Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
you are the only one that I've seen mention it and/or suggest that the outcome would have been the same in a military proceeding...
|
Plenty of legal experts, including the Judge in the case have said exactly that.
While there is a reasonable argument to the merits of trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts, 95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security.
The proof is in the pudding.
Federal courts have a solid track record of trying and convicting (150 or so since 9/11) real terrorists. The result is a lot of life sentences. Say what you want about the most recent case...he's going to prison and may very well die there.
How many terrorism convictions have military tribunals brought? I believe the answer is a thunderous THREE with two of those cases bringing no more than a slap on a wrist.
As PaulS rightly observes, this debate is really about what you believe in.
Do you respect the Rule of Law and believe in the proven strength of the US Constitution? Or do you find secret detentions, torture and tribunals (that may not even meet international legal standards) to be an acceptable and ethically sound mode by which to operate?
Separate the politics from reality and the absurdity of threads like this is painfully clear.
-spence