo.  Andrew McCarthy (as Fed prosecuting attorney), who either assisted or led the major terrorism prosecutions from 1993-2003, wrote about the mess in Willful Blindness.  It took the USA 8 years to prosecute 29 of the people involved in only one act of terrorism (1993 WTC bombing).

Also, foreigners engaged in hostilities against the USA are not entitled to trials, battlefield Miranda rules, and the like.  They are entitled to die by violent means.

[grampster]

Perhaps you can identify or quantify those poor innocent bystanders you speak of, grampster...? 

Micro sez there are "a lot" of them, but he never bothered to say who or how many.

That's just it.  No one seems to have seen one down there. 

Personally, I think "Terrorism" needs to be defined as a barbaric act against humanity and peaceful order.  Worse than criminality and worse than acts of war.  Engaging in, aiding and/or abetting Terrorism should be a capital offense, tried by a special terrorism tribunal, using new rules based upon the reality of the absolute callousness of the act of terrorism, punishment to be death carried out immediately after trial.

If one does not want to get swept up as a terrorist, then stay away from people who aspire to it.

[MicroBalrog]

That's just it.  No one seems to have seen one down there. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddeq_Ahmad_Siddeq_Nour_Turkistani

If one does not want to get swept up as a terrorist, then stay away from people who aspire to it.

So you're saying that the whole concept of guilt or innocence shouldn't apply for  terrorism suspects?

For most terrorism across most the world, a criminal trial is wholly inappropriate.

I will inform the Israeli court system immediately.

[roo_ster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddeq_Ahmad_Siddeq_Nour_Turkistani

So you're saying that the whole concept of guilt or innocence shouldn't apply for  terrorism suspects?

I will inform the Israeli court system immediately.

As should the Israelis who authorized the killings of the various terrorist leaders by means of Hellfire missiles & such a few years back.  You know, the ones that brought an end to the suicide bombings and brought (the remains of) the terrorist org leaders to the negotiation table.

The court system should also be informed when the system releases dozens of terrorists for the remains of one or two Israeli military folks who were tortured to death...and then used to pry loose those terrorists who have had the court system lobbed at them rather than Hellfires, MK82 500lb bombs, or 5.56mm projectiles.

[GigaBuist]

If one does not want to get swept up as a terrorist, then stay away from people who aspire to it.

I'm not sure if he's still there or not, but a brother of Terry Nichols used to sell ammo at the Delta-Plex gun show in our area.  I bough some Black Hills JHP in .45ACP off he guy once not knowing who he was.

It isn't difficult to tie somebody to terrorism.  I'm 1 link away, and now you're 2 links away just by knowing me online.

[MicroBalrog]

As should the Israelis who authorized the killings of the various terrorist leaders by means of Hellfire missiles & such a few years back.  You know, the ones that brought an end to the suicide bombings and brought (the remains of) the terrorist org leaders to the negotiation table.

Apparently you misunderstand my drift. I do not mean we should not be waging a war on the terorrist organizations.

We should shoot and kill as many members of the Hamas combat wing, of Al-Quaeda, etc. etc. etc. as we can, and treat those we capture in the field as prisoners.

But when a man is captured in peacetime and is suspected of cooperating with a terrorist organization, he is a SUSPECT. He is not automatically guilty. He deserves a fair trial.

[Waitone]

Much ado about nuthin'.  Our next president will get us into the international criminal court is a heartbeat.  All our problems with miscellaneous terrorist support troops will simply go away.  Then again a whole host of other issues will crop up like the "legality" of sending a hellfire missile up the tailpipe of an SUV transiting the Sudan which coincidentally contained the chief of operations of AQ.

Side step to the left; slide to the right.  Nothing accomplished but the bureaucrats surely are busy.

[De Selby]

Look Micro, you just don't understand: proving guilt in cases where the government may not have any evidence is difficult.  Therefore, the executive needs the power to just jail people forever without having to prove anything.  That way, we'll be safe, because no terrorist will be able to deprive us of our liberty or life arbitrarily.  Only the government will be able to do that, and we all know that government never abuses that power.

Back to reality:  The fact that the government is releasing something like 30 percent of the prisoners is proof that there never were anything approaching stringent requirements for jailing people in the first place.  When the government has already admitted that it didn't carefully select who went to Gitmo in the first place, how on earth can you believe it's a good idea to just let the government keep people in jail forever without having to prove anything?

[ilbob]

I say send them back where they came from.