Roeder's Justified Murder Defense

[BonMallari]

I'm not sure what Manson, et al have to do with it. They were all murderers, but not terrorists in the political sense (although a case might be made for Manson). I actually shed few tears when violent criminals are killed "in action". However, that is not "justice" within the legal system. However, I go not trust governments in general and believe that view was shared by our founding fathers. That was the reason for defining rights in our Constitution as protections against government abuse.

The problems with lynch mods is that they want exceptions to be made in those cases where they just know they are right. Today we want to exempt those nasty Islamic radicals from protection because they are so clearly bad. I remember the 60's when a lot of powerful people wanted the same types of "exemptions" for anti-war protesters. Maybe tomorrow the government will go after the Lutherans or the atheists. Who knows. I'm not saying there are never exceptions, but I believe that the slippery slope on due process is even more dangerous than the slippery slope on guns. I do not trust government and I especially do not trust mob logic.

You are right very poor choice of a metaphor with Manson etc...I dislike the mob mentality too and yes I am old enough to remember the anti war protesters of the late 60's and 70's even though I was in high school at the time...not sure I equate due process being more dangerous than gun control, I'll leave that for another thread...I also think mob logic is an oxymoron...mobs have no logic

[code3retrievers]

I. I do not trust government and I especially do not trust mob logic.

What are you talking about? Not one person is talking about lynching this guy but they are asking that since he claims to be associated with al Qaeda (a well funded terrorist organization) which has declared war on the US then he should be treated as a war criminal and tried in a military tribunal.

You need to change the way you think about this type of organization. We are not living in the 60's any more.

Our military struggles for the next 50 years will not be against governments, but loosely organized private organizations or proxies of terrorist governments with attacks coming from individuals or small groups sponsored by these organizations.

[Gerry Clinchy]

With all the complaints about the possibility of terrorists being allowed to proclaim their ideology if given the platform of a trial, why are the same complainers saying nothing about Scott Roeder being permitted to argue that the murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified to prevent Tiller from performing additional legal abortions? If it is appropriate to permit Roeder to present this argument, isn't it equally appropriate for terrorists to present a defense arguing that their actions are justified?

I believe that the issue is that in the State in which Roeder is being tried there is a law on the books with the defense he proposes ... a honest belief that he was saving human life. It is not an insanity defense in the sense that we see it usually defined.

For the pantybomber, it seems that civil courts would have jurisdiction. I don't recall hearing that anyone believed he should be tried by a military tribunal. For the fellow who was to be brought to Manhattan for trial, I believe the scenario is different. If one of the 9-11 terrorists had survived, what jurisdiction would have prevailed? If it was from the plane aimed at the Pentagon v. the towers? The White House might qualify as a "military" target.

[YardleyLabs]

I believe that the issue is that in the State in which Roeder is being tried there is a law on the books with the defense he proposes ... a honest belief that he was saving human life. It is not an insanity defense in the sense that we see it usually defined.

For the pantybomber, it seems that civil courts would have jurisdiction. I don't recall hearing that anyone believed he should be tried by a military tribunal. For the fellow who was to be brought to Manhattan for trial, I believe the scenario is different. If one of the 9-11 terrorists had survived, what jurisdiction would have prevailed? If it was from the plane aimed at the Pentagon v. the towers? The White House might qualify as a "military" target.

Gerry, I agree with you and actually have no problems with the use of a justified homicide defense -- for either Roeder or Mutallab. My post is based on a concerted attack on the administration by congressional Republicans who argue that Mutallab should have been treated as an illegal enemy combatant so that he could be subjected to "enhanced" interrogation and then be detained indefinitely pending trial by military tribune. (see, for example, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...held-new-york/)

[Franco]

Gerry, I agree with you and actually have no problems with the use of a justified homicide defense -- for either Roeder or Mutallab. My post is based on a concerted attack on the administration by congressional Republicans who argue that Mutallab should have been treated as an illegal enemy combatant so that he could be subjected to "enhanced" interrogation and then be detained indefinitely pending trial by military tribune.

I am all for using whatever tools we haveto get information from terrorist with ties to Islamic terrorist or any other terrorist organization, foreign or domestic!

[DSemple]

Actually, repeated investigations of Tiller's clinic failed to find evidence that he was operating in a manner inconsistent with the law.

However, one of the tenets of our justice process is that the victim is not on trial. Just as it is illegal to rape a promiscuous person, it is illegal to murder a person you believe is bad. The dictionary defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror to coerce behavior. Thus, killing legal abortionists to convince them to stop operating is terrorism. Killing liberals and democrats to send a message is terrorism. Why should Roeder be treated any differently from Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab?

Slick sympathetic politicians and lawyers kept Tiller out of trouble with the law, but that is not really the point of your thread is it?

Jeff, as to Due process, is there any dollar amount limit we have to afford to foreign terrorists to provide for their defense?

And, following your liberal logic, if we are going to provide foreign terrorist once captured due process in our American court system, should we not also provide their colleagues, who the Obama administration is perfectly willing to take out with drone missiles abroad some form of due process before we kill them?

Confused conservative regards.

Don Semple

[david gibson]

there are many that say the whole thing behind the civilian vs military trials is because
President Barack Obama will have to personally sign the death warrant of Major Nidal Malik Hasan if he is convicted and sentenced to be executed for the Fort Hood massacre. this means a muslim ordering another muslim to his death - which is against Islamic law.

same logic with all the other terrorists.

this could be speculation - but it would not surprise me one bit. if Obama could sit through "GD America" Rev. Wright, his mentor and "uncle figure" and not know he felt that way then surely he missed any real christian messages (if any) the man espoused as well. Obamas church-going was a sham to shore up his image. THAT i do believe. the rest sure makes sense even if not substantiated....

[BonMallari]

The only thing BHO is going to sign is a Presidential commutation of the death sentence since he wont even acknowledge that it was an act of terrorism

[zeus3925]

The trouble with this discussion is the fact there is no formal declaration of war operant for the US. In the absence of such, I think a civilian trial for the underwear bomber is the most appropriate one.

[BonMallari]

Roeder guilty 1st degree murder took the jury about 30 minutes of deliberation...no brainer