From the article:

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."

Finally, there's the moral logic. It's not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic?

By what logic?

1 possibility is that this is a back-door way for Obama to put Bush and the CIA on trial. I hope that isn't the case, but who knows.

The only reason why the Right WIngers are scared is finding out the truth about how Dubya has ruined this great nations reputation by illegal detainment and subsequently and most important. TORTURE. That's the REAL reason many on the right are afraid. They don't want reminded of what they themselves supported.

Larry

No Larry.

What us crazy rightwingers are scared of are:

1. This guy gets acquitted and walks

2. In the process of this trial, all sorts of vital intelligence is exposed, just like what happened in '93.

Oh, and if this IS a back-door attempt at trying Bush and the CIA you should be pissed off because it's a chickenshit way of going about that end AND in the process, it has considerable national security repurcussions as well.

Investigate and indict Bush or don't. But, do NOT play politics with our national security as a means of trying to embarass the previous administration.

Now, for the record, I don't know if that's what's going on here. What I DO know is that both Holder and Obama have given very muddled answers to questions regarding this issue.

Interesting logic. Since it is now verified fact that Bin Laden worked for the US all the way up to 911, doesn't the author's logic fall apart that this "let him know that his connection to the case has been discovered"?

Not to mention the scaremongering politics fear of the Boogieman?

Nice try, Larry, but I don't believe for a moment that's what the problem is here.
As I see it, the problem is that everyone, up to and including the President, wants to see these guys get a fair trial, followed by a certain conviction and execution.
If you or anyone else can explain to me how such a thing is possible, please proceed. Use small words, please, as I am so dumb as to believe that a trial with an assured verdict is unfair by definition.

We're going to give you a trial in our civilian courts in the interests of fairness, and to prove to the world that we are a nation of laws.
We're also a Nation of liars, so we aren't really going to give you a fair trial. We're going to conveniently ignore our constitution and only give you enough rights so that we can ensure you'll be convicted and executed, just like Obama said you would be.

This is a mockery of our judicial system. I actually do hope that this circus ends in an aquital so Obama and Holder will be run out of town. It's not like KSM and the other 4 wouldn't be killed almost immediately by a vigilante anyway.

I can't join the execrable bogus paratrooper in hoping that Obama and Holder will be run out of some town, but the slimy one does make a point. What if these people, jugged without charge or trial for eight years, tortured by waterboarding and acid rock and having guards wipe their asses with Korans, really didn't do anything on which even an indoctrinated "jury" could convict? We are indeed a nation of liars - we perfected that trait under Nixon, Reagan and Dubya. It is a mockery and will be a circus ... herm

#6 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Exactly.

When Holder says, "Failure is not an option" and Obama says, "The American people won't be offended when he's convicted and executed." as if it's a foregone conclusion, they both mock what our legal system is supposed to represent.

I would think that without being mirandized the entire case could be thrown out right there. Certainly, anything he said while under duress would be inadmissable. Yet, Holder pretty much states that he has more than enough evidence to convict. I am guessing this evidence is in the form of classified intelligence and I'd be willing to bet that the public airing of it will further comprimise our intelligence community as well as our overall security efforts. Time will tell, but I see far more bad in this than any possible good.

tis amazing the lack of faith some have in our legal system. We have done this before 93 WTC bombers. We have tried people for 9/11-Zacarais Massoui.

We are quite capable of trying these people.

Some people's fears say alot about their convictions to law and democracy.

Since it is now verified fact that Bin Laden worked for the US all the way up to 911

Link?

Not to mention the scaremongering politics fear of the Boogieman?

Yeah, 9-11 was no big deal. Nothing to worry about. It could never happen again.

We are indeed a nation of liars - we perfected that trait under Nixon, Reagan and Dubya.

A Democrat never lies.Herm.

Krauthammer's writing is starting to sound even weirder than usual, like some sort of stream of consciousness slow-mo build up to nothing in particular. I wonder if it's a case of the psychiatrist in need of one or easy access to some powerful medication.

When Holder says, "Failure is not an option" and Obama says, "The American people won't be offended when he's convicted and executed." as if it's a foregone conclusion, they both mock what our legal system is supposed to represent.

I would think that without being mirandized the entire case could be thrown out right there. Certainly, anything he said while under duress would be inadmissable. Yet, Holder pretty much states that he has more than enough evidence to convict. I am guessing this evidence is in the form of classified intelligence and I'd be willing to bet that the public airing of it will further comprimise our intelligence community as well as our overall security efforts. Time will tell, but I see far more bad in this than any possible good.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at

It was wrong wheb Bush condemned the soldiers at abu graib before a trial and it is wrong for Obama to do this too.

I believe it is a given that there is enough evidence outside of intelligence received via torture to convict them.

Our legal system will accommodate the needs for national security, we have done it before.

Though interesting to hear some cry publicizing national security secrets while in the past having defended the outing of a CIA agent.

We have done this before 93 WTC bombers.

A lot of good intel was comprimised in the process.

Some people's fears say alot about their convictions to law and democracy.

These assholes should go in front of military tribunals, just like the jerkoff involved in the Cole bombing, per Holder's decision.

Hell, this animal flat-out admitted his role and is begging to go before a military tribunal and be executed. We already have what we need. Why not do just that and spare the country this circus trial?

We have done this before 93 WTC bombers.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-20 01:41 PM | Reply

Really? What secret prison camp were they held and "tortured"? I imagine we held them without representation for years, right?

Face it stupid, the two aren't even comparable.

Though interesting to hear some cry publicizing national security secrets while in the past having defended the outing of a CIA agent.

Don't point that finger at me. I thought it was bullshit that the Bush admin did that, although I also pointed out that her undercover status was tenuous at best.

We have done this before 93 WTC bombers.

A lot of good intel was comprimised in the process.

TH: Link? sorry but law and order is hard work.

Some people's fears say alot about their convictions to law and democracy.

These assholes should go in front of military tribunals, just like the jerkoff involved in the Cole bombing, per Holder's decision.

TH: attack against military vs attack against US citizens-different

Hell, this animal flat-out admitted his role and is begging to go before a military tribunal and be executed. We already have what we need. Why not do just that and spare the country this circus trial?

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

TH: so why give him what he wants?

We have done this before 93 WTC bombers.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-20 01:41 PM | Reply

Really? What secret prison camp were they held and "tortured"? I imagine we held them without representation for years, right?

Face it stupid, the two aren't even comparable.

#14 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Foreign nationals captured in Pakistan, yep no corrollary there at all, dumbass.

These assholes should go in front of military tribunals, just like the jerkoff involved in the Cole bombing, per Holder's decision.

Hell, this animal flat-out admitted his role and is begging to go before a military tribunal and be executed. We already have what we need. Why not do just that and spare the country this circus trial?

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-20 01:45 PM | Reply

It's quite readily aparent You don't believe in the US Constitution nor about Rule of Law. You have proven that time and time again JeffJ. Sad really.

Larry

Though interesting to hear some cry publicizing national security secrets while in the past having defended the outing of a CIA agent.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-20 01:45 PM | Reply

Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that you and your limpwristed cronies shrieked over the outing of an already outed CIA Agent that drove through the front gates, yet don't care about the publicizing of actual real classified material.

It's as if you idiots are unaware of the flipside of your arguments. Like when you clowns try to point out how unimportant the Constitution is to the right, while ignoring the fact that Obama and Holder have no choice to ignore portions of the constitution in order to pretend to give these guys a trial in our civilian courts.

Don't point that finger at me. I thought it was bullshit that the Bush admin did that, although I also pointed out that her undercover status was tenuous at best.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-20 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why don't You tell us some more lies jeffJ. You did everything You could to negate their culpability. Shit You even went so far as to claim Valerie Plame wasn't even covert. What happened to you JeffJ??

Larry

Foreign nationals captured in Pakistan, yep no corrollary there at all, dumbass.

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-20 01:48 PM | Reply

Come on stupid, tell me how long they were held by americans in a secret camp. Tell me of their documented "torture" at the hands of US Military personell and CIA agents.

Oh wait, you can't? Then STFU stupid. As I stated, and as you already know, they aren't comparable. So run along, stupid.

Answer the questions, or STFU. It's your call, dummy.

You did everything You could to negate their culpability. Shit You even went so far as to claim Valerie Plame wasn't even covert.

I cheered when Libby was convicted and likened it to Bill Clinton's contempt of court citation, 100k fine and a suspension of his law lisence.

What I said specificially was that her covert status was tenuous at best. Typically, agents who are serious about their covert status don't allow pictures of themselves to end up on the cover of a magazine.

It's quite readily aparent You don't believe in the US Constitution nor about Rule of Law.
#18 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-20 01:48 PM | Reply

Mohron,
Neither do Holder and Obama, unless of course they plan on freeing these 5 men on technicalities?

Bush DOJ: Smart Move To Try 9/11 Mastermind In Fed Court

Holder's Reasonable Decision

Reasonable minds can disagree about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 perpetrators in a Manhattan federal court. But some prominent criticisms are exaggerated, and others place undue faith in military commissions as an alternative to civilian trials.

It's quite readily aparent You don't believe in the US Constitution nor about Rule of Law.

We don't try enemy combatants in civilian courts, Larry.

TH: attack against military vs attack against US citizens-different

So, we are going to give more deference to those who target civilians vs those who target the military? The illogic of that is astounding.

What secret prison camp were they held and "tortured"? I imagine we held them without representation for years, right?

Face it stupid, the two aren't even comparable.

#14 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Uallsuck,
When you get a chance, how about answers to these questions.
If you can't answer them (which we both know to be true) how about not answering with a white flag non sequitur, and actually attempting to explain some similarities between the two?

Otherwise, you're wrong, as usual.

Corky now supports the Bush DOJ...Fucking classic.

gees chairboy, you seem to realize the problems with bush's policies.

seems Holder is able to build a case without the intelligence gained through torture.

Seems we have very similar cases. Attacks in US by foreigners, dead civilians, suspects captured in foreign country.

The difference is that a democrat was able to arrest, try and convict the suspects and a republican ignored the law, left the suspects in a legal limbo breaching one of the most basic tenets of western civilization-being held without trial/without representation. Oh yeah and the ringleader of the suspects is still at large for the crime the repubs couldnt handle the the ringleader for the crime during the dems time in office is sitting in a jail cell.

Oh yeah and the ringleader of the suspects is still at large for the crime the repubs couldnt handle the the ringleader for the crime during the dems time in office is sitting in a jail cell.

You're full of shit.

The 'expendables' (Yousef notwithstanding) were captured and convicted. Their much larger support group were training for 9-11 in Afghanistan without impugnity.

The difference is that a democrat was able to arrest, try and convict the suspects and a republican ignored the law, left the suspects in a legal limbo breaching one of the most basic tenets of western civilization-being held without trial/without representation. Oh yeah and the ringleader of the suspects is still at large for the crime the repubs couldnt handle the the ringleader for the crime during the dems time in office is sitting in a jail cell.

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-20 01:56 PM | Reply

So stupid, taking all of that in to account, how do we possibly give these mutts a fair trial like Holder and Obama claim?

Are you admitting that this is a sham trial and that Obama and Holder will be skirting our cosnstitution in order to get the convictions and executions they've both basically promised?

Oh, and when you get the chance, how about answering those questions, or admitting that you were wrong...

-Corky now supports the Bush DOJ...Fucking classic.

Corky, along with others not licking Glen Beck's boots, knows that evidence from a source not only objective, but usually considered in opposition to the premise, is often a very good argument.

seems Holder is able to build a case without the intelligence gained through torture.

I'd hold off on that praise until a verdict is reached.

Uallsuck,
When you get a chance, how about answers to these questions.
If you can't answer them (which we both know to be true) how about not answering with a white flag non sequitur, and actually attempting to explain some similarities between the two?

Otherwise, you're wrong, as usual.

#26 | Posted by 101Chairborne

hahahaha, yes chairboy, I agree 100% that the ways the administrations handled the situations were COMPLETELY different. Democratic administration under Clinton handled the situation well within legal standards and effectively tried and convicted the perpetrators. Republican administration under Bush acted criminally, ineptly and foolishly resulting in creating an incredible legal morass.

However the facts of the case are the same.

Foreign nationals plotted and committed attacks against US citizens in the US.

The differences arise in effective/bumbling aspects of the investigation.

You're full of shit.

The 'expendables' (Yousef notwithstanding) were captured and convicted. Their much larger support group were training for 9-11 in Afghanistan without impugnity.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ

yes by all means, we should try/convict/arrest/kill all who hate america.

When Holder says, "Failure is not an option" and Obama says, "The American people won't be offended when he's convicted and executed." as if it's a foregone conclusion, they both mock what our legal system is supposed to represent.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-20 01:39 PM

In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.

By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

Jim Comey, a deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan during the Bush administration, is general counsel of Lockheed Martin Corp. Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration, teaches at Harvard Law School and is on the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.

from the link

#34 | Posted by truthhurts

Yes, by all means we should just sit back and let more 9-11s to happen all the while calling it a criminal act in lieu of what it is - an act of war.

Have a good weekend, all.

Uallsuck,
#14, when you get a chance. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know your original response is pretty fucking stupid.
Nearly as stupid as claiming the 93 Bombing trial is comparable to this one.

Maybe your #33 was the admission that you were full of shit. It's hard to tell.

Have a good weekend, all.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-20 02:07 PM | Reply

Fuck off.

Yes, by all means we should just sit back and let more 9-11s to happen all the while calling it a criminal act in lieu of what it is - an act of war.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-20 02:05 PM | Reply

Still trying Your level best to declare it an act of war?? Amazing jeffJ. Simply Amazing.

Larry

BTW choirboy.

WRT to trying "terrorists" who have been subjected to massive breaches of their basic human rights please see Jose Padilla

hey look up this name too
Yaser Esam Hamdi-hmmm US Citizen, held without trial or representation, apparently subjected to similar interrogation techniques as KSM etal.

How many of the Lackawanna 6 were held in gitmo and waterboarded by military personell? How long were they held without trial?
How about Reid? Lindh?

Those aren't comparable situations, especially so with the Lackawanna 6.

sure choirboy, try and act like america hasnt tried so called terrorists in similar situations to KSM etal.

padilla
Ramsi
Hamdi
blind sheihk

so what is the difference between those cases and KSM?

sure choirboy, no comparison at all

foreign nationals check
attacks within US check
Attacks against US citizens check
held without trial/representation check
possibly subjected to torture check

check mate.

I really don't believe that our civilians courts are the right place to try this guy because he wasn't on US soil when he contributed his part to the attack. He wasn't arrested by law enforcement and evidence was not gathered by law enforcement either. There are all kinds of loopholes open to this guy. And really, Al Queda at that point was effectively a branch of Afghanistan's military under the Taliban. They were all fighting in the same trenches together against the Northern Alliance and a co-dependent relationship existed. Basically Al Queda was their version of the French Foreign Legion. This attack was an act of war at least partially perpetrated by another government. It isn't a civilian issue at all.

But I don't give a shit about him spewing his hate in court. Let him go on and on about why he did what he did. In 9 out of 10 cases, the motives the terrorists give us are crazier than you'd expect. Their apologists constantly assign them more understandable motives. So let this guy rant on like a lunatic and expose his apologists for the imbeciles they are.

Then kill him.

"foreign nationals check
attacks within US check
Attacks against US citizens check
held without trial/representation check
possibly subjected to torture check

check mate.:"

Working in cooperation with a foreign government?

Oops. That big house of straw you were buidling just blew away........

hmmm first WTC bombers werent working with AQ working with Taliban?

hmmm Zac Moussoui wasnt working with AQ when we convicted him of the 9/11 attack?

please try again sillyboy.

SAY IT AINT SO!!!!!!!!!

I don't think using facts is considered fair play around here.

actually sully KSM was captured in a boarding house in Pakistan

"hmmm first WTC bombers werent working with AQ working with Taliban?"

LOL. Let's see. 1st WTC attack: 1993. Taliban takes over most of Afghanistan: 1996. No, they weren't working with a foreign government at the time.

"hmmm Zac Moussoui wasnt working with AQ when we convicted him of the 9/11 attack?"

Why do you seem to think that repeating the same wrong twice makes it right anyway? If its wrong to have one civilian trial over 9/11 then its wrong to have two.

"please try again sillyboy."

Says the guy who thinks the 1993 WTC bombers came from the future.

"actually sully KSM was captured in a boarding house in Pakistan"

And do you think the evidence recovered during his capture would stand up to chain of custody standards expected in our civilian courts? LOL.

Uallsuck,
You're a pathetic little shit. Try answering the questions that were asked of you and try listing the similarities.
You may as well have listed "Male subjects check", "black hair check".

None of your guys were detained in secret prisons, tortured, or hidden away in foriegn lands by US Military personell.

As I said, bitch, quit with the non-sequiturs and see if you can't actually answer the questions or just come out and admit the circumstances are different. You know, like your weasely half admission in post number 33.

That's what's called a checkmate, bitch.

And do you think the evidence recovered during his capture would stand up to chain of custody standards expected in our civilian courts? LOL.

#54 | Posted by Sully at 2009-11-20 02:50 PM | Reply | F

Haven't you heard Sully? We aren't giving them all the benefits of a real civilian trial, only the ones that are convenient for us and ensure the conviction that Holder and Obama have stated was going to happen.
We just call it a fair trial to make the people like truthhurts and corky feel good about themselves.

Haven't you heard Sully? We aren't giving them all the benefits of a real civilian trial, only the ones that are convenient for us and ensure the conviction that Holder and Obama have stated was going to happen.
We just call it a fair trial to make the people like truthhurts and corky feel good about themselves.

#56 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-11-20 02:53 PM

I'm torn, I supported the notion of having these trials in court, but you and sully are bringing up some good points.

I must have missed something, but other than the asinine pre-trial commentary from Obama and Holder, are the trials going to be limited or different in any way?

ctually sully KSM was captured in a boarding house in Pakistan"

And do you think the evidence recovered during his capture would stand up to chain of custody standards expected in our civilian courts? LOL.

#54 | Posted by Sully at

I have faith in the US legal system. You apparently do not.

hmmm first WTC bombers werent working with AQ working with Taliban?"

LOL. Let's see. 1st WTC attack: 1993. Taliban takes over most of Afghanistan: 1996. No, they weren't working with a foreign government at the time.

TH: hmmm funny how I read that yousef spent time pre 91 in afghanistan AQ training camps

"hmmm Zac Moussoui wasnt working with AQ when we convicted him of the 9/11 attack?"

Why do you seem to think that repeating the same wrong twice makes it right anyway? If its wrong to have one civilian trial over 9/11 then its wrong to have two.

TH: so you believe the results of Moussawi being tried was wrong. WOW. life in prison without the possibility of parole

"please try again sillyboy."

Says the guy who thinks the 1993 WTC bombers came from the future.

#53 | Posted by sully at

TH: sorry silly boy

Uallsuck,
You're a pathetic little shit. Try answering the questions that were asked of you and try listing the similarities.
You may as well have listed "Male subjects check", "black hair check".

None of your guys were detained in secret prisons, tortured, or hidden away in foriegn lands by US Military personell.

As I said, bitch, quit with the non-sequiturs and see if you can't actually answer the questions or just come out and admit the circumstances are different. You know, like your weasely half admission in post number 33.

That's what's called a checkmate, bitch.

#55 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I said similarities not the exact same thing dumbass.

You originally wrote

What secret prison camp were they held and "tortured"? I imagine we held them without representation for years, right?

Face it stupid, the two aren't even comparable.

#14 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Haven't you heard Sully? We aren't giving them all the benefits of a real civilian trial, only the ones that are convenient for us and ensure the conviction that Holder and Obama have stated was going to happen.
We just call it a fair trial to make the people like truthhurts and corky feel good about themselves.

#56 | Posted by 101Chairborne

gee dumbass have you no faith in the US justice system. Please say so if that is the case.

Jose Padilla was given a trial, found guilty and sentanced despite the fact that his rights were violated.

Please try again.

A photo emerged from his captivity of him being held, naked and bound, wearing a blindfold.[27] After being captured and taken to a room with a single, sealed-off window, Lindh reportedly had his clothes cut off him and was duct-taped to a stretcher and placed in a metal shipping container for transportation, procedure for potentially dangerous inmates with suspected terrorist ties. Lindh was reportedly not allowed release from the stretcher when he needed to urinate or defecate. However, numerous sworn statements from soldiers caring for him dispute this. They claim not only was he allowed to urinate and defecate, but that each time a soldier was required to clean the bucket afterwards to maintain sanitation for Lindh.[28] Lindh was held for over a week in U.S. custody before his wound was treated and the bullet removed.[29]

The court scheduled an evidence suppression hearing, at which Lindh would have been able to testify about the details of the torture to which he claimed he was subjected. The government faced the problem that a key piece of evidence Lindh's confession might be excluded from evidence as having been forced under duress.

To forestall this possibility, Michael Chertoff, then-head of the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, directed the prosecutors to offer Lindh a plea bargain, to which, Lindh would plead guilty to two charges: serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons. He would also have to consent to a gag order that would prevent him from making any public statements on the matter for the duration of his 20-year sentence, and he would have to drop any claims that he had been mistreated or tortured by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan and aboard two military ships during December 2001 and January 2002. In return, all other charges would be dropped

now part of the problem will be bush's torture policy (which is one reason I have always been against it), but there are ways for the judicial system to address it.

FOR EXAMPLE-exclude evidence gained from toture. Presumably there is enough on KSM without torture or Holder wouldnt bring this to court.

the problem lies with the other suspects.

Of course if our country cant provide evidence of criminal activity why are we detaining them.

correction

Of course if our country cant provide evidence of criminal activity why are we detaining them?

WRT to national security implications of trial.

The court can act without public involvement.

From the ZM trial:

The trial highlighted a tension in the United States between the judiciary and national security. Moussaoui made requests for access to confidential documents and the right to call captive al-Qaeda members as witnesses, notably Binalshibh, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. Both requests were claimed by prosecutors to be potential threats to national security. Brinkema denied the motion to access confidential documents, although Moussaoui was permitted to use several al-Qaeda prisoners as witnesses.

It can be done.

1. Lindh held in secret prisons in Afghanistan.
2. Hamdi held in secret prisons
3. Both were "interrogated"
4. Lindh was strapped to a girney naked with a bullet in his leg while a confession was taken
en.wikipedia.org
5. Padilla held without representation.

Gee you're dumb

#61 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-20 03:48 PM |

1. You're a liar
2. You mean the guy who was released to Saudi Arabia? So? What's the signifcance, dumbass?
3. Fucking hilarious. What a stretch. Why bother, you fucking retard? Where is the documented torture like in KSM's case? Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.
4. So what?
5. As his status as an enemy combatant was being played out in court. Again, so what?

Face it you dumbshit, you've got nothing. You should have just left your weasely little admission in post #33 stand, as pathetic as it was.

Jesus, you really thought the list had some relevance, didn't you?

"Of course if our country cant provide evidence of criminal activity why are we detaining them?"

There is a difference between having evidence and having evidence that was aquired and has been handled in such a way as to admissible in a US court of law.

Basically, when the president comes out and says the guy is going to be convicted, we're talking about a show trial anyway.

But if this man was given the full rights of a US citizen and decent lawyer, there would be all kinds of huge obstacles to convicting him.

"It can be done."

Sure if you use a big enough hammer you can pound a square peg into a round hole. Doesn't mean square pegs are supposed to go in round holes.

OJ and Robert Blake were found not guilty, but we'll over-come the obstacles that are present in KSM's case...

sorry you hate the american judicial system so much.

you must hate democracy as well.

There is a difference between having evidence and having evidence that was aquired and has been handled in such a way as to admissible in a US court of law.

Basically, when the president comes out and says the guy is going to be convicted, we're talking about a show trial anyway.

TH: I agree with that. When Bush condemned the soldiers at Abu Graib he was incredibly negligent. He as the CiC basically said the soldiers were guilty before they had a trial. Being the suspects were under his authority as CiC made it even worse. Obama should have only said (and I actually havent seen or heard what he said) was that KSM etal would be given a fair trial and if found guilty etc etc etc.

He as the CiC basically said the soldiers were guilty before they had a trial.

#70 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-20 04:41 PM

Kind of like Obama saying he'll be convicted before the trial even began.

Which is funny, considering how much we heard about how smart Obama the "constitutional scholar" was before the election, and how he'd be more "cautious" than other presidents.

Bush condemned the soldiers at Abu Graib
#70 TH--

Actually he said it was a few bad apples or some such and that they would be brought to justice.

I think you have that confused with Murtha who said our soldiers murdered iraqi civilians in cold blood.

And never apologized (faux apology if any).

What is the liar's den in the WH going on about?

Obama claims it wasn't his decision.

Holder claims he conferred with his wife and dog about the decision for a civilian trial.

Paterson claims the WH told him 6 months ago that KSM was going to have a civilian trial in NY.

Obama suspended the military trials where KSM had already proclaimed his proud arrogance of doing it.

Holder likes to let out terrorists--check out FALN who Holder gave--begged them to take a deal to get pardoned.

In fact, it would not surprise me if after any guilty verdict--if that is the verdict--Holder writes KSM a pardon for Obama to sign.

In the interest of world peace of course.

Murphy Murphy Murphy what is Your problem with the US Justice system?? You obviously hate it or You wouldn't be trying Your level best to deny these detainees our justice. If we can not handle a couple hundred detainees then we must be some drizzling shits anymore. Is this the United States of America or what??

Larry

Bush condemned the soldiers at Abu Graib
#70 TH--

Actually he said it was a few bad apples or some such and that they would be brought to justice.

I think you have that confused with Murtha who said our soldiers murdered iraqi civilians in cold blood.

And never apologized (faux apology if any).

#73 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-20 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

He did not condemn Abu Ghraib. HE SANCTIONED IT FOR PETE SAKE. HE WANTED THAT TREATMENT Murphy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry

Larry--

Got a link for that rant?

How about a confession from the perps who are doing the time??

How about from Gardner--who got 9 years.

Or Lyndie England who served time (?) and had a baby by Gardner??

#10 jeffj
You're joking, right? Have you heard of Sibel Edmonds? I suppose not if you're part of the Foxnews Kool-Aid crowd. She's the FBI Translator who was gagged all throughout the Bush regime. She has spoken to Congress since.

Where do you go from here? The previous administration devoutly declared: They are not POWs. So, they do not fall under the protection of the treaties we have ascribed to, the Geneva Convention for example, and at the same time they are not protected by the constitution for the United States. They exist in some nebulous state I can not describe.

...; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There it is, spelled out for you, that's how we conduct civilization. All men (persons) have rights. I understand that some of the morons among us want it differently, they want torture and death before trial, but that's just not the way it should be among civilized people.

As for myself, I don't give a God damned fuck if there is a 9-11 type event every single day for the rest of my life, I'll still defend due process and equal protection. If you believe otherwise our civilization is nothing more than chimpanzees hollering in the woods.

Jay the SCOTUS Declared these detainees not only had Geneva Convention rights that they also had Constitutional rights. Just FYI

Larry

1 possibility is that this is a back-door way for Obama to put Bush and the CIA on trial. I hope that isn't the case, but who knows.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-20 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bush should have been put on trial. Had it been Clinton in office, you can bet your ass he would have been put on trial. 911 is much more serious than a BJ, or lying about a BJ.

Whats this BS about Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life---are you advocating that we should just forget about 911? You sound like Bush after 911---We don't need an investigation of 911---fuck that---there should be NO unanswered questions---no intel would be compromised---the intel sucked, so compromising a candy ass intel organization is a plus--not a hazard.

wait? how is having a secret military tribunal not a mockery of our judicial system??

we perfected that trait under Nixon,(Ford) (Carter) Reagan Bush (I) (Clinton) Dubya (Messiah)

| Posted by herm at 2009-11-20 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

missed a few. but that comes with senility

Travesty in NY?

Well, yeah, Spud's kinda choked that NY won the World Series again but wouldn't go so far as to say that...

Sorry, wot's that?

The KSM trial in NY is a "travesty" and a "Security risk"?

Well, in one sense yer right, it will be a travesty in that America's use of waterboarding, of torture as an instrument of statecraft, will be revealed fer the whole world to see in all it's ugliness.

Security risk?

WTF?

NY is the most appropriate place to hold this trial as this was where most of the victims were.

In terms of "revealing methods"?

Spud wants to hear about these methods quite frankly.

Wants to see the evidence.

Spud's pretty sure that the only really good evidence was extracted prior to the decision to waterboard the guy 183 times in one month so there will be no aquittal here.

Was Obama wrong to predict that KSM would be found guilty and executed?

No, he was not.

He's the POTUS.

He's seen the evidence.

Imagine if he had sed "Alleged" crimes when refering to this case.

The RW media would be in a frenzy declaring that Obama either doesn't think KSM's guilty or is doubtful of his guilt.

By what logic?

The reason KSM is having a civil trial while al-Nashiri is getting a military one is precisely because it has become known globally that KSM was tortured.

At this point a behind closed doors military court would be seen (rightfully or wrongly) as a kangaroo court in the court of popular opinion. More so in the rest of the world than in the US, of course.

1 possibility is that this is a back-door way for Obama to put Bush and the CIA on trial. I hope that isn't the case, but who knows.

Spud hopes it *is* the case but as you say, Jeff, who knows?

America's enemies will find out certain American methods through this trial?

Meh, there's a risk factor there certainly but Spud judges it to be minimal and all part and parcel of the price you pay for living in a free and open society.

Be Well.

Addendum:

Yer either a Nation of Laws or yer a nation of outlaws.

K?

Be Well.

What is wrong with trying fake criminals in a fake court. We are in Fake War, Dammit!!

Give them a little fake justice.

They electrocuted confession out from them. This is merely following BushCo orders to give impetus for another false flag opportunity. I with this dream would never end.

Oops, "wish".. as in to pretend it will all go away after "justice" is served..

I actually do hope that this circus ends in an aquital so Obama and Holder will be run out of town. It's not like KSM and the other 4 wouldn't be killed almost immediately by a vigilante anyway.

#6 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-11-20 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Not as good as nuking Chicago, but something for the America hating righties to cheer about.