Originally Posted by djplong

I'm not saying we can't have military trials. Far from it.

Suspected operatives captured outside the U.S. certainly fall into that category. My objection is holding them without even charging them for numerous years. If you arrested them, you must have had evidence (even if that evidence was "they shot at my platoon") so CHARGE THEM. Put them on trial.

If, however, they're Americans on our soil, the Constitution covers them, whether you like it or not. For other caught on our soil, I'd say that it depends on who caught them.

But even with military trials, *we* could end up paying for the lawyer of the accused - it's their right and it's one of the things that makes "us" better than "them" - fair trials.

Even the Nuremburg Trials lasted from November 1945 (just months after VE-Day) to October 1946. How many people have we detained for eight years without charge? How many did we hold for five or more years before releasing them without charge?

If you have evidence - use it. Charge them. Try them. The system still works. One can quibble over civilian or military, but follow the process. Again, that's one of the hallmarks of a democracy - we are a nation of laws, not men.