Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

For the umpteenth time, the reason we can't do so is because we don't have any courts set up to handle terrorists.  We need to create some, rather than pretend our criminal courts are something they're not.

[ronnyreagan]

Of the 21 people charged, only 4 were put in jail.  That's dangerous and unacceptable.

Only 4 were put in jail because we only had 4 in court. That is not a failure of the court.

The prosecution was entirely reactive.  This particular method of fighting terrorism requires that we wait until after the bad guys have killed hundreds or thousands of people.  Again, that's dangerous and unacceptable.

That case was reactive but again that's not the court's fault. If we had evidence of a plot beforehand and people in custody it could have gone to court. Other cases have gone to federal court and prosecuted successfully before the attack occurred.

I think it's a mockery of justice to claim that the US Federal courts have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that took place in Africa.  I guess you could stretch and say that the crimes took place in the US, being on US embassies.  

The embassy made that one a little different, I'll agree. Crimes that took place in Africa generally should go to court in the country the occur in. I don't see how taking someone to Cuba where they don't get a trial is less of a mockery than giving them a trial in our courts once they are in our custody.  A military tribunal of some sort could work if done properly, but I see no need to reinvent the wheel.

Do you think it's just for Americans to pass American laws, and then take foreigners out of foreign countries, and then subject them to criminal trials in American courts?  Would you support other countries doing that to our citizens?

I would prefer that foreign countries handle their own terrorists whenever possible however if they are given to us, as in your Mahmoud example then I don't see why we shouldn't give them a trial. We cannot and should not police the world, but once we have custody of someone they become our responsibility.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

A quick read of Wikipedia shows that Israel puts terrorists through special military courts, not the same courts that common criminals are sent through.  Unless I'm misreading, it seems that Israel handles things similar to the way I say we should handle them here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_judicial_system#Israel.27s_Military_courts

The Military Court of Appeals is the highest judicial body in the Israeli military, which also includes the District and Special military tribunals. Israel’s Military Courts handle both ordinary cases of the occasional soldier’s AWOL or dope smoking and cases brought against Palestinian insurgents, terrorists, saboteurs and bomb makers.

[MicroBalrog]

A quick read of Wikipedia shows that Israel puts terrorists through special military courts, not the same courts that common criminals are sent through.  Unless I'm misreading, it seems that Israel handles things similar to the way I say we should handle them here.

In practice, though, these are not very different from the civilian courts we have in this country - except their trials are even less fair - because civilian courts in Israel don't have juries either. Nor do they have the same protections for the accused American courts allow. So I'm still quite fair in my statement our treatment for the Palestinian suspects not being different from our treatment for ISraeli suspects - though, of course, neither are quite fair.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

In practice, though, these are not very different from the civilian courts we have in this country - except their trials are even less fair - because civilian courts in Israel don't have juries either. Nor do they have the same protections for the accused American courts allow. So I'm still quite fair in my statement our treatment for the Palestinian suspects not being different from our treatment for ISraeli suspects - though, of course, neither are quite fair.

But your courts do understand that a distinction must be made between terrorists and common criminals.  Your courts understand that terrorists belong in a military court system and NOT in the same civil court system where purse snatchers and muggers are judged.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

[MicroBalrog]

But your courts do understand that a distinction must be made between terrorists and common criminals.  Your courts understand that terrorists belong in a military court system and NOT in the same civil court system where purse snatchers and muggers are judged.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Our courts are also extremely unfair. But my point is, YES, terrorist suspects here DO get lawyers and they DO get at least he pretense of the presumption of innocence. It is the barest minimum that a nation must guarantee to every person.

The right to fair trial is the right of every human being on earth, both from a moral perspective and from the perspective of international treaties to which the United States is part.

If you can take people who are suspected of being terrorists and treat them as if they're already guilty and ship them to foreign countries to be tortured, then this is morally wrong.

Note that current US law already allows hypothethical Jack Bauers to apply certain coercive interrogation techniques to 'ticking-bomb' type terrorists if they're able to provide evidence - within several days after the interrogation that they had reasonable ground to believe that a ticking-bomb incident was occuring. There should be no need to ship people overseas to be tortured  - unless of course you don't have reasonable ground. At which point, why are you torturing them in the first place?

[roo_ster]

Then how dare we ever ask that our troops, when captured, be treated humanely and not tortured. 

We have lost the moral high ground, which is part of the aim of the terrorists to begin with. 

1. Easy: those enemies that follow the Geneva Conventions we signed on to get POW treatment.  Those that don't, don't. 

It is a carrot & stick approach: Act within these rules and be treated well.  Act like war criminals and terrorists and be treated poorly, up to and including being shot out of hand when captured.

2. Uh, that is not their goal.  But, one has to take them seriously and not make an HUman RIghts Watch caricature out of them to understand that.

Care to elaborate? The Federal Court didn't implode under the complexities of international terrorism. The suspects they had were given a trial, found guilty and sentenced in Federal Court. Why can't that be done now?

Might want to re-think that position, as it is diametrically opposed to that held by Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness, and Dept of Justice prosecutor who actually prosecuted those cases.  He is of the opinion that treating terrorism as a common crime is nonsense on stilts.

Israel tries captured terrorists like the criminal scum they are. We even fund their attorneys. We do this with people who are outright captured on foreign battlefields. Why can't America do this with people who are not?

As was addressed above, you do not give them America-style protections and due process, but military tribunals.

Another point that makes the comparison misbegotten is that Israel is a very small country, the vast majority of whose captured terrorists are confined to a very small geographical region, nearly all of which can be accessed with overwhelming military force at relatively small cost whenever Israel decides it wants to.

The right to fair trial is the right of every human being on earth, both from a moral perspective and from the perspective of international treaties to which the United States is part.

I'll remember that if ever I am confronted with deadly force.  I'll make sure to not use my 1911 to defend myself, as that would deny the poor dear of his right to a fair trial and chocolate covered raisins.

IOW, some acts place you outside the US court system, especially those done overseas or in the conduct of war or terrorism.

[MicroBalrog]

I'll remember that if ever I am confronted with deadly force.  I'll make sure to not use my 1911 to defend myself, as that would deny the poor dear of his right to a fair trial and chocolate covered raisins.

The comparison is apples and oranges. Your arguments makes sense with people who are captured on foreign battlefields - sort of. IT does not make sense with terrorist suspects arrested in Saudi Arabia or Britain.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The comparison is apples and oranges. Your arguments makes sense with people who are captured on foreign battlefields - sort of. IT does not make sense with terrorist suspects arrested in Saudi Arabia or Britain.

What substantive difference does it make whether US military forces pick up a terrorist vs having the Saudis pick someone up and hand him over to us?  The end result seems the same to me: our criminal courts can't do justice in that kind of circumstance.

[MicroBalrog]

What substantive difference does it make whether US military forces pick up a terrorist vs having the Saudis pick someone up and hand him over to us?  The end result seems the same to me: our criminal courts can't do justice in that kind of circumstance.

It's very simple in my mind: The fact that you've been caught shooting an AK-47 at American troops constitutes very solid evidence that you are, in fact, an enemy of America.

The fact that some Saudi cops arrested you at an airport for wearing the same brand of watch Al-Quaeda issues to its recruits and a couple of anonymous tips doe not constitute equivalent evidence.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't think there's any basis to say that the men the US asks other nations to pick up aren't wanted for good reason.  You may not agree with the reasons, but they exist nonetheless. 

[MicroBalrog]

I don't think there's any basis to say that the men the US asks other nations to pick up aren't wanted for good reason.  You may not agree with the reasons, but they exist nonetheless. 

And yet these people are not the same as people captured on the field of battle. They're suspects, just like a man caught in NYC trying to assemble a dirty bomb would be.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

NO.  They are NOT like a man caught in NYC building a bomb.  They are foreigners on foreign soil who are being picked up because they're a threat to US national security.  That is NOT the same as violating criminal statute within the US.

They're not suspected of anything that can be fairly judged by a US criminal court.  Turning them over to a US criminal court is not the proper or just solution.

Sigh.  I'm tired of going round and round on this one.  Unless something new turns up, I'm done.