http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14terror.html
The terrorists linked with the attacks on 9/11 against our country are now going to face a civil trial in New York City rather than the originally planned military trial. The nazi's tried after WWII faced a military trial. What makes this any different than that? Do you agree with Obama's decision?
Bradley T. Reese
I think the argument should really be over the classification of their accused crimes. If you commit a war crime, you face a military trial. If it's an infraction of civil law, you face a civil trial. So the question is really, do their crimes make them combatants in the eyes of the law, so that they would be prosecuted as combatants under military law?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that often military trials are conducted to circumvent the higher standard of evidence required by civil trials, but in this case I think they're pretty damn sure these guys did it. They made an attack against the United States itself, making them military combatants. They should be tried in a military court. Obama's goals of closing down places like Guantanamo bay are very noble, and I think that he should continue to pursue them, but this shouldn't include changing the nature of the trials that the real hardliners are set to face.
His administration should have pursued members of the Bush administration for their crimes. (Yes, I asy 'crimes' because that's exactly what they are. Gross violations of our civil liberties.) But, just as in the case of Nixon, they get let go. And the shame of their failed administration isn't punishment enough. Now he's giving these hardcore terrorists more and more chances to evade punishment? I'm all for giving people every right that they deserve, and I'm horrified at some of the terrible crimes that have been conducted against suspected terrorists, but now the time has come to finally bring the true culprits to justice, and we decide we want to give them a more 'fair' trial? In the words of Machiavelli, "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." Harsh as it may be, I feel justice is only served with an eye for an eye. Don't give them any more chances.
I dont think it really matters where these people are going to be tried. They will all be found guilty and be sentenced to a long life in prison. I think Obama wanted it to be in New York because of the publicity, he wants people to support the war in Afghanistan and this will remind peoople of why we are there. He is simply trying to spur more patriotism and anger towards terrorists and there origins.
ReplyDeleteTom Myers
I am going to agree with a lot of points that Alex made in the first comment. I think the trial really depends on how they are classifying the crimes that prisoners are being accused of. Like Alex said if they are being accused of war crimes then it should be in a military court and if they are civil crimes then they should be held to a civilian court.
ReplyDeleteI really do not think that the Obama administration is doing this for a publicity stunt. I think that Obama has hard outlined goals that he wishes to pursue when it comes to making sure that these criminals see justice. Our government cannot operate under the circumstances of holding these prisoner indefinitely like the Bush administration tried to do for so long. They committed criminal acts against the United States and they need to be punished.