I wonder what will come of this?

[Burnsy]

I still have absolutely no idea what you think the point of this thread is.

Me either and I've been following it, patiently waiting for it go go somewhere for 2 or 3 days now...

I think I'll give up now...

[j2k4]

Isn't the justice system one of the main bulwarks of the democracy we're so eager to impose on the rest of the world?
Public trials in public venues- i.e., transparency- are supposed to be one of the things that's admirable about our system and yet you imply that it's not robust enough to handle a case like this.

What- if anything- does the choice of venue have to do with the "labeling as terrorist/Islam" thing you introduced into the thread, or was that just a random diversion?
I still have absolutely no idea what you think the point of this thread is.

Transparency?

You mean that principle promised but only selectively practiced by the Obama administration?

Ah.

Okay, why is transparency so desirable in this instance?

Do you want to gamble a public trial will satisfy it's own requirement of unanimity in rendering a verdict?

I suppose 'fairness' would seat a Muslim or two on the jury, wouldn't you?

Feel free to make your next (incorrect) leap, presumably wherein you accuse me of a racial or religious bias.

Along another line, perhaps you remember the trial of OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty, not because he was actually innocent, but rather to service a felt need to put paid to the racist belief that black men have been historically held to wrongful account in criminal matters.

I mean, really - the mob fixes this kind of stuff all the time, and they don't even have the Islam's constitutional sanction.

Why do you think this isn't a risk?

One last thing:

Even if it all works out just fine (one may wonder what "fine" might be), this trial will set a precedent for the future.

Are you sure you want to obsolete military courts?

Just as an example, you see.

[clocker]

So, a trial in a civilian court is a "gamble"...does this mean a military tribunal is a sure thing?

Anyway, what trial are we talking about here?

[j2k4]

So, a trial in a civilian court is a "gamble"...does this mean a military tribunal is a sure thing?

Relatively speaking, yes - in both cases.

Anyway, what trial are we talking about here?

Since you asked, I'll take an opinion for each - the Gitmo/NYC trial and whatever eventuates with Hasan/Ft.Hood.

[3RA1N1AC]

So, a trial in a civilian court is a "gamble"...does this mean a military tribunal is a sure thing?

Anyway, what trial are we talking about here?

trial of u.s. army major nidal malik hasan, who is accused of killing 13 and wounding approx 40 at fort hood. victims were mixture of military personnel and civilians. immediate legal jurisdiction over the murder trial is military court. federal prosecution could charge him with other crimes (such as violation of antiterrorism law) and either stage a second trial or just supercede the military trial.

as for whether someone can or should be tried for the crime of terrorism: i suggest that we should have first provided precise, comprehensive definitions of "terrorist" & "terrorism" and demonstrated the ability/willingness to apply the terms consistently before we outlawed them & proposed war against them. so far, i think the terms have not been well-defined, not been consistently applied (see history of references to u.s.-allied terrorists as "freedom fighters"), and have functioned better as pejoratives and propaganda than as technical or legal denotations.

[j2k4]

That's not a bad post.

Please don't take exception to my having noted this.

[clocker]

Relatively speaking, yes - in both cases.

So why not eliminate civil courts in favor of the (apparently) superior military tribunal system?
In fact, why not eliminate trials altogether?
You seem to believe that guilt has already been determined, what happened to the presumption of innocence?

[j2k4]

That's quite a leap.

Try again.