In a court martial the onus of proof lies with the defendant proving his/her innocense in a kangaroo court composed entirely of soldiers. In a civilian court the onus of proof is on the prosecution proving the accuseds' guilt. The rules for admissablilty of evidence is very different between the two courts. Confessions obtained under torture and other illegal ways are inadmissable in a civil court but OK in a military one.
If Mr. Obama is trying to take the moral high ground he would have the prisoners tried in a civil court. He can now as president afford to do that. He probably didn't feel as a Senator he had the authority to be specific about methods of trial, only that a closure was needed to heal an ugly sore.
posted by JwB58
over 2 years ago
You actually got quite a bit of feedback when you asked this same question on FOS. You just didn't like what you heard so you brought the question to a different venue which is well within your rights. It's just better to be upfront about your motives.
Exactly JB, good job!
And to add the reason for transferring from Gitmo is that financially it would be cheaper to incarcerate these men on American soil as opposed to financing a military brigade, and a naval flotilla. It would also create jobs at the facility they are incarcerated in.
Not to mention that it's simply the right thing to do.
Merlin I think you have me confused with someone else. I never posted this on FOS. The reason I posted it here is that I wanted to get the reasons from the left. I nver asked about where the terrorists should be incarcerated or how much it would cost. Neither of those things mean that much to me. The question asked differently is, what is the upside gain for the President in using a civilian court?
There are plenty of military bases that could house and host these trials. Merlin, why is this the "right thing to do?"
So it appears that a majority of the people sureyed agree with me, but why should that matter to this administration.
view link
And it looks like a majority of people agree with me on this one:
view link
As I see it, the reason Republicans don't want a civilian court to try these people is because holes would be exposed in the ways and means these people first of all were arrested and secondly how they were treated after being incarcerated. The pubs are trying to distance themselves from any questionable illegalities they perpetrated by advocating a 'wall of silence' as would be had in a military tribunal. That's my opinion......
posted by JwB58
over 2 years ago
That's not an answer Joy. That's just blaming the right. The question is why does the current administration think civilian court is the way to go? These enemy combatents aren't civilians, are they? We are still using drones to bomb and kill them. Are we killing civilians in these bombings? Try giving the lefts positive reasons and let's forget about Bush already unless you think that this is totally politicalt motivated and we are giving these terrorists all the rights of the U S Constitution just for political reasons. Is that what you're saying?
Cod, why would you presume that any one of us can tell you what President Obama is thinking? There have been innumerable articles and blogs posted about the pros and cons of either type of trial. Since the criminal act was carried out in the US by civilians, it makes sense to me that the perpetrators be tried here.
I don't think there is anything to be gained by Obama no matter what venue is chosen for the trial. No matter what he does, what decisions he makes, what steps he takes, the right is going to do their best to crucify him.
