ok, so we convict him. do we want foreign terrorists to have constitutional protections and a beyond reasonable doubt standards? what if the judge tosses this case for lack of a speedy trial and cuts this guy loose?

I understand if people think this is the right thing to do. I just don't.

Cut loose?? I honestly can't see that happening, Somoco.

And I don't believe they will be acquitted either.

No, what we want is the world to see American justice, New York style, so they won't believe terrorist recruiters when they claim that we just kill accused terrorists in prison.

These top two 911 terrorists spent a couple of days on al-Jazeera TV detailing their crimes prior to capture. Convicting them will not be a problem for these very experienced NY prosecutors.....

which was, btw Rudy Giuliani's opinion before he got his new opinion.

He voted for a criminal prosecution before he voted against it, so to speak.

what if the judge tosses this case for lack of a speedy trial and cuts this guy loose?

What if pigs fly?

If you really beleive that a judge will cut loose a terror suspect based on that, you need to change your diaper... it is full.

Directly from cic bends-at-waist:

"NBC: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

NBC: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction I mean one of the purposes of doing going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.

Obama: Well

NBC: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

Obama: Look what I said was people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury. What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism and have brought multiple convictions before are telling us that they will convict this person with the evidence they've got going through our system. Now one of the things I think we have to break is this fearful notion that somehow our Justice system can't handle these guys. You know we convicted hundreds of terrorists one of the key perpetrators of 9-11 or one of the persons who didn't succeed was part of the planning of 9-11 was convicted, he's in a maximum security prison right now you've got Richard Reid who tried to blow up a plane coming over the Atlantic , he's in a supermax prison right now, directed by the way by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - so we've done this before , now I think that it is important for the American people to have confidence in ourselves and to recognize that when people carry out venal acts like this that we are able to handle it. Military commissions have been set up because there may be circumstances where the targets are military, outside of the U.S.

WAY TO BACKTRACK!

source:

its said that there are plenty of other charges they can hold him on
BUT every lawyer I have heard on cnn and fox says that if he defends himself for sure he would be able to see just how he was caught and what they knew and how they did it and who helped them and so much other shit that will get americans killed if that gets into other hands.

AND OF course...he may not want to get off too soon
that would limit his INTERNATIONAL PODIUM to tell the worls just how bad we are.

LOOKING FOR LINK

cbs and cnn and rasmussion polls ALL SHOW

vast majority of americans are not in favor of this.

HMMMMMMMM

okay so this isnt exactly VAST majority but it is more than not

WHile many Americans may oppose these trials in the abstract, once the nation actually sees how they are conducted and how good America ends up looking as a result, that opposition will be reduced to just rightwing NOPhers.

I disagree.
the exposure alone to the hows and whys and hows of capture of these pricks will damage enough to keep majority from drinking the obama swill

nanc, your #5.... that would be Baraktracking

My apology. The new dictionary I'm working on will have to include that one.

BL2: considering you are a rightwing NOPher, as I indicate in post #8, no matter how swimmingly the trials go and how wonderful America looks in the aftermath, you still will say it was a bad idea, - based strictly on your blinding partisan loyalty.

Babbler partisan?

Shocking!

#s 2 and 3

Oh, so while we need to accommodate these fuckers with a full and fair trial under our Constitution, if somebody screwed this up procedurally, the Judges are supposed to turn a blind eye to the Constitution to get a conviction?

And if it's not him, and we have another shithead terrorist where army guys busted in without warrants and guns in their faces - their statements out because they weren't Mirandized?

Call me a pant-pisser - but this is the door that Holder has just opened. So, maybe it doesn't hurt on this case, but just wait...

if somebody screwed this up procedurally, the Judges are supposed to turn a blind eye to the Constitution to get a conviction?

By that logic no violent criminal should ever be tried in criminal court. We should just lock them up until they die.

By that logic no violent criminal should ever be tried in criminal court. We should just lock them up until they die.

#16 | POSTED BY 726 AT 2009-11-18 03:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG

You were the one stating that they won't let this guy get by, implying that little things like the right to a speedy trial won't derail the prosecution.

I don't suggest ditching the Constitution - ever. What I do suggest is that foreign terrorists during the war aren't entitled to Constitutional protection. Surely that isn't a distinction beyond your comprehension.

First, why are these 5 given a civilian trial, which has never occurred for any frgn. fighters in the US EVER????????

Second of all how can you possibly get an unbais jury in NYC?????

Damn, a lib saying 'give him a trial then shoot the SOB'

What if Obama's comments are shown to have tainted the jury pool?

Just watch. This fucking case is going to fall apart very quickly now.

Second of all how can you possibly get an unbais jury in NYC?????

No clue. That's the only valid problem I see in all of this. I'm not sure you'd be able to find an unbiased jury anywhere in this country. You have to try, though.

These scumbags don't deserve their next breath, let alone a fair trial, but we must adhere to our principles if we are to claim any semblance of "moral superiority" in our pursuit of terrorists. The moment that we betray fundamental American values, even in dealings with our enemies, we become no different than a Muslim who betrays his faith by slaughtering innocent civilians.

America will have its guilty verdict. America will have its corpse. This is certain. We gain nothing by sacrificing our honor and abandoning our princibles to hasten these ends.

I have to respectfully disagree, Mr. Hunter. These fucks were fighting against everything American stands for, in that they have forfeited any right to the privileges this great country provides. Toss the fucks out of the plane as they fly over the former site of the Towers.

that would limit his INTERNATIONAL PODIUM to tell the worls just how bad we are.

#6 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-18 12:47 PM | Reply |

For some reason I'm having a hard time remembering KSM's last press conference.

I have to respectfully disagree, Mr. Hunter. These fucks were fighting against everything American stands for, in that they have forfeited any right to the privileges this great country provides. Toss the fucks out of the plane as they fly over the former site of the Towers.

#22 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2009-11-18 07:20 PM | Reply |

That ain't the America I believe in.

Damn, a lib saying 'give him a trial then shoot the SOB'

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-18 07:03 PM | Reply |

Amazing what you find when you read huh?

These fucks were fighting against everything American stands for, in that they have forfeited any right to the privileges this great country provides.

I'll respectfully disagree as well. Granting these men rights that they do not deserve is part of taking the "moral high road". Our constitution mandates that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness without due process. Lawyers and politicians may argue about whether those rights apply to foreign citizens, but our society believes that those fundamental rights are inherent to everyone. You're absolutely right - terrorists fight against everything this country stands for. That is precisely why this country must remain focused on what it stands for while pursuing justice.

Another point - what we are doing extends far beyond the pursuit of justice. Our treatment of these terrorists makes a statement to the world. I would prefer that we say, "You have betrayed Islam in pursuit of your goals, but we will not betray our values in pursuit of ours." We must demonstrate our moral superiority with actions, not words.

Toss the fucks out of the plane as they fly over the former site of the Towers.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't give them the satisfaction of seeing their handiwork. Slather 'em in honey and tie 'em to a tree in a cage full of starving grizzlies. David Attenborough can do the play-by-play. However satisfying that may be, though, it wouldn't be right. When the day is done in the mangled corpses are stuck in the dirt, the world remember our brutality, not the reason why the terrorists were wrong in the first place.

Let's not continue perpetuating the myth that this country practices any justice. These poor slobs have been jugged for eight-plus years without the speedy trial our system of jurisprudence supposedly guarantees everyone. They've been water-boarded, forced to listen to acid rock and watch female guards wipe their menstrual blood with pages from the Koran. (I'm not sure which is worst.) Now Our Prez wants them to have a fair trial before we lynch them? What, exactly, are we fighting to bring to the world? herm

Cheney or Rumsfeld?

Cheney or Rumsfeld?

Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-18 07:56 PM | Reply TRANSLATION: WHO CARES ABOUT 3000 DEAD AND TERRORISTS

This is the same guy who said we shouldn't rush to judgement on the Fort Hood issue.

300 Terrorists...Hardly!
Because that would include ever Terrorist (and Terrorist facilitator) in the Bush/Cheney Regime plus that "illegal" CorpoRat America President Barack Obama's Regime .....so this whole evil lot of US Govt "TERRORISTS" comprises much more than 300 - it s more like 3000!!! Have a Trial and then a Mass Execution of these Bastards......Why Not!!!!!!

Here's my idea, no military trial and this civilian trial: the guy has already admitted guilt and wants no more than to admit it in a court of law. Let him do it. March his ass to court let him admit his guilt and immediatly march him over to Ground Zero and lop his head off. Take is head in one of those spy planes that fly 14 miles high and drop it out over NW Pakiston where OBL is hanging out. Problem solved in a matter of a couple days.

And Holder looked like a third grader in front of the Senate today-- he could not answer some basic questions put to him--- this administration is totally out of control and the inmates are now in charge of the country--- and boy, is that scary.

So we are going to try them in civilian court like any American criminal? So that we can appear fair and just to the world? Yet their execution is a fore gone conclusion (per Obama and Holder)? Not a show trial you say?

My favorite part of the whole thing is Holder "claiming" to have discussed this with only his wife and brother. Good to know that important decisions like this are being well thought out. Probably the most important terrorist trial ever, and Holder talks to his wife and brother to decide this? I mean that is not even a good lie.

Fucking show trial...of course that seems to be the par for the course in the American justice system these days.

Let's not continue perpetuating the myth that this country practices any justice.

If that is the case, now would be a great time to start.

Now Our Prez wants them to have a fair trial before we lynch them?

If justice is done, no one will be "lynched". Those responsible for 9/11 will be executed. Those with more peripheral involvement will be imprisoned or repatriated to their countries of origin.

What, exactly, are we fighting to bring to the world?

There are two questions here. What are we fighting for? What have we actually done? The answer to the former can be as idealistic as you like. The answer to the latter is obviously more unpleasant. I don't see any reason in your post why the US should not pursue fair civilian trials of the Guantanamo "detainees".

Obama is just trying to be consistent with the Koran

Here's my idea, no military trial and this civilian trial: the guy has already admitted guilt and wants no more than to admit it in a court of law. Let him do it.

Fine by me. If the man wants to plead guilty, let him. It saves the taxpayers money. No matter what happens, though, the trial must be something more than a show.

March his ass to court let him admit his guilt and immediatly march him over to Ground Zero and lop his head off.

Like I said before, that would end with the world remembering the US for its brutality instead of remembering al qaida for the massacre on 9/11.

Obama is just trying to be consistent with the Koran

Like this: "God commands justice, the doing of the good, and liberality to kith and kin. He forbids all shameful deeds, injustice and rebellion. Thus does he instruct you, that you may receive admonition." 16:90

??

"WAY TO BACKTRACK!"

When Barack Obama is put on the jury his statement of his opinion will matter, til then, not so much.

"BUT every lawyer I have heard on cnn and fox says that if he defends himself..."

As if you ever watch CNN, LIAR!!! Pants on Fire!!!

When KBM is finally executed the right wing tools will still be whining that he might come back from the dead and kill us all.
Aaaaahhhhhh it's ghost of Al Quaeda....Run!!!!

Cheney:
1.Project for the New American Century (PNAC) Author of Rebuilding America's Defenses (Sep 2000) - in order to facilitate revolutionary change would take a very long time without a catalyzing, catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor

Somehow I doubt you subjected yourself to all 90 pages of that agonizing drivel.

Barry is starting to sound like Bush.

In our justice system you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Lady of Justice and all that.

Prosecuting these Jihadis this way is fucked. When the POTUS and AG condemn a man to death before they have even appear in a civilian court, the overall integrity of the system is severely damaged.

The blind fold is gone.

#38 Like I said before, that would end with the world remembering the US for its brutality instead of remembering al qaida for the massacre on 9/11.

........or maybe we'd remember 9/11 and also the justice administered to those responsible. Screw what the 'rest of the world' thinks is appropriate.

Here is a fair argument, how much will it cost in civilian verses military court? Haven't these guys cost America enough? Sorry for all the questions but they are kinda rhetorical. Wasn't KSM one of the guys who cut off Daniel Pearl's head on video?

At least with a military trial these guys could have been shot (bullets are way cheaper than killing someone with the electric chair or lethal injection).

In all serious though I think we should fly them back to their own countries and drop them out of the planes...instead of parachutes strap a pig to their backs.

I'm on your team Profit

LOL. I read the headline and thought Cheney was finally going to get the battery in his pacemaker pulled.

Ok KSPECK3, but ZOMBIEHUNTER has to be on the other team or I am not playing (lol).

And I like the screw what the rest of the world thinks is appropriate idea. That is one of America's problems right now, stop worrying about the rest of the world and worry about this Country, the other is politicians/political correctness.

Caller on the radio this morning gave a horrible consideration.

What happens if you get a truther on the jury who believes it was an inside job.

It only takes one juror to nullify.

What happens if you get a truther on the jury who believes it was an inside job.

Aren't the mentally ill exempt from jury duty?

Yet another reason this bastard will walk; our president has said he was tortured and now presumes he will be found guilty and executed. The defense lawyers will have a heyday.

This terrorist killer of over 2,000 Americans will not only walk, he will sue us down to our shorts for wrongful prosecution -- with the help of Attorney General Eric Holder's law firm which has, in the past, defended several Islamic terrorists. The lawyers will clean up with their fees paid by U.S.Taxpayers and our allies, our CIA and people on the ground working with us will have all their/our secrets revealed to our enemies in a time of war. They too may be executed by our enemies when their secret names are revealed.

This country is being sold out by this administration and many -- so many more-- will die with our blood on their filthy dirty hands.

Hey Kiss....there won't be any lawsuit if the evidence presented proves they were behind it.

However....I think Obama has a tendency to speak before he thinks. Just like our last president.

We should just skip the trial. He should be tied to a post and every person world wide who experienced a loss due to 9/11 should be allowed to burn a small part of him until he is all burned up.

#42 zombie
interesting question as you jump over to this thread to avoid my previous question. Difference is I'm not avoiding anything as I understand this PNAC document without reading all ninety pages. So back to your dodge, Like I asked, Did YOU read your EcoScience textbook? What does it say about how children should be raised? You didn't answer. As you dodge, Who's paranoid now?

I understand this PNAC document without reading all ninety pages.

I would expect challenges to any evidence when the issue of Miranda rights and torture are introduced.

If the lawyers are smart, they'd counter-sue the gov't for torture now that they have come to the mainland's courts.

Not even sure what puppeteer is pulling the strings anymore! Ready to live off World.

Ok Morons, let me spell it out for you.

9/11 was a well planned act of war that was openly declared on us. We have a military to protect and serve us as a country. Our military deals with war and war related issues so we as civilians don't have to. This is why our military conducts military tribunals, in addition to actual fighting, etc. Taking people who have declared and made war on us out of the hands of our military and bringing them into our civilian lives is insane. It's like bringing child molesters into our homes with our children, our children who they have already molested. We need to let our military handle this as they are already equipped to do so. If you don't understand this you are living in a dream land and your mind must be little more than mush...

To paraphrase the mighty Pink Floyd... the lunatic is on the retort.

Yep, especially the zombie hunters.

Moron???

Look Mr. Janitor, that's Mrs. Moron to you!!!

Look Mr. Janitor, that's Mrs. Moron to you!!!

I wouldn't take him too seriously. The Janitor is just pissed because one of those damned little second graders puked in the cafeteria, again.

LOL Wurst.

Well, at least he cleaned it up.

A nun made my son who was in 2nd grade clean up his own vomit when he didn't quite make it to the bathroom.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV but how can Barry, the Commander in Chief, say that without polluting the entire jury pool of the United States?

Oh it's a simple defense he he will easily get off. Just call "Dr." Alex Jones as star witness for the defense!

Or boOb, or tony roma, or northguy 3, or any of the 9/11 truthers circle jerk club on the drudge.

I have been saying for years, what do you know that your dem leaders don't? Where they in on the cover up too?

With the zero's acknowledgment of KSM in 911 It's time for ALL dr left 911 truthers to take get on here and say how stupid they were/are. If you don't admit you errors regarding 911, then you are ALL pieces of sh!t. FACT

Ah yes. Obama, the Editor of the Harvard Law Review, right on schedule with his quarterly "MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES" moment. Does Obama have any clue how this looks? Did he actually pass any real courses at Harvard Law? He can't really be an attorney. Or is he one of those that would likely have a strip-mall gig handling quickie divorces and auto injury claims? You gotta hand it to him, this is definitely a play beyond simply jeopardizing the Cambridge Professor investigation by weighing in like a premature amateur. He just handed Mohammed's lawyer a nice gift-wrapped present for dismissal. It's almost as if he did it on purp..... it can't be...

Some very classic Richard Milhous Obaa graphics:

Can someone please cite a legal precedence for this?

I'm beginning to hear that it might be unconstitutional to try KSM on American soil.

The circus has started. This is going to be fun to watch as this case falls apart.

Under our laws, there is no way this guy is going to get convicted - all of his previous admissions have an inadmissible legal status.

I guess they are banking on KSM admitting guilt once under oath...who knows, maybe he will too...

"I'm beginning to hear that it might be unconstitutional to try KSM on American soil."

Why? Not why you're beginning to hear something, but what rataionle for that statement is provided by the person or persons from whom you're hearing this?

#66 | Posted by PublicTrough | Flag: It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere

Why would it be unconstitutional?

Execution of the sub-human Al Quada turds in question is a good point.

But WWII style execution of sabators would be better. Just use the policy of FDR, or Lincoln, or Washington, etc.

Trial? Sure, no problem, SO LONG AS IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE TURDS DON'T 'DESERVE' ONE.

AGAIN: There is a long and established history in law and ethics on how to deal with such turds. Trials have taken place, but usually military, usually summery, and never because the turds had a 'right' to anything more than a bullet to the head.

Why would it be unconstitutional?

#70 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-19 08:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Lisa, we have several centuries of precedent. KSM and all the creeps relaxing at Luxurious Club Gitmo should be tried by a military tribunal.

It's been going on at Club Gitmo for years already. There is a process in place and it works. Most of Club Gitmo's vacationers have been discharged -- many have returned to killing Americans, so clearly (in the eyes of Liberals) the system works!

Here's what I find fascinating:

The more these dicks flout the Geneva Conventions and the more they target civilians the more rights and protections lefties want to afford them. It's almost like a reward for bad behavior.

I'll tell you this right now - if Holder doesn't secure a conviction, Obama is going to receive some major backlash.

I think abiding by the Geneva Conventions and our own criminal laws says far more about us than it does about what any terrorists deserve. They probably deserve summary execution, but vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.

I think that's in Romans.

didn't nixon get hammered for saying about the same thing about manson ?

didn't he already plead guilty in a military court ?

I think abiding by the Geneva Conventions and our own criminal laws says far more about us than it does about what any terrorists deserve. They probably deserve summary execution, but vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.

Which is what makes this whole thing all-the-more stupid.

So, we are going to give civilian treatment to the 5 worst offenders and the rest can sit in Gitmo and rot? Or, they will be subjected that evil institution known as military tribunals?

This is yet another counter-productive, symbolic measure from this administration that potentially has disastrous consequences.

So if I have this right, we've tortured them, never read them miranda rights, didn't provide a speedy trial, etc, yet now we're going to pretend to give them a fair trial?

So we're going to give them constitutional protections, but only the ones that will keep this from getting thrown out of court like any other case would.

What a fucking sham, and some of you dumbshits want to pretend this will enhance our image? Give me a fucking break. At least doing a military tribunal wouldn't actually taint our civilian legal system like this kangaroo court is going to.

we have several centuries of precedent. KSM and all the creeps relaxing at Luxurious Club Gitmo should be tried by a military tribunal.
#72 | Posted by vernon

How do we have "several centuries of precedent" -- meaning more than two or three -- that relate in any way to questioning the constitutionality of trying this guy in a courtroom in New York? What applicable precedent do we have for a member of a terrorist organization (as opposed to a member of the armed forces of a nation with which we are at war) being tried in any venue other than a criminal proceding?

Doc,

The precedent lies in whether or not we define this conflict as a war. If this truly is a war, then the cited precedent abounds. If this is nothing more than a criminal matter, then you are correct.

Personally, I view this as a war. 9-11, and other lesser attacks were acts of war, not acts of 'extreme vandalism' to borrow a term from Nullifidian.

#79 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Based upon my understanding of how our legal system works, I can't possibly fathom how the DOJ expects a conviction.

The treatment of this guy was so outside the bounds of how our criminals are processed that I don't understand how this case doesn't get thrown out and this guy walks as a result.

It's almost as if this is a back-door way for Obama to put the Bush administration on trial.

this trial will last 2 years and 4 or 5 years of appeals plus the ucla will be slamming america every step of the way.it's going to be all about bush.

"The treatment of this guy was so outside the bounds of how our criminals are processed that I don't understand how this case doesn't get thrown out and this guy walks as a result.

It's almost as if this is a back-door way for Obama to put the Bush administration on trial."

Not implausible. And maybe that is the lesson. That once we start down that road, it is near impossible to turn back?

Not implausible. And maybe that is the lesson. That once we start down that road, it is near impossible to turn back?

That's a suicide-pact.

Fact is, our current legal system and our constitution are ill-equipped to deal with this.

This is precisely why our founders instilled a process for ammending the constitution.

We need an adult conversation about how we balance our civil liberties and at the same time appropriately deal with the very real threats we face.

I think a constitutional ammendment may be in order.

If it's a war, why aren't the people in Guantanamo "prisoners of war" rather than "unlawful combatants"? I'm familiar with the reasoning used to arrive at that place, I just find the path to it circumlocutious.

As a case in point, in Northern Ireland during the most recent "Troubles" terrorists, when apprehended, were tried in courts. (Special courts, to be sure, for the protection of judges, prosecutors and others [juries dispensed with under the controversial Diplock system between 1972-2007 for offenses related to terrorist activities because of prior intimidation of jurors by terrorists].) The terrorists demanded to be treated as prisoner of war, although they, of course, felt no compunction to shoot prisoners who fell into their hands. In daily practice, the terrorists achieved some of their demands while serving time in prison; officially, they remained not "prisioners of war" but "criminals," which is what they were. Theirs were not "armies" in the eyes of the government but "terrorist organizations" and terrorism was treated as a criminal offense. What's the problem with that?

As for 101's suggestion that "doing a military tribunal wouldn't actually taint our civilian legal system like this kangaroo court is going to" strikes me as without merit. A few reasons:

1. Under the military tribunal system the accused is NOT entitled to examine all the evidence used against him/her.
2. Under the military tribunal system the court may counsider some information extracted by coercive techniques (not including what the DOD defines as "torture").
3. The person on trial is constricted in who they may select to act as their attorney(s).
4. Acquittal is not a guarantee of release.

-The treatment of this guy was so outside the bounds of how our criminals are processed that I don't understand how this case doesn't get thrown out and this guy walks as a result.

The top two guys spent 2 days on al-Jazeera TV detailing their crimes.... before they were captured. There is easy enough evidence to convict them, otherwise they wouldn't be going to trial.

The only reason that the Bushies didn't try them already in a military tribunal is that the SC said that they had just as much rights there as here.

That being the case, showing the world what justice in an American courtroom looks like instead of a secret trial and execution at a military compound, an al Qaeda recruiter's wet dream, is reasonable and makes good sense.

showing the world what justice in an American courtroom looks like instead of a secret trial and execution at a military compound, an al Qaeda recruiter's wet dream, is reasonable and makes good sense.

I might agree with you if that were being applied accross-the-board. But it isn't. These 5 guys were singled out for the civilian court system.

Why?

As for 101's suggestion that "doing a military tribunal wouldn't actually taint our civilian legal system like this kangaroo court is going to" strikes me as without merit. A few reasons:

1. Under the military tribunal system the accused is NOT entitled to examine all the evidence used against him/her.
2. Under the military tribunal system the court may counsider some information extracted by coercive techniques (not including what the DOD defines as "torture").
3. The person on trial is constricted in who they may select to act as their attorney(s).
4. Acquittal is not a guarantee of release.

#86 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-19 09:56 AM | Reply

But none of that matters because Corky points out that they detailed their crimes on Al Jazeera.

So why taint our civilian system when we can kangaroo court them in an already tainted tribunal system?
Either way, it's going to be a sham, and it will be seen that way by the world. Obama already ensured that by stating they'd be found guilty and put to death.
I'm not playing "gotcha". I really believe pretending to give them a "fair trial" in our civilian court while actually ignoring what we already have and haven't done to/for them is ridiculous.

Why do you care why?

Sudden bout of altruism?

My understanding that some convictions WOULD require releasing National Sec info, others are problematic in other ways.

That we can try these 5 guys and give a sense of closure to the victim's families, including frying KSM in NY if that's what happens, isn't that better than letting them linger in limbo?

Again, if military tribunals were actually the best route, the Bushies would have done it already.

These 5 guys were singled out for the civilian court system.
Why?
#89 | Posted by JeffJ

My guess? Evidence.

-So why taint our civilian system when we can kangaroo court them in an already tainted tribunal system?

Again, al Qaeda recruiters and sympathizers across the world get a boost from a tribunal; in an American courtroom not so much.

My guess? Evidence.

#92 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Which makes this all-the-more a sham.

So, we are only going to give civilian court rights to those whom we know we can convict?

Again, if military tribunals were actually the best route, the Bushies would have done it already.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-19 10:08 AM | Reply

Please. You're now expecting people to believe that the Bush Admin would have done it if it was the best route? When did you start believing in them? Oh, when it bolsters your position...

Give me a break. It's a sham. You know it, I know it, the courts know it, and the entire world knows it.

Obama ensured it.

Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

Again, al Qaeda recruiters and sympathizers across the world get a boost from a tribunal; in an American courtroom not so much.

#93 | Posted by Corky

I think the opposite is true.

An American coutroom gives these assholes a megaphone to spout their f-ed up hatred. Going further, if they have a half-way decent defense team, the American court is the perfect venue for the defense to put our government on trial - waterboarding, lack of miranda rights being cited, etc.

I predict this is going to blow-up in Obama's face on many fronts.

I don't know what the problem is. If KSM has done crimes against the United States He should be tried in the United States. The only trouble I see is Dubya tortured these detainees and in doing so forfeiting the right of the United States to secure a conviction because Dubya broke the rules in these folks detainment and went against our laws and treaty obligations. Seems to Me those who supported Dubya's actions regarding these detainees really need to shut the fuck up because their support of Dubya's tortures and maltreatment of detainees no matter how bad they are/Were has forfeited our right to try these detainees now. We lost our asses by Dubya's actions.

Larry

Again, al Qaeda recruiters and sympathizers across the world get a boost from a tribunal; in an American courtroom not so much.

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-19 10:11 AM | Reply

How so? They aren't in a American Courtroom if they aren't getting the same consitutional protections that you or I would have gotten. Their getting a rigged system that prevents them from getting off on the exact same technicalities that you or I would.

They're giving the AQ recruiters and the rest of the world the ability to say our Judicial System is a sham and that a fair trial was never going to happen.
Either way, they get ammo. Why taint the civilian court when they can use the already tainted military tribunals?

-those whom we know we can convict?

What do you think happens in prosecutor's offices on a daily basis?

You charge the ones you can convict with the worst possible charges, and hold onto those you legally can until you think you can convict them.

You can't have it both ways, saying that they should not have the rights of US citizens in court, but then complain when they don't.

These 5 guys were singled out for the civilian court system.
Why?
#89 | Posted by JeffJ

My guess? Evidence.

#92 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-19 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

My guess is because they were the first to be brought before the Military Tribunals and Obama is clearing those up first and then others will follow (HOPEFULLY)

#98 That's too nuanced to translate into 114 languages.

The perception in the world is that a military tribunal is just a formality to execution, and that a courtroom trial in public is more fair.

If you want to say it isn't more fair, then don't complain about giving them citizen's rights in a courtroom, because you really aren't.

My guess is because they were the first to be brought before the Military Tribunals and Obama is clearing those up first and then others will follow (HOPEFULLY)

#100 | Posted by LarryMohr

while I think this is a big mistake, if what you hypothesize ends up being true I can at least respect the fact that he's taking the lead and adhering to a principle.

I guess time will ultimately tell.

The perception in the world is that a military tribunal is just a formality to execution, and that a courtroom trial in public is more fair.

If you want to say it isn't more fair, then don't complain about giving them citizen's rights in a courtroom, because you really aren't.

#101 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-19 10:20 AM | Reply

What do you think the perception in the world is after Obama already said they're guilty and will be executed?

I'm not talking "fair". I don't want fair. They don't deserve "fair", and they're not getting it. That's why I'd prefer it was done in a military tribunal. Why taint our system by pretending what they're getting is "fair"?

-I predict this is going to blow-up in Obama's face on many fronts.

I predict that in time Americans will see a Pres doing what he thinks is right instead of what is convenient.

He gets no political points for this.

-waterboarding, lack of miranda rights being cited, etc.

Likely won't even be allowed by the judge as the prosecution will not be using evidence attained that way.

That district in NY has convicted hundreds of terrorists, and these are just 5 more.

while I think this is a big mistake, if what you hypothesize ends up being true I can at least respect the fact that he's taking the lead and adhering to a principle.

I guess time will ultimately tell.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 10:22 AM | Reply

I don't know what the problem is JeffJ?? Either You believe in the rule of law or You don't. It's that simple.

Larry

-What do you think the perception in the world is after Obama already said they're guilty and will be executed?

That he was correct in his surmise.

Likely won't even be allowed by the judge as the prosecution will not be using evidence attained that way.

That district in NY has convicted hundreds of terrorists, and these are just 5 more.

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-19 10:25 AM |

Laughable. So the cops can beat the shit out of you and keep you in a cell for years for shoplifting, but if they just use the store's footage of you robbing it, nobody will care that your were beaten and kept from your due process...

How many of those 100 terrorists did we hold indefinitly and torture?

That he was correct in his surmise.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-19 10:26 AM | Reply

No, that it was a pre-determined outcome, and that these guys never stood a chance of getting a fair trial.

But you already know that.

I don't know what the problem is JeffJ?? Either You believe in the rule of law or You don't. It's that simple.

Larry

#105 | Posted by LarryMohr

Not implausible. And maybe that is the lesson. That once we start down that road, it is near impossible to turn back?

That's a suicide-pact.

Fact is, our current legal system and our constitution are ill-equipped to deal with this.

This is precisely why our founders instilled a process for ammending the constitution.

We need an adult conversation about how we balance our civil liberties and at the same time appropriately deal with the very real threats we face.

I think a constitutional ammendment may be in order.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 09:55 AM

"So the cops can beat the shit out of you and keep you in a cell for years for shoplifting, but if they just use the store's footage of you robbing it, nobody will care that your were beaten and kept from your due process..."

But wasn't that the point of the legal memoranda backing up the entire Gitmo regimen? To lock people up without formal charges, beat the shit out them, and keep incarcerated for an unspecified period withut specified charges? You want to defend that?

Doc,

Again, much of this discussion falls back on whether or not we define this conflict as a 'war'.

Fact is, our current legal system and our constitution are ill-equipped to deal with this.

This is precisely why our founders instilled a process for ammending the constitution.

We need an adult conversation about how we balance our civil liberties and at the same time appropriately deal with the very real threats we face.

I think a constitutional ammendment may be in order.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 09:55 AM

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

BULLSHIT JeffJ our legal system and constitutional system can deal with this just fine thank You very much. They have constitutional rights declared by the Supreme COurt of these here United States. They committed a crime and are suspected criminals not hard to understand nor take care of. The US Legal system took care of Me back in 1990 without troubles. I don't see why it would have troubles now. Unless YOIU Yourself are scared about finding out the truth then You should welcome this whole thing JeffJ.

Larry

"But Mr. Holder argued that Mr. Graham was raising a "red herring" because the government has ample evidence to prosecute high-level terrorists like the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, should he be captured. For that reason, interrogators need not worry about giving such a detainee a lawyer in order to make sure that their initial statements after being captured could be used as evidence."

You want to defend that?

#111 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-19 10:31 AM

I'm fine with what we did to them. I'm not the one that wants to pretend to give them a "fair" trial.
Giving them a "fair" trial would have them free on a technicality so fast your head would spin. So why pretend it's fair when it isn't?
This should be kept to a militarty tribunal.

My position is they were treated (and deservedly so) in ways that would make a civilain trial impossible. Therefore we shouldn't pretend that one is possible.

The other position (I know there aren't only 2) seems to be "They were treated unfairly, but let's just ignore all of that, strip/ignore any real inconvenient rights that they would normally have so that they can't use them against us, and let's pretend it's a fair trial".

Larry,

The ammendment process was inserted for a reason.

As a matter of fact, it has been ammended 27 times.

That is what I am advocating here, because ultimately you are correct - we ARE a nation of laws and if we are going to circumvent the constitution when convenient, i.e. the social safety net and this shit - then why bother having this document at all?

If Bush was even a half-way decent president he would have forced this debate; he would have forced congress to decide AND he would have advised the public of the likely outcome if congress balked at an ammendment. He then would have adhered to the law and let the chips fall where they may.

This is precisely why the founders inserted the ammendment process. Regrettably, we have grown accustomed to circumventing the constitution when it proves to be inconvenient over the last 70 years or so.

-Again, much of this discussion falls back on whether or not we define this conflict as a 'war'.

Which is the problem a lot of Righties actually have with this, the possibility that their fantasy of this being an actual "war" , their very favorite past time, against another nation somewhere becomes clarified in people's minds as the nonsense that it is.

We were attacked by a criminal group; the only difference from the Mob being that they are interested in politics instead of profit.

That does not amount to a real war and never did, other than in some War on Drugs or War on Poverty sense.

These are members of a criminal organization that committed heinous crimes in NYC, and should be tried and punished as such there.

My position is they were treated (and deservedly so) in ways that would make a civilain trial impossible. Therefore we shouldn't pretend that one is possible.

Exactly.

This seems like political disaster for Obama - as well as disaster in general.

Giving them a "fair" trial would have them free on a technicality so fast your head would spin.

Again, exactly.

So, we are going to try and portray a 'fair trial' by shirking everything that would make for a fair trial???

This is beyond stupid.

That is what I am advocating here, because ultimately you are correct - we ARE a nation of laws and if we are going to circumvent the constitution when convenient, i.e. the social safety net and this shit - then why bother having this document at all?

If Bush was even a half-way decent president he would have forced this debate; he would have forced congress to decide AND he would have advised the public of the likely outcome if congress balked at an ammendment. He then would have adhered to the law and let the chips fall where they may.

This is precisely why the founders inserted the ammendment process. Regrettably, we have grown accustomed to circumventing the constitution when it proves to be inconvenient over the last 70 years or so.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 10:42 AM | Reply

STILL ON THIS BULLSHIT JeffJ??? Try Article 1 sxection 8 of the US Constitution sometime. Oh and NO New amendment is necessary. The US Constitution already has the rules in place for these people. You just have to be willing to excersize them.

Larry

"I'm beginning to hear that it might be unconstitutional to try KSM on American soil."

Why? Not why you're beginning to hear something, but what rataionle for that statement is provided by the person or persons from whom you're hearing this?

#68 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Good question.

I'm wondering if there is any legal precedent for trying an enemy combatant in a United States civilian court.

Wasn't there a Supreme Court ruling on this issue during WWII?

That ruling end with some German terrorists being tried by military tribunal.

What legal jurisprudence are they using? There isn't any as far as I can see.

That does not amount to a real war and never did

So, once a country becomes a superpower, why ever bother going to actual 'war' with them?

Just set up a bunch of stateless proxy groups and have them carry out your ambitions without impugnity.

'Hey, it's not us. It's these guys, who just so happen to get substantial financial and tactical support from us.'

This is lunacy.

You are rewarding these jackoffs for playing our system.

"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd...

The next question is if the Obama administration has intentionally setup a show trial for one man with a predetermined outcome and penalty, they've just proven they're OK with the notion of rigging civilian trials.

That is a pretty chilling revelation."

Attorney General Eric Holder certainly wasn't able to cite any legal precedence for his decision...

...worse, it appears that he hasn't even considered the question!

Oh well, just more fucking ineptness by the fuckwads in Government.

Try Article 1 sxection 8 of the US Constitution sometime

Don't lecture me on Article 1 Section 8. You think the entire section is limited to the words "general welfare", so spare me your reverent citation of the constitution.

The US Constitution already has the rules in place for these people.

1. the rules are dependent upon whether or not we are technically at war.

2. The constitution CAN be ammended; and in this case, for clarity's sake, it should be ammended.

1. the rules are dependent upon whether or not we are technically at war.

2. The constitution CAN be ammended; and in this case, for clarity's sake, it should be ammended.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 10:53 AM | Reply

No Sir. The US Constituition is still valid during war time if You want to declare that we are at war. the ONLY time where the US Constitution is not valid is when a President suspends the WHOLE thing in it's entirety. He can not pick and choose which amendments He wants to adhere to during times of war.

Larry

Larry,

Whether or not we are at war affects how combatants are handled.

Other than that, I agree with you - which is why I am clamoring for an ammendment.

#121

Yeah, or we could just go around attacking countries that had nothing to do with 911, like Iraq, but just say that they did.

So I don't see any hesitancy on our part to attack a nation if we think they are definitely the source of a 911 type attack.

But the idiotic comparisons we are hearing to WWII are laughable.

A real war, as contemplated by all our legal history, is between nations, not nations and political criminal groups.

Whether or not we are at war affects how combatants are handled.

Other than that, I agree with you - which is why I am clamoring for an ammendment.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NO AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY Damn dude are You this dense?? We aqlready have the required amendments necessary in the taking care of these detainees. For the love of G-d.

Larry

A real war, as contemplated by all our legal history, is between nations, not nations and political criminal groups.

#127 | Posted by Corky

But that's precisely the problem...

...we have now decided to merandize foriegn political criminal groups and give them full protection under OUR constitution.

There is NO LEGAL BASIS OR ANY LEGAL PRECEDENT FOR THIS that you, or any one else, can cite.

Here's some questions to ponder:

When Hell freezes over and we finally capture Osama bin Laden (remember him?) on foreign soil, will we need to read him his rights, advise him of his right to remain silent, and appoint him an attorney?

If foreign political criminal groups are indeed innocent until proven guilty (like KSM is now), how can we continue our military strikes against those same groups in Afghanistan? If they are presumed to be innocent, why is Obama killing them?

"We aqlready have the required amendments necessary in the taking care of these detainees. For the love of G-d."

If that's so, our wonderful Attorney general isn't aware of it.

They aren't "criminals" Larry.

They are enemy combatants and should be treated as such.

A real war, as contemplated by all our legal history, is between nations, not nations and political criminal groups.

#127 | Posted by Corky

Yeah, you're right - this wasn't an act of war:

Ramzi Yousef was tried and convicted in a criminal court and he isn't going to be going anywhere, ever.

Terrorists attacks ARE Crimes JeffJ and their actors CRIMINALS so what's the problem now??

Larry

that would limit his INTERNATIONAL PODIUM to tell the worls just how bad we are.

#6 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-18 12:47 PM | Reply |

For some reason I'm having a hard time remembering KSM's last press conference.

#23 | Posted by KnightHawk at 2009

well watch for the date the trial begins

Ramzi Yousef was tried and convicted in a criminal court and he isn't going to be going anywhere, ever.

#133 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

He was apprehended on US soil, was read his rights and wasn't subjected to enhanced interrogation.

Apples and oranges.

Terrorists attacks ARE Crimes JeffJ and their actors CRIMINALS so what's the problem now??

9-11 was an act of war, Larry. It wasn't a criminal act.

What you and those who think like you are doing is paving the way for the creation of countless 'criminal actors' to carry out the aggression of their state benefactors without any recourse whatsoever. A thousand SPECTRE organizations will morph out of nowhere and enemy states can carry-out acts of war against the US without impugnity.

#132 A sinister cabal of drunken, pissed off airline pilots could have done the same.

Real wars are between nations, and our legal history both military and civilian contemplates such.

Making that attack a war was easy political spin for warmongers, but it is more readily dealt with as a criminal matter.

As one can see by the problems created with Gitmo.

9-11 was an act of war, Larry. It wasn't a criminal act.

What you and those who think like you are doing is paving the way for the creation of countless 'criminal actors' to carry out the aggression of their state benefactors without any recourse whatsoever. A thousand SPECTRE organizations will morph out of nowhere and enemy states can carry-out acts of war against the US without impugnity.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-19 11:19 AM | Reply

If You believe in the Governments assesment of 9-11 then You can not declare 9-11 an act of War. An Act of War happens when a Countries Army attacks another Country's Army. NOT when thugs carry out attacks upon Countries. Those are criminal acts and should be prosecuted that way.

Larry

yesterday this racist piece of shit made an outrageous comment about how justice has been delayed for 8 years.

when his own law firm was in the midst of blocking one trial after another at gitmo. that and along with the assholes at the aclu.
now he talks about how NOW they will bring them to justice.
another obama cultist talking out of his mouth and his ass at the same time

UNTIL lyndsy graham made him speachless on his question about what if ben laden were captured today.

may have been grahams finest hour.......

Real wars are between nations, and our legal history both military and civilian contemplates such.

Making that attack a war was easy political spin for warmongers, but it is more readily dealt with as a criminal matter.

As one can see by the problems created with Gitmo.

#137 | Posted by Corky

When that logic is applied, countless aggressor states will establish 'state-less' entities to carry out all sorts of acts-of-war against the US and will escape any kind of counter-strike because you have so narrowly-defined act-of-war and they are more-than-happy to twist your narrow definition against you.

ALSO report yesterday said that during the blowjonb years
there was NOT ONE INDICTMENT on the cole bombing or an embassy bombing..that those came during the bush years.......is that correct?

and if so, there is another reason why this prick is a real dipshit since the deputy atty gen at that time was

eric holder.

I tend to agree with this author

obama may have just lost the white house

"ALSO report yesterday said that during the blowjonb years
there was NOT ONE INDICTMENT on the cole bombing or an embassy bombing..that those came during the bush years"

No shit?

Something that happened fifteen weeks before Clinton left office didn't produce an indictment in those last 15 weeks?!?

Whoever you're listening to -- including yourself -- is a moron.

As an attorney, I believe JeffJ's assertion is absurd. Instead of hypothesizing from your version of an ivory tower, perhaps you should take a look at the real world. It doesn't work like that. Aggressor states do not plan their aggression with the U.S. court system in mind. It is just ridiculous.

Aggressor states do not plan their aggression with the U.S. court system in mind.

Not at present.

But if we open the door for them, you can bet your ass they will.

Ramzi Yousef was tried and convicted in a criminal court and he isn't going to be going anywhere, ever.
#133 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

"He was apprehended on US soil, was read his rights and wasn't subjected to enhanced interrogation.
#136 | Posted by JeffJ"

He was "apprehended on US soil"? Since when is Islamabad part of the United States?

Sorry Doc.

I confused him with the blind shiek.

Regardless, if Larry's hypothesis proves true, then I can at least respect Obama taking a principled-stand (for better or worse) and forcefully applying it. That would constitute leadership.

Whoever you're listening to -- including yourself -- is a moron.

#143 | Posted by Danforth at 2009

thank you for this information. I will give it all the attention it deserves.

Looks like Obama has fucked the pooch again and is asking us to fix it. When the POTUS, with a law degree no less, goes on national TV and declares them guilty and gaurantees that they will get the death penalty, isnt getting good advise from his handlers. Someone must have unpluged the telepromtor and disengaed his brain before he let that fart fly.

cost to new york said to be from 75 million to 100 million

and schumer now wants fed to pay for it.

fuck him...tell holder to pony up the cash himslef.

Im surprised he could listen after grahman kicked his ass but at least he listened to her

#151 | Posted by afkabl2

Interesting logic you posit there. We should base our decisions on who to try, or even whether to try them, based on cost analysis.

Interesting but, as per usual, hilariously flawed.

good point WI

liberal fucks all over the news have said how this will show the world how great our legal system is

and THE PRES And the AG both say there is no way he will go free.........??
THEN WHY THE TRIAL??????????

and THAT doesnt seem a little political and just wrong?????

not at all doc
but its a part of the whole question since there is already an expensive court room in gitmo for just such things.

and security is not a problem.

"thank you for this information. I will give it all the attention it deserves."

Which reminds me...did you ever recant the bullshit you posted about Carter, or are you still a fuckin' liar?

AND majority dont want it there but will have to pay for it anyway..

typical liberal fucking of tax payers.

There you go. We'll take votes from now on and see who we put on trial and who we don't.

there is already an expensive court room in gitmo for just such things.
#154 | Posted by afkabl2

let me ask again

obama says they will be executed
holder says there is no way they will go free

so just how does this make us look good in the rest of the world which is apparently the first question barry asked when he wakes up everyday.

WE KNOW THE ANSWER

this is merely a way to try bush and cheney and the cia under them...nothing more.

oh to your comment

what about the others that holder admits will be tried in military courts??

and anytime an ass like that talks shit about 8 years of no justice when WE ALL KNOW now,he was a part of that delay, then there is little need for more proof that its a get bush/cheny ploy.

AND this asshole is one who didnt think anything was wrong with sexual harrassment in the oval office or lying under oath.

and so now we are to take his word for this..

weak senator
real weak

When KBM is finally executed the right wing tools will still be whining that he might come back from the dead and kill us all.
Aaaaahhhhhh it's ghost of Al Quaeda....Run!!!!

#42 | Posted by danni

Spoken just like someone who believes that Al Qaeda is not a threat to us. What are all of you libs going to do when a nuke goes off in a major US city? It is only the biggest fear of any and all who work in security for the US. But they don't know what they're talking about. Right?

I'm not an attorney but the Prez is. Do you think he might have spoiled the Jury Pool with his comments about guilt and sure execution? An excellent attorney from the ACLU will go for a dismissal or mistrial on the first day. If not that, that good ole American legal institution, a PLEA BARGAIN.

#128
If foreign political criminal groups are indeed innocent until proven guilty (like KSM is now), how can we continue our military strikes against those same groups in Afghanistan? If they are presumed to be innocent, why is Obama killing them?

Excellent question....
Answers?

What are all of you libs going to do when a nuke goes off in a major US city?

Blame Bush, WTF do you think?

At least with a Democrat in office the odds of that happening are greatly diminished. Bush was begging for it. Obama is trying his damnedest to diffuse the disaster.

"What are all of you libs going to do when a nuke goes off in a major US city?"

Blame Bush, WTF do you think?

What prompted this rare display of honesty?

Obama yet again demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of anything but THEORY... this time in the law.

What idiot prosecutor (let alone the freaking PRESIDENT!) would go into a trial offering up such a statement??

But let's not jump to conclusions on the Fort Hood mass murdering Jihadist.

JM

President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed,

What the hell?

Barry does not believe in innocent until proven guilty?

What's all this crap I hear from the left that this will display our democracy and fairness?

This Obama-Holder prejudicing the trial smacks of military "justice" in which the general tells the colonel running the court that we want to make an example and shoot the sonovabitch. Yeah, fair trial. herm

Why are we spending money to try a person that has pleaded guilty? Why are we opening up potential state secrets - unless this is a way for Holder to get testimony about water boarding so he can go after Bush people?

This is what happens when you do not properly vet who is running for office - which is normally what the press does. But they fell all over Obama and gave him a free pass on his ideological bent and associations.

We basically now have a communistic government bent on purges and destroying the US.

"Why are we spending money to try a person that has pleaded guilty?"

The accused has a right to move swiftly to sentencing. (I doubt any of these guys will do that, however.)

But, to answer your question, just straight out of the chute: Plenty of delusional folk confess to all sorts of crimes. Don't we require some sort of fact-finding process before shipping them off to the Soylent Green Machine?

great post fosha..............

so if the potus states that he is guilty and will be put to death is there a lawyer that could get a judge to say...a change of venue is in order and since a jury will be almost impossible to get of 'peers' who dont know much about the case, could that lawyer say..okay we will be moving this trial to oh say...europe..
just a hypothetical question....

"and since a jury will be almost impossible to get of 'peers' who dont know much about the case..."

As usual, off the mark. A jury composed of people "who don't know much about the case" is not a requirement.

the law says jury of peers does it not?

and arent they also not supposed to have any predetermined opinions of the case or was I asleep all those times I was in a jury pool.

and again it was a hypotethical question

if a judge decides a change of venue is in order, where would they go?

because holder and the others have made a case that it should be in new york to 'showcase' our system.

AND its apparent that the president AND THE ATTORNY GENERAL himslef all have predetermined opinions on the case AND the outcome........

or were obama and holder just POLITIZIng the whole thing?????

"AND THE ATTORNY GENERAL himslef all have predetermined opinions on the case AND the outcome..."

OMG!

The prosecutor actually suggested the accused is guilty?!?

Stop the presses!!!

"Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed, but added that he was not prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial"

Nothing like tainting the jury pool.

And Obama professed it was Holder's decision.

Holder claims he conferred with his wife and dog.

Paterson claims the WH told him 6 months ago this was going to be the decision.

Liars--who to believe??

The worst decision in US juris prudence. KSM told and proclaimed his guilt in military court.

What did Obama do the first weeks of getting into office?

He cut off and disbanded the military courts--suspended them.

KSM was 30 days or so from the verdict!

Obama and Holder want to put Bush on trial--they don't care about KSM justice.

Holder likes to let terrorists go free--think FALN.

Both a couple of dunces.

or was I asleep all those times I was in a jury pool.
#173 | Posted by afkabl2

Probably.

Although it's best that you (a) do not personally know the defendant(s); (b) never heard of the case; (c) have no association with anyone associated with the case; (d) have no association with any institution associated with the case, you do not, as you contend, need to know hardly anything about the case to serve on a jury. What you do have to agree to is the premise that you are capable of examining the evidence presented in the case and letting that evidence lead you.

Here ya go, Murph. Just the facts, M'am.

#176 | Posted by MURPHY

Jeezus, you're free-association babbling like a deranged person.

The prosecutor actually suggested the accused is guilty?!?

Stop the presses!!!

innocent until proven guilty??

but thats okay
we know the left will do or say anything to get bush and cheney on trial even if its with this defacto way of allowing this scum a voice.

and again...75 to 100 million in costs

isnt it only a couple of bucks for a bullit placed in his right ear.

Corky--

KSM is going to civilian court.

He was rousted out of bed in Pakistan!

No Miranda rights--no nothing--a ticket to Gitmo!

The guy in your thread--talks about Reid the shoe bomber!

Yeah a bozo tries to light his shoe and he was gang tackled on the airplace.

KSM gets more constitutional rights than required. It's just plain wrong.

It is a poke in the eye to everyone.

and PAY LEAHY said yesterday that if bin laden were captured there would be no reason to interrogate him.

what????

as tucker carlson said last night on red eye

the longer people stay in congress the more stupid they get as well as arrogant

HEY DOC

tell me what you think of this opinion

have to go
but please respond..
looking to see what you think about this...

So now that we are moving into the court system, just exactly when, where, and by whom were they provided Miranda rights?

By not providing Miranda, these guys walk and ultimately sue the US, thus, costing the tax payers millions. The military should have ended this quickly with prejudice.

As I read #186, we should have murdered them that ay-rabs without benefit of a show trial. After all, jugging them with no charges, waterboarding them for eight years, forcing them to listen to acid rock and more innovative tortures surely constitute no grounds for a good lawsuit. herm

They're coming to take him away, HA HA
They're coming to take him away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And he'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean uniforms,
And they're coming to take him away, Ha-haaa!
......