KSM Coming to NY [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

WRESTLINGFAN

11-13-2009, 05:23 AM

Well after 6 years since his and watersports at Gitmo. Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be getting his trial after all. Some say that this is the wheels of justice rolling and the constitution at work others ask why isn't he receiving a tribunal?

I happen to believe that this will be a long drawn out case and It will open barely healed scars from 9/11, The court is blocks away from the former WTC Site

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/13/2009-11-13_911_plotter_khalid_sheikh_mohammed_4_other_gitm o_detainees_will_stand_trial_in_n.html

Dude!

11-13-2009, 05:33 AM

this is the worst mistake
this administration has made

there will be a firestorm

anyone who disagrees with
black man Eric Holder's decision
will be called
racist

mikeyboy, angrymissy, furtherman
meet your new neighbor:

http://sportsmansdaily.com/thescrum/wp-content/khalid_sheikh_mohammed1.jpg

WRESTLINGFAN

11-13-2009, 05:51 AM

Syd

11-13-2009, 08:12 AM

the basis for American freedom is that no man is above the law and as such every person shall have their day in court.

I'm appalled there are so many un-American, anti-freedom and pro-terrorist thugs in this nation that don't want to see American freedom exercised.

In all seriousness though, everyone who thinks KSM shouldn't deserve a trial should be summarily executed as they have proven they have absolutely no usefulness in modern society.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

seriously, basic fucking US constitution and we're blatantly ignoring it because we're a bunch of simpletons

if you have a revenge fetish, just remember that they are trying him for the death penalty

foodcourtdruide

11-13-2009, 08:20 AM

I'm so confused. Why are people angry that he's being tried? There are American's that don't want a trial??? That completely confuses me.

Dude!

11-13-2009, 08:23 AM

I'm so confused. Why are people angry that he's being tried? There are American's that don't want a trial??? That completely confuses me.

a military trial, yes

but bringing him to NY
and having a circus trial
with a Lance Ito judge
is insanity

underdog

11-13-2009, 08:23 AM

Instead of Sending him to Super Allah, He will spend the rest of his days with 3 hots and a cot. His prayer rugs, and Koran all provided by us the taxpayers

I know that its a slim chance but what if he gets off on a technicality?

this administration from the top down is infested with people who just don't get it

Haven't studies shown that executions end up costing just about the same as life imprisonment?

I can't believe we're going to be paying for his prayer rugs and his Koran! Those alone must be tens of dollars!

I'm so confused. Why are people angry that he's being tried? There are American's that don't want a trial??? That completely confuses me.

People like WF would just want him brought out and shot, no trial or anything. You know, because we're the good guys so we should just act exactly like the bad guys. Makes perfect sense.

Syd

11-13-2009, 08:24 AM

I'm so confused. Why are people angry that he's being tried? There are American's that don't want a trial??? That completely confuses me.

It's extreme cognitive dissonance. The oft-repeated phrasing of how soldiers die to protect the freedom of our country but they're so willing to give up that right and allow themselves to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial if someone deems them to be a terrorist.

Strange times we live in.

underdog

11-13-2009, 08:24 AM

a military trial, yes

but bringing him to NY
and having a circus trial
with a Lance Ito judge
is insanity

You're like the Lou Dobbs of hating asians.

Dude!

11-13-2009, 08:26 AM

You're like the Lou Dobbs of hating asians.

that was very racist of you,
underdog

i didn't even know
Lance Ito is Asian
i don't notice things like that

underdog

11-13-2009, 08:43 AM

that was very racist of you,
underdog

i didn't even know
Lance Ito is Asian
i don't notice things like that

You're the Stephen Colbert of Asians?

WRESTLINGFAN

11-13-2009, 08:52 AM

Nobody called for him not to have his day in court, for the justice system to be scrapped or the constitution burned, so enough with all the pseudo attorneys here assuming that.

Im not an anarchist

And please enough with the assumptions that he should be shot without a trial. We do have military tribunals set up though. It must be killing the progressives that the justice dept is seeking the death penalty

I think this lance would be a better Judge

http://images.sportsnetwork.com/baseball/mlb/allsport/houston/berkman_lance336.jpg

Furtherman

11-13-2009, 09:01 AM

WRESTLINGFAN

11-13-2009, 09:02 AM

I already have neighbors who look like that.

He does look like he can be Ron Jeremys brother in that pic

underdog

11-13-2009, 09:09 AM

A.J.

11-13-2009, 09:11 AM

Jack McCoy better not fuck this up.

SatCam

11-13-2009, 03:46 PM

I hope they make him stay in one of those god awful roach infested nyc hotels

yojimbo7248

11-13-2009, 03:49 PM

I already have neighbors who look like that.

This guy just gave me a ride from Manhattan in his cab

disneyspy

11-13-2009, 03:53 PM

does he still do AMERICAS TOP FORTY?

foodcourtdruide

11-13-2009, 04:00 PM

I work a few blocks from where this trial will be and I guarentee you I'm not going to have any idea it's even going on. Calling it a "circus" is an absurd hyperbole. What is the big deal if it's here? I'm still trying to understand this. Why do people want to make this a military tribunal? What is the difference? Why is one better than the other.

foodcourtdruide

11-13-2009, 04:11 PM

Ok, so I bit the bullet and read some of the people who were up in arms about its' opinions and I don't think I've ever seen more false outrage in my life.

foodcourtdruide

11-13-2009, 04:15 PM

Syd

11-13-2009, 04:29 PM

Nobody called for him not to have his day in court, for the justice system to be scrapped or the constitution burned, so enough with all the pseudo attorneys here assuming that.

Actually, a LOT of people are calling for him to not have his day in court. This is the exact situation that the Constitution shines -- someone accused of a crime so heinous that people are willing to give up their inalienable rights to prevent a trial from happening. Yet, despite all of this the rule of law and the rights of Americans are maintained.

NewYorkDragons80

11-13-2009, 04:34 PM

People like WF would just want him brought out and shot, no trial or anything. You know, because we're the good guys so we should just act exactly like the bad guys. Makes perfect sense.

Will you PLEASE stop hating America for 10 seconds?

Dude!

11-13-2009, 04:44 PM

Can't anyone just disagree with Obama without accusing him of anti-Americanism or making America lose the "War on Terror"?

i try to be very objective
but when your president's
middle name is Hussein
and he can't produce a
birth certificate
well...it's hard sometimes

underdog

11-13-2009, 04:49 PM

Will you PLEASE stop hating America for 10 seconds?

Never!

Fuck you Dolphin! Fuck you Cow! Fuck you America!

opie's twisted balls

11-13-2009, 04:51 PM

the basis for American freedom is that no man is above the law and as such every person shall have their day in court.
The problem IMO isn't that he has his day in court, which is a right that should be maintained, but rather which court. If the American military courts are similar to those in Canada the adjudication process is much more expedient then civilian criminal courts and also removes the possibility for extended frivolous appeals. That the 9/11 attacks would easily be considered to have violated the laws of war the crimes should be prosecuted via a military tribunal.

Haven't studies shown that executions end up costing just about the same as life imprisonment?
You can hardly compare KSM to the run of the mill death row prisoner.

People like WF would just want him brought out and shot, no trial or anything. You know, because we're the good guys so we should just act exactly like the bad guys. Makes perfect sense.
While my visceral opinion would be to do just that, hell I'd be happy to pull the trigger and smile afterwards, I do acknowledge the moral and legal requirement to follow due process.

I already have neighbors who look like that.
MOVE!!

I work a few blocks from where this trial will be and I guarentee you I'm not going to have any idea it's even going on. Calling it a "circus" is an absurd hyperbole.
You're dreaming in technicolor

underdog

11-13-2009, 04:55 PM

You can hardly compare KSM to the run of the mill death row prisoner.

I was talking in terms of money. JEZOFAN made a comment about how he'll get life in jail on the taxpayer's dime.

keithy_19

11-13-2009, 04:56 PM

I just wanted to triple post.

I don't know if I even agree with Holder on not trying KSM in a military tribunal, but the idiotic and insane allegations that get thrown at this administration with every decision they make is starting to make my head spin. Can't anyone just disagree with Obama without accusing him of anti-Americanism or making America lose the "War on Terror"? I hate that so many people get sucked into the drama of the 24-hour news cycle in this country.

I disagree with Obama and his administrations choice of having this case being heard in anything other than a Military Tribunal.

Is Obama anti-America? No. I feel this is the wrong move though.

And didn't they stop calling it the war on terror?

foodcourtdruide

11-13-2009, 05:01 PM

I disagree with Obama and his administrations choice of having this case being heard in anything other than a Military Tribunal.

Is Obama anti-America? No. I feel this is the wrong move though.

And didn't they stop calling it the war on terror?

Not in the article I read:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/war-criminals-common-thugs-new-york-trial-suspects-sparks-debate/

Maybe I should have went to a slightly less terrible place to get the opposing viewpoint?

keithy_19

11-13-2009, 05:29 PM

Not in the article I read:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/war-criminals-common-thugs-new-york-trial-suspects-sparks-debate/

Maybe I should have went to a slightly less terrible place to get the opposing viewpoint?

While I do watch Fox News, it is not the only source of information that I receive. In fact, if I hear things on the station that cause interest, I look to other sources to verify.

I didn't always do that, but now I do.

And my view has nothing to do with Fox. Rather it has to do with the 9/11 attacks being an act of war. At least that is how I view them.

Syd

11-13-2009, 06:10 PM

The problem IMO isn't that he has his day in court, which is a right that should be maintained, but rather which court. If the American military courts are similar to those in Canada the adjudication process is much more expedient then civilian criminal courts and also removes the possibility for extended frivolous appeals. That the 9/11 attacks would easily be considered to have violated the laws of war the crimes should be prosecuted via a military tribunal.

What laws of war? That people were murdered in a conspiracy? Can we go ahead and apply that to anyone who commits 1st degree murder? What about manslaughter? Do any deaths of innocent necessitate a military tribunal?

At what point do we say "yes, please take away our rights" and when do we try to say "oh ok ok that is enough please stop eroding democracy"?

Syd

11-13-2009, 06:11 PM

And my view has nothing to do with Fox. Rather it has to do with the 9/11 attacks being an act of war. At least that is how I view them.

What act of war?

opie's twisted balls

11-13-2009, 06:22 PM

That people were murdered in a conspiracy?
Go fuck your hat!

keithy_19

11-13-2009, 06:57 PM

What act of war?

You really don't consider the 9/11 attacks an act of war?

I understand no country declared war, but a terroritst organization did.

high fly

11-13-2009, 07:09 PM

An issue like this sure brings out the fraidy-cats!
Earlier tonight Rudy Giullianni was on with Mark Simone, guest-hosting the Shawn Manatee radio show.
Poor Rudy must've been calling in fromn under the bed, what with all the excuses he was making for Americans not applying American justice.

He went through quite a list of things that could go wrong that he was scared might happen, and they were all mayes and coulds and mights, but at no point did he say anything about the terrorist prosecutions already done in New York.

Somehow he forgot all about the trial of the Blind Sheikh, who is long-forgotten, and now rots away in an American prison, denied a shot at martyrdom.
With him are:

Mahmoud Abouhalima
Ahmad Ajaj
Nidal Ayyad
Eyad Mahmoud Ismoil
Alah Jobroni
Bilal al Kaisi
Eyad Mahmoud Ismail Najim
Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman
Mohammad Salameh
Also convicted for the 1993 WTC attack were Mohammed Abouhalima, who got an 8-year sentence and Ibrahim Ahmad Suleiman, both of whom were not directly involved with the attack.

Followng the 1993 WTC attack, the authorities in New York uncovered the “Landmarks Plot” and caught the terrorist red-handed mixing explosives.
We sent about 15 of them up the river for that one.

Ramzi Yousef is wasting away serving a 240 year sentence in solitary confinement parole.
His fellow Bojinka plot comrade Abdul Hakim Murad is doing life without parole.

Also denied martyrdom and rotting away in our prisons are the 1998 embassy bombing plotters:
Wadi el Hage
Khalfan Khalis Mohamad
Mohammed Sadeek Odeh
Mohammed Rashad Daoud al-Owhali
There were others convicted but I have not confirmed their sentences.

The first act of terrorism during the Clinton administration was the attack on CIA employees turning into CIA HQ. Clinton authorized operations to capture Mir Aimal Kansi that were successful. He was rendered back to the U.S., tried, convicted and executed in Virginia in 2002.

Recyclerz

11-13-2009, 09:19 PM

...

It must be killing the progressives that the justice dept is seeking the death penalty

(checks pulse) Nope, I seem to be handling the news quite well. :wink:

I think the divide on this issue depends on whether you see the al Qaeda brand of terrorism as an existential threat to the US in particular and to "Western civilization" in general. I do not. They are too puny in scope and popularity to be anything more than a dangerous cult. Should we be working really hard to find all the ones responsible for 9/11and all those who want to try that again and stomp them into bloody, dusty pulp? Absolutely. But the smart way to do that is not by starting ill-defined "Wars" and by instantly trashing every principle and rule of law that has made the US special for all these years.

Americans were trained for two generations to think we had to be on guard against the existential enemy. And the Nazis and the Commies actually were existential enemies. But once Gorby pulled the Soviet Union off life support we no longer had anybody to fight to the death against. When Bush/Cheney got bumrushed by Bin Laden & crew with 9/11, those small-time death cultists (al Qaeda) got elevated in the public imagination to super villian status because of Bush/Cheney's lack of perspective. Are they evil and should they be crushed? Absolutely. Will there be other psychopaths like Hassan who use radical Islam as a pretext for murderous rages? Unfortunately, there will. But they have about the same chance of being real world-wide power brokers as those two assholes at Columbine did.

Obama's job is to prove to us (and the rest of the world) that abandonment of the rule of law by the US during the Bush regime was a temporary mistake and that bringing it back will make us all safer in the long run.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-14-2009, 06:01 AM

No one rational really thinks that hes going to overpower a prisonguard. I think Giuliani was playing the fear card

Heres what can make this case a clusterfuck. Was he ever read his miranda rights when he was captured in Pakistan? He was waterboarded 183 times and that probably wont be admissable in court due to it being ruled as torture

One technicality and he walks

WRESTLINGFAN

11-14-2009, 06:15 AM

I was talking in terms of money. JEZOFAN made a comment about how he'll get life in jail on the taxpayer's dime.

You made a comment that I wanted him to be just brought out and shot, I said give the Muslim scumbag his trial first, but not in a civilian court like Bernie Madoff

Should you be called UnderEPO?

underdog

11-14-2009, 06:26 AM

Should you be called UnderEPO?

Ouch. Touche, sir.

Syd

11-14-2009, 09:23 AM

You really don't consider the 9/11 attacks an act of war?

I understand no country declared war, but a terroritst organization did.

First and foremost: a President cannot deny someones writ of habeus corpus (Ex parte Merriman). Although KSM isn't a citizen of the US, he is in our custody and afforded the protections of an American citizen so long as he remains in our custody. Like it or not, that is part of the constitution (14th)

Next up, the only people WITH the power to suspend the writ of HC is Congress. However, they only have the power to suspend it in the event that our civilian court system isn't functioning. Given that the trial itself is being held nearby what was purportedly the center of a war zone, I'd feel pretty confident our court system remains functional and there's no need to relinquish any rights to the military so that their court system could hear the case instead.

Regardless, there's absolutely no way as an American you can stand for the tyranny that an unchecked leadership can imprison and withhold the right to a proper trial to anyone. From the acts of English Kings to the acts of the innocuously sounding Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution. It's unjust and perverse to allow anyone to be beyond the grasp of the common man.

Serpico1103

11-14-2009, 10:02 AM

He went through quite a list of things that could go wrong that he was scared might happen, and they were all maybes and coulds and mights, but at no point did he say anything about the terrorist prosecutions already done in New York.

I find it ironic that a man who built his career on a law and order platform can now saw the system is so flawed.
So, all those people he was happy to arrest and prosecute were thrown into a broken system?

WRESTLINGFAN

11-14-2009, 04:27 PM

What a difference 6 years makes. He went from this

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38911000/jpg/_38911371_khalid203.jpg

To this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33919855/displaymode/1176/rstry/33927889/

underdog

11-14-2009, 04:57 PM

opie's twisted balls

11-14-2009, 05:04 PM

What a difference 6 years makes. He went from this

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38911000/jpg/_38911371_khalid203.jpg

To this

http://i38.tinypic.com/ih08bn.jpg

allah on a pony he looks like shit.....wasn't all that attractive in his perp shot from 6 years ago but given he'd just had his ass handed to him would look a bit rough....with all that mangy hair he's got to stink like wet dog when he's been water boarded

WRESTLINGFAN

11-14-2009, 05:27 PM

http://i38.tinypic.com/ih08bn.jpg

allah on a pony he looks like shit.....wasn't all that attractive in his perp shot from 6 years ago but given he'd just had his ass handed to him would look a bit rough....with all that mangy hair he's got to stink like wet dog when he's been water boarded

If he's released, How the hell will he be able to score a goat? Looks like he needs

http://www.ebarbershop.com/ShopSite/media/just_jetblk_gel.jpg

Dude!

11-14-2009, 05:58 PM

ugh
i am so glad i don't live
in New York

JFK would have just
had Tony Soprano
'take care' of this guy
while on his way to NY
and we wouldn't have to
deal with the next 5 years
of drama

Syd

11-14-2009, 06:05 PM

ugh
i am so glad i don't live
in New York

JFK would have just
had Tony Soprano
'take care' of this guy
while on his way to NY
and we wouldn't have to
deal with the next 5 years
of drama

maybe the next
president can
just summarily execute
you
so we don't have to
deal with the next 5 posts
you make
like this

opie's twisted balls

11-14-2009, 06:14 PM

maybe the next
president can
just summarily execute
you
so we don't have to
deal with the next 5 posts
you make
like this
What are you, a communist?

Dude!

11-14-2009, 08:05 PM

What are you, a communist?

yes he is
and he's a notorious racist
too

keithy_19

11-15-2009, 02:30 PM

First and foremost: a President cannot deny someones writ of habeus corpus (Ex parte Merriman). Although KSM isn't a citizen of the US, he is in our custody and afforded the protections of an American citizen so long as he remains in our custody. Like it or not, that is part of the constitution (14th)

Next up, the only people WITH the power to suspend the writ of HC is Congress. However, they only have the power to suspend it in the event that our civilian court system isn't functioning. Given that the trial itself is being held nearby what was purportedly the center of a war zone, I'd feel pretty confident our court system remains functional and there's no need to relinquish any rights to the military so that their court system could hear the case instead.

Regardless, there's absolutely no way as an American you can stand for the tyranny that an unchecked leadership can imprison and withhold the right to a proper trial to anyone. From the acts of English Kings to the acts of the innocuously sounding Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution. It's unjust and perverse to allow anyone to be beyond the grasp of the common man.

I want him to have a trial. Just not in civilian court.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-15-2009, 02:51 PM

I want him to have a trial. Just not in civilian court.

I know it would almost never happen. Imagine him with a haircut, clean shaven and a 3 piece suit?

Syd

11-15-2009, 02:53 PM

I want him to have a trial. Just not in civilian court.

That is unconstitutional, fortunately or unfortunately.

foodcourtdruide

11-18-2009, 09:10 AM

You're dreaming in technicolor

You said this in regards to me saying I won't notice this going on a few blocks from my office. What do you mean? I bet it would be less than a President visiting the city. They'll be some temporary street closings, but to say it will be insane is a hyperbole. It will not shut down the city, the only people that will likely be effected are the cops who will get overtime, which I'm sure they welcome.

SonOfSmeagol

11-21-2009, 01:24 PM

Eric Holder's Baffling KSM Decision (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547681569546414.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

The AG appears to have no clue.

“How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty? Given that criminal courts are now the presumed venue for those captured on the battlefield, will soldiers need to read them their rights at the time of capture? Since you wish to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the presumed civil venue, don't all those captured need to be read their rights and have the opportunity to remain silent? Won't this venue expose intelligence to our enemies? Can our classified information really be secured? Can we in fact predict how the judge will rule? If these people are brought into the country will they get additional rights under immigration law? What if they claim asylum? “

“The attorney general seemed bewildered in the face of these inquiries. Recurring themes in his responses included "I think," and "I can't imagine," and "I am not an expert in immigration."”

"Has our attorney general not considered these issues, or imagined the possible unintended consequences that will arise from his historic decision? It certainly seemed that way. If he had, he would have had better answers."

Syd

11-21-2009, 02:22 PM

WSJ isn't a reputable news source. Anyway, soldiers wouldn't need to read anyone Miranda rights because it violates the Posse Comitatus Act and it's totally null and void since you have no rights afforded to you via the 14th until you're in our custody on our lands. At that point, the rule of American law and justice comes into play.

SonOfSmeagol

11-21-2009, 02:41 PM

WSJ isn't a reputable news source.

lol – given what you’ve posted here and there I can see that you could think that about WSJ. However, that statement is not relevant in this case because it was an OP piece (a thoughtful one imo) by one of the family members from 9/11.

high fly

11-21-2009, 05:07 PM

I want him to have a trial. Just not in civilian court.

Why not?
Opposition to the death penalty?
I could see some who would prefer a military trial because the last time someone tried by the military was executed was in 1961.

On the other hand, civilian courts have done quite well in handling terrorist prosecutions.
This is a subject I have done considerable research on my own.
Here are some, but not all of the results of prosecutions of terrorists during the Clinton administration. There are a number of additional cases I am still trying to track down, but the following list makes a pretty strong argument as to whether civilian prosecution of terrorists are possible, or whether we should join Rudy Giuliani under the bed, scared to prosecute:

Jan. 25, 1993 attack on CIA HQ:
Mir Aimal Kansi – sentenced to death and executed

Feb. 26, 1993 WTC bombing:
Mahmoud Abouhalima – Life + 240 years
Mohammed Abouhalima – 8 years
Ahmad Ajaj – Life + 240 years
Nidal Ayyad – Life + 240 years
Eyad Mahmoud Ismoil – Life + 240 years
Alah Jobroni – Life + 240 years
Eyad Mahmoud Ismail Najim – Life + 240 years $10 million restitution, $250,000 fine
Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman – Life + 240 years
Mohammad Salameh – Life + 240 years
Ibrahim Ahmad Suleiman – 10 months

June 24, 1993, Landmarks Plot disrupted:
Amir Abdelgani – 30 years
Fadil Abdelgani – 25 years
Mahmoud Abouhalima – life + 240 years
Victor Alvarez – 35 years
Ibrahim el-Gabrowny – 57 years
Earl Grant – 3-1/2 months plus 3 years probation
Abdo Haggag – charges dropped in exchange for his cooperation
Clement Rodney Hampton-El – 35 years
Tarig El-Hassan – 35 years
Fares Khallafalla – 30 years
El Sayyid Nosair – life in prison
Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman – life in prison
Mohammad Salameh – life + 240 years
Matarawry Mohammed Said Saleh convicted, deported to Egypt in 1996
Mohammed Saleh – 35 years

Jan. 1995, disrupted Bojinka Plot:
Eyad Ismoil – 240 years in prison, $250,000 fine
Wali Khan Amin Shah – life in prison
Abdul Hakim Murad – life without parole, $250,000 fine
Ramzi Yousef – 240 years in solitary confinement

April 19, 1995 Murrah Building, Oklahoma City bombing:
Timothy McVeigh – executed
Terry Nichols – 161 consecutive life sentences without parole
Michael Fortier – 12 years in prison, $200,000 fine
August 7, 1998 Africa embassy bombings:
Wadi el Hage – life in prison
Khalfan Khalis Mohamad – life in prison
Mohammed Sadeek Odeh – life in prison
Mohammed Rashad Daoud al-Owhali – life in prison

Syd

11-21-2009, 07:28 PM

lol – given what you’ve posted here and there I can see that you could think that about WSJ. However, that statement is not relevant in this case because it was an OP piece (a thoughtful one imo) by one of the family members from 9/11.

I don't cite what conservatives don't trust either -- WaPo has its own agenda (corporate profit since they sell themselves to the highest bidder)

Syd

11-21-2009, 07:33 PM

You're missing one more:

John Allen Muhammed -- sentenced to death and executed Nov. 10th, 2009 for the DC Beltway attacks.

high fly

11-21-2009, 08:33 PM

You're missing one more:

John Allen Muhammed -- sentenced to death and executed Nov. 10th, 2009 for the DC Beltway attacks.

Yeah, I was just putting up prosecutions of terrorists during the Clinton administration, though McVeigh and Kansi were executed after Clinton left office in 2001 and 2002, respectively.
It's funny seeing Rudy Giuliani whining about the prosecution of KSM, since it was his successor, Mary Jo White, who got a lot of the prosecutions listed above...

The record is pretty clear on what civilian courts can do in prosecuting terrorists when we do things The American Way.
Oh, an none-a them terrists escaped from American civilian prisons, but dozens of them escaped from Abu Ghraib and the prison at Bagram where the military ran the show....

JimBeam

11-21-2009, 09:48 PM

I'm actually unsure of whether or not I think this is a good idea or not.

At first I thought it made sense that he be brought before a jury in the very place where he wrecked his havok but I do think treating him like an average criminal is not the way to go.

I'm not one of those that thinks NY is now a bigger target because he'd be there.

I think since he was captured on the battlefield so to speak that he should be treated as an enemy combatant and not like John Gotti.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So if he was captured outside of the US, and had never been brought here that whole section wouldn't apply.

I'm not even sure that he'd automatically get those rights if he was blown to Florida briefly before he was sent someplace else internationally.

seriously, basic fucking US constitution and we're blatantly ignoring it because we're a bunch of simpletons

Apparently there have been times during the great 200+ years of this country that the simpletons have decided to go against your interpretation of the Constitution :

Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.

When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair.

When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court.

All of these are from the following article which I think makes some sense :

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34453

Now people are gonna look at the source and automatically discount his opinion but doing so would be as ignorant as some people have indicated others are for thinking a civilian trial is not the way to go.

He makes some valid points.

What I haven't read or have failed to pick up is what they are actually trying him with.

As far as I know there's no federal statute for murder so what are they using ?

Is he being tried by the state of NY who would have a murder statute ?

Syd

11-21-2009, 09:59 PM

Apparently there have been times during the great 200+ years of this country that the simpletons have decided to go against your interpretation of the Constitution :

Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.

Yeah, let's look at what we did in World War 2 as some sort of thing to repeat. Let's go ahead and put all non-whites into interment camps because they're the enemy. I'm all for that: it's been shown we can't trust orientals because they shoot up colleges, dune coons because they're all terrorists and blacks because they're violent and dangerous.

While we're at it, let's not prosecute anyone who performed vivisections or performed human experiments as well.

Let's also firebomb vast swaths of Germany because because, well, why not. Dresden sucks!

Let's also use nuclear weapons on a country as it is about to capitulate because we want to further our neoliberal foreign policy.

When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair.

The court system wasn't functioning in Maryland. Lincoln suspended rights and acted in tyranny repressing the citizens of Maryland. So, that falls under the whole "if the civilian court system isn't functioning it has to go under a military tribunal"

When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court.

See above about the United States acting as a sort of pseudo-fascist authoritarian shithole between 41-45.

Now people are gonna look at the source and automatically discount his opinion but doing so would be as ignorant as some people have indicated others are for thinking a civilian trial is not the way to go.

There's NO reason why you don't try anyone who is in US custody on US lands unless you're really pro-authoritarianism and want a giant, all-encompassing government that can imprison you on a whim. The POTUS is already able to define who is and who isn't a terrorist. Are people -really- that trusting of Obama to allow him to determine that distinction and then act upon that?

Fine with me, but, you know, people have sort of have been able to have this right to trial dating all the way back to the 13th century. Not sure if I am ready to undo nearly a millennium of progress because some people are afraid of the big bad terrorist saying some big bad words about a city the vast majority of conservatives don't particularly care for, unless it helps them get elected.

high fly

11-21-2009, 10:00 PM

Jim, you see that list of cases from the 90s I posted, above?
A lot of those terrorists were capured abroad and put on trial in America after being extradited or rendered here.
Many of those cases were prosecuted by the Southern District of New York.
With the names and the plots given, you can google their cases and read about the security measure. You will probably find cowards like Rudy Giuliani hiding under the bed, scare to do things The American Way then, too.

We did it many times before, we can do it again.

EDIT: Since the cases in World War II and the Lincoln assassination, many laws have been passed that have to be obeyed. That's the way we do it in America....

JimBeam

11-21-2009, 10:16 PM

I never said he couldn't be tried here.

I have total faith that he'd be tried and found guilty.

To be honest the trial might be a waste because tyou're gonna be hard pressed to find 1 of 12 people to come out publically and say they think he's innocent.

Since the cases in World War II and the Lincoln assassination, many laws have been passed that have to be obeyed. That's the way we do it in America....

What's been added to the Constitution since the 40's that applies in this case ?

Syd you didn't say anything about the idea of what would be done if he was never on US soil.

It's your belief that every German captured during WWII should've been brought back to the US and tried ?

And talk about hyperbole. Who said we should do everything that we did during WWII ?

Just bringing up the internment camps doesn't validate your argument anymore.

1 very bad idea doesn't invalidate everything that was done.

Constitutional law is argued every day in this country so what rights you think apply to a foreign national may be much different than what is the case.

I also like how you want to discount decisions made by people who had a lot to do with how the Constitution evolved and is interpreted but you have no problem hanging onto the last sentence in a section of a document written 200+ years ago by white slave holders.

Are you a person that thinks that Constituition reads as you like it ?

You wanna say that certain parts written 200+ years ago should be applied literally while others are antiquated ?

opie's twisted balls

11-22-2009, 12:58 AM

You said this in regards to me saying I won't notice this going on a few blocks from my office. What do you mean? I bet it would be less than a President visiting the city. They'll be some temporary street closings, but to say it will be insane is a hyperbole. It will not shut down the city, the only people that will likely be effected are the cops who will get overtime, which I'm sure they welcome.
Never said it would shut the city down but there will be a demonstrable show of civilian law enforcement and military force.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-22-2009, 06:15 AM

JimBeam

11-22-2009, 06:31 AM

Doesn't this represent some conflict of interest? Many of holders people in the Justice dept represented Gitmo Detainees at his law firm, now they are representing the Gov't vs KSM and other terrorists.

I did hear something along these lines the other day but I wasn't sure how valid it was.

The point Mark Levin was trying to make ( yeah I know, lol ) is that if he was a life time criminal defense attorney how is he qualified to take on a prosecutorial case as big as this one.

At least I think that's where he was going.

I can understand that the power structure at the AG's office and the Justice Dept changes w/ each president but do the mid to lower level employees change that often ?

Are the people that would've done the grunt work on this case different than those that would've done it 2 years ago ?

I hope politics doesn't go that far down into this process.

high fly

11-22-2009, 01:20 PM

What's been added to the Constitution since the 40's that applies in this case ?

I made no such claim.
Please reread what I said, which was since World War II a number of laws have been added which we have to follow.
Among them are the Geneva Conventions, the Human Rights Convention, search and seizure laws, laws regarding admissibility of evidence, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there have been quite a few. No really. Since World War II and the assassination of Lincoln we have passed laws on how we have trials.
I am not making that up.

Constitutional law is argued every day in this country so what rights you think apply to a foreign national may be much different than what is the case.

That is true. For example, in the prisoner torture/abuse debate, those in favor of torture will cite one section of the Third Geneva Convention, but will ignore other pertinent treaties which are now American law, such as the UN Convention Against Torture, the American Convention on Human Rights and a few others.
Generally speaking, they say that when one country occupies the territory of another, it has responsibility for those under its jurisdiction. It has to treat them according the the UN Charter (Article 55, I think) and according to other laws.
For example, we are committed as a matter of law under the Third Geneva Convention to give everyone we capture a judicial hearing to determine their status, whether they are a lawful combatant or not. We are also prohibited from taking them out of the country and have to try them in the country we occupy.

Thre is also the Uniform Code of Military Justice which our military has to obey. It prohibits them from doing the sorts of things the pro-torture sadists want them to do...

Syd

11-22-2009, 01:37 PM

Syd you didn't say anything about the idea of what would be done if he was never on US soil.

It's your belief that every German captured during WWII should've been brought back to the US and tried ?

If someone isn't in custody on American soil, they're not afforded the protections spelled out in the 14th amendment. That's why Miranda Rights don't matter -- that and the US military cannot act as a policing force.

badmonkey

11-22-2009, 01:47 PM

If someone isn't in custody on American soil, they're not afforded the protections spelled out in the 14th amendment. That's why Miranda Rights don't matter -- that and the US military cannot act as a policing force.

on US soil

JimBeam

11-22-2009, 02:00 PM

But if the contention is that our military forces captured KSM, at least I believe it was military and not a civilian entity like the FBI, on foreign soil then why would he be entitled to Constitutional protections ?

In Buchanan's article he mentions that we aren't providing any type of Constituitional protections to the supposed terrorists that we've been killing on a daily basis since the war began so why is KSM different ?

I think he makes a good point when he said that while we went after organized crime we weren't declaring all out war on the underlings in the organizations.

Obvioulsy the difference is that we wouldn't do that here in the US but doesn't that then put us back on the idea that KSM was captured as an enemy combatant ?

Again I'm not even sure what they are actually charging him with.

Does anybody have a link to the exact charges ?

How is he going to get the trial people think he deserves when there's no chance he's going to get to call undercover field operatives and military personel to testify ?

WRESTLINGFAN

11-22-2009, 02:33 PM

Anyone see this clip of Graham grilling Holder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9bbjBfKJL0

KatPw

11-25-2009, 07:34 AM

Good news! According to Dana Perino 9/11 was not a terrorist attack!

<object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=200911240056'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=200911240056' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>

Let there be much rejoicing.

Misteriosa

11-25-2009, 07:35 AM

sweet! now i wont have to leave my nail clipper in my suit case!

unreal...:dry:

tanless1

11-25-2009, 07:41 AM

....finally, we know.
This whole thing disgusts me. Turned it into a dog and pony show.
...don't worry peep's. Don't expect you to agree w/ me, and I don't expect to change your minds. So, ill save my energy for another topic.

JimBeam

11-25-2009, 08:36 AM

I'm guessing that woman was a Bush administration representative huh ?

KatPw

11-25-2009, 09:01 AM

I'm guessing that woman was a Bush administration representative huh ?

Yup. Former White House Press Secretary.

high fly

11-25-2009, 11:56 AM

Interesting that all it takes is the idea of having another terrorism trial in New York to send some people diving under the bed, quivering in fear, ready to abandon our justice system.
I wonder how different the trial of KSM will be from the trial of the Omar Abdel "Blind Sheikh" Rahman?

badmonkey

11-25-2009, 11:59 AM

high fly

11-25-2009, 12:13 PM

Probably not so different (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/nyregion/20stewart.html)

I don't see the connection with the lawyers, but Rahman was once a cause celebre for jihadists. After being on ice for a while he became largely forgotten and is just rotting away, denied publicity and a martyr's death.
I don't care if there is a brief flare-up of KSM spouting some sort of propaganda or not.
One of the things the terrorists use against us is a charge of hypocrisy about our justice system. They will not be able to make that argument and recollections of their previous claims will cut at their credibility.

I'd love to see this debated between Rudy and Mary Jo White...

keithy_19

11-25-2009, 04:24 PM

Serpico1103

11-25-2009, 04:28 PM

I just don't understand how they confessed, but then we said no it's alright have a trial. So now they plead not guilty so they can speak about how America is the devil and why they did it.
Um. They did it. It doesn't matter why.
And the lawyer who is representing one of them just seems like such a scumbag.
I'm conflicted though. Tax money is going to both the defense and the prosecution. It's like I have money invested in both sides. How, oh how, do I decide who I want to win?

The confession is merely evidence to be used against them. It is not a guilty plea.

Your tax money is balancing the scale of justice.
Who do you want to win?
The side that justice demands win.

If they hate our freedoms, shouldn't drown them in our freedoms and rights?

high fly

11-25-2009, 04:44 PM

Serpico, I doubt Keithy has ever been to the Innocence Project website and seen all the false confessions innocent people made.

But look, if we have enough evidence to be so sure of a conviction, a fair and open trial can only show off how great the American system of justice is, especially to the folks over there in those wretched Arab countries with oppressive governments.
When we look good, it becomes easier for us to recruit spies and agents in foreign countries to collect intelligence for us, instead of trying to send Fonzie into the Yemeni hinterlands or South Waziristan to try and blend in with the locals to get the intel we need....

keithy_19

11-25-2009, 05:23 PM

high fly

11-25-2009, 07:10 PM

I actually have.

I personally feel that this trial will be a trial not only against the accused, but also against the former president. I don't think it is necessary.

I don't see how.
I mean, it depends some on the judge, but I don't see a lot about Bush or Clinton that would be very relevant.
Let him rant and put on a spectacle.
If the evidence is as overwhelming as is being let on, in the end it won't make any difference.
One of his plots was to hijack airliners and demand the release of the Blind Sheikh.
When was the last time you heard anything about the Blind Sheikh?
He's just rotting away, forgotten.
It will be the same with KSM.

On KSM, there is another theory as to his relative importance. Peter Lance has put out a string of books which are in large part reprints of the previous book, but with a new chapter or two. Lance maintains Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is really a minor player and that Ramzi Yousef is the real mastermind...

Oh, and forgotten in the talk about trials is the Clinton administration came up with a way to try these guys and be able to use classified information without actually revealing it to the defendant. They would have lawyers who were cleared for classified information who could give their clients summaries of it, but they could not find out specifics.
They were known as the Alien Terrorism Removal Courts and guess who campaigned against them as being discriminatory against Muslims and talked about being repulsed by "profiling?"
Why, George W. Bush in the 2000 election!

Google Sami al-Arian and see if you can find the photo of him and W, taken in Florida just before Bush headed over to casa al-Arian to break bread with a terrist....

high fly

11-27-2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by high fly
Serpico, I doubt Keithy has ever been to the Innocence Project website and seen all the false confessions innocent people made.

I actually have.

What did you learn about confessions?
In America, torturing a confession out of someone is not enough. We have a whole system we have been practising for over 200 years.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also falsely "confessed" to the murder of Daniel Pearl and participation in over 30 other terrorist plots that were figments of his imagination. He was able to cause us to send very limited intelligence assets on wild goose chases around the globe, diverting them from more important work, like preventing real terrorism.

Here's a little something to consider:

" You try to develop a very intense relationship with another human being so they'll part with information they'd rather not part with. You wheedle, cajole, trick, lie. The point is to collect usable, actionable information. Sure, if you start pulling a guy's fingernails out, he'll start talking - it may not be the truth, but he's going to tell you exactly what you want to hear.
In a training environment ( a mock prisoner-of-war camp), my students would be subjected to hostile forms of interrogation: loud noises, fake burials, 15-20-volt electric shocks. And I got people to confess to things they absolutely did not do. The information you receive is worthless."
- former career military interrogator Chief Warrant Officer (retired) Marney Mason

I have done a fair amount of research on interrogation and have dozens of professional interrogators quoted in my files. I have not come across even one wjo believes the coercive techniques used on KSM yield anything but unreliable information, which stands in sharp contrast to the success accomplished by the best interrogators who all use humane techniques to get not only accurate information from prisoners, but they get it in greater volume as well, since it is given willingly and not in order to make pain stop.

I don't think KSM's confessions that came while being abused are worth a damn, but fortunately we have other evidence against him. One thing is before we captured him, KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh were interviewed by al Jazeera correspondent Yosri Fouda in April 2002 and they confessed and described the plot.
We should have no fear of seeing a trial go forward....