Carole Chiaro

"edr: You don't really think that Bin Laden and his gang are deterred by capital punishment, do you?"

Carole, perhaps not … but then why is Bin Laden’s gang intentionally choosing to meet and conspire MAINLY in countries and/or states where the death penalty is forbidden? Personally, I think they only welcome death in situations where they are a part of the actual bombing or action. Otherwise, they’d rather stay alive to finish some plot they are devising. I believe they would rather put themselves to death at their OWN hand during a Jihad action, rather than their enemy put them to death. I could be wrong. Irregardless, however, the main issue is:

Puna:

"I am unilaterally opposed to the death penalty - it seems to me death is far easier to bear than life incarceration - especially for a terrorist who has vowed to serve his/her god and welcomes death."

Ladies, (I’m assuming your are ladies by the spelling of your names, if not I apologize) - your statements further re-iterate my question about the original basis of this topic - what is “humane” and what is not.

It is strongly implied via your statements (at least as I interpret them), that we should NOT give the terrorists something they would welcome (death), but rather give them something they would NOT want - make them suffer – lock them up in jail for life, postponing their meeting with 17 virgin’s in heaven. Is that a “humane” action on our part or a vindictive and torturous one?

People, the double-standard here is killing me, no pun intended! We can talk down the death penalty with no “better” alternative?

This thread was started with terrorism in mind. Tribunals and Bin Laden are certainly related. However, my questions have recently been about whether capital punishment is right or wrong, in general, as it would apply to anyone – not just the Bin Laden folk.

Therefore, my previous post strongly implied “serial murderers” and why do we keep them alive, especially when they admit to the crime and tell us where they buried the bodies?

At this point it seems all statements made in this thread supporting “staying alive” have been made based on “humane” issues, yet no one has directly addressed the issues about how in-humane it is to lock someone up for life (and it’s many adverse affects – forget about cost). So, is it really about what is humane or not? Or, is your detesting of taking a murderer’s life based on some other premise, a religious moral or background, something you haven’t stated? If so, I’d like to hear them - all points of view are good.

At this point, however, I think everyone on this post that is “anti death penalty” – that has stated so – have stated their positions emotionally, not logically or analytically. I believe you have failed with respect to addressing the “humane” issues that your position seemed to be based on.

I’m still waiting for some interesting re-torts as to why one option is more humane than the other.

edr

I just went out to a nice breakfast with a friend and we discussed the death penalty concept in detail. It was a great conversation.

While doing so, I had an epiphany that finally brought some resolution to this matter in my own mind.

Naturally, anyone has the right to take the position that “taking another person’s life” is improper, immoral and that we would be “stooping to the murderer’s level” to do the same thing they did, etc. However, if that is your position, your only option in conjunction with that position, that is moral, just and right is to let the person go – let them free. You don’t necessarily have to forgive them, but you can simply let them go, let them create their own future scenarios, let karma catch up them, let God be the judge, whatever … be passive. Just hope they don’t commit murder again.

That seems fair and just provided that you believe that no one, for any reason, has the right to take another human life.

Where the epiphany occurred in my mind, is the double-standard, in which many people think they shouldn’t take another human life, but that it’s ok to “lock them up” forever.

Frankly, you do more damage to a human being by keeping them alive and torturing them (Lock ‘em up and throw away the key) than you do by quickly taking their life. There is no way you can argue that 30 years of “pain” in a cell is more humane than 30 seconds of pain in death, period!

If you want to be Gandhi, so be it, that is noble and admirable. Let them go and perhaps even forgive them. Being a pacifist is truly great! However, if you want to be Gladiator and kill only those that are truly guilty of murder, so be it. I’m for that as well.

But for those of you who are trying to have your cake and eat it too, taking a bogus position somewhere in the middle, living a double-standard, I’m troubled by that.

The question for you “in-the-middle folk” is, as a pacifist, can you truly live with setting a murderer free and hope that they do not kill again?
http://www.imfinallyatpeaceonthisone.com

Don't worry Calibasco, this is my last "copy-cat" URL. I won't steal your identity.

edr

The US government calls for military courts? Why? Are the civilian courts not sufficient? It seems to me this is an admission that the US legal system is faulty. Therefore, people executed in the United States were put to death by a flawed system? The death penalty has claimed innocent lives then. No? Am I incorrect? Well then there's no need to try people under the UMCJ in military courts and the normal court system should be just fine.

And they complain about Spain not extraditing suspects? Nobody has even requested anything from Spain. All that was said was that it's illegal for EU countries to extradite people to face death penalty proceedings.

Spare me the 'well this is war' line, there is no war, there's a criminal investigation against a mafia which uses bs religious propaganda to further it's aims.

Don't misunderstand me, I was on 14th Street on the 11th and saw things I would care not to remember. I support removal of the criminal elements in Afghanistan and anywhere else. But don't try to wrap it up as some glorious patriotic crusade, nor take away basic freedoms upon which the United States was based.

Asterault,

I'd agree with you fully, if you can tell me how they can protect the people who are part of the prosecutorial teams, and the witnesses,and jurors, from reprisals, at the hands of the al-Qaeda people who are still around? If you use the conventional courts, which all of us would agree are best, the names of everyone is a matter of public record, except the jurors, and their names are readily available as well.

This is the same situation that dogged the Russian government in their efforts to try Chechnyan rebels/Russian Mafia members, and they did assassinate judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and members of juries, who found these people guilty of crimes. They also exact retribution against the police who are directly involved in the case.

The attacks don't start against the person directly involved in the case. They start by killing the wives and children of these men and women. Then they finish by killing the person themself.

Like I indicated in an earlier post, even the Italian courts have began using the tribunal system when it deals with terrorists. The killing of people associated with prosecutions has risen at such an alarming rate that they can't find people to serve on juries, act as prosecutors, or even sit as judges.

Like I said, if you can show me clearly that these people will be safe, then I'd agree with you. But until then, reason tells me that tribunals may be the only choice we have to prosecute these cases in the U.S., at this time.

To be honest, we don't really want to try these people in the U.S. regardless of what people think. We only want to try those we capture in the U.S., and force the World Court to do their job like they should already be doing in bringing the worlds terrorists to justice. What better way to force that issue, than tell the world our intent is to try these people and "hang 'em all?"

I believe the method is called "reverse psychology?" What'cha think?

At least it means we don't have to do all the dirty work. After all, it is a world problem, not just ours.

Wolf

Well stated, Asterault!

Wolf, Thank you - thank you - thank you! For being the someone who finally addressed what I have been saying -that the World Court is the proper place to try any international terrorist.

BTW - The concept of the U.S. establishing military tribunals to try anyone is, to me, illegal and abhorent. I have yet to read or hear a justification that qualifies within the parameters of the constitution - but then, in all honesty, I have always thought Ashcroft to be a bit of a meglomanic ...

Puna - who always knows when the last comment in a post will cause gnashing of teeth - but says it anyhow .....

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Puna ]

Puna,

Yes, the world court seems the best option. Agreed by all parties.

However, regarding your inquiry concerning some valid reasons as to why a military tribunal is even considered, here are some of the advantages:

1. As Wolf has argued repeatedly, protection to jurrors, judges and prosecutors.

I agree with that!

2. Protection of our intelligence, military secrets, technologies, etc.

I agree with that!

3. The issue of extradition. By having a tribunal, a military court can establish itself anywhere, therefore, it does not have to worry about somehow getting the culprit onto American soil to conduct the trial. It can set up camp in Afghanistan and condict the trial right then and there.

I agree with that too.

Therefore, from those aspects, a military tribunal seems a great alternative.

Where I don't agree with them (and I agree with you on the constition issues) is that the standards for evidence, burden of proof and the vote for the death penalty are all MUCH lower in a military tribunal.

THAT IS WRONG!!!!!!!

Until that issue is fairly resolved and military tribunals have the same standards as our other courts, we should NOT use them, in any capacity.

Again, perhaps the World Court is the best interim alternative.

Have a great day!

edr

edr,

My only concern with the world court is that they would slap a prison sentence on people that would amount to less than one day in prison for every person killed. I have a feeling the Milosovek trials will prove that. From what I gather, there's a strong feeling that six months at Disneyworld, playing Goofy, may be a big enough sentence for his attempt at genocide.

If that happens, my guess is that the CIA will become the jury in passing sentence on a lot of high ranking members of al-Qaeda.

According to polls taken within the last two weeks, nearly 90% of Americans have no qualms about our government issuing orders to assassinate the head of state, or al-Qaeda members, that are on a "hit list," and involved in the terrorist attacks.

Right or wrong, that's the way people feel, and if they do, expect the US to do what it feels necessary to complete the mission at hand.

Wolf

Wolf,

Point well taken.

However, as Ari Fleischer and Rumsfeld state on a daily basis, "If Bin Laden happens to be killed in the middle of combat, or does not surrender when ordered to and we kill him, then that's war and self defense."

There is nothing criminal about that as per rules of combat. No courts are needed period. We already know that the CIA has been conducting covert missions for years, including assassinating heads of state and we didn't need military tribunals for those actions. Why do we need one now?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I understand your point that Bush chose the military tribunal option to "help" accomplish his ultimate goals much easier - kill Al Quaeda as quickly as possible.

However, since 90% of Americans don't care if we kill Bin Laden or his gang (as you've pointed out), then let's just do it "in combat" or while he/they are "trying to escape."

I'm sure Bush’s cabinet can pull some excuse out of the hat - some reason to justify such an action and we'll never know the difference.

However, choosing to set up a military tribunal was a bad choice, in principal, and doesn't fare well with Bush, our country's reputation, or our constitution. Too much debate and criticism about it, especially when Congress never officially declared war and when the standards are less than our Supreme Court upholds.

As stated previously, I like the idea of military tribunals; in general, many advantages to them, provided the standards of law were the same, and provided congress had actually declared war.

In fact one of the many debates right now amongst the legal scholars is that Bush had no constitutional right to even impose a military tribunal as that right is only allowed during war, and the constitution expressly states that only congress can decalre war, not the president. So, Bush imposing military tribunals now, kind of jumped the gun and hurt himself and our country's reputation.

edr

The most appropriate forum to determine the guilt of SUSPECTED Al-Queda coconspirators is a criminal courthoue in the state of New York. New York suffered the overwhelming amount of devestation from the attacks of the 11th, and as the locale for the commited crimes it should justifibly be the site of any criminal trial. Military tribunals or international courts do not preserve the American values of justice, this is not a condemnation of international wisdom, but rather an extolling of the US constitution.

If JUSTICE is to be served, then we (Americans) must be true to the line in the pendiment of the US Supreme Court building- Equal Justice Under Law. While it is true that most of the suspected terrorist members are noncitizens, that should not deter us in our commitment to a blind judicary. Countless aliens face trial in US courts subject to the same rules of evidence that nationals enjoy. Why should Jordanians, Arabaians, or Afghanis suspected of duplicity in the September 11th attacks be treated differently?

A New York state criminal courtroom, not a federal courthouse in New York, may also placate Spain as well as other nations. New York state has perhaps the most restrictive death penalty critera. Although, Governor Pataki campaigned heavily on his pro-capital punishment stance, the death penalty has not been used in New York state in nearly 40 years. New York prohibts capital punishment in felony murder cases, that would most liklely preclude its use on any convicted members of Al-Queada. European nations could extradite suspects without violating their prohibitions against extradition where capital punishment is possible.

John Gotti, the head of the Gambino crime family, was convicted of murder by a jury. Fears of reprisals by his large and vicious gang did not deter the jurors in his case. Likewise, we must aknowledge that the men and women of New York can impart their wisdom in trials invoving suspected international terrorists. Italy might have elected to use tribunals, but what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I have faith in the resilience of our countrymen and in our Constitution that empowers people, not an unaccountable panel of international jurists.

edr - You wrote
"However, choosing to set up a military tribunal was a bad choice, in principal, and doesn't fare well with Bush, our country's reputation, or our constitution. Too much debate and criticism about it, especially when Congress never officially declared war and when the standards are less than our Supreme Court upholds."
I think your comment sums up exactly why a military tribunal would be illegal. If bin Lauden were to be killed in combat, as you said, that is part of war/military action (seeing as war has not been officially declared by Congress) and an entirely different matter. But to determine actions based on a public opinion poll (that 90% of Americans referred to) is complete nonsense. Actions taken in the name of justice have to meet legal standards or we become as immoral as those we are fighting.