Quote:
Originally Posted by CombatMuffin
Was reading about this in the news earlier today, Preet Bharara stated that he will try to pursue the possible life sentence that Ahmed can still be charged of. This guy, whether he directly or indirectly killed those people, is still repsonsible for the deaths.
On the issue of military trial versus civilian, for thee cases, I personal support civilian courts. Don't get me wrong: Terrorism is a serious accusation and even civilian courts should be diligent and harsh... but I was under the impression that military trials/commissions are meant for those involved in the line of duty, those that follow a military code and way of life. Those of us who do not serve in a military institution, would not understand the military way of life, and to include a civilian under that mantle, even after what s/he might have done, would be disrespectful to those that do serve. At least in my opinion.
|
The reason for military justice tribunals is not to cloak persons charged with some sort of chivalrous honor. One reason for the military tribunal is that foreign persons acting in foreign lands are not entitled to the same rights as a citizen of the United States. Another reason for a military tribunal, as opposed to a civillian court, is that soldiers' jobs do not include collecting evidence and upholding constitutional rights. Accordingly, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to convict a foreign person of a "crime" in a civillian court, when the evidence and witnesses are overseas.
A brief study of the Nuremberg trials is fascinating. It also illustrates that military tribunals are more than adequate for adjudicating cases such as this.