Terrorist Aquited on over 200 counts.

[JBeukema]

I feel for the families of the victims.

This filth gets 20 years for killing more than 200 people.

TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE

And with good behavior he's out in 10.

That's not justice, that's a farce.

Now 20 years hardtime in a military prison... That's stone cold justice. When he got outta that in 20 years there wouldn't be much left.

Cry to the people in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Tell it to the women who've lost their children to American bombs.

Double standards: because who needs principles?

ah the old moral relativism card. no thx. Are you seriously making a comparison amonsgt those examples J.?

You're the one appealing to moral relativism. I'm applying the same standard to everyone and condemning the acts regardless of who carried them out.

 

[JBeukema]

They cheer over torture and indefinite detainment without charges and wonder why we compare them to the Cheka?

Here's the kicker. If you start down this road..and it doesn't get stopped. Then this will become normal. And when it becomes normal..look forward to it being used on everyone.

USA! USA! USA!

'Liberty' means nothing without security;
The Department of Homeland Security understands your sacrifice
-A Message from the Ministry of Truth
​

 

[Trajan]

Cry to the people in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Tell it to the women who've lost their children to American bombs.

Double standards: because who needs principles?

ah the old moral relativism card. no thx. Are you seriously making a comparison amonsgt those examples J.?

You're the one appealing to moral relativism. I'm applying the same standard to everyone and condemning the acts regardless of who carried them out.

how so?

 

[JBeukema]

ah the old moral relativism card. no thx. Are you seriously making a comparison amonsgt those examples J.?

You're the one appealing to moral relativism. I'm applying the same standard to everyone and condemning the acts regardless of who carried them out.

how so?

You're the one who says it's cool to bomb children so long as we do it

 

[Trajan]

You are conflating J.

I never said any such thing. You made a comparison, using the bombing of Germany , japan or Afghanistan as equal act(s) to the individual act this person carried out.

 

[Madeline]

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.

So your telling me that our soldiers are treated well by "the enemy"?

I beg to differ....

Tell that to these guys...

Or try telling Sgt. James Regans' fiance that... he was killed by an IED (real humane way to fight huh?)

Madeline.... when a soldier kills THE ENEMY on the battlefield it is'nt called murder.

I am outraged that this piece of shit was aquitted, so if my post is a bit graphic.... Im sorry.

The jury was'nt able to see evidence that would have been admissable in a military court, and thats why that piece of garbage was aquitted.

Of course I am not saying all our enemies treat our POWs as they should. I AM saying our captured soldiers and civilians will never get any more due process from enemy states than we afford the citizens of other nations we capture and want to convict, The Infidel.

When a soldier kills an enemy on the battlefield, that enemy is some nation's soldier. Yes, there are civilian casualties but most are unintended. This defendant was captured and drug off to GITMO by CIA operatives. The allegations against him are not "war crimes", they are CRIME crimes. He has no basis to claim any special dignity or rights as a POW.

I keep re-reading this thread, trying to understand how it is so many of you are 100% convinced of this man's guilt whilst a NYC jury couldn't be persuaded he was guilty of anything but one count of conspiracy. The only explanation that makes any sense is you suspect NYC jurors are too pussified to be expected to convict if by doing so, they might become Taliban targets themselves.

Well first, that's preposterous. The Taliban is not going to target jurors for assasination who will likely never again have any significant role in public life. Elected officials mebbe, but not jurors. Nor is it likely that just the fact that they were sequestered ensured that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they'd acquit...juries have been sequestered many times before and still convicted.

You need to remember, the NYC jury pool has broken the back of the Mafia. They have convicted Columbian drug cartel leaders, Wall Street moguls and IRA arms dealers. This is not an especially pussified sector of society we're talking about here.

Cincinnati just had a murder trial that resulted in death sentences where the defendant's associates tried on jury intimidation rising to the level of drive by shootings. Even in the face of imminent and drastic harm, these jurors did the right thing when the evidence was there. Trust me, the average NYC juror is a much bigger hardass than any Cincinnati one.

I still do not understand how so many of you so confidentially discard the possibility that this jury got it right. It makes zero sense to me that the Average Joe on USMB "knows" this guy is guilty on all counts and yet the government could not marshall the evidence necessary to convict him.

 

[JBeukema]

You are confalting J.

I never said any such thing. You made a comparison, using the bombing of Germany , japan or Afghanistan as equal act(s) to the individual act this person carried out.

I see no difference.

Both acts were murder of noncombatants carried out by persons who saw themselves as carrying out an act of war as part of a greater struggle. Those who bombed Dresden, those who nuked Nagasaki, Al Queda- all have their rhetoric, excuses, and justifications. But at the end of the day, they all killed unarmed men, women, and children who who not combatants and very likely wanted nothing to do with whatever conflict the persons carrying out the acts thought they were trying to win.

 

[JBeukema]

So what if they treat our captured troops horribly- is the correct response to prove to ourselves and the world that we're no different?

So much for american exceptionalism

 

[SFC Ollie]

Even if the appeal is lost, he will probably be pardoned by Obama at the end of his term or he might issue yet another Executive Order - in the name of "goodwill," "peaceful agreement" or some other BS.

These people should not be tried in a civilian court by any stretch of the imagination. These cases should be tried in a military tribunal. Period.

Why should we remove an entire class of criminals to our military courts as if they were POWs? What is with all this outrage over the procedure used, guys? Do y'all think a military tribunal has a lower standard of proof? If the government could not convict in a criminal court, what makes you think it could do so in a military tribunal?

I can't say for certain, but I'd bet some evidence was left out because of security reasons. This evidence would not have been left out if it were in the Military tribunals which if you remember were set up by the US Congress and Blessed by the US Supreme Court specifically for these cases. And I don't know how we know all these things about the guy, but they proved that he purchased the TNT. We know he fled Africa for Pakistan and we know he was a forger for Al queada. We also know he was one of Bin Ladens body guards. I can't say if all this was brought up in the court because he wasn't charged with being a body guard or forger. He was charged with Murder. And was convicted of conspiracy to blow up buildings. I still don't see how he could be guilty of conspiracy but not murder. I mean hell the buildings did blow up, and 284 people did die.
Point remains that this was a royal screw up and we may have to break our own laws to keep this joker locked up. Actually, now that I think of it, The administration is already breaking our laws by refusing the other terrorist suspects the right of a speedy trial.

 

[JBeukema]

You want to try them in military tribunals?

Fine- but that means they're military captives subject to the Geneva conventions... I trust you can figure out why the Right doesn't want to go there

 

[Trajan]

humm, so there is no conditions applied to, rules codified for such persons and extra-ordinary law(s) for terrorist acts?

 

[Trajan]

You want to try them in military tribunals?

Fine- but that means they're military captives subject to the Geneva conventions... I trust you can figure out why the Right doesn't want to go there

as I said earlier are different ( extra-ordinary) the rules of evidence etc. that are more conducive to/for these types of defendants and their trails. I would like them to go before a tribunal yes.

 

[JBeukema]

humm, so there is no conditions applied to, rules codified for such persons and extra-ordinary punishment for terrorist acts?

I don't follow.

They murdered men, women, and children. They should be tried for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and whatever other crimes they may have committed. They should be held to account in a court of law and, if found guilty in accordance with the rule of law, appropriate sentences should be handed down and carried out.

That's what happened here, despite the clusterfuck left behind by policies started under bush and largely unchanged under Obama.

I find it interesting that the right thinks that it's torture when someone else does something but not when we do it. Why can't they just have the fortitude to say 'Sure, it's torture, but I feel it's warranted under these circumstances because________'?

That they can't admit what it is reveals that they know it's inexcusable.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Just because we try them in military tribunals does not mean that the conditions of the Geneva convention applies.
You do understand that the tribunals had already started and that KSM had already plead guilty when Obama and company stopped the process...

 

[JBeukema]

You want to try them in military tribunals?

Fine- but that means they're military captives subject to the Geneva conventions... I trust you can figure out why the Right doesn't want to go there

as I said earlier are different ( extra-ordinary) the rules of evidence etc. that are more conducive to/for these types of defendants and their trails. I would like them to go before a tribunal yes.

Then they're captured enemy units

So all those violations of the Geneva conventions that the Right tried to dance around by denying that... what should be done about that?

You can't have it both ways

You can't complain about them then make excuses when we prove ourselves to be no better

 

[JBeukema]

Just because we try them in military tribunals does not mean that the conditions of the Geneva convention applies.
You do understand that the tribunals had already started and that KSM had already plead guilty when Obama and company stopped the process...

No Geneva? Then stop bitching about what they do.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Trajan]

humm, so there is no conditions applied to, rules codified for such persons and extra-ordinary punishment for terrorist acts?

I don't follow.

They murdered men, women, and children. They should be tried for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and whatever other crimes they may have committed. They should be held to account in a court of law and, if found guilty in accordance with the rule of law, appropriate sentences should be handed down and carried out.

hummm, are you familiar with tribunals, why they were created, how they have been used in the past and why we sought to use them now?

That's what happened here, despite the clusterfuck left behind by policies started under bush and largely unchanged under Obama.

congress can again, chime in any time they like.

I find it interesting that the right thinks that it's torture when someone else does something but not when we do it. Why can't they just have the fortitude to say 'Sure, it's torture, but I feel it's warranted under these circumstances because________'?


That they can't admit what it is reveals that they know it's inexcusable.

are you addressing me?

 

[Trajan]

You want to try them in military tribunals?

Fine- but that means they're military captives subject to the Geneva conventions... I trust you can figure out why the Right doesn't want to go there

as I said earlier are different ( extra-ordinary) the rules of evidence etc. that are more conducive to/for these types of defendants and their trails. I would like them to go before a tribunal yes.

Then they're captured enemy units

So all those violations of the Geneva conventions that the Right tried to dance around by denying that... what should be done about that?

You can't have it both ways

You can't complain about them then make excuses when we prove ourselves to be no better

Geneva has different standards , you do know that...right? as applied to combatants why one is one isn't etc.?

Terrorism on this scale and in this context is new, our debates and handling of such is not so new, the regions and racial make ups have changed thats all.

 

[JBeukema]

How can this be new, yet our debating and handling of it not new?

That seems a tad contradictory.

There is no rebellion or insurrection in the US. Nor are we dealing with problems within our military.

They are not members of any recognized military force. Hence they are civilians. Their victims are civilians.

The only reasons the Right seeks to avoid the courts and the legal system is because (A) they do not want their own misdeeds to be brought into the light and (B) they know, as this case proves, that their misdeeds make it hard to present reliable evidence that can meet the standards we as Americans demand in accordance with the rule of law.

The legal system, the rule of law, and the standards thereof, are what make us any different than Saddam and the rest that the Right complains about.

When we throw that all away, what's the point anymore? Just declare Total War, admit what you really want, and launch an open and all-out war of conquest and extermination to finish what the Crusades left undone. Obviously the Right no longer believes in American exceptionalism, since they don't want to hold this nation to any real standards.

 

[Trajan]

How can this be new, yet our debating and handling of it not new?

That seems a tad contradictory.

There is no rebellion or insurrection in the US. Nor are we dealing with problems within our military.

They are not members of any recognized military force. Hence they are civilians. Their victims are civilians.

The only reasons the Right seeks to avoid the courts and the legal system is because (A) they do not want their own misdeeds to be brought into the light and (B) they know, as this case proves, that their misdeeds make it hard to present reliable evidence that can meet the standards we as Americans demand in accordance with the rule of law.

The legal system, the rule of law, and the standards thereof, are what make us any different than Saddam and the rest that the Right complains about.

When we throw that all away, what's the point anymore?

Ex parte Quirin. I suggest as a good primer.
You appear to keep sliding by the comments I have made regards why a tribunal is necessary. They ARE a court and have recognized lawful process's procedures etc. holding to the rule of law they have been given. They used a tribunal to convict Osamas driver.....


as far as the moral relativism question, I just want to be sure I understand you; you see no difference between a bomber pilot and a man how blows up a US embassy (accorded status as US territory btw) or a terrorist act committed here or well anywhere else?

You seem to recognize there are differences in status, as the Geneva stipulates,( as yo alluded above) a 'soldier' is treated one way, others whom do not have a uniform, a lawful command authority etc. are treated differently, they are not accorded the same allowances and treatment....

yet you make an argument that there are no differences between a bombardier in a B-17 over Germany and AQ...?

There is no rebellion or insurrection in the US. Nor are we dealing with problems within our military.

I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion.