Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Terrorists should not be given privileges of civilian courts

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 15:41, 23 November 2009; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Susan Ferrechio. "McCain says trying KSM in New York would be like trying Nazi in San Francisco." San Francisco Chronicle. Washington Examiner. November 17th, 2009: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., compared the decision to try accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in New York City to trying Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering in San Francisco. "It's ridiculous. These are war criminals and terrorists and they should not be privy to regular courtroom procedures."


John C. Eastman. "Military tribunals are perfectly constitutional." Ashbrook Center. November 2001: "The Fifth Amendment requires indictment by a grand jury, but specifically excepted from that requirement are "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." In other words, the men and women serving in our own military forces are not entitled to the benefits of trial in civilian courts, nor are civilians serving in the militia when they have been called into service. It would be odd indeed to read the Fifth Amendment as affording greater access to civilian courts to non-uniformed soldiers of terrorism waging war on the United States than it provides to our own soldiers and civilians."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.