Today's Poli-Poll: 9/11 TrialsFollow

You know, if I was into that kind of thing, I'd pray for your soul.

The hijacking pilots on 9/11 were very sure that they understood that punishment for injustices must be punitive and should hurt.

Why does this matter?
It's not like he's going to get a fair trial either way.
Barring a miracle he's going to be executed anyway.

Nonsense. I'm sure he'll get a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging.

Seriously, the fairness of the trial won't change the facts. As to the disposition, I'm not as sure as you are.

It has nothing to do with whether or not people decided to be "civilized." It's the simple fact that there is nothing you can do to him that will even remotely sate your need for revenge.

You can't kill him, because then he doesn't suffer (and, in his mind, he's going to be rewarded upon death anyway).

You could lock him in a cell for the next 50 years. But even the most dank dungeons in the world don't seem bad enough that this would be sweet revenge.

You could torture him. But either you do it too much and he goes insane, which makes any future revenge impossible, or you do it too little and you still feel that he hasn't been punished enough.

The fact of the matter is that people don't feel any better after an eye-for-an-eye treatment of the guilty party as they do for one that just puts him in a cell for the rest of his life. It has nothing to do with civilization. It has everything to do with the fact that we cannot punish him in any way that would sate our hate. And, if you do want revenge, a bullet to the head is the worst option.

[EDIT]


That IS his point. As seen in the line above it where he won't be getting a fair trial.

And I have to agree. There is no chance whatsoever that this guy, if innocent, will be found as such--in civilian OR military court. The fact that it is happening 9 years after the fact doesn't help. Especially when we have lived in the aftermath of the attack all this time.

Edited, Mar 6th 2010 10:52am by idiggory

To be honest, I just don't trust the US Military to be even the slightest bit interested in allowing any suspected terrorists the chance to adequately prove their innocence.

Right, trial by firing squad.

The attack was an act of war. While it may not have been an act backed by a Nation (if you believe that) that doesn't change the nature of it. As such, it should be conducted by a military tribunal. You can hem and haw about which is more fair, or more just, or whatever you like. But putting a saddle on a hog doesn't make it a horse.

I say again, why aren't military trials considered fair trials?

Parts of the original act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

were deemed unconstitutional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

So the method of military trial has existed a long time - but an entirely new thing was created in 2006 to address current circumstances.

It is as if whenever a particularly heinous crime is committed, an entirely new court is created to deal specifically with that case. In principle, this could be done fairly. In reality, it begs the question why such a new thing is needed and the existing mechanisms are not enough.

Initially, the rights of the detained were stunningly limited. Neither they, nor their lawyers could see the evidence against them. Nor could the lawyers meet their clients before the trial. This is, of course, insane. And to the great credit of the US military, they by and large threw these cases out. They know that the way we treat others will be returned to us, in time.