ACLU wants to help defend alleged Sept. 11 mastermind

Every person accused of a crime should have adequate legal representation.

 

And, the ACLU is just the organization to provide this scum bag the defense he deserves.

 

If I was in trouble with the government I would appreciate a civil liberties group being willing to help me.

Sometimes I wonder if conservatives truly support the sixth amendment as much as they do the first and second amendments.

 

Yes, I agree. Even the worst person who is guilty of the worse crime is afforded legal representation according to the law.

 

This foul scum is exactly that. However, even the worst of the worst should be able to present their defense with adequate counsel, or none of us are safe. I despised Timothy McVeigh, but he had his day in court. The ACLU doesn't do this to protect this person, as to protect the Constitution and all of us.

 

The constitution applies only to American citizens, guys. You need another ammendment to make yer argument work.

And if the ACLU is on your side of an argument, you need disciplin'.....

 

The Constitution has certain right to aliens in the US or US custody. The Geneva Accords also outline rules of conduct. Human rights are universal. Declaring someone an "enemy combatant" for the purpose of skirting US and international law is the acts of a dictator, not a free people.

I find very few times I disagree with the ACLU positions, and am glad they are there riding herd on those who would abuse power to infringe freedom.

 

Rightly classifying someone as a lawful or as an unlawful enemy combatant is completely within our law. Denying lawful status to persons who are terrorists, saboteurs, etc. is also within our law. It's an abuse of our law to afford the same legal status to all categories and fails to give due status to lawful enemy combatants. There's a difference in status and we need to maintain a difference in how we deal with them.

In the end prisoners-of-war, of all categories, are not inherently entitled to anything except what mercy we elect to give them and bind ourselves by law and treaty to give them. It so happens that we are compassionate people and show great mercy on enemy combatants when they lay down their arms and cease fighting. We have very high standards in how we deal with them and will punish our own who fail to comply. We, in fact, have extended this compassion to combatants of enemies that did not abide by the same treaty we did and did not treat our own warriors the same as we did theirs.

We are fools if we give unlawful enemy combatants - terrorists, saboteurs, etc. - the same status as lawful enemy combatants! They are in no way entitled to the same kind of legal representation and due process that we give persons accused of crimes. Their acts are not crimes but are unlawful acts of war and they require a different kind of response. I don't propose they be treated like animals - once they are subdued - but I also know they should not be afforded the same legal process as lawful enemy combatants much less common criminals.

Execution is due penalty for all terrorists and, for those caught red-handed in the act, summary execution is acceptable. No civilian defense lawyer need be present for that.

 

Nonsense and irrationality like this is why America no longer holds the moral high ground.

 

You can't prove what you said. The Geneva convention perhaps could be used against the Gitmo guards, and on a case by case basis. But you can't tell me this guy is protected in any way by the constitution.

 

America has had and still has the moral high ground. We're still very much the good guys. Our military conducts itself far better than any other at any time in known history. We've demonstrated that over and over in every war we've ever fought.

Some people are attempting to incorrectly redefine the law of war to fit law as is applies outside of war and even then to their concept of that law. Unfortunately, they're not without support today even among the courts and we live in changing times. It's a real shame because their actions will only give our enemies more tools with which to fight us and further limit our options.

Unlawful enemy combatants are purposefully not given the same protections as lawful enemy combatants. There's very good reason for this. They are terrorists, saboteurs, and the like who will do anything to anyone at anytime. They have no concern for the innocents caught up in their evil work. They have no respect for human life or dignity. They have no honor. They show no mercy.

These terrorists must surely be pleased with the knowledge that some want to grant them the same protections as those who fight war lawfully. But, regardless, they would show them no mercy either.

War is not about cops and robbers. War is not about legal maneuvering in a courtroom. War is not a case presented by a prosecutor and defended by counsel. War is not an orderly process regulated by judges and decided by juries. War is a process that happens because all these other things didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't work. War is a final last resort process that assures that future generations will have our precious framework of law intact for their liberty, security, and enjoyment. War suspends civil order and civil liberties so that it can be protected.

If we, protected by the inherent rights documented in the Constitution, engage in an open rebellion against our government we will find our own civil liberties suspended and we might very well be rightly executed on the spot should the normal civil order be lost.

Therefore I say we owe nothing special to terrorists under the law. We may choose to give them a measure of mercy but best be very careful that it not become an entitlement.

The ACLU needs to stay out of the business of war and handling of terrorists. It's caused us enough trouble in the realm of civil and criminal law already.

 

I agree with your description. Unfortunately, your description doesn't apply to the Bush administration.

 

No one is saying to turn a terrorist free or to let them go unpunished. But the fact that they are terrorists should be easily proven, if true. Otherwise, what is to keep some malevolent government or president from declaring YOU to be an "enemy combatant". The law is there for a reason. It should be used and respected, not trampled upon.

 

The Constitution was, in part, written to protect against the very thing you've described and I agree fully with that. But that is not being endangered by this case. Enemy combatants are captured for acts of war. Criminals are arrested for criminal acts. Both are covered by appropriate but different law.

The criminal is presumed innocent until proved guilty by due process and that process includes numerous safeguards for the benefit of us all. The terrorist - an unlawful combatant - may not be so fortunate and that also is for the benefit of us all. It both cases it is our liberty and security that we're protecting.

The Constitution was a documentation of the inherent rights we have and the limits we put on our self-government to make sure we don't give up those rights. The Constitution was not written to prevent or hamper us for finding, fixing, killing, capturing, or even enslaving the enemies that would otherwise destroy us and our Constitution right along with us. We've decided to go one step further and not enslave our enemies as was the custom in ancient times. We didn't give up the option to execute terrorists on the spot.

The law of war has been respected and is not being trampled upon. We are not violating anyone's rights in this way. We're not taking away the "rights" of terrorists since they didn't have them to start with.

I do, however, have some concerns about some other matters where the "terrorist" word - the "terroristic act" label - has been applied to an assortment of matters that, in my opinion, have nothing to do with terrorism. So, to that end, I can understand the concern you have. Everything the government does bears watching! But I include in this the "hate crime" laws and the property seizure laws as well. These kinds of things are serious threats to our liberty right here at home.

 

How do we know that he is the 9/11 mastermind? Is there any proof? Oh, I suppose all the proof is "classified. Just like the "proof" we have that any of the terrorists were involved. The reason the government want to hold all these trials in secret is they don't want the accused to say anything that would incriminate the administration.

 

How do you know the administration doesn't want to be incriminated do you have any proof?

 

The prisoner and the aclu are really just "birds of a feather". They just use different weapons.

Carpo you couldn't have stated the truth more clearly.

 

What lawyer do you think they'll get? What sell out American would take this paycheck stained with the blood of all those who died that day.

The other part of the question, how sure are we and what evidence do we have against the accused. Hopefully is more than WMD.