Should terrorist suspects be tried on their own soil

The Supreme Court stepped in Wednesday to temporarily continue the isolation of terrorism suspects at the Navy base in Cuba.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor granted a request from the Bush administration to stop a lower court from communicating with a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had planned to notify the detainee of that court’s ruling in December that Guantanamo prisoners should be allowed to see lawyers and have access to courts.
O’Connor granted the government’s request to put that ruling on hold, but she said the high court could reconsider after it hears from lawyers for the detainee, Falen Gherebi.
O’Connor has jurisdiction over appeals from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson had asked the high court earlier Wednesday to block any developments in a class-action case over treatment of the Guantanamo detainees until the Supreme Court decides this year, in a separate case, whether Guantanamo detainees may contest their captivity in American courts.
The government has been holding about 650 men, mostly Muslims, essentially incommunicado at the prison in Cuba.
The military maintains that because the men were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial.
The Supreme Court announced in November that it would consider appeals on behalf of Guantanamo inmates. A month later, a panel of the 9th Circuit issued the ruling in favor of Gherebi, a Libyan captured in Afghanistan.
National security is at stake, Olson argued in an emergency filing, because communication with the prisoner would “interfere with the military’s efforts to obtain intelligence from Gherebi and other Guantanamo detainees related to the ongoing war against terrorism.”
Mark Drumbl, a law professor at Washington & Lee University, said that the argument is a weak one, given the passage of time.
“This has been going on for 2 1/2 years,” he said. “Any information they had might be fairly stale now.”
He said the government has a legitimate claim that there are overlapping issues between the case in San Francisco and the pending appeal at the high court.
Olson said the appeals court refused last week to stop proceedings in the case, which the administration is appealing to the Supreme Court.
In addition to the Guantanamo case, the Supreme Court is considering a case testing the legal rights of American citizens caught overseas in the war on terrorism and may also hear an appeal involving the rights of a U.S. terror suspect caught in the United States.

“A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of race, nationality, or color.”

totally agree with that.

however, who decides who is and isnt a terrirost to being with?

“Why even bother with a trial?”

cool, mob justice. how we have progressed.:rolleyes:

“Why were they even captured?”

ah, very good question indeed (in many cases). 😀

A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of race, nationality, or color. Why even bother with a trial? Why were they even captured?

How can I put this succinctly…

[b] Comet’s comments appear to me to be aimed solely at those British subjects who were happy to take the positives of citizenship, but who then jumped at the first opportunity to take up arms against their adopted country…

[/b]
So they aren’t exactly going to be (ahem) “ Joe Smith and Fred Bloggs of Guildford” are they? You are talking non Anglo-Saxon stock: I didn’t turn the thread into a racial thing – it was already there.

Remember all those who fought in the war in the former Yugoslavia? On either side? Were they traitors in your eyes? Or maybe because they all seemed to be white Anglo-Saxons that was never ever going to be in the frame.

I have heard absolutely nothing which says that the British nationals were present in Afghanistan with evil intent – which is why there is talk of them being repatriated to serve the rest of their ‘sentence’ in British prison.

Says it all really.

Flood.

I don’t think terrorists or anyone involved with a terrorist organization in any way deserves a fair trial.

They deserve a form of punishment, not a chance at retribution.

Originally posted by Flood
Steve – is this purely a matter of skin colour and religion?
Sorry – I still stand by every word.
What about if they were 2nd generation Islamic men, born in Bradford, with names like Sarmi or Hussein? No contest – absolutely guilty immediately, I expect. And if they were still in Bradford I expect you might judge them as just as guilty!

Flood, this is NOT a matter of skin colour, religion, family name or location. I’m pretty ****ed off that you should try to turn it into one.

I also stand by my comments; if British subjects take up arms against their country, they are committing an act of treason and should therefore be prepared to accept everything that comes to them.

Wanna show me where your perception of racism is in that statement? 😡

comet:

take a chill pill man.

according to u, if all who willingly associate themselves with bin ladden and Al-Q should be vaporised, then bush sr and co should be the first on the list. they effectively made bin ladden and Al-Q what they are in the first place.

as for the ppl being held in cuba. well it might not have occured to u, but afganistan is a country with ppl living in it. its not some terrirost-r-us, suicide bomber producing tellportation pad for the sum of the univers to beam down on. ppl are born there, and unlike u or i, they cant jusy book a plane ticket out of there to live in a better place (many do and are sent back for their troubles if caught).

also do remeber that for 30 years, the taliban and Al-Q were the ruling power there. for many afgans, jioning the taliban and/or Al-Q might have been as natural as u or me jioning the poilice or armed forces of our repective nations. after all, what was the alternative? join the northeen alliance? which was considered a ‘terrirost’ organisation by the ruling power?:rolleyes:

as for the foreign ‘fighters’, as flood has already pointed out, there is no evidence that they did any fighting. and it is difficult ot tell what their intenstion were when the jioned, as Al-Q was also a religious organisation nd bin ladden somewhat of a cult figure.

also, i dont really see where all this, ‘ they stabbed us in the back now they want us to bail them out’ stuff came from. last time i checked, it was the parents of the SUSPECTS (they havent been convicted for squat so far, i guess the innocent until proven guilty stuff we pride ourselves so much abt having is only to the ‘select few’:rolleyes: ) that are doing all the potioning, not the ppl being held. and the parents sure as hell did do no fighting. u want to stop them potitioning? then u might as well shut down orginisations like the red cross and christian aid, cos they also petion for non-UK/US nationals.

Steve – how far back do you have to be able to trace your family tree back to be able to claim that you deserve a UK passport? Or is this purely a matter of skin colour and religion?
Sorry – I still stand by every word.

”If these particular people had been Joe Smith and Fred Bloggs of Guildford, born and raised in Surrey all thier lives, I’d still hold exactly the same view.”

What about if they were 2nd generation Islamic men, born in Bradford, with names like Sarmi or Hussein? No contest – absolutely guilty immediately, I expect. And if they were still in Bradford I expect you might judge them as just as guilty! Has any proof come out yet that any of the British contingent – or any from any western country – actually participated in the fighting?
Comet asks why they were there – why shouldn’t they be there? Before 11/9/01 they wouldn’t have been restricted (and even for a while after that), and there were things that could be taught in Afghanistan to those seeking knowledge – and not forgetting the on-going civil war which required fighters. Whilst Comet has decided that these people cannot be classed as human there will be many that remember that these fighters fought to get rid of the Russians – with western assistance.
If the majority of this ‘terrorist’ group of freedom fighters knew anything about the attack on New York then I would be very surprised – after all, this is what command-cells are for – so what are the majority guilty of, other than defending themselves when attacked? Still, I expect that Comet would rather that old adage – the backbone of British law – of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ be suspended for potential terrorists – just in case they were actually found innocent and awarded compensation.
Treason? What is treason? I believe that only attempting to kill the monarch carries the death penalty now. As Nermal says the chances are that these people – if they knew anything at all that was going on in the outside world – were probably totally unable to leave the country: is that treason? My younger brother (who knew absolutely nothing about the Twin Towers attack until he arrived home nearly a week later) was stuck in Spain in mid-September 2001 – is that treason? His then girlfriend was stuck in Florida at the same time – treason?
Still – nice to know we can all say what we want due to the freedom of speech; at least until Comet sees the irony in that…

Flood.

Ah – but can you name any of the British subjects who did take up arms? Not even the American who was splattered all over the press took up arms – so he is just imprisoned for being in the country. How many of these people would have liked to have left but found that they were suddenly blocked in by international blockades – if they knew that anything was happening? It is not like Britain for being able to get news, you know. – Nermal

Think you’re over-reacting a bit Flood.

Comet’s comments appear to me to be aimed solely at those British subjects who were happy to take the positives of citizenship, but who then jumped at the first opportunity to take up arms against their adopted country. And I wholeheartedly agree with her. She is not being racist. If these particular people had been Joe Smith and Fred Bloggs of Guildford, born and raised in Surrey all thier lives, I’d still hold exactly the same view.

What these guys have done, is commit treason. Unless I’m very much mistaken, it still carries the death penalty.

Originally posted by Comet
Those who support al-Qaeda have no right to live, it’s as simple as that.

And what were these so called “British” organisms doing fighting on the side of the enemy anyway? They are only “British” when things go wrong for them, and then they expect the British to bail them out. Otherwise they make no bones about saying how evil and decadent the West is (whilst drawing more money in benefits than proper British people get) and how the West must be exterminated. If they hate us so much why do they continue to infest our country? They chose to come here and sponge, we do not make them (personally I would be happy if they all cleared off back to where they came from, our of the primeval sludge they crawled out of, if they are only wanting to incite murder and terrorism). The world would be better without them.

Including the jews, the person who cleans your office, the people who made your take-away, the doctors and nurses who are (just) keeping the health service going, etc, etc, etc. With you leading the lynch-mob, I suppose!
Calm down and wipe the foam from your mouth.
Maybe I am the only one finding your views a ‘little’ extremist, but I think I can safely advise you to button up your black shirt in the inclement weather that is coming – and don’t go too near the flames when burning those many innocent people out of home and work…

(If the above post is not incitement to racial hatred then I am sadly losing my touch.)

Flood.

Those who support al-Qaeda have no right to live, it’s as simple as that.

And what were these so called “British” organisms doing fighting on the side of the enemy anyway? They are only “British” when things go wrong for them, and then they expect the British to bail them out. Otherwise they make no bones about saying how evil and decadent the West is (whilst drawing more money in benefits than proper British people get) and how the West must be exterminated. If they hate us so much why do they continue to infest our country? They chose to come here and sponge, we do not make them (personally I would be happy if they all cleared off back to where they came from, our of the primeval sludge they crawled out of, if they are only wanting to incite murder and terrorism). The world would be better without them.

Originally posted by Comet
Good one Hurricane 477, I agree with you. If these “British” organisms were to be tried in Britain, we all know what would happen – the courts would set them free and they would get hundreds of thousands in compensation – because every proper Brit knows that in this country the bloody criminal has more rights than the victim!

Anyway, what were these organisms doing in Afghanistan in the first place? What is their excuse for being there? By being with the Taliban in the first place then they are guilty. I refuse to call these organisms “human” because terrorists are not human. Personally I believe that viruses, bacteria and mould spores are more deserving of rights and protection than they are.

Oh dear! Not saying they were on holiday but what gives you the right to say that people cannot go where they like, associate with who they like (and remember that before 11th September 2001 this was not a terror regime, just a misguided religious backwater) or worship how they like?
Hate to hark back to US forces just picking up people in the street (as they still appear to be doing in Iraq) but I suppose you’d also be executing taxi drivers, for example, just because they were detained? These people were – if anything at all – mere foot soldiers. Many of them were more or less the equivalent of low ranking officers, NCOs and the men who carried out the orders. In our armies you would be frowned upon for not obeying orders – in theirs the punishment might well be death: so you fight who you are told to fight. I cannot believe that the Americans think they have detained the next batch of suicide pilots, what they are doing is probably more out of spite than any form of justice.

As for the foreigners – would you be lining up against the wall all those who go and work on a kibbutz? The Palestinians might have the same idea as you…

Flood.

Originally posted by HURRICANE 477
I think that the terrorist should be tried in the country he was or was going to terrorise. When you use the term homesoil, it creates more problems, for example take those “british” inmates at Quantanimo, there ‘home’ soil isn’t that of britain is it? In their country’s of origins they mybe heroes?

Good one Hurricane 477, I agree with you. If these “British” organisms were to be tried in Britain, we all know what would happen – the courts would set them free and they would get hundreds of thousands in compensation – because every proper Brit knows that in this country the bloody criminal has more rights than the victim!

Anyway, what were these organisms doing in Afghanistan in the first place? What is their excuse for being there? By being with the Taliban in the first place then they are guilty. I refuse to call these organisms “human” because terrorists are not human. Personally I believe that viruses, bacteria and mould spores are more deserving of rights and protection than they are.

It is pointless discussing how those held in guantanimo should be tried. They are not being treated as POWs (despite the US unilaterally declaring a war on terrorism) and they are not being treated as criminals (criminals have rights… even those without citizenship, like rights to an attorny etc). These people have been denied any rights therefore are untriable.

Put it in perspective they are in the same situation as the Japanese kidnapped by the North Koreans… even if they had commited crimes their subsequent treatment would mean they would walk at any trial… would you believe a signed confession of someone held without any rights for over two years. Using sleep deprivation and starvation and many other non traceable methods that leave no scars you could pretty much make anyone say anything.

After years of accusing others of doing such things it is the most open the US has ever been about doing the same.

I think that the terrorist should be tried in the country he was or was going to terrorise. When you use the term homesoil, it creates more problems, for example take those “british” inmates at Quantanimo, there ‘home’ soil isn’t that of britain is it? In their country’s of origins they mybe heroes?

Totaly agree with you, but that sould mean that they get a fair triel, which is probably inpossible in the US, all the juries would be biest, and I don’ t blaim them but no court would ever send them free.

“That would mean that all persons in Cuba shoud be tried in Afganistan and not the US, if they should be tried at all, because most of them fought a war in Afganistan and done nothing against the US.”

not really, that’s why i brought in the international court bit. most of the ppl there were there cos they fought to defend their nation, and alot of the others were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

for those that were part of the 9/11 attacks, sure, the US can have them, but the rest should be set free.

Originally posted by plawolf
i dont think so. i think terrorists should be tried and sentenced in the nation that they have (or planned) to commite their attacks.

however the line gets blurry as who decides someone is a terrorist and based on what evidence. i think the international courts would be good for that job, they look at all the intel and evidence that led to an arrest and decide if it was enough to prove that the suspect was engaged in terrorist activities. if so, they are snet to the nation that they planned to attack, if not, they are set free.

That would mean that all persons in Cuba shoud be tried in Afganistan and not the US, if they should be tried at all, because most of them fought a war in Afganistan and done nothing against the US.

i dont think so. i think terrorists should be tried and sentenced in the nation that they have (or planned) to commite their attacks.

however the line gets blurry as who decides someone is a terrorist and based on what evidence. i think the international courts would be good for that job, they look at all the intel and evidence that led to an arrest and decide if it was enough to prove that the suspect was engaged in terrorist activities. if so, they are snet to the nation that they planned to attack, if not, they are set free.