Originally Posted by Danzig

excerpted from the article you linked:

There is a dispute over whether (and how) detaines may be incarcerated and tried. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey claimed that the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling affirms that the United States is engaged in a legally cognizable armed conflict to which the laws of war apply. It may hold captured al Qaeda and Taliban operatives throughout that conflict, without granting them a criminal trial, and is also entitled to try them in the military justice system—including by military commission.[79]

The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has not required that neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status. [5] However, the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. In July 2004, following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—ruling the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees could be held as "enemy combatants".[80]

The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners. Common Article 3 applies in "wars not of an international character" (i.e., civil wars) in a signatory to the Geneva Conventions—in this case the civil war in signatory Afghanistan. It is likely that the Bush administration may now be forced to try detainees held as part of the "war on terror" either by court martial (as U.S. troops and prisoners of war are) or by civilian federal court. However, Bush has indicated that he may seek an Act of Congress authorizing military commissions.

a military tribunal is what the geneva conventions state as the means of trial for combatants. nothing from the above belies anything i said, so thanks.
i went back and bolded the part about the supreme court and the 'war on terror'.

Originally Posted by Riot

My main point is simply that, although I (and I'm sure, 'Zig) would personally like to take the terrorists, tie them naked to stakes in the sun, and have them eaten by dogs slowly while alive, our judicial system since 9-11 has decided what we can and cannot do with them, legally.

Originally Posted by Riot

My main point is simply that, although I (and I'm sure, 'Zig) would personally like to take the terrorists, tie them naked to stakes in the sun, and have them eaten by dogs slowly while alive, our judicial system since 9-11 has decided what we can and cannot do with them, legally.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But what does this have to do with international outrage?

Originally Posted by Danzig

actually, no-i wouldn't torture them. my visceral reaction at times is kill them, but i'm actually against the death penalty in most cases. i would, however, have volunteered to pull the trigger on bin laden myself.

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm a big death penalty person.

Being the flaming liberal that I am :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Riot

Nothing with the tangent you are off upon.

My point was only that what we can legally do with terrorists has already been decided, and that there was alot of publicity over those discussions and legal cases in the past eight years, on both a local and international level (other countries have caught terrorists, too)

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

If you are really against the death penalty then why aren't you screaming out against Obama's wide use of Drone Planes? Shouldn't the the bad guys be read their rights before being executed without a fair trial by a jury of their Islamic Terrorist peers?

Originally Posted by Riot

Good point.

Just found this, and it outlines the false impressions of the differences between military and civilian methods regarding underwear bomber:

"GOP criticsm of Obama on underwear bomber way off base, says JAG"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_419203.html

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

its got to be dubya s fault..:zz:

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I read the article Riot. Very interesting. I just think that the $$$$$$ it's going to cost to secure the "alleged" terrorist, The Notorious KSM, from NYC could be spent better somewhere else. Haiti comes to mind. Paying down the deficit would be an idea. Believe me they are more concerned with KSM's safety than that of the citizens. It' the politically correct thing to do.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Its one of the most disgusting decisions in our history.