Should the 9-11 Terrorists be tried in Civilian Courts

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Maybe swift justice, and a proper context?

Unfortunately some on their side would have seen Hitler brought to our court room and afforded US constitutional rights. So to them millions is still acceptable.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by ZGACK

No.

They were apprehended as a result of military operations so military justice should be the venue. Also a civil court will allow them Constitutional protections which they most certainly do not deserve. Of course if you support the terrorists you'll be all for trying them in a civil court.

If we go that route, they are Prisoners of War and have rights under the Geneva Conventions

[BigJon3475]

high contracting parties The representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty . From the point of view of international law it is immaterial where the treaty-making power resides (e.g. in a head of state, a senate, or a representative body): this is a question determinable by the constitutional law of the particular contracting state concerned.

high contracting parties | Definition of high contracting parties | HighBeam.com: Online Dictionary

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

I'd say cutting heads off nullifies that.

[idahogie]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

So any enemy soldier on a battlefield should be tried for killing American soldiers?

How do you get such a nonsensical conclusion from what I said? I will never understand the wingnut mentality.