Quote Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
but you cannot say you know. i will always go back to moazzam begg. the US said they knew he was an active al-qaeda memeber and a highly dangerous man, and they tortured him then let him go. sitting him in front of a kangaroo court changes nothing. you were sure then so making sure you are sure now makes no difference to that. sitting in front of a judge in a kangaroo court changes very little.
A millitary court martial is not a "kangaroo court". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial There are established rules and procedures for dealing with criminal offenses. now, even with streamlining a few of the procedures, the courts aren't just going to run around randomly convicting people of being terrorists for "Driving While Arab".

You keep ignoring the security issues. There are plenty of reasons that a terrorist suspect should not be tried by a regular court. Firstly, he could use the discovery process (which allows defendants to see evidence gathered against them and how it was collected) to find out what measures the FBI/CIA/US Special Forces are using to catch them. If they use their lawyer to send that info to another terrorist, then all we've done is make Al-Qaida better able to prevent detection.

Secondly, there would be threats to the Judge himself or other court officials, meaning that the lives of every person in that courtroom would be at risk. If a single untrained suspect can get hold of a gun and shoot a judge (and I think the court reporter too), what exactly do you think a terrorist trained in firearms could do with the same weapon?

Thirdly, there is a time-crunch issue. The longer it takes to try and convict a high level terrorist, the more likely it is that whatever plan he hatched will be carried out before the trial is over. And it isn't like we can get any intelligence before he is convicted, as his lawyer will be sitting in the questioning room telling him not to answer the questions. If the attack is a major one, that is a serious handicap to law enforcement's ability to save lives.

Quote Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
and torture acheives nothing, look at sandy mitchell, sentences to crucifiction and partial beheading in saudi arabia for a crime that he was tortured into confessing to. so an innocent man will plead guilty. and the guilty man... will tell you anything so long as it isn't the truth "so you say the bomb is washington, good glad to get that out of you, lets head to washington. boom goes new york, las vegas, disney land, somewhere else that isn't washington. torture supposedly works because people will say anything to make it stop. that's the problem, an innocent man will plead guilty and the guilty man will plead guilty to a different crime. it saves noone.
Torture should be a last ditch effort anyway. And if there's no other way to find out what you need to know, I'd rather take the chance even if it wasn't a sure bet. But the thing is that the cops will probably already know more than they tell the guy, so if they know it's East Coast, and he says Los Angeles, they'll know it's a lie.