N.Y. Terror Trials

[dfunkycity]

I meant that it was stupid.

You are entitled to your opinion. I think its pretty stupid that people still moan groan and cry about Bush on a min by min basis and that man hasn't even been heard from in almost a year.


Talk about beating a dead dog .

[ccbatson]

Puhlease contribute more often dfunkycity...Dyes desperately needs more common sense.

[dfunkycity]

I looked at the links, thank you. There was nothing about people screaming in the streets about the use of "folks", as alleged by a previous poster, which is what I asked for.

Your point about Obama being a puppet of corporate America, unfortunately, might carry a kernel of truth. It appears that we have been sold out by all recent presidents and politicians. We will have to wait and see.
I would leave out the America part, as any allegiance to the citizens of America has disappeared from the corporate culture.

Bobl I am quite sure you are an intelligent being and know when a phrase has been somewhat overstated for better mental impact to getting the point across.

None the less, liberals fell short of a full out Glenn Beck crying session for days after the folks thing.

I thought I was going to have to volunteer to pick up the bodies of liberals that flung themselves from the tops of roofs because they could not handle someone else's viewpoints.

Is Alec Baldwin still living abroad or has he moved back to America yet?

[ccbatson]

Is Sean Penn with him?

[Rideron]

My original post in this topic concerned the Obama Administrations decision of last Friday to abandon a Military Tribunal for KSM and instead afford him a civilian criminal trial in Federal Court with the full array of Consitutional protections given to American Citizens themselves charged with, say, income tax violations. [[Never mind that Obama himself, as a Senator in 2006, voted for the creation of Military Tribunals and specifically argued that this was the most appropriate disposition for KSM himself.)

But by the 3rd post, this had become yet another string of anti Bush rants.

Now, the point of my original post was that, with the full array of Constitutional rights granted civilian criminals; it is very possible that ALL the evidence gathered against KSM since the time of his capture in Pakistan, will be ruled inadmissible at trial,since he was never given his Miranda rights, was not provided with counsel, and was later waterboarded.

From the beginning, KSM was never handled, or processed, by police with the plan that he would be eventually be a civilian criminal defendant. He was captured in a military operation as a enemy combatant. The bombers in the first World trade center case WERE handled as criminal defendant from the beginning. Same with Timothy McVeigh; that is NOT the case with KSM.

Now, the fact of the matter is that by changing course now and putting him in a ordinary civilian criminal court as a ordinary defendant; the prosecution may well fail because they may very well have no admissible evidence on which to convict him.

[dfunkycity]

My original post in this topic concerned the Obama Administrations decision of last Friday to abandon a Military Tribunal for KSM and instead afford him a civilian criminal trial in Federal Court with the full array of Consitutional protections given to American Citizens themselves charged with, say, income tax violations. [[Never mind that Obama himself, as a Senator in 2006, voted for the creation of Military Tribunals and specifically argued that this was the most appropriate disposition for KSM himself.)

But by the 3rd post, this had become yet another string of anti Bush rants.

Now, the point of my original post was that, with the full array of Constitutional rights granted civilian criminals; it is very possible that ALL the evidence gathered against KSM since the time of his capture in Pakistan, will be ruled inadmissible at trial,since he was never given his Miranda rights, was not provided with counsel, and was later waterboarded.

From the beginning, KSM was never handled, or processed, by police with the plan that he would be eventually be a civilian criminal defendant. He was captured in a military operation as a enemy combatant. The bombers in the first World trade center case WERE handled as criminal defendant from the beginning. Same with Timothy McVeigh; that is NOT the case with KSM.

Now, the fact of the matter is that by changing course now and putting him in a ordinary civilian criminal court as a ordinary defendant; the prosecution may well fail because they may very well have no admissible evidence on which to convict him.

The new administration is putting the constitution through the shredder so they can rewrite the laws of our land to suit their needs in their never ending quest for power.

[Bobl]

My original post in this topic concerned the Obama Administrations decision of last Friday to abandon a Military Tribunal for KSM and instead afford him a civilian criminal trial in Federal Court with the full array of Consitutional protections given to American Citizens themselves charged with, say, income tax violations. [[Never mind that Obama himself, as a Senator in 2006, voted for the creation of Military Tribunals and specifically argued that this was the most appropriate disposition for KSM himself.)

But by the 3rd post, this had become yet another string of anti Bush rants.

Now, the point of my original post was that, with the full array of Constitutional rights granted civilian criminals; it is very possible that ALL the evidence gathered against KSM since the time of his capture in Pakistan, will be ruled inadmissible at trial,since he was never given his Miranda rights, was not provided with counsel, and was later waterboarded.

From the beginning, KSM was never handled, or processed, by police with the plan that he would be eventually be a civilian criminal defendant. He was captured in a military operation as a enemy combatant. The bombers in the first World trade center case WERE handled as criminal defendant from the beginning. Same with Timothy McVeigh; that is NOT the case with KSM.

Now, the fact of the matter is that by changing course now and putting him in a ordinary civilian criminal court as a ordinary defendant; the prosecution may well fail because they may very well have no admissible evidence on which to convict him.

Fair enough, but the rants went both ways.....anti Obama as well as anti Bush.
I will copy my previous post, which points out what Mayor Giuliani said:

Giuliani, on trials for the 1993 terrorists:
"...you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead.� Giuliani said that the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui shows “that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law....�

No rant, just a reply to your opinion.
In any case, it has been over eight years. It could be argued that it is time to end all this. I would like to see those found guilty executed.

[ghettopalmetto]

The new administration is putting the constitution through the shredder so they can rewrite the laws of our land to suit their needs in their never ending quest for power.

And which laws have been rewritten to violate the Constitution? Please cite specific examples, as well as the alleged violated clauses in the Constitution.

There are two other branches of government, you know. The Executive Branch cannot rewrite laws. But being a well-informed citizen, you already knew that.

[d.mcc]

The new administration is putting the constitution through the shredder so they can rewrite the laws of our land to suit their needs in their never ending quest for power.

Pardon my language, but you have to be fucking kidding me...

[ghettopalmetto]

Pardon my language, but you have to be fucking kidding me...

You see, that's why the Democrats ran a Consitutional law professor as their presidential candidate in 2008--so he could cherry-pick parts of the Constitution to violate without anybody noticing or having any proof. Sublime strategy, if you ask me.

When you elect a buffoon to the White House, you risk every educated person knowing that George W. Bush ran roughshod over the parchment, simply because he wasn't knowledgeable enough to be more careful.

[Jimaz]

[d.mcc]

The new administration is putting the constitution through the shredder so they can rewrite the laws of our land to suit their needs in their never ending quest for power.

Now that I have had sometime to let the searing white hot pain subside; People like you who use this argument have to be the most ill-educated, thoughtless, nits in the country.

After 8 years of illegal wiretapping, surveillance, and warrant less holding of sovereign citizens, you have the audacity to accuse the current administration of trampling on your constitutional rights? I wonder if you have even read said document...

It is no wonder people around the world look down their noses at the general American Populace. IT'S FULL OF IDIOTS!

[d.mcc]

I also think you all suffer from the Nirvana Fallacy, that being when you dismiss anything in the real world because you compare it to an unrealistic, perfect alternative, by which it pales in comparison. It wouldn't be a problem, except it keeps us from getting anything done.

Politicians use this to attack any idea they don't like. "Sure, your plan is helping millions of families in poverty. But I found examples of people abusing it! So we might as well scrap the whole system!"

[barnesfoto]

"From your highly partisan postings"
Gasp! Busted! GUILTY.
How illogical, that after 8 years of Bush, [[and 12 years of Reagan-Bush) I would call your party "fear pimping sick cultists...But that's what they are. The nice part is that they seem to be divided on whether to scream "socialists! socialists!" [[Dick Armey, lobbying against government health care while enjoying his own government health care policy) or "Islamofascists! Islamofascists" [[Dick Cheney, warning us about being soft on, umm, the people that Ronald Reagan called "The moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers")
[[Surely Cheney must have denounced such shortsightedness during the Ray-Gun years, right? No? Well, perhaps Donald Rumsfeld did....oh, he was PART of the Reagan Admin...never mind.

When I was young, your cult warned us about the dangers of communism, and argued that we had to be so afraid of communists that it was necessary to give money and guns to fascists [[Central America) and Islamofascists [[Afghanistan) and just plain gangsters [[Zaire, Panama, PI, Indonesia).
When that argument was wearing thin, your cult warned us to be afraid of negro criminals [[Willie Horton) and gangsters that your cult had supported [[Panama).

When the American People tired of hearing those warnings, we were told to be outraged about blowjobs. When the recipient of a blowjob warned of the dangers of Islamofascist attacks, a man named John Ashcroft, among other cultists, accused him of trying to divert the attention of the American People from the "fake issue" [[Al Queda determined to attack on US soil" to the "real issue" [[Blowjobs).

Some of us frothing at the mouth radicals may have pointed out that Mr. Ashcroft was later appointed to high level position in the Bush Admin, where he, umm, acted like, um, the fear pimping high official of a sick cult.


How come you guys never want to talk about that?

After the 9/11 attacks, [[Which, again, the Bush Admin received warnings about), there was a sudden shift in the fear pimping to "Islamofascists" [[like Gulbuddin Hekmaytar and the more well known OBL and KSM).
KSM, btw, was a gift to our government from the government of Pakistan.
How many billions of dollars did the Bush Admin give to Pakistan? And all we got was KSM?

How did that escape the attention of the alleged critics of "tax and spend" policies?

How come you guys never want to talk about the billions of dollars given to a gangster regime in Pakistan?

How come you guys never want to discuss Gulbuddin Hekmaytar?

Nah, just keep shrieking about somebody who plotted an attack on NYC getting a trial in NYC.

It shows that you don't really believe in the American Justice System OR the Constitution.
Did you say that it will be a circus? Of course it will.

So have lots of other trials in NYC, and, in fact, everywhere where criminals are given the right to be tried in courts.

Trials for people accused of crimes-yet another liberal conspiracy.

[ejames01]

What?!?!? He has been lying and/or is just plain ignorant. He clearly stated that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured on the battlefield. It is common knowledge that he was arrested in a private home by Pakistani security forces. No one could be taken seriously that has no understanding of the facts.

Puhlease contribute more often dfunkycity...Dyes desperately needs more common sense.

[ejames01]

I swear that we tried and convicted the 19th hijacker in 2006. How come the world did not come to an end then?

[Rideron]

I swear that we tried and convicted the 19th hijacker in 2006. How come the world did not come to an end then?

You're talking about Zacharias Moussaoui, alos mentioned earlier as an example of why we can try KSM in a civiliian criminal.

Zacharias Moussaoui and his trial does not work as as example for KSM because Moussaoui was arrested, in Minnesota, a month BEFORE 9-11 happened, on immigration charges.

He was also processed and handled, form the start, as a normal arrest. He never was captured by military.

All the evidence against him was fully admissible in a civilian criminal trial because thats how he was treated, from the start.

That will NOT be the case with the evidence agaisnt KSM. Thats whay the evidence against KSM won't be allowed; and thats why the decision to skip military tribunals for KSM [[but not others) is such a idiotic move.

[ejames01]

1) Do you have insider information pertaining to the case?
2) KSM was captured by Pakistani authorities and immediately transferred to the CIA
3) Where is it written that a person detained by the military cannot be tried in a civilian court?
4) From what I have read, there appears to be a ton of evidence linking him to 9-11 and many other terrorist activities.

You're talking about Zacharias Moussaoui, alos mentioned earlier as an example of why we can try KSM in a civiliian criminal.

Zacharias Moussaoui and his trial does not work as as example for KSM because Moussaoui was arrested, in Minnesota, a month BEFORE 9-11 happened, on immigration charges.

He was also processed and handled, form the start, as a normal arrest. He never was captured by military.

All the evidence against him was fully admissible in a civilian criminal trial because thats how he was treated, from the start.

That will NOT be the case with the evidence agaisnt KSM. Thats whay the evidence against KSM won't be allowed; and thats why the decision to skip military tribunals for KSM [[but not others) is such a idiotic move.

[Mikeg]

3) Where is it written that a person detained by the military cannot be tried in a civilian court?

From what I've read, there is nothing in writing that prevents it, just common sense. The standards of legally-permissible evidence is different between military commissions and civilian criminal courts. The standards for enemy combatants are based on the Geneva Conventions and Federal laws that regulate our intelligence gathering, while the standards for civilian criminals are based on the Constitution, Federal laws and US Court decisions. Bringing a defendant who was charged with war crimes into a civilian criminal court with its tighter standard of evidence seems to be a "feel good" action that will become bogged down with endless objections during the trial and appeals if it gets as far as a conviction.

Senator Barack Obama clearly understood the difference and the reasons why military trials for enemy combatants make sense, yet three years later common sense seems to have been trumped by the left's desire to have a show trial for KSM in Federal Court.

Regarding the accusation that those who oppose the decision announced by AG Holder last Friday somehow "think American's are too stupid, or not qualified to convict these terrorists in a U.S. courtroom" or that we "fear bringing the animals to our soil", they are completely missing the point. I oppose this decision because it represents a reversion to the pre-911 approach that treated terrorism as a criminal activity. Gorelick's "wall" was a clumsy recognition of the differences under which our intelligence community and the Dept. of Justice must operate. Unfortunately, it prevented communication between those agencies lest they "taint" the future criminal prosecution of a terrorist and it left us with a huge blind spot. We eliminated the "blind spot" to improve the protection of our citizens from terrorists with the understanding that it would become impractical to prosecute many of the captured terrorists in our civilian criminal courts. Political decisions now appear to be overriding past security policy decisions and I find that objectionable.

[Detroitej72]

This argument is also so correct and on point.Thank you

It would have been correct if you replaced Iraq with Saudi Arabia, since last I checked thats where most of the terrorists came from.

[barnesfoto]

" It is common knowledge that he [[KSM) was arrested in a private home by Pakistani security forces."

Thanks for the reminder. I think that it makes the scareorrists uncomfortable, like the mention of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, or John Ashcroft's pre-911 position on the threat of terrorist attacks on US soil.

The odd thing is that it could be twisted by the Bush Apologists, [[aka fear pimping sick cultists) to highlight how Bush Admin policies were effective

i.e. "Look, we gave billions of dollars to a Pakistani Dictator and we got one terrorist, gift wrapped."

But perhaps that smells too much like "money for hostages".

[d.mcc]

It would have been correct if you replaced Iraq with Saudi Arabia, since last I checked thats where most of the terrorists came from.

Oh now you've done it! You've provided factual information against an argument! Wait for the rebuttal based purely on ideology and morals!

[dfunkycity]

Oh now you've done it! You've provided factual information against an argument! Wait for the rebuttal based purely on ideology and morals!

Uh no, we ha every right to finish what Saddam started in 1990. Rail all you want about an illegal war in Iraq because it never was illegal and never will be written into history as illegal.

It will be written into history that dumbass Bush lied about why we went there which was stupid because we were already there and had plenty of reasons to take him out but, at this point it is not relevant because we are there.
We have been there for almost what? 10 yrs now.

Liberals just cried and moaned because thats the only way they can get their point across.


Now Arabia on the other hand should have been blown to bits in 1933 but I guess we need their oil so the game of human carnage goes on.

As far as your argument regarding 8 years of wiretapping, torture, etc,etc.

You act as if the "Messiah" isn't doing the same damn thing on the dl.

I certainly hope you are aware that every single government on this earth does the exact same damn thing.

The difference here in America is liberals cry louder.
Now that your so-called party of peoples rights and freedoms are the culprits trampling all over peoples rights and privacies what do you have to say?

Oh thats right, it was the Evil One's policies and it takes time to change laws.
What a laugh.

Of course, liberal governments don't wiretap, torture,rendition or any of those other goodies that we sloppy ,uneducated , fat Americans do to protect our people and interests.

Do they?

Nope, its just those nasty war mongering Americans and the Evil Bush that do these things.

Please


and to think I was at one time a proud liberal. What a dumbass I was in my youth.

[elganned]

Not much seems to have changed in that department, at least...

[d.mcc]

Sounds like PerfectGentlemen is back with the ole "Messiah" talks again