 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:23 am Post subject: An Argument Against Civil Criminal Trials for Terrorists |
 |
|
As if anyone can present an argument FOR civilian criminal trials for terrorists such as will soon be taking place in New York for KSM et. al. instead of military tribunals at GITMO as the Constitution allows and ALL precedence demands....
Allowing civil criminal defenses to be used by an enemy combatant captured following an illegal act of sabotage or similar "act of war" in violation of the Law of Armed Conflict is the only thing insane in this case....
| Quote: | From Breitbart.com -- Atty: Fort Hood suspect may use insanity defense
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - An Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people during an attack on his Texas post will likely plead not guilty to the charges against him and may use an insanity defense at his military trial, his attorney said Monday.
John Galligan, the civilian attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said he is considering an insanity defense among other options, but that it's too early to determine his defense strategy.
"Based on the evidence thus far, his mental status must be raised," Galligan told The Associated Press by phone from his office near Fort Hood, about 130 miles southwest of Dallas. "Anybody who allegedly engages in conduct that is completely contradictory to his lifestyle and military career—an insanity defense has to be considered."
Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood, and military officials have said they may file more charges. More than two dozen others were wounded in the shooting spree, which happened at a building where soldiers finalize their wills and are medically screened before they are deployed.
Galligan said military law requires his client to plead not guilty if prosecutors seek the death penalty, but he said that decision has not been made.
Hasan remains in intensive care at a San Antonio military hospital, where he was taken after being shot during the attack. At a hearing in his hospital room Saturday, Hasan was ordered to remain in custody until trial.
Galligan said he is frustrated because prosecutors are taking too long to respond to his questions and requests. He said he has asked why no witnesses were allowed to testify during Saturday's hearing, and why it was closed to the news media. He said he had planned to question Hasan's commander, who in documents indicated Hasan would be moved to an unspecified hospital but did not say when.
Fort Hood officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
greasepaint
Seaman
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bush had several years to
put something in place,
but did nothing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blame goes a lot farther back than Bush, and the Democrats blocked everything he tried to do, even getting terrorists rights in civil courts. Carter started the PC and block information sharing ball rolling, decimated the intelligence agencies, and then every president that followed did little to fix the problem. Clinton's folks set it in concrete with their wall of separation between intelligence agencies and the FBI and civil police units. Obama will probably drive the final nails in their coffin unless some patriotic members of Congress wake up and start turning things around and regain some sort of oversight....but don't hold your breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greasepaint
Seaman
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TEWSPilot wrote: | | Blame goes a lot farther back than Bush, . |
Bush should have expected resistance
to not do so, would be naive
note: BBCode enabled. Greasepaint, you might want to consider enabling BBCode in your profile, otherwise you must de-select "disable BBCode" everytime you use the "quote" function. Thanks/me#1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jalexson
PO3
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Hutchinson, Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
The civilian courts aren't really qualified to deal those involved with the War on Terror. Civilian courts are only competent to handle criminal matters. Terrorists are the "enemy soldiers" in a war. The important issue isn't whether they have violated laws, but whether they pose a threat to the United States. They are in effect prisoners of war and should be held until the war is over or until it can be determined that they do not pose a threat.
Although the War on Terror isn't a traditional war with an enemy that it is practical to negotiate with, the status of these virtual POWs should be the subject of potential negotiations. I doubt that al Qaida would negotiate an end to hostilities in exchange for releasing all prisoners, but we need to allow for that possibility.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
