For preliminary hearings on topics like pre-trial incarceration? If so, where should it be located, and who should be hearing cases?
2007-07-25 03:25:30 · 9 answers · asked by A 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Joseph C - " Terrorists are enemy combatants and need to be treated as such. They should be treated the same as Nazis in WW2. That means either killed on the battlefield or they become prisnoers of war. "
That is exactly right.... However the "enemy combatants" are not POW's.... This is so that Bush Co. can evade OUR laws against torture, and international laws as well. If we hold them on American soil...they are re-classified as POW's which means they have humanitarian rights, and the right to challenge their detention with representation....if we hold them in Guantanamo...they are simply "detainees", not prisoners.
NO. We should not have seperate courts for this. The court systems in this country are established, and the creation of another court system would just promote a power/authority struggle between the new system and the current system...not to mention....what is the point of creating a new court, if they have to abide by current laws and the constitution. as any court does currently. Otherwise it would imply that the motivation for creating a new court system is to allow the gov. to have their own seperate set of laws/processes/and cherrypick the constitutional amendments..... where would be the oversight ?, who would decide the structure ?, how can we trust it ?
bad idea. period.
2007-07-25 03:49:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's what the current administration is trying to do right now. The jury is still out on the final rulings from the Supreme Court but my guess is that even his right-tilting stack job won't win any friends on the High Court.
This IS America, after all, and we DO have our Constitution. It gives us every tool that we need to prosecute these bastards without tarnishing our reputation or defecating on The Constitution. When we deny due process, we lower ourselves to the terrorists' level or lower.
We can and should take the high road on this one and then lock them away for life upon conviction with ham sandwiches 3x a day. For recreation, they can play with a football (pigskin).
2007-07-25 03:32:34 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be a regularly constituted Article III court, and cases would be heard by federal judges appointed as required by the Constitution.
And as the US Supreme Court has already confirmed twice, it would require all constitutional protections and due process rules to be followed.
So, sure, we could create a new court -- but the current district courts are more than capable of handling an extra 1% or 2% increase in the number of cases for far less money.
2007-07-25 03:28:55 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No, we have federal courts for matters like Terrorism. Ask Colin Powell, he basically told the Bush administration that abolishing Habeus Corpus will allow many of the accused terrorists to walk free, when trying them in a federal court would of gotten them convictions.
2007-07-25 03:33:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You should definitely have at least some sort of court system for terrorists. Guantanamo is a total disgrace. THEY haven't seen any court. I doubt that they will. A civilised country needs to do more. Set an example. A good example.
2007-07-25 05:13:45 · answer #5 · answered by Teacher 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that would be beneficial, in that it would be a center for those who might be suspicious here in the United States, and with the growing rate of Islam within our borders, we find it an ever growing threat. So, Yeah, why not? Sounds good to me!
2007-07-25 03:29:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists are enemy combatants and need to be treated as such. They should be treated the same as Nazis in WW2.
That means either killed on the battlefield or they become prisnoers of war.
Do not listen to liberals or the ACLU. They favor the cause of the enemy of the United States, and that used to fall under the category of SEDITION when the Sedition Act was in effect (and we need to bring it back).
2007-07-25 03:28:51 · answer #7 · answered by Joseph C 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Take 'em back to the desert, give 'em a weapon and say " you want another shot or do you want to go back to jail". Let them decide for themselves what their fate will be.
2007-07-25 03:50:51 · answer #8 · answered by General Leon Pleasant 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
They should just make them vanish.....
2007-07-25 03:30:55 · answer #9 · answered by RomeoMike 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋