why do the republicans oppose trying terrorists in open court

[spanone]

imho------T O R T U R E

[T Wolf]

1. The defendants might let slip who is actually backing them. And reveal the complicity of

the Bushistas in all the shit that has gone down since 2000.

[spanone]

5. notice, now they don't want is anywhere in the u.s. except guantanamo

where the military will completely control the message.

[SpiralHawk]

6. Alas, that is all too possible

sad to say...

[no_hypocrisy]

2. They fear the court system with its protocol of seeking out the truth.

The terrorists don't scare them half as much.

[Warpy]

3. That's all I can think of

since any defense attorney worth his title will definitely point out just how much physical and mental duress these men were under when they "confessed."

That will embarrass even the worst of them and could conceivably lead to a great deal of public pressure to prosecute everyone involved, all the way up to the top, Cheney.

This is just part of a massive coverup along with the destruction of the interrogation tapes and a lot of the trail of evidence. The cockroaches want to live out their lives safely in the cracks and crevices.

Unless they've got a lot of forensic evidence, I don't see these trials going anywhere if they're done in public and according to the rules.

[napi21]

4. I think it's simply because they want to oppose anything this admin

does. THey didn't complain when Shrub did the very same thing!

Think about it. They use to love pay g, not they oppose it. They used to love tax cuts, not they oppose the stimulus ill even though a hugh part of it was tax cuts for all but the rich.

I bet is obaa had said we're doing military tribunals, they'd have opposed them too!

[spanone]

10. i agree that they oppose all things democrats propose, but i think this goes deeper

i can't be convinced that someone GOT to mayor bloomberg....who NOW opposes the trial in new york after THIS STATEMENT IN NOVEMBER

“I support the Obama Administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here in New York. It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered. We have hosted terrorism trials before, including the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

“When I spoke to Attorney General Holder earlier today, I told him New York City stands ready to assist the federal court in the administration of justice in any way necessary. I have great confidence that the NYPD, with federal authorities, will handle security expertly. The NYPD is the best police department in the world and it has experience dealing with high-profile terrorism suspects and any logistical issues that may come up during the trials.”

[Chulanowa]

7. Because Republicans oppose open court

Remember, these are people who, for all their bellyaching about "big government" actually think that "Judge dredd" is just about hte most perfct legal system ever.

"I think you're guilty!"
"But i'm not!"
"Don't lie! IAMTHLUG! *BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM!*"

[Winterblues]

8. They don't really, they just oppose anything Obama wants to do.

There is solid evidence they were quite content with Bush* trying terrorists in American courts and holding them in American prisons..

[Fixed_Based_Operator]

9. Try them here!!!

It is only the fair method. They committed the crime in the U.S. they should be tried in the U.S.

[spanone]

13. we should be showing the world that we have a fair & equitable court system

that we're not afraid to try foreign criminals in our courts...why else have extradition treaties with other countries?

[Lil Missy]

11. They don't, unless a democrat suggests it.

[DBoon]

12. because they are crypto-fascists

they prefer a system where there are no trials, where nobody has a right to a defense attorney, where people who are accused of wrongdoing just disappear, never to be heard from again.

To these people, Pinochet is a hero

[spanone]

14. we already have that...it's called an enemy combatant....you CAN be disappeared

[bighart]

15. I was discussing this very thing with a republican neighbor

Sunday while watching the pro-bowl. His response was that he did not oppose trials in court but what that requires. His argument was that a soldier on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan does not have the time or training required to act as an investigating officer on the scene. Trials in court have higher standards for evidence gathering, chain of custody etc. and a front-line soldier does not have the time or expertise to make sure everything is done in a manner that protects the evidence to the standard required by criminal courts. I can see at least some validity to this argument. If someone fired an RPG at my vehicle and I was able to get into a position to force them to lay down their weapon or be shot, I don't know that evidence preservation would be the first thing I would think of. On the other hand I don't like the idea of sending someone into captivity for an extended period of time under questionable
circumstances with weak evidence. Kind of a catch 22 in some ways.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Kick and rec for the unrec-ing freepers