Should Terrorists be given a trial?

Well, this is from the al-Awlaki thread. Now Terrorism is a crime in all countries and my question is, Should terrorists be given a trial for their actions when it is possible or should they be killed on sight?

If they're in the middle of committing a terrorist act, they should be killed on sight. Otherwise, it would be wise to ensure that the people we're rounding up actually happen to be terrorists. After that, though, they should definitely be executed.

Yes, killing people just based on accusation is dangerous

at the very least there should be trial in absentia where judge can issue death or alive warrant. giving this power to executive is not good.

If you can capture them without getting soldiers killed, do so. Whether to capture them if there is a substantial risk of soldiers getting killed depends on a variety of variables that I do not know where to find. (For instance, is a major leader who's in jail less likely to inspire further attacks than one who's dead and proclaimed a martyr?)

edited 1st Oct '11 2:00:43 AM by feotakahari

You have to catch them first. With the ones in prisons like Guantanamo that isn't an issue however. If you have the evidence give them trial. If not, why are they imprisoned in the first place?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They're entitled to fair trial, like anybody else.

Furthermore, non-State actors waging war against governments should be entitled to POW status, provided they're not war criminals.

edited 1st Oct '11 3:27:15 AM by SavageHeathen

As much as I'd love to say yes, we need to remember this is war.

How many soldiers are killed instead of captured? Its just a fact of war. You don't capture every soldier, only when they surrender.

Thorn, we also have a war on drugs. Should be murder every dealer without a trial too?

The war on drugs is idiotic. Protecting your nation from terrorists is not. That said, it's important to ensure that you have actually found terrorists; if you find them committing, or about to commit, terrorist acts, kill them. If you simply have evidence of terror links, detain them and set a trial to prove it. If they are, then execute them.

edited 1st Oct '11 4:14:39 AM by tropetown

Actually it is. If terrorists wanted to actually kill maximum people, they'd attack insulin factories. Instead, they want to be as disruptive as possible, and we allow ourselves to be terrorized ot of our wits because what they do is not part of the plan. Car accidents, tobacco and calcohol consumption, produce orders of magnitude more deaths than terrorist attacks, and yet we don't care because they're so convenient.

Terrorists should get trials just like any criminals ever. If Ted Bundy got a chance to defend himself, why shouldn't Al Zawahiri too?

edited 1st Oct '11 5:04:59 AM by PacificState

There is a lot of problem in Anwar Awlaki case

if Terrorist is a crime :

• trial in absentia is unconstitutional in USA
• even it just an indictment, it have to be delivered to be legal
• UPDATE : Yemen cannot enforce extradition

if Terrorism is a war

• Authorization to Use Military Force is not declaration of war
• did Yemen battlefield ? did whole planet battlefield ?
• UPDATE : al-qaeda in Yemen didn't exist yet on sept 2011, AUMF specifically targeted organization that launch attack on 9/11

edited 1st Oct '11 5:22:52 AM by PhilippeO

@whaleofyournightmare:

I think that the "war" is metaphorical rather than literal, so it doesn't really fit in here, but that's by the by.

Anyway, I think that if it's possible then yes, capture is desirable. However, if that would be too difficult or there is an imminent/very high likelihood of danger, then just shoot him/her, no questions asked.

If it's convenient and reasonable to expect that you can take a known terrorist alive with minimal risk to your troops and political fallout, go for it.

However, using Al Awlaki as an example since this thread spun off from it, it was a dangerous man surrounded by dangerous people, the only way to even attempt a capture would be to do what we did in Pakistan with Osama in Yemen, and I don't think it would be a good idea to land troops in another country like that right now, not for this guy. Their mission wouldn't be assured either, the compound struck by the drone that killed those particular terrorists was heavily guarded by way more folks than Osama had.

So if you can catch them alive, good. If you can't but have the chance to kill them, kill them and don't waste your chance because they certainly won't.

edited 1st Oct '11 5:58:04 AM by Barkey

Only if they surrender without a fight. They put up resistance of any kind, they forfeit their right to live let alone their right to a trial.

The question of "whether X should be given a trial" is meaningless, because trial is needed to determine that they are X in the first place.

The only question that an be asked is "Should suspected in terrorism be given a trial", and this one would be really afraid if the answer was "no".

Of course, in the middle of actual combat situation is different

edited 1st Oct '11 7:45:18 AM by Beholderess

The fact that anyone can even ponder asking this question deeply disturbs me.

Justice does not take a vacation for the issues of the day. Either you believe in your justice system, or not. You don't just categorically throw out a group of criminals because you don't think the justice system can 'handle' them. Of course we do not always try to arrest people if they're actively causing harm to others and capturing them would sacrifice more lives, and terrorists are no exception to that. But in situations where it is practical to capture them and send them through the justice system, there is no excuse for not doing so - save for that persistent othering of terrorists that the right feeds on so much.

Anyone captured alive, whether through combat or not, is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers.

If you're in a combat situation, it's different.

Well, I only asked the question because the American tropers were celebrating the guys death and I thought "Well other nations tended to try terrorists why can't the USA"

edited 1st Oct '11 8:09:29 AM by whaleofyournightmare

Try them if you can, shoot them if you can't. Not that difficult...

And subvert the concepts of due process and innocent til proven guilty? Slippery slope there my friend

You try to arrest people in battlefield situations and tell us how that works out for you...

Does Northern Ireland count?

Sam Vimes and Captain Carrot arrested two armies all by themselves.

I duno. Possibly. If they shoot at you, arresting them is secondary to not dying. If not, then we take them in. How hard can this possibly be as a theory?