- NEW!
by Anonymous on November 22nd, 2009
They probably fear being implicated.
Wars make money for Republicans. That's why they promote them, so much.
+5
by Hardcore Conservative on November 23rd, 2009
It's got nothing to do with fear. The terrorists, who hate everything about our country, are going to be given the same protections as the taxpayers they are trying to kill. The protections of the very rights they are trying to destroy. It's a waste of money.
by olan black on November 23rd, 2009
Good question, i would guess there are a few issues involved with this:
1. lose of income, the terrorist are currently being guarded by a very expensive group contracted from KBR, for the file photos showed on the news, they show military guards, but they are guarded by contracted guards who would love for them to stay right were they are.
2. putting an end to the issue: Dick Cheney daughter has started a cash cow "non profit" called "keep America safe". If the terrorist are placed in jail, or executed, then she has no platform for her non-profit, Oh, if you run a non-profit, you pay yourself from the donations, and she has raised millions already.
3. resolution: by resolving the issue, there is one less platform for ultra conservatives to soapbox about
4.information: maybe the one prisoner that was released because he was actually a reporter from Algeria was just the tip of the iceberg, it is possible that some of them actually have done nothing wrong (remember the weapons of mass destruction fiasco)
by Sarah M on November 23rd, 2009
No one fears this trial, What they object to is giving enemy combatants the same protection as American citizens when they have already pled guilty and stated they want a death sentence in the military system. This would be a slam dunk,execution, over.
This administration wants a public trial because it will be THE news story day in and day out and they are hoping they can drag it out as it will distract the American people from focusing on all the crappy legislation they are trying to cram down our throat.
by Vaporeongirl on November 23rd, 2009
Because the longer you leave them alive, the more time they have to plot another terrorist attack and kill more Americans. Habeas Corpus should not apply to them.
by acablue on November 23rd, 2009
Conservatives aren't afraid of public trials for terrorists they just don't like them because they understand the dangers of them! Here are just a few of the problems:
Under the law when you are arrested or interrogated you must be mirandized. Since there guys were captured on the field of battle they were not read their Miranda rights which means the charges could and should be dropped in a public court. They'd be set free based on a small technicality.
In the discovery process their defense lawyers have the right to see what the government has on them which in a public court means that government secrets will be made public. In the first such trial Osama Bin Laden got a list of names of people the government were watching which enabled him to figure out how the government was on to them and to change his tactics.
There has been no explanition of why these 5 guys get a pubic hearing and why all the rest don't! This means that all of the others can now petition for a public hearing.
by Wynper on November 23rd, 2009
I am a republican and I do not fear public trials of terrorists.
I put this in the comment section but I am going to put this here too.
What makes our country great is that we are (ideally) guided by the rule of law. If we do not adhere to our principles and to the rule of law when dealing with those attack us it is proof to those that sought to and that will seek to destroy us that they won.
Have a look at the figure of justice. You know her right? Blindfolded and holding a scale (and sometime a sword) she embodies the ideal of justice that we aspire to and that the founders felt it was essential for us to succeed. She delivers justice without favor, regardless of identity or station, objectively and without fear.
Lady Justice is the standard we aspire to and I loath the compromises we have made post 9/11 in this country. Domestic spying, airport searches, The Patriot Act and so on...each one of these are concessions to those who seek to destroy our way of life. Each one of those things are a win for those who attacked us. No more concessions please. Let's get out of the gutter they dragged us into and stand tall again.
Waste of money? Is it a waste of money to show those terrorists that their acts cannot make us abandon the greatest (although flawed) system of justice in the the world? I don't think so.
by TheJoker on November 23rd, 2009
I'd imagine, if this is true, that it's because the manor of some of these individuals apprehension, detention, & treatment while detained would contravene most civilised societies law, & could mean any evidence against them being inadmissible. & as this was all done under direction of the Republicans it would be a public relations disaster if, because of their actions, dangerous terrorists were let free.
by Natylino121 on November 23rd, 2009
Money, fear & loss
by Major Look at yerself on November 22nd, 2009
Just a guess, perhaps they are worried about the similarity of tactics.
What does GOP mean in politics?
by Answerbag Staff on May 31st, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Are Republicans the only ones that work hard in this country?
by Mister_Bromide on February 12th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Are you a working self-sustaining tax-paying load-bearing Republican?
by Mister_Bromide on February 12th, 2012
| 2 people like this
Where did the GOP originate?
by Answerbag Staff on May 27th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Should CPAC be held in the Cayman Islands next year?
by Mister_Bromide on February 12th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Why do Republicans fear public trials for terrorists?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
As much as it does for the Liberals.
by Hardcore Conservative on November 23rd, 2009
Not really. If it did, Obama and his henchmen wouldn't be setting a timetable (as this is being posted) to get troops OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq. The GOP had 8 freaking years to end these wars, and they didn't.
.
Thank Gawd that someone is in office now, who will do MORE than just "pay lip service" to the idea of troop withdrawal.
.
The "Liberals" GET THINGS DONE, while the GOPpers merely discuss it.
.
Keep in mind that it was a "bleeding heart liberal" who gave the green light to ending the war with Japan, by dropping TWO atomic bombs on them.
.
"#3" was planned to be dropped right on the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.
by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009
If war makes money for republicans why until recently have all wars been started by democrats. Democrats have historically been the party that starts wars.
by Sarah M on November 23rd, 2009
Pres. Eisenhower, a Republican, was the one who first deployed American military personnel to South Vietnam, prior to 1961. He said they were going ONLY "as advisors." Some "advice." His "advice" cost the lives of 58,000 troops.
.
It was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that got the USA into WWII, not the Democrats. But, a Democratic POTUS certainly "responded" to it.
.
Pres. Lincoln was a Republican, and is credited with "causing" the Civil War (1861-65).
by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009
World war one president Wilson, Democrat, World war two (for whatever reason) Roosevelt, Democrat. Korea, Truman, Democrat. Vietnam regardless of whether Eisenhower sent advisers it was Kennedy and particularly Johnson who escalated it into a war. I don't think anyone is going to knock Lincoln for the civil war.
by Sarah M on November 23rd, 2009
Korea & Vietnam were not "wars," because in order for them to qualify for that term, the US Congress would have had to officially declare war on North Vietnam, which was never done, nor was it done to North Korea. Those events were officially labeled "Police Actions."
.
That's partly why so many students were protesting the Vietnam conflict, because young males were being drafted to fight in an Undeclared "War," which made many believe it was illegal to draft kids to fight in a conflict, without an official declaration of war by the US Congress.
by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009
Kind of splitting hairs aren't you? Ask the men who fought and died if they thought they were in a war or a police action. The result is the same, Young men die. The fact remains, Police action, war or what ever you want to call it are historically started primarily by democrats.George Bush responded to an attack on our soil just as Roosevelt did in world war two, Using your logic I assume he gets a pass as well.
by Sarah M on November 23rd, 2009
You may look at the history of those police actions and they are called The Vietnam "War" and the Korean "War" in our history books as well.
by Sarah M on November 23rd, 2009
"A rose, by any other name..."
by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009
Lincoln didn't "cause" the civil war. He responded to it, nor was there a declaration of war in that action either. Lincoln, a Republican, attempted to stop the spread of slavery which the southern Dems wanted to continue to push. Hostilities didn't start until the South attacked Fort Sumter.
But I guess since it wasn't a declared war, it doesn't really count.
by Hardcore Conservative on November 24th, 2009
The way "it" was explained to me, is that the US Congress cannot declare war "on itself;" it can only be declared against another nation/country.
by Anonymous on November 24th, 2009
A president can lawfully and constitutionally engage in a war without congressional approval. They usually request a formal congressional declaration but none is required by the constitution. The war powers act of 1973 is the only limiting factor in the presidents ability to send troops into combat and only limits the number of troops he can send while awaiting congressional approval. It does not prohibit him from sending troops to war without a congressional declaration.
by Sarah M on November 24th, 2009
Eisenhower and Kennedy were presidents BEFORE the "War Powers Act" of 1973, respectfully.
by Anonymous on November 24th, 2009
I'm aware of that. The war powers act does not require a formal declaration of war by congress either for a president to engage in war. Congressional approval is only required to escalate a conflict beyond a certain point. This was in direct response to Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam war.
by Sarah M on November 24th, 2009
Yes, it was.
by Anonymous on November 24th, 2009
@Mensan - the south had already seceeded from the Union and elected Jeffereson Davis by the time Lincoln took office. IN effect, they were a seperate nation. Thanks to Pierce and Buchanan, the struggles between the pro and anti slavery faction led to war.
by Hardcore Conservative on November 25th, 2009
My apologies, Sir, but your contention is inaccurate, for the following reasons:
.
Abraham Lincoln was sworn into office as the POTUS, on March 4, 1861.
.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
.
The Civil War began on April 12, 1861, one month AFTER Lincoln was sworn into office.
.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
.
But you are indeed correct that the Confederacy had been formed, before Lincoln was sworn into office.
by Anonymous on November 25th, 2009
"The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861."
.
"Hostilities began on April 12, 1861..."
.
"South Carolina adopted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" on December 24, 1860."
.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
by Hardcore Conservative on November 30th, 2009
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/8415576
by Anonymous on November 30th, 2009