Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Are we at war?

If so, why would we try an enemy combatant in civilian court?

If the President's number one job is to protect the citizens of The United States, do you think he is thinking and responding in the best interest of Americans?

Why/Why No?

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 4:39 PM on Feb. 12, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (10)
  • I'll admit I am not fully informed on the subject and I'd like to get more information.

    I heard a reporter on NPR who has followed the whole thing and he basically said that there is nothing new with the way this is being handled. He said its totally consistent with the way the Bush administration handled alleged terrorists and the way previous administrations did as well. He also said that the idea that there is some sort of seperate military system set up to deal with terrorists is a fallacy. Also, he said that the xmas day attempted terrorist's family was totally cooperative and helpful, which is what we want, and they wouldn't be if they thought he was going to be swept away to some unknown location to be tortured and unfairly tried. Oh, and he went through what happened after the arrest, which was that the xmas day bomber was interrogated under an exception that allows questioning if the public is in percieved danger..

    Answer by Bellarose0212 at 4:45 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • then he went in for some needed medical treatment and when he came out, he was asking for a lawyer. So, then they read him his rights and started proceeding through lawyers.

    Answer by Bellarose0212 at 4:46 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • Maybe your to stupid to research the facts but there were more than 190 enemy combatants tried in civil court in the past 8 years

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:47 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • OH oh, and he said that the Republicans were informed of the whole civilian court thing and had no objections at the time (with the first controversy) because it was actually business as usual. But then later it became a political talking point.

    Answer by Bellarose0212 at 4:48 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:54 PM on Feb. 12, 2010


    "The Bush administration used the criminal justice system to convict more than 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges," Holder wrote. The attorney general specifically mentioned the case of Richard Reid, who tried but failed to ignite a shoe bomb on a U.S.-bound trans-Atlantic jetliner.

    "The practice of the U.S. government followed by prior and current administrations without a single exception, has been to arrest and detain under federal criminal law all terrorist suspects who are apprehended inside the United States," Holder added.

    "There is no court-approved system currently in place in which suspected terrorists captured inside the United States can be detained and held without access to an attorney; nor is there any known mechanism to persuade an uncooperative individual to talk to the government that has been proven more effective than the ....

    Answer by Bellarose0212 at 4:54 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • Prior to September 11, the U.S. government had prosecuted all terrorists in civilian criminal courts. After 9/11 and the beginning of the "war on terror," Congress granted President Bush war powers and he soon ordered the establishment of military tribunals. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth argued that applying war rules—including the use of military tribunals—to the "war on terror" has dangerous implications, since this conflict appears open-ended and its boundaries are unclear. International law expert Ruth Wedgwood responded in the same journal issue that "a war is in fact waging, and criminal law is too weak a weapon."


    Answer by Anonymous at 4:59 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • We are always at war somewhere,aren't we?

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:26 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • Weren't others tried in civilian courts too?

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:32 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

  • When was the last time we had a president whose #1 priority was protecting the American people? Not this one, not Bush, not Clinton, not Daddy Bush, not Reagan, not Carter, (did Ford do ANYTHING AT ALL?), certainly not far back do we have to go to find a POTUS who cared?

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:36 PM on Feb. 12, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.