We find the defendant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Not Guilty

[rightwinger]

1. Crime? I thought he committed an act of terrorism. Are these two terms now interchangeable?
Tim McVeigh committed an act of terrorism and was tried in US courts, so were the first World trade center bombers. Where in our laws do we have seperate categories for terrorists?

2. KSM isn't a citizen of the U.S.

So. We try people all the time in our courts who are not US citizens. If a Frenchman comes over here and kills an American he gets tried here and is given the same Constitutional rights as an American
For anyone . . . what is KSM anyway? Enemy combatant? Criminal? POW? Terrorist?

For many rightwinguts, it appears he is whatever can be used to deny him rights. POW one day, terrorist the next....Bottom line......The man committed a criminal act

 

[Si modo]

1. Crime? I thought he committed an act of terrorism. Are these two terms now interchangeable?
Tim McVeigh committed an act of terrorism and was tried in US courts, so were the first World trade center bombers. Where in our laws do we have seperate categories for terrorists?

2. KSM isn't a citizen of the U.S.

So. We try people all the time in our courts who are not US citizens. If a Frenchman comes over here and kills an American he gets tried here and is given the same Constitutional rights as an American
For anyone . . . what is KSM anyway? Enemy combatant? Criminal? POW? Terrorist?

For many rightwinguts, it appears he is whatever can be used to deny him rights. POW one day, terrorist the next....Bottom line......The man committed a criminal act

And act of war.

 

[tigerbob]

Every accused person deserves a fair trial. That is a basic foundation upon which this country was founded. It is not up to us to try to use the court which provides the accused with the fewest rights and biggest chance of conviction.
The US is on trial hers as much as KSM. We have to present to the world that the man was given a fair trial.
The 9-11 attacks were against US citizens on US soil. The juristiction is the United States not some secret enclave where a kangaroo court can be conducted.

Thanks for the answer.

I'm taking the following inferences from that response - please let me know the ones with which you disagree.

1. You believe trials in military court are inherently unfair (a "kangaroo court" in your words).
2. You believe it would be an acceptable outcome for KSH to walk free so long as the US is seen to have adhered to the letter of the criminal law.

Is that correct, or am I putting words in your mouth?

Thanks for not putting words in my mouth

1. I believe that if the only reason we are using military courts is because we know we do not have a strong case and can deny more rights, that this trial will be perceived worldwide as a kangaroo court. I have stated that federal courts are the proper juristiction because the crime was committed on US soil. If we catch Bin laden, I want his ass hauled here and make him answer to US justice
2. This is the tough part of being a citizen of a free country. We give rights to the accused. One of these rights is the right to a fair trial. A fair trial means, by definition, that the accused has a chance of being set free.

I guess point 2 is where we differ. I believe that if he is tried in criminal court he will walk without the trial really getting started. That to me is more than "a chance of being set free".

As such, it is entirely possible to say afterwards that this is all Bush's fault. And it would be, pretty much, at least so far as the cards that Obama has been dealt. However, the ability to blame Bush does not diminish the fact that the President has a responsibility to keep this country safe and that Obama has knowingly taken a decision that will in all probability set free a man who will continue to do everything in his considerable power, either directly of by influencing others, to harm the US and the citizens of the US.

You are right that such an outcome is the tough part about living in a free country. But this decision is also the tough part about being President.

I believe that Obama has taken a decision with his "make sure the US is seen favorably by the global community" hat on, not his "make sure the US is safe" hat on.

One thing is for sure. If KSH is tried in criminal court he will almost certainly walk, and the fact that we have applied criminal law rather than military law in dealing with the case will not make the peers and followers of KSH any more kindly disposed to us.

This entire case should be a salutary lesson to the US Government, both now and in the future, about the care that needs to be taken with the treatment of suspected terrorists. As I've already said, I believe that as a point of principle terrorists should be tried under criminal law. But under these circumstances, I also believe that principles need to be compromised, and lessons need to be learned. It's not a conclusion I come to lightly. Compromising one's principles generally is the thin end of the wedge.

 

[uscitizen]

1. Crime? I thought he committed an act of terrorism. Are these two terms now interchangeable?
Tim McVeigh committed an act of terrorism and was tried in US courts, so were the first World trade center bombers. Where in our laws do we have seperate categories for terrorists?

2. KSM isn't a citizen of the U.S.

So. We try people all the time in our courts who are not US citizens. If a Frenchman comes over here and kills an American he gets tried here and is given the same Constitutional rights as an American
For anyone . . . what is KSM anyway? Enemy combatant? Criminal? POW? Terrorist?

For many rightwinguts, it appears he is whatever can be used to deny him rights. POW one day, terrorist the next....Bottom line......The man committed a criminal act

And act of war.

Acts of war can only be comitted by governments or individuals with their governments sanction.

 

[tigerbob]

Thanks for the answer.

I'm taking the following inferences from that response - please let me know the ones with which you disagree.

1. You believe trials in military court are inherently unfair (a "kangaroo court" in your words).
2. You believe it would be an acceptable outcome for KSH to walk free so long as the US is seen to have adhered to the letter of the criminal law.

Is that correct, or am I putting words in your mouth?

Thanks for not putting words in my mouth

1. I believe that if the only reason we are using military courts is because we know we do not have a strong case and can deny more rights, that this trial will be perceived worldwide as a kangaroo court. I have stated that federal courts are the proper juristiction because the crime was committed on US soil. If we catch Bin laden, I want his ass hauled here and make him answer to US justice
2. This is the tough part of being a citizen of a free country. We give rights to the accused. One of these rights is the right to a fair trial. A fair trial means, by definition, that the accused has a chance of being set free.

1. Crime? I thought he committed an act of terrorism. Are these two terms now interchangeable?
2. KSM isn't a citizen of the U.S.

For anyone . . . what is KSM anyway? Enemy combatant? Criminal? POW? Terrorist?

Terrorist IMO.

 

[amrchaos]

Second, KSM was never read his Miranda Warning! All Incriminating statements ARE INADMISSIBLE! You cannot use his confession against him!! So Bush fucked up

Third, KSM never had an attorney present with him at any point in his captivity and was denied his basic Constitutional rights! Wait a second, he's a terrorist and HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

So Bush fucked up


Fourth, irrespective of whether waterboarding is torture, his statements were obtained under duress, and again inadmissible and would further taint a juries view of the entire government case against the defendant.

So Bush fucked up




Fifth, How can you possibly use covert intel against him? He has a right to access NSA and CIA material under Discovery.

So Bush fucked up


Sixth, what are the charges against him? The terrorists crashed 2 fully loaded US Commercial airliners into 2 fully occupied towers of the WTC intending to toppled the fully loaded towers on to a bustling lower Manhattan at rush hour. Will it be 3,000 counts of murder and 100,000 counts of attempted murder?

Sounds fair


So...in the end Bush fucked up the evidence about KSM and you are holding Obama to blame

You are as comical as your boy Obama.

Keep blaming Bush, it only digs Obama's hole deeper and deeper.

Mike

Actually--Bush Fucked up by leaving office with those bastards still breathing.

 

[Jay Canuck]

LOL!, typical Frank thread where he reads the future! - where did he get his crystal ball... out of a junior GOP talking head kit?

 

[rightwinger]

Second, KSM was never read his Miranda Warning! All Incriminating statements ARE INADMISSIBLE! You cannot use his confession against him!! So Bush fucked up

Third, KSM never had an attorney present with him at any point in his captivity and was denied his basic Constitutional rights! Wait a second, he's a terrorist and HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

So Bush fucked up


Fourth, irrespective of whether waterboarding is torture, his statements were obtained under duress, and again inadmissible and would further taint a juries view of the entire government case against the defendant.

So Bush fucked up




Fifth, How can you possibly use covert intel against him? He has a right to access NSA and CIA material under Discovery.

So Bush fucked up


Sixth, what are the charges against him? The terrorists crashed 2 fully loaded US Commercial airliners into 2 fully occupied towers of the WTC intending to toppled the fully loaded towers on to a bustling lower Manhattan at rush hour. Will it be 3,000 counts of murder and 100,000 counts of attempted murder?

Sounds fair


So...in the end Bush fucked up the evidence about KSM and you are holding Obama to blame

You are as comical as your boy Obama.

Keep blaming Bush, it only digs Obama's hole deeper and deeper.

Mike

Actually--Bush Fucked up by leaving office with those bastards still breathing.

Absolutely

Bush had seven years to try these bastards and merely chose to act as though they don't exist. Let the next guy handle it was the Bush philosophy

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks for the answer.

I'm taking the following inferences from that response - please let me know the ones with which you disagree.

1. You believe trials in military court are inherently unfair (a "kangaroo court" in your words).
2. You believe it would be an acceptable outcome for KSH to walk free so long as the US is seen to have adhered to the letter of the criminal law.

Is that correct, or am I putting words in your mouth?

Thanks for not putting words in my mouth

1. I believe that if the only reason we are using military courts is because we know we do not have a strong case and can deny more rights, that this trial will be perceived worldwide as a kangaroo court. I have stated that federal courts are the proper juristiction because the crime was committed on US soil. If we catch Bin laden, I want his ass hauled here and make him answer to US justice
2. This is the tough part of being a citizen of a free country. We give rights to the accused. One of these rights is the right to a fair trial. A fair trial means, by definition, that the accused has a chance of being set free.

I guess point 2 is where we differ. I believe that if he is tried in criminal court he will walk without the trial really getting started. That to me is more than "a chance of being set free".

As such, it is entirely possible to say afterwards that this is all Bush's fault. And it would be, pretty much, at least so far as the cards that Obama has been dealt. However, the ability to blame Bush does not diminish the fact that the President has a responsibility to keep this country safe and that Obama has knowingly taken a decision that will in all probability set free a man who will continue to do everything in his considerable power, either directly of by influencing others, to harm the US and the citizens of the US.

You are right that such an outcome is the tough part about living in a free country. But this decision is also the tough part about being President.

I believe that Obama has taken a decision with his "make sure the US is seen favorably by the global community" hat on, not his "make sure the US is safe" hat on.

One thing is for sure. If KSH is tried in criminal court he will almost certainly walk, and the fact that we have applied criminal law rather than military law in dealing with the case will not make the peers and followers of KSH any more kindly disposed to us.

This entire case should be a salutary lesson to the US Government, both now and in the future, about the care that needs to be taken with the treatment of suspected terrorists. As I've already said, I believe that as a point of principle terrorists should be tried under criminal law. But under these circumstances, I also believe that principles need to be compromised, and lessons need to be learned. It's not a conclusion I come to lightly. Compromising one's principles generally is the thin end of the wedge.

First off..
There is no chance that KSM will ever walk free....EVER
They will lay on so many charges that he will even be charged with spitting on the sidewalk. Something will stick that will ensure he is convicted.

Death penalty is a different issue. There may be enough ambiguity to spare his life. As much as we would enjoy the vengance, letting him rot in prison is probably the best punishment. If we kill him he becomes a martyr ..which is what he wants

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The more I consider this "trial", the more it become clear, he will have to walk.
Anyone captured as a result of his water boarding will have to be released as well.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

1. Crime? I thought he committed an act of terrorism. Are these two terms now interchangeable?
Tim McVeigh committed an act of terrorism and was tried in US courts, so were the first World trade center bombers. Where in our laws do we have seperate categories for terrorists?

2. KSM isn't a citizen of the U.S.

So. We try people all the time in our courts who are not US citizens. If a Frenchman comes over here and kills an American he gets tried here and is given the same Constitutional rights as an American
For anyone . . . what is KSM anyway? Enemy combatant? Criminal? POW? Terrorist?

For many rightwinguts, it appears he is whatever can be used to deny him rights. POW one day, terrorist the next....Bottom line......The man committed a criminal act

And act of war.

Acts of war can only be comitted by governments or individuals with their governments sanction.

In Islam the nation is called the ummah .
'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik

Page 602
09.6
“it is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission,” but “if there is no caliph, no permission is required.”

 

[tigerbob]

And act of war.

Acts of war can only be comitted by governments or individuals with their governments sanction.

In Islam the nation is called the ummah .
'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik

Page 602
09.6
“it is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission,” but “if there is no caliph, no permission is required.”

How are the folks in the WTC considered hostile?

 

[tigerbob]

Thanks for not putting words in my mouth

1. I believe that if the only reason we are using military courts is because we know we do not have a strong case and can deny more rights, that this trial will be perceived worldwide as a kangaroo court. I have stated that federal courts are the proper juristiction because the crime was committed on US soil. If we catch Bin laden, I want his ass hauled here and make him answer to US justice
2. This is the tough part of being a citizen of a free country. We give rights to the accused. One of these rights is the right to a fair trial. A fair trial means, by definition, that the accused has a chance of being set free.

I guess point 2 is where we differ. I believe that if he is tried in criminal court he will walk without the trial really getting started. That to me is more than "a chance of being set free".

As such, it is entirely possible to say afterwards that this is all Bush's fault. And it would be, pretty much, at least so far as the cards that Obama has been dealt. However, the ability to blame Bush does not diminish the fact that the President has a responsibility to keep this country safe and that Obama has knowingly taken a decision that will in all probability set free a man who will continue to do everything in his considerable power, either directly of by influencing others, to harm the US and the citizens of the US.

You are right that such an outcome is the tough part about living in a free country. But this decision is also the tough part about being President.

I believe that Obama has taken a decision with his "make sure the US is seen favorably by the global community" hat on, not his "make sure the US is safe" hat on.

One thing is for sure. If KSH is tried in criminal court he will almost certainly walk, and the fact that we have applied criminal law rather than military law in dealing with the case will not make the peers and followers of KSH any more kindly disposed to us.

This entire case should be a salutary lesson to the US Government, both now and in the future, about the care that needs to be taken with the treatment of suspected terrorists. As I've already said, I believe that as a point of principle terrorists should be tried under criminal law. But under these circumstances, I also believe that principles need to be compromised, and lessons need to be learned. It's not a conclusion I come to lightly. Compromising one's principles generally is the thin end of the wedge.

First off..
There is no chance that KSM will ever walk free....EVER
They will lay on so many charges that he will even be charged with spitting on the sidewalk. Something will stick that will ensure he is convicted.

Death penalty is a different issue. There may be enough ambiguity to spare his life. As much as we would enjoy the vengance, letting him rot in prison is probably the best punishment. If we kill him he becomes a martyr ..which is what he wants

If, under criminal law, he is considered to have been detained illegally, doesn't he have to be released? Question for Jill perhaps.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where is any evidence whatsoever that Obama even knows what the Constitution says - yet alone loves it!

Don't dismiss this as 'fear, Jillian. Some of us are just too fucking sceptical of our system to put that much faith in it.

Obama taught constitutional law. I'd say that gives advantage Obama on the issue.

I've never yet found a "constitutionalist" who knows a single thing about constitutional construction.

Sometimes "skepticism" is self-serving and unequally applied.

KSM already pleaded guilty and demanded the death penalty!

His confession is not even admissible perhaps Eric Holder the rogue AG was not aware of that?

 

[JWBooth]

The more I consider this "trial", the more it become clear, he will have to walk.
Anyone captured as a result of his water boarding will have to be released as well.

The fruit of the poisoned tree.
This was the intent of this move from the beginning.

 

[Darkwind]

Just plain stupid.

Military Tribunal - Sure thing. Guilty plea. Hang em High.

Civilian Court - Three ring circus. Platform for them to spew their garbage. Possibility of loosing the whole thing. Free as a bird.

For a graduate of Harvard law school and editor of the Law Review Obama sure ain't got much in smarts department. Oh wait. Mayby its just that he hasn't got one iota of COMMON SENSE.

or maybe he loves the Constitution (given that he taught constitutional law) and the thought of a "confession" obtained after waterboarding someone offends him.

but I will remind you of one little fact that you and the ditto brigade seem to be overlooknig....

ready?




wait for it......



wait for it....


OBAMA ISN'T THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ISN'T THE PROSECUTOR!!! So maybe he agrees with Holder... or maybe it's too late for him NOT to agree with Holder...

How quick you "patriots" are to toss aside our laws out of fear.

But tell me, why were we able to convict McVeigh, the blind sheikh, etc? For some reason, no one's given me an answer on that issue.

Since he clearly does not understand the Constitution, I find this to be the most frightening thing in this whole thread.

There are now people out there that think of the Constitution the way that Holder does.

We are truly doomed as a nation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is ObaMao backdoor way of trying Boooooooooooooooooooooooosh

 

[Darkwind]

Thanks for not putting words in my mouth

1. I believe that if the only reason we are using military courts is because we know we do not have a strong case and can deny more rights, that this trial will be perceived worldwide as a kangaroo court. I have stated that federal courts are the proper juristiction because the crime was committed on US soil. If we catch Bin laden, I want his ass hauled here and make him answer to US justice
2. This is the tough part of being a citizen of a free country. We give rights to the accused. One of these rights is the right to a fair trial. A fair trial means, by definition, that the accused has a chance of being set free.

I guess point 2 is where we differ. I believe that if he is tried in criminal court he will walk without the trial really getting started. That to me is more than "a chance of being set free".

As such, it is entirely possible to say afterwards that this is all Bush's fault. And it would be, pretty much, at least so far as the cards that Obama has been dealt. However, the ability to blame Bush does not diminish the fact that the President has a responsibility to keep this country safe and that Obama has knowingly taken a decision that will in all probability set free a man who will continue to do everything in his considerable power, either directly of by influencing others, to harm the US and the citizens of the US.

You are right that such an outcome is the tough part about living in a free country. But this decision is also the tough part about being President.

I believe that Obama has taken a decision with his "make sure the US is seen favorably by the global community" hat on, not his "make sure the US is safe" hat on.

One thing is for sure. If KSH is tried in criminal court he will almost certainly walk, and the fact that we have applied criminal law rather than military law in dealing with the case will not make the peers and followers of KSH any more kindly disposed to us.

This entire case should be a salutary lesson to the US Government, both now and in the future, about the care that needs to be taken with the treatment of suspected terrorists. As I've already said, I believe that as a point of principle terrorists should be tried under criminal law. But under these circumstances, I also believe that principles need to be compromised, and lessons need to be learned. It's not a conclusion I come to lightly. Compromising one's principles generally is the thin end of the wedge.

First off..
There is no chance that KSM will ever walk free....EVER
They will lay on so many charges that he will even be charged with spitting on the sidewalk. Something will stick that will ensure he is convicted.

Death penalty is a different issue. There may be enough ambiguity to spare his life. As much as we would enjoy the vengance, letting him rot in prison is probably the best punishment. If we kill him he becomes a martyr ..which is what he wants

So your answer is prosecutorial misconduct?

Fantastic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Holder Loves the Constitution so dearly he does not know this is the first time US Consitituional right have been conferred on an Enemy Combatant.

Holder's love is dumb and blind and plain fucking stupid, just like him and his Muslim Marxist Boss

 

[JWBooth]

Just plain stupid.

Military Tribunal - Sure thing. Guilty plea. Hang em High.

Civilian Court - Three ring circus. Platform for them to spew their garbage. Possibility of loosing the whole thing. Free as a bird.

For a graduate of Harvard law school and editor of the Law Review Obama sure ain't got much in smarts department. Oh wait. Mayby its just that he hasn't got one iota of COMMON SENSE.

or maybe he loves the Constitution (given that he taught constitutional law) and the thought of a "confession" obtained after waterboarding someone offends him.

but I will remind you of one little fact that you and the ditto brigade seem to be overlooknig....

ready?




wait for it......



wait for it....


OBAMA ISN'T THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ISN'T THE PROSECUTOR!!! So maybe he agrees with Holder... or maybe it's too late for him NOT to agree with Holder...

How quick you "patriots" are to toss aside our laws out of fear.

But tell me, why were we able to convict McVeigh, the blind sheikh, etc? For some reason, no one's given me an answer on that issue.

So is vapid a lifestyle choice for you, or just a genetic deformity?