The crappiest jury duty ever, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

[Ame®icano]

It can't legally be used against him, but unless you find a slate of jurors who have been living under a rock for years, they'll all know about it and it will weigh in their decision. Also, people aren't going to give a fuck that a guy who is behind the deaths of thousands of people was subjected the torture.

New York's death penalty is irrelevant. The charges are being brought in federal court, and there is a federal death penalty (lethal injection).

Replying to bold.

This is not about the people. If terrorists were given civil trial, then rule of law should be followed. Thats why people like me have a problem with that, since terrorists have no civil rights. NY already being a "target" will become more of a "target", Since they did not receive a speedy trial , much of the evidence could be thrown out. They are not US citizens and do not deserve the same rights we have. With "rule of law", there is a chance of an aquital. We have a process to handle such combatants. It's not Federal Court in Manhattan.

I was wrong about death penalty, since I overlooked that trial will be on Federal Court.

 

[Polk]

It can't legally be used against him, but unless you find a slate of jurors who have been living under a rock for years, they'll all know about it and it will weigh in their decision. Also, people aren't going to give a fuck that a guy who is behind the deaths of thousands of people was subjected the torture.

New York's death penalty is irrelevant. The charges are being brought in federal court, and there is a federal death penalty (lethal injection).

Replying to bold.

This is not about the people. If terrorists were given civil trial, then rule of law should be followed. Thats why people like me have a problem with that, since terrorists have no civil rights. NY already being a "target" will become more of a "target", Since they did not receive a speedy trial , much of the evidence could be thrown out. They are not US citizens and do not deserve the same rights we have. With "rule of law", there is a chance of an aquital. We have a process to handle such combatants. It's not Federal Court in Manhattan.

I was wrong about death penalty, since I overlooked that trial will be on Federal Court.

No, you have a problem with this because Obama is doing it. If Bush had wanted to do this, you'd be cheering in the streets.

 

[Polk]

This idea that you can't get a conviction in court must be why Wadih el-Hage, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Ramzi Yousef, José Padilla, and Mahmud Abouhalima are walking the streets today...

O wait, they're all sitting in ADX Florence.

 

[Ame®icano]

It can't legally be used against him, but unless you find a slate of jurors who have been living under a rock for years, they'll all know about it and it will weigh in their decision. Also, people aren't going to give a fuck that a guy who is behind the deaths of thousands of people was subjected the torture.

New York's death penalty is irrelevant. The charges are being brought in federal court, and there is a federal death penalty (lethal injection).

Replying to bold.

This is not about the people. If terrorists were given civil trial, then rule of law should be followed. Thats why people like me have a problem with that, since terrorists have no civil rights. NY already being a "target" will become more of a "target", Since they did not receive a speedy trial , much of the evidence could be thrown out. They are not US citizens and do not deserve the same rights we have. With "rule of law", there is a chance of an aquital. We have a process to handle such combatants. It's not Federal Court in Manhattan.

I was wrong about death penalty, since I overlooked that trial will be on Federal Court.

No, you have a problem with this because Obama is doing it. If Bush had wanted to do this, you'd be cheering in the streets.

Sooner or later it's all Bush fault. Don't throw that bullshit at me. If Bush did it right, those terrorist would faced military tribunals, tried and if guilty, executed long ago. It should've never come to what we have now.

 

[Ame®icano]

This idea that you can't get a conviction in court must be why Wadih el-Hage, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Ramzi Yousef, José Padilla, and Mahmud Abouhalima are walking the streets today...

O wait, they're all sitting in ADX Florence.

Those you listed, along with Zarqawi and blind Sheik Abdel Rahman, were tried in American civil court. They were all considered criminals at the time, and not enemy combatants. There has never been an enemy combatant to the United States that has declared war on the US to boot, that as ever been protected by the Constitution, not that I know of anyway.

Actually, I have to correct myself... There has never been any nation in history that has protected an enemy comabatant to their nation with their own Constitution. And no American president has ever attempted to allow something like it to go on because the vast majority of Americans would never allow it, nor has their ever been a president that is so anti American that theyd ever even think of it. Until now of course.

 

[Andrew2382]

Also, the Miranda warning is not a legal requirement.

When police officers question a suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. Any evidence discovered as a result of that statement or confession will likely also be thrown out of the case.

it is a legal requirement FYI

 

[JW Frogen]

I was once on the crappiest jury duty ever.

An insurance case where a woman hurt her back in a car accident and the insurance company did not want to pay up, they claimed she was faking it.

I was a fucking alternate with one other person. Nothing worse than being an alternate. Sort of like a woman telling you she loves you, but not in the we are going to fuck kinda way.

The evidence was clear to me and the other alternate, she was seriously hurt and the slick lawyers for the insurance company were just throwing mud at her, not providing medical evidence, through the entire trial.

This was in Arkansas and that state's process is during deliberation the alternates do not get to go into the jury room.

The other alternate and I agreed the insurance company should pay up, when the jury came out they voted for the insurance company.

I turned to the other alternate and said "did we just sit through the same trial as them?"

 

[PatekPhilippe]

KSM's PRO BONO DEFENSE TEAM!

Michael Tigar
Mark Geragos
Robert Shapiro
Carl Douglas

 

[Polk]

Replying to bold.

This is not about the people. If terrorists were given civil trial, then rule of law should be followed. Thats why people like me have a problem with that, since terrorists have no civil rights. NY already being a "target" will become more of a "target", Since they did not receive a speedy trial , much of the evidence could be thrown out. They are not US citizens and do not deserve the same rights we have. With "rule of law", there is a chance of an aquital. We have a process to handle such combatants. It's not Federal Court in Manhattan.

I was wrong about death penalty, since I overlooked that trial will be on Federal Court.

No, you have a problem with this because Obama is doing it. If Bush had wanted to do this, you'd be cheering in the streets.

Sooner or later it's all Bush fault. Don't throw that bullshit at me. If Bush did it right, those terrorist would faced military tribunals, tried and if guilty, executed long ago. It should've never come to what we have now.

I didn't say it was Bush's fault. I said your stance is situational.

 

[Polk]

Also, the Miranda warning is not a legal requirement.

When police officers question a suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. Any evidence discovered as a result of that statement or confession will likely also be thrown out of the case.

it is a legal requirement FYI

That's actually not true. It's not presumed to be involuntary. It's handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Avatar4321]

nother technicality,, now that this has been reduced to a "criminal trial" who read them their miranda rights? Their rights have now been violated. case closed let them go.

That is an interesting point. if they werent read their rights than their admissions would be inadmissable (From a practical viewpoint, i think its a rather stupid. but as a defense attorney, honestly id probably jump on it to do my job). Though if i was a prosecutor id argue that since these people declared war on us and were often found in the battle field by soldiers who had no clue that they needed to read them rights, that the soldiers acted in good faith and the confessions were valid. (presuming there arent any other technicalities. Youd have to look at it on a case by case basis to be certain).

The problem with these trials is we are talking about people who have declared war on our nation going through a typical criminal trial. Its just impractical for the rules of evidence to apply. There is no way all the necessary witnesses can be present for a trial. Its hard enough to get witnesses for everday crime. You think we will be able to fly soldiers back from the battle fields to testify at a trial? Thats not even considering the possibility that the soldiers who were the witnesses are still alive. Do you think we will be able to reveal intelligence opperatives who have gathered the information without jeopardizing national security? It's just insane to believe the Constitution demands such impractical action.

And what about juries? are they entitled to jury trials? is there any place in the United States where they could get a fair trial by jury? Sure as heck wont be in NY. Where the heck are you going to find a New Yorker who doesnt know anything about what happened on 9/11 and how these people are related?

Can we get a fair trial by a judge? Im very skeptical about having a fair trial in front of a judge on regular matters let alone for terrorism. I mean holy heck, judges are some of the most political people on the planet, despite pretending to be otherwise.

The Constitution is a covenant between the people and states designed to protect liberty and provide security for the people. It's not a freakin suicide pact.

 

[Polk]

This whole "they declared war on us" argument isn't really a legal one though. By definition, war can only exist between nations. Terrorists have no more legal authority to issue a declaration of war than the Crips or Bloods do. While their actions and tactics are of a sort we'd more closely associate with war, they're fundamentally a criminal issue.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This whole "they declared war on us" argument isn't really a legal one though. By definition, war can only exist between nations. Terrorists have no more legal authority to issue a declaration of war than the Crips or Bloods do. While their actions and tactics are of a sort we'd more closely associate with war, they're fundamentally a criminal issue.

So why is the left trying to get the terrorists covered by the Geneva Conventions...if they are just criminals.

 

[amiam*]

Will it be a jury trial or simply a judge?

It will be a military trial.

 

[Ame®icano]

nother technicality,, now that this has been reduced to a "criminal trial" who read them their miranda rights? Their rights have now been violated. case closed let them go.

That is an interesting point. if they werent read their rights than their admissions would be inadmissable (From a practical viewpoint, i think its a rather stupid. but as a defense attorney, honestly id probably jump on it to do my job). Though if i was a prosecutor id argue that since these people declared war on us and were often found in the battle field by soldiers who had no clue that they needed to read them rights, that the soldiers acted in good faith and the confessions were valid. (presuming there arent any other technicalities. Youd have to look at it on a case by case basis to be certain).

In times of war, I do not need to read the enemy their Miranda rights before I put a bullet through their brain. The possibility that they survive the head-shot does not then bestow upon them a civil trial by jury, much less my being subjected to a Deposition, and then cross-exam during the trial, only because my aim was off by half an inch, and I neglected a second "sure-thing" shot. It’s not absurd, as it fits under broad umbrella.

The problem with these trials is we are talking about people who have declared war on our nation going through a typical criminal trial. Its just impractical for the rules of evidence to apply. There is no way all the necessary witnesses can be present for a trial. Its hard enough to get witnesses for everday crime. You think we will be able to fly soldiers back from the battle fields to testify at a trial? Thats not even considering the possibility that the soldiers who were the witnesses are still alive. Do you think we will be able to reveal intelligence opperatives who have gathered the information without jeopardizing national security? It's just insane to believe the Constitution demands such impractical action.

National security is already jeopardized by bringing trial to New York. For instance, the judge in blind sheikh trial received hundreds of death treats. Is this going to be any different? By the way, as soon defense brings up waterboarding, many other doors will open, including classified documents. Try to imagine Pelosi taking a witness stand.

And what about juries? are they entitled to jury trials? is there any place in the United States where they could get a fair trial by jury? Sure as heck wont be in NY. Where the heck are you going to find a New Yorker who doesnt know anything about what happened on 9/11 and how these people are related?

Can we get a fair trial by a judge? Im very skeptical about having a fair trial in front of a judge on regular matters let alone for terrorism. I mean holy heck, judges are some of the most political people on the planet, despite pretending to be otherwise.

The Constitution is a covenant between the people and states designed to protect liberty and provide security for the people. It's not a freakin suicide pact.

Well said.

For me, all this starting to look more as side show to divert attention. The Democrats have virtually ignored jobs and the economy since they passed the stimulus bill, instead focusing on health care and global warming while we're starving out here. It appears that their agenda is more important to them than it is to us.

 

[Ame®icano]

Get ready to be jerked around by these cold-blooded murderers of our fellow American citizens, coming soon to your neighborhood, as courtesy of Barack Obama and Eric Holder. It's totally unheard of, and just another stupid move by this stupid administration.

And having said that... I for one am for a complete acquittal as long as they drop them off in the Bronx immediately after. Nature should take care of the rest.

 

[alan1]

Get ready to be jerked around by these cold-blooded murderers of our fellow American citizens, coming soon to your neighborhood, as courtesy of Barack Obama and Eric Holder. It's totally unheard of, and just another stupid move by this stupid administration.

And having said that... I for one am for a complete acquittal as long as they drop them off in the Bronx immediately after. Nature should take care of the rest.

Hehe, nature.

 

[hagersbush]

I,m glad this trial is in N.Y.It will be a fair trial.THE JUDGES,will make sure that it will be the safest
trial with plenty of of guards etc.We will be trying this case before the world.It will be meant to
impress.This tragedy happened there & the people there deserve to try this case. We will pass
a verdict of guilty as charged & the death penalty will be applied.If any thing happens to this
country because of the trial & death sentances,there will be hell to pay.

 

[alan1]

I,m glad this trial is in N.Y.It will be a fair trial.THE JUDGES,will make sure that it will be the safest
trial with plenty of of guards etc.We will be trying this case before the world.It will be meant to
impress.This tragedy happened there & the people there deserve to try this case. We will pass
a verdict of guilty as charged & the death penalty will be applied.If any thing happens to this
country because of the trial & death sentances,there will be hell to pay.

If you are on the jury it won't be a fair trial. Your mind is already made up.

 

[kyzr]

KSM's PRO BONO DEFENSE TEAM!

Michael Tigar
Mark Geragos
Robert Shapiro
Carl Douglas

I can see it now. Everyone in the Bush admin will be asked under oath "have you ever referred to anyone as a SN?"

Mark Furman will be a special jury picking consultant.