#1
With my Criminal Justice teacher, and I just wanted to see your views on the subject.

Should any suspected terrorists be given public trials? I mean, it's a basic human right, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, I don't see why not.
#5
Quote by genghisgandhi
With are hard stance like that, I don't see how you could lose a debate.

And when you say huge, do you mean a shouting match, or was it just long?

It actually got kind of heated, he's pretty ignorant when it comes to his views, I mean, he's a CJ teacher.
#6
So you could say it was a.... MASS DEBATE!
Quote by BladeSlinger
Oh God I lol'ed

Quote by Ēzio



Would you like to see my Soundcloud?
I love Padgea7x
#10
The only potential problem I can see with having a suspected terrorist given a public trial (apart from the ridiculous circumstances such as revenge attacks etc) is the possibility of a jury member coming into the case with pre-conceived ideas and opinions but that's a risk in any trial.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#12
Quote by captaincrunk
Why should we give someone a trial when we're not sentencing them or charging them with anything?


Terrorism isn't a crime?
#13
I think terrorists should be seen as POWs rather than criminals. What to do with POWs is another issue in itself, but clearly terrorists aren't motivated in the ways that serial killers, gangsters, and rapists are. Terrorists see themselves as soldiers in a war, so they shouldn't be grouped with criminals.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#14
Quote by Lemoninfluence
The only potential problem with having a suspected terrorist given a public trial is the possibility of a jury member coming into the case with pre-conceived ideas and opinions but that's a risk in any trial.

That point was never brought up, but it's a very good one.
He was just stuck on the safety of the people, saying that the President would have to be there to be questioned by the defendant and whatnot.
Even if that would happen, wouldn't you think that every one would be searched up and down? And people stationed all over the place? I'm sure we'd have the safety of the President on lock.

EDIT:
Quote by rgrockr
I think terrorists should be seen as POWs rather than criminals. What to do with POWs is another issue in itself, but clearly terrorists aren't motivated in the ways that serial killers, gangsters, and rapists are. Terrorists see themselves as soldiers in a war, so they shouldn't be grouped with criminals.

The point is that they aren't terrorists, they're only suspected.
Last edited by TheDefected at Apr 13, 2011,
#15
So what is it you're debating? We have tried any number of terrorists in standard criminal-justice courtrooms and convicted them as well. The folks responsible for the first world-trade-center bombing, Timothy McVeigh....
The controversy over the folks detained at Guantanamo is mostly political. Much of the evidence against these people is very weak, and it was obtained under means that won't pass constitutional muster.
So, there are people who are afraid if they were brought to trial in conventional ways they would walk.
So, they want to try them with "military tribunals" which have different standards of evidence.
It's difficult. Some of these guys are very dangerous and would undoubtedly continue to fight against us if released. Others are not, but no one wants them. They can't go back to their home countries as they'd simply be killed. No one else wants them.
#16
Quote by captaincrunk
Why should we give someone a trial when we're not sentencing them or charging them with anything?

Well they are being charged with a crime (terrorism is a crime) and the court would sentence the person (if found guilty) to whatever they choose.

Many terrorists have already gone through public trials, Timothy MCveigh comes to mind.
Quote by FatalGear41
In the end, the only question is: what bass would Jesus play?

I think he's a Fender Jazz guy.
#17
Quote by rgrockr
I think terrorists should be seen as POWs rather than criminals. What to do with POWs is another issue in itself, but clearly terrorists aren't motivated in the ways that serial killers, gangsters, and rapists are. Terrorists see themselves as soldiers in a war, so they shouldn't be grouped with criminals.

to give them a military trial gives a legitimacy to that 'war' mindset.

Treating them different reinforces the belief that they're separate and/or being treated unfairly.

Quote by TheDefected
That point was never brought up, but it's a very good one.
He was just stuck on the safety of the people, saying that the President would have to be there to be questioned by the defendant and whatnot.
Even if that would happen, wouldn't you think that every one would be searched up and down? And people stationed all over the place? I'm sure we'd have the safety of the President on lock.


why would the president be called to the stand? because he represents the system the alleged terrorist is fighting against? That wouldn't serve as a valid defence and if anything would re-enforce the terrorism charge rather than just a murder and criminal damage charge.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Apr 13, 2011,
#18
Quote by Lemoninfluence
to give them a military trial gives a legitimacy to that 'war' mindset.

Treating them different reinforces the belief that they're separate and/or being treated unfairly.


Good point, I was trying to work out what to define them and that has made up my mind.
#19
Quote by TheDefected

The point is that they aren't terrorists, they're only suspected.

Well "being a terrorist" or "hating America" isn't a crime or an act of war. They shouldn't have a trial at all.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#20
Quote by Greenie_777
Terrorism isn't a crime?

If I know someone has shoplifted, and I know you're in the area, I probably won't charge you with shoplifting based on that. I might keep an eye on you, since shoplifting isn't that dangerous and is pretty reversible. Now, lets say someone just murdered 15 people in the mall. You're in the area. I might detain you without charging you with mass murder because the evidence is clearly insufficient or perhaps if there were a trial straight away I might give too much of my own information gathering up in catching your accomplices. Why? Imagine if I let you go. Or worse...

Or I know a bearded man on a bicycle intends mass murder, you've a beard and you're on a bicycle. I let you go because I can't charge you with anything right now. You commit mass murder. It gets in the news that I let you go, and I am hung from a tree.
#21
Quote by rgrockr
Well "being a terrorist" or "hating America" isn't a crime or an act of war. They shouldn't have a trial at all.

Being a terrorist IS a crime. Or more specifically, being a member of a terrorist organisation and committing an act of terrorism are both crimes.

Quote by captaincrunk
If I know someone has shoplifted, and I know you're in the area, I probably won't charge you with shoplifting based on that. I might keep an eye on you, since shoplifting isn't that dangerous and is pretty reversible. Now, lets say someone just murdered 15 people in the mall. You're in the area. I might detain you without charging you with mass murder because the evidence is clearly insufficient or perhaps if there were a trial straight away I might give too much of my own information gathering up in catching your accomplices. Why? Imagine if I let you go. Or worse...

Or I know a bearded man on a bicycle intends mass murder, you've a beard and you're on a bicycle. I let you go because I can't charge you with anything right now. You commit mass murder. It gets in the news that I let you go, and I am hung from a tree.

What?

I think you're partaking in a different debate.

have fun.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Apr 13, 2011,
#22
Rant time.

This is what happens when we're in a perpetual state of war. In a state of war, your freedoms can be put on hold. This happened in internment camps in 1941, it happened with Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, it's currently happening in Guantanamo bay, and in my opinion it is one of the most dangerous concepts in America today.

Why? Because there is no longer a congressional declaration of war. We have not decided as a country to change our state of peace to a state of war.

Instead, we are told that we are in a perpetual state of war. In perpetual war, there is no freedom. Your freedoms can be taken away at the drop of a dime. Your freedoms can be taken away if you search something inappropriate on Google.

I am extremely against this policy. Until we wake up and realize that this eternal war on terrorism is a process that takes away our individual freedoms on U.S. soil, this theme will continue until we're a goddamn police state.
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
Last edited by SlinkyBlue at Apr 13, 2011,
#23
Quote by captaincrunk
If I know someone has shoplifted, and I know you're in the area, I probably won't charge you with shoplifting based on that. I might keep an eye on you, since shoplifting isn't that dangerous and is pretty reversible. Now, lets say someone just murdered 15 people in the mall. You're in the area. I might detain you without charging you with mass murder because the evidence is clearly insufficient or perhaps if there were a trial straight away I might give too much of my own information gathering up in catching your accomplices. Why? Imagine if I let you go. Or worse...

Or I know a bearded man on a bicycle intends mass murder, you've a beard and you're on a bicycle. I let you go because I can't charge you with anything right now. You commit mass murder. It gets in the news that I let you go, and I am hung from a tree.


Yea that's why they have the intelligence services watching these guys and gathering evidence until they have enough to arrest them.

How do you think they foil all the terror plots you hear about?
#24
Quote by Alucard817
Well they are being charged with a crime (terrorism is a crime) and the court would sentence the person (if found guilty) to whatever they choose.

Many terrorists have already gone through public trials, Timothy MCveigh comes to mind.

He had already committed the act, however. Many of these suspected terrorists would be committing acts were they not imprisoned, supposedly. Some might not have even caused any mayhem yet.

Quote by rgrockr
Well "being a terrorist" or "hating America" isn't a crime or an act of war. They shouldn't have a trial at all.

Actually being a terrorist is pretty much a crime. Kind of like "being a murderer" is a crime. In order to "be" a murderer you must... well murder.
#25
Quote by rgrockr
Well "being a terrorist" or "hating America" isn't a crime or an act of war. They shouldn't have a trial at all.


Everyone who is on trial is a suspect. Thats why there is a trial.
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#26
Quote by Lemoninfluence
What?

I think you're partaking in a different debate.

have fun.

No, I'm just saying that there might be a reason to avoid public federal trials and to extend the period of time which they can be held without reasons given.
Quote by WCPhils
Everyone who is on trial is a suspect. Thats why there is a trial.

But not every suspect is always on trial.
#27
Quote by captaincrunk
He had already committed the act, however. Many of these suspected terrorists would be committing acts were they not imprisoned, supposedly. Some might not have even caused any mayhem yet.


Except there are criminal charges for circumstances like that.

They're called inchoate offences. You still need evidence for them and they still require a trial.

And I still think you're missing the point. This isn't really about detaining suspects, it's about the right to a criminal trial with all the rights and procedures that brings v a special trial where the suspect's rights are diminished.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#28
Quote by captaincrunk
No, I'm just saying that there might be a reason to avoid public federal trials and to extend the period of time which they can be held without reasons given.

But not every suspect is always on trial.



Yea I should have worded that differently. I just meant that "being a terrorist" is in fact worthy enough to put someone on trial
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#29
Quote by WCPhils
Yea I should have worded that differently. I just meant that "being a terrorist" is in fact worthy enough to put someone on trial


Define terrorist. I am highly critical of the United States government to the point that I see a revolution occurring. Am I a terrorist? Am I unamerican?
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#30
I like this definition.

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,"
#31
Quote by Greenie_777
I like this definition.

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,"

All that boils down to is "a terrorist is someone who commits an act of violence for the purpose of influencing the public, an organisation or the government to do or abstain from doing any act that we say relates to terrorist aims"

or even more simply "a terrorist is someone who does something we define as terrorism".
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#32
Quote by TheDefected
It actually got kind of heated, he's pretty ignorant when it comes to his views, I mean, he's a CJ teacher.

What is the relationship between the intensity of debate, his ignorance (which you haven't demonstrated), and his career choice? (aside from the implicit humor, obviously)
#33
Quote by Lemoninfluence
All that boils down to is "a terrorist is someone who commits an act of violence for the purpose of influencing the public, an organisation or the government to do or abstain from doing any act that we say relates to terrorist aims"

or even more simply "a terrorist is someone who does something we define as terrorism".


It sounds pretty clear to me. Can you explain what you mean?
#34
Quote by Greenie_777
It sounds pretty clear to me. Can you explain what you mean?


It's like looking up anything in the dictionary that uses the same word to explain the word.

Spectate: to be a spectator.
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#35
Maybe I'm just dumb as **** but this is confusing me. You said define terrorist.

So I found the thing that says terrorism is when you commit an act of violence in order to scare people or intimidate them for a political, religious reason etc.

So a terrorist is someone who commits an act of terrorism.
#36
Quote by Greenie_777
Maybe I'm just dumb as **** but this is confusing me. You said define terrorist.

So I found the thing that says terrorism is when you commit an act of violence in order to scare people or intimidate them for a political, religious reason etc.

So a terrorist is someone who commits an act of terrorism.


This is where the logic falters, and McCarthyism in the new age comes about. Inciting rebellion can also be considered terrorism. However, in the Constitution, the people of the United States have a right to overthrow the government in a case of tyranny.

The people are too stupid to realize that this security policy is inhibiting on their rights. Mainly because they don't realize they have that right in the first place.
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#37
Quote by Greenie_777
It sounds pretty clear to me. Can you explain what you mean?

it's a self referencing definition.

"criminal acts ...which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism..."

After that my cynicism kicked in and I was referencing how these same laws could have been used to define the protesters/rebels in Egypt and Libya as terrorists.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Apr 13, 2011,
#38
Quote by SlinkyBlue
This is where the logic falters, and McCarthyism in the new age comes about. Inciting rebellion can also be considered terrorism. However, in the Constitution, the people of the United States have a right to overthrow the government in a case of tyranny.

The people are too stupid to realize that this security policy is inhibiting on their rights. Mainly because they don't realize they have that right in the first place.


Oh yea I get that. I thought we were just deciding what people considered terrorism.

I understand what you are saying now.
#39
Quote by SlinkyBlue
Rant time.

This is what happens when we're in a perpetual state of war. In a state of war, your freedoms can be put on hold. This happened in internment camps in 1941, it happened with Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, it's currently happening in Guantanamo bay, and in my opinion it is one of the most dangerous concepts in America today.

Why? Because there is no longer a congressional declaration of war. We have not decided as a country to change our state of peace to a state of war.

Instead, we are told that we are in a perpetual state of war. In perpetual war, there is no freedom. Your freedoms can be taken away at the drop of a dime. Your freedoms can be taken away if you search something inappropriate on Google.

I am extremely against this policy. Until we wake up and realize that this eternal war on terrorism is a process that takes away our individual freedoms on U.S. soil, this theme will continue until we're a goddamn police state.


George Orwell, 1984. Permanent state of war used to subdue the population.
I'm selling an ernie ball wah pedal. Buy my ernie ball wah pedal.
...
Wah pedal.

Quote by 23dannybhoy23
That's got to be my all time favourite online death threat

Quote by smokeysteve22


My chest hurts after that.