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

[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.

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.

You are obviously not an attorney. What if they were not properly "Mirandized" at Gitmo? Was KSM tortured?? Was his confession coerced? Attorneys will demand all sorts of classified information as part of the discovery process. Much will be thrown out (or not introduced) to protect national security.

At any rate, why are these 4 so special? What about all the others at Gitmo? Are they to be tried in a civilian show trial too? Will our boys in Afghanistan now be required to "Mirandize" the Taliban before they fire back?? We have a perfectly legal and acceptable methodology for dealing with the Gitmo detainees, there is nothing to be gained by changing the process at this point.

 

[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.

Tough. It's not going to happen.

They didn't kill military targets.

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

Can you say an act of WAR? Because that's precisely what they did. Remember the 9/11 Commission that stated that AQ was at war with US? (Or does your memory go back that far)?

 

[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.

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.

You are obviously not an attorney. What if they were not properly "Mirandized" at Gitmo? Was KSM tortured?? Was his confession coerced? Attorneys will demand all sorts of classified information as part of the discovery process. Much will be thrown out (or not introduced) to protect national security.

At any rate, why are these 4 so special? What about all the others at Gitmo? Are they to be tried in a civilian show trial too? Will our boys in Afghanistan now be required to "Mirandize" the Taliban before they fire back?? We have a perfectly legal and acceptable methodology for dealing with the Gitmo detainees, there is nothing to be gained by changing the process at this point.

Precisely. They committed an act of WAR.

 

[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

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.

Excuse me?

Islamic terrorists have been at war with this US for much longer then 9/11. Don't you remember attacks on US embassies in Kenya & Tanzania, WTC 1995 etc. September 11, 2001 was the direct result of our refusal to declare war on Islamic extremists. I agree with Obama that we are not at war with Islam, but I do not agree with his refusal that to engage in a War on Terror, or even condemn the gunman at Ft Hood as being an Islamic terrorist.

We, as a nation cannot just decide "not to be at war with someone", especially after that someone is constantly at war with us. They declared war on us, not the other way around. With the choice in between whether we'll fight or surrender in defeat, the only right decision is to pick the fight and kick their ass.

 

[Ame®icano]

You are obviously not an attorney. What if they were not properly "Mirandized" at Gitmo? Was KSM tortured?? Was his confession coerced? Attorneys will demand all sorts of classified information as part of the discovery process. Much will be thrown out (or not introduced) to protect national security.

At any rate, why are these 4 so special? What about all the others at Gitmo? Are they to be tried in a civilian show trial too? Will our boys in Afghanistan now be required to "Mirandize" the Taliban before they fire back?? We have a perfectly legal and acceptable methodology for dealing with the Gitmo detainees, there is nothing to be gained by changing the process at this point.

I am more concerned about what would happen later to US citizens if Civil Court today allows trial without reading Miranda rights, or properly collect the evidence, or... name it.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

Ultimately, the terrorists will have no rights. We just remove them through a civilized process. Otherwise, there is little difference between us and them.

Ever hear of a "military tribunal"?

Yes, where have those been the last five to six years? Move forward, just close the courts to the press.

 

[Annie]

Ultimately, the terrorists will have no rights. We just remove them through a civilized process. Otherwise, there is little difference between us and them.

Ever hear of a "military tribunal"?

Yes, where have those been the last five to six years? Move forward, just close the courts to the press.

Right, cameras might be denied, but not the press. I'm sure there will be times that they 'go to chambers', but that's not the solution.

Best thing I've seen, links at site:

Power Line - Trying KSM: Why? part 2

TRYING KSM: WHY? PART 2
November 15, 2009 Posted by Scott at 7:59 AM

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania last year during the campaign, Barack Obama addressed the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision granting Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. Obama asserted that the "principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that's the essence of who we are." He explained:

I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.​

John Hinderaker and I derived some precepts for trial lawyers from the Nuremberg trial in "Lessons from the cross-examination of Hermann Goering." In the course of researching that article I was reminded that the Nuremberg trial was conducted before a military commission composed of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. The most prominent surviving Nazi leaders were brought for trial before the Nuremberg tribunal in late 1945. Winston Churchill had proposed, not unreasonably, that they be summarily shot. The victorious allies nevertheless subsequently agreed that they would be brought before a military commission to be convened pursuant to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945.

In the Boumediene case, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions Congress had adopted at the Supreme Court's urging. Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants' "day in court" occurred before the kind of tribunal the Supreme Court found constitutionally inadequate in Boumediene.

The Nazi war criminals were given no access to American courts. Their rights were governed by the charter annexed to the London Agreement. Here is the fair trial provision of the charter:

In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:

(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.

(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.

(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.

(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.

(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.​

The charter provision on the appeal rights of the Nuremberg defendants was even shorter and sweeter. There were no appeal rights. Article 26 provided: "The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review."

In short, the procedural protections afforded the Guantanamo detainees under the statute before the Supreme Court in Boumediene substantially exceeded those accorded the Nuremberg defendants. Obama's unfavorable comparison of the legal treatment of the Guantanamo detainees with that of the Nuremberg defendants suggests that he did not know what he was talking about.

The revised system of military commissions now applicable to the Guantanamo detainees affords Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. -- the perpetrators of 9/11 -- all the protections to which American law entitles them. Now Obama -- to whom the decision must be attributable, regardless of the pretense that the buck stops with Eric Holder -- has chosen to bring KSM et al. to federal court in New York for a civilian trial as though he and his colleagues were common criminals. Why? Doing so carries with it certain necessary consequences and obvious risks that have already been the subject of informed comment:

1. Obama confuses the commission of crimes with acts of war. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon constituted acts of war.

2. Obama cloaks KSM et al. with all the constitutional protections to which American citizens are entitled under the United States Constitution.

3. Obama affords KSM et al. a public forum for the waging of their war by other means.

4. Those who apprehended and detained KSM et al. treated them as enemy combatants from whom valuable intelligence was sought and received. Trying them in federal court creates otherwise unnecessary issues regarding the admissibility of this evidence and provides them another avenue of attack on those defending the United states against them.

5. The treatment of evidence in connection with the trial raises a serious threat that national security will be compromised.

6. The trial of KSM et al. in New York by itself raises severe security risks.​

Given the availability of military commissions to try KSM et al., one asks why Obama has chosen to bring them to trial in federal court in New York. One searches Saturday's Washington Post story on the decision in vain for an explanation.

No consideration of justice, history or tradition weighs in favor of treating KSM et al. as criminal defendants. Against the predictable negative risks and negative consequences, advocates of Obama's decision offer airy considerations of public relations. It is hard to take any professed rationale of a civilian trial seriously.

Judging Obama's treatment of KSM et al. by its predictable effects rather than its apparent intentions, one arrives at a harsh conclusion. If Obama sought to subvert fundamental American institutions or to confuse the understanding of the American people -- upon both of which America's future depends -- he would proceed as announced.

JOHN adds: On our radio show yesterday, Andy McCarthy proposed an explanation that amplifies on Scott's last paragraph. He suggested that the Obama administration views KSM et al. as its allies (my paraphrase) in its war against the Bush administration. Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents. I'll post a podcast of the interview when it's available.

 

[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?

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.

No, it was Bill Clinton's failed policy of treating terrorist attacks as crimes that led directly to 9/11. It was George Bush's succesful policy of treating them as war by unconventional means that has prevented their recurrence.
You are still stuck in the crime mindset. These are not crimes, they are acts of war. Terrorists represent NGO's as it were rather than nations, but the difference is largely a technicality.
You don't try enemy combatants unless they are war criminals.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.


Back through the 70's, 80's and early 90's right up until 9-11-01 we treated terrorist attacks as a police problem. those of us in the military responded by attempting to prevent that type of attack from happening again. We did the road blocks and the concrete pillars in front of buildings. We had the zig zags as you entered a Posts gate.

It was after 9-11-01 that we took the problem from the police and gave it to the Military. And we went proactive. Thank You GW Bush. no more waiting for them to attack again. But now time is passing and the loony left is in charge and PC reigns supreme. and here we go again right back to square one.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If the turban don't fit, you must acquit!

these guys dont wear Turbans Frank....Sikhs wear them
i believe Muslim men wear a cap called a taqiyah ....

If the taqiyah don't fit...? nah

 

[Harry Dresden]

Let's be honest here,this is another way for Obama to put America in a bad light.The overwhelming evidence against these guys may never see the light of day in a court because it's classified. Meanwhile
all the evidence about how these guys were "abused" by the CIA will really be on trial here.This is all about putting America on trial because in Obama's eyes we have a lot to be ashamed for as a country.

So if Bush/Cheney engaged in torture....It is Obama who is putting America in a bad light

come on RW....you think these guys are the first guys to allow torture?......shit im willing to bet the CIA has used torture during EVERY administration....every prez has got blood on his hands because of torture....especially Bush no 1......i would not doubt right now Obama is aware of someone having his toes twisted off for crucial info.....

 

[kyzr]

Let's be honest here,this is another way for Obama to put America in a bad light.The overwhelming evidence against these guys may never see the light of day in a court because it's classified. Meanwhile
all the evidence about how these guys were "abused" by the CIA will really be on trial here.This is all about putting America on trial because in Obama's eyes we have a lot to be ashamed for as a country.

So if Bush/Cheney engaged in torture....It is Obama who is putting America in a bad light

come on RW....you think these guys are the first guys to allow torture?......shit im willing to bet the CIA has used torture during EVERY administration....every prez has got blood on his hands because of torture....especially Bush no 1......i would not doubt right now Obama is aware of someone having his toes twisted off for crucial info.....

I'd waterboard terrorists every day until the MFs died. I'd also charge Obama and his admin with treason for disclosing CIA interrogation methods so that the enemy can train for them. Lets say these are the choices presidents face:
1. let "soldiers of allah" do their thing for the sake of political correctness, which leads to occasional terror attacks, like in TX at Ft. Hood, or in AR at the recruiting center, or even an occasional 9/11.
2. actively oppose terrorists using EITs, gaining intel, preempting terror attacks and removing terrorists from the country.

Which would you choose?

 

[Claudette]

So right Ollie. I couldn't agree more. This dog and pony show of an administration is taking us back to pre-9-11. These guys just don't get it. I think they are more concerned with the rights of terrorists and putting our CIA and anyone involved in the apprehension and waterboarding of these guys on trial. This is going to backfire in a big way.

Holder is a flamming idiot and he's taking a big chance that these terrorists will be aquitted. What happens then?? Do they walk out of the Courthouse free men???

 

[Ame®icano]

Attorney Scott Fenstermaker says his client Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and the others will not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but will tell the jury "why they did it."

He says the men will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy."

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. He says the men, including professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have discussed the trial among themselves.

Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

And the circus begins...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNOYzYNoOw0"]Bill O'Reilly Interviews Suspect Terrorist Attorney Scott Fenstermaker[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

So right Ollie. I couldn't agree more. This dog and pony show of an administration is taking us back to pre-9-11. These guys just don't get it. I think they are more concerned with the rights of terrorists and putting our CIA and anyone involved in the apprehension and waterboarding of these guys on trial. This is going to backfire in a big way.

Holder is a flamming idiot and he's taking a big chance that these terrorists will be aquitted. What happens then?? Do they walk out of the Courthouse free men???

That is part of the show, even if their lawyers get them off Holder says they still will not be released. So how is this a fair trial? They should have continued with the Military tribunals and maybe made them somewhat public. Maybe a daily brief or something,

 

[Ame®icano]

Holder Defends Decision to Use U.S. Court for 9/11 Trial

Holder defends this trial? I love the Obama administration saying this:

Other Justice Department officials have said that even if Mr. Mohammed is acquitted, the Obama administration will keep him locked up forever as a “combatant” under the laws of war. But Mr. Holder largely sidestepped such questions, instead simply asserting that he was confident that Mr. Mohammed would be convicted.

 

[rightwinger]

KSM will be convicted. They will pile on enough charges that he will even be prosecuted for spitting on the sidewalk.

But then again, Bush wasted seven years without even bringing him up for trial

 

[Rozman]

KSM will be convicted. They will pile on enough charges that he will even be prosecuted for spitting on the sidewalk.

But then again, Bush wasted seven years without even bringing him up for trial

I wouldn't care if Bush held this piece of crap for 20 years in a cell before any one said a word to him. Anyway this trial is payback to the way out left so Obama can make them happy.
This trial is so this Administration can get back at Bush and Cheney and the CIA.This is to make Europe happy the the USA will have to defend itself to the world.

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama worked in one of his many apologies,for the USA during the trial.

 

[Ame®icano]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egsLglUynKw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egsLglUynKw[/ame]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

I can't really believe that you're actually using the people in this video to attempt to make a point. I bet most of the people in that video aren't even from New York.