new york jury

[panteno]

Reversing the Bush policy of trying Guiantanomo detainees by Military tribunal, where standards of evidence and proof are lower than civilian courts, I'm told, Obama decided that Gilani be tried in New York by a civilian court and jury. Gilani was given 20 years for his part in the 9/11 attack. The Judge in this case refused to allow evidence that had been obtained under torture on the grounds that torture implies coercion, so over 200 charges were dropped. Is Obama right to insist on a civilian trial for these detainees, or is the US right to insist on miliary trials for them?

[shaddoc98]

The US military trials should be reserved for US military personnel. Civilian terrorists should get a civilian court (and, in this case at least, the death penalty, but different story).

[madison86]

It's what I feel, military trials for military, not civilian people.

[cruz50]

Well the fact that millions of our money has been wasted catering to the "rights" of those TERRORISTS that by the way kill innocent Americans for a living is a problem in itself. I just don't see how an American with a conscience can honestly sympathize with these people. I mean if we capture Bin laden am I going to see it on the next episode of Judge Judy? This is beyond repulsive. Watch a beheading video next time you think about the "rights" we should give these poor excuses for human beings.

[jan46]

This is a big problem, true. It's unfortunate that civil courts have to be such a costly shambles. Apparently (in the States) it is possible to buy fifty Centurian 5 millimeter Rimfire hollow point bullets for $28.99, so a bullet to the back of Bin Laden's head would cost a little over 50 cents. For someone as bad as him I would even approve of an Aztec send-off, though normally I am against torture. Yet I do not want humane treatment for terrorists, for the simple reason that they are not people. As long as they are actual terrorists of course, that is the problem. I would not want to summarily execute an innocent, and while I don't really think much of the accuracy of the adversarial system, placing the burden of proof on the accuser is still vital to any semblance of civilization. If I say my neighbor is a terrorist who is plotting to bomb the police station, would you, given the legal power to do so, kill him or her just because I look so convincing and honest? Not that I look convincing or honest. If we had civil trials with a non-adversarial procedure that analyzed the evidence and decided on it in a dispassionate and incorruptible way, that would be just great, but we don't, so we have to deal with what we have. If that means Bin Laden on Judge Judy, so be it. The idea is unsavory, but life can be that way. I don't watch the show anyway, and if she doesn't sentence him to death the public will probably riot and tear her apart. Also him. And probably every cop who tries to interfere. Keeping suspects and even convicts in prison for a long time is "civilized" society's idea of impoverishing itself, but, again, what are the alternatives? In fiction it can work not to have almost any prisons, but that usually means executing a lot of petty criminals. In real life that does not work so well.

[christie42]

We here in the UK imprisoned 'for life' IRA terrorists in the Maze prison. There were still plots and murders in Northern Ireland. You can't imprison ideology, going to prison - or dying for your beliefs, just makes you into a hero, unless your flawed thinking is exposed, which is one reason I support Aljazeera's publication of Bin-Laden's diatribes.