Quote:Military Tribunal prosecutions are not the same as being captured by the city, county, state police or even the FBI or Federal agents,   CRIMINAL prosecutions take place in the state where the crime occured. Military prisoners DO NOT enter the civillian CRIMINAL prosecution system, they enter into the MILITARY Tribunal system. Huge difference between the two.Military Tribunals are not governed by the constitution other than as found here "

Under the procedures, a defendant would receive many, but not all, of the due process protections guaranteed to a defendant in a U.S. civilian criminal court. The tribunal procedures guarantee the following due process protections:

• An accused will be provided with defense counsel and can also have a lawyer of his or her own choosing, either a military or civilian attorney.
  
• The accursed will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
• An accused may refuse to testify during trial. The accused will have the right to obtain witnesses and documents necessary for the defense.
  
• A person accused may not be tried twice before a military commission for the same offense
  
• An accused will be allowed to negotiate and enter into a plea agreement.
  

Under the procedures, however, a person can be convicted in a commission trial by a two-thirds majority of the commissioners: Unanimous verdicts are not required. Evidence, including previous trial testimony and written statements, will be admissible if it tends to prove or disprove the case at hand. The exclusionary rule, which keeps illegally seized evidence out of a civilian criminal trial, does not apply. The procedures do not provide for appeals from a guilty verdict to civilian judges. They do, however, call for "reviews" of a verdict by a three-member panel selected by the secretary of defense. No verdict will be final until approved by the president or the secretary of defense" ... "

On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a new military order in the war against terrorism. The order called for the secretary of defense to detain non-citizens accused of international terrorism. The order specifically applies to members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. But it also includes all those who have engaged in, aided, or conspired to commit international terrorist acts against the United States or its citizens. Those who knowingly harbor such individuals are also subject to the order. Under the order, the secretary is charged with establishing military tribunals (also called military commissions) to conduct trials of non-citizens accused of terrorism either in the United States or in other parts of the world.

A military tribunal, or commission, is different from a regular civilian criminal court. In a tribunal, military officers act as both judge and jury. After a hearing, guilt is determined by a vote of the commissioners. Unlike a criminal jury, the decision does not have to be unanimous." http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-...unals.html

 

 

Quote: 

<div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<div style="margin:0px;">
<div style="margin:0px;">Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


</div>
</div>
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">It's almost like you are trying to troll.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">How would this work smart guy would we make sure the enemy combatant has his fellow terrorist or alleged terrorist there to testify his side of the story? We could hold the trial in Iraq or maybe Syria where the crimes are committed? That would be ok sure, their governments wouldn't mind.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Better yet we need to make sure the soldiers fighting now have the ability to document a crime scene. It's almost laughable how you're attempting to compare a battle field to a crime scene. It exposes you as someone who only knows theory and has yet to experience life in the real world. There are so many vast differences between a crime scene and criminal prosecution to an enemy combatant captured in a foreign nation it's ludicrous to even continue discussing with you. 

 

</div>

 

 

To sum you two up:

 

"Hey guys, it's cool, we called this police operation a war, therefore we can just lock people up in Guantanamo forever based on encountering them in the course of that police action which was justifed by an attack on NYC."

 

Seems to me that if the crime was in NYC and these guys are considered part of that criminal organization then they ought to be tried there.

 

Still, congratulations on obfuscating as best you could, I'm sure Dubya would be proud.

---