Terrorist Aquited on over 200 counts.

[Trajan]

Maddy, terrorism is a Military problem, not a civil problem. At least that's the way I see it.

So convicting McVeigh in a court of law was a bad thing?

the circumstances as to collection of evidence and where the investigation(s) took place and how are worlds apart.

 

[Madeline]

Maddy, terrorism is a Military problem, not a civil problem. At least that's the way I see it. Remember that congress (controlled by the left) set up the Military Tribunals approved by the Supreme Court. Obama decided to change things after the trials had started. It is a miserable failure. And it's getting back to what is and is not torture. This could get very very ugly for the Obama team.

Tis a serious dilemma, Ollie. I cannot see using a military tribunal because terrorists are not enemy combatants. World courts also seem no good to me, as the mass murders happened here in the US.

I'm not having massive heartburn over using military tribunals -- though I'm not sure how we justify treating these criminals any differently than others -- but if there's no proof, there's no proof. It's been almost a decade and every possible investigative tool has been used.

I think we have to consider the inconvenient truth that mebbe this particular man is, in fact, not guilty.

 

[elvis]

Maddy, terrorism is a Military problem, not a civil problem. At least that's the way I see it.

So convicting McVeigh in a court of law was a bad thing?

what if there had been a technicality?

 

[Trajan]

then why don't they try KSM?

Who?

uhm Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

I did not sit through this trial, Trajan. I dun have the transcripts, I have not spoken to the jury, and I did not watch it on tv.

But if you cannot get a NYC jury to convict on terrorism charges, the government ain't never gonna get a conviction. Absent some arcania about admissible evidence, the verdict should be no different in any other tribunal.

The man just ain't guilty.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

no thats not correct, you a) don't know that and b) the rules of evidence and other procedures in a military tribunal are different.

The obama admin. knew the "arcania" [sic] and hurdles in the Fed court were a great deal higher and different.........yet .....they don't feel confident enough to go ahead with the KSM trial,the question stands- why?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Maddy, terrorism is a Military problem, not a civil problem. At least that's the way I see it. Remember that congress (controlled by the left) set up the Military Tribunals approved by the Supreme Court. Obama decided to change things after the trials had started. It is a miserable failure. And it's getting back to what is and is not torture. This could get very very ugly for the Obama team.

Tis a serious dilemma, Ollie. I cannot see using a military tribunal because terrorists are not enemy combatants. World courts also seem no good to me, as the mass murders happened here in the US.

I'm not having massive heartburn over using military tribunals -- though I'm not sure how we justify treating these criminals any differently than others -- but if there's no proof, there's no proof. It's been almost a decade and every possible investigative tool has been used.

I think we have to consider the inconvenient truth that mebbe this particular man is, in fact, not guilty.

This guy was found guilty of plotting to blow up the buildings, But not of the murder of 284 people who died in those buildings. He then fled and was a body guard for UBL. And this civilian court screwed it up. No way he is innocent.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Alleged Al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani acquitted of all but one charge in embassy bombing trial

The first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee ended in disarray Wednesday with an alleged Al Qaeda operative convicted on only a single conspiracy count the African embassy bombing trial.

Read more: Alleged Al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani acquitted of all but one charge in embassy bombing trial


I told you that the Military courts should handle these cases.

This is the problem associated with taking these assholes prisoner. If he had of been a statistic from the war, there would have never been a trial.

 

[Modbert]

This is the problem associated with taking these assholes prisoner. If he had of been a statistic from the war, there would have never been a trial.

So if we catch them alive, we should just have mass executions with no sort of trials whatsoever whether they be military or civilian?

 

[SFC Ollie]

This is the problem associated with taking these assholes prisoner. If he had of been a statistic from the war, there would have never been a trial.

So if we catch them alive, we should just have mass executions with no sort of trials whatsoever whether they be military or civilian?

Not my problem if the ass hole goes for my weapon.

 

[The Infidel]

Maddy, terrorism is a Military problem, not a civil problem. At least that's the way I see it.

So convicting McVeigh in a court of law was a bad thing?

This is a stupid question.... What McVeigh did was a criminal act, and not an act of war.

Big big difference.

Why do you jokers always pull the "McVeigh" card?
He was one lunatic (I believe more are out there that should've been tried, but I digress) that has assumed ground temperature... get over it!

 

[The Infidel]

This is the problem associated with taking these assholes prisoner. If he had of been a statistic from the war, there would have never been a trial.

So if we catch them alive, we should just have mass executions with no sort of trials whatsoever whether they be military or civilian?

No.... we should kill them on the spot!

Period end of story.... bullet in the head kind of stuff.... brain matter on a wall kind of stuff.

Fuck em... they want us dead, and I want them dead.

You libs wouldve NEVER let us win WWII...! Ya bunch of bedwetting pussies!

 

[fyrenza]

It's pretty disgusting to realize that every single one of our supposed LAWS has so many loopholes that literally ANY monster can "get off," with a good enough lawyer.

It's been a bitch of mine for a while, this thang where We, The People can't understand our laws, for ourselves ~ we need "interpreters" in the form of attorneys and all of this judicial code that has gone before,

which sounds great, but each new loophole creates the possibility for yet another loophole, until it becomes a giant ball of yarn/string/rope/line, with thousands of knots that you have to work out in order to get a straight piece.

<sigh>

...

For at least, it hasn't been boring!

 

[The Infidel]

This is the problem associated with taking these assholes prisoner. If he had of been a statistic from the war, there would have never been a trial.

So if we catch them alive, we should just have mass executions with no sort of trials whatsoever whether they be military or civilian?

Not my problem if the ass hole goes for my weapon.

Yep... its war!

Thats the problem... we dont fight a war like we want to win it... we are trying to "win the hearts and minds" of people who have no heart nor mind!

 

[The Infidel]

It's pretty disgusting to realize that every single one of our supposed LAWS has so many loopholes that literally ANY monster can "get off," with a good enough lawyer.

It's been a bitch of mine for a while, this thang where We, The People can't understand our laws, for ourselves ~ we need "interpreters" in the form of attorneys and all of this judicial code that has gone before,

which sounds great, but each new loophole creates the possibility for yet another loophole, until it becomes a giant ball of yarn/string/rope/line, with thousands of knots that you have to work out in order to get a straight piece.

<sigh>

...

For at least, it hasn't been boring!

Exactly why they should be dealt with on the battefield... No trial, no aquital... if they are innocent, then let God reward them somehow.

 

[bodecea]

then why don't they try KSM?

Who?

uhm Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

I did not sit through this trial, Trajan. I dun have the transcripts, I have not spoken to the jury, and I did not watch it on tv.

But if you cannot get a NYC jury to convict on terrorism charges, the government ain't never gonna get a conviction. Absent some arcania about admissible evidence, the verdict should be no different in any other tribunal.

The man just ain't guilty.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

no thats not correct, you a) don't know that and b) the rules of evidence and other procedures in a military tribunal are different.

The obama admin. knew the "arcania" [sic] and hurdles in the Fed court were a great deal higher and different.........yet .....they don't feel confident enough to go ahead with the KSM trial,the question stands- why?

The rules of evidence, etc. in a military trial are tougher...that's why so many convictions...the poor cases are gleaned out beforehand.

 

[Madeline]

This is the problem associated with taking these assholes prisoner. If he had of been a statistic from the war, there would have never been a trial.

So if we catch them alive, we should just have mass executions with no sort of trials whatsoever whether they be military or civilian?

No.... we should kill them on the spot!

Period end of story.... bullet in the head kind of stuff.... brain matter on a wall kind of stuff.

Fuck em... they want us dead, and I want them dead.

You libs wouldve NEVER let us win WWII...! Ya bunch of bedwetting pussies!

I favor extrajudicial death sentence power for the POTUS, but not for every US solider. How are our men and women going to be treated if we begin slaughtering civilians overseas with no pretense at all at due process?

How are our soliders ever going to adjust to civilian life back here if we have been using them to commit murder overseas without any rationale?

Calling for random deaths doesn't seem to me to get us anywhere, though doubtless the chest thumping feels good.

 

[Madeline]

It's pretty disgusting to realize that every single one of our supposed LAWS has so many loopholes that literally ANY monster can "get off," with a good enough lawyer.

It's been a bitch of mine for a while, this thang where We, The People can't understand our laws, for ourselves ~ we need "interpreters" in the form of attorneys and all of this judicial code that has gone before,

which sounds great, but each new loophole creates the possibility for yet another loophole, until it becomes a giant ball of yarn/string/rope/line, with thousands of knots that you have to work out in order to get a straight piece.

<sigh>

...

For at least, it hasn't been boring!

Jesus H. Christ, fyrenza. Most prosecutors have convictions rates that hover around 90%. What glaring examples of miscarriages of justice has your panties in a bunch? T'aint a "loophole" if the state cannot prove its case because its evidence is inadmissible, etc.

It's called "due process".

Mayhaps you'd prefer that we just revert to dunking people as the Pilgrims did, and the guilty ones will drown?

 

[Annie]

All I can say after reading through more than I wanted to, a significant percentage of the American republic has a death wish. So, is the majority with them or against? Truly, I'm unsure. I respect many of those that agree that we should shut up, take it, and hopefully it will be quick.

(Wishing I guess for Nagasaki)

 

[Immanuel]

Alleged Al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani acquitted of all but one charge in embassy bombing trial

The first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee ended in disarray Wednesday with an alleged Al Qaeda operative convicted on only a single conspiracy count the African embassy bombing trial.

Read more: Alleged Al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani acquitted of all but one charge in embassy bombing trial


I told you that the Military courts should handle these cases.

I am glad they gave him a fair trial. I don't care whether or not they did it in a military court or a civilian court as long as they gave him a fair trial.

The man is going to do 20 years to life... hopefully, it will be much, much, much closer to life than 20 years, but that is besides the point. I am glad he received a fair trial.

then why don't they try KSM?

I don't know why they don't try KSM. I was opposed to the Bush Admin's refusal to give due process to suspected terrorists and I am opposed to the Obama Admin for not doing so either.

The fact that the Obama Admin is doing the same thing as the Bush Admin is frigging disgusting.

Then again, maybe Obama is afraid that they will find KSM guilty and he doesn't want that to happen?

I really believe that the detainees should have a hearing rather than simply to be locked away from their families until the end of the war which will be well after most if not all of them are long gone and buried.

If they are guilty then let them rot in prison. If they are innocent then let them go, but one way or another don't keep people who could possibly be innocent locked up forever.

Even if we think they are better off in prison than on the streets of Baghdad!

Immie

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't see what the problem is...He had his trial....got convicted...will go to prison.

It's not Obama's fault - it's the system.

In saying that, the judge was absolutely right to bar the witness due to the torture aspect - and you righties can thank your hero Bush for that...

 

[Dr Grump]

Then again, maybe Obama is afraid that they will find KSM guilty and he doesn't want that to happen?

?