Originally posted by FMFMaybe, I doubt it.
This is an odd thing for you to say when you know that Mr Abdulmutallab may well now reveal details of al-Qaeda networks and conspiracies that he may have learnt about in Yemen.
Not worth wasting the words, we're in a different place now, no more Disneyland.
Originally posted by generalissimoThey're not mutually exclusive. Military tribunals can exist and some terrorists can be tried in federal court. Military tribunals can be for war crimes or enemy combatants and plain old run of the mill terrorists can be tried in federal court. I don't see the contradiction.
what happened to this?
http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/tribunal.html
Originally posted by sh76I see, thanks for making that clear.
They're not mutually exclusive. Military tribunals can exist and some terrorists can be tried in federal court. Military tribunals can be for war crimes or enemy combatants and plain old run of the mill terrorists can be tried in federal court. I don't see the contradiction.
Originally posted by generalissimoobama is a lawyer and a constitutional scholar. ain't he?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126296584036721669.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
[b]Terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded not guilty Friday in a federal court in Detroit on a six-count indictment for allegedly attempting to blow up a Detroit-bound plane and murder its 279 passengers and 11 crew members
why not try him as a criminal combatant? why allow these absurdities to happen?[/b]