Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on November 20, 2009, 07:35:02 AM
-
Holder's reasonable decision
By Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith
Friday, November 20, 2009
Reasonable minds can disagree about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 perpetrators in a Manhattan federal court. But some prominent criticisms are exaggerated, and others place undue faith in military commissions as an alternative to civilian trials.
Mohammed is many things: an enemy combatant in a war against the United States whom the government can detain without trial until the conflict ends; a war criminal subject to trial by military commission under the laws of war; and someone answerable in federal court for violations of the U.S. criminal code. Which system he is placed in for purposes of incapacitation and justice involves complex legal and political trade-offs.
A trial in Manhattan will bring enormous media attention and require unprecedented security. But it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed's nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would -- a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.
One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.
By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.
In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant's ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom. Moussaoui's trial was challenging because his request for access to terrorists held at "black" sites had to be litigated. Difficulties also arose because Moussaoui acted as his own lawyer, and the judge labored to control him. But it is difficult to imagine a military commission of rudimentary fairness that would not allow a defendant a similar right to represent himself and speak out in court.
In either trial forum, defendants will make an issue of how they were treated and attempt to undermine the trial politically. These efforts are likely to have more traction in a military than a civilian court. No matter how scrupulously fair the commissions are, defendants will criticize their relatively loose rules of evidence, their absence of a civilian jury and their restrictions on the ability to examine classified evidence used against them. Some say it is wrong to give Mohammed trial rights ordinarily conferred on Americans, but a benefit of civilian trials over commissions is that they make it harder for defendants to complain about kangaroo courts or victor's justice.
The potential procedural advantages of military commission trials are relatively unimportant with obviously guilty defendants such as Mohammed, but they help explain the attorney general's related decision last week to consign five men accused of attacking the USS Cole to a military commission. Holder indicated that he was doing so in part because the Cole was a military target outside the United States, but that reason does not hold up. The Pentagon was a military target, many aspects of the Sept. 11 attacks were planned abroad, and the Cole attack is already the subject of a federal indictment in New York.
It is more likely that Holder decided to use a commission system still learning to walk because the Cole case is relatively weak and will benefit from the marginal advantages the commission system offers the government. It is also likely that the Justice Department will decide that many other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay will not be tried in civilian or military court but, rather, will be held under a military detention rationale more suitable to the circumstances of their cases.
These decisions have already invited charges of opportunistic forum shopping. The Bush administration, criticized on similar grounds, properly explained that it would use whatever lawful tool worked best, all things considered, to incapacitate a particular terrorist. Holder's decisions appear to reflect a similarly pragmatic approach.
Of course, the attorney general made a different call on Mohammed than did the Bush administration. The wisdom of that difficult judgment will be determined by future events. But Holder's critics do not help their case by understating the criminal justice system's capacities, overstating the military system's virtues and bumper-stickering a reasonable decision.
Jim Comey, a deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan during the Bush administration, is general counsel of Lockheed Martin Corp. Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration, teaches at Harvard Law School and is on the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.
-
crickets coming out for this one. he's a filthy lib now.
hey, seriously, can ANYONE pelase answer the Q - why did bush never prosecute these guys in military tribuanls?
-
crickets coming out for this one. he's a filthy lib now.
hey, seriously, can ANYONE pelase answer the Q - why did bush never prosecute these guys in military tribuanls?
Bush is a traitor
Case closed
-
Cases like this are made for the military court. I don't care who comes out on the right or left supporting the civil court decision. It would be easier, safer, more efficient, and less costly to try these admitted terrorists in a military court. This is going to be an expensive, drawn out circus with the potential for public criticizms of the CIA and U.S. government sharing the spotlight with sentencing the terrorists. Poor decision. Their agenda is more important than expediancy.
Bush should have prosecuted KSM during his term, for that we can fault him.
-
crickets coming out for this one. he's a filthy lib now.
hey, seriously, can ANYONE pelase answer the Q - why did bush never prosecute these guys in military tribuanls?
Let's see, one opinion vs, hundreds.
240 - you are not a lawyer and neither is benny butthead.
You have no clue what you are talking about on legal issues. NONE!
This is an expensive gamble and Obama, through his brilliance, has already jeapordized the proceedings by his statements guaranteeing a conviction and death. For someone who went to Harvard Law, he should know better than to taint the jury pool, make pre-trial comments like this, and otherwise comprimise the integrity of the justice system.
-
Cases like this are made for the military court. I don't care who comes out on the right or left supporting the civil court decision. It would be easier, safer, more efficient, and less costly to try these admitted terrorists in a military court. This is going to be an expensive, drawn out circus with the potential for public criticizms of the CIA and U.S. government sharing the spotlight with sentencing the terrorists. Poor decision. Their agenda is more important than expediancy.
Bush should have prosecuted KSM during his term, for that we can fault him.
agreed with 100%
bush definitely should have dealt with this when he was in office
-
Why didn't Bush prosecute them?
he had waterboarded the shit out of them by 2003/2004.
Then, they sat without military trial for 4 years, even as congress fell to the dems and everybody pretty much knew the libs had a legit shot at getting into office in 08.
Why didn't bush prosecute them? He has the guts to invade 2 nations and sink the dollar to fund it - and to RELEASE a few hundred of these guys - but not to just put a dozen on trial?
Someone, please explain that?
-
240 - I honestly have no idea why he didnt do it.
However, this KSM thing has a lot of problems now.
-
there HAD to be some reason he'd leave all those loose ends like that.
My own guess? He got nada form them until he started torturing. (as he admits they tortured KSM and others). And maybe (you tell me!) There isn't a way to convinct in military court using torture as the only admissable evidence?
if that is the case - then obama shuld get a pass. He inherited a case that can't be won in military court. And he's using emotion in NYC to hang these guys.
Is this a possibility, 33?
You're a lawyer - will military courts admit evidence foud thru torture? Cause that KSM didn't admit a thing til after a looooong waterboarding, they admit that.
IF Obama's only move was to let them be acquited in miltary trial, or have a chance at guilty conviction on emtion in NYC, then he did the right move.
-
Great post and article. Outlines exactly why he is and should face justice in a civilian court. This is not new for terrorists, it's been done before. He plainly states why it's not a military court case and i welcome the prosecution of this scum bag at the scene of the crime.
It seems to be more sore loser syndrome from the republican's on this board.
-
IF Obama's only move was to let them be acquited in miltary trial, or have a chance at guilty conviction on emtion in NYC, then he did the right move.
That is not his only two options, nor has it ever been.
The fact that they're being paraded through our Justice system or military tribunals does not give us the moral high ground. I think most would agree that regardless of the outcomes, there is no way these guys are going to go free. And if that's the case, these trials don't even provide the perception of valid jurisprudence.
Indefinite detention may very well be the only method of keeping these shitbags from harming us.
-
That is not his only two options, nor has it ever been.
The fact that they're being paraded through our Justice system or military tribunals does not give us the moral high ground. I think most would agree that regardless of the outcomes, there is no way these guys are going to go free. And if that's the case, these trials don't even provide the perception of valid jurisprudence.
Indefinite detention may very well be the only method of keeping these shitbags from harming us.
KC is a clown who does not understand the legal raminfications of this. KC is also a obot who apparently did not watch the holder hearing where holder had to concede that this has never been done before.
-
KC is a clown who does not understand the legal raminfications of this. KC is also a obot who apparently did not watch the holder hearing where holder had to concede that this has never been done before.
What legal ramifications? Actually bringing to trial a terrorist? Rather than 'detaining' him without trial or going through a military trial which as pointed out above is flawed in more ways than a civilian trial.
You just want to hate no matter what. Go back to spamming about Palin Napoleon
-
Use our civilian courts to try terrorists CAUGHT IN THE BATTLEFIELD???
-
all this does is make a mockery of our civilian legal system...
anybody here think he will get a fair trial?
anybody here think he has recieved the legal rights of a civilian here in the US?
a breach in civil rights has already been committed this will invalidate the whole process if it continues in our civilian legal system.
-
What legal ramifications? Actually bringing to trial a terrorist? Rather than 'detaining' him without trial or going through a military trial which as pointed out above is flawed in more ways than a civilian trial.
You just want to hate no matter what. Go back to spamming about Palin Napoleon
There was this little case in which a defendant of the last name miranda argued that it was unlawful to not inform the person under arrest of their legal rights.
Did KSM get informed of his legal rights at the time of arrest or before questioning?
Did KSM have due process?
If you allow this case to continue in civilian court even with a guilty plea you HAVE BREACHED THE LEGAL PROTOCOL YOU NUMB NUT FUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!
On appeal which every case has the right to this will be over turned by the appeals court due to breach in the legal protocol...
-
^^
if it doesnt what does that say about our civilian legal system?
its ok to fuck ppl over as long as we are agreed they are bad guys?
UNFUCKINGCONSTITUTIONAL is the word your looking for
these ppl are not US citizens, their acts where acts of terrorism, and thus should fall into the military realm of legal process...
-
What legal ramifications? Actually bringing to trial a terrorist? Rather than 'detaining' him without trial or going through a military trial which as pointed out above is flawed in more ways than a civilian trial.
You just want to hate no matter what. Go back to spamming about Palin Napoleon
KC - stop trying to fight with the big boys, you are no competition.
Imagine if HH6 catches OBL on the battlefield and OBL says to HH6 - I am taking the 5th amendment and want to speak to my lawyer. I dont authorize you to ask me any further questions.
However, HH6 also just came into information that OBL had intel and info on a massive shipment of bombs, IEDS, AK's etc were geading his way.
What should HH6 do in that situation?
-
The articles whole argument goes in the toilet when you consider the fact that KSM had already confessed and agreed to a military tribunal to face the death penalty. Under these circumstances how can anyone justify the military tribunal system being less of a sure thing than a criminal court room? When pressed on this, Holder smugly replied that KSM doesn't get to decide where he is prosecuted. Wonderful ::)
Another ridiculous argument the article makes is the idea that because there have been previous successful convictions obtained over terrorists in criminal court, the KSM trial should be business as usual. This is utter nonsense for a number of reasons. First of all, "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui were all captured inside America. None of the aforementioned could be considered masterminds of anything except poor hygiene and none of these suspects were subjected to enhanced interrogation ( obviously, because they were captured inside the United States). As a result, there was no issue over the suppression of evidence, Miranda warnings, constitutional protections, or any of the other garbage that is likely to delay this trial for years.
Lets also remember that none of these guys actually carried out any successful attacks and hence, none were tried before a jury which was selected from a pool of individuals that were directly impacted by their terrorist activities-- Moussaui, the bumbling 21st hijacker comes the closest. Any decent defense attorney is going to exploit the passion 911 arouses to hamper jury selection, attempt to change venue and use the trial as a referendum on Bush administration interrogation tactics.
The lone example of an Al-Queda agent convicted in criminal court that was cited by the article-- John Walker Lindh-- would have been a slam dunk regardless. As a US citizen, he should have been convicted of high treason and executed regardless of whether or not he was tried in a civilian or military court. Instead, he was shown mercy with a 20 year sentence.
-
GW - great post as always. I always enjoy your writing style!
I posed the following question so maybe the brain dead libs on this board can understand this:
HH6 is heading for deployment in the next weeks.
Imagine if HH6 catches OBL on the battlefield and OBL says to HH6:
"I am taking the 5th amendment and want to speak to my lawyer. I dont authorize you to ask me any further questions and want to see my lawyer immediately. By precedent of the KSM situation, I demand a civilian trial and do not authorize any interrogation. Any statements made by me hereafter are a result of coercion."
However, HH6 also just came into information that OBL had intel and info on a massive shipment of bombs, IEDS, AK's etc were geading his way. HH6 found a crytpic document on OBL he cant really make out but he believes can lead him to information directly from OBL that may save the life of his soldiers and those within his care.
What should HH6 do in that situation?
________________________ ________________________ _______
Come you liberal idiots - lets have this debate.
-
Q 1) did KSM confess without being tortured?
yes or no?
Q 2) can a military tribunal convict solely on self-incriminating testimony gained thru torture?
yes or no?
(mind you, i'm all for his ass walking the plank - but as a legal issue - if they knew it wouldn't fly in a military trial, then this was the only option)
-
He is going to say yes 240. He is going to say that he was tortured from the minute he was brought into custodial custody.
240 - I am a lawyer, not a criminal lawyer, but know enough about the 4th amend to know that this is really rolling the dice.
-
Q 1) did KSM confess without being tortured?
yes or no?
Q 2) can a military tribunal convict solely on self-incriminating testimony gained thru torture?
yes or no?
(mind you, i'm all for his ass walking the plank - but as a legal issue - if they knew it wouldn't fly in a military trial, then this was the only option)
youre ASSuming that all they have on him is his confession, also is at this point still intending to plead guilty from what i ascertain.
Did he receive his miranda rights?
did he receive due process?
LOL civilian trial isnt an option 240 again try understanding our legal system and you will see the holes in the due process as it pertains to KSM
If you violate this process a guilty plea WILL BE overturned by the appeals court, if it isnt overturned what does that say about our CIVILIAN LEGAL SYSTEM?
perhaps this is why bush never tried him and probably intended to let him rot for the rest of his miserable life.
-
GW - great post as always. I always enjoy your writing style!
I posed the following question so maybe the brain dead libs on this board can understand this:
HH6 is heading for deployment in the next weeks.
Imagine if HH6 catches OBL on the battlefield and OBL says to HH6:
"I am taking the 5th amendment and want to speak to my lawyer. I dont authorize you to ask me any further questions and want to see my lawyer immediately. By precedent of the KSM situation, I demand a civilian trial and do not authorize any interrogation. Any statements made by me hereafter are a result of coercion."
However, HH6 also just came into information that OBL had intel and info on a massive shipment of bombs, IEDS, AK's etc were geading his way. HH6 found a crytpic document on OBL he cant really make out but he believes can lead him to information directly from OBL that may save the life of his soldiers and those within his care.
What should HH6 do in that situation?
________________________ ________________________ _______
Come you liberal idiots - lets have this debate.
It's safe to say that, if HH6 were to find Bin Laden, THERE WOULD BE NO TRIAL!!!
-
Oh really? If OBL said that and HH6 put a few bullets in him, HH6 is facing a court martial for murder.
You really need to understand the ramifications of criminalizing our war effort with regard to the federal courts.
If OBL said what I said he could, and HH6 shoots him, HH6 is going away.
-
Personally I do not want them to be tried in a military court.
On 9-11 they didn't attack our military. They attacked our citizens. Let them stand in a court of the American citizens and hear their death sentence handed out. That is more of an ego blow and shame for Allah than being dealt with by the military in their eyes.
-
Personally I do not want them to be tried in a military court.
On 9-11 they didn't attack our military. They attacked our citizens. Let them stand in a court of the American citizens and hear their death sentence handed out. That is more of an ego blow and shame for Allah than being dealt with by the military in their eyes.
Lurker - what if the case gets thrown out on a technicality that the evidence is the result if enhanced interrogation?
What if the case gets over turned as a result of KSM declaring he cant get a fair trial as a result of statements made by the AG and President prior to the trial and jury selection?
-
I know yall hate obama, and that's cool.
But nobody will acknowledge that Bush did a really good job prosecuting the war on terror - but he mysteriously did nothing to convict these evil cats behind it.
There has to be a really good fvcking reason. it didn't just slip off the 'to do' list. I'm guessing in a few years we'll learn he had zilch that wasn't beat outta these guys and there is no case for obama to inherit.
So, O is doing the only option you have with a weak case - try to convict on emotion 5 blocks from ground zero.
-
240 - it does not work like that. If I were repsenting KSM - the first thing I would do is file for a change of venue and I would get it. That alone will delay the trial a year or so.
-
240 - it does not work like that. If I were repsenting KSM - the first thing I would do is file for a change of venue and I would get it. That alone will delay the trial a year or so.
This isn't some John Grisham novel Napoleon hahaha
-
This isn't some John Grisham novel Napoleon hahaha
Asshole, I do this every day of my life.
This case is not a slam dunk. They get before a far left judge, anything can happen here.
-
Asshole, I do this every day of my life.
This case is not a slam dunk. They get before a far left judge, anything can happen here.
You practice law yes, criminal law? No. You seem to be arrogant enough to be a good defense lawyer though, thinking you are smarter than lawyers from the two most recent administrations. What are you doing on getbig napoleon?
-
You practice law yes, criminal law? No. You seem to be arrogant enough to be a good defense lawyer though, thinking you are smarter than lawyers from the two most recent administrations. What are you doing on getbig napoleon?
how about you or 240 answer any of the legal questions i proposed? or talk about any of the legal scenarios i put forth?
hmmmmmm ;)
b/c like most things you idiots ignore the points you either dont understand or know make you look like a JACKASS!!!!!
-
33,
youre predicting the trial wont be held in NYC?
-
how about you or 240 answer any of the legal questions i proposed? or talk about any of the legal scenarios i put forth?
hmmmmmm ;)
b/c like most things you idiots ignore the points you either dont understand or know make you look like a JACKASS!!!!!
Why would i do something stupid like that? I am not a lawyer so i leave it up to those qualified to make the decisions. I see the pros and cons of this decision but still believe it should go ahead.
You only see the cons, hate that you lost the election and now cry about it every day on getbig. All while assuming you are much smarter than both administration's lawyers.
-
33,
youre predicting the trial wont be held in NYC?
I'm predicting that that the defense counsel will make a motion for a change of venue based upon the fact that Obama & Holder guaranteed the death penalty and that they cant get a fair trial in NYC based on the prejudicial statements made by the President and AG.
Whether it is succesful or not will be dependent on the judge hearing the motion. That decision will get challenged in appellate courts and the outcome is probably a trial in NYC, but not assured. The defense must show that it is impossible for their client to get a fair trial in the venue picked by the prosecution.
Putting this into civilian court also makes it that the defendants have a presumption of innocence. The fact that the President and AG guaranteed a conviction and execution severely prejudices the case and any legal professional will tell you that. Having a trial under these circumstances is a joke when you have tweo branches of the govt guarantying the outcome before the trial is had.
KC and the other idiots have no clue about law or basic legal priniciples so I dont expect them to understand what I am writing about.
-
Bin Laden Bin Laden who..oh that guy with his head blown off..he had a gun..he was going for it...I never saw him..it wasn't me....it was Mons..he did it.
-
Personally I do not want them to be tried in a military court.
On 9-11 they didn't attack our military. They attacked our citizens. Let them stand in a court of the American citizens and hear their death sentence handed out. That is more of an ego blow and shame for Allah than being dealt with by the military in their eyes.
This kind of logic drives me absolutely crazy. This same ass backward logic was applied by our incompetent Attorney General in justifying this absurd trial. So lets see-- If Al Queda operatives want to ensure a jury trial, the same constitutional protections enjoyed by Americans including the presumption of innocence, a pricey high quality attorney, endless media coverage to spew anti American propaganda and the possibility of the trial being dragged on endlessly, just make sure you murder unarmed civilians!
By your braindead reasoning, an accused terrorist that attacks a military installation with no civilians should be forced to endure a military tribunal while a terrorist who purposefully attacks innocent unarmed civilians should receive the benefits of a civilian court room.
By your rationale, a soldier on the battlefield who shoots and kills a soldier of the opposing army is MORE culpable than a soldier who leaves the battle field to shoot and kill unarmed women and children that happen to live in the opposing army's country.
While myself and others have raised countless other reasons as to why this trial is pointless, stupid, risky and totally out of touch with reality-- this perverse justification propped up by liberals really takes the cake as the most outrageous and offensive of the bunch.
-
Why would i do something stupid like that? I am not a lawyer so i leave it up to those qualified to make the decisions. I see the pros and cons of this decision but still believe it should go ahead.
You only see the cons, hate that you lost the election and now cry about it every day on getbig. All while assuming you are much smarter than both administration's lawyers.
yes yes any criticism stems from the hatred of a black man being president ::) did garafalo and olbeirman tell you that?
again I have no doubt he will be convicted in either forum in which he is tried my point is do to so in the civilian court would legally have to lead to a not guilty verdict as the procedure of the law has been violated.
bush's lawyers said water boarding was ok, are you siding with them on that?
Law is like being in school and having a subjective paper there are always the blatant right and wrongs but its what you can back up that makes something right or wrong not how you feel.
Fact of the matter is if he is tried in civilian courts his civil rights have been violated...
-
KSM can't be tried in a military court. That would bring his status to POW. In what war was he engaged in? The "war on terror" is not government, it is a tagline created by the Bush Administration. THerefore, as a POW he would have to be released...Geneva convention and all of those rules of treatment of POWs.
KSM being tried in criminal court....Isn't it US law that one can not be tried on information obtained thru torture?
He already has an ironclad defense if the judge follows the law accordingly.
Either you want the Government to work as the Fore Fathers intended it to work..
Or you are just another Communist Government.
You can't have it both ways.
Sandra
-
KSM can't be tried in a military court. That would bring his status to POW. In what war was he engaged in? The "war on terror" is not government, it is a tagline created by the Bush Administration. THerefore, as a POW he would have to be released...Geneva convention and all of those rules of treatment of POWs.
KSM being tried in criminal court....Isn't it US law that one can not be tried on information obtained thru torture?
He already has an ironclad defense if the judge follows the law accordingly.
Either you want the Government to work as the Fore Fathers intended it to work..
Or you are just another Communist Government.
You can't have it both ways.
Sandra
Vietnam never had a formal declaration of war but we had POW's in that war didnt we?
like i said earlier perhaps this is why bush was happy to see this guy just sit an rot...
its also US law that a person under arrest be given their miranda rights before questioning, you think he got hit miranda rights?
LOL so anything this man has said etc...prior to being given his rights isnt admissible into the courts...
again if you try him in civilian courts his lawyer will have no problem getting any conviction thrown out.
-
Just as clinton is blamed for 911 because it was planned on his watch (even though Bush had 9 months and multiple warnings to stop it)...
I think bush maybe carries some blame here? I mean, he knew Clinton's record for trying bad guys in civilian court.... he knew the Dems won big in 2006 and odds were, the Dem would win in 08 (hilary at the time being the leader).
Bush sat there with these guys for 7+ years and did nothing. Didn't put their shit on trial. I don't get it. Nobody has answered that. I can assure you - if Obama changed his mind and said "let's hold off on trials for 8 years", people would shit a brick. But nobody cares that Bush just left these guys to be the next pres' problem.
-
I can assure you - if Obama changed his mind and said "let's hold off on trials for 8 years", people would shit a brick.
Bullshit. The ONLY people who would be crying are the libs who claim that indefinite detention is an affront to our Constitution.
Nevermind the fact that the trials are a sham to which our POTUS has already projected the outcome. Nevermind the fact that even if they are found not guilty we would never release them. Those are not considered to compromise our Constitutional foundations.
You can keep trying to pretend that this circus act is giving us the moral high ground, but a sham trial is a sham trial and the only real result will be the tax dollars blown to accommodate this nonsense.
-
GW - they could have legally executed this guy on the spot and everyone knows it.
-
KSM can't be tried in a military court. That would bring his status to POW. In what war was he engaged in? The "war on terror" is not government, it is a tagline created by the Bush Administration. THerefore, as a POW he would have to be released...Geneva convention and all of those rules of treatment of POWs.
KSM being tried in criminal court....Isn't it US law that one can not be tried on information obtained thru torture?
He already has an ironclad defense if the judge follows the law accordingly.
Either you want the Government to work as the Fore Fathers intended it to work..
Or you are just another Communist Government.
You can't have it both ways.
Sandra
What the hell are you talking about? First of all everything you wrote from a legal standpoint is completely false. Secondly, are you suggesting that the US has no choice but to release KSM?
-
Just as clinton is blamed for 911 because it was planned on his watch (even though Bush had 9 months and multiple warnings to stop it)...
I think bush maybe carries some blame here? I mean, he knew Clinton's record for trying bad guys in civilian court.... he knew the Dems won big in 2006 and odds were, the Dem would win in 08 (hilary at the time being the leader).
Bush sat there with these guys for 7+ years and did nothing. Didn't put their shit on trial. I don't get it. Nobody has answered that. I can assure you - if Obama changed his mind and said "let's hold off on trials for 8 years", people would shit a brick. But nobody cares that Bush just left these guys to be the next pres' problem.
I dont blame Bush for one simple reason. Had the Supreme Court followed the existing legal precident which was in place for non- enemy combatants, none of this nonsense would be at issue now. And, if there was any indication provided that the Supreme Court would jettison a decision that stood in tact for more than half a century, the White House legal advisers would have counseled Bush against opening Guantanamo in the first place. Suspected terrorists would instead be kept in other countries or in secret military bases and that would be the end of the discussion.
-
I would hope that the administration isn't irresponsible enough to allow KSM to be tried in a civil court and allow for the possibility that he gets released on a lame technicality. That would just be outrageous (perhaps causing serious riots) and seal the administration's and party's death.
I can't see them being that stupid. But then again they gave the queen an ipod.
The talk from some of you guys about the legal details seems logical until realization comes to mind that you guys don't have the case files in front of you.
-
I would hope that the administration isn't irresponsible enough to allow KSM to be tried in a civil court and allow for the possibility that he gets released on a lame technicality. That would just be outrageous (perhaps causing serious riots) and seal the administration's and party's death.
I can't see them being that stupid. But then again they gave the queen an ipod.
The talk from some of you guys about the legal details seems logical until realization comes to mind that you guys don't have the case files in front of you.
OZMO - Ramzi Yusef blew up the WTC the first time and got a life sentence. OJ got off, etc etc
As far as case file, that has nothing to do with legal issues such as venue, speedy trial issues, presumption of innocence, the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial, Obama and Holders' idiotic statements guareanteeing a conviction.
Holder and Obama, through those statements alone, created at least a 6 month delay since the defendant will file a motion to dismiss based on the fact that they tainted the ability of the client to get a fair trial.
-
OZMO - Ramzi Yusef blew up the WTC the first time and got a life sentence. OJ got off, etc etc
As far as case file, that has nothing to do with legal issues such as venue, speedy trial issues, presumption of innocence, the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial, Obama and Holders' idiotic statements guareanteeing a conviction.
Holder and Obama, through those statements alone, created at least a 6 month delay since the defendant will file a motion to dismiss based on the fact that they tainted the ability of the client to get a fair trial.
Yeah, 33333, but as a lawyer you know better than to arbitrarily assume that "venue, speedy trial issues, presumption of innocence, the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial" will inevitably result in an acquittal or mistrial without seeing the case file.
Sure, there will be some legal maneuvering. So what? I'm not sure that muscleforlife didn't have a point about this having to be a criminal trail and not a military trial. In the end if this guy gets off, you'll see a move to disband the union, all chaos could ensue.
-
Oz I don't need the case file in front of me to know that these guys are not going to get the death penalty, the trial is going to take several years to complete, a civilian trial is much more difficult to win than a military tribunal and having this trial is going to end up costing the public hundreds of millions of dollars while painting an even bigger bullseye on NYC for Islamic nutjobs.
The reasons why this is a stupid idea are apparent no matter what may or may not be in the case file. It's an unnecessary, pointless and dangerous waste of time that is going to delay justice for the victims families of 911 for another five years at least.
-
Yeah, 33333, but as a lawyer you know better than to arbitrarily assume that "venue, speedy trial issues, presumption of innocence, the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial" will inevitably result in an acquittal or mistrial without seeing the case file.
Sure, there will be some legal maneuvering. So what? I'm not sure that muscleforlife didn't have a point about this having to be a criminal trail and not a military trial. In the end if this guy gets off, you'll see a move to disband the union, all chaos could ensue.
Oz I am positive he didn't have a point-- his argument was absurd. Why would this HAVE to be a criminal trial at all when the fucking guy admitted he was guilty, was going to plead guilty before a military tribunal and was going to be executed?
And by the way, there are no "appeals" in the military tribunal process--Once found guilty, its a done deal. Im not going to get into a debate over why the geneva conventions do not apply to terrorists in the first place and why waterboarding was ironclad from a legal standpoint for national security reasons and because there was a legal opinion issued by White House Counsel which effectively takes waterboarding out of the realm of torture--- but thats neither here nor there.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no good reason to have a civilian trial any way you cut it.
-
Yeah, 33333, but as a lawyer you know better than to arbitrarily assume that "venue, speedy trial issues, presumption of innocence, the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial" will inevitably result in an acquittal or mistrial without seeing the case file.
Sure, there will be some legal maneuvering. So what? I'm not sure that muscleforlife didn't have a point about this having to be a criminal trail and not a military trial. In the end if this guy gets off, you'll see a move to disband the union, all chaos could ensue.
No, but it creates the opportunity for chaos, delay, massive costs, and a freak decision on a legal technicality not relating to the innocence or guilt of KSM. Why are we doing this and adding this risk into the equation when KSM has already confreessed and asked for death? What is the need for a "trial" when all parties, including the defendant, agree on culpability?
It seems to me that this "trial" is doing more to harmt he justice system than anything since defendants are all supposed to have a presumption of innonence in a civialian trial. The defendant starts out as being not guilty in these cases and the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is thrown out on a technicality as a result of the confession and all subsequent evidence being the result of a coercive interrogation, what do we do?
Obama/Holder already said even if he is aquitted they are not letting him go. Then what the hell are we holding a trial for? If you are a defendant in a trial and you are aquitted, you are supposed to be set free.
Obama doing this is really is creating ramifications on so many levels most people dont understand. There is simply no need for this mess.
-
In the end if this guy gets off, you'll see a move to disband the union, all chaos could ensue.
I highly doubt it. If anything I think they'll be re-arrested right there on the spot. Perhaps for charges we don't bring the first time, perhaps for something else. But there's no way Obama is going to let these guys go free. So why even go through the motions.
-
Obama/Holder already said even if he is aquitted they are not letting him go. Then what the hell are we holding a trial for? If you are a defendant in a trial and you are aquitted, you are supposed to be set free.
Precisely! :D
-
I highly doubt it. If anything I think they'll be re-arrested right there on the spot. Perhaps for charges we don't bring the first time, perhaps for something else. But there's no way Obama is going to let these guys go free. So why even go through the motions.
I think then, they are going through the motions because it would be a political and cultural victory over AQ.
-
I think then, they are going through the motions because it would be a political and cultural victory over AQ.
How?
1. Its costing NYC at least $100 million in money we dont have.
2. KSM - will get months on end to make a mockery of the justice system.
3. NYC will be shut down for weeks and months and is going to hurt tourism, etc.
4. We dont need a cultural or political victory over Al Quaeda.
5. We have the possibility of massive embarassment when we dont need to.
6. The court system is not supposed to be used as campaign prop.
-
Oz I am positive he didn't have a point-- his argument was absurd. Why would this HAVE to be a criminal trial at all when the fucking guy admitted he was guilty, was going to plead guilty before a military tribunal and was going to be executed?
And by the way, there are no "appeals" in the military tribunal process--Once found guilty, its a done deal. Im not going to get into a debate over why the geneva conventions do not apply to terrorists in the first place and why waterboarding was ironclad from a legal standpoint for national security reasons and because there was a legal opinion issued by White House Counsel which effectively takes waterboarding out of the realm of torture--- but thats neither here nor there.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no good reason to have a civilian trial any way you cut it.
I agree that geneva conventions should not apply to terrorists. In my mind they are criminals. I also agree they should not be afforded all the rights granted to American citizens. But what is the legal precedence in cases of illegal aliens committing crimes on US soil? If an illegal immigrant commits murder how is he tried? Also there is a gray area here because KSM belongs to an organization that has declared war on the US and has committed acts of war against US citizens. He's like a quasi war criminal.
I wonder if there is something preventing Obama and also Bush from putting him before a military tribunal?
-
How?
1. Its costing NYC at least $100 million in money we dont have.
2. KSM - will get months on end to make a mockery of the justice system.
3. NYC will be shut down for weeks and months and is going to hurt tourism, etc.
4. We dont need a cultural or political victory over Al Quaeda.
5. We have the possibility of massive embarassment when we dont need to.
6. The court system is not supposed to be used as campaign prop.
Becuase if they get a victory, which i would think they are sure of getting, Western culture based on human rights wins.
Also, maybe they have no choice. I mean, BUSH had ample time to fry this guy and never did. So why then?
-
No, but it creates the opportunity for chaos, delay, massive costs, and a freak decision on a legal technicality not relating to the innocence or guilt of KSM. Why are we doing this and adding this risk into the equation when KSM has already confreessed and asked for death? What is the need for a "trial" when all parties, including the defendant, agree on culpability?
It seems to me that this "trial" is doing more to harmt he justice system than anything since defendants are all supposed to have a presumption of innonence in a civialian trial. The defendant starts out as being not guilty in these cases and the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is thrown out on a technicality as a result of the confession and all subsequent evidence being the result of a coercive interrogation, what do we do?
Obama/Holder already said even if he is aquitted they are not letting him go. Then what the hell are we holding a trial for? If you are a defendant in a trial and you are aquitted, you are supposed to be set free.
Obama doing this is really is creating ramifications on so many levels most people dont understand. There is simply no need for this mess.
You are bring up valid points, 33333, but i have to believe this is not just this risky. I have to believe that its not just this cut a dry.
I'd be really surprised and disillusioned if it was.
-
I agree that geneva conventions should not apply to terrorists. In my mind they are criminals. I also agree they should not be afforded all the rights granted to American citizens. But what is the legal precedence in cases of illegal aliens committing crimes on US soil? If an illegal immigrant commits murder how is he tried? Also there is a gray area here because KSM belongs to an organization that has declared war on the US and has committed acts of war against US citizens. He's like a quasi war criminal.
I wonder if there is something preventing Obama and also Bush from putting him before a military tribunal?
1. Illegal aliens are not subjected to enhanced interrogation that the Admn classified as torture.
2. KSM was captured overseas in a military operation and not mirandized.
-
1. Illegal aliens are not subjected to enhanced interrogation that the Admn classified as torture.
2. KSM was captured overseas in a military operation and not mirandized.
Yeah, i have to agree, this really doesn't make much sense. He was captured overseas. It should be a military tribunal.
But why? Why couldn't Bush do it? Why is Obama doing it this way?
I think there's something we are not aware of here.
-
Bump
-
Yeah, i have to agree, this really doesn't make much sense. He was captured overseas. It should be a military tribunal.
But why? Why couldn't Bush do it? Why is Obama doing it this way?
I think there's something we are not aware of here.
Hindsight is 20/20. However, the "thing" that we were not aware of is the Obama agenda. Results are secondary, safety is secondary, sanity is secondary. All that matters is the continued struggle to weaken America in the name of fairness, equality, diversity and moral relativism.
-
BUMP