PDA

View Full Version : AG Holder says he will try Khalid Sheik Ron Jeremy in NYC



FORD
11-13-2009, 12:05 PM
November 14, 2009
Key 9/11 Suspect to Be Tried in New York
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

http://blog.davidhoyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ksm.jpg

WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday.

But the administration will prosecute another set of high-profile detainees now being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen, and four other detainees — before a military commission.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.

No detainee is being moved right away. Under a law Congress enacted this year, lawmakers must be given 45 days notice before the executive branch moves any Guantánamo Bay detainee onto United States soil.

The decision marks a milestone in the administration’s efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, something that President Obama announced shortly after taking office that he would do within a year, but that has proved difficult to achieve because of uncertainty about what to do with the detainees housed there.

Mr. Obama, asked about the decision in a news conference on his weeklong trip to Asia, declined to comment directly, but said that Mr. Mohammed would face justice.

“I’m absolutely convinced that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice,” Mr. Obama said. “The American people insist on it, and my administration insists on it.”

Shortly after taking office, Mr. Obama also shut down the Bush administration’s military commissions. But in a speech at the National Archives in May, he said his administration was considering reviving some form of the panels, which have more flexible standards for handling evidence gathered in battlefield settings and through classified methods, to handle especially difficult prosecutions. He promised to make the commissions more fair with extra safeguards for defendants.

Still, the prospect of giving different detainees different kinds of trials, based on where government officials think they can win convictions, has led to criticism by some human rights and civil liberties advocates.

Adding to the difficulties of shutting down Guantánamo is that in almost every other place within the United States that the administration has talked about transferring prisoners, the local community has risen up through political leaders to say they did not want to take the inmates because they feared they could become targets for terrorism.

New York City has been different. In March, for example, when the administration prepared to bring Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a suspect in the 1998 bombings of United States embassies in Africa that killed 224 people, to face trial there, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said the city was well-accustomed to handling high-profile terror suspects.

“Bottom line is we have had terrorists housed in New York before,” Mr. Schumer said at a March news conference at the Capitol with other Democratic leaders. “They’ve been housed safely.”

Mr. Schumer at the time pointed to the “blind sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted on terrorism-related charges in New York. “The main concern is bringing these terrorists to justice and making sure the public is safe,” Mr. Schumer said. “I have faith that the administration will do both.”

Still, Mr. Ghailani is not facing a potential death sentence, and is not nearly as high profile as Mr. Mohammed. A prosecution for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City could test such attitudes.

Republicans have strongly opposed proposals to bring Guantánamo detainees onto United States soil for civilian trials. In an opinion piece this week in The National Law Journal, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican Senate leader, asserted that civilian trials risk “compromising sensitive information,” present “logistical and security nightmares for American cities” and would give terrorism suspects additional legal rights. He also warned that if a defendant is acquitted and cannot be deported, the former detainee could end up being released onto United States soil.

A spokesman for Mr. McConnell said he would comment after Mr. Holder’s news conference.

The decisions about how to prosecute Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Nashiri have been particularly difficult because their defense lawyers are expected to argue that they were illegally tortured by the Central Intelligence Agency during their confinement, tainting any evidence gathered from their interrogations. The Bush administration later sent a so-called “clean team” to re-question the prisoners in preparations for military commission trials.

Documents have shown that the C.I.A. used waterboarding — a controlled drowning technique — against Mr. Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mr. Nashiri is one of two other detainees known to have been waterboarded before the Bush administration shut down the program, which high-level officials had approved after the Justice Department wrote legal memorandums arguing that the president, as commander in chief, could authorize interrogators to bypass antitorture laws.

Mr. Mohammed and the four other suspects accused of helping organize the Sept. 11 plot — Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi — had been facing potential death sentences if convicted of the charges the Bush administration had brought against them in military commissions before the Obama administration froze those proceedings.

Mr. Mohammed was captured on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. For the next several years, he was held in secret prisons run by the C.I.A. In September 2006, Mr. Mohammed and 13 other “high value” Al Qaeda prisoners were transferred to the detention center in Guantánamo.

Aside from statements under interrogation, at a hearing held there released in March 2007, Mr. Mohammed took full credit for the 9/11 attacks and a number of other plots. (He also asserted that he had personally decapitated a kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, in Pakistan.) On Dec. 8, 2008, Mr. Mohammed, along with four co-defendants, sent a note to a military judge at Guantánamo asking to confess and to plead guilty.

Mr. Mohammed, an ethnic Baluchi, was born in Kuwait on April 24, 1965. He is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. He studied mechanical engineering in the United States in the 1980s.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, his only involvement with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was conversations with Mr. Yousef, and some contributions to the conspirators. He traveled to the Philippines with Mr. Yousef in 1994 and worked on the Bojinka plot — an aborted plan to explode 12 commercial jets over the Pacific.

Mr. Mohammed was indicted in the United States on charges stemming from the Manila plot, but he eluded the F.B.I. in Qatar in 1996. He fled to Afghanistan and met with Osama bin Laden, where he proposed a plan to train pilots to crash 10 planes into targets in the United States. Mr. bin Laden was not persuaded but he asked Mr. Mohammed to join Al Qaeda, an offer he declined. After the 1998 African embassy bombings by Al Qaeda, however, he accepted Mr. bin Laden’s invitation to move to Afghanistan and pursue the 9/11 plan.

Several prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia — which includes the Pentagon, one of the targets on Sept. 11, 2001 — will assist in the trial in New York.

It was not immediately clear where the military commission trials would take place. The Bush administration spent tens of millions of dollars building a courtroom at Guantánamo Bay, but it has sat empty since the Obama administration froze legal proceedings there to undertake a review of how to handle the detainees. Officials have been eyeing military brigs elsewhere, including some inside the United States.

About 215 detainees remain at the military base, which became a global symbol of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy of holding detainees without trial. About 90 have been cleared for transfers to other countries, and Obama officials have said they expect that some of the remainder will be tried, either in federal court or military commissions, while others will continue to be held without trial because they are deemed too dangerous to release but too difficult to prosecute for evidentiary reasons.

David Johnston contributed reporting from Washington, Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Tokyo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14terror.html

Figs
11-13-2009, 12:13 PM
Haha - He does kinda look like Ron Jeremy.....what was the question?

Nickdfresh
11-13-2009, 01:04 PM
Except Ron Jeremy doesn't have a small penis, is Jewish, and didn't murder thousands...

FORD
11-13-2009, 01:06 PM
"Confessions" obtained under torture aren't admissible in court, last I heard. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Nitro Express
11-13-2009, 01:08 PM
Islamic terrorists seem to like strippers, porn, and prostitutes. I wouldn't want to see the dude naked. He's covered in hair. Maybe they just caught Sasquatch and are calling him a terrorist.

Nickdfresh
11-13-2009, 01:09 PM
"Confessions" obtained under torture aren't admissible in court, last I heard. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.


Irregardless of whether he confessed under torture or not, he certainly has proudly stated that he was behind it and that he pretty much hates Osama Bin Laden, and that al Qaida exists more as an idea than an actual organization...

Big Train
11-13-2009, 01:56 PM
What I don't understand is how the prosecution believes that the defense lawyers won't argue that having this trial in NY, where Holder says something to the effect of "steps away from the crime'.

This seems to be encouraging a mistrial if anything.

FORD
11-13-2009, 02:14 PM
What I don't understand is how the prosecution believes that the defense lawyers won't argue that having this trial in NY, where Holder says something to the effect of "steps away from the crime'.

This seems to be encouraging a mistrial if anything.

Seems to have worked OK for the guys that hit the WTC the first time. They were tried and convicted.

FORD
11-13-2009, 02:15 PM
Irregardless of whether he confessed under torture or not, he certainly has proudly stated that he was behind it and that he pretty much hates Osama Bin Laden, and that al Qaida exists more as an idea than an actual organization...

So why are we in Assghanistan again? :(

Big Train
11-13-2009, 03:11 PM
Seems to have worked OK for the guys that hit the WTC the first time. They were tried and convicted.

It's a bit different this time...3000 people died a few blocks away. The lawyers will argue it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial in NYC.

Nickdfresh
11-13-2009, 03:58 PM
So why are we in Assghanistan again? :(

Obstensively because he planned it there using funds garnered by Bin Laden I think. Supposedly, according to the 9/11 Official Report, he indicated a certain amount of jealousy that Osama got all the credit...

sadaist
11-13-2009, 04:04 PM
Ford, you added this note to the thread title "Repuke heads explode over the idea of an accused criminal having an actual TRIAL"

Shouldn't it have read "admitted criminal" instead?

Sorry, splitting hairs.


SPLITTING HARES! AAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


http://www.alexross.com/CJ088.jpg

sadaist
11-13-2009, 04:06 PM
And a thread on the sheik is never complete without.......







http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/rosieksm.jpg

FORD
11-13-2009, 04:27 PM
Ford, you added this note to the thread title "Repuke heads explode over the idea of an accused criminal having an actual TRIAL"

Shouldn't it have read "admitted criminal" instead?

Sorry, splitting hairs.


SPLITTING HARES! AAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


http://www.alexross.com/CJ088.jpg

Under the constitution, he's presumed innocent until proven guilty. And as far as I know, his confessions only came either via BCE hearsay, or BCE torture.

Which is why it's great that he's finally going on trial. Then, if he's found guilty...... :fighting0043:

sadaist
11-13-2009, 06:14 PM
Under the constitution, he's presumed innocent until proven guilty. And as far as I know, his confessions only came either via BCE hearsay, or BCE torture.

Which is why it's great that he's finally going on trial. Then, if he's found guilty...... :fighting0043:



Meh...I just wanted an excuse to get Witch Hazel into a thread.;)

FORD
11-14-2009, 04:15 PM
November 14, 2009
9/11 Trials - Fear of justice or fear of truth?

A group of men commit a horrible mass murder. Still others helped in the planning of the murder. Law enforcement apprehends the surviving individuals allegedly involved in this horrible crime. A trial is to take place in the city where this mass murder occurred, which gives the surviving victims and the families of those killed a chance to witness justice for their loved ones.

Unless of course you live in nowhere- near -the -scene -of -the- crime, US; read the Wall Street Journal editorial pages (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533622533459520.html), and watch Fox News. Then bringing the alleged plotters to justice is far too scary.

Such is the reaction of the far right (http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/11/13/smack-down-of-obama-administration-on-ksm-trial-decision/) to the news that the alleged plotters involved in the 9/11 attacks will be tried in a court of law and in NYC - the city in which this mass murder took place.

Front and center (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57119) in the ridiculous outrage is Rep John Boehner (R-OH):

"House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) says the Obama administration is putting "liberal special interests before the safety and security of the American people" in deciding to bring the 9/11 mastermind to the United States for trial in federal civilian court."

Boehner lived in Ohio during the attacks and still lives in Ohio. Unless geography has drastically changed and I missed an important event in which Ohio somehow merged with New York, then Boehner's reaction is entirely unwelcome.

A crime was committed in NYC, NY. The victims of that crime and the families of those killed want justice. The alleged plotters of that crime are to be tried in the city where the crime was committed, bringing closure to a city attacked and to the victims and families of that attack. How is Ohio in any way related to this situation?

If the people of New York are okay with allowing the rule of law to hold those who attacked them accountable, then why is a congressman from another state so outraged? Moreover, the rule of law is what this country is based on. Would Boehner prefer we do it is the Soviet way - simply disappear the suspects? Well, the Bush administration tried that and look how well such a move was received by the American people in particular and the world over in general.

Let me put this another way, below is a view of my neighborhood in NYC, where I lived in the Financial District. The photo was taken a few weeks after the 9/11 attack:

http://www.atlargely.com/.a/6a00d8341c2cd253ef0120a69e2e30970b-800wi

World Trade Center

This is my horror and this is my nightmare. If I am not remotely frightened of bringing these men to justice, why is Boehner? Moreover, what right does Boehner have to tell me that I don't deserve justice for the loss of my neighbors and friends? Two people I lost were a young couple who lived across the hall from me. We became very good friends and new each other for a few years. They went to work on 9/11 and never came home again. Who is Boehner to tell me or the families of those two wonderful people that we cannot have justice?

The Truth of It

Or perhaps he is not actually frightened of the suspected terrorists themselves? Perhaps what Boehner and other Republicans are really frightened of is the truth that will come out during the trials? Just think of the world coverage of these trials and consider how the facts might make Congressional Republicans look after the eight years they spent supporting every Bush administration policy.

Think of the evidence that will be presented, flimsy in some cases. Think of the tortured confessions. Think of the possibility that because of the Bush administration's war on terror policies, some of these men might actually walk free, rather than be held to account. So much for the only platform the GOP has to sell to its constituents - national security.

The dim-witted, bigoted, and uber-nationalistic (http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2009/11/13/the-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-lower-manhattan-reunion-tour/) will of course parrot the fear talking points because they don't know any better or if they do, they don't much care for either justice or truth (http://www.redstate.com/jamesgalyean/2009/11/13/the-criminal-justice-system-is-not-the-proper-place-to-determine-khalid-sheikh-mohammeds-fate/). But their leaders in the GOP know exactly what they are doing.

They are hoping to deny NYC justice in order to save the GOP from accountability for their own failed and illegal policies - policies which are not remotely effective in fighting terrorism.

Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/14/terrorism/index.html) approaches this issue from another perspective, which I urge you to read.

at-Largely: 9/11 Trials - Fear of justice or fear of truth? (http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/11/911-trials-fear-of-justice-or-fear-of-truth.html)

Big Train
11-14-2009, 08:33 PM
Boehner's actually right. If Obama wants a circus, putting in NYC will create just that. If we are interested in justice (as in no possibility of mistrial), we would have it in any other venue. This is grandstanding (Holder couldn't even contain himself in the press conference).

This editorial makes no sense. The Republicans, IF they wanted to prevent or delay justice (which still needs to be explained to the non tin foil hat crowd), would actually WANT it to happen there, since there will be infinite delays, motions for change of venue, more delays and then possibly a trial with a very high chance that it will need to be repeated.

hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 08:38 PM
Bohener himself is grandstanding. If GWB were still in charge he wouldn't have said shit.

GAR
11-14-2009, 11:33 PM
And a thread on the sheik is never complete without.......







http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/rosieksm.jpg

[X] submitted for Post of the Year candidate to be voted upon new years eve..

hideyoursheep
11-15-2009, 02:49 AM
You really need to get out more..

Nitro Express
11-15-2009, 05:04 AM
And a thread on the sheik is never complete without.......







http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/rosieksm.jpg

Holy shit that's funny. I bet Rosie has one hairy rat's nest of a cunt.

sadaist
11-15-2009, 07:56 AM
[X] submitted for Post of the Year candidate to be voted upon new years eve..


As much as I would love to take the credit on that photoshop, alas, it is not mine. It's been around for some time now and been in a few threads here as well.

knuckleboner
11-15-2009, 11:22 AM
Boehner's actually right. If Obama wants a circus, putting in NYC will create just that. If we are interested in justice (as in no possibility of mistrial), we would have it in any other venue. This is grandstanding (Holder couldn't even contain himself in the press conference).

This editorial makes no sense. The Republicans, IF they wanted to prevent or delay justice (which still needs to be explained to the non tin foil hat crowd), would actually WANT it to happen there, since there will be infinite delays, motions for change of venue, more delays and then possibly a trial with a very high chance that it will need to be repeated.

i sort of agree with you on the circus, but on the other hand, if you're going to make a criminal trial out of it, you really HAVE to try it in either new york, virginia or pennsylvania. that's where the crimes happened. not really proper to bring charges in iowa or guam, or wherever else.

now, whether or not the case stays in NYC is the question. i'd be surprised if the defense lawyers didn't try for a venue switch on the assumption that they couldn't get a fair trial in NYC.

Dr. Love
11-15-2009, 12:46 PM
My local friends that are right-wing are going crazy over it, insisting that no foreign captured soldier/terrorist has ever been brought to the united states, conferred constitutional rights and tried in court.

My instinct is that this isn't true, but I have no proof to back it up.

Nickdfresh
11-15-2009, 04:19 PM
My local friends that are right-wing are going crazy over it, insisting that no foreign captured soldier/terrorist has ever been brought to the united states, conferred constitutional rights and tried in court.

My instinct is that this isn't true, but I have no proof to back it up.

It isn't. Off the top of my head, back in the early 1990s, some cunt stood outside CIA HQ in Langley, VA with an AK-47, and opened up on all the cars turning in the facility at a stop light. I believe he murdered around a dozen personnel and innocent civilians.

He was captured in Pakistan and extradited to the US and stood trial in a court of law, as terrorists should...

*Yup, here it is: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/k/mir_amal_kansi/index.html

Nitro Express
11-15-2009, 08:37 PM
My local friends that are right-wing are going crazy over it, insisting that no foreign captured soldier/terrorist has ever been brought to the united states, conferred constitutional rights and tried in court.

My instinct is that this isn't true, but I have no proof to back it up.

I like the idea of giving a fair trial. We gave the Nazi's a fair trial after WWII. I hate the government being able to arrest people and hold them without trial citizen or not.

GAR
11-16-2009, 01:34 AM
"Confessions" obtained under torture aren't admissible in court, last I heard. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

So like most liberals, he must be presumed innocent. Just like a civilian, and not an enemy combatant captured in the field?

ULTRAMAN VH
11-16-2009, 09:29 AM
Dozens of family members of 9/11 victims have signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced the trial decision; President Obama; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposing a civilian trial for the alleged plotters.

They said it would give the men a well-publicized platform, blocks from where the towers stood, in which they could espouse their views.

"It is incomprehensible to us that members of the United States Congress would propose that the same men who today refer to the murder of our loved ones as a 'blessed day' and who targeted the United States Capitol for the same kind of destruction that was wrought in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, should be the beneficiaries of a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy: the United States Constitution," the letter said.

Dr. Love
11-16-2009, 10:15 AM
Dozens of family members of 9/11 victims have signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced the trial decision; President Obama; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposing a civilian trial for the alleged plotters.

They said it would give the men a well-publicized platform, blocks from where the towers stood, in which they could espouse their views.

"It is incomprehensible to us that members of the United States Congress would propose that the same men who today refer to the murder of our loved ones as a 'blessed day' and who targeted the United States Capitol for the same kind of destruction that was wrought in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, should be the beneficiaries of a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy: the United States Constitution," the letter said.

Mmm... I disagree. They are criminals, they should be treated as criminals, they should be tried and convicted as criminals. Just because they are batshit crazy doesn't mean they should be feared to be put on trial.

When they caught the Beltway sniper they didn't refuse to put him on trial because he killed so many and wasn't remorseful. Let them espouse their fucked up viewpoints. Let them rant. And let them be convicted and sentenced. Let the rest of them know that it doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter what you believe. If you fuck with us, we will eventually catch or kill your ass, haul it back over here, put your sorry ass on trial and convict you.

FORD
11-16-2009, 12:39 PM
So like most liberals, he must be presumed innocent. Just like a civilian, and not an enemy combatant captured in the field?

It's called the Constitution, asshole. And you won't find the made up by the BCE term "enemy combatant" anywhere in it.

So he's either accused of a crime, or he's a prisoner of war. Except war was never declared by Congress, so even that would not be a legal designation.

So put the son of a bitch on trial. Just like the sons of bitches who hit the WTC the first time. Who are rotting in prison BTW, proving that the system works.

Big Train
11-16-2009, 12:58 PM
So when they dismiss the court case, since he hasn't be read his Miranda rights and has been tortured by our government (they will probably use Obama's own words), plus the low hanging change of venue fruit.

If they are let go, who takes the heat? If they are, Obama will take a HUGE hit in his numbers.

FORD
11-16-2009, 01:22 PM
So when they dismiss the court case, since he hasn't be read his Miranda rights and has been tortured by our government (they will probably use Obama's own words), plus the low hanging change of venue fruit.

If they are let go, who takes the heat? If they are, Obama will take a HUGE hit in his numbers.

Unless they were planning on putting the BCE on trial for the torture, I doubt that's going to happen. Of course that wouldn't be a bad thing either.

As for the change of venue argument, it's written into the Constitution itself that a trial should take place in the same locality where the crime occurred, so it's completely proper that this trial will be in Manhattan, just as the trial of the 1993 WTC bombers was.

ELVIS
11-16-2009, 01:25 PM
Good, let it be...

Mushroom
11-16-2009, 01:26 PM
POINT 1: Our justice system was designed by the founding fathers to offer deterrence, not punishment. Despite the bastardization of our system by emotional half-wits, the system has never been about gaining an “eye for an eye,” it’s been about creating ways to deter others to commit such heinous crimes. Trying terrorists not only fails to do that, it creates the exact opposite; terrorists will be motivated to attack America because the trial provides terrorists with weeks, months, maybe years to use our justice system to make statements, expose interrogation and investigation techniques and create a worldwide circus where nothing other than the terrorists heroes are talked about. Terrorists are already prepared to die, so sentencing them to the death penalty is no deterrence at all. Now, future terrorists see that attacks will lead to their opportunity to use our criminal justice system against us as a recruiting tool. That deters nothing and encourages everything that is anti-American.
POINT 2: A trial in America demands that you be judged by a “jury of your peers.” Excuse me, but where do we find peers to non-Americans who loathe the country and belong to terrorist organizations? Are we to hold this trial in the hills of Pakistan? No one in America, that is not clinically insane, is a peer of a 9/11 terror mastermind. Is this a real trial? Clearly not and if it’s not, what is the point of the dog and pony show and allowing this nation’s greatest secrets, techniques and officers to be exposed and drug through the mud?
POINT 3: The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, the highest ranking law enforcement official in the nation, stated his confidence Friday in a guilty verdict. So which is it? Are we confident in our system to objectively try criminals or are we guaranteeing a pre-determined outcome and undermining our own nation’s credibility? Additionally, the Attorney General literally tainted a jury pool with that statement. Hello? Can anyone spell mistrial?

POINT 4: Terrorists are not American citizens and therefore have no right to be given access to our criminal justice system nor our systems for the rights of the accused.

POINT 5: Once allowed access to our laws and rights, the terrorists will use every sort of technicality to attempt to declare mistrials. We are giving terrorists, after the fact, the right to remain silent, even though they were waterboarded to make them talk. There’s not a judge in America that doesn’t have to immediately either taint his credibility or throw out all evidence gained during such techniques.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2009, 01:37 PM
Dozens of family members of 9/11 victims have signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced the trial decision; President Obama; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposing a civilian trial for the alleged plotters...

Well, family members of 9/11 victims have also signed petitions asking for further investigations in allegations of the Bush Admin's possible criminal negligence in the events leading up to 9/11. Others' have criticized the Iraq War as completely counterproductive as it actually leads to more terrorists. Yet they were denounced by pundits on the extreme right as essentially "cashing in" on their loved one's deaths....

But, where do we go from here? McVeigh was a terrorist and he was convicted in both Federal and Oklahoma State court. And he was executed, although they couldn't really do it twice.

As for them, I believe terrorists deserve a fair trial, and a fair hanging day. So it's at the scene of the crime. It definitely should be in NYS, maybe Albany, Rochester, or Buffalo would be better, more muted venues. But why should anyone think justice should be done in foreign cells or camps and rationalized by silly legal semantics?

FORD
11-16-2009, 01:46 PM
Good, let it be...

Did you mean to post this in a Beatles thread? :confused12:

ELVIS
11-16-2009, 01:48 PM
No...

FORD
11-16-2009, 02:20 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5uM14VkqzbA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5uM14VkqzbA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Big Train
11-16-2009, 02:59 PM
I like the idea of giving a fair trial. We gave the Nazi's a fair trial after WWII. I hate the government being able to arrest people and hold them without trial citizen or not.

Those were military tribunals I thought, no court trials, as if they were citizens.

Big Train
11-16-2009, 03:01 PM
Unless they were planning on putting the BCE on trial for the torture, I doubt that's going to happen. Of course that wouldn't be a bad thing either.

As for the change of venue argument, it's written into the Constitution itself that a trial should take place in the same locality where the crime occurred, so it's completely proper that this trial will be in Manhattan, just as the trial of the 1993 WTC bombers was.

Tell me exactly how you feel this would not happen, when each of those things I've mentioned is a fact.

As completely proper as it is to have it there, it is equally proper to request that the trial be moved somewhere else.

ULTRAMAN VH
11-16-2009, 08:08 PM
Mmm... I disagree. They are criminals, they should be treated as criminals, they should be tried and convicted as criminals. Just because they are batshit crazy doesn't mean they should be feared to be put on trial.

When they caught the Beltway sniper they didn't refuse to put him on trial because he killed so many and wasn't remorseful. Let them espouse their fucked up viewpoints. Let them rant. And let them be convicted and sentenced. Let the rest of them know that it doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter what you believe. If you fuck with us, we will eventually catch or kill your ass, haul it back over here, put your sorry ass on trial and convict you.

I certainly don't want to offend you, but have you sat in a courtroom lately? People are literally getting away with murder, due to guidelines that lawyers and yes judges have to follow. Just last week I witnessed a judge sentence a man to 18 months for shaking his girlfriends 18 month old baby to death. You call that justice? This has all the makings of a media circus and will probably surpass the O.J. Simpson trial in absurdity. Please, if you can, take a week off work and spend some time in your local court house and see 1st hand what kind of justice is being dispensed. I think you will be disapointed to say the least. Be on the lookout for:
1. Lawyers shopping for lenient liberal judges.
2. Constant POSTPONEMENT requests by attorneys.
3. Pissed off witnesses who take off work, only to be sent home due to postponements.
4. Pissed off victims who are sent home due to postponements.
5. Judges who decide to give a verdict at a later unspecified date, to avoid scrutiny from the media and public.
6. Criminals playing the system and abusing probation.
I can go on and on but I hope you get my point.

ULTRAMAN VH
11-16-2009, 08:26 PM
Mmm... I disagree. They are criminals, they should be treated as criminals, they should be tried and convicted as criminals. Just because they are batshit crazy doesn't mean they should be feared to be put on trial.

When they caught the Beltway sniper they didn't refuse to put him on trial because he killed so many and wasn't remorseful. Let them espouse their fucked up viewpoints. Let them rant. And let them be convicted and sentenced. Let the rest of them know that it doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter what you believe. If you fuck with us, we will eventually catch or kill your ass, haul it back over here, put your sorry ass on trial and convict you.

I truly hope it is handled in the same manner as the Beltway Sniper, he no longer is a burden on anyone, but I just don't see it turning out that way. This is a politically charge event with to many variables. What cracks me up is when Obama was a senator back in 06 he was all for these clowns being tried via military tribunals and now like a typical candidate who has one the presidency, he changes like a true chamelion. Funny how politicians preach how they are going to change the world and make it a better place and once they achieve their goal, its the same new boss acting just like the old boss.:umm:

Jesus Christ
11-16-2009, 08:56 PM
Take My word for it, as long as there hath been trials and convictions, there hath been those wrongly convicted (such as Myself) and verily, those who should hath been convicted, but were not.

But does that mean ye should throw away thy Constitution, which is meant to protect ALL equally?

FORD
11-16-2009, 09:05 PM
Our Lord and Savior is correct.

ULTRAMAN VH
11-16-2009, 09:15 PM
Our Lord and Savior is correct.

Since when do you take direction from our Lord and Savior, heathen.;)

Mushroom
11-17-2009, 12:39 AM
since he met Jesus (hey-soos) on the Internet ;)

Dr. Love
11-17-2009, 08:11 PM
No offense taken.


YOU DAMN COCK SUCKER