[LANMaster]

Puleeze. Are you saying that Holder and Obama are not guaranteeing a conviction?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Puleeze. Are you saying that Holder and Obama are not guaranteeing a conviction?

what i think is that the man is showing a remarkable propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Use your head, Dude. Are you saying this guy is not innocent until proven guilty?
This means that he could get off EASILY on a technicality like .... oh .... lets say .... waterboarding?

And when he is not convicted, but still not released, what then does that say to the rest of the world about our wonderful court system.

Certainly he would have the right to demand that the Jury be stacked with Muslims of his "ilk" for a fair and impartial trial.
Oh .... and those jurists would obviously be presented with all the evidence that KSM's lawyer wishes to present in his defense. But I am sure that someone would make them "promise" not to share their discovery with anyone.

Oh .... and his lawyer? Perhaps this one will be released from jail quick enough to "help out".

Putting this idiot on trial in US civilian court is nothing short of IDIOTIC.


Dang Liberals can be awful dense at times.

He has to have fair trial , whether in International Court , or U.S. court, on this I agree with iltos . I do prefer it be in U.S. court , and I trust that our system will work , he will not be released on a technicality , or I will eat my hat !. I think NY is appropiate place as well.
A good place to execute as well.
Crimes against Americans should be tried in America , but I can understand other views .

Lan , of course this guy is innocent until proven guilty , would you really want it any other way ? Guilty until proven innocent ??? .
In this case , pleas of innocence are not a factor , admission has been made .
Waterboarding/torture does in fact put cloud over these things, taints the proceedings , one reason waterboarding/ torture is stupid , esp by nations who live by civilized rule of law . That said , it will be not be factor in outcome , but something to forever avoid in future behavior . Only a idiot would defend torture , or ... a person who lives in a nation of animals .
Becomes something to worry with doesn't it ? --you live in civilized nation or it would be no problem .

When I make this argument , I am not doing so out some misplaced mercy for criminals , more out mercy for our sense of justice and rule by law --which is not negotiable !.
The important thing as far as justice is concerned { I will leave rule of law to the Lawyers } is this . Everybody should have the right to defend their innocence , including these scumbags .
I unlike you , trust our system to hear a defense , and make a common sense judgement . No need to point out stupid judgements in other cases , I am aware of them.

When the verdict is read , he will enter the system as a lifer without parole --or be sentenced to death --IMO . Either will be great with me .

My point is guilt has to be proved , or admission made . Defence must be available -- If not --- there is no civilized system of law .

Remember the Cuban ferry hijackers that were captured back in 2003 ? .
People seemed to be surprised at speed of justice , and critical .
After the crime , it was only approx a week ? before they were sentenced , and three were executed by firing squad , others sentenced to life .
The reason ? guilt was not a factor , the terrorist act was admitted to , without any torture . No Cuban would make argument for waterboarding ot torture . The case was untainted .
It went through appeals { 2} within the week .
If guilt were in question , it would have been a lengthly process.
The really important thing is determining guilt , when we turn our backs on this basic right --even for scumbags who need be shot , we cheat ourselves, nation , , and our ....... better sense.
After that , if guilty , shoot , hang , or put in cage .
>f

[poochee]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Puleeze. Are you saying that Holder and Obama are not guaranteeing a conviction?

Are you trying to change the subject?

This link tells how many terrorists have been tried and convicted in the US courts as opposed to military commisions. Also, lots of other info on the subject.

"We have a criminal justice system that is nimble, quite adaptable and able to handle complex national security cases," Mendelson says. "Americans need to be reminded: There were three convictions in Guantanamo with military commissions."

"We have 195 international terrorists who have been convicted through our courts," she says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114280522

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by poochee

Are you trying to change the subject?

This link tells how many terrorists have been tried and convicted in the US courts as opposed to military commisions. Also, lots of other info on the subject.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114280522

Yes ! , and that's the thing !. A termination of pending cases , by legal standards .
I believe we have , and will do the job , without going to gutter .
We are on the right course --for a change . >f

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

When I make this argument , I am not doing so out some misplaced mercy for criminals , more out mercy for our sense of justice and rule by law --which is not negotiable !.
The important thing as far as justice is concerned { I will leave rule of law to the Lawyers } is this . Everybody should have the right to defend their innocence , including these scumbags .>f

it appalls me that this isn't obvious anymore....that we suddenly have "shades of grey" wrt bringing people to trial....

shades of grey that depend on whether or not he'll get his comeuppings in our legal system....or weasel out it somehow (THAT is a whole nother thread, imo), and whether or not the information is too sensitive for a public hearing ("state secrets")

everybody likes the groundrules that defend freedom....until there they get a real sense of the risks involved, i guess.

[Bastiat]

Others complain that Mr. Mohammed might take advantage of quirks of the criminal justice system and go free. That’s highly unlikely. First, he has already confessed to the crime; and, given the zero acquittal rate for terrorists in New York previously, any anxiety about a “not guilty” verdict seems unwarranted.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but his confession is inadmissible at trial. Should the court allow it (guaranteed overturning any conviction) then the defense will get to bring up how it was obtained ie waterboarding and I'm sure the defense will have an actual waterboarding demonstrated to the jury. I know I would.

Why New York? The case could have been brought in Washington D.C. just as easily.

You may also want to consider that there is only one set of criminal procedures for use in a federal criminal trial..........how do we avoid the claim that his due process rights weren't violated for failure to provide him with his constitutional right to a speedy trial?

Anyone watch Attorney General Holder getting grilled by the Senate today on this very matter? They made him look like the arse he is. The question asked that really struck home (and had Holder looking like a deer caught in the headlights as he stumbled and mumbled) was: name a prior case in which an enemy combatant was captured on foreign soil and then brought to the US for trial under the criminal justice system? Answer: Never and Holder couldn't answer the question................what a friggin idiot.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but his confession is inadmissible at trial. Should the court allow it (guaranteed overturning any conviction) then the defense will get to bring up how it was obtained ie waterboarding and I'm sure the defense will have an actual waterboarding demonstrated to the jury. I know I would.

Why New York? The case could have been brought in Washington D.C. just as easily.

You may also want to consider that there is only one set of criminal procedures for use in a federal criminal trial..........how do we avoid the claim that his due process rights weren't violated for failure to provide him with his constitutional right to a speedy trial?

Anyone watch Attorney General Holder getting grilled by the Senate today on this very matter? They made him look like the arse he is. The question asked that really struck home (and had Holder looking like a deer caught in the headlights as he stumbled and mumbled) was: name a prior case in which an enemy combatant was captured on foreign soil and then brought to the US for trial under the criminal justice system? Answer: Never and Holder couldn't answer the question................what a friggin idiot.

those are all good points....maybe he's played everybody for a fool with his confession, and will prove LAN right

and the idea of a speedy trial is long gone.

i was surprised when it was announced he'd be tried in a criminal court in NYC....but he's not an "enemy combatant", is he? doesn't he sort of defy definition, as Paq points out?

i still prefer the idea of the ICC...but it sounds like any venue has it's share of problem....a military court legitimizes him in ways that a criminal court doesn't.

as far as the law goes, there isn't an easy answer.....but leaving him to rot without some sort of trial doesn't do anything towards resolving this....it just leaves him in the limbo of a political prisoner....which is great if you're an ostrich, i suppose.

[ekim68]

"Nihilists".....Thanks Paq, I'm gonna look that up....

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I wholly oppo0se allowing KSM access to the US criminal court system.
Obama has made a grave error, and this decision (if carried out) can only harm his presidency.
What is worse, KSM will be allowed to demand a number of Muslims on his jury.
He will have access to ALL KINDS of classified intel for his defense.
If he avoids conviction, he will be hailed as a hero to our enemies, and will be allowed to share what he has learned with all kinds of nasties.
If he is convicted, the trial will be viewed as a farce.

There is no win for ther US or even Obama by doing this. This is Obama's greatest political blunder, IMO.
Certainly not his greatest mistake, clearly his economic policies make him the worst President in US history, ever, by far, but giving KSM access to US civilian courts is definitely Obama's greatest avoidable blunder.

Exactly.
Another OJ trial

However with thinking beyond this in the short term..lets look at the long term harm...Future terrorism problems......How about this...we have some terrorists over in country X ....Now its a criminal matter...so we have to request their govt to catch the guys and let us go pick them up...Well that wont happen..Good job Obama

Back to terrorists and trials.......how is this ...we capture KSM keep him in prison waterboard him..then our very courts acquit him....we look like uncontrolled idiots to the rest of the world and just grab up random people....without any research or insight.

We get sued for many millions.....and ofcoarse the money will be used to further terrorize us......lets face it he is not going to buy a house in burbank with it.

Obama really is bad news people

[iltos]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Exactly.
Another OJ trial

However with thinking beyond this in the short term..lets look at the long term harm...Future terrorism problems......How about this...we have some terrorists over in country X ....Now its a criminal matter...so we have to request their govt to catch the guys and let us go pick them up...Well that wont happen..Good job Obama

Back to terrorists and trials.......how is this ...we capture KSM keep him in prison waterboard him..then our very courts acquit him....we look like uncontrolled idiots to the rest of the world and just grab up random people....without any research or insight.

We get sued for many millions.....and ofcoarse the money will be used to further terrorize us......lets face it he is not going to buy a house in burbank with it.

Obama really is bad news people

yeah....i think it was mentioned by a couple of people in another thread that waterboarding was a friggin' disaster on a couple of levels.

you reap what you sow

but hey, why turn around now?

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by iltos

yeah....i think it was mentioned by a couple of people in another thread that waterboarding was a friggin' disaster on a couple of levels.

you reap what you sow

but hey, why turn around now?

Even if he hadnt been boarded,,the same still applies.

Its a shame....the current system bent to favor terrorists...they would have been fine in gitmo until the war is over.......................Just another strike on Obama IMO..............he really does need to be impeached

[iltos]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Even if he hadnt been boarded,,the same still applies.

is this another one of those "it's not about what i say it's about" arguements?

.Just another strike on Obama IMO..............he really does need to be impeached

i know, brett.....i know
am i starting to feel like it will drive you insane if it doesn't happen

[aka Brett]

Then put your great research skills to work and figure out a way to make it happen....or I will drive everyone insane just to take em down with me

PS
Reminder........... Obama sucks

[ekim68]

According to you...And, who are you? The voice of authority?