Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama plans for terrorism trials
Advisers for President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first tasks as president will be to bring dozens of terrorism suspects to trial and then shut down the infamous Guantanamo Bay Prison.
Under plans being put together in Obama’s camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.
A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren’t final.
This hybrid plan is likely to garner opposition from both sides of the aisle: Republicans disagree with allowing terrorism suspects on U.S. soil; Democrats oppose creating a new court system with reduced rights for detainees. Despite inevitable unpopularity, advisers say a hybrid solution may be Obama’s only plausible option for resolving a fiercely contentious era of U.S. history. What do you think?
back to top57 Comments to “Obama plans for terrorism trials”
Republicans disagree with allowing terrorism suspects on U.S. soil,…
Not to split hairs here, but they’re already on US soil.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, I beg to differ. We pay a lease to Fidel for Gitmo, am I incorrect? I’m surprised he hasnt evicted us long ago. If we really wanted the Gitmo detainees to experience hardship and deprivation, why not just let them see life outside the base fence?
Report comment to moderator
So we are going to bring dozens of terrorosm suspects to trial?
Yes let’s drag this Iraq/Afghanistan fiasco a few more years and further inflame Islam.
Never mind the lawyers on both sides who will make millions.
Report comment to moderator
Nick, who will pay the defense counsel? The US taxpayers? If only there was some super-rich Islamic nation (perhaps silently sympathetic to their cause) out there willing to foot the bill for the legal fees of the jihadi fanatics.
Remember, many of the jihadis have been living high on the hog in the Gitmo prison (pun intended). I’m sure they’ve packed on the pounds from a rich diet and free weights in the air conditioned gym.
And if the suicide vest doesnt fit, you must acquit!
Report comment to moderator
To SawGunner
Yes of course you and I and the rest of the American taxpayers will pay for the defense of the Islamic terrorists.
But the worse part will be their defense lawyers. People looking to make an name for themselves will appear endlessly on American TV and shamelessly use all kinds of theatrical devices in the courtroom.
Report comment to moderator
I cant see the Trial of Jihad Joe as a major ratings-draw. Hence, you’ll see it on PBS at 2am as filler, if even then.
Report comment to moderator
The Fort Dix trial is going well in NJ.
With respect to lawyers, I don’t know that they get fancy high-priced lawyers unless they can afford it. There is such a thing as a public defender. And if the government goes out of that system, they set an hourly rate (still we are paying).
I’m wondering if Congress will be putting a new trial court together just for terrorism cases. I know someone who has been grinning from ear to ear because he’s getting a job with the new administration, and that is something he proposed several years ago. We’ll see.
Report comment to moderator
To NJ Lawyer and Sawgunner
We are going to need witnesses for the prosecution. So what do we do? Fly in a bunch of Islamic people and put them up in a Hilton or Ritz-Carlton during the trial? Of course they will never want to leave once they get here and will probably escape from their handlers the first chance they get.
And of course the fact that they know so much about the terrorists tell me they are not the most upstanding people to begin with.
Report comment to moderator
That’s all we need; foreign terror suspects brought to the mainland for a “trial”. The cells hiding out here will come out of the woodwork for sure.
Report comment to moderator
After the defense attorneys subpoena the soldiers involved in the terrorist’s capture, all evidence defining how the military developed the intelligence to identify the terrrorist, what MI, NSA, and CIA procedures led to the identification and capture of these terrorists, (don’t worry, the defendents and their attorneys will only learn this in secret, classified courts) they can move to acquit all defendents on the grounds that the US lacks jurisdiction over acts perpetrated outside US territorrial boundaries.
How many people see a criminal justice solution as better suited than a miltary one for terrorists taken prisoner on foreign soil? Me neither.
Report comment to moderator
Would it not be better to send them back to face the families of their victims (Afghans, Iraqis?) The whole issue of them being apprehended while doing in acts in the furtherance of harm to US soldiers…well is that not what enemies do to ea other in a war?
Why’d you rob the bank? Cuz thats where the money is.
Why’d you set an IED off and vaporize that humvee? Cuz that’s where the enemy infidel occupiers were.
Nuf said.
Report comment to moderator
Forgive me for saying this, but I say send them back to whatever middle-East country will take them…they are just going to get there eventually anyway. Save the USA some money, but mostly save it from being told what a bad country it is by a bunch of ACLU pro-bono defense attorneys, aired on the MSM for months, and months, and months. Honestly, I don’t know if I can stomach it.
Report comment to moderator
And they are not even U.S. citizens.
Report comment to moderator
This is insanity.
* For ever one Islamic terrorist we bring to trial two more are ready to take his place.
* We are going to turn these characters into heroes in the Islamic world when in actuality they were probably glorified thugs back home.
* Islamic countries are goung to retaliate and kidnap some Americans who are on Islamic soil, trump up some charges against them and get them a show trial.
Report comment to moderator
Nick, this is only one of the insane things that will happen. I refer you to Saturday’s list.
8a. War on Terror conducted as criminal issues.
8b. Civil rights for all terrorist captives.
Some of you have mentioned tangentially, but not specifically,
In addition to Nick’s suggestions:
a. What offense will be charged?
b. What “beyond a doubt” proof will be needed. Does the fact that he had a gun do it? Was he captured with a bunch of bad guys?
c. What happens if he’s declared not guilty? Does he go back to Afghanistan or Iraq? Suppose he is afraid to? Do we release him in the US?
d. Suppose he’s recaptured?
I can see some of our men killing rather than capturing to avoid the hassle. It would make sense. These are bad guys, not just like German or Japanese guys who got drafted.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone find it oddd that Obama had specific plans inplace way in advance to let his terrorist buddies go in Guantanamo but has no plans in place whatsoever or a clue for that matter how to slove the credit crisis?
Report comment to moderator
It sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
I could be wrong on this, but I believe the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo is considered “US soil” for purposes of Constitutional rights and protections.
Report comment to moderator
I find it odd, Llama, but not surprising. BHO cuddled with terrorists during the campaign, so why not afterwards?
Report comment to moderator
Re: #16
Obama has in place various teams that are working on a whole range of issues.
We’re already seeing those on the right complaining about every little thing that Obama is doing. From the very second he was elected they started complaining. If Obama wears a red tie they’re gonna gripe and moan that he didn’t wear a blue tie. Y’all are in for a miserable 4 years.
Report comment to moderator
“We’re already seeing those on the right complaining about every little thing that Obama is doing. From the very second he was elected they started complaining. If Obama wears a red tie they’re gonna gripe and moan that he didn’t wear a blue tie. Y’all are in for a miserable 4 years”
Yeah thats the fun part right? Liberals (and many consevatives) bashed Bush for 8 years, now its Obama’s turn to get bashed. Its part of being the President. Every descision is meticulously scrutinized over and over.
Its gonna be a miserable 4 years for everybody, Obama supporters included. Its gonna be another miserable 8 years after that when we try to recoup from all his mistakes.
Report comment to moderator
“Guantanamo is considered “US soil” for purposes of Constitutional rights and protections”
I fail to see how US soil matters when they arent US citizens?
Report comment to moderator
Obama should feel pretty comfortable bringing the Guantanamo terrorists to DC.
He has a lot of experience dealing closely with anti-American fanatics who blow up people – heck maybe he can get these terrorists to contribute $$$ to him, just like his good buddy William Ayers did.
And maybe even he could host these Guantanamo terrorists on ‘bring-a-visitor’ day at his church; they would feel right at home with the rhetoric in Rev. Wright’s sermons. Heck, they would feel like they were back in Tehran, listening to the good ol’ Inmans cursing the Great Satan and promising 72 virgins to anyone who would blow themselves up for Allah.
All in all, I think it should work out okay. Maybe a little awkward PR-wise, but nothing the media can’t gloss over and take care of for Obama.
Nothing is too much for our President-Elect; as MSNBC says, it is the media’s job to make Obama a successful president no matter what. Or appear that way, at least.
Report comment to moderator
#19 Anlir,
One team he missed was the economic one. We ask questions , by now th left was calling Bush…… Hitler adn everything else but a white man. See the difference or are questions too much for the left to handle? —– oooopppppsssss forgot about Joe the Plumber. Never mind, it never happened, I don,l want to end up in a Gulag leased by Putin to Obama.
Report comment to moderator
#22 Drill,
You got that right. I thought Oberman was a typical ultra left wing whack job but was supprised when Matthews zoomed way left of him. I didn’t even think that was possible.
I wonder how many Guantanamo Islamic terrorists voted for Obama? He owes everyone else that voted for him so I guess treating terrorists better than Americans should be no surprise.
Report comment to moderator
“From the very second he was elected they started complaining. If Obama wears a red tie they’re gonna gripe and moan that he didn’t wear a blue tie. Y’all are in for a miserable 4 years.”
Gosh that sounds familiar… Now where have I heard similar moanings and groanings?
Oh that’s right! The libeals have been doing that very thing for the last 8 years!
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
And conservatives bashed Clinton for 8 years before that. It was during his term in office that the politics of personal destruction reached a new lows.
But we could go on all day claiming “he hit me first”. As Senator McCain said so eloquently, we need to get behind the President and work to solve the problems in our country.
The faction on here that is booing everything Obama does are the same one’s who likely booed at McCain’s concession speech. He slapped them down pretty quickly, and told them that “he (Obama) is my President now”. It’s a shame that they’re dishonoring McCain by continuing to boo.
Report comment to moderator
#15 I propose we continue the same “catch and release” plan only with an additional improvemt which will no doubt drop the recidivism rate to zero.
We tattoo or brand a code phrase or letter on their forehead. Or better yet, give them an implantable ID chip as is done now with dogs in vet kennels. Years later when USMC captures the same jihadi they run the scanner wand across his forehead. If the hand-held scanner detects his chip and therefore recognizes jihad Joe as a prior detainee the matter is handled at the squad level with a 9mm pistol.
No trial and no reports to file.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
You are forgetting one very important FACT – Obama is NOT the President of this country YET, understanding that fact will connect you to the present, which means President Bush is the President, we don’t have two -
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner #27: This is a very interesting and innovative suggestion, however will probably not work once Obama gets finished revamping the military.
Standard issue for combat troops will no longer include firearms or other dangerous stuff like that.
They will however be fully equipped with the absolute latest in pink tutus and make-up kits, along with their obligatory United Nations registration tatooes.
Report comment to moderator
Obama wears a red tie they’re gonna gripe and moan that he didn’t wear a blue tie. Y’all are in for a miserable 4 years.
******As if the Left didn’t do this to Bush for 8 years.
Hypocrites unite! LOL
Report comment to moderator
Guantanamo is like the Flying Dutchman, a ghost ship that can never go home, and is doomed to sail the oceans forever.
George Bush is Guantanamo’s most notorious prisoner. He shackled himself to it and made himself powerless to stop it. Mercifully, Obama will release him from his misery.
The actual fate of the other prisoners is trivial. Most of them have already been released. The rest will favor us with an opportunity to show how civilized societies treat captives, and for that they eventually will deserve our gratitude.
Report comment to moderator
I am pretty sure everything will work out okay.
Louis Farrakhan, that well-known, well-respected and soft-spoken Democrat Obama supporter, announced today that he and Obama ’share a oneness of spirit’.
This is quite comforting, I am sure, to all of us.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #28
Indeed, as Obama stated, we have but one President at this time. It still doesn’t give conservative Christians the license to verbally spit on the President-elect.
I understand that y’all are bitter angry and are still cling passionately to your hatred of Obama. I fully expect that will be the case for the next 4 years (or if fate should have it, 8 years).
That’s cool – it’s a free country.
Report comment to moderator
Come on, guys. Obama didn’t cuddle with terrorists during the campaign, nor is he a friend to terrorists. Can the inflammatory rhetoric. Let’s give Obama a chance to see if he governs from the center.
Hey Anlir,
Questioning the plan to bring the terrorism suspects to trial isn’t spitting on the President-elect. Conservatives have opposed such a plan for a while. Look at most of the posts on this thread, including the first 15. Ignore the inflammatory rhetoric from a few, and don’t paint with a broad brush. OK?
I think Sawgunner and Chas raise some good questions. However, I’m glad that AT LEAST the plan calls for a different system. I think the necessity for a different system to deal with these sensitive national security-related cases should be a no-brainer to most people.
Report comment to moderator
Even President Bush recognized the need for closing Guantanamo. And John McCain pledged to close it too. No answer will be the perfect one. But we do have a chance to do the right thing. And that will be a good thing for America’s standing around the world.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 33
Try to contain yourself, don’t twist what I say to mean something vile, which you have contrived to suit your purpose. I know you have problems with posting outbursts, rewriting posts from those who oppose your viewpoint, but “SPIT”
you do get carried away!
Report comment to moderator
The solution now as always has been to try them in the countries they were detained in.
Guantanamo is just an albatross around every American’s neck. Unfortunately, I am suspect that every detainee tried on American soil will be let go as a form of reparations. Justice is a thing of the past.
Report comment to moderator
It is a little like convicting someone for thinking about committing a crime. In the law, you need an overt act. All I’ve heard is that he is coming up with a new system to replace the commissions.
As TRS mentions, there is a lot of hypocrisy going on here. I do think we should give Obama a chance to get sworn in before we thoroughly condemn him, though there’s no reason we can’t criticize any ideas put forth, but to the lefty who sent vitriol GWB’s way and who is now condemning Christians for speaking their minds: pot, kettle, black. You don’t have a leg to stand on, so stop whining.
Report comment to moderator
I guess that was the change I had hoped for — that leftys would stop that incessant whining.
Report comment to moderator
I said, “Justice is a thing of the past”. By that I mean, “Justice as we know it”.
The most likely scenario is that these detainees will moved to the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Kansas, since that is the DOD’s only maximum-security prison on U.S. soil.
That in itself changes very little. But any who are tried in civil courts will have the advantage of a justice system that no longer convicts based on what people have done. Now what matters is their sugar intake, how they feel, skin color, whether they had a tough childhood, etc.
The American court system is barely adequate to handle average criminals let alone notorious ones. About the only thing notorious criminals can get convicted on is tax evasion. And so, some of these terrorists will become citizens of Kansas. Their children will get free health care and a free education.
Report comment to moderator
The difficulty with the detainees is that you still need a mechanism to release them. They’re not like some trout in a catch and release program. So send them back. But if you do, does that admit that the detention was illegal? Or is it that the war is over? At the very least there needs to some sort of ajudication to determine “yes these are terrorists” and so held indefinitely, or “no these are not terrorists” and so released.
Much of the difficulty arises from the desires early in the Bush administration to have a supposedly faster way of dealing with detainees, unencumbered by the existing process. Like many shortcuts, this one didn’t exactly get us where we wanted to go.
So some sort of determination needs to be made.
That’s called rule of law.
Report comment to moderator
Google “Harvey Rishikof terrorism court” and have a good read.
Report comment to moderator
It’s hard to preach about being more ethical and responsible than one’s evil enemies. Once in a while some silly person expects you to live up to the ideals one preaches.
I find the idea that “innocent until proven guilty” is a precious value that applies only to Americans and not to other people of the world very weird indeed. I’m sure lots of the people we captured as terrorists are quite evil. Although, I am against capital punishment, it’s low on my list of priorities. I’m not much perturbed by the idea of executing actual terrorists or locking them up for a long time.
But the assumption that no innocent people were rounded up in our hasty and clumsy grabbing of suspects strikes me as naive and unbelievable, and the idea that we should make a reasonable effort to separate out the real terrorists from the small fry and the people in the wrong place at the wrong time does not cast a good light on our self-righteous nation.
Report comment to moderator
“should not make”
Report comment to moderator
Light-hearted, hypothetical, tongue-in-cheek post:
Here is an idea: build a prison for these terrorists in Alaska and hold the trials there. That pit-bull with lipstick governor will keep an eye on them, and make sure they don’t cause trouble!
Report comment to moderator
The world has always looked up to America for it’s judicial system. We have a chance to redeem ourselves and show the world that we can conduct the trials in a fair and just manner.
Those who want to get a rope and hang them without a trial and those who want “show trials” are fools. If we do that, we lose our moral standing and we put Americans at risk around the world.
Guantanamo have been a blot on this nations reputation. At least
Barack Obama is going to try to salvage it.
Report comment to moderator
Gitmo was a huge error on Bush’s part. It was an idea much like the Iraqi invasion which was formulated without much of an exit plan. Bush is now quite happy to let Obama clean up after him.
Criminal trials for criminal acts would be ideal. Now that the US has custody of these accused, they should be tried in the American justice system. If they are lucky they can plea bargain them away. The original error was to bring the prisoners from Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. They should have been accused in the country where the offense took place. If America didn’t like the outcome, they could always employ less overt measures (not that I approve of it on a moral level).
Sawgunner, its posts like today that make it obvious why you are Texas style Democrat and member of the military.
Report comment to moderator
Just send them back to their country of citizenship. I am sure that Canada and Britain want their offspring. They are always fussing about getting them out of Gitmo. Seriously, these are battlefield situations and the provisions of the US constitution seem misplaced. I really hope that Obama is serious about closing Gitmo and serious about multilateral cooperation. The really dirty secret now revealed is that most countries do not want their Gitmo children. I hope Obama has the guts to demand our friends stand up for ‘justice’ and take their citizens.
Report comment to moderator
All the Brits and other westerners have been let out years ago. The one Cdn is due for a trial soon, and it was a battlefield situation however he’s a member of the infamous Khadr family — hence no-one wants him – Canada, the US, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Report comment to moderator
The Obama plan is largely consistent with the plan that the military’s lawyers have suggested for about five years.
The situation of their capture does not necessarily afford them the full protections of a criminal trial in federal court. And Obama’s plan does not give them that. Nevertheless, it does give the innocent an opportunity for their claims to be adjudicated with impartiality. Moreover, it affords them the opportunity not to be convicted by evidence procured by torture.
We have long known that some portion of those in Gitmo have committed no crimes that justify their detention. It is a miscarriage of justice to deprive them of any meaningful opportunity to answer their accusers.
Report comment to moderator
#46 ANLIR,
‘The world has always looked up to America for it’s judicial system.’
So hat is why the lefties of the world condemns the US for our justice system and the UN puts the US on their inhumane list?
You are delusional. The lefty world has routinely and vehemently condemned the US for our judicial system for decades saying we are too harsh, have the death penalty, convict the innocent and build prisons to put blacks, illegal alien and Hispanics in them them exclusively. What inane planet are you on?
The lefty world hates the USA for just about everything we do – period – except buying what ever they sell us. You really need to see a psychiatrist. We are the most envied country in the world too and they be very jealous in their complaints. But our internal Marxists and socialists are the worst of the lefty lot when it comes to whining, crying and saying America is just horrible.
Report comment to moderator
No, they should be tried in a separate terrorist court designed to handle these cases unless you want to subject every courthouse and the employees in them to a life of extreme security measures over and above the ones already in place. And it would put the regular business of the US Courts on the back burner and that’s not fair. Others have rights, too. Moreover, there is classified information that is part of the evidence, and I for one, want a fair trial, but I also want our service men and women protected, too. Congress can create inferior courts and it should do so.
I disagree that Gitmo was an error. They had to be put somewhere, and not let loose again on the battlefield. Of course, some prefer to make our service men and women targets, but those would be people who have been sitting comfortably in their armchairs at home. As usual, most leftys don’t think in a realistic way, but they live in an alternate reality.
Report comment to moderator
(or if fate should have it, 8 years).
So you don’t think your vote actually matters/mattered?
Report comment to moderator
The alternative plan is to just leave them in Guantanamo until they die, I guess.
Contrary to what several of you have said, we’re not talking about Islamic terrorists, we’re talking about people suspected of being involved in terrorism. They are entitled to be confronted with the evidence against them and to defend themselves, and have their guilt or innocence adjudicated impartially.
Some have already been freed because the US had to admit that they had little or no actual evidence they were guilty of anything. Rather than leave the rest of them in lifelong limbo, we should either convict and punish them or acquit them and send them home.
To do anything less is un-American.
Report comment to moderator
The risk of acquittals and release of terrorists or aggrieved innocents doubtless will be mitigated by a string of mysterious cripplings, infections, poisonings, and assassinations in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
Look, the reason we brought them to Gjuantanimo was to extract information, not to prevent them from harming the United States.
Report comment to moderator
#51
Llama you are correct. The US imprisons more people per 1000 than any other western nation and is only surpassed by South Africa, Russia and China worldwide. Unlike the rest of the west, it still employs the death penalty. And finally there is enough data to strongly suggest racial discrimination is rampant throughout the correctional system. Of course any good leftist would criticize such a disaster, but Anlir is a proud America who wishes the world would still see America as the light on the hill.
#55 correct
Gitmo was an error, Bush knows it but he doesn’t want to admit error so he leaves it to Obama to clean up.
Report comment to moderator
Turns out Obama hasn’t made up his mind on this, and is now backtracking on reports that his administration would quickly close Gitmo. Add this to his qualification of a previously unqualified commitment to “end torture” and it’s almost as if we elected someone who in some regards is going to end up doing pretty much what McCain would have done, with the exception of being honest about it at the outset. Hip hip hooray for changiness.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!