Nuremberg Trials: Should it of taken place in a civilian court instead?

The terrorists are foreign compatants. As such, they deserve a military tribunal.

Since the terrorists will be given rights owed only to US citizens, watch them get off on technicalities. Ever heard of the right to a speedy trial? Ever heard of the Miranda rights? Due process? Right of self incrimination?

The terrorists and their platoon of three-thousand dollar an hour lawyers have every intention of placing the Unites States on trial. Watch the media portray them as victims of US torture. Ever heard of cruel and unusual punishment? New York is chock full of lunatic liberals who hate the US as much as Obama and Reverend Wright hate the Unites States. Do you really expect a fair trial? Half hate the terrorists, a large proportion of the people hate the United States enough to free those monsters.

I fully expect them to get off and be deported only to come home to a hero's welcome and the US looking like a weakling imbecile.

Remember when Gaddafi's private jet was sent to take Baset al-Magrahi - the Lockerbie terrorist home?

Suppose the equally likelihood of a trial and death sentence. Martyrs create wonderful recruitment tools. This is nothing for anyone to celebrate prematurely. The trial will cost multiple millions, it could take years and the outcome will be bad either way. It seems just as likely we will have a "hung" jury as a "hanged" defendant

What authority does a military court have in this matter? There has been no formal declaration of war therefore the military court has no jurisdiction

As for the Nuremberg Trials, which civilian court had jurisdiction in the matter? Germany had no functioning legal system and national courts cannot exercise jurisdiction outside of their territorial boundaries. A military court was the only court of competent jurisdiction which would serve the national interests of the nations involved.

I believe they should be tried in a civilian court because this is essentially a US civilian matter. The attacks took place on US soil, not over multiple national boundaries such as WW II, and as there has been no declaration of war the military courts should have no jurisdiction. Just because your government responded to the attacks with military force and the military captured a number of these people does not mean they have jurisdiction. They were just the instrument to bring them to justice.

If you are an American citizen charged in the United States you have all the same rights. During times of declared war you can be tried as a spy by military tribunal. If you are fighting with a foreign army against the United States you are subject to different laws and can be treated as a spy, terrorist or prisoner of war. It depends on the circumstances.

NO.

The terrorists are not American citizens, that means they have no right to be tried in civilian court. They are not American citizens, that means they have no right to be tried IN our country.

They are not an organized force representing an organization or country, so they are not protected by the Geneva Convention (which means they don't even have to be classified as POWs).

They don't deserve to be tried in a civilian court and honestly they don't deserve to be tried in military court... they could technically be shot immediately. We did that with the SS during WWII... executions on the spot weren't uncommon.*

No terrorists deserve to be tried in a civilian court UNLESS they are American and NOT in the military or any other military.

i was not born during the nuremberg era, so I cannot comment on it. However, since there is lot of speculation of 9/11 being inside job, there needs to be civilian trial. Otherwise people would just keep saying 9/11 was inside job and thats why military trial cuz in civilian court you have to prove the charge.

I dont understand dems position on this issue either.

Can you add a fourth Q to your list:

Why are 4 terrorists being tried in military court and 4 being tried in civilian court. How does that make any sense?

ADD: @avail....you DO realize that because the 1993 bombers were tried in civilian court, we had no jursidiction to go after and arrest Khalid Sheik Mohammed...thereby allowing him to strike again in 2001. That is what happens when you keep changing the rules of the game midway through...you make it nearly impossible for the prosecutors to do their job and bring people to justice that shouldnt be walking the streets ever again!

ADD: @chap...I have trouble with that argument because Khalid Sheik Mohammed is one of the people being tried in civilian court...also the ONLy terrorist of the bunch that was nabbed in Afghanistan based on intelligence info AND one of the only ones actually water boarded. It just makes absolutley no sense that of the 8 terrorists, he is one of the ones with the least sensitive info surrounding him

The Nuremburg Trials were violations of international law by the Nazis"Crimes against Humanity." They were tried in Germany which at the time was a militarily occupied country. The laws of the British, American and French (And Russian in the East) military WERE the law.

The 9/11 conspirators broke American law, "3000 counts of conspiracy to commit murder." American law is covered by the civilian courts.

They also broke international law, but we would have to turn them over to the International Criminal Court - successor of the Nuremburg, Yugoslavia and Rwanda courts; but, we are not a member.

I believe those being tried in military court committed crimes against American servicemen overseas in territories held but not governed by the US. Therefore they are to be tried by the US military or the local government.

I could understand the Obama position better, if they wanted to bring all the terrorist to civilian trial.

But they are perfectly happy to bring most of them before a military tribunal.

So whats the difference between them ?

The judges at the Nuremberg Trials were not military judges- they were civilian judges asked to volunteer for the job. Germany was under Allied occupation. WWII was a real war. The so called war on terrorism is a series of campaigns directed against various groups- nothing like a declared war with a full war effort (as in Vietnam, Korea, etc.). Get your history right for a change.

Was the World Trade Center attack a multintional crime or a crime that happened in the State of New York City?

Which crimes in Germany did the US Constitution have jurisdiction over?

You do realize the 1993 World trade center bombers where tried the same way and are pushing 240 years in the ADX Florence supermax prison in Florence Colorado right?

You do realize the US Courts that they will be tried in, have a better conviction rate than the miitary tribunals right?

You do realize Article 3 section 2 of the US Constitution tells exactly where and how they should be tried, right??

Just pointing those facts out, because when you put things in perspective your argument sounds like you want those terrorists to have a better chance of being released.

And anyone who thinks they are going to be given rights, as a US citizen, should be pointed at, and laughed at.