Try not to be shocked, Civilian Courts much more effective than Military Tribunals

[jmdrake]

http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/11/try-not-to-be-shocked-civilian-courts-more-effective-than-military-tribunals/

Try not to be shocked, Civilian Courts much more effective than Military Tribunals
By: Attaturk Monday January 11, 2010 1:30 am

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/01/cheneyliz-146x150.jpg
A father/daughter relationship built on torturing others

But Dick and Spawnette Cheney (once again given a Sunday forum to lie with near complete impunity — thanks again George Stephanopoulos you’ve served your corporate masters well this week) are egregiously wrong yet again:

…after 9-11, 828 people [have been tried] on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won.

So in traditional criminal courts, the backbone of our constitutional system, 88% conviction rate. In the allegedly AWESOME military tribunals 15%.

But as always in conservative arguments the lesser solution is the “right” choice not because of the facts but because it sounds more ‘badass’.

It’s pretty much the totality of all current talking points from the Republican Party.

[Promontorium]

Yeah the whole situation seems like a phony argument to give each party a position. Curiously, if all those civillian court cases started during Bush's presidency, where's the division? Two puppets, two hands, same controlling body

[jmdrake]

Yeah the whole situation seems like a phony argument to give each party a position. Curiously, if all those civillian court cases started during Bush's presidency, where's the division? Two puppets, two hands, same controlling body

The division is within our own movement. Some people think we must back the military tribunals to seem "tough" on terrorism. Ron supports civilian trials like those used against the 1993 WTC bombers. The most important thing is that wherever the trials happen, there is due process and any "confessions" that were extracted by torture or duress are thrown own. The UCMJ is actually stronger on this than civilian courts. Some people don't realize this though.

[TruthisTreason]

The division is within our own movement.


This is the way I see it: No court cases or law books to back me up just the way I see it.
If detainees are arrested by local law enforcement I can see being tried in civilian court.

If our military apprehends them or a foreign nation turns one over to our military. The military should handle it.

CIA is an arm of the Executive branch aka commander in chief.

[Matt Collins]

It's also my understanding that the feds have never lost a terrorism case in a civilian court. But please fact check me on that.

[jmdrake]

This is the way I see it: No court cases or law books to back me up just the way I see it.
If detainees are arrested by local law enforcement I can see being tried in civilian court.

If our military apprehends them or a foreign nation turns one over to our military. The military should handle it.

CIA is an arm of the Executive branch aka commander in chief.

Will I like R.J. Harris' position. Pass letters of marque and reprisal. (Something Ron Paul proposed back in 2001). That makes everyone who is part of Al Qaeda and captured a POW. They get the same POW status and any other POW. None of this "The Geneva Conventions don't apply because they aren't really soldiers" crap. Then use whatever rules may apply to POWs accused of violating the rules of war.