[Janos]

US military has not executed anyone since 1961 though. One guy was convicted back in 2008 but his execution has been postponed. And you do realize that in court-martial, unless it's a kangaroo court, evidence does matter, right? Even though proof was uncontroversial, it still requires handling in court with respect given to evidence, even if the result was already known in advance. CMs do not get to announce someone guilty of a crime and just outright execute them without a trial, I don't know where you got that idea from.

There is also a question about just what is wartime.

[headdie]

at the end of the day at war or not the role of the military of any country is to protect the country's territory, citizens and laws.  A fundamental law as defined by international treaty is that everyone has the right to a fair trial with a presumed innocence until found guilty, for America to go against that would be to abandon one of the freedoms they are supposedly fighting for.  Heck even the Nazis have and continue to get the right to a fair trial.

[Commander Zane]

US military has not executed anyone since 1961 though. One guy was convicted back in 2008 but his execution has been postponed. And you do realize that in court-martial, unless it's a kangaroo court, evidence does matter, right? Even though proof was uncontroversial, it still requires handling in court with respect given to evidence, even if the result was already known in advance. CMs do not get to announce someone guilty of a crime and just outright execute them without a trial, I don't know where you got that idea from.

There is also a question about just what is wartime.

Looks like there's another tally in my book for bull**** they contine to feed us then.

[Nuclear1]

If you killed a dozen people infront of a hundered witnesses...I don't see how can the verdict be anything but guilty.

frankly, in such cases, you can even skip the trial

Trash, what do you do on the weekends?  Kidnap muggers and chop their heads off?

I'd rather spend weeks and spend millions to give someone a fair trial then just save the money and execute him right there.  But maybe that's because I give a **** about other people's legal rights.
-
As for those links:  NO PROBLEM!

Jihad Watch:  Apparently the Seattle Times begging it's readers to not associate Islam with the Fort Hood murders to avoid racist fearmongering among American citizens is bad news for...racist fearmongerer Robert Spencer.  No, Spencer, you asshole, it's not Sharia law, it's common sense.  Get over yourself you twit.  If you're not sick to your stomach just from that, you can read more equally-disgusting articles on the same website.

Fox News:  Brian Kilmeade thinks Muslims in the US military need additional screening because of what happened.  Same as gays, you know?  I don't want a guy in my foxhole who might kill me!  But he's right I guess, since no Muslims are known to serve honorably in the mil--oh wait.  So maybe Kilmeade's just an asshole.

Rush Limbaugh:  Stupid and stupider.

In fact, Dobbs, O'Reilly, WND, and Beck all get covered here.


****ing right-wing hate media.  Goob, there's a reason my post is worded as it is:  because it's true!  I'm sorry the right side of the fence is full of Islamophobic, paranoid, racist slobs, but I didn't make this crap up.

the first two I looked at were thehuffingtonpost.com and theyoungturks.com, neither of which is anything more than a mouthpiece/yesman for extreme left who wouldn't know an original thought if it came up, cracked them in they're emptyheadfullofmush, and took they're wife/GF for a "trip around the world" in front of them

Oh, shut up.  Arianna and Cenk have reported more truth through this whole mess of a health care debate and paranoid fear-mongering bull**** then you would know.  But since they have political beliefs opposite of yours, they're instantly just mouthpieces of the liberals.

You wouldn't know honest reporting if it came up, cracked you in your emptyheadfullofmush, and took your wife/GF for a "trip around the world" in front of you.

[StarSlayer]

TBH I'm not sure why everyone is so rilled up.  Fox News commentators don't dictate the Justice System, they're talking heads.  As much as they might scream from the airwaves, the Army isn't going to skip a trial and hang him because Wolf Blitzer says there is incontrovertible evidence and he's a Muslim.  Sure, are there probably a quite a few people who agree with the whole "he's a A-Rab hang him" sentiment?  Probably.  But they aren't the policy deciders, so take it with a grain of salt that the guy is a twat and move on.  There is a mighty big difference between saying something and having it happen.  I think its a little early to say America is falling apart just because Wolf Blitzer doesn't like Muslims. 

[karajorma]

I say we execute Wolf Blitzer without a trial.

[General Battuta]

I'm moving to posthumistan.

[Janos]

TBH I'm not sure why everyone is so rilled up.  Fox News commentators don't dictate the Justice System, they're talking heads.  As much as they might scream from the airwaves, the Army isn't going to skip a trial and hang him because Wolf Blitzer says there is incontrovertible evidence and he's a Muslim.  Sure, are there probably a quite a few people who agree with the whole "he's a A-Rab hang him" sentiment?  Probably.  But they aren't the policy deciders, so take it with a grain of salt that the guy is a twat and move on.  There is a mighty big difference between saying something and having it happen.  I think its a little early to say America is falling apart just because Wolf Blitzer doesn't like Muslims. 

Talking heads do have disproportionate power. Tea Parties, OBAMA IS A SECRET MUSLIM KENYAN COMMUNIST, death tax, stupid talking points, and so on. Gleen Beck's idiotic conspiracty theories are actually believed by some Americans. Look, Fox News highjacked, promoted and covered Tea Parties: first they make people just fume with anger, and finally people bring guns to politically volatile rallies. They have power. And it is worrying.

If they celebrate vigilance, pick up targets, publicly focus on them, directly or indirectly state "it would be better if this Tiller the Baby Killer was dead" and sometime after such a parade something bad happens - Tiller was eventually murdered, although he had been assaulted before - it is not outlandish to take a closer look at the talking heads.

Indirectly inciting violence is not acceptable.

[Ziame]

Um, bout the war thingie, US isn't at war with anyone, cause it's just DEFCON 4  ( This refers to normal, increased intelligence and the heightening of national security measures. [wiki]).

And bout the trial: it doesn't matter WHAT he has done. Democracy grants every citizen the right to be proven guilty. If you skip one trial, then you're tempted to do it more and more often, and that's not a good path, is it?

[NGTM-1R]

Now unless you've heard how UCMJ and all the military jib-jab works any and every arguement you have against my statements are invalid.

He has yet to be convicted of a crime, so all this is still up in the air. Janos is also correct. Though I don't notionally disagree with the death penality being on the table, in this case I don't think it'll help anything. If the man was looking for martyrdom, why give it to him?

(Yes, I'm suspending my usual capital punishment support in favor of being a dick.)

[Titan]

Considering my school has just about every minority group imaginable (Yes.), I'm pretty accepting of people's religion/etc. I know for a fact there is at least 5 Muslims in the high school.

Though I've never seen them pray on a mat...

[Blue Lion]

Even that 20th hijacker guy got his day in court.

[Mongoose]

I still like how just about no one in here has acknowledged the thread title as a complete straw man.  Just throwing that out there again.

[Flipside]

The important thing about justice is not simply that it is done, but that it is seen to be done.

[Macfie]

Who'd have ever thought that Nuclear1 was in reality Wolf Blitzer.  All this Fox bashing on his part was just a smokescreen.  To think he actually started a thread here in HLP admitting it.  Well admitting the problem is the first step toward recovery.  

[Liberator]

mediamatters.org is hardly an unbiased source of information, particularly since they are known to have a mad on for Rush, O'Reily, Hannity and Beck.

I don't really think anyone, other than maybe Wolf Blitzed is suggesting that they don't need a trial.  My main gripe is that instead of a Nuremburg type affair, the Justice department seems bound and determined to put them through a Criminal proceeding, which I feel they are undeserving of.

Now, what they perpetrated was certainly criminal, but it was also an act of war against the United States.  That, to me, classes them as, at best, POWs, which are bound by a very specific set of regulations that I'm not familiar enough with to speak at length about, just that they don't get mixed in with the civilian court system.  It's up to the military to try them I believe.

Let me be very clear, I'm not saying they don't deserve a trial where the evidence against them can be aired, only that said trial is no the domain of the civilian authority.  This criminal proceeding is likely to turn into a "This is how America is guilty of blahblahblah."  Which is not what it's supposed to be about.

[General Battuta]

Terrorists in general should be given civilian trials and treated as common criminals, I think. Treating them as soldiers and warriors dignifies them and gives them the publicity that feeds their movement.

[Nuclear1]

mediamatters.org is hardly an unbiased source of information, particularly since they are known to have a mad on for Rush, O'Reily, Hannity and Beck.

They're taking unedited audio and video clips.  Yes, MM is a progressive-leaning website, but the clips are pure Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck making asses of themselves. 

I don't really think anyone, other than maybe Wolf Blitzed is suggesting that they don't need a trial.

It sort of goes without saying that right-wing commentators don't think terrorists deserve a trial...or any other rights, for that manner.  See:  Gitmo.

Now, what they perpetrated was certainly criminal, but it was also an act of war against the United States.  That, to me, classes them as, at best, POWs, which are bound by a very specific set of regulations that I'm not familiar enough with to speak at length about, just that they don't get mixed in with the civilian court system.  It's up to the military to try them I believe.

They're not part of any organized, uniformed military.  They're really nothing better than a loosely-affiliated group of murderers and common criminals.  Hence, civilian criminal proceedings.  There's a reason they can't provide the Big Four in detention...name rank serial number and date of birth.

Let me be very clear, I'm not saying they don't deserve a trial where the evidence against them can be aired, only that said trial is no the domain of the civilian authority.  This criminal proceeding is likely to turn into a "This is how America is guilty of blahblahblah."  Which is not what it's supposed to be about.

So, what, they're not allowed to present their story?  Motive, reason behind why they committed their crimes...that's a major deciding factor in a criminal proceeding.  They're entitled to defend themselves, even if the defense is "America committed these crimes in my homeland".

[SpardaSon21]

Hasan is a U.S. citizen and also a currently-serving member of the U.S. Army.  The only homeland he should be concerned about is the United States.

[Nuclear1]

Hasan is a U.S. citizen and also a currently-serving member of the U.S. Army.  The only homeland he should be concerned about is the United States. I haven't been paying attention the last 35 posts

Fixed that for ya.

No one's talking about Hasan right now.  We're talking about terrorists in general.