Should Terrorism Suspects Be Prosecuted in Civilian Courts?

this pople are opposing the legitimate government, if they are tried in a civilian court it will take a long time for their verdicts to be issued in the end!

Michael Nauta 4:07PM February 14, 2010

Hey, if these jerks believe they're in a war, so should we. Therefore, they should be tried in a military tribunal and face their fates there. If they get anywhere near the grounds of the Twin Towers, any American citizen should be allowed to shoot the sorry bastards on sight.

william of GA 6:29PM February 13, 2010

I would like to say that this information provided below should definitavely answer the question once and for all.

Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.".[4] In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."[5]

(Gleaned from ^ Geneva Conventions Protocol I [ http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079 ] and ICRC:The Relevance of International Humanitarian Law in the Context of Terrorism

[ http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705 ]

Therefore, as we are given the right by the Geneva Convention to try these combatants only under domestic law, it becomes a question of how exactly our laws interpret terrorism. My understanding is that our laws give us the right to try terrorists in military tribunals, and the Geneva Convention supports it, so... I say we should try them in military tribunals and get it over with.

David Anthony Tofflemire of MS 11:39PM February 12, 2010

There are precedents both ways. George Washington used military tribunals. FDR tried German saboteurs in secret military tribunals. Nuremberg was a show trial, but when defendants are of such obvious villainy few people complain about a little practical street justice before a military tribunal.

Terrorists acting for terrorist organizations are closer to being illegal combatant warriors committing war crimes than common criminals I would venture. If there is just a small dribble of them, trying them in civilian courts while overlooking minor technical issues like torture, inability to call witnesses, etc., so they don't get acquitted is OK.

What do we do if it becomes a hotter war and terrorism becomes a real problem? We have about 30 million illegal aliens in the US from all over the world, including from terrorist supporting countries, and 13,000 illegals enter the US on a good day. Obviously dozens or hundreds of terrorists could enter the US each day if they wanted to and set off dozens of bombs daily or commit other acts. If there were a real terrorism problem and captured terrorists were eager to confess and martyr themselves, it becomes a bit ridiculous to put them through the US legal system, which is a joke worldwide for its interminable processes, appeals, and costs. A quick appearance before a military tribunal and a quick execution would seem the common sense method.

Orlando of LA 8:06PM February 12, 2010