world

Defense wants 9/11 trial televised globally from Guantanamo

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

Um...NO!!! Screw these terrorists!! Why should they have the privilege to get more and more fame??? Let them get their justice nice and quietly and no way for them to get more crazies to join their jihadi movement, let them face justice Camp X Ray style!!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Oh no!! Lets all cry these terrorists! Cold blooded Murderers!! We should feel sorry for these fanatical nut jobs?? Do scum terrorists ever feel sad for the people they kill?? I doubt it!! So let them enjoy a bit of karma a la Camp X Ray Style! And I did forget to add, let these terrorists slowly burn, burn in hell too!!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I bet there'll be riots if they show it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I bet there'll be riots if they show it.

I am afraid so. This should be decided by the judge.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So it is secret trials after their time in the star chambers to extract the information. Torture, deprive of their civil rights. Sighs so the US Constitution protects all except terror suspects. What will be the next group to lose its protections? Do people lose these protections just because we do not like them?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Sorry Yuri, America is at WAR!!!! War time means life or death!! Either we wake up and realize how much Al Qaeda etc...hate the USA, Israel and all of the so called WEST or we will sooner or later be killed or tortured or just be slaves to Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc...IMHO So should we feel sorry if these terrorists were actually tortured??? It's the lives of terrorists vs ours, so which do you want to protect?? Their lives or our lives?? As for me, simple choice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

YuriOtani: What will be the next group to lose its protections?

Considering the amount of trouble and backlash they're getting for trying a handful of Islamic terrorists, I don't think single working Moms will have to worry anytime soon. But be afraid if that's what you want to do.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sighs so the US Constitution protects all except terror suspects.

To be fair, the Constitution protects citizen civilians. It does not apply to foreigners or prisoners of war.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Wait a minute. I thought the conventional wisdom was they couldn't be tried in the states because it would be a media nightmare, when they really wanted to do things on the QT.

Broadcasting their trials from Gitmo is NOT doing things on the QT. This makes no sense to me.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If they give them the death penalty it would not be ideal in my opinion as the twisted ideology that these extremists adhere to will paint them as "martyrs" for the "cause" of Islam...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ah I must of missed it, when did Congress declare war and against whom?

Where in the Constitution that it states that the protections it affords do not apply to foreigners or prisoners of war?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Where in the Constitution that it states that the protections it affords do not apply to foreigners or prisoners of war?

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment only apply to US citizens and naturalized citizens.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yuri, you say live in America?? Ok, fine. But I guess your are Japanese, cool. Let me explain it to you so to make it easier, say Chinese or Koreans flew planes into Tokyo Tower?? Into the new Tokyo Sky Tree yelling death to Japan and Japanese?? Would you still want to give these terrorists their so called rights and freedoms and what the heck, let them get a cool trial to be broadcasted LIVE all around the world to make a few million Chinese and Koreans even more excited and angry at Japan??? This is what letting the Arab, Muslim, Al Qaeda, Talibani terrorists want! Forget about YouTube or that stupid video that started Muslim riots all over the world, making these "poor Muslim freedom fighters martyrs" on live tv would only add fuel, GASOLINE to the so called fire and I just want to say sorry to our Chinese and Korean amigos, since plenty of them died too on 9-11 working etc...in New York City, just as Japanese also died and just as Mexicans also died and just JEWS also died, because Al Qaeda etc..wants us to believe that NO JEWS died at the World Trade Centers, just adding a bit more SALT to the wounds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah I must of missed it, when did Congress declare war and against whom?

Depends on which campaign you are talking about. The first time the term was used was way back during the Beirut bombings under Reagan. More commonly, since 9/11, people tend to think of the war in Iraq, which was authorized by congress in 2002. There's a campaign medal for it.

Where in the Constitution that it states that the protections it affords do not apply to foreigners or prisoners of war?

Seriously?

Okay, well, starting from the basic definition, a constitution is a set of rules and regulations that pertains to members of a specific group. In other words, if you are not a member of that group, the rules do not pertain to you. Moreover, if the group attempts to take some action regarding something which is not part of of that groups constitution, it can be declared "unconstitutional".

There are way too many people in the United States that haven't actually read the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It really is a worthy read. In the preamble, the very first part, we find the following:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

In the very first passage, the Constitution delineates precisely who is talking, what they are talking about, why they are applying it, and the scope of the application. It then goes on to even more specific detail, and you continue to hear the phrase "the people" over and over game, reminding you that we are talking about "the people of the United States", and not people who are visiting, or who have decided to declare war against the country.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No it says who is doing it, who is making this document. Where is the definition of people? Article #1 is about Congress

"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States"

and Article #2 abut the President.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President"

Under Article #3, section 2 there is the meat "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.."

I know the US Constitution and it is truly a great document. So read the above and tell me where is says prisoners of war are exempt from US Constitutional protections?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. A bill of rights was originallyTproposed by James Madison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where is the definition of people?

Right after "The People."

We the People of the United States In other words, the people of the group or entity known as the United States. If it were a business, it would be called an employee. If it were a club, it would be the members. If it's a country, it refers to civilians.

This...isn't advanced stuff.

Article #1 is about Congress...and Article #2 abut the President.

Yes, they are. They are talking about what a person, i.e., singular of people (which has already been defined as those who are of the United States) requires in regards to serving as part of the federal government.

I know the US Constitution

Lot of people do. Not a lot of people bother to understand it.

So read the above and tell me where is says prisoners of war are exempt from US Constitutional protections?

You won't find exemptions in any constitution of any kind. A constitution is a framework from which the foundational rules that govern a group are formed. They don't go into the minutiae of who is or isn't exempt. Those go in a separate document which focuses on revisions, clarifications, and amendments.

In regards to prisoners of war being exempted from the Constitution, simply put, there is something called the Laws of War. These are laws commonly accepted by most countries, which define things such as war, combatants, ethical/unethical behavior, and serve as a basis for rules and regulations regarding the human rights of prisoners of war. In other words, you can think of the Laws of War as a sort of constitution for people who are engaged in war. In the US, we have the UCMJ, which is how the US applies the Laws of War within our arena (our "amendments", if you will).

Reality, being what it is, has a situation in which a person belongs both to one group's constitution (the US Constitution for civilians) and to another constitution (the UCMJ, for military personnel). To determine which applies becomes a matter of political debate, but in terms of sheer common sense, a person who knowingly assisted in an attack which was deliberately intended to result in the deaths of thousands of non-combatants, all in the name of a political stance, has made himself, effectively, an active member of a war, as opposed to being a civilian by default. He worked towards getting into that group.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

cabbage, the Laws of War would also require a formal declaration of war, of which there hasnt been one. The UCMJ applies to US military personnel.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cabadaje so where is the declaration of war and against whom? So the rules of war preempt the US Constitution? Perhaps there are other rules that preempt due process, freedom of speech etc? The Constitution is not the framework and final say on things, interesting.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

cabadaje so where is the declaration of war and against whom?

Already answered.

So the rules of war preempt the US Constitution?

Nope. Read again.

Perhaps there are other rules that preempt due process, freedom of speech etc?

Oh, absolutely. Everything has rules.

The Constitution is not the framework and final say on things, interesting.

Pay a bit more attention. The Constitution is the framework, but it is not the final say. That's why we have an entire list of things referred to as Amendments. When a society changes, as it always does, amendments to the constitution leads to greater tolerance and peace. Constitutions that refuse to change result in antiquated rulings governing modern actions.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

cabadaje no wonder things are messed up in the states. So freedom, due process, the right to be secure in person and home are "antiquated rulings"? 911 means a roup of people lose rights, so who will the next group be to lose their rights for security?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

cabadaje no wonder things are messed up in the states.

No more so than any other place, and much, much less than some.

So freedom, due process, the right to be secure in person and home are "antiquated rulings"?

Nope. Read again. See if you notice where I said the exact opposite.

911 means a roup of people lose rights, so who will the next group be to lose their rights for security?

Nope. Read again.

And this time, save everyone a little heartburn, and read it before deciding you know what it says.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites