Can anybody tell me why, when it comes to accused terrorists, military tribunals are preferable to normal judicial proceedings in a civil court of law?
Is it because they don't want those fancy pants New York lawyers being all wise-cracky during a "You can't handle the truth!" moment?
Is it because the three military judges are allowed to smash the defendant on his turban with their gavels?
Are the aprés waterboard/nut-shock snacks better?
Do interrogators get to wear the latest in Xe-wear (clingy black unitards, like Green Lantern)?
Because as far as I can tell (stuck here in my liberal soap bubble, awash with caviar and Noam Chomsky videos), the idea of not applying our rule of law to anyone accused of terrorism is yet another mistake made by the lizard brains who got us into this fix in the first place.
By being relentlessly reliant on a cold war black-ops kind of mentality when it comes to foreign affairs (deposing governments, installing kangaroo juntas, assassinating, defoliating, backstabbiating, etc.) and then adding a generous dollop of corporate missionary position myopia, you get a conveyor belt of cuddly little jihadists intent on making life for America as miserable as America made for them. But go ahead -- give them more reason to join a terror cell and win a date with 72 virgins by not even demonstrating one of the legitimately cool things about America -- its legal process.
Say what you will about our frequently clogged, antiquated system ("You're out of awduh, here! You're out of awduh!!!" -- And Justice For All. Love that Al!) it's still better than the idea of some spiritually broken miskite, his life a world of shit, hate and poverty, having been indoctrinated into thinking that America is the devil, only to find out that it really is.
The founding fathers have really taken a beating these last couple of decades. All their hard work has been whittled down and hijacked by cynical opportunists, spiritually broken themselves, launching their own jihads on the precepts of Democracy upon which this country was founded.
And when those bastards are brought finally apprehended, even though one might feel like pulling down their pants and shooting rubber bands at their exposed taints, I will still prefer to have their Miranda Rights read to them and go through normal criminal proceedings in a court of law.
Because it's what separates us from them.
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@TheStevenWeber
Civil courts don't.
.
bill of
Conservatives should read Article VI of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees each "accused " a fair trial, not jus each citizen.
rights,which guarantees each "accused" a fair trial, not just each "citizen"
Maybe the righties don't want to be separated anymore. They have their own Jihad to wage against Democracy, starting with the Constitutional rights we have apparently been taking for granted. No one enjoys the idea of respecting the rights of terrorists- it does seem absurd in an existential sort of way, but it's what civilized, Democratically-principled nations do- to set ourselves above the chaos-inspired, America-hating anarchists.
The first Beck-inspired mouth-breather and/or teabagger to commit an act of domestic terrorism will demand all its rights, and it will have them. I also demand clowns such as the Hutaree terrorists be charged with treason- why be selective?
I think too it's about control. When you want control, nay, demand control of situations, you go for scenarios that help provide it. Military courts are more insulated from public view. Taking away citizen rights, like Miranda rights, gives you a distinct advantage in manipulating procedures, and so on.
These mentally warped righties couldn't care less about making and keeping America as a shinning example of fairness and truth. That always takes up too much time and just gets in the way of their personal profits, and thus, their goal of total control.
Personally, I don't think an empirical answer to your question exists. I think it is preferable for the creators of this question to have it simply exist in space in order to continue the work that Rove and his merry men started to divide and conquer our collective American soul.
"Military Tribunals vs. Criminal Trials: A Different Perspective"
by Bret E. Brooks
March 30, 2010
This is about a variety of organized crime, not about war. Al Qaeda is never as organized as the Mafia, though - the only aim they have is to make a big splash (and our media will oblige, gladly.)
Personally, I like living in a land of laws. Laws that aren't bent depending on the crime. It's a very dangerous precedent.
I'm not entirely convinced, Steven, you should be telling lizard-brains their humanity might be as close as Miranda Rights and a stack of Chomsky videos...
It just feeds their already outrageous delusions of grandeur, and those aspirations of someday amounting to crap.