Personal tools

Arguments: Evidence against terrorists is not always valid in civilian courts

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

"Obama and Guantanamo". Wall Street Journal. January 22, 2009 - The stock anti-antiterror position is that detainees should be charged with crimes, either through military courts-martial or (preferably) the ordinary criminal justice system. Anyone who can't be indicted should be set free. But such trials are unworkable even for the 70 or 80 detainees that prosecutors had planned to try with military commissions, let alone prisoners who are too dangerous to release but for which there isn't sufficient evidence for a tribunal, much less civilian courts. Critics like to point to aggressive interrogations as somehow tainting these cases, but the real problems are far more prosaic. For instance, any evidence probably can't be admitted in civilian courts because terrorists aren't read their Miranda rights when picked up in combat zones.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits