Dealing with Terrorists through courts of law has worked in other nations , so why ?

are many citizens of the USA against putting terrorists on trial in the law courts ?

Great Britain, Spain, Australia and Indonesia are nations that have charged and placed on trial people involved in acts of terrorism and planning acts of terrorism.

Indonesia even executed the Bali bombers

I am curious as to why some people think the USA should do it any differently...

Additional Details

There is no difference with the terrorists in the UK, Indonesia, Spain and Germany ( as Ms Stevie kindly pointed out.. thank-you for that) and the AQ terrorists .. they are all linked...

the bali bombing targeted tourists from around the globe ( including US citizens) ...






Answer :
Germany as well.

Conservatives do not have faith in the Justice system or the rule of law. They also believe torture is good if we do it, bad if done to us. They do not walk the walk as far as the principles this country has led on for over two hundred years.

They constantly spew fallacies like..."this is a war...not a crime spree...." Fact is terrorism is not war when conducted in downtown London. London isn't a battlefield. They misstate the law by claiming terrorists are "enemy combatants". No, that would be the member of the armed forces from an enemy state. The proper term is "Unlawful Combatant."

Unlawful combatants can be found on "battlefields" where Taliban and Al Qaeda fight, but that is totally different and that refers to civilians who illegally take up armed-conflict against a sovereign state.

enemy combatant is a term used erroneously. It's UNLAWFUL combatant.

They can TD all day long, it doesn't change the truth that conservatives DO NOT understand what they talk about...they never let facts get in the way of a festival of ignorance.






Answer :
Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are neither U.S. citizens nor common criminals. They are enemy combatants. They are not entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The United States does not take someone off the battlefield of any war and let them lawyer up. If you don't kill them on the spot, you interrogate them and conduct trials before military tribunals.

I don't know of any country that takes enemy combatants and lets them lawyer up in civilian courts.






Answer :
We have always put terrorists on trial before, thats nothing new. However, those are terrorists that were captured within our borders. It makes no sense to treat enemy combatants as common criminals. Much less, after capturing them on a foreign battlefield, bring them here to stand trial. Clinton treated the terrorism problem as a crime problem instead of as a war problem, and the end result was that we got more terrorist attacks.

Ms. Stevie writes: "Conservatives do not have faith in the Justice system or the rule of law."

Faith in the rule of law, we do have. Faith in the Justice system, we dont. Too often we see criminals walk free due to some silly technicality. Or given light slap on the wrist sentences by soft on crime judges.

"They constantly spew fallacies like..."this is a war...not a crime spree....""

That is not a fallacy. This is a war.

"Fact is terrorism is not war when conducted in downtown London."

Lie. Its a war no matter where conducted. 9/11 was an act of war by someone who had declared war on the United States. Where did it happen? Downtown New York City. Washington DC, and some farmers field in Pennsylvania.

"London isn't a battlefield."

Try telling that to the terrorists.

"They misstate the law by claiming Terrorists are enemy combatants."

No, that is not a mistatement of law. You havent a clue as to what "law" you are refering to.

"No, that would be the member of the armed forces from an enemy state. Unlawful combatants can be found on "battlefields" where Taliban and Al Qaeda fight, but that is totally different and that refers to civilians."

False. You dont have to be a member of an armed force of an enemy state to be a "combatant".

Main Entry: com·bat·ant
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈba-tənt also ˈkäm-bə-tənt\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat

A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]






Answer :
I'm not speaking for other countries that I don' live in, if that's how they want to conduct dealings with terrorists in civilian court, good for them.
But when you clearly do an act of war, the military should take over and interrogate to the fullest, bamboo under the finger nails for information. Whatever it takes to get intel. When you've gotten all you can.. Put the bullet to the brain.
That's justice for 9/11,fort hood, and every american soldier that died.






Answer :
The difference is that we are at war. And these people are Prisoner of War... If they were not prisoners of war then fine try them in the law courts. Like we did with the first bombers of the World Trade Center. The situation is different now.






Answer :
Why put New York City at further risk, especially at the cost of 100 million dollars, when there is no good reason for it ? Military tribunals are just as fair and just ! On top of that, 0bama has proven he has no interest in keeping Americans safe !






Answer :
Because we're brainwashed by the media and politicians to believe that we're a nation of laws that only apply to American citizens and not to anyone who commits a crime on our soil. Our Founders are once again turning in their graves.






Answer :
because americans consider jihad a war, but terrorist tactics are purely criminal. its not a battlefield, and they should be entitled to every legal right other criminals have






Answer :
Because other country dont give the criminal as many rights as the US does. and another aspect is some of those terrorists we are giving a platform, were captured on foreign soil during war. Big difference

How did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confess to bombing buildings before they were built?

* The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
* A failed "shoe bomber" operation
* The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
* The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
* A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks after the 9/11 attacks, including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank Building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
* Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
* A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
* Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter
* A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
* A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
* Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
* A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand
* A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets
* A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
* Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.
* Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
* Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok
* Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them
* The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
* The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya
* Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
* Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
* Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
* A plot to attack NATO's headquarters in Europe
* Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets
* The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines.
* "Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
* Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
* An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger"
* The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl







Answer :
there are 2 possible reasons:
He was tortured. During that people confess a lot of nonsense (flying on broomsticks for example)
He wanted to show off.

Should Neal Boortz put out a new version of 'No Muslim Outrage'?

You might remember his original one:

Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.

I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"

Indeed. Why not?






Answer :
Profiling Muslims is nonsense, nonsense NOT to Profile.
Muslims where protesting at the arraignment for the panty bomber. Said the extremist are not what the faith is all about. Maybe they are starting to come forth to denounce the jihadist.
Remember it is an oppressed religion, many are just finding the freedom to come forward to denounce the jihadist.

God Bless America






Answer :
They managed to muster 3 muslims to protest in front of the liberal hero "the underwear bomber."
They were protesting that they do not condone islamic beliefs being misused in this manner.






Answer :
Can anyone explain WHY the United States is letting this happen on our own homeland in New York??
Even my own local representive of government can't explain this to me! Not even 0bama can explain it!

Seems to me, our Government is a failure to reconize something IS actually happening on US soil!

Read this news, entitled "national assets are sold on behalf of the investment"?

National assets are sold on behalf of the investment

3-disclosure of sales in the Mentawai islands is the top of the iceberg phenomenon. Since the cases one at a sales plan revealed islands of Indonesia. After the Mentawai, now an island in Sumenep, Madura, East Java, allegedly sold for Rp 3 billion.

-The island is offered by a local citizen to investors from Bali. Have some investors interested to invest their capital to build the island. These include investors from Canada who now lives in Bali, Zainal Saniya

-The plan, Zainal will develop the island as the location sitabok international tourism development of tourist attractions such as Bunaken sea reserved for tourists from countries Middle East

Questions
-Write down your criticism of the content of discourse, entitled 'national assets are sold on behalf of the investment' (minimal 4)
-Write down 5 information from the discourse






Answer :
Yes, many countries are now in debt beyond what they can pay. One way of raising money to pay down debts which will become more popular is selling assets. Hopefully this may not happen to UK as it still has a monarchy, for now. In a republic, all is eventually, including the government, owned privately.