Should Terrorists Face Civilian or Military Courts?

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


Hi Old Hippy Dude. Yes, I believe we are discussing terrorists here, dear sir. Apparently they come in all flavors and nationalities, including American.

We've had American terrorists tried in the past, and this was done in civilian courts. We retain our Constitutional rights, as is clearly evidenced by the debate that is occurring nationwide now.

I haven't seen evidence that the Patriot Act has been executed in these situations. Have you?

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
As another poster mentioned), that could pose problems in terms of classified information being disclosed at inopportune times

These are not spy trials concerning espionage or top military secrets.

Even those are still always handled by a civil court held in camera, where the public and journalists may be excluded because of sensitive material.

These are ordinary people accused of trying to blow things up or shoot members of the public with some political or religious motive.
No different in principle to a school shooting or serious arson.

Military law is very different to civilian law, because the military are subject to rank, orders, and discipline that ordinary citizens are not subject to. There is no civilian equivalent to being absent without leave, insubordination, or failing to carry out an order.

That is why there are military police, military lawyers, and military courts. It is a totally different world.

But if some dude plants a bomb in a trash can in a public place, that is a civilian crime.
It does not matter what his motive was, the police would arrest him and charge him with many things. He would be tried publicly, and jailed.

Nothing at all to do with military law or military discipline.

reply to post by Silver Shadow


I certainly agree with the bomb in the trash can scenario. No disagreement on that one, however, that is a mild example.

Do you apply the same logic to the more heinous crimes? Say, in the event someone Should happen to come here, take advantage of our flight schools, hijack a plane and fly it into a building killing thousands of people?

Should the same rules apply? It's just kind of a grey area to me, and I do believe they should have a fair trial, (provided they survive the offense,) but couldn't they just as well have a fair trial in a military court?

Are military courts known to be unfair? (I really don't know).

reply to post by endisnighe


Endisnighe! Buddy! No matter how curious we are, and how much we would be right in front of the television to watch such a spectacle, I'm not really sure that televising a case of terrorism might be taking things a bit far.

I'm afraid the whole country would go into riot mode. Seriously.

Terms used in the Patriot Act are very vague and can be used against the American public including children.

Anyone striking or protesting CAN be labeled a terrorist and arrested, because they are disrupting the normal routine of life.

READ THE PATRIOT ACT.......

A child can arrested and charged as a terrorist for lighting of a firecracker, because it is technicaily an explosive.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Do you apply the same logic to the more heinous crimes?

Yes, the civil law only seeks to establish guilt or innocence, regardless of the scale of the crime.
The sentence passed should reflect the scale of the crime.
But only if the criminal gang in it's entirety are rounded up and brought before the court.

For something very large, involving (say) the full planning and backing by a foreign government, that would be very different.
It would no longer be a simple police matter.

Action would have to be taken at government level, against another government.
That could go anywhere, but any attack on a large scale against another government or it's people, would have to be considered an act of war.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Do you apply the same logic to the more heinous crimes?

Yes, the civil law only seeks to establish guilt or innocence, regardless of the scale of the crime.
The sentence passed should reflect the scale of the crime.
But only if the criminal gang in it's entirety are rounded up and brought before the court.

For something very large, involving (say) the full planning and backing by a foreign government, that would be very different.
It would no longer be a simple police matter.

Action would have to be taken at government level, against another government.
That could go anywhere, but any attack on a large scale against another government or it's people, would have to be considered an act of war.

By that response you have already assumed a person or persons are guilty, based soley on the magnituted of the crime. Now thats justice.

reply to post by Silver Shadow


Thank you Silver Shadow for your comments.

I think I am committing to a firmer position now, and your thinking is very clear, objective, and makes very good sense.

It is very easy to become overly emotional with these type crimes.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE

By that response you have already assumed a person or persons are guilty, based soley on the magnituted of the crime. Now thats justice.

No, it is up to law enforcement to present a strong case.

It is then up to the Justice system to decide what should be done, based on the evidence.
One more reason to have open, public, and very transparent trials.

Originally posted by ladyinwaitingI'm not really sure that televising a case of terrorism might be taking things a bit far.

A really big trial can go on for many MONTHS.

Who would have the stamina to watch many hundreds of hours of live television.

Americans just want to hear the highlights in a fifteen second sound grab during the evening news..

Trust me, the journalists will be right there right through the whole trial, yawning and stretching and scratching themselves.
But they will publish anything that is of the slightest public interest.

It is important not only that justice is done, but that it is SEEN to be done.