Were the tyrants from World War II brought to the U.S.A. to be tried?  To France to be tried?  To the U.K.?

Where these trials are held doesn't matter.  Give them a fair trail, but don't go out of your way to make things nice and comfortable for them while they are being tried, and don't go out of your way worrying about bringing them here to the U.S. mainland.

And technically Gitmo is U.S. soil, even if the base is in a foreign country.

Good points. There are some historians that say that Nuremberg was flawed but I'll not argue on that. I'm not suggesting that they be made comfortable--I'm just asking why they are not being tried where the crimes were being committed. Guantanamo is technically on US soil but they are being tried at a detention centre, not a US court. Move the court to where they are, you may say, but the place is not suitable for a major trial. Will the trials be fair?

I was unaware there was a specific kind of court room needed for a trial. BTW, we may not be perfect in this country, but I'll be damned if anyone is gonna go around saying we don't run fair trials. Considering this will be the top of the news here in the US, I'm sure it will be very fair, what with all the media attention it will have.

- They should be tried on American soil as all other criminals who threaten the state are.

Which particular criminals who threaten the state are tried on the mainland?

-Why should they be tried by the military? The military holds courts martial . Excessive military law action, such as treason by a soldier/spy, is handed over to the justice department.

I wouldn't worry about it. They are a few hundred unlawful fighters. In most countries, they wouldn't even be alive any more. Heck, some of them are in Gitmo because sending them back to their homes would get them executed immediately.

-I think most Americans would like to see these terrorists tried under America's judicial system.A military trial is not equivalent to that.

I really don't think why most Americans should worry about that. Most people in the west don't seem to worry much about the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Darfur genocide. Why is everyone so worried about a few hundred people in Gitmo?

-Is the sneaky Bush administration trying to ensure that these men will be "shot at down" without proper legal assistance (QV human rights, constitutional procedures)? If Rumsfeld can get away with foolish decisions, so can others.

So what? There are many US citizens who cannot afford decent lawyers and land in prison innocently. Some people are even executed and it is later discovered that they were innocent. If you want to help a few hundred possible victims of the justice system, why not start before those victims are people found fighting the US in Afghanistan? It's not like there was a lack of victims and people who need (and deserve) help before Bush started his evil Gitmo scheme.

- There is an element of rash judgement creeping in here. Is the miltary scoffing at proper procedures?

Protesters are demanding that something be done. Now it seems rash. What's the matter here?

-Are the military enabled by law to do this? What law?

Probably international law. There is nothing really that would protect fighters that were not in uniform and who reject the Geneva Conventions. In fact, in many cases Gitmo is the only thing that protects them from being executed in their home countries.

Leauki answered most of your questions.  I will just add to his:

They should be tried on American soil as all other criminals who threaten the state are.

No, only American Citizens are.  The rest are usually killed on the battlefield.  Or negotiated a peace with.

-Why should they be tried by the military? The military holds courts martial . Excessive military law action, such as treason by a soldier/spy, is handed over to the justice department

The Military also holds trials.  Since the dawn of time.

-I think most Americans would like to see these terrorists tried under America's judicial system.A military trial is not equivalent to that.

And you would think wrong. "MOST" Americans dont care and dont want to care.  And last I checked, Public opinion was not a legitimate defense in any trial.

-Is the sneaky Bush administration trying to ensure that these men will be "shot at down" without proper legal assistance (QV human rights, constitutional procedures)? If Rumsfeld can get away with foolish decisions, so can others.

Citizens are entitled to "rights" under the constitution.  Enemy combatants are subject to the Geneva Convention.  Perhaps we should unilaterally rewrite that document?

 

Strange as it is, I am not sure these people are even worthy a trial. I mean, it's gonna be a kangueroo court, with evidence that will never be produced in the public because of "National Security Reasons". They will be declared guilty (that is sure), whatever defence they can be allowed to put up. Then they will be shot.

Some part of the muslim world will be outraged, other people will see them as martyrs.

I really don't see America's obsession over killing criminals that are somewhat leaders in radical movement. I think the best thing to do with them is letting fall into oblivion, with no publicity. You just never heard about them again. That's the best way to deal with those kind of people.

(And about these people's right.. I am not sure if they have any, except as human beings. Talibans the U.S. captured on the field on combat may be considered somewhat-lawful combattant. After all, they fought for a governement - the taliban one. Al-Qaeda members the U.S. captured here and there.. that I don't know.)

It's all about what you are ready to allow to someone because you consider him a human being.

(not my best post, but I am kinda really tired. Sorry if this sounds gibberish)

Some good points from all of you and I do understand your feelings towards people who have threatened the USA. I have no problem with a death sentence at all. However, most Americans clamour about human rights and what you are going to show the World here (and, believe me, you will be villified for it, ), is a bunch of animals taken from their "kennels" and marched in chains to a courtroom set up by the military with pre-conceived notions of their fate.

If they are to be tried and executed it should be done in a proper American court of law as Hassawi was. I rest my case because many have forgotten that these people have no human rights. It worries me that this trial, like the conditions at Gitmo, is an inhumane way to solve a problem. If Saddam Hussein was afforded a proper trial before his execution, there is no reason why these prisoners cannot be treated the same way.

and, believe me, you will be villified for it,

America, like Israel, doesn't have to do anything to be vilified for it. Those who want to vilify America will just make something up. It doesn't matter one bit whether it actually happened.

If Saddam Hussein was afforded a proper trial before his execution, there is no reason why these prisoners cannot be treated the same way.

Saddam Hussein was but one person. And he wore a uniform. He was a greater killer than the Gitmo inmates, but only because he had the means to be.

I am sorry to say, but Saddam Hussein wasn't afforded what I'd call a proper trial before his execution.

Nor was he afforded a proper execution.

Be that as it may, it's very helpful to have a number of examples to point to of where the US has been shown to be worthy of vilification.

Most of the smoke may just be hot air, but there's still a few little fires burning there.

I would love to see a vote on that. 

Islamic terrorists do not deserve our judicial system.  Especially when the courts are full of liberal judges who sympathize with people like this.

For these people to be tried in a civilian criminal court they would have to be charged with civilian crimes. They are illegal battelefield combatants and thus subject to military law not civilian and the civilian courts actually have no jurisdiction in such matters.

Under international law we technically owe them no trial at all and they could have simply been shot on the spot. Giving them any sort of trial at all is far above anything actually required under international law.

For these people to be tried in a civilian criminal court they would have to be charged with civilian crimes. They are illegal battelefield combatants and thus subject to military law not civilian and the civilian courts actually have no jurisdiction in such matters. Under international law we technically owe them no trial at all and they could have simply been shot on the spot. Giving them any sort of trial at all is far above anything actually required under international law.

It does not matter how many times I state that, the ones that are going to blame america first are going to do it regardless of anything America does.  The fact that the Gitmo guys cannot be tried under civilian law is a "mere technicality" until such time as it would become another club to beat up America with.

And while we have many pontificating from a "high and mighty thrown" about the evil americans and what they are doing or not doing, the only reason these people can sit back munching on popcorn (caviar or brie) and being so "high and mighty" is that some poor dumb schmuck - who thought he was fighting for an ideal - gave his life so they could.

The truth is that evil men do not play by the rules, but rather try to play the rules.  So that those not at the front of the war will condemn those who fight it.  And Evil will win in the end, by letting the "high and mighty" defeat the good men trying to contain the evil ones.

I want to know how being a taliban fighter qualifies as "illegal unlawful combattant". The Talibans were the sovereign power in Afghanistan before 2002, weren't they? Even if we beaten them, they are still a (somewhat) valid military power in Afghanistan, thu representing an overthrown governement.

You should familiarize yourself with international law concerning warfare. According to law all military combatants must be legally uniformed. That is a legal requirement of warfare. A non-uniformed combatant is by definition an illegal combatant and is not even covered under the rules of the Geneva Convention and has virtually no rights under the law.