Sounds like you have strange view of the process. Do you understand bail hearings and the rest of the process? How will this person be out killing "tens of thousands" of people (making him the most sucessful terrorist in history) while he is in jail?
Someone is nuts, but if it is the other poster it's not evident from anything he has said so far.
I stated that the defendent could be freed to plan further terrorists attacks. Then, I said the poster was nuts. Then, you piped in and loudly proclaimed your ignorance of the problems associated with due process for terrorists. Perhaps you are just ignorant to the many ways prisoners can be set free due to technical problems associated with an arrest? Perhaps you don't know how many such criminals repeat their crimes once freed? I'll err on the side of ignorance for your sake.
Now, outlined below is a good summary of some problems associated with terrorist trials in civilian courts. Perhaps you'd like to take back your words?
Can U.S. citizens who commit acts of terrorism be tried in civilian courts?
Terrorists with U.S. citizenship can be tried in civilian courts, as illustrated by the case of Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted in federal court of the 1995 bombing of a federal office building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more. A co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the bombing. John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban” captured in Afghanistan, faces federal trial on charges of aiding terrorist organizations and conspiracy to kill Americans.
Are criminal defendants charged with acts of terrorism entitled to constitutional protections?
Yes. The Constitution requires that courts follow certain procedures in all criminal trials, even when terrorism is involved and even when the defendants are not U.S. citizens. Still, as Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg noted in 1963, “while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” U.S. laws give the government considerable flexibility to prosecute terrorists while upholding the criminal-procedure rules of the Constitution. The ultimate arbiter of these rules is the Supreme Court.
Do any other courts play a role in the war on terrorism?
Yes. The little-known Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizes the surveillance of people in the United States thought to be agents of foreign powers, including terrorist groups. Wiretaps authorized by the court have been used to charge the head of a Chicago-based charity accused of helping fund al-Qaeda and to indict a lawyer to the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing for allegedly helping him plan further attacks.
Civilian Courts
Could a terrorist convicted in a civilian court get the death penalty?
Yes. In certain circumstances, such as cases where murder is committed in a federal building, the death penalty may be imposed—as it was on McVeigh for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing. Prosecutors are seeking the death sentence for Moussaoui, the alleged September 11 conspirator. Terrorist acts involving murder can also be prosecuted in state courts, which in many states—including New York and Virginia, both affected by the September 11 attacks—can impose the death penalty.
Can someone sue a terrorist for damages in a civil suit?
Yes. Federal law allows victims of terrorism to file suit in federal court against foreign countries alleged to have sponsored crimes committed against them. Several judgments have been rendered against Iran, which the State Department considers to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. But collecting damage awards in these cases has proven difficult. Countries that have been sued do not accept the authority of these legal decisions, and even when a foreign government’s assets have been seized, as Iran’s have, the U.S. government has forbidden using these assets to pay legal judgments.
What problems arise in using federal courts to try terrorists?
Terrorists might threaten to harm judges and jurors. U.S. Marshals provide protection, and jurors can remain anonymous, but no one is sure whether these measures would guarantee their safety. Such dangers are common in mob-related trials, and threats against judges, U.S. attorneys, and other court officers have increased dramatically in recent years. The Constitution gives defendants the right to face their accusers, so trials might endanger witnesses who appear in court, since the alleged terrorists could then identify the witnesses. Some witnesses might refuse to testify, even if they are given access to the federal witness-protection program. The need to rely on classified evidence might force prosecutors to choose between divulging intelligence secrets and seeing defendants go free. Some legal scholars say that rules allowing defendants to see only summaries or portions of evidence against them, rather than the classified evidence in its entirety, can ease such dilemmas. But these arrangements do not always work, critics say. In 1991, for example, the main criminal charges against Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North in the Iran-contra case were dismissed because the government did not want to reveal intelligence information. If prosecutors cannot establish a suspected foreign terrorist’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a civilian court, that person could be freed and might plan other terrorist attacks. But U.S. officials say that the United States can detain suspected terrorists indefinitely as unlawful combatants in an ongoing conflict, even if they are acquitted. Federal courts do not permit criminal trials to be televised, but some officials express concern that trials of suspected terrorists could become international spectacles that for the audience turn on matters not of law but of prejudice or public opinion. Many legal scholars say there are ways to make trials of terrorists in U.S. federal court work. Others say military tribunals may work better in some cases. But all agree that prosecuting suspected terrorists in civilian courts poses formidable challenges.
________________________________________________________
I do hope this clears things up for you, TomJeff.