Replies

I am involved with a legal case that has an ambulance chaser (no offense, but best description) representing the estate of an illegal immigrant who was killed here in an automobile accident. She was her illegally, the driver had no license and fled the scene, they had no insurance, and they drove recklessly around a hazard that several other drivers managed to avoid without incident. Guess what, they can sue the American business owner, and are for over $5 million.

It is my understanding, however, that the Military Tribunals are a Department of Defense deal as a result of the would be detainees status as an enemy that has declared war on us. Their rights, as such, might be better found in the Geneva Convention wording, not our Constitution. It should also be noted that most of the models of behavior were not based on an enemy of the sort we deal with today. The threat of massive intelligence information flowing into the public domain is real and of great concern.

It is my understanding, that the military tribunals are a Department of Defense deal as a result of the would be detainees status as an enemy that has declared war on us.

That's the rational for war tribunals. Al Qaeda members would be considered prisoners of war. As prisoners of war, they wouldn't be brought back to the United States to be tried in our court system.

They declared war against us. Evidence of this is they have attacked the United States and their training manual refers to them as being at war with us.

The acts of 9/11 are in violation of the conventions of war because civilians were targeted and they may be appropriately punished.

While I do have concerns about secret military tribunals, I, also, understand that jury trials would have dangers associated with them; the disclosure of sensitive information, as you mentioned, and the safety of the jurors. Imagine being a member of a jury trying a terrorist--the death threats you would receive from radical Muslims, maybe even a fatwah placed on your head.