More like Collounsbury with a baseball bat vs Brutus unarmed. Since Collounsbury seems to have free reign to insult in GD, he has a decided advantage over Brutus, who would quickly be banned if he ventured anywhere near the line Collounsbury seems free to cross.
Nice try, Debaser, but I’m missing the where Col has crossed the line in this thread, which in fact is the one under discussion. Unless you are talking about “my dear fellow”, which I guess is tantamount to fightin’ words down here in East Texas. In any event, there is in fact a Pit thread on this very subject, getting on for five pages, last I checked, should you wish to complain further.
Re: the OP: care to contribute a comment?
Your right. He hasn’t. And, of course, you are correct that I came here straight after reading the Pit thread.
However, my analogy still works. They are in a boxing ring, and Col has a baseball bat. (Permission to flame in GD.) He hasn’t used the bat yet in this particular boxing match. But, he still does have it.
As to the OP:
It seems that if Moussaoui has admitted to being an Al-Queda member and he conspired with the 9/11 terrorists, then he should be put in jail for the rest of his life.
(I am very much on the fence with the death penalty, but am against it. However, I didn’t lose any sleep when McVeigh was executed and I woudln’t here either.)
I think Brutus’s position that there shouldn’t be a trial is understandable but incorrect. Since he was captured on American soil, he deserves a trial.
However, Truth Seeker’s position that he should be released is ridiculous. The man is clearly guilty of much and is dangerous. He is not an American citizen and therefore not entitled to all the same protections that we are. Since he is a member of a terrorist organization that we are at war with I think a military trial would be appropriate. Also, since national security is at stake it is reasonable for him to not be allowed access to other terrorists, especially if they aren’t evern being used as witnesses against him.
I also find OliverH’s comments disturbing. No one seems to be questioning the facts of the Motassadeq case in Germany. He is guilty of 3,066 counts of accessory to murder yet the maximum punishment that they could inflict on him was 15 years! This is outragous. OliverH’s comments that clairvoyance are needed to tell if this man will be a threat in 15 years is hopelessly naive.
I would also like to categorize the different types of treatment for the different types of people.
-
US citizens are protected by the constitution and must be given a fair trial.
-
Non US citizens that are captured on US soil, like Moussaoui, apparantly have some rights also. I am not sure of the legalities of this. Anyone with specific knowledge of what his rights would be please chime in.
However, I think because we have him in controlled custody we do have some duty to offer a trial before punishment.
- However, terrorists operating outside the US who are not in our custody are fair game. They are often killed when discoved because it’s simply more practical than capturing them. An example of this would be using a hellfire missile fired from a predator drone at a carload of known Al-Queda members as has happened in the past.
I would think that we just use option # 3 whenever possible. Once we capture them there is more responsibility on our part to imprison or martyr them. It’s easier and more efficient to simply kill them in the field without taking prisoners as is often the case in war. AFAIK, prisoners don’t have to be taken from the air.
So, if a humvee drives up to a group of known terrorists and they raise hands in surrender, that must be accepted. They are now prisoners and must be treated as such. However, if a predator drone comes across a group of known terrorists and they raise hands in surrender, they can still be fired upon because the drone doesn’t have the ability to take prisoners.
Any military conduct folks out there that can shed some light on this?
Well, that has some novelty value, if nothing else.
al-Qaeda, al-Qaida, not with a “u.”
The key item in the counts against him is his participation in the 11 Sep. conspiracy. It is not clear he was actually part of that. He has, however, freely admitted to conspiring against the US.
Regardless of where he was captured, extra-judicial murder is what shitty dictatorships do. We do rather pretend to higher standards than shitty little dictatorships, indeed some folks have even used that as a standard to make war with.
Delicious. Wonderful standard that, I hope you recall it when you travel.
It is worthy of note that he is a French citizen and France and the US have treaties governing their citizens rights in each others countries. I am unaware his mere lack of citizenship abrogates a right to due process under US Law.
I should hardly think this is a very encouraging doctrine if one wishes to consider and promote foreign investment.
[quote[
Since he is a member of a terrorist organization that we are at war with I think a military trial would be appropriate.
[/quote]
At war with?
Well, that’s a lovely standard, one need only be “at war with,” by some metaphorical usage, an organization - not even a territory or an actual nation, to simply willy nilly run off to military tribunals. Mark of real confidence in one’s civil institutions, that.
Expedeincy of the worst and lowest kind.
Well, per the exchange above, your last item seems to be factually incorrect. As to the first, they’re both in custody, merely speaking together, no doubt recorded and all that, hardly seems like an earth shattering threat to “National Security” - indeed for the spies it might even be an opportunity.
Do you think he is innocent?
I am not suggesting extra-judicial murder for people captured anywhere. I am suggesting that we don’t go out of our way to capture them in the first place.
Are any of these treaties governing the rights of French citizens in the US being violated regarding Moussaoui?
The “war on terror” is a new kind of war. One that may have never been seen before. But, it’s still a war. IMO, we should use military tribunals to try terrorists because the scale of the crimes they are committing against us is outside the scope of the US criminal justice system.
I don’t see where I am factually incorrect. It’s been stated in this thread that the prisoner Moussaoui wants to meet with is not being used as a witness against him. Is this fact in dispute?
I agree that the threat to national security here seems minimal. However, there isn’t any reason why the meeting should be allowed. If I am arrested next week for stealing a car can I request to meet with some folks at Gitmo, also? It seems that a blanket policy not allowing any meetings with the terrorists in custody is the safe play.
This debate really brings to the light the “problem” with free societies like America. It is hard to think around the same courts that keep us free from the Govt just simply grabbing us at will, versus the need to kill someone who probably deserves it. We want those courts in place to protect us, at the same time we really want to just kill and remove from society those who we ‘know’ deserve it.
Freedom isnt free, and if I must sacrafice my desire to see a terroist drawn and quartered to ensure my own rights are protected I will.
Although some differential treatment of non-citizens by the federal govenment is allowable, so long as he remains in the civilian Federal District Court Moussaoui will enjoy substantially the same rights of due process and a fair trial that would be afforded to a U.S. citizen like, say, Jose Padilla. The government’s objections have more to do with the judge’s order revealing classified information and interrupting the interrogation of an enemy combatant than they do with Moussaoui’s citizenship.
**
Cite? Actually, let me save you the trouble – you won’t find one. Under the U.S. Constitution, due process in a criminal proceeding is due process. It doesn’t matter who the defendant is, his or her rights are the same.
** First, just being a “member” of an “illegal” organization isn’t enough to prosecute someone. Second – and this is a point that is far too often overlooked – we are not “at war” with Al-qaeda or anyone else.
There has been no formal declaration of war. In some cases, U.S. courts can and should overlook this formality. However, if you are going to try and use “being at war” as an excuse to jettison the U.S. constitution as inconvenient, then you damn well better dot every I and cross every T. Fuzzy rhetoric is no substitute for legal procedure. As an example, America was never at war with Afghanistan. As a matter of law, the U.S. intervened in a civil war on behalf of the legally recognized government.
Nor can the U.S. “declare war” on an organization, nor matter how repellant that organization may be. Think of the precedent this sets! There was a time, not so long ago, when people would have argued that the NAACP was a “subversive” organization that ought to be crushed. Do you really want to leave it up to the U.S. executive branch to decide who gets constitutional rights and fair trials and who doesn’t?
**
First, I believe that the U.S. government did want to present evidence that bin al-Shibh sent Moussaoui money. Second, and more to the point, he can offer evidence that will materially aid Moussaoui in his defense. So it doesn’t matter whether the U.S. wants to use bin al-Shibh’s evidence to prosecute. Indeed, if it were only that, the proper remedy would be to bar the government from offering any evidence obtained from bin al-Shibh. But Moussaoui contends – and the Courts agree – that bin al-Shibh’s evidence is vital to his defense.
One of the things the U.S. does not do is say, “Well, we can’t prove he’s guilty of this but we know he’s guilty of something. Off with his head!” Fairness, due process and the rule of law are more important than any terrorist. If a thousand terrorists have to go free to preserve these ideals, then it’s a small price to pay. Fifty years from now, 9-11 will be an unfortunate historical footnote. But a tradition of secret ex-constitutional military tribunals for those that the regime of the day deems particularly “dangerous” will be an open sore that threatens the very things the United States is supposed to stand for.
The poignant question, I think, is whether the Bush administration cares what the rest of the world thinks. Looking at the track record, I’m guessing no.
The precedent was set 200 years ago when the US declared war against the Barbary Pirates.
Nope. The U.S. never formally declared war agains the Barbary pirates, neither in 1801 nor in 1815. It’s also a fine point as to whether the Barbary pirates were actually an organization as opposed to a government. The “Barbary Pirates” were actually governments that were technically subservient to the Ottoman Empire. The U.S. even had formal diplomatic representation in Tripoli.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Complaints (including veiled ones) re official moderator actions and policy belong in the Pit. And ONLY in the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Isn’t it obvious?
Brutus thinks we are petty third rate dictatorship.
And he may just be right.
quote:
Originally posted by Brutus
*A 15 year sentence for 3000 counts of ‘accessory to murder’ is not civilized behavior; It is hopelessly, and dangerously, naive behavior. *
** response by OliverH
I posit that a vigilante wannabe who thinks that butchering people is civilized is hardly someone qualified to declare a behavior uncivilized.
It is telling that you would rather subvert the rule of law than accept it.**
Originally posted by Brutus
Why wouldn’t he get out in 15 years? Does German law have some sort of ‘gotcha!’ clause? Is he off to some secret ‘Arbeit macht Frei’-type prison? Because as it stands, in 15 years, he is out of prison.*
**response by OliverH
As it stands, your argumentation restricts itself to mudslinging, drooling for blood, and demonstrating ignorance about German law. **
Mudslinging? drooling for blood? That’s your response to Brutus’s question? It’s certainly not an answer. Your disdain for Brutus’s ignorance of German law implies you have some insight in the matter. If so, how many people do you have to kill to get a life sentence in Germany.
I did the math. 15 years is the maximum sentence according to the article. At this pace, your beloved terrorist will have to assist in the death of an additional 6,600 people and go to prison 3 more times to accomplish the task.
That creates a very real and scary scenario. Someone could conspire to kill all the major politicians in Germany, and Judges like Albrecht Mentz will “regrettably” hand out 15-year sentences.
What do think is going to happen in when the El Motassadeq -wannabes figure that one out? You’re gonna be hip deep in your own civilized blood. You already have Saddam Hussein publicly giving money to the families of terrorists. Think of what a well-financed group would be willing to do in the name of God.
When the laws of Germany fail to protect its citizens (and I believe they will) you will see a repeat of Reichskristallnacht. Lightweight “civilized” laws are great in a world devoid of crazy people. When everyone in your neighborhood is dead, reality kicks in.
The rules of law must be followed. I agree with Collounsbury and the others. The day we start just taking people who in custody out back and shooting them in the head is the day we lose the battle.
However, Brutus also has a point that the law wasn’t really designed to handle this situation.
How can you let Moussaoui go, when you know that the result might well be that he’ll just turn around and slaughter a bunch of Americans? He is clearly a threat to the public. On the other hand, the man has a right to a proper trial with all the constitutional rules of evidence on display.
So what do you do when letting a man go free could kill innocent people, and admitting classified evidence into his trial could compromise national security? It’s definitely a tough problem.
Perhaps there needs to be a secured trial, with participants that have security clearances, conducted behind closed doors. Then Moussaoui can grill his witness without intelligence being compromised. Unless the government is worried that the transfer of information between the two men will itself endanger the country in some way. I don’t know.
A similar problem arises with child predators. There is good evidence that pedophiles tend to repeat their crimes are are not readily rehabilitated. Releasing them is a danger to the community, but we still do it.
This German law thing is fascinating and certainly deserves discussion. You guys are really going to flip when you find out that convicted terrorists in Italy get let out of prison for summer vacations.
Nonetheless, it is a bit of a hijack. What should the U.S. do if it is unable to give Moussaoui a fair trial? Give him an unfair trial? Cut him loose? Keep him locked up without a trial?
SAY WHAT??? You got a link to the summer vacation info?
Thank God my Grandparents made the trip over from Italy.
There seems to be an overlying question of the NEED for Moussaoui to cross examine another terrorist. You could play that game to the end of time.
**
Not to hijack my own thread but since you ask,
**
http://zeus.hri.org/news/usa/voa/96-03-08.voa.html#06
This happens fairly often, apparently. I recall reading about another one of the hijackers who didn’t come back from his vacation a year or so ago.