Why Are Republicans So Scared Of Terror Trials?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Moen1305, Feb 2, 2010.

  1. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Bush/Cheney were in office during 191 terrorist trials in this country in their 8 years including the Richard Reed shoe bomber trial so why all of the sudden are Republicans so scared to have terror trials on US soil these days? What is it with this convenient cowardice? I thought that we were the home of the brave not the home of the yellow bellies. Buck up conservatives and find a spine. If you are prepared to go to war for no good reason, you had better be prepared to see it through in all its phases.
  2. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Clown Hater

    I don't know of this mass fear of terrorist trials by Republicans, but I can explain why they think it is wrong. The detainees in Cuba are listed as "unlawful combatants" and are not entitled to a civilian trial with the protections of US law. They are however entitled to a military tribunal which they have not gotten either to my knowledge.

    The legitimacy of the war is an entirely different issue. I would be interested in how you would have voted if you were in Congress in 2002.
  3. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    If you allow them the honour of a Militery trial you are bestowing legitamacy on them, a military tribunal is meant for Soldiers and if that is the case you can not try them as Terrorists, nor for acts of Terrorism.
    Terrorism is a civilian crime and as such should be dealt with by Criminal courts, these people are not Soldiers they are in the main murderers
  4. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    I believe that the problem is that everyone from the original twin tower bombers to Richard Reed and beyond were tried in civilian courts with all the rights and privileges afforded anyone who commits acts of violence against this country. No one, I repeat, no one complained at all about the justice departments handling of these cases until Obama took office and suddenly civilian courts weren’t good enough and it was too dangerous all of the sudden to bring these people to trial in this country. What changed so drastically? Why the obvious double standard?
    My opinion is that the Bush Administration tortured these people and the civilian courts are unlikely to use the information that was tortured out of theses guys. Just another gift from Bush. I suspect that some of these guys were just handed over by political enemies and actually had nothing to do with Al Qaeda while many others are probably guilty as charged. I think Republicans are just trying to save themselves the embarrassment of letting the rest of us find out how badly they bungled the entire war.
    First the claim was one of rights and privileges, then it was danger to the population, then it was the cost of security, next, who knows what the reason will be. I think that it is fairly obvious that they are hiding something here.

    I probably would have voted for the war given the misinformation and lies that were propagated by the last administration. Does that make it a correct decision or a decision based on deceit?
  5. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Not to mention martyrs for Allah! Treat them as common criminals and murderers not with the respect military courts treat soldiers with.
  6. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Well there's a first...recognizing that when one fights/dies for Islam, they are common crimimals and murderers...I have stronger words to describe these people, but at least it is a start.

    After all, you can't defeat these people until you call them out for what they are.
  7. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Then I take it that you agree with trying these fanatics as criminals rather than soldier for Allah?

    Let me ask you this. If a group of Christians goes to Haiti and tries to abduct 33 children and they say that God wanted them to do it, are they still guilty of trafficing children? :confused:
  8. Midas

    Midas New Member

    2nd question first...definitely guility. No question about it. Best part is that other Christians and Jews don't sit on sidelines while this happens. There is outrage and wrongs are corrected and brought to justice. On the opposite side, the muslim world that doesn't get upset at anything except if a newspaper depicts their prophet in an cartoon editorial. there is no outrage at the daily terrorist killings in the name of Islam...it is just another day and life in the world of Islam. Why? it is because of islam's mandate to convert, tax, enslave and/or kill all infidels...and "not muslim enough" people. Anybody that follows true islam as you find in the koran/hadith knows this, hence the reason there is no outrage unless you mention their terrorist prophet in a cartoon.

    As for your first question...these people are enemy 'soldiers'. They are not uniformed soldiers like we saw back in World War II with uniformed Nazis's and Japs and remember, these jihadists do not fight for a country, these animals fight and die for an idealogy and their religion first and foremost.

    The Geneva convention states an enemy combatant must be a member of the military, must wear a uniform to distinguish them from civilian populations, and must be operating under a declaration of war. Well guess what? Your typical muslim jihadist doesn't come close to following any rules of war because agian, they are not fighting for a country, they are fighting for their warped religion...nothing else.

    Islamic jihadist suspects have never met this criteria but we have accepted them as enemy combatants and yes, they have been protected by the Geneva Convention. I do understand that without the enemy combatant designation they will be subject to the laws and courts of the country of arrest and/or detention.

    This is where I disagree. Jihadists are in fact soldiers of allah (just like the Ft. Hood islamic terrorist's business card) and need to be handled and water boarded by the military and CIA to ascertain information to kill more jihadists and stop/thwart future islamic attacks on us infidels.

    With that, I do not think we should grant these animals ANY Constituitonal rights must less use tax paying money to pay for their defense. I would let a military tribunal handle these animals...water board them and squeeze as much intelligence as we can get from them before we throw away the key...or execute them.

    This is a war against muslim jihadists...it needs to fought like a war and we must fight to destroy this warped idealogy that is hell bent on killing us.

    Remember...we didn't start this fire...it has been part of their DNA since this religion's inception. We are just now responding to this islamic madness because it finally reached our shores.
  9. tomcorona

    tomcorona Anti republican truther

    Some place like Guantanimo I guess. Out of sight, out of mind. Everybody else ...do as I say, not as I do kinda thing. Don't hold our citizens, or we'll bomb ya. Maybe the rest of the world sees us as hypocrites and THAT'S why the right is so gung ho about NOT having a trial on American soil, because they realize the rest of the world recognizes our hypocrisy. Others might adopt the same mentality as us and, become "animals". (that or they don't want details of 911 coming out in court...especially in NY).
  10. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    THEY ARE NOT SOLDIERS, the only ones who have any possibility of claiming such status are members of the Taliban who were members before the overthrow of that goverment Any member of any other organisation is not a SOLDIER
  11. KLJ

    KLJ Really Smart Guy

    De Orc hit the nail on the head. Most of the terrorists aren't military personnel (of any nation), so they can't have the rights of the Geneva Conventions guaranteed to military personnel. But if they're civilians in the sense of the Geneva Conventions, they're franc tireurs at best, and thus eligible for summary execution. What do we do?

    It's also worth noting that just about the only bipartisan effort in Congress right now is the effort to keep the trial out of NYC - where the Obama administration decided originally to put it, I might add.
  12. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Which seems strange since so many other terrorism trials have already been held there and dozens of other locations across the country.
  13. Stujoe

    Stujoe Well-Known Member

    Maybe it is like a lot of things. Everyone wants prisons but they don't want them in their town. Everyone wants paper but they don't want paper mills in their town. A lot of people eat pork but no one wants to have to drive by a pig farm every day to work.

    Hard telling. Personally, I have no problems with them being tried or held in the US*. I am curious as to what will happen if they are found innocent or if they serve their time. Do we just deport them at that point? Or what?

    *but I would prefer it wasn't in my town. ;)
  14. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    My guess is that many of the Gitmo defendants will get executed. I live less than 100 miles from Thompsonville prison and terrorists escaping are the last thing that I'm concerned about. The place is an ugly swamp that is frozen half the year.
  15. arizonaJack

    arizonaJack Well-Known Member

    We tried McVie ( spelling ? ) here, we tried the Unabomber here,both domestic terrorists. And we tried the 1st WTC bombers here, so whats the big deal?

    I think it is just a matter of the security costs and the inconvience to the city of NY. It would be a magnet, as would any city, for radical Islamists and risk more attacks.

    I am kind of in the middle on this one. Have not made up my mind yet.
  16. Stujoe

    Stujoe Well-Known Member

    Well, we only have 7 cops in my town and I am not sure all of them have bullets. I am not sure they are up to the task. ;)
  17. Midas

    Midas New Member

    I tell you this...if I was their "tax payer appointed defense" attorney, I would definitely move for a dismissal because everybody from the president to the attorney general has made it public that these terrorists will be tried, found guilty and executed.

    What about the assuption of "innocent before being proved guilty". You don't think these ACLU attornies defending these animals are NOT going to run with this defense?? Just watch the defense motions on this!

    This is another reason why the military needs to deal with these "allah jihadists"...NOT a civilain court.
  18. clembo

    clembo Well-Known Member

    A reasonable statement and a reasonable argument.

    So why not put them to trial in, let's say, Barrow, Alaska? If they escape where would they go?

    I live about 25 miles from our state prison. There WAS an escape not too long ago. One was a murderer. I worry about a guy like that more than a guy named Hussein or Abdul actually. They blend into society better after all.

    BTW all three of the escapees were caught.
  19. David

    David Proud Enemy of Hillary

    My only concerns with a criminal trial would be the ACLU or some similar group trying to get the cases thrown out on some technicality thus allowing the terrorists to go free. I also don't know if it is consitutional to force a city to host the trial & face the expenses associated with it.
  20. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    If I went to New York city and went on a shooting spree were would I reasonably expect to be tried if caught? They cant use the defense of not getting a fair trial there because of the media coverage or bias as the same could be said of the rest of the country and for that matter most of the western world

Share This Page