Why is the U.S. justice system adequate for Americans

[Empowerer]

- and, apparently, to some, virtually infallible - but utterly inadequate to try terrorism suspects.

To the people who are attacking President Obama and Attorney General Holder for their decision, I ask: "Why don't you trust the system you are supposedly fighting to defend and protect?"

[stray cat]

1. Treating them like asocial criminal scum beats glorifying them as fighters

These are not prisoners of war but people to be tried for crimes. Legitimate prisoners of war are a whole different group

[GoCubsGo]

2. You know the drill...

"If they (the Democrats, Obama) are for it, we're against it." They really should just come out and admit it for once, instead of making lame excuses. It has nothing to do with mistrust of our system. Not to mention that to them, convicting and punishing these guys would be a "win" for Obama, and a "loss" for them. Because, you know, this is all just one big sporting event to them.

[depakid]

3. That is one big assumption-

Looking at the facts of the matter- when banksters & fraudsters violate federal laws with impunity- when food poisoners like the executives and managers at Peanut Corp kill Americans and damage businesses- when torturers roam around scot free, you expect people to have faith in the justice system?

Guys like Jim Cramer brag on TV how he violates federal statutes- they insist "everybody knows we do." They keep their cushy pads.

On the other hand, it's quite adept at putting African American and Hispanic kids in prisons- it routinely locks away drunk drivers and armed robbers, so it shouldn't have much trouble executing a few scary looking terrorists.

Not sure what the worry is with that.

[alc]

4. because police are trained in our laws on evidence

Police are supposed to follow laws on collecting evidence, and chain of custody while handling the evidence. If those are not followed, the judge has to disallow it.

In these cases, those laws may not have been applicable (e.g. collected in a foreign country or "war" situation), or the FISA court may have given more leeway than usual but the trial court could decide the FISA warrant violated rights and throw out evidence. We can debate over the methods and whether or not FISA is acceptable, but can't change how these people were captured. I would not want to throw out evidence because someone acting in good faith followed military procedures rather than police chain of custody (for example). I also would not want our courts to ignore our laws.

There's also the issue of military/state secrets. I'm sure that will be claimed in many responses and be BS. But there is the possibility that we reveal some capabilities

Defense attorney: how did you know he'd be at that location
CIA Agent: we intercepted a phone call
Def Att: he used the latest model ABC phone with super-encryption that the CIA says they can't break. are you saying that you decrypted that conversation (and everyone in the world using that model phone for security should throw it away)?

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. The federal prosecutors have been using closed courts to present

classified material as evidence for decades - there is nothing new about that. There are tried and true methods for presenting such evidence which do not endanger national security.

IOW, that's a bullshit argument.

[katandmoon]

5. It was adequate for Timothy McVeigh too.

[MidwestRick]

8. He was an American

so that point really is moot. Apples and Oranges.

[Empowerer]

9. Why?

[MidwestRick]

10. How many...

prisoners of war (or whatever he is being classified now) have been brought to the US mainland and tried in a civilian court in the past?

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Only he is NOT considered a POW.

If he was, then institutions like Gitmo would not exist. He'd have been in a legitimate POW camp, with oversight by the international Red Cross, be allowed communication with his family, and given all the other protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions to POWs.

So, if he is NOT a POW, he MUST be a criminal, subject to US criminal prosecution.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Prisoners of war and criminals are two different things.

These criminals committed crimes that occured on american soil. They should receive american justice.

Frankly, I don't understand why you don't want the 9-11 terrorists to receive justice.

[MidwestRick]

14. My concern

is more about the crappy judicial system we have. Everyone knew OJ was guilty too. All it would take is a crappy prosecuting team and these charges end up getting dropped. Outside of that, my big question is this...how long will it take for them to find an impartial jury for this trial?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Why do you hate America?

[MidwestRick]

18. Why did you rape and kill a girl in 1990?

Oh wait...you're not Glenn Beck. disregard.

[treestar]

20. So you think it's crappy?

Just because OJ was acquitted?

Pray tell, what should be used for a justice system? since ours is so "crappy?" It's not good enough for us either, so you say.

[MidwestRick]

7. I wonder...

how they will be able to find a fair and impartial jury for this case.

[geek tragedy]

13. Most people haven't heard of KSM.

So, they're not biased against him personally.

As for people being tainted by the feelings from the attack, well tough shit. Next time they shouldn't massacre 3000 people.

[MidwestRick]

15. That doesn't provide...

him with an impartial jury. Can you say appeal?

[geek tragedy]

16. He'll get as impartial a jury as is possible.

The courts aren't going to say "well, I guess there's been so much publicity that he can't get a fair trial in the US. Set him free to kill another 3000."

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. There is a difference between an impartial jury and an ignorant jury.

An impartial jury may know all about the crime that was committed, but still acquit a suspect if the government does not make its case. You talk about OJ - the jury certainly all heard about the case before the trial, but the simple fact is the government did not present a strong case.

If they bring KSM to trial and the defense can PROVE that KSM had no contact with the 9/11 killers, he SHOULD get off. The confession that was tortured out of him will be ruled invalid, of course, as it SHOULD be. I'm expecting that the government has plenty of corroborating evidence that will make it unnecessary anyway.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a country were the jury's verdict is decided before the trial begins.

[ItNerd4life]

19. The same reason we didn't try Nazi war criminals...

we used military tribunals. They aren't U.S. citizens.

Read up on it and maybe you will get a better understanding of why these terrorists shouldn't be tried in U.S. courts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Wrong.

The Nuremberg trials were INTERNATIONAL tribunals, conducted under the aegis of the United Nations. In fact, the international criminal court was directly derived from that precedent. The ONLY Nazi military that were tried by US military tribunals were a group of 6 saboteurs who were caught in New England. The supreme court later (after they'd been tried and executed) ruled that those trials were unconstitutional.

OTOH, there is plenty of precedent for trying international terrorists in US courts - the first WTC bombers are only one example of successful prosecution of terrorists.

We need to simply sort out who is a real terrorist and who was just a Taliban foot soldier, and try the terrorist and send the soldiers back to Afghanistan (where they can be turned over to the custody of the 'legitimate' government of Afghanistan.