KSM to be tried in Manhattan?

[so.cal.fan]

What do you New Yorkers think of that?
It makes me sick here in Sierra Madre California, and I'm 3000 miles away.
Thanks, Obama and Holder. :(

[boxcar]

What do you New Yorkers think of that?
It makes me sick here in Sierra Madre California, and I'm 3000 miles away.
Thanks, Obama and Holder. :(

BO's minions from Hell itself would break loose if they're not found guilty because of some legal technicality.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

I think they feel that this works on two levels for them. In one way they're bringing a criminal mastermind to justice, and in another way they know that the defendant will be putting Bush's interrogation methods on trial. It's a win/win for them.

[cj's dad]

It will take but one juror to find him not guilty and NY gets to try him all over again; at taxpayer's expense.

Thanks once again BHO, for verifying that you are indeed a horse's ass, an enemy of this country and a muslim at heart.

[Show Me the Wire]

It will take but one juror to find him not guilty and NY gets to try him all over again; at taxpayer's expense.

Thanks once again BHO, for verifying that you are indeed a horse's ass, an enemy of this country and a muslim at heart.

I hope the defense gets the confession thrown out. Then I want to see this adminstration explain their folly of giving a foreign enemy, who perpetrated an act of war against the country the civil rights of a criminal.

[boxcar]

It will take but one juror to find him not guilty and NY gets to try him all over again; at taxpayer's expense.

Thanks once again BHO, for verifying that you are indeed a horse's ass, an enemy of this country and a muslim at heart.

Yeah...and that juror would probably be a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer.

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

Yeah...and that juror would probably be a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer.

Boxcar

Box - I respectfully request that you refrain from using a capital "M" when spelling the word muslim. This gutter religion deserves to be minimized at every opportunity.

Thanks,

cjd

[Tom]

I want Obama to explain what sequence of events occurred - or mostpost can do it - that transformed an enemy combatant, a terrorist - into a civilian criminal entitled to the rights of our constitution.

Here is the thing - he HAS to released and the charges thrown out. He was never read his right. Fruit of the poison tree. There is no evidence that can be allowed in. Discovery will reveal top secret information - names, methods, the name of everyone who interrogated KSM wil be reaeveal to our enemies. OBama knows this. Those men will be marked for death as well as their families. No one in our history has ever turned over more intelligence and given the enemy more aid and comfort tha Obama. Wake up......this POs is our enemy.

Obama know this, and he this is his way of rewarding KSM.
He did not the guts to face the country when his plan was announced. Obama might as well have been piloting one of the planes on 9-11.

[boxcar]

Box - I respectfully request that you refrain from using a capital "M" when spelling the word muslim. This gutter religion deserves to be minimized at every opportunity.

Thanks,

cjd

I would to God that it were only a "gutter religion".

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I want Obama to explain what sequence of events occurred - or mostpost can do it - that transformed an enemy combatant, a terrorist - into a civilian criminal entitled to the rights of our constitution.

Here is the thing - he HAS to released and the charges thrown out. He was never read his right. Fruit of the poison tree. There is no evidence that can be allowed in. Discovery will reveal top secret information - names, methods, the name of everyone who interrogated KSM wil be reaeveal to our enemies. OBama knows this. Those men will be marked for death as well as their families. No one in our history has ever turned over more intelligence and given the enemy more aid and comfort tha Obama. Wake up......this POs is our enemy.

Obama know this, and he this is his way of rewarding KSM.
He did not the guts to face the country when his plan was announced. Obama might as well have been piloting one of the planes on 9-11.

This could well be what BO wants -- but with a more sinister motive. If these guys get cut loose on legal technicalities, there would be more than a few Americans inflamed by this. There could well be widespread civil disorder, in which case BO would immediately declare martial law, which would suspend all our constitutional rights. BO would become our dictator-in-chief. I would not put anything -- and I mean anything -- past this anti-American administration.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Instant Appeal.............

Venue is a problem............and they know it..........

[boxcar]

Instant Appeal.............

Venue is a problem............and they know it..........

What city has that large Muslim population, again? Or in what city is CAIR headquartered? (Oh, yeah...D.C., I forgot. They probably have a hot line right to BO's oval office.) No problem at all.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Much ado about nothing. You're all acting as if this is the first time terrorists will be tried in a Federal Court. In fact:
http://www.lawandsecurity.org/publications/TTRC_US_2006_Appendix_A.pdf
The above is an eleven page list of defendants who have been tried on terrorism related charges in the United States Federal Court system.
I previously submitted a list of people who were convicted in cases regarding the Oklahoma City Bombing, the first WTC Bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebannon.

[Tom]

Unbelievable.
You cannot even see the dots, let alone connect them.
You just created a brand new catagory for Iggy land.
You can make excuses for anyone.
Don't bother replying - it would be a waste your typing.

[boxcar]

Much ado about nothing. You're all acting as if this is the first time terrorists will be tried in a Federal Court. In fact:
http://www.lawandsecurity.org/publications/TTRC_US_2006_Appendix_A.pdf
The above is an eleven page list of defendants who have been tried on terrorism related charges in the United States Federal Court system.
I previously submitted a list of people who were convicted in cases regarding the Oklahoma City Bombing, the first WTC Bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebannon.

Try to listen up, MostExcuses and pay attention carefully, and try connecting those dots. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the alleged mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11) was captured in Pakistan in what -- 2003?. Did you hear that? I said Pakistan -- over in a WAR zone where we have brave MILITARY men and women sacrificing their lives daily. This guy wasn't picked up by NYPD. Or by the NYC Transit Police. Nor did the FBI arrest him. In fact, no federal, state or city law enforcement agency captured or arrested this guy.

This terrorist is then shipped to Guantanamo Bay where he has been held without bail. Never read his Miranda Rights. Was questioned repeatedly without a lawyer. Was allegedly tortured, etc., etc. Now with BO at the helm, we are told that these terrorists have all the rights of U.S. citizens and, therefore, must be tried in U.S. judicial system. Tell me: How can this guy not walk, since he had all his constitutional rights violated, including the right to a speedy trial? How can this case not get thrown out of court?

I'll be waiting with bated breath to hear back from you. And if the case gets tossed out, would you be okay with that?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Why are there double standards with the BO administration? Why did they chose the 5 connected with 9/11 to go through the U.S. judicial system, but this guy isn't?

The government also announced five other Guantanamo detainees, including the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, would be sent to military commissions to face charges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_us_trial

Why isn't everyone being treated equally? If a military commission is good enough for the USS Cole terrorists, why isn't it good enough for the five 9/11 guys?

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

BOXCAR,

you do understand that we all know the answer. and, he will sleep like a baby knowing that.

play all the word games you want, we need a revolution.

[boxcar]

BOXCAR,

you do understand that we all know the answer. and, he will sleep like a baby knowing that.

Of course, the libs know the answer. They're just in denial, which is the perpetual state in which the live.

play all the word games you want, we need a revolution.

I'm ready.

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

so am I

[toetoe]

I want Obama to explain what sequence of events occurred - or mostpost can do it - that transformed an enemy combatant, a terrorist - into a civilian criminal entitled to the rights of our constitution.





I'll take a swing at that. I guess it's The Geneva Convention (I prefer Blackwood myself); but a broader, more general problem for me is just plain old European convention. It seems we forget that that's what we broke away from; what we fled from. Okay, we're the most barbarous people on Earth, killing or enslaving all the noble colored folk, but ... BUT ... they fought back. It's healthy human nature to resist, to fight back. We don't do that, do we ?

[mostpost]

Unbelievable.
You cannot even see the dots, let alone connect them.
You just created a brand new catagory for Iggy land.
You can make excuses for anyone.
Don't bother replying - it would be a waste your typing.
Indeed it would be a waste of my typing. You are so locked into your hatred, into your delusional thinking that nothing will ever change your mind. I do not post here to influence you; you are hopeless.

[Bochall]

KSM should be tried in military court where there will be no cameras, reporters, and a perpetual side show/circus going on outside 24-7. Cant remember the movie but the line went like this, "We're going to give you a fair trial...followed by a first class execution."

[mostpost]

Try to listen up, MostExcuses and pay attention carefully, and try connecting those dots. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the alleged mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11) was captured in Pakistan in what -- 2003?. Did you hear that? I said Pakistan -- over in a WAR zone where we have brave MILITARY men and women sacrificing their lives daily. This guy wasn't picked up by NYPD. Or by the NYC Transit Police. Nor did the FBI arrest him. In fact, no federal, state or city law enforcement agency captured or arrested this guy.

This terrorist is then shipped to Guantanamo Bay where he has been held without bail. Never read his Miranda Rights. Was questioned repeatedly without a lawyer. Was allegedly tortured, etc., etc. Now with BO at the helm, we are told that these terrorists have all the rights of U.S. citizens and, therefore, must be tried in U.S. judicial system. Tell me: How can this guy not walk, since he had all his constitutional rights violated, including the right to a speedy trial? How can this case not get thrown out of court?

I'll be waiting with bated breath to hear back from you. And if the case gets tossed out, would you be okay with that?

Boxcar
Why did all of these things take place? Why was he handled in such a way that it would be impossible to try him in an American court? Could it be because the Bush Administration was afraid of what might come out in a trial? Maybe, maybe not.

I know one thing. When these guys are tried and convicted I am not going to let you forget. I doubt if the DOJ would have gone ahead with the case if they did not have a very strong case. But, if you want to believe that Obama is doing this as a ploy to get them released, go right ahead. It will just make you look the bigger fool.

[mostpost]

Why are there double standards with the BO administration? Why did they chose the 5 connected with 9/11 to go through the U.S. judicial system, but this guy isn't?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_us_trial

Why isn't everyone being treated equally? If a military commission is good enough for the USS Cole terrorists, why isn't it good enough for the five 9/11 guys?

Boxcar
How about because the five connected to 9/11 committed a crime against American civilians on American soil? The USS Cole terrorists committed a crime against American Military personnel in a foreign country.

[newtothegame]

How about because the five connected to 9/11 committed a crime against American civilians on American soil? The USS Cole terrorists committed a crime against American Military personnel in a foreign country.

Ok Most, I have a question. Have you ever served? Just a question cause the way I read your resposne was that in essence since the crime happened ON american soil and against american citizens then the trials would be here in the U.S. ?? Is that correct? So would the reverse be true that if a crime happens outside of the U.S soil, then wherever it happened, that country would have jurisdiction?
I would propose to you that although the Cole might of been in a foriegn port, the cole is and was SOVERIEGN property of the U.S. If this werent the case, why was this not considered an act of war against YEMEN? After all, it was in yemeni waters?
I would go further and ask how U.S embassy's are looked at? I would suggest to you again that those marines standing guard at the gates of an embassy's entrance are protecting it based on U.S law.
Lastly, regarding the five mentioned in the 9/11 attacks to be tried here, did the planning take place on U.S soil? If not, your arguement gets mighty weak considering they may never have entered the U.S, therefore they didnt commit the act against the U.S. And if they didnt commit the act itself, are they being accused of "masterminding" it? Ahhh wait, I think I have heard that term before. So how hard is it gonna be to try them for planning in a foriegn country? Hmmm seems to me that the U.S will have to give up some "secrets" to prove this. Isnt this what the arguement goes right back to....NATIONAL SECURITY????
Seems to me by allowing these accused planners INTO the U.S, we are basically affording them U.S rights. THEY have no U.S rights until they cross into U.S territory to be tried. Then of course they will be treated humanely and with respect (which I promise you is much more then our men and women have been shown over there when captured). Remember the hanging and beheading videos? How about the burn and drag through the streets?
Now I am not saying we should act in the same manner, but I dont see much good from bringing them INTO the U.S. A military tribunal would suffice right there in GITMO.

[andymays]

http://www.breitbart.tv/bombshell-uncovered-obama-statement-ksm-will-get-full-military-trial/

Excerpt:

"Justice will be carried out in his case."


Another case of Obama doing or saying whatever he needs to say or do at the time! :eek:

[Tom]

http://www.breitbart.tv/bombshell-uncovered-obama-statement-ksm-will-get-full-military-trial/

"Justice will be carried out in his case."





If NYers do the right thing. Ever see the old westerns?
Go NY.......!

[Tom]

Geneva Convention......BS! Al Qeda never signed it. We should have never told anyone we had him and kept him hidden for ongoing "interrogation."

[Canarsie]

Geneva Convention......BS! Al Qeda never signed it. We should have never told anyone we had him and kept him hidden for ongoing "interrogation."


That is a brilliant observation!!! :ThmbUp:

The only problem is that it's politics and it doesn't matter who is in charge they want the accolades. If only someone with a brain said "let's keep this under the radar" we would have found out much more.

There is no punishment "severe" enough for this bastard.

[boxcar]

How about because the five connected to 9/11 committed a crime against American civilians on American soil? The USS Cole terrorists committed a crime against American Military personnel in a foreign country.

I knew you'd come up with this answer, but, of course, it begs the question big time.

First, according to BO, these guys are not terrorists. Therefore, they aren't enemy combatants because after all, there is no longer a war on terror. Therefore, I ask again: Why the double standard? Why aren't the guys connected to the USS Cole being tried as common criminals and prosecuted through our criminal justice system?

In other words, according to BO's new edict, if a terrorist or a group of them came on U.S. soil, and set off nuclear device or a chemical weapon -- any kind of weapon of mass destruction -- and let's say, killed 500,000 civilians, and these guys got caught, the would be treated as mere common criminals?

Boxcar

[Tom]

KSM will end up as a Czar of Homeland Security. Wait for it.

[cj's dad]

KSM will end up as a Czar of Homeland Security. Wait for it.

Or end up as an Arabic language teacher in Chicago's public school system.

[so.cal.fan]

NY will seek justice, it's Obama who we can't trust to do the same. :rolleyes:

Why allow this to happen in Manhattan? Haven't these people suffered enough?

[46zilzal]

At least SOMEONE is upholding the tenants of law and bringing a prisoner to trial NOT just languishing in a prison cell never having the charges brought to a court.

Do something, otherwise the entire justice system is cheapened.

Can one imagine the screaming and hair pulling tantrums we would see and hear if the same thing happened to a US citizen in a jail anywhere in the world? Exceptionalism over and over again.

[boxcar]

Why did all of these things take place? Why was he handled in such a way that it would be impossible to try him in an American court? Could it be because the Bush Administration was afraid of what might come out in a trial? Maybe, maybe not.

Forget BUSH already! Today is 11/14/09 and BO is president and BO has made the decision (not Bush) to try them on U.S. soil. And furthermore, if you really mean that Bush's policy makes it impossible for these 5 guys to be tried through our criminal justice system, then why is BO doing it? Why doesn't he just leave well enough alone and let them be tried through the military tribunal system?

I know one thing. When these guys are tried and convicted I am not going to let you forget. I doubt if the DOJ would have gone ahead with the case if they did not have a very strong case. But, if you want to believe that Obama is doing this as a ploy to get them released, go right ahead. It will just make you look the bigger fool.

Whatever floats your boat. I'm not saying they won't get convicted per se. My questions where theoretical. I asked those kinds of questions because when a foreigner is captured on foreign soil is accorded all the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen, then that means the U.S. must play by the rules of the Constitution and all other federal laws. Would any U.S. citizen, who has been indicted of a crime but never read his rights under the Miranda Act, be subject to conviction? Would any U.S. citizen, who was denied legal counsel during interrogation, be subject to conviction? Would any U.S. citizen, who was tortured during the interrogation process, be subject to conviction? Would any U.S. citizen, whose speedy trial rights were violated, be subject to conviction?

And now...here's the Mother of All Questions: Let's say these 5 all get convicted. It must be asked HOW!? Did the U.S. prosecuting attorney play be a different set of rules? Was he following a different Constitution? Was he following a different set of U.S. criminal laws? A U.S. citizen would walk away Scott-free in a New York minute if any of his aforementioned rights had been violated by the state. But if these 5 terrorists don't, on what legal grounds were they convicted? How in the world could they have been convicted?

Finally, let's take this one step farther. Let's say the U.S. prosecuting attorney does play by a different set of rules -- rules that aren't exactly the same as they would be for U.S. citizens -- then what in the world is the big deal about this trial? Just what is the U.S. proving to the rest of the world? That we have two sets of rules in our criminal justice system -- one for U.S. citizens and one for foreigners captured abroad? (Personally, I'd be embarrassed over that kind of duplicity.) We'd be far better off trying these guys through the military tribunal system, which is a different justice system that adheres to different rules. And everyone understands this up front. But just because its rules are different doesn't mean captured enemy combatants get or won't get a fair trial.

Bottom line: There are an awful lot of questions that this administration is leaving unanswered. For this reason, I smell a rat. I strongly suspect we're being lied to through lies of omission. I smell an agenda. Maybe BO wants national security secrets revealed in the trial to help his Muslim buddies abroad. Or maybe a public trial, would give the head nutcase a golden opportunity to communicate in "code" to all his comrades abroad through all his hate rhetoric, etc., etc.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

At least SOMEONE is upholding the tenants of law and bringing a prisoner to trial NOT just languishing in a prison cell never having the charges brought to a court.

Do something, otherwise the entire justice system is cheapened.

so having a phony show trial doesn't cheapen the justice system? The attorney general already guaranteed a conviction. its a sham and an outrage and the only real objective was to put Bush and America on trial.

[mostpost]

Ok Most, I have a question. Have you ever served? Just a question cause the way I read your resposne was that in essence since the crime happened ON american soil and against american citizens then the trials would be here in the U.S. ?? Is that correct? So would the reverse be true that if a crime happens outside of the U.S soil, then wherever it happened, that country would have jurisdiction?
I would propose to you that although the Cole might of been in a foriegn port, the cole is and was SOVERIEGN property of the U.S. If this werent the case, why was this not considered an act of war against YEMEN? After all, it was in yemeni waters?
I would go further and ask how U.S embassy's are looked at? I would suggest to you again that those marines standing guard at the gates of an embassy's entrance are protecting it based on U.S law.
Lastly, regarding the five mentioned in the 9/11 attacks to be tried here, did the planning take place on U.S soil? If not, your arguement gets mighty weak considering they may never have entered the U.S, therefore they didnt commit the act against the U.S. And if they didnt commit the act itself, are they being accused of "masterminding" it? Ahhh wait, I think I have heard that term before. So how hard is it gonna be to try them for planning in a foriegn country? Hmmm seems to me that the U.S will have to give up some "secrets" to prove this. Isnt this what the arguement goes right back to....NATIONAL SECURITY????
Seems to me by allowing these accused planners INTO the U.S, we are basically affording them U.S rights. THEY have no U.S rights until they cross into U.S territory to be tried. Then of course they will be treated humanely and with respect (which I promise you is much more then our men and women have been shown over there when captured). Remember the hanging and beheading videos? How about the burn and drag through the streets?
Now I am not saying we should act in the same manner, but I dont see much good from bringing them INTO the U.S. A military tribunal would suffice right there in GITMO.
I served in the Army from April 1966 to January 1968. Aside from Basic Training and a short stint at Fort Hood my time was spent in Taegu, Korea.
While I was there, we had a "Status Of Forces Agreement" with the South Korean government. This spelled out who had jurisdiction in which cases.
So the answer to your question of who has jurisdiction in a case on foreign soil is "It depends"
As to the Cole being Sovereign property of the U.S., that is probably true in a limited sense. Certainly, Yemeni officials would not have a right to board the Cole without sufficient legal reason. By the same token the Cole could not violate Yemeni laws and claim "Sovereignty". As far as the perpetrators of the bombing, some were captured in Yemen and some were captured other places. Perhaps jurisdiction relies on where and by whom a person is captured. Several terrorists were captured, tried and convicted by Yemen. Most or all of these escaped or were freed within a few years. Since we have custody of the men being discussed here, I must assume we captured them. Thus we have jurisdiction.
Embassies are considered the Sovereign territory of the country of the embassy. An attack on an embassy would be considered an attack on the country itself.
Were the five 9/11 conspirators ever in the USA? I don't know. Certainly they had communication with others who were here. And certainly they planned an event which took place on American soil.

[bigmack]

For anyone living with some level of sanity, you are welcome to sign this letter http://www.thebravest.com/ObamaLetter110909.htm
drafted by the families of those savagely killed 9/11/01 to this President.


It is morally offensive to offer Constitutional protections to individuals charged with murdering 3,000 individuals, in essence, to jeopardize justice for war crimes victims, in order to make an appeal to the Muslim world. The use of Article III courts after the 1993 World Trade Center attack didn't stop any of the subsequent terrorist plots, including the attack on Khobar Towers, 19 Americans killed, the 1998 East African Embassy bombing, 212 killed, the USS Cole bombing, 17 sailors killed. The attacks of 9/11 were a resounding rebuke to the view that federal courts were an appropriate counterterrorism strategy. Afterward, we didn't send law enforcement personnel to apprehend the perpetrators, we sent the United States military, who captured them and held them pursuant to the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF)....

...Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators are asking to plead guilty, now, before a duly-constituted military commission. Mr. President, the families of their victims have a right to know, why don't you let them?

[mostpost]

http://www.breitbart.tv/bombshell-uncovered-obama-statement-ksm-will-get-full-military-trial/

Excerpt:

"Justice will be carried out in his case."


Another case of Obama doing or saying whatever he needs to say or do at the time! :eek:
It is a case of Obama speaking as a Senator, in 2006, in the context of a debate on "The Military Commissions Act". He is expressing his opinion of what would (could?) happen under that act. To say that he is making a pledge of any kind is to stretch reality even further than you normally do.

[so.cal.fan]

Thanks, BigMac,
done!

[johnhannibalsmith]

At least SOMEONE is upholding the tenants of law and bringing a prisoner to trial NOT just languishing in a prison cell never having the charges brought to a court...

I know it happens infrequently in here (agreeing with 46Z) , but I'm going to have to concur with the premise of this sentence.

I'm not so sure that this particular prisoner should be tried in a civilian court in NYC, but it is well overdue that we make some effort to remove the title "alleged" from his formal English translated name, "Alleged Mastermind Of Terror Attacks on September Eleventh".

I like the sound of "Convicted Mastermind of..."

I understand that, allegedly (ahem), he could possible be a source of intel while detained. Still, Zilzal is correct in asserting that the diarrhea would hit the solar powered windmill if an American sat around for a half-decade awaiting a venue to be tried for his "alleged" crime in Saudiraqghakistan or somewhere.

I know 94% of this forum just wants to see the guy shot in the nuts and left to bleed out his ureter, but that wasn't on the docket either, so I am glad that at least this bowel movement with shoulder hair is being formally prosecuted.

Is NYC civilian court the proper venue?

It doesn't really seem like it would be; I can forsee all of the downside to come.

But, if, and yes I did say IF, the system court system works the way it is intended to work and he is found responsible despite every right afforded to our own citizens - I do believe that his ultimate punishment will give US citizens something to unite and bond over - rather than bicker over.

I truly hope that we don't need seven motions a day just to call court to session and a new appellate court just to deal with this case, and really, I'm not inclined to believe that this is certain to be a disaster.

It will be a circus for sure and it won't be swift, but I'm not sold on the notion that the defense can successfully introduce evidence showing, much less use as a defense theory that Bush, Rove, and the CIA denied due process or acted in such a way as to engage in misconduct.

I'm sure it will be a theme in motions and briefs, but ultimately, the circumstances that led to the collection of evidence to be used against him in prosecution is likely to be affirmed as legitimate law enforcement.

I'm not certain what may have been attained as evidence using documented methods that could be construed as overly persuasive, or even torture, but it seems the case against this dingleberry was pretty solid all along.


The downside, obviously, is if these knuckleheads decide to show up to court and incite families of victims as well as followers of their cause. You hate to give someone this despised a legitimate forum, but...

I don't know about this one... I hope that the current administration and AG Holder thought this one through from top to bottom... because with what very little I actually know, it seems like a bit of a gamble to take any approach geared towards bringing him to justice...

...which is why, I guess, they opted for the one that best represents our purported societal ideals relating to incarceration and prosecution.

:confused:

[Tom]

The fix is in. OBama will neve rlet them plead out - he WANTS to destroy America in the courtroom. HE is a terrorist.

[Tom]

Still, Zilzal is correct in asserting that the diarrhea would hit the solar powered windmill if an American sat around for a half-decade awaiting a venue to be tried for his "alleged" crime in Saudiraqghakistan or somewhere.

BS.If we were to blow KSM's brains out on TV the civilized world would cheer us. End of story.

[johnhannibalsmith]

BS.If we were to blow KSM's brains out on TV the civilized world would cheer us. End of story.

And I would be wearing face paint and a big styrofoam middle finger while eating pizza and breadsticks - but the quote that you noted was actually my opinion on what OUR reaction as a nation would be if one of our own was detained indefinitely without seeing justice in some form.

Believe me, I want to see him drawn and quartered myself and it is hard for me to separate emotion from clear thought. I really can't draw a concise conclusion on what is the best way to handle this within the parameters of what is available to dole out justice under our various systems.

I think this is a unique, compelling debate for this country - it makes our ideals seem utterly idealistic and exposes the vulnerabilities of a compassionate, flexible system of justice in black and white.

Again, I'm not entirely in agreement or disagreement with anything I've read here or elsewhere, I'm still just :confused:

[Show Me the Wire]

Very simple. Foreign nationals that carry out acts of war are not criminals under any stretch of the imaginination of the penal code or common law. The proper venue for trying foreign enemies of any country is military tribunals.

War activities are under the jurisdiction of the Department of War, not the Justice Department.

But again Obama was educated outside the U.S. so he missed the civics classes.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is an honest question and forgive me if you think that I sound idiotic or uneducated...

But can we apply the conventional wisdoms of what constitutes an act of war or a war criminal if the prisoner does not officially represent any country, state, or territory, but rather an ideology?

I know that we call it the "War on Terror", but I'm unaware of (which isn't to say it doesn't exist) any formal declaration of war or any means to declare war, as a nation, on a religiously-based sect of extremists that have no allegience but to their "God".

I paid attention in school all of those years... they just never got to this point and it is one that I haven't seen explored in the years since I emerged from a self-induced coma that I am still shaking off...

[Show Me the Wire]

This is an honest question and forgive me if you think that I sound idiotic or uneducated...

But can we apply the conventional wisdoms of what constitutes an act of war or a war criminal if the prisoner does not officially represent any country, state, or territory, but rather an ideology?

I know that we call it the "War on Terror", but I'm unaware of (which isn't to say it doesn't exist) any formal declaration of war or any means to declare war, as a nation, on a religiously-based sect of extremists that have no allegience but to their "God".

I paid attention in school all of those years... they just never got to this point and it is one that I haven't seen explored in the years since I emerged from a self-induced coma that I am still shaking off...

Yes. An act of war can be carried out by a group. Why do you think a group of like minded people can't carry out war acts on a specific population?

An act of war is a prolonged conflict between two parties, Al queda constitutes a party (group).

However, there is no such thing as a war on drugs, because drugs do not constitute a party.

[johnhannibalsmith]

It isn't that I do not believe that they can carry out acts of war, I am uncertain as to what the formal standards are for allowing the military justice system to proceed in treating a prisoner as a war criminal if there wasn't a recognized war, in the traditional sense, that led to his actions.

I'm not debating you, I'm listening to you - I admit to having little knowledge about this - my wonderment stems from concern that he may have as many opportunities to appeal with even greater foundation were he tried as a war criminal in a military court than if he were tried in civilian court.

I will accept any answer(s) that coherently connect the dots for me as gospel until I am told otherwise by someone that disagrees. :)

[Tom]

When a group calls for you destruction, attacks your WTC and then comes back later finished the job, and you catch the guy who masterminded it, you know it.

Bush simplified it - You are either with us or against us.

[lamboguy]

When a group calls for you destruction, attacks your WTC and then comes back later finished the job, and you catch the guy who masterminded it, you know it.

Bush simplified it - You are either with us or against us.no disagreement here. the current president is a sleaze bucket and i think he falls in the category as being against us. it looks to me like he trying to get these guys to walk. of course the trial won't come up and rulings won't come up for years, but the damage will have been done. there are issues in these cases that would not exist for non-american citizen's that will come up. the laws for american citizen's are different and some judge just might see it that way and let these dirty mf's walk out of prison after taking down thousands of people on OUR soil.

as you know, obama is a dirty rotten human being,and i am careful using the word human being. he holds aces over people as demonstrated in the nomination run for president against edwards. i suppose everyone wonders why he threw his support over to obama, and not hillary. my guess is they had something over the man. with edwards support hillary probably would have been president today.

[Show Me the Wire]

It isn't that I do not believe that they can carry out acts of war, I am uncertain as to what the formal standards are for allowing the military justice system to proceed in treating a prisoner as a war criminal if there wasn't a recognized war, in the traditional sense, that led to his actions.

I'm not debating you, I'm listening to you - I admit to having little knowledge about this - my wonderment stems from concern that he may have as many opportunities to appeal with even greater foundation were he tried as a war criminal in a military court than if he were tried in civilian court.

I will accept any answer(s) that coherently connect the dots for me as gospel until I am told otherwise by someone that disagrees. :)

Korea and Vietnam. They were not formal wars but police actions under Presidential powers. The Department of War has juridiction in police actions or iny type of combat involving foreign aggression against the U.S.

The criminal system is limited to the codified penal code or common law crimes and not any captivity resulting from the defense of this country by the military.

Does the above connect the dots? It should.

[mostpost]

But again Obama was educated outside the U.S. so he missed the civics classes.
If all your posts are as factually challenged as the above, and they are, you have zero credibility.
From Wikipedia:
From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School.
That was the last time Obama attended a non American school. Fourth Grade.
More from Wikipedia:
In 1971, he returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham, and attended Punahou School, a private college preparatory school, from the fifth grade until his graduation from high school in 1979.[12]
Hawaii is a part of the United States.
Following high school, he moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College.[19] After two years he transferred in 1981 to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations[20] and graduated with a B.A. in 1983.
Los Angeles and New York City? Also parts of the United States
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988.
Harvard is in Massachusetts, and guess what? Massachusetts is in......THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
So I don't think Obama missed any civics classes. Which is more than we can say for SMTH. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Does the above connect the dots? It should.

To some degree, yes. But, those were the best examples that I could think of and they didn't precisely draw the analogy to prosecution of individuals that committed war crimes in the name of an ideology exclusively, without affiliation to a recognized territory.

I'm wondering about guys like McVeigh - wasn't his prosecution handled the same way this one is about to be? He declared war on the US government years before the bombing, but because he was based domestically, he was entitled to the rights of a Federal trial rather than treated as a war criminal? The war that he was fighting wasn't entirely dissimilar, if not very similar, and his methodology was pretty darn similar.

Could he have been tried as a war criminal?

Thank you for your patience with me.

[Tom]

He was a citizen with no ties to foreign terrorists.
But the POS Fort Hood shooter is clearly a terrorist and guilty of treason.

Thumb screws are in order.

[Show Me the Wire]

To some degree, yes. But, those were the best examples that I could think of and they didn't precisely draw the analogy to prosecution of individuals that committed war crimes in the name of an ideology exclusively, without affiliation to a recognized territory.

I'm wondering about guys like McVeigh - wasn't his prosecution handled the same way this one is about to be? He declared war on the US government years before the bombing, but because he was based domestically, he was entitled to the rights of a Federal trial rather than treated as a war criminal? The war that he was fighting wasn't entirely dissimilar, if not very similar, and his methodology was pretty darn similar.

Could he have been tried as a war criminal?

Thank you for your patience with me.

No. He is a citizen, not a foreign national captured by the military. Also, as a citizen he can be guilty of treason, while a foreign person can not because they owe no allegiance to this country.

Really, this is basic civics. Citizens of the U.S. have basic rights that non-citizens do not have. Your rights as U.S. citizen only extend in the U.S. If you travel to Mexico or Canada you are a foregn national there and have no rights.

See the difference one is a citizen captured by law enforcement and the other is a foreign national captured by the military while it is defending the U.S. from foreign aggression.

In military operations the Department of War has jurisdiction. Also, the military is prohibited from arresting people in the U.S., only law enforcement can legally arrest people in the U.S.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Thank you.

It seems like Basic Civics and it is all so intuitive, but I've gotten to the point where I often feel like the basic premises that I learned about Constitutionality and civil liberties was lip service. The most basic of tenets that I considered unmalleable and iron clad seem to suddenly be subject to constant reinterpretation and precedent conveniently ignored.

Again, thank you - your conviction and certainty on the matter is well-supported by logic and sound reasoning. Refreshing.

[boxcar]

No. He is a citizen, not a foreign national captured by the military. Also, as a citizen he can be guilty of treason, while a foreign person can not because they owe no allegiance to this country.

Really, this is basic civics. Citizens of the U.S. have basic rights that non-citizens do not have. Your rights as U.S. citizen only extend in the U.S. If you travel to Mexico or Canada you are a foregn national there and have no rights.

BINGO! You've nailed it perfectly. What this very ill-conceived trial does is help diminish our sovereignty. It's another step in tearing down our nationalism. And it does these things by putting these foreign war combatants on equal footing with U.S. citizens. And it opens the door for other countries to repay us in kind. For example, any military personnel can be tried in the capturing nation's criminal justice system. All of these things are just more steps to U.S. citizens becoming "world" citizens -- to where a world court convened anywhere could try a U.S. citizen, especially our military personnel.

What so many don't realize is how insulting this trial is to any thinking U.S. citizen because the government is telling me that my citizenship in this country isn't all that valuable or unique, since any foreigner can access and claim the same rights I have under the U.S. Constitution. So...what advantage, then, do I have as a U.S. citizen if anyone outside the country can be put on equal legal footing with me? I might as well not have a country. Or I should apply for citizenship in any old country, since World Citizenship will trump nationalism, anyway. It doesn't really matter where I park myself. Where I call home.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Johnhannibalsmith, you are welcome. Happy to assist.

Boxcar, it is even worse. Giving terrorists criminal rights means if Osama Bin laden is captured we would have to ask the nation to extradite him, just like Polanski.

Imagine how it would play out if the foreign nation refused to extradite Osama.

Obama is playing with fire.

[johnhannibalsmith]

BINGO! You've nailed it perfectly... It doesn't really matter where I park myself. Where I call home.
Boxcar

Thank you as well Boxcar. Excellent post. I may not agree with quite a bit of your ultra-conservativism, but this analysis of implications and consequences is among the more well-conceived rationales beyond the literal interpretations of policy and code. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

KSM was never extradited, was he?

[Show Me the Wire]

KSM was never extradited, was he?

Here is your answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15ksm.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[boxcar]

Here is your answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15ksm.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

So, then the next question, to the several I've asked earlier, is this: How did we get legal jurisdiction for these guys to even be here on U.S. soil? In essence, we kidnapped them! We have no legal jurisdiction over them! Is this how it's done now? If we can't criminals legally, we just kidnap them and bring them here?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Thank you as well Boxcar. Excellent post. I may not agree with quite a bit of your ultra-conservativism, but this analysis of implications and consequences is among the more well-conceived rationales beyond the literal interpretations of policy and code. :ThmbUp:
Permit me to explain the errors in Boxcar's thinking.
BINGO! You've nailed it perfectly. What this very ill-conceived trial does is help diminish our sovereignty. It's another step in tearing down our nationalism. And it does these things by putting these foreign war combatants on equal footing with U.S. citizens. And it opens the door for other countries to repay us in kind. For example, any military personnel can be tried in the capturing nation's criminal justice system. All of these things are just more steps to U.S. citizens becoming "world" citizens -- to where a world court convened anywhere could try a U.S. citizen, especially our military personnel.
The first thing we need to do, is to distinguish between what the Bush Administration termed "Enemy Combatants" and "Prisoners of War." Because the Bush Administration did not wish to be limited by the Geneva Convention as it applied to captured persons (i.e. prisoners of war) they designated those persons as enemy combatants. Enemy combatatants are persons who are fighting against the United States but are not a part of an organized armed force. A prisoner of war is a person who is fighting against the United States and is a member of an organized military force.
"The Law of Nations" is a set of principles by which nations interact. While not a formal law, it is adhered to by nations as necesary to peaceful interaction and cooperation. Under the law of nations, a prisoner of war can not be tried for the acts he commits as a soldier in a war as long as those acts are a part of the legitimate goals of the war. (In other words a soldier is not legally responsible for killing an enemy soldier or for the deaths of civilians who are unfortunate enough to be in a battle zone. He would be responsible if he murdered a civilian after the battle had ended.)
So, according to the "Law of Nations," if American military personnel are captured by an enemy nation they can not be tried in that nation's courts.
Regardless of what Boxcar says.

The more important area where Boxcar is wrong is in his contention that foreign nationals do not have the same rights as U.S. Citizens. The Declaration Of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all me are created equal, that they are endowd by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, but the Constitution was written by men who had a strong belief in the principle of the Declaration Of Independence. Surely, when they enumerated the rights of men in the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights they intended to include everyone. And, in fact, there is no language in
the Constitution which does so.
These arguments are made much more eloquently than I am able to in a treatise by Micah Strait of Utah State University at the following link.
http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/www/index.php?cmd=www_search&offset=0&limit=5&multi_search_search_mode=publication&multi_search_publication_fulltext_mod=fulltext&textfield_submit=true&search_module=multi_search&search=Search&search_field=title_idx&fulltext_search=Foreign+Nationals+and+the+Constitu tion
Then click on "Application PDF

Finally, leaving theory aside, three recent Supreme Court Rulings have affirmed the right of foreign nationals to the same treatment afforded U.S citizens.
Boumediene v. Bush
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195
Rasul v. Bush
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_334
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696

In all these cases, the right of a foreign national to Habeus Corpus and the Due Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment was affirmed.

[Tom]

The NY Times calls him MR. Bin Laden. What a rag.

(Iggy paying huge dividends this weekend!)

[Show Me the Wire]

mostpost:

Your reply is one of the most bone-headed ideas regarding th Decalaration and Constitution.

The Declaration declared (defined) were rights came from, the Creator, as justification to throw off the tyranny of an imposed government.

The Constituion grants citizens rights and not rights to every individual in the world. If your theory was true, at the U.S.' inception slavery would not have been possible. Slaves were not considered citizens so they did not have the right to pursue liberty. The forefathers specifically limited rights. Your analysis is wrong on so many levels it is pathetic.

You really need to learn civics, before you try and teach someone else.

BTW the decision turnes on the definition of "geographic" borders of the U.S. it seems leasing a detention base on foreign soil is akin to being physically in the U.S.

Also in other decisions the Court upheld military tribunals, which is the proper place to prosecute terrorists.

[delayjf]

So, according to the "Law of Nations," if American military personnel are captured by an enemy nation they can not be tried in that nation's courts.

By that same token, then you would agree that they should not be tried in US Courts??

[Show Me the Wire]

By that same token, then you would agree that they should not be tried in US Courts??

:ThmbUp: Point, set, match.

[mostpost]

mostpost:

Your reply is one of the most bone-headed ideas regarding th Decalaration and Constitution.

The Declaration declared (defined) were rights came from, the Creator, as justification to throw off the tyranny of an imposed government.

The Constituion grants citizens rights and not rights to every individual in the world. If your theory was true, at the U.S.' inception slavery would not have been possible. Slaves were not considered citizens so they did not have the right to pursue liberty. The forefathers specifically limited rights. Your analysis is wrong on so many levels it is pathetic.

You really need to learn civics, before you try and teach someone else.


BTW the decision turnes on the definition of "geographic" borders of the U.S. it seems leasing a detention base on foreign soil is akin to being physically in the U.S.

Also in other decisions the Court upheld military tribunals, which is the proper place to prosecute terrorists.
Absolutely not!!!!
The Declaration defined which rights existed as well as where (or from whom) the originated. Those right were not the justification for revolution; their violation was.
The Constitution grants rights to all individuals in the world IN THOSE CASES WHERE THOSE INDIVIDUALS COME INTO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Read Boumediene v. Bush. Read Rasul v. Bush. Read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Take a civics class. :D :D

[mostpost]

BTW the decision turnes on the definition of "geographic" borders of the U.S. it seems leasing a detention base on foreign soil is akin to being physically in the U.S.
The essential question was "Do foreign nationals have the rights afforded to United States citizens when they are in U. S. custody? The answer to that was "YES" The Bush administration claimed that Guantanamo was not sovereign U.S. Territory and therefore the ruling would not apply. The Court rejected that argument.

[mostpost]

By that same token, then you would agree that they should not be tried in US Courts??

Point, set, match.

In your dreams. :lol:
Delay,
The question raised by Boxcar was what would prevent any capturing nation from trying our military personnel in their courts. My answer was for any ordinary action taken in the course of the war, they could not. They could, however, try someone for murdering a civilian somewhere removed from the battlefield. I'm talking deliberate murder not self defense.
The actions of 9/11 were the deliberate murder of civilians. They are the proper subject for trial in a U.S. Federal Court.

[Tom]

Maybe MP will kick in to his defense fund.

[mostpost]

Maybe MP will kick in to his defense fund.
I hope they hang him from one of your duck blinds. I just want them to do it the right way. ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

In your dreams. :lol:
Delay,
The question raised by Boxcar was what would prevent any capturing nation from trying our military personnel in their courts. My answer was for any ordinary action taken in the course of the war, they could not. They could, however, try someone for murdering a civilian somewhere removed from the battlefield. I'm talking deliberate murder not self defense.
The actions of 9/11 were the deliberate murder of civilians. They are the proper subject for trial in a U.S. Federal Court.

Actions of 9/11 were the deliberate murder of civilians by a foreign national member of a foreign based group. Planned murder is an element of any attack akin to 9/11.

You leave out the key information to justify your error.

The pre-meditated murder carried out in Fort Hood fits your scenario, as it is carried out by a citizen of the U.S.

What part of the constitution do you not understand when it says the Federal government has to protect its citizens from foreign agression. Pretty plain is it not? The jurisdiction is with the Department of War not criminal courts.

[delayjf]

The Constitution grants rights to all individuals in the world IN THOSE CASES WHERE THOSE INDIVIDUALS COME INTO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Read Boumediene v. Bush. Read Rasul v. Bush. Read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

A bit off the subject, but the above is why illegal aliens will be covered by any public US healthecare plan.

Perhaps with regards to civil crimes committed by Foreigners on US soil, but not to POWs or in the case of terrorists / enemy combatants. Did we try German / Japanese POWs accused of war crimes in US Civilian courts? If the rights afforded in the US Constitution are to apply to the world, then what is the US's obligation to the rest of the world to defend those rights?

Terrorist attacks committed in the US are investigated by State and Federal authorities using rules of evidense etc. Heck you could throw this case out right now as I'm sure he was not read his rights. Which does have a silver lining, If something like that happens, IMO, it will doom BO's presidency.

Another concern I have is the costs, will they be using federal attorneys or will some law firm favored by the White House get the windfall?

[Show Me the Wire]

Absolutely not!!!!
The Declaration defined which rights existed as well as where (or from whom) the originated. Those right were not the justification for revolution; their violation was.
The Constitution grants rights to all individuals in the world IN THOSE CASES WHERE THOSE INDIVIDUALS COME INTO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Read Boumediene v. Bush. Read Rasul v. Bush. Read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Take a civics class. :D :D

That is what I said. Gitmo is U.S. territory.

According to Holder's own testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee he said this:

The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law, and they could have been prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions. Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism.

Brillant so the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a violation of our federal criminal law too.

An act of war will always contain elements of criminla acts, i.e. premeditated murder. An act of war is the proper jurisdiction of the War Department and not the Attorney General.

If KSM is a criminal, the U.S. had no right to forceably remove him from a foreign sovereign country and bring him to GITMO. The U.S. neede to follow the appropriate treaties and ask for extradition.

Furthermore, if KSM and his coharts are criminals the U.S. must immeddiately stop missle attcks on foreign soil, as the U.N. is correct that Obama is carrying out summary executions. Obama is denying the most fundamental right ot its worldy citizens by taking the worldl citizen's life without due procees a constituional gaurantee.

Even more disturbing is Obama is guilty of first degree murder for killing innocent civilians. It is not acceptable under criminal law to kill people in proximity of the criminal.

Obam , Holder and you need to learn civics. The slippery slope Obama's administration is creating by blurring the line between acts of war and criminal acts is very slippery and dangerous.

[ddog]

Uhmm , you guys do realize we have CIa and "others" who can't go to some countries, right???

You may want to read up on those cases.

[boxcar]

Since we, essentially, kidnapped KSM and his horde to get them to GITMO in the first place, they are currently in our custody illegally. Case dismissed -- unless, of course, the prosecution can produce legally-executed extradition papers. Such papers would give us legal custody. But anything short of this in a criminal justice system...?

This whole trial will be a huge sham from beginning to end.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Very true boxcar, they are kdnapp victims. They should be free momentarily, as any sharp defense attorney will argue, and correctly so, KSM can't get a fair trial in the U.S. Especially, in light of Obama's clueless comments asuring that KSM will be found guilty. Tainting the jury pool by the President, no less.

Maybe that is Obama's bottom line he wants KSM set free to pursue other criminal interests.

[ddog]

Nope , you have to go back to Pakistani law on the kidnap part.

Once turned over to us - the kidnap is OUT.

You do know how he was "captured"?


My 2cents is he WILL PLEAD GUILTY.


O and IF HE GOT OFF , he will not released. There are about 100 counts he can be tried for.

It could be good theater for masses to keep them distracted from the various cracks in the foundation though.

[Show Me the Wire]

Nope , you have to go back to Pakistani law on the kidnap part.

Once turned over to us - the kidnap is OUT.

You do know how he was "captured"?


My 2cents is he WILL PLEAD GUILTY.


O and IF HE GOT OFF , he will not released. There are about 100 counts he can be tried for.


Nope, not according to Obama, Holder and mostpost. He is gauranteed U.S. Constitutional rights as they want to extend rights to world citizens. If he was not mirandarized, etc it is kidnapping, especially since he was held more than 72 hours before formal charges were brought against him.

Haven't you been keeping up, this is about U.S. law being applicable to non-citizens of the U.S. no matter where the non-citizen is located?

[boxcar]

Nope , you have to go back to Pakistani law on the kidnap part.

Once turned over to us - the kidnap is OUT.

You do know how he was "captured"?


My 2cents is he WILL PLEAD GUILTY.

Very simply two things are involved and neither have anything to do with "how" these guys were captured. Ready? Does the U.S. have an extradition treaty with Pakistan? If not, we cannot go into sovereign Pakistani territory and just help ourselves to anyone we want. Criminal laws all over the world kinda frown on that practice -- which is called kidnapping. (This is the reason we have extradition treaties with some many countries.) But if such a treaty does exist between us and Pakistan, then the U.S. should have obtained legally executed extradition papers that would have given us legal custody. To the best of my knowledge, these whackjobs were never extradited because the military captured them in a war zone and whisked them away. I have to think no one was thinking that down the road, these guys would appear in some federal court room. Therefore, if this is the case, they are in U.S. custody illegally! We have no legal jurisdiction over them!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Very true boxcar, they are kdnapp victims. They should be free momentarily, as any sharp defense attorney will argue, and correctly so, KSM can't get a fair trial in the U.S. Especially, in light of Obama's clueless comments asuring that KSM will be found guilty. Tainting the jury pool by the President, no less.

Maybe that is Obama's bottom line he wants KSM set free to pursue other criminal interests.

Excellent point about BO publicly and openly tainting the jury pool! Once again, we are shown just what an empty suit this yo-yo in the WH is. How in the world could any thinking person representing the federal government make that kind of pre-trial promise/statement!? :bang: :bang: The MSM might as well have prejudged these guys and found them guilty and proclaimed it in all their headlines! :bang:

Boxcar

[Tom]

There is no way the civilian justice system can do anything but through out the case against KSM.

To the libs, substitute anyone else (justice is blind) for KSM and tell if he is getting a fair trial. Youse guys were having coniptions when Bush listened in on phone calls from suspeted terrorist origins...how can youjustify KSM's treatment?


tick tock..........

[bigmack]

Graham/Holder exchange today:

GRAHAM: Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

SEN. GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
___________________________________________

I feel better than James Brown knowing Holder is our AG.

[boxcar]

Graham/Holder exchange today:

GRAHAM: Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

SEN. GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
___________________________________________

I feel better than James Brown knowing Holder is our AG.

Another administration moron. When you work for BO, I guess it's inevitable that you catch his Stupidity -- either that or these people were chosen, to begin with, because of their demonstrated dumbness. How could the AG not know this? "I don't know" -- the words of an ignoramus. :faint:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Since we, essentially, kidnapped KSM and his horde to get them to GITMO in the first place, they are currently in our custody illegally. Case dismissed -- unless, of course, the prosecution can produce legally-executed extradition papers. Such papers would give us legal custody. But anything short of this in a criminal justice system...?

This whole trial will be a huge sham from beginning to end.

Boxcar
This all started when Tom asked, "KSM was never extradited, was he?"
SMTH wire replied, "Here is your answer" and linked to a New York Times Article.
Except it wasn't. The article was about the upcoming trial. There was a brief mention of how KSM was captured, but the article never went into any detail as to extradition. Everyone, well all the righties, assumed that he was captured by U. S. authorities. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the capture was made by the Pakistani ISI. There may or may not have been American personnel present. The Pakistani government then turned him over to the United States. The United States has had an extradition treaty with Pakistan since 1931.
I do not think there is any danger that the trial will be stopped for lack of proper extradition.

[mostpost]

Graham/Holder exchange today:

GRAHAM: Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

SEN. GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
___________________________________________

I feel better than James Brown knowing Holder is our AG.
Sen. Graham's question is irrelevent, because KSM was not captured on a battlefield. He was captured in a house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Rawalpindi us very close to Islamabad and is much closer to India than to Afghanistan. Ther is no way it could be considered a battlefield.

[bigmack]

Sen. Graham's question is irrelevent, because KSM was not captured on a battlefield. He was captured in a house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Rawalpindi us very close to Islamabad and is much closer to India than to Afghanistan. Ther is no way it could be considered a battlefield.
Irrelevant? This is the top law in the land, The Big Cheese, Numero Uno, who just made a monumental decision and he doesn't even know if there is precedence for his inane decision?

Ladies & germs of the jury, I ask you to find the relevance.

[boxcar]

Irrelevant? This is the top law in the land, The Big Cheese, Numero Uno, who just made a monumental decision and he doesn't even know if there is precedence for his inane decision?

Ladies & germs of the jury, I ask you to find the relevance.

Also, why didn't Holder use Mosty's argument if the Senator's question was irrelevant? More evidence of incompetence.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Sen. Graham's question is irrelevent, because KSM was not captured on a battlefield. He was captured in a house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Rawalpindi us very close to Islamabad and is much closer to India than to Afghanistan. Ther is no way it could be considered a battlefield.


If that is your argument, then it is necessary he was given his Miranda rights before any interrogation. Rmemeber your position is constitutional rights aplly to terrorists captured outside U.S. borders.

Applying your logic, all the Nazi's that were captured after the war, off the battlefield, were erroneously denied due process too. Keep on posting to show the height of this administration's ignorance.

It really is not Obama's fault, becuase he is a froeign educated community organizer. I am sure in Indonesia, his school did not teach him about the operation of U.S. government, in civics class. It is the U.S. publics' fault for not believing Clinton about Obama's foreign education and his lack of experience and swallowing the propaganda that Obama possesed better judgment.

One thing really makes me ponder. Obama keeps on saying his administration will seek the death penalty. Why would any progressive embrace the death penalty as proper punishment? Very strange indeed.

Obama's is continually demonstrating his poor judgment .

[46zilzal]

It really is not Obama's fault, becuase he is a froeign educated community organizer. I am sure in Indonesia, his school did not teach him about the operation of U.S. government, in civics class. It is the U.S. publics' fault for not believing Clinton about Obama's foreign education and his lack of experience and swallowing the propaganda that Obama possesed better judgment.

Did Harvard open a new branch in Indonesia? Since when

[Show Me the Wire]

Did Harvard open a new branch in Indonesia? Since when

Pointiing to the lack of his domestic foundational education. And I do not believe Harvard gives remedial civic lessons for foregn educated students.

You sound desparate.

[46zilzal]

Pointiing to the lack of his domestic foundational education. And I do not believe Harvard gives remedial civic lessons for foregn educated students.

You sound desperate.
Of course I base 70% of my decisions on thngs I learned in third grade

[Show Me the Wire]

Of course I base 70% of my decisions on thngs I learned in third grade


It shows. :eek: Yes, it seems maturity has eluded you.

[Tom]

Of course I base 70% of my decisions on thngs I learned in third grade

WE KNOW!

What about the other 40%


:lol:

[Boris]

Irrelevant? This is the top law in the land, The Big Cheese, Numero Uno, who just made a monumental decision and he doesn't even know if there is precedence for his inane decision?

Ladies & germs of the jury, I ask you to find the relevance.

There it is. The only word that makes sense of this entire mess, and it is a mess. Precedence. This crew wants to establish one for some reason.

[mostpost]

If that is your argument, then it is necessary he was given his Miranda rights before any interrogation. Rmemeber your position is constitutional rights aplly to terrorists captured outside U.S. borders.

Applying your logic, all the Nazi's that were captured after the war, off the battlefield, were erroneously denied due process too. Keep on posting to show the height of this administration's ignorance.

It really is not Obama's fault, becuase he is a froeign educated community organizer. I am sure in Indonesia, his school did not teach him about the operation of U.S. government, in civics class. It is the U.S. publics' fault for not believing Clinton about Obama's foreign education and his lack of experience and swallowing the propaganda that Obama possesed better judgment.

One thing really makes me ponder. Obama keeps on saying his administration will seek the death penalty. Why would any progressive embrace the death penalty as proper punishment? Very strange indeed.

Obama's is continually demonstrating his poor judgment .
OMG It is impossible to argue with someone who has such a poor knowledge of the facts and such an aversion to logic. Obama was educated in Indonesia through the fourth grade. He attended fourth grade, sixth grade, seventh grade and eighth grade in Hawaii. He attended High School in Hawaii. He attended college in Los angeles and New York, and Law School in Massachusetts. All these places are in the United States. Ask your remedial third grade geography teacher.

[Tom]

The only thing Obama has done successfully and repeatedly since taking office is dismantle our security and aid terrorists. Policies he ordered halted could have prevented Fort Hood. That attack is on him. As will be the next ones.

[boxcar]

The only thing Obama has done successfully and repeatedly since taking office is dismantle our security and aid terrorists. Policies he ordered halted could have prevented Fort Hood. That attack is on him. As will be the next ones.

Yeah, and that one was by a card-carryin' member of the "American Taliban"!
Funny how the Left doesn't see this murdering whackjob as a terrorist but would be very, very quick to point to some misguided people displaying bumpers stickers in poor tastes as being terrorists. The loony left just keeps getting loonier. :faint:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Applying your logic, all the Nazi's that were captured after the war, off the battlefield, were erroneously denied due process too. Keep on posting to show the height of this administration's ignorance.
Which Nazis are you referring to. If you are referring to the Nazi civilian and military leaders of Germany who were tried at Nuremberg, they all received the rights and due process of that court. As to the former Nazi concentration camp guards who have been apprehended; all of them have been tried under the laws of the nations to which they were extradited. Including themn in this discussion is meaningless.

[mostpost]

If that is your argument, then it is necessary he was given his Miranda rights before any interrogation. Rmemeber your position is constitutional rights aplly to terrorists captured outside U.S. borders.
Yes, it is a shame that Ernesto Miranda got away with raping that woman after his confession was thrown out because the police failed to inform him of his fifth amendment rights............................................ ..........................
Except he didn't. He was retried and convicted based on other evidence and testimony. Failure to Mirandize a suspect does not cause the case to be dismissed. It merely means that evidence gathered through that interrogation and solely through that interrogation can not be used.
I don't know, and I don't think you do either, that KSM was NOT Mirandized. But assuming that he was not, I am confident that that fact was given extreme consideration by the DOJ in arriving at their decision.

[mostpost]

One thing really makes me ponder. Obama keeps on saying his administration will seek the death penalty. Why would any progressive embrace the death penalty as proper punishment? Very strange indeed.
You have everyone set in their little niche, don't you? All progressives are not opposed to the death penalty. Some progressives who are opposed to the death penalty are willing to concede that there are times when it is an appropriate penalty.

[boxcar]

You have everyone set in their little niche, don't you? All progressives are not opposed to the death penalty. Some progressives who are opposed to the death penalty are willing to concede that there are times when it is an appropriate penalty.

And when they publicly verbalize their support for the death penalty, it's probably due to some hidden motive or agenda. Since BO has no qualms about aborting an infant outside the womb, I doubt very much that he's really in favor of the death penalty. So...stuff this little fact into your "niche" pipe and puff on it. ;)

Boxcar
P.S. Tell me: Is there anything...anything at all -- that you would not believe coming from this proven liar's mouth?

[bigmack]

I am confident that that fact was given extreme consideration by the DOJ in arriving at their decision.
Extreme consideration?

While you wiggle for this decision without any precedence there was some questioning today:

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, let me ask you this. Okay, let me ask you this. Let's say we capture him tomorrow. When does custodial interrogation begin in his case?
If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him, "You must read him his rights and give him a lawyer"? And if you didn't tell him that, would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?

[boxcar]

Geesh...and Holder is the top Law Enforcement guy in the country? :bang: :bang: At least the government should get a stand-in for this moron -- maybe someone like Mosty or 'cap, who at least have very good spin capabilities. But Holder is coming off as an idiot.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Holder is a moron. And a liar.
And he represents terrorists.
Like his boss.
Prez HUSSEIN.

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes, it is a shame that Ernesto Miranda got away with raping that woman after his confession was thrown out because the police failed to inform him of his fifth amendment rights............................................ ..........................
Except he didn't. He was retried and convicted based on other evidence and testimony. Failure to Mirandize a suspect does not cause the case to be dismissed. It merely means that evidence gathered through that interrogation and solely through that interrogation can not be used.
I don't know, and I don't think you do either, that KSM was NOT Mirandized. But assuming that he was not, I am confident that that fact was given extreme consideration by the DOJ in arriving at their decision.


You really do not get it or are you trying to twist me position into something it is not? If you do nt understand my position it ia as follows.

I am not saying too bad about Miranda rights. I am in favor for every protection of the Constitution, in the appropriate matter and proper application. Acts of war are the purview of the Department of War, not the Attorney General.

Holder's own testimony exposes the insanity of this administration's decision to apply criminal laws to prosecute acts of war.

Myself, I believe the death penalty is appropriate in some cases, but based on my experience progressive types are usually vehemently against the death penalty.

[Tom]

Holder says it will be easier to convict in our court system.
KSM has already requested to plead guilty and take the death penalty.
Holder thinks that will too hard for him to accomplish?????????

It will cost NYC $75-100 million - the fed pay none of it.
When it could cost nothing at all.


GO OBAMA!!!!!!

You piece of S
YOU pay the bill dipstick - we are brook in NY.


Prex Hussein is wasting tax money for his personal agenda.

[andymays]

Holder: KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx

Excerpt:

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.


Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.
At least that's the way the system usually works.

[Tom]

:lol: That is exactly the way it has been since we caught him! :lol:
The only difference will be that it will cost NYers $100 million.

What total MORONS these people are!


I can't wait for the spin from mostie on this one!:lol:

[boxcar]

This further reinforces my opinion that this whole trial will be a sham -- and at so many people's expense. BO is going to have the justice department put on this elaborate and very expensive dog and pony show for only one reason: To put Bush and his policies on trial. It's all 100% pure, unadulterated, cheap politics. BO knows that there would be hell to pay if these guys were acquitted and let go. So, he's going to have it both ways -- as the Newsweek article said, "Heads I win, Tails you lose". Can't be anymore of cheat or anymore dishonest than this, can you? But what more would any reasonable person expect from this liar?

BO is one cruel, heartless human being to put New Yorkers, the surviving families or for that matter the entire country through this unnecessary show. A real friend of God... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[andymays]

Obama and Holder and especially Pelosi want the CIA and the Bush Administration put on trial.

These stupid people can't figure out that it's gonna backfire on them bigtime. :bang:

It's also gonna hurt a lot of people that don't deserve this crap!

[boxcar]

Obama and Holder and especially Pelosi want the CIA and the Bush Administration put on trial.

These stupid people can't figure out that it's gonna backfire on them bigtime. :bang:

It's also gonna hurt a lot of people that don't deserve this crap!

Not only that, but think of this, too: Since BO is playing essentially with a stacked deck and is not going to lose no matter the outcome of the trial, what is the watching world going to think of the U.S. if these guys are found innocent but not freed!? Isn't BO the guy who covets the world's opinion more than anything else in this life? Isn't he going around the entire world seeking favor from the world? Always bowing before leaders in a shameless display of his false humility? Always-- constantly -- incessantly apologizing to world leaders and their countries for all the supposed misguided U.S. foreign policy missteps by the previous administration? And, yet, he's going to risk scorn and ridicule with this grossly unfair and dishonest "can't lose" strategy? So, what would he gain if this were to happen? He might as well have done the right thing from the very beginning and sent these five before a military tribunal! But no! He wants to risk making a mockery out our criminal justice system before the eyes of all Americans and indeed -- the entire world.

This is one very, very sick egomaniac.

Boxcar

[skate]

OK ok ok, now look, here's what you guys are missin.

They must try the terrible Muslims in NYC, it's the only place left (LEFT) enough.

Ya see, they are gonna be using Gitmo, for the Geithner trial.:)

[PaceAdvantage]

Holder: KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx

Excerpt:

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.


Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.
At least that's the way the system usually works.Maybe it's me, but I don't get it...somebody fill me in...did America get taken over by foreign invaders when I wasn't looking?

Seriously...any of the people out there who voted for Obama...tell me this little ditty from Holder doesn't stoke the flame of regret a bit...

[andymays]

Maybe it's me, but I don't get it...somebody fill me in...did America get taken over by foreign invaders when I wasn't looking?

Seriously...any of the people out there who voted for Obama...tell me this little ditty from Holder doesn't stoke the flame of regret a bit...


When you read that article you realize the only reason for this administration to put KSM on trial in New York is to put Bush and the CIA on trial as well. These guys are all about politics and ideology. They put politics and ideology above all else!

[delayjf]

That and the fact that his old law firm will be defending some of the terrorists. I wish I was the judge, I'd assign them the case pro bono. But then if I were the judge the case would not last long. I would convene the jury then dismiss the charges and order KSM and his buds freed within the hour (allowing enough time to get the word out) and turn them loose on the streets of New York City.

[Tom]

Maybe it's me, but I don't get it...somebody fill me in...did America get taken over by foreign invaders when I wasn't looking?

Seriously...any of the people out there who voted for Obama...tell me this little ditty from Holder doesn't stoke the flame of regret a bit...


We were invaded by Kenya.

[wes]

Obama's Administration

I haven't desided who the organ grinder is at this time!

wes

[andymays]

Charles Krauthammer on National Review Online

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjAxZWY3OWMyY2ZkMmE5NzI3ZGFmYmI2NWNjZDQ3ZDc=

Excerpt:

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

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 200 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.

[Show Me the Wire]

Seems AG Holder's testimony earlier this week has failed to make his case for criminal venues.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee expressed opposition today to Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to give civilian trials to the 9/11 plotters.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) penned a letter to Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggesting military trials would be a more appropriate venue for the accused terrorists.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68929-dem-chairman-not-happy-with-911-trials

Gee, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee disagrees with mostpost.

[so.cal.fan]

The link below will take you to a formal written report dtd 19 May 2009, “Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force April 2008 – January 2009” .


http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf Go to page number 29, scroll down toward the bottom on the Left Column

He is listed under "THINKING ANEW- SECURITY PRIORITIES FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION", as Nidal Hasan, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine (8TH DOWN ON LEFT COLUMN PAGE 29).

[Tom]

If I were a terrorist, I would have an Obama poster on my cave wall.
He is the best friend Al Qeda ever had.

[PaceAdvantage]

The link below will take you to a formal written report dtd 19 May 2009, “Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force April 2008 – January 2009” .


http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf Go to page number 29, scroll down toward the bottom on the Left Column

He is listed under "THINKING ANEW- SECURITY PRIORITIES FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION", as Nidal Hasan, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine (8TH DOWN ON LEFT COLUMN PAGE 29).Indeed it appears it is the same monster. I actually posted about this a week or so ago...nobody seemed to be too alarmed by the fact that this psycho was working in this sort of capacity...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=782993&highlight=Hood#post782993

[so.cal.fan]

I missed your post, Mike. I just recieved this information yesterday.
It's pretty damn shocking, why aren't the press jumping on this one?
If this is the same guy, which you tell me, and others who have checked tell me it indeed is.......then isn't the fact that he connects right back to the President alarming?
I sure think so. No wonder Obama wanted this swept under the rug.
:eek:

[Show Me the Wire]

Because the press is protecting Obama and trying to save face for the press’ farcical coverage during the campaign, about Obama’s good judgment. :eek:

[Tom]

I have been telling everyone - Obama is a terrorist enabler.
Believe it. This guy had Barry's blessing.

What was the CNC's first response to news of this shooting?
A "shout out" to the crowd and two minutes of banter before getting around his troops being murdered by his people.

This is not my president. This is the enemy of America.
Far more of an enemy that Bin Laden or KSM.

They are going put wrong man on trial in NYC. It should Obama.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because the press is protecting Obama and trying to save face for the press’ farcical coverage during the campaign, about Obama’s good judgment. :eek:I can only imagine how the press would react and how the left-leaners here on PA off-topic would be posting non-stop if, during the Bush years, it was discovered that a white supremacist, or perhaps an abortion clinic bomber or abortion doc murderer had once been part of the Bush team, in WHATEVER capacity...

Any such person, with any such link, no matter HOW TENUOUS, would have been exploited to the fullest by the main stream news media with their anti-Bush slant back in the day...

I would have been paying penalty fees to my web host for all the extra bandwidth hcap and 46zilzal would have sucked up with their posts...:lol:

[hcap]

Your paying extra penalty fees right now.
24/7/365 non stop bitching.

[PaceAdvantage]

Your paying extra penalty fees right now.
24/7/365 non stop bitching.What, you don't believe in equal time? This is payback for the past 8 years.

You still don't get that...it's really not that hard to understand...

Good thing Obama is providing lots of quality material for the "paybackers" to work with...

[boxcar]

What, you don't believe in equal time? This is payback for the past 8 years.

You still don't get that...it's really not that hard to understand...

Good thing Obama is providing lots of quality material for the "paybackers" to work with...

At that Obama supply train will be endless.

Boxcar

[Tom]

What goes around comes around. Woo Hoo! :D

[boxcar]

Just heard on Rush that KSM will be pleading not guilty to the charges against him? This is the way he'll get his day in court -- by blaming America for everything. Americans are at fault for 9/11. He will put America on trial. Trust me on this, and this is precisely what BO wants.

Boxcar

[Black Ruby]

Just heard on Rush that KSM will be pleading not guilty to the charges against him? This is the way he'll get his day in court -- by blaming America for everything. Americans are at fault for 9/11. He will put America on trial. Trust me on this, and this is precisely what BO wants.

Boxcar

I'm sure Limbaugh has been in personal contact with KSM so has absolute knowledge on what his plea will be.

[Tom]

If he is not, isn't it pretty stupid to have a trial?
He was going to plead guilty to a military tribunal and take the death penalty.

That is a 100% certainty of justice being served.
What do suppose that number is now?

[johnhannibalsmith]

His lawyers do have knowledge and they are the source of the intended plea.

[Show Me the Wire]

Why would KSm plead guilty in a Criminal trial? A guilty plea would negate a trial of any kind. Therfore, a big waste of time and money for nothing.

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_re_us/us_sept11_trial_defendants;_ylt=Ani5v9Q_3FzsWzpBSt wPUm5G2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTMwbmcyODN1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMD kxMTIzL3VzX3NlcHQxMV90cmlhbF9kZWZlbmRhbnRzBHBvcwM0 BHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2xhd3 llcjkxMWRlZg--


Excerpt:

Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views
AP – Mon Nov 23, 5:57 am ET

AP NEW YORK - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.

[bigmack]

AP NEW YORK - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
I'm sure Limbaugh (The AP, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox & growing...) has been in personal contact with KSM so has absolute knowledge on what his plea will be.

The preceding sponsored by:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/6333.jpg

[boxcar]

I'm sure Limbaugh has been in personal contact with KSM so has absolute knowledge on what his plea will be.

Oh, ye, of little faith: Why would Rush go out on the limb like that if he didn't have this from good sources? :rolleyes: You confusing Rush for a liberal liar?

Boxcar

[skate]

Rushman admits 'it', he uses common sense, almost every time too.

It's so so easy...:cool:

[bigmack]

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? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.

...Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/20/travesty_in_new_york_99224.html

How fitting it would be to have Sir Lance Get Off presiding over this trial

http://www.nndb.com/people/916/000044784/lance-ito.jpg

[Show Me the Wire]

Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.



Ya think the Supreme court may be regretting its earleir ruling about GITMO now?

[GaryG]

Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." Could this be an ego trip by the in-over-his-head AG? This has the potential to be the mother of all dog and pony shows. The defendants take the stand and call the US imperialist pigs or whatever term they use for as long as they want. Then the defense claims bias because of the defendants' unpopular views. And on and on. Anything less than a death sentence will provoke virtually everyone.

[bigmack]

Could this be an ego trip by the in-over-his-head AG?
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_23_09_16_31_30.png

While others at the Justice Dept axed him to abandon his pursuit of their pardon, Holder pushed forward & was the key propenent to pardon FALN members.

SRRL_vjrIk0

[Tom]

Professional courtesy?

[PaceAdvantage]

If he is not, isn't it pretty stupid to have a trial?
He was going to plead guilty to a military tribunal and take the death penalty.

That is a 100% certainty of justice being served.
What do suppose that number is now?0%, as Holder has already stated publicly that if by some chance KSM was to be found NOT GUILTY, KSM would NOT be set free....

Obviously, AG Holder is playing by a different set of rules than the ones America usually operates on...

Imagine that...being found NOT GUILTY in a court of law in the US and NOT BEING SET FREE!?!?!?!

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx

And they called Bush dangerous....:lol:

This administration is indeed clueless. They are flying by the seat of their pants in practically EVERY area...frightening.

[Tom]

When the 5 terrorists get on the stand and spew their hatred, just know that they speak for Barack Hussein Obama - all unified in purpose and mind.

mmmmm mmmmm mmmmmm.

[andymays]

http://www.keepamericasafe.com/?page_id=1822

Excerpt:

November 21, 2009

Dear Supporter,

Last Wednesday, a group of 9/11 family members and New York first responders attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Attorney General Eric Holder testified about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 9/11 co-conspirators in a New York City federal court. Mr. Holder stumbled through several tough and pointed questions about the dangers of giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens and blurring the mission of our war fighters. He was visibly unnerved by the presence of the families and the first responders. We want to keep the pressure on him, as well as President Obama, who we were shocked to learn was AWOL on this reckless decision.

Nearly two weeks ago we sent a letter signed by 300 family members to President Obama, AG Holder and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. After Mr. Holder’s announcement last Friday, another 120,000 people (as of today) have signed the letter in support of our position. Many of these individuals are family members from all three attack sites, active & retired FDNY, PAPD & NYPD, first responders from throughout the country and active, reserve and retired members of the military.

We are holding a press conference on Tuesday, November 24, at noon in Battery Park, Clinton Castle for the 9/11 families and first responders/survivors. We chose to hold it on Thanksgiving Week in the hope that our fellow Americans will join us in sending our prayers and messages of thanks to our troops and first responders, who bear the brunt of the decisions made in Washington. At that time we will announce the details for a large rally in New York City on Saturday, December 5, at noon at a location to be announced at the press conference.

Going forward, we think it is important that the rally be tightly focused on the issues of keeping 9/11 war crimes trials out of civilian courts, keeping foreign terrorists off U.S. soil, and reversing the policy of returning to pre-9/11 days when the U.S. Government responded to deadly terrorist attacks with arrest warrants.

Please stay tuned as we release more information in the next few days.

Tim Brown
theBravest.com
neverforget@theBravest.com

[Black Ruby]

http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts11232009.html

excerpt:
The price that Mohammed will pay will be small compared to the price we Americans will pay. The outcome of Mohammed’s trial will complete the transformation of the US legal system from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of the state. Feige writes that Mohammed’s statements obtained by torture will not be suppressed, that witnesses against him will not be produced (“national security”), that documents that compromise the prosecution will be redacted. At each stage of Mohammed’s appeals process, higher courts will enshrine into legal precedents the denial of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, thus enshrining indefinite detention, the denial of the right against damning pretrial publicity, thus allowing demonization prior to trial, and the denial of the right to have witnesses and documents produced, thus eviscerating a defendant’s rights to exculpatory evidence and to confront adverse witnesses, The twisted logic necessary to disentangle Mohammed’s torture from his confession will also be upheld and will “provide a blueprint for the government, giving them the prize they’ve been after all this time--a legal way both to torture and to prosecute.”

It took Hitler a while to corrupt the German courts. Hitler first had to create new courts, like President George W. Bush’s military tribunals, that did not require evidence, using in place of evidence hearsay, secret charges, and self-incrimination obtained by torture.

Every American should be concerned that the Obama administration has decided to use Mohammed’s trial to complete the corruption of the American court system. When Mohammed’s trial is over, an American Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler will be able to convict America’s Founding Fathers on charges of treason and terrorism. No one will be safe.

[bigmack]

http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts11232009.html
Now I know why you practice drive-by posting. You follow the writings and thoughts of unstable people. How is Roberts coming on the 911 conspiracy?

This from the same article you cited:

If the barbaric treatment Mohammed has received during his captivity hasn’t driven him insane, :lol: how do we know he hasn’t decided to confess in order to obtain for himself for evermore the glory of the deed? How many people can claim to have outwitted the CIA, the National Security Agency and all 16 US intelligence agencies, NORAD, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, airport security (four times on one morning), US air traffic control, the US Air Force, the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, all the neocons, Mossad, and even the supposedly formidable Dick Cheney? :lol:

Originally, according to the US government, Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11. To get bin Laden is the excuse given for the US invasion of Afghanistan, which set up the invasion of Iraq. But after eight years of total failure to catch Osama bin Laden, it became absolutely necessary to convict some culprit.

[Tom]

Pathetic.
This is the mentality that allows people like Hitler and to grow in the first place.