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.
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.
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us to no end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C S Lewis
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.
Just for the record I have very fine dogs. Some of the best in the whole country....or at least on my own block anyhow.
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....
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.
I don't want to feed an ugly dog!