Author Topic: Bush Justice Officials: Smart Move To Try KSM In Federal Court (Read 3113 times)

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #25 on:** November 20, 2009, 11:44:28 AM »

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.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #26 on:** November 20, 2009, 11:47:05 AM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on November 20, 2009, 11:44:28 AM

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?

240 is Back · « **Reply #27 on:** November 20, 2009, 11:49:59 AM »

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.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #28 on:** November 20, 2009, 11:51:46 AM »

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.

kcballer · « **Reply #29 on:** November 20, 2009, 12:12:13 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on November 20, 2009, 11:51:46 AM

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

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2009, 12:15:28 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on November 20, 2009, 12:12:13 PM

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.

kcballer · « **Reply #31 on:** November 20, 2009, 12:42:46 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on November 20, 2009, 12:15:28 PM

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?

tonymctones · « **Reply #32 on:** November 20, 2009, 01:30:46 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on November 20, 2009, 12:42:46 PM

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!!!!!

240 is Back · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2009, 01:40:25 PM »

33,

youre predicting the trial wont be held in NYC?

kcballer · « **Reply #34 on:** November 20, 2009, 01:48:52 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on November 20, 2009, 01:30:46 PM

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.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #35 on:** November 20, 2009, 01:49:24 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on November 20, 2009, 01:40:25 PM

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.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #36 on:** November 20, 2009, 03:17:49 PM »

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.

George Whorewell · « **Reply #37 on:** November 20, 2009, 05:11:00 PM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on November 20, 2009, 11:44:28 AM

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.

tonymctones · « **Reply #38 on:** November 20, 2009, 05:12:49 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on November 20, 2009, 01:48:52 PM

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...

muscleforlife · « **Reply #39 on:** November 20, 2009, 06:45:02 PM »

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

tonymctones · « **Reply #40 on:** November 20, 2009, 06:54:02 PM »

Quote from: muscleforlife on November 20, 2009, 06:45:02 PM

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.

240 is Back · « **Reply #41 on:** November 21, 2009, 12:15:22 AM »

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.

Skip8282 · « **Reply #42 on:** November 21, 2009, 05:16:40 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on November 21, 2009, 12:15:22 AM

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.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #43 on:** November 21, 2009, 08:17:40 AM »

GW - they could have legally executed this guy on the spot and everyone knows it.

George Whorewell · « **Reply #44 on:** November 21, 2009, 08:19:45 AM »

Quote from: muscleforlife on November 20, 2009, 06:45:02 PM

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?

George Whorewell · « **Reply #45 on:** November 21, 2009, 08:25:57 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on November 21, 2009, 12:15:22 AM

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.

OzmO · « **Reply #46 on:** November 21, 2009, 08:53:44 AM »

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.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #47 on:** November 21, 2009, 08:58:16 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on November 21, 2009, 08:53:44 AM

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 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 21, 2009, 09:05:32 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on November 21, 2009, 08:58:16 AM

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.

George Whorewell · « **Reply #49 on:** November 21, 2009, 09:07:16 AM »

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.