Eric Holder to try 9-11 master mind as criminals in New York as criminals.

[rightwinger]

From ollie

These people deserve no rights, what rights did they give those innocent men women and children on 9-11-01?

Isn't that true of all criminals?

Criminals?

They tried to toppled 2 fully occupied WTC towers on to lower Manhattan during a workday, what should they be charged with 2,750 counts of murder and 60,000 counts of attempted murder?

Sounds pretty criminal to me. Is there an upper limit where crimes are no longer criminal?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

KSM Doesnt have anything to woory about from Holder
More on Holder and FALN - Political Punch
Eric Holder pushed for controversial clemency - Los Angeles Times

 

[The Rabbi]

From ollie



Isn't that true of all criminals?

Criminals?

They tried to toppled 2 fully occupied WTC towers on to lower Manhattan during a workday, what should they be charged with 2,750 counts of murder and 60,000 counts of attempted murder?

Sounds pretty criminal to me. Is there an upper limit where crimes are no longer criminal?

This is why we tried those responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor?

 

[The T]

It's Obama's back door way of putting bush on trial for "torture"

HOLDER'S HIDDEN AGENDA

 

[rightwinger]

Criminals?

They tried to toppled 2 fully occupied WTC towers on to lower Manhattan during a workday, what should they be charged with 2,750 counts of murder and 60,000 counts of attempted murder?

Sounds pretty criminal to me. Is there an upper limit where crimes are no longer criminal?

This is why we tried those responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor?

Did we try them? Where?

Show me where we tried those who planned and carried out the Pearl Harbor attacks?

 

[Vast LWC]

And this whole "They need to be tried as enemy combatants" idea is a bunch of crap.

Trying them as "enemy combatants" implies that these people have some sort of legitimacy, like they were acting to defend a country.

These people are not legitimate combatants in a war.

They are mass murderers, and need to be treated as such.

Hell, in some ways it would be better if they were sent to prison instead of the death penalty, as they would surely be ass-raped every day for the rest of their short lived until they were shanked in a cell.

But I'll settle for the death penalty.

your messiah said they were enemy combatants who committed "war crimes" you calling him a liar? no your end game is to reward these terrorists and set them free jus like scotland did.

See now, here you make the common mistake that is often made by dittoheads such as yourself. You assume that like you, everyone toes their party line to the hilt.

Just because you people change your ideas daily to fall in line with the rest of your extremist buddies, doesn't mean that everyone does.

I would in fact say that calling what terrorists do "war crimes" is a mistake. And Obama, like other people, is in fact capable of making mistakes.

Fortunately for us, he hasn't made any massive mistakes, like good ol' George Bush did, as of yet.

You know, the guy you supported and voted for, who turned out to be a damn horrible "mistake" himself?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It's Obama's back door way of putting bush on trial for "torture"

Anything in discovery that pertains to "war crimes" can be used to indict the Bush administration and the West in general .
This is the point of this prosecution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sounds pretty criminal to me. Is there an upper limit where crimes are no longer criminal?

This is why we tried those responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor?

Did we try them? Where?

Show me where we tried those who planned and carried out the Pearl Harbor attacks?

Precisely. We don't try enemy combatants in criminal courts. So why the hell are we doing it now??

 

[Vast LWC]

NY City has a death penalty?

I think you poisoned the jury pool with your hatred for Muslims, no way they can get a fair trial now.

It's a Federal Court. There is a death penalty.

And since when do you care about a "fair" trial? These people are unrepentant admitted terrorists.

Besides, would they be getting a "fair" trial from a military tribunal? I think not.

Well actually the tribunals that were specifically set up to handle these cases have a reputation for outstanding fairness.
So your bias is showing.
Trying them allows the possibility that they will get off on a technicality. It allows them to parade their disgusting views all over the media. It gives them a platform to speak from. And executing them is exactly what they want. Why would we do that? Life in supermax to die in obscurity sounds fine to me.

"Outstanding fairness" as recounted by the victors in wars. And, as any good historian can tell you, the victors write history.

And, yes, of course my "bias" is showing. I hate these people with a passion.

Apparently, the only opinion you and your ilk seem to have about terrorists is how they can be used for political gain.

As far as "giving them a platform to speak from", you folks have already done that dozens of times by playing and parading Bin Laden tapes and quotes for the public and the media whenever you needed a boost in popularity.

And NOW you decide that we "Shouldn't give them a platform to speak from???

What did you think you were doing when you legitimized their cause by "declaring war" on terror???

It's time to stop treating these people as if their terror attacks are the result of a legitimate beef they have with us, and start treating them like the criminal mass-murderers they are.

How do you people not understand that having them appear in front of a military tribunal and trying them as enemy combatants gives them credibility???

Son of Sam didn't have any credibility. Enemy combatants in a war do.

 

[The T]

Sounds pretty criminal to me. Is there an upper limit where crimes are no longer criminal?

This is why we tried those responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor?

Did we try them? Where?

Show me where we tried those who planned and carried out the Pearl Harbor attacks?

Japanese War Crimes Trials 1946-1948

Educate yourself.

 

[Zander]

I posted this in the other thread on the same topic:

My issue with civilian courts is the circus atmosphere and the world wide stage we are placing these boobs on. The US already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) and provide a detailed plan for dealing with these detainees.

The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against the detainees may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield.

A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence. An open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction.

We even run the risk that one of these animals is aquitted based upon a technicality. That would be a real travesty of justice. Holder and Obama are making a HUGE mistake.

 

[Vast LWC]

Criminals?

They tried to toppled 2 fully occupied WTC towers on to lower Manhattan during a workday, what should they be charged with 2,750 counts of murder and 60,000 counts of attempted murder?

Sounds pretty criminal to me. Is there an upper limit where crimes are no longer criminal?

This is why we tried those responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor?

Pearl Harbor was a battle in a war.

That is why no-one was tried for Pearl Harbor, and no-one will ever be.

That is also why none of our soldiers will be tried for fighting battles against the Japanese.

Acts of terrorism, like 9/11, are CRIMES. They are not acts of "war" because the terrorists do not represent a nation.

Calling this entire episode a "War" on terror was a foolish notion from the very beginning.

 

[Ame®icano]

Most of us remember 1995 civilian trial of the blind Sheik where the prosecution was required to release the names of coconspirators regardless of if they were actually defendants. One of those coconspirator in that case was none other than Osama Bin Laden, who then had the opportunity to hide himself, and inform all of his militants who were on the list to lay low. This not only helped them abroad, but also in selecting the men who would execute future attack of 9/11. Is this going to happen again?

We tried the first World Trade Center bombers in civilian courts. In return we got 9/11 and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.

Civilian Courts Are No Place to Try Terrorists

 

[Vast LWC]

I posted this in the other thread on the same topic:

My issue with civilian courts is the circus atmosphere and the world wide stage we are placing these boobs on. The US already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) and provide a detailed plan for dealing with these detainees.

The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against the detainees may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield.

A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence. An open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction.

We even run the risk that one of these animals is aquitted based upon a technicality. That would be a real travesty of justice. Holder and Obama are making a HUGE mistake.

In this statement, you're assuming that somehow the terrorists will be vindicated by a trial.

How would you assume that exactly?

These people are not repentent, they are proud of their actions. They probably will not even try to plead "Not Guilty" but will instead try to act like their acts were somehow justified.

And there is abolutely NO WAY that these people will somehow slip through on the basis of BS evidence in a court in NEW YORK CITY.

I can guarantee that.

 

[Vast LWC]

Most of us remember 1995 civilian trial of the blind Sheik where the prosecution was required to release the names of coconspirators regardless of if they were actually defendants. One of those coconspirator in that case was none other than Osama Bin Laden, who then had the opportunity to hide himself, and inform all of his militants who were on the list to lay low. This not only helped them abroad, but also in selecting the men who would execute future attack of 9/11. Is this going to happen again?

We tried the first World Trade Center bombers in civilian courts. In return we got 9/11 and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.

Civilian Courts Are No Place to Try Terrorists

At that point, there was no consideration of national security in providing such evidence.

Laws have been changed since then. There is no chance that this will be the case. No chance at all.

 

[The T]

Most of us remember 1995 civilian trial of the blind Sheik where the prosecution was required to release the names of coconspirators regardless of if they were actually defendants. One of those coconspirator in that case was none other than Osama Bin Laden, who then had the opportunity to hide himself, and inform all of his militants who were on the list to lay low. This not only helped them abroad, but also in selecting the men who would execute future attack of 9/11. Is this going to happen again?

We tried the first World Trade Center bombers in civilian courts. In return we got 9/11 and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.

Civilian Courts Are No Place to Try Terrorists

Exactly. It is seen as a weakness by AQ and other Terrorist groups.

 

[rightwinger]

This is why we tried those responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor?

Did we try them? Where?

Show me where we tried those who planned and carried out the Pearl Harbor attacks?

Precisely. We don't try enemy combatants in criminal courts. So why the hell are we doing it now??

You see? You keep playing both sides of the fence

They are not "enemy combatants" so they are denied rights as Prisoners of War and the Geneva Convention

When labeling them enemy combatants serves your purpose, they are now enemy combatants

They committed crimes on US soil and should be tried in US Courts

 

[The T]

I posted this in the other thread on the same topic:

My issue with civilian courts is the circus atmosphere and the world wide stage we are placing these boobs on. The US already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) and provide a detailed plan for dealing with these detainees.

The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against the detainees may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield.

A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence. An open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction.

We even run the risk that one of these animals is aquitted based upon a technicality. That would be a real travesty of justice. Holder and Obama are making a HUGE mistake.

Yep. This situation is best left to the Military Tribunal process.

 

[Vast LWC]

I love how you people all seemed to care about New Yorkers so much when it was politically expedient for you to do so, but now their opinion about trying the people resposible for this heinous crime doesn't matter to you at all.

Now you just care about making political points by tearing down any decision made by your political opponents, no matter how just said decision may be.

Unbelievable.

 

[Vast LWC]

I posted this in the other thread on the same topic:

My issue with civilian courts is the circus atmosphere and the world wide stage we are placing these boobs on. The US already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) and provide a detailed plan for dealing with these detainees.

The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against the detainees may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield.

A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence. An open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction.

We even run the risk that one of these animals is aquitted based upon a technicality. That would be a real travesty of justice. Holder and Obama are making a HUGE mistake.

Yep. This situation is best left to the Military Tribunal process.

Tough. It's not going to happen.

They didn't kill military targets.

New York deserves to have it's day trying these bastards.