"This isn't war"?!

4,000 uninvolved, non-combatant people are dead because of the unannounced, unprovoked acts of an interntnational conspiricy of non-governmental organizations and national states, designed to destrroy the United Sates or at least seriously harm its interests, and that's not war? what the heck is it then? A traffic offense?

This is all self-defence, The US was attacked by groups that have considered themselves at war with America for many years now. Military tribunals have been established by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman, among others, and have always passed constitutional muster. Should Hermann Goering and his Nazi clique not have been executed by military justice for what they did? What, then, is the difference here?

Because, basically, this is an ideological conflict, just as WWII's fight against the Nazis was. The al Queda's brand of intolerant islamic fundamenatlism is no different than nazi facism. It seeks to eleiminate all alternative forms of expression and dictate one's way of living and thinking. Its natural enemy is democratic and cultural plurity, whose chief proponent is the United States and its western allies. That is why the US has been repeatedly attacked by these people. Only now do have these assaults risen to the level that the US feels, justifiably, that its national exsistence is at stake.

Please do not insult the US by stating that a legal military tribunal makes us "as immoral as those who have done these acts". That is the worst kind of garbage hyperbole.

Now, why won't the Spanish court, as it has already stated, not extradite these war criminals to face the justice of the nation they have attacked in the most cowardly and brutal way? That is the question that no one has yet answered.

Kurt:

You raise a great point! However, if we are so "easily" and "clearly" at war, mainly when we know Congress overwhelmingly supported the President, especially after his address to Congress, why not perform the "technical" duties of the job and simply get Congress's vote to declare war and then declare it?

Do I think we're at war? Yes, of course I do ... but technical oversights such as this are too grave to say "oops!" later on. I guarantee you this will come back to bite Bush in the ass at some point down the road.

You wrote:

Please do not insult the US by stating that a legal military tribunal makes us "as immoral as those who have done these acts". That is the worst kind of garbage hyperbole."

I'm with you except you didn't address the issue as to why military courts can and should have a 'lesser' requirement with respect to evidence, burden, death penalty, etc? That's why some people make those statements. It's like we're setting up a "special" lynch-mob with special requirements, in order to secure conviction!

May I ask you point blank - irregardless of the circumstances, do you feel that a military tribunal should have "less" legal standards than our other courts?

Or worded differently, should our military tribunals be allowed "special" legal priviledges and "new rules of law" only for times of war?

If so, why? Because at this point, our current military tribunals are awarded exactly those graces. I think that is digraceful, hypocrytical and clearly against our constitution!

Some people have made the argument that since Al-Queda are not U.S. citizens they aren't awarded the same rights we are, thus we can impose special legal rights for non-citizen's. Now that's CRAP! Our Constituition specifically states "for the people", and that includes "all people" There is not verbiage concerning "citizens."

Playing the devil's advocate here ... look at the "big picture" of HOW the events occurred and the SEQUENCE in which they occurred with respect to the "allowing" of military tribunals and I believe you will see that people, at minimum, have a REASONABLE right to take the position you wrote about:

"as immoral as those who have done these acts"

I believe I made the point in a previous post that when the government appears secretive, lowers their legal standards and sets up immediate "fly by night" tribunals without the technical and "official" OK from Congress, one can REASONABLY conclude that the agenda is to CONVICT AL-Queda at all costs. This is nothing short of the obvious! Let's stack the odds in our favor by setting up a secretive and LOW requirement legal proceeding so that our chances of winning increase 100 fold? Is this just and right?

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the the Bin Laden gang should be tried, and perhaps even in some sort of tribunal that protects the names and contact information of judges, jurrors and prosecutors, but let's at least have the SAME legal standard our courts normally uphold.

Frankly, we can't have it both ways. Either we go out and kill them out right "in war", or we are "righteous" and "just" and thus we must convict only as per the standards that our other courts employ, no?

edr

edr,
Thank you for responding to the last post far more logically and eruditly than I seem capable of; your words express my thoughts and feelings ...
Puna (who sometimes gets so involved the feet trip over the tongue ) :o

Why was your so-called 'war' not declared when the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam were destroyed? 900 people died in those attacks. And embassies are soveriegn soil of their countries no?

Asterault,

The enormity of the attacks in the U.S. was so great that it created the ground swell of support for retaliation. That didn't happen with the other attacks. I guess too many people didn't understand that it was only a matter of time until the attacks came home to us.

Al-Qaeda believed that the U.S. would be drawn into the same situation that Israel has been caught in, where attacks would go back and forth, none with world wide repercussions. That is, until the terrorists succeeded, beyond their wildest imagination, of what would actually be accomplished. Especially since less than 10% of their planned attacks actually succeed.

My concerns go beyond Afghanistan. I wonder what will happen if Arafat convinces the Arab nations that Israel has declared war on them. I wonder what will happen if the US decides that the al-Qaeda influences in Somalia, and other nations has become so great, that those nations are targets. I wonder how Spain, the UK, France, and Germany will react, now that they're beginning to see the strength al-Qaeda actually has in their nations, and the threat they pose against their own sovereign rights.

I also wonder if we aren't on the verge of a war that will escalate into a battle between Muslims & Christian/Jews. Then I wonder where China & nations like N. Korea will stand, if that happens.

Wolf (Who's been doing a lot of wondering lately. )

I think it is unwise to view these events or possible future events as being war between religions.Some nations and groups are being victimized by their own immoral,despotic, fanatic rulers who chose to rewrite the basis of their religions to benefit their own agenda and keep their people at bay with threats and rewards. After food and water comes safety as a primal need and I choose to believe that if people can coexist "safely" no matter what religion they follow...they will not choose to go to war. This is besides that point...this is just a question that I have in mind... If our judicial system is based on trial by a jury of one's peers what would the trial options be for a foreign terrorist? Who are their peers and is this one of the justifications of a tribunal of sorts?

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: karenwishart ]

Puna: De Nada. And, thank you for the compliments.

Wolf: You have reason to be concerned. We are all concerned. I think it may stem from our basic backgrounds … meaning some sort of “end of the world”, “Armageddon” or “WW III” is supposed to occur? Every time something like this happens, the religious buffs use it to their advantage to say, “This is it ... the time has come.”

Yet, I can recall this happening all through the 80’s and through most of the cold war. We’ve been fortunate enough as a society not to let this happen. And, all the religious folks have been wrong time and time again. Fortunately, Russia realized they loved their children too, and didn’t want to nuke us to kingdom come.

Thus, I have faith that us humans will be smart enough to prevent a situation where we are in WW III, Muslims against Christians/Jews. I don’t think it would ever get to that.

However, if we were to get into a war simultaneously with Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc., it may be a situation like WW II where U.S. and Europe were against Germany. Ultimately, we prevailed and rid the world of Hitler. I’d hate for it to come to that, but I know we would be victorious and the entire Middle East may change for the good if something like this were to occur. Either way, I still do not believe that it would be a war between Muslims and Christians/Jews. Yes, the fanatic Muslim extremists would say so, but they are a minority. I believe the greater population of the world would not make it or allow it to be such a war.

Karenwishart: You raised a great point about “who” the peers would be. However, certainly our military could not be considered their “peers”. At best, our military is the extreme opposite. They’re the enemy. Perhaps then if “peers” is the basis of the argument, and assuming they "should be" judged by their peers, then perhaps Eddie’s comments from much earlier on this thread are most appropriate:

“Let's find out what would be viewed by their fellow Taliban or Al Quaida to be the worst fate that could befall the remains of those bastards, and then let's do it, very publicly.”

Yesterday, Bush was in Orlando at a town meeting. I’m sure you all saw the press coverage. He brought up the issue of tribunals because he knows the heat he’s been getting on this one. He’s still using the same argument, “To protect our intelligence in order to prevent future attacks.” Rhetoric, I say!!!

He could also help his argument by saying, “To protect judges, jurors and prosecutors.”

However, NO ONE seems to address why these tribunals have less of a legal standard than our normal courts. It’s B.S – I tell you!

I don’t care if we go to Afghanistan and set up a tribunal to convict swiftly. I don’t care if it’s to protect our intelligence or the jurors, judges and prosecutors. I don't care if it's to avoid extradition headaches and to prevent clogging up OUR courts even more than they are. This is all good! Agreed. But, why is there LESS of a standard? Why is less “burden of proof” allowed? Why only ¾ of the military jury to impose death penalty? It’s absurd. It shows cowardess and insecurity on our part.

To bring this all into perspective, and with regards to Spain, we should realize Spain's rejection of extraditing those eight Muslim Al Qaeda citizens to the US lies somewhat with the military tribunals. True, the main reason for keeping these international terrorists from US soil is Spain's (enlightened) constitutional disagreement with our death penalty, but lessor (but more interesting reason) lies with the real or perceived hypocrisy of a "lower" standard justice.

For all those on this board, and I deeply respect all your opinions, one needs to realize that the chief complaint about the United States is the perceived or just double standard we march with. History points to this double standard - a sad reality of past foreign policies. For any skeptics, just look at how we prop up oppresive dictatorships (contrary to our creed of democracy) in much of the Middle East to keep stabilty for the purpose of continous oil supply.

None of us wants another oil-shock like in the seventies, but we all need to be honest with ourselves, and with how the U.S.'s double standard impacts people of the world. Academically speaking, our support of "oil-dictatorships" is one of main grievances the Middle East people have with the American government. We preach democracy, but allow govenments to oppress their own people for our benefit.

There is no need dwell and lament our past wrongs - all powerful societies (Spanish, British, Dutch, French, and even the USSR) have used double-standards to create a "home-court-advantage." We just need to be more honest and find ways to achieve our goals while "playing fair."

In my opinion, the most important issue at hand is that the U.S avoids hypocrisy. We preach equality and iron-clad justice. And us Americans should be damb proud of our freedom and justice. The problem, though, is that if we hold justice at a lower level for non-Americans, our moral authority is questionable!

We need to stop the US's real or perceived hypocrisy. If we hold the rest of world to a different standand than our own people, how can we continue to preach the American Way - a "way" based on equality and justice.

Again, let me repeat my respect to everyone's views. There are certainly credible arguments to the contrary of my opinion. Nevertheless, we can not practice double-standards. I am a patriotic American, but I believe a true patriot needs to be responsible. We can not pursue justice "at-any-cost" as have some in the media have suggested. Rather, we need to practice what we preach!

Thanks for the soap-box ...

PS: We all need to wonder what the Bush administration is trying to protect with these military tribunals. Yes, national security might be a just reason...but is this all we are protecting? I despise conspiracy theorists, but reputable pundits have suggested that the greater concern is to protect the integrity of the Bush family, and not just the United States. No? It is only a theory, but don't forget that we once supported Osama bin Ladin in our attempt to stop communism. There is a known fear that if the testimony of these war criminals were public, their information might implicate CIA/US involvement and reopen a recent American wound - Iran Contra. Just a possibility - let's hope the only motive is to protect national security, and not primarily the Bush family...

I would like to respond to a question posed in an earlier post. Let me quote:

"Now, why won't the Spanish court, as it has already stated, not extradite these war criminals to face the justice of the nation they have attacked in the most cowardly and brutal way? That is the question that no one has yet answered."

The Spanish government has answered this question very clearly: the Spanish constitution does not recognize capital punishment (aka, the death penalty) as legitimate justice. Unfortunately, America and many Americans don't share this enlightened view on a draconian method of punishment.

This IS the sticking point! Although the military tribunals raise eyebrows amongst the Spanish people, it is ulitmately the Spanish constitution, and not Spanish politics, that will prevent these Al-Qaeda from being extradited to the US.

Instead of bashing Spain and accusing this country of harboring terrorists, we should applaud their integrity and realize Spain is fighting this war on terrorism WITH the U.S. After all, Spain did arrest these associates of bin Laden, didn't they? I am comfortable and trust in our alliance with Spain that justice will be served, even if it is done in a Spanish court!

To answer the original question more clearly: As long as the U.S. believes in the death penalty, the Spanish constitution will not allow extradition. Period.

JJP,

You're right. You were on a "soap box." Your personal opinion in regards to capital punishment was obvious. Also, the fact that YOUR "opinions" are far superior to anyone else's came through loud and clear.

Even though I too am against capital punishment, I realize that my personal agenda is not at issue here. What is at issue is justice.

As for these terrorists, who planned, and were indirectly involved in the attacks of 9-11, there was a damned good reason that their entire operation was conducted in Europe (mainly Spain & Germany). They arranged it there, because there is no death sentence, and the laws are not "draconian," as you put it. Why would they do anything else? With any luck, in Europe, they would get about the same penalty as they would if they littered. As a previously stated example, the 12 year sentences handed down, for the terrorist murders of two Americans, and a German national, from a bomb, in Germany.

It's nice that you have such "high standards," but don't try to convince me that they are right. Tell that to the families of the victims of 9-11, and the families of those who will die in the future at the hands of these vicious terrorists.

Every day that I hear someone state the things you did, I begin to believe more and more in a bumper sticker seen on an off-duty Marine's car.

"It's God's place to judge Osama bin Laden.
It's our place to arrange the meeting."

Wolf