i'm just glad they're getting trials at all!

Mini, I promise I'm not following you! We seem to be to going to the same places.

Anyway, I second that. I used to watch court tv all the time. I don't see why that is any different. They were live high profile court cases.

But these are soldiers aren't they? Don't you have to act as an agent of a State to be considered a soldier? When Timothy McVeigh committed his terrorist act wasn't that treated as a crime? Besides the fact that they're from another country, what's the difference?

I agree racic. This is not about a group of soldiers attacking our soldiers. This is about a group of men that plotted the murder of 3000+ innocent people.

Showing the trial doesn't imply guilt...it would also televise the defense of the accused. I think that televising the proceedings would actually help with governmental transparency. I think it would help legitimize a "guilty" verdict.

I don't feel that televising the hearings to the victims families is a problem. Now if they televised it to the public at large then I think we have a problem.

I'm just glad to hear that someone at Guantanamo is getting a hearing.

I think if its televised nationally it would have more checks and balances with the entire legal world watching, I don't think it would make them look guilty.

Nuremberg Files were filmed weren't they?

This is just like those only in the 21st Century with current real time streaming.

I'd like to watch. I'm watching ewtn.org right now and a repeat of today's scheduled meetings with Pope Benedict XVI.

Families of victims usually sit in on trials do they not? This time there are just so damn many they would have to televise it.

The families certainly sound like they think showing the trials implies guilt: they are glad for "the ability to see justice being fulfilled in one of the most significant attacks on America's heartland." If prosecutors want to avoid the implication of guilt, why don't they help arrange for the families of the accused to view as well? They're innocent aren't they, until a jury finds them guilty?
This is why people in the Middle East have an unfavorable view of the United States, this is why almost all of them consider us a serious threat to them.
It's as if our government can't find enough ways to flip them off.

How is televising the proceedings for families of the victims to watch implying guilt? That is like saying anyone who is on trial is assumed to be guilty. When they televised the OJ trial, OJ was presumed innocent (OK bad choice maybe). The real sign that this is going to be a fair trial will be with the jury selection.

I have to agree with Stephly on this one about the guilt thing. that quote she posted "the ability to see justice being fulfilled..." indicates that the families think that the accused will be found guilty and served a punishment (maybe even hopeful of a harsh punishment). I do see where it could imply guilt to some, particularly the families of the victims.

As far as my vote I voted that I think the families should have a choice to watch it but I (probably) couldn't do it.

UnDave - while according to our legal systems code people are "innocent until proven guilty", I have to say that I think much of society sees it the other way around - guilty until proven otherwise. It's sad, but I do think that's how many see it. Even the time I was on jury duty, the people who served with me were like that, I was so disgusted with the whole thing that I hope I never have to serve on jury duty again (and I was actually excited about doing my civic duty etc... it sucked. People watch too many law shows and think they know everything)

But to see justice, the DA has to show to the jury that the accused on trial was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are found guilty, then justice will be served. If they are deemed innocent, then justice will be served for the accused.

This is a U.S. MILITARY trial being made available to the families -
"The military is borrowing a page from the civilian court sentencing hearing of Zacarias Moussaoui, a flight school student who is the only person convicted in the United States in connection with the September 11 plot. He pleaded guilty to conspiring with al Qaeda and was sentenced to life in prison.U.S. federal courts normally ban cameras. But through an act of Congress, Moussaoui's 2006 court was shown..."
There's no pretending this is in any way business as usual, or an attempt at being fair.

I would think having cameras recording the event would help make it fair. We can go back and see exactely what was said, and how it was said to derive any hidden meaning behind the question.

Well, I doubt that has anything to do with why prosecutors are doing it for their select audience.

Of course not. The prosecutors believe that the accused are guilty. But that's their job. The defense believes their clients are innocent. That's their job. The cameras keep the judge and jury honest.

At Guantanamo, it's going to take more than cameras to make it an honest trial. Good defense lawyers would be a better place to start.

I'd as much agree with everyone else if the televising wasn't one sided.

Sorry I have a problem defending the rights of terrorists. I know that I should but I'm still too angry about it.

I don't think televising it implies guilt. If the families think it does that's their personal perception and won't affect court proceedings that they aren't attending

The example you gave Stephley doesn't hold any merit because he already pled guilty. Therefore he IS guilty and the trial is just to determine what his punishment will be.

That second sentence didn't make any sense. Basically I'm saying that I know that I should care if the terrorist's rights are being violated, but that unfortunately I am too angry to care about that.

I'm with you Harmony. I couldn't care less about the rights of someone who didn't have any regard for others LIVES, much less the RIGHTS of the lives they took.

And as I mentioned before, other court cases are live on TV for all to watch. It doesn't imply guilt there.

I don't see any prejudgment of guilt in the quote about being grateful for "the ability to see justice being fulfilled in one of the most significant attacks on America's heartland." In fact, if you read on, one of the victims' family members says "I don't want it to be a lynching. I'm concerned that people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we won't be able to find them guilty because of what we've done with them. It's a horrible conundrum."

That sounds pretty fair, to me. The accused do have lawyers, we'll see how good they are as the events unfold. I think even our government understands that the best thing we can do to protect our international credibility is have a fair trial and transparent proceedings. (I wish it had been a little speedier, though.) The best thing we can do to disarm the jihadists is to show them we can be fair, even to those who declare themselves our enemies. Because it is a military trial, the standards of evidence are a bit different, but I'm crossing my fingers that this different standard isn't abused.

Most excellent point Lainetm!

What's shown on court t.v. is not federal court action and absolutely not military court action.
If Americans are allowed to remain angry and forget other people have rights as well, please remember that other people in the world feel equally justified in their pain and anger and will also give themselves the right to act on that anger.
In South Africa and Burundi, after years of very brutal repression and killings, they're actually trying something different - admission of guilt on both sides and forgiveness.

Technically, this isn't a military trial. Yes the military are helping guard the prisoners, but since these people are not part of a military, it isn't their jurisdiction. This should be in a criminal court.

"If Americans are allowed to remain angry and forget other people have rights as well, please remember that other people in the world feel equally justified in their pain and anger and will also give themselves the right to act on that anger."

Americans are trying to close the chapter on the attacks. That involves a trial of the accused, and if they are found guilty, sentencing to fit their crime(s).

I am amazed that in a society that wants to get rid of religion as much as this one does, you want us to also use that religion and forgive others. You can't have it one way without the other. If you want and expect Americans to forgive others, then we need to recognize that this is nation founded on Christian philosophies, and forgiveness is part of that philosophy. Since the masses consider us a secular society, forgiveness is not part of that.

UnDave, the military is running the trials, military prosecutors, showing the trials at military sites. If it's not their jurisdiction, then the trials are useless.

Which society wants to get rid of religion? Americans overwhelmingly consider themselves a religious/spiritual people - in 2003, 6 out of 10 Americans told Gallup religion played an important role in their lives. Have I ever said I wanted to get rid of religion? I've identified myself as Catholic several times. If you don't want to consider the option of forgiveness, which is not just a religious concept by the way, then don't, but blame other people for it.

IMPLYING GUILT by it (the court being on tv) shouldn't matter if it's military or civilian. What does implying guilt by being on tv have to do with being in the military, or not?

I agree hartsfull!

Thank you Harmony!

And how does having the trial on close circuit TV imply guilt?

It implies guilt because the U.S. military does not televise trials for anyone, yet in this one case, it will air the trial at certain bases to the benefit of the victims' families. They are putting on a show for a select audience. In the interest of true fairness, they could air it for everyone to see, or air it in the Middle East as well so that the families of the accused, who are innocent until blah blah blah, can feel certain that their loved one is getting a fair trial. The military is breaking precedent; it would be unusual enough if this was simply a federal trial.

Would you rather they hold the trials in an arena that is large enough to hold all the families of the victims, so that they can attend it live and in person? I don't see how televising equals guilt. Also, Whenever a precedent is made, another precedent is generally broken.

I hope you're right, but if it was the trial of my family member being televised for the specific benefit of the victims' families, on top of all the regular U.S. Constitutional rights that have been subverted at Guantanamo - I'd feel that the deck was stacked against them. I'm an American, raised in a family that's been career miltary for three generations, and I think the whole thing is a mockery of everything I was taught we stand for.

Let's not look at "all the regular U.S. Constitutional rights that have been subverted at Guantanamo". That's a different discussion altogether (I also disagree that there has been any wrongdoing). This is unchartered territory, and I think the military, and the judicial system is doing everything they can serve both the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims.

And how does having the trial on close circuit TV imply guilt?"
Dave,
Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me? J.K.(DeNIro fan? NO?)
Sorry once I say it the first time I here DeNiro's voice, can't help it.

Um, I wasn't thinking it did imply guilt. I was just responding to Stephs reply to (at least, I thought it was to me):
"And as I mentioned before, other court cases are live on TV for all to watch. It doesn't imply guilt there."

She replied with:
"What's shown on court t.v. is not federal court action and absolutely not military court action."

So then, I replied with:
"IMPLYING GUILT by it (the court being on tv) shouldn't matter if it's military or civilian. What does implying guilt by being on tv have to do with being in the military, or not?"

Meaning, how does having a military uniform suddenly change what viewers are thinking when they watch something on tv?

arrg! I meant, " I hear..."

Dave, don't ever make me that confused again.

But it's fun to watch you pull your hair out..

The uniform doesn't change anything - it's the fact that the military has decided that this trial is important enough to break precedence and air 'just for the victims' families'.
Of course, once precedence is broken it's hard to reinstate.

Usually trials are held near where the alleged crime was committed. This allows the victims' families to attend in person. Since that is not the case in this situation, the authority in charge of the proceedings is making a *limited* accommodation to compensate. In that sense, it's really not a huge change of precedent. What if, for example, Timothy McVeigh's trial had been piped--this is closed circuit, remember, not public airwaves for general publication--to an adjacent auditorium?

The immediate topic here is just the "closed circuit television" aspect of this whole affair. I believe this is a reasonable accommodation for the victims' families.

uDave, you have an excellent point, this is entirely new territory. And remember, this is an enemy that beheads civilians and puts the videos up on the internet. How can anyone feel that limited televising of the trial is inhumame? Puleeze!

I agree with you Lainetm, but remember, we can't excuse something just because the other side does something worse (little note of sarcasm).

That's a good point, UnDave. One should never stoop to the level of one's opponents, whether in war or friendly debate. :deadpan:

We survive, as individuals and a species, by adapting.

New styles of war demand the development of new tactics.

I believe that's the underlying source of many of our disagreements on this topic.
My heart would prefer to remain sedate and civilized.
My survival instinct advises me better.

My survival instinct says nuke 'em. We have the firepower and ability to erase all middleeasterners off the map. Then we could go back and harvest the oil for ourselves and those who don't want to kill us. The Christian part of me feels pretty much the same way. The humanitarian part of me thinks we should put them out of their misery. The environmental part of me says we can clean up the mess easier if bullets aren't flying over or at our heads. The realist part knows that the other parts are just having delusional fantasies....

Geez, why would any Middle Easterner fear our motives toward them? Our survival isn't at stake unless we persist in taking resources that aren't ours and imposing our will on other people. The U.S. survived a very long time without Middle Eastern resources - we are taking their resources now to maintain and grow our wealth and power.