CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
8
yes no
Debate Score:25
Arguments:24
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (15)
 
 no (8)

Debate Creator

sierrastruth(524) pic



Should terrorists and suspected terrorists be represented in the american judicial system?

I have heard from a number of people the argument that these people (terrorists, prisoners of war, suspected terrorist, terrorist suportors exetera) deserve their day in our court system and I find it hard to believe that the majority of Americans believe this. I think its an absolutly ridiculous idea that couldn't possibly work, but if you dont agree then lets debate it.

yes

Side Score: 17
VS.

no

Side Score: 8
2 points

If they are being held on American soil convicted of a crime against the United States (or it's citizens), they must be given due process. However I don't believe they need to be flown back to the States to sit in an American Courthouse, there is no requirement as to where they must be tried.

Most Americans believe they should be Given Due Process:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/228.php?nid=&id;=&pnt;=228&lb;=hmpg1

Side: yes
0 points

"If they are being held on American soil convicted of a crime against the United States (or it's citizens), they must be given due process"

If a terrorist attacks Americans in America I could understand a trial in our public court system, though I think it would be more appropriate to give them a military trial, I could still understand the argument. What about prisoners being held at Guantanamo, captured in another country during a war?

The link you posted is in my opinion is biased in your favor I went through their references and found very little if anything to make their claim true.

Side: no
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
2 points

If a terrorist attacks Americans in America I could understand a trial in our public court system, though I think it would be more appropriate to give them a military trial

Often they aren't even given that. Many of these suspects are being held indefinitely without trial and without charges, which is unconstitutional.

What about prisoners being held at Guantanamo, captured in another country during a war?

American military bases are still considered U.S. soil. How we treat EPWs (Enemy Prisoners of War) and how we treat suspected terrorists is very different. If you are captured in a firefight with U.S. forces you will be treated as an EPW, however if based on some Intel we find where you live and take you into custody you will be treated like a suspected criminal and if that crime is "terrorism" you will be treated like a suspected terrorist.

Side: yes
garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

.....................................................................................................................................

Side: yes
garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

"What about prisoners being held at Guantanamo"

What you mean those people who were captured and imprison for years without trial and subjected to torture from which some died? Don't forget all the other torutre chambers, the US has them all over the world, Egypt was a hot spot for US torture victims for years before it became widely known, Omar Suleiman, Mubarak's right hand man oversaw the whole the thing at the behest of the US.

"captured in another country during a war?"

I'm sorry, did another country wage war on the US? Oh wait, no, the US did, with no legal or moral justification, you decide to invade impoverished countries in order to secure mankinds greatest material asset and ended committing genocide, and then think you can preach morality to the world, we really do live in a fucked up world.

"The link you posted is in my opinion is biased in your favor"

I don't think I've ever seen you post a link from a non mainstream US source, and mostly from the right wing media which is even worse again. You clearly aren't aware of just how worthless and corrupt your own media is so i don't think you are in any position to criticise an online polling organisation. The results are quite clear, the sample size used to represent US public opinion is 1059, how the hell if that biased in anyone's favour?

The key difference between you and me, you search for information that tells you what you want to hear, I try find the truth.

Side: yes
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

The link you posted is in my opinion is biased in your favor

Do you have any reason to believe the source is biased? Simply because the results do not support your opinion does not make it biased.

I went through their references and found very little if anything to make their claim true.

It wasn't so much a claim as it was the results of an opinion poll. If you are looking for citations click the link that says 'Full Report'.

Side: yes
1 point

Of course they deserve their day in court. How could anyone believe that anyone who is suspected of anyone would not get their day in court. What would you think if you were suspected and simply punished with no trial?

Side: yes
0 points

If a terrorist is detained in Iraq or Iran or wherever during a war and is accused of building bombs or spying or murdering children or whatever how is our court system going to confirm or deny any of the claims considering the complexity of gathering information in a country that wont let us gather that information? How do you expect a country to detain a crime scene or paper trail or even to agree that the accused did wrong.

When a country doesn't have the same standards as us or the same or similar judicial system as us how can there be a fair trial? The best course of action is to have a military trial, the other option (of which i don't agree with) is to make the whole world have the same judicial system and laws.

Side: no
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

If a terrorist is detained in Iraq or Iran or wherever during a war and is accused of building bombs or spying or murdering children or whatever how is our court system going to confirm or deny any of the claims considering the complexity of gathering information in a country that wont let us gather that information?

ISAF will work with local governments, and conduct an investigation. That has been the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly everything the U.S. armed forces do in Afghanistan is done either with Afghan Police or Afghan Military present.

How do you expect a country to detain a crime scene or paper trail

The same way we do in the States.

When a country doesn't have the same standards as us or the same or similar judicial system as us how can there be a fair trial?

Depends on whose jurisdiction it falls under.

Side: yes
BlackSheep(203) Disputed
1 point

I don't care what someone is accused of they deserve a fair trial. if you can prove them a criminal then treat them as a prisoner of war if tat is clear.

Side: yes

Again you show your own willingness to discard the very principles your country has sworn to uphold. Let me ask you a question, how do you someone is guilty if they are never tried in a free and fair court of law?

Who is to decide if someone is a so called "terrorist"? Yes, thats right the government, and they are not capable of doing wrong, right? They won't abuse that power, they are just looking out for you the average american.

You want to know what american defintion of terrorist is, anyone who get's in the way of US domination and hegemony. There are no bad gusy or good guys, from the perspective of most muslims in the ME you are the bad, and they have a hell of lot more justification for holding that opinion, a hell of lot more.

GO BACK TO BED AMERICA YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL, HERE'S AMERICAN GLADIATORS, GO BACK TO BED AMERICAN YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL, YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU, YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!!!!!

Side: yes

The ultimate insult to our war enemies is to treat them like normal criminals that we arrest for domestic battery. Therefore, I vote for terrorists to receive equal treatment in our court system, both for the purpose of fairness and the purpose of adding insult to injury. They deserve both.

Side: yes

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f0ec29a-09e9-11dc-93ae-000b5df10621.html#axzz1lQbwrNsk

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=61873

http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-most-corrupt-police-forces-in-the-world.html

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/american-beheaded-in-iraq/65cf3w6

http://www.meforum.org/651/does-human-rights-law-apply-to-terrorists

"No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not signed, much less ratified, those treaties. Moreover, it is evident that Hamas, Hezbollah, and members of the global Al-Qaeda network spurn both the spirit and the letter of international treaties designed to ameliorate the cruelty of war. Bloody attacks in New York, Jerusalem, Bali, Madrid, and Beslan are testament to the fact that these groups seek to kill civilians rather than to take captives. And when Islamist terrorists do seize hostages, brutality rather than protection appears to be the rule."

"By violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions. U.S. forces would be within their legal rights to treat captured Al-Qaeda members as they did Nazi saboteurs during World War IIā€”trial by military commission and execution by firing squad.[18]"

"The U.S. government is not only within its rights but is also wise to hold Al-Qaeda members incommunicado. A prisoner's military value does not solely consist of the information that a captive carries in his head. By holding Al-Qaeda members incommunicado, the U.S. military can sow the seeds of confusion and uncertainty in terrorist ranks. If bin Laden's followers do not know whether one of their comrades has been captured, then they also do not know whether any of their operations have been compromised. This is at the heart of the controversy about whether U.S. officials prematurely revealed that they had captured an Al-Qaeda computer specialist named Muhammad Naim Nur Khan who had assisted authorities in entrapping other Al-Qaeda operatives who were unaware of his capture.[33] Yet, if the Third Geneva Convention were applied to terrorists, the treaty's strict rules on reporting the capture of enemy POWs would make such a ruse de guerre impossible and would lead to the death of more civilians."

These quotes are from the last link I posted. You may come up with a different conclusion but I don't believe that terrorists should be treated the same as anyone else.

Side: no
garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

You are an incredibly twisted person if you beleive the Geneva conventions apply to your countries illegal operations overseas. Your desire to compare the Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan invasions to WW2 is frankly laughable. The Iraq war has already been proven to be an illegal agressive invasion. I'm not even going to bother expending the energy to show you how stupid this is, that fact that you can hold such an incredibly twisted opinion speaks volumes of you.

You're the kind of person that actively seeks out the kind of nationalistic bullshit that wouldn't hold up for a second when subjected to an objective critical analysis of the facts.

Side: yes
0 points

Jesus Christ garry here you go not that its going to matter.

""You are an incredibly twisted person if you beleive the Geneva conventions apply to your countries illegal operations overseas."

We have, I believe, exhausted the argument of whether it was legal or not. On the Geneva convention topic I don't think it applies to the war we are fighting (even if I agreed with it at all which I do not). The most appropriate place to give these people a trial is in a military tribunal not in regular court system.

All wars could be considered illegal by your standards but it doesn't mean there not worth fighting.

"I'm not even going to bother expending the energy to show you how stupid this is, that fact that you can hold such an incredibly twisted opinion speaks volumes of you."

I sorry, do you really expect me to respond to this?

"You're the kind of person that actively seeks out the kind of nationalistic bullshit that wouldn't hold up for a second when subjected to an objective critical analysis of the facts."

I do love my country but I try to look at all my arguments from different angles. Like for example, if my country was occupied what by what I believed was an oppressive foreign power I would defiantly be angry and want to kill them but I would not fly a plain into a building filled with innocent people. Would you? My opinion comes from a point of view that terrorists are extremest who cannot be reasoned with and would kill their own people just as easily as they would kill any American solder. Would you do that?

The best place for these people to receive justice is in a military trial. If an American soldier was captured by them they would not give them any trial ever. These people new what could happen to them if they got into this war and they did it anyway.

If you let people stay in your house who you Knew where killers ( and where planning to kill again) would you really think that you went involved in their activities? what if you gave them money or drove the car or helped commit the actual act. Would you actually be surprised if someone showed up at your door and threw you in jail?

Side: no