Bush Justice Officials: Smart Move To Try KSM In Federal Court

[George Whorewell]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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.    

  

[Skip8282]

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.

[Skip8282]

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!

[OzmO]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[OzmO]

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?

[OzmO]

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?

[OzmO]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

Bump 

[George Whorewell]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

BUMP