We find the defendant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Not Guilty

[Claudette]

Lots of people on this board seem to be so concerned with the RIGHTS of the terrorists. Can't figure out why anyone would be concerned with the RIGHTS of these dirtbags???

These people slaughtered 3,000 people in NYC. If the fact that I don't give a flying fuck about their RIGHTS offends some , well I really could care less. I'm more concerned that in a Civil Trial these assholes could be aquitted.

I wonder how the families of those 3,000 victims would feel about that?? I also wonder how the folks that were more concerned with the Rights of these dirtbags than the 3,000 people who were murdered would feel if that happened?? Would they feel vindicated? Would they think 'Hey man. We gave them a civil trial which is what they deserved." The verdict was Aquittal. But hey, I guess you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" Boy our Judicial sytem works great.

Would they be happy these guys walked? All because they got a Civil Trial that went to shit when the Military Tribunal was a slam dunk???? Makes you wonder about peoples motives. I sure do.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Where in your version does it cover prosecution of terrorist acts?

Mine only covers the rights of the accused

 

[Xenophon]

It all seems an excellent argument for taking no prisoners.

 

[Claudette]

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Zander]

 

[Contumacious]

Obama's decision to try KSM in a Criminal Court is perilous at best and at worst just plain fucking stupid, one of the worst decisions in human history

Bullshit.


Federal Court , Military Tribunal - it doesn't matter - they are equally corrupt. The "judge" will manipulate the evidence and he will be found guilty. Ask Martha Stewart - if they were able to railroad her they can railroad anybody.

He is an "islamofascist" so there is no presumption of innocence nor is he going to get a jury of his peers.


The powers-that-be have already stated that after the trial he will be classified as an enemy combatant and will spend the rest of his life imprisoned.

So what's your major malfunction?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[QUENTIN]

Miranda rights? That's a total non-issue here. Miranda warnings can be waved for a variety of reasons, including sufficient evidence at the time of arrest to justify indictment. KSM made no secret that he was a top brass member of Al Qaeda, we had hundreds of legally obtained documents detailing his financial support for terrorism before he was captured. He wouldn't have needed to be read his Miranda rights even if he were arrested by US police. That doesn't matter anyway since he was arrested by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agents, not the U.S.

The legitimate use of state secrets allows for documents related to sensitive intelligence to be denied use in a court proceedings, only shown to a judge. They're not going to let KSM or his compatriots see any confidential intelligence info that would compromise our safety.

Even with confessions coerced through torture inadmissable, there are mountains of evidence more than sufficient to convict this guy. "Material support for terrorism" alone would get him life in prison and is incontrovertible. Not to mention the fact that they're not trying to use the court as a platform, not trying to get off, not trying to fight the case. They've expressed their intent numerous times to seek no counsel and plead guilty, hoping for the death penalty. Martyring them rather than life in isolation in prison would be giving them exactly what they want.

The SCOTUS ruled in Boumediene that the Bush DOJ's argument for declaring these people "enemy combatants" was pseudo-legal nonsense wrong on its face, that all Gitmo detainees had a right to habeas corpus, to be tried in the US Court system, and that Military Commissions were unConstitutional when applied to these suspects. That's the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiters of law in this country, interpreting the Constitution and giving both sides of this a fair argument. They reached their conclusion on June 12, 2008 before Obama was even elected.

Obama is following the law and upholding the basic principles of justice our country was founded on by trying these men in a NY court. Where he goes so wrong, and undermines the value of their trial, is in setting up a multi-tiered justice system that will try those with less evidence against them under different circumstances in order to ensure a conviction and in cases where there is no evidence, to simply "preventitively detain" them for the rest of their lives. There is no risk any of these people would go free because Holder has already asserted the Orwellian right to post-acquittal preventitive detention. Even in the nearly impossible event that they weren't found guilty and sent to supermax prison for the rest of their lives or given the death penalty, they will never under any circumstances be "set free."

Those who oppose trying detainees in American courts, despite the fact that we've already tried 195 terror suspects since 9/11 and secured a 91+% conviction rate, with all convicts going to supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped, and the fact that this is how all other countries in the world try terror suspects (UK, Israel, India, Spain, Indonesia, etc.), all effectively and without incident, are no less than repudiating the justice system wholesale and declaring that they do not believe in the basic principles of justice on which our country was founded.

 

[QUENTIN]

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

Crusader and Co scream: "Fuck you, founding fathers!"

Is there a stronger way to send a message to terrorists that they have won than the wholesale repudiation our core principles as a democracy under the rule of law?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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?

Disbelief is wrong "Zulm" in Islam Zulm is an act of agression.

2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

The Noble Quran : Surat 2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama's decision to try KSM in a Criminal Court is perilous at best and at worst just plain fucking stupid, one of the worst decisions in human history

Bullshit.


Federal Court , Military Tribunal - it doesn't matter - they are equally corrupt. The "judge" will manipulate the evidence and he will be found guilty. Ask Martha Stewart - if they were able to railroad her they can railroad anybody.

He is an "islamofascist" so there is no presumption of innocence nor is he going to get a jury of his peers.


The powers-that-be have already stated that after the trial he will be classified as an enemy combatant and will spend the rest of his life imprisoned.

So what's your major malfunction?!?!?!?!?!?

.

KSM has already PLEADED GUILTY AND ASKED TO BE EXECUTED!

Why are we trying him?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

Crusader and Co scream: "Fuck you, founding fathers!"

Is there a stronger way to send a message to terrorists that they have won than the wholesale repudiation our core principles as a democracy under the rule of law?

KSM had NO STANDING under the Constitution! He's a Terrorist and ENEMY COMBATANT

He's already plead guilty before a Military Tribunal.

Don't tell me what the Founding Fathers would say about this, you DICK!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Miranda rights? That's a total non-issue here. Miranda warnings can be waved for a variety of reasons, including sufficient evidence at the time of arrest to justify indictment. KSM made no secret that he was a top brass member of Al Qaeda, we had hundreds of legally obtained documents detailing his financial support for terrorism before he was captured. He wouldn't have needed to be read his Miranda rights even if he were arrested by US police. That doesn't matter anyway since he was arrested by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agents, not the U.S.

The legitimate use of state secrets allows for documents related to sensitive intelligence to be denied use in a court proceedings, only shown to a judge. They're not going to let KSM or his compatriots see any confidential intelligence info that would compromise our safety.

Even with confessions coerced through torture inadmissable, there are mountains of evidence more than sufficient to convict this guy. "Material support for terrorism" alone would get him life in prison and is incontrovertible. Not to mention the fact that they're not trying to use the court as a platform, not trying to get off, not trying to fight the case. They've expressed their intent numerous times to seek no counsel and plead guilty, hoping for the death penalty. Martyring them rather than life in isolation in prison would be giving them exactly what they want.

The SCOTUS ruled in Boumediene that the Bush DOJ's argument for declaring these people "enemy combatants" was pseudo-legal nonsense wrong on its face, that all Gitmo detainees had a right to habeas corpus, to be tried in the US Court system, and that Military Commissions were unConstitutional when applied to these suspects. That's the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiters of law in this country, interpreting the Constitution and giving both sides of this a fair argument. They reached their conclusion on June 12, 2008 before Obama was even elected.

Obama is following the law and upholding the basic principles of justice our country was founded on by trying these men in a NY court. Where he goes so wrong, and undermines the value of their trial, is in setting up a multi-tiered justice system that will try those with less evidence against them under different circumstances in order to ensure a conviction and in cases where there is no evidence, to simply "preventitively detain" them for the rest of their lives. There is no risk any of these people would go free because Holder has already asserted the Orwellian right to post-acquittal preventitive detention. Even in the nearly impossible event that they weren't found guilty and sent to supermax prison for the rest of their lives or given the death penalty, they will never under any circumstances be "set free."

Those who oppose trying detainees in American courts, despite the fact that we've already tried 195 terror suspects since 9/11 and secured a 91+% conviction rate, with all convicts going to supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped, and the fact that this is how all other countries in the world try terror suspects (UK, Israel, India, Spain, Indonesia, etc.), all effectively and without incident, are no less than repudiating the justice system wholesale and declaring that they do not believe in the basic principles of justice on which our country was founded.

You must have copied off of Eric Holder on your LSAT's.

We have NEVER tried an Enemy Combatant in a US Criminal Court! NEVER! Not once in all our history!

Moreover, he's already plead guilty!

 

[QUENTIN]

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

Crusader and Co scream: "Fuck you, founding fathers!"

Is there a stronger way to send a message to terrorists that they have won than the wholesale repudiation our core principles as a democracy under the rule of law?

KSM had NO STANDING under the Constitution! He's a Terrorist and ENEMY COMBATANT

He's already plead guilty before a Military Tribunal.

Don't tell me what the Founding Fathers would say about this, you DICK!

The Supreme Court, ultimate arbiters of the law in this country as designed by the Constitution, ruled in July, 2008 that that isn't true. In Boumediene v Bush, the court ruled that detainees held as enemy combatants have the right to habeas review and access to the US Court system and that military commissions illegally, unconstitutionally deny them that right.

I didn't tell you what the founding fathers would say about this, I let them speak for themselves. They're pretty blunt and they definitely believe in the rule of law and justice system, trial by juries. Not the gulags and sham trials you advocate.

 

[QUENTIN]

Miranda rights? That's a total non-issue here. Miranda warnings can be waved for a variety of reasons, including sufficient evidence at the time of arrest to justify indictment. KSM made no secret that he was a top brass member of Al Qaeda, we had hundreds of legally obtained documents detailing his financial support for terrorism before he was captured. He wouldn't have needed to be read his Miranda rights even if he were arrested by US police. That doesn't matter anyway since he was arrested by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agents, not the U.S.

The legitimate use of state secrets allows for documents related to sensitive intelligence to be denied use in a court proceedings, only shown to a judge. They're not going to let KSM or his compatriots see any confidential intelligence info that would compromise our safety.

Even with confessions coerced through torture inadmissable, there are mountains of evidence more than sufficient to convict this guy. "Material support for terrorism" alone would get him life in prison and is incontrovertible. Not to mention the fact that they're not trying to use the court as a platform, not trying to get off, not trying to fight the case. They've expressed their intent numerous times to seek no counsel and plead guilty, hoping for the death penalty. Martyring them rather than life in isolation in prison would be giving them exactly what they want.

The SCOTUS ruled in Boumediene that the Bush DOJ's argument for declaring these people "enemy combatants" was pseudo-legal nonsense wrong on its face, that all Gitmo detainees had a right to habeas corpus, to be tried in the US Court system, and that Military Commissions were unConstitutional when applied to these suspects. That's the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiters of law in this country, interpreting the Constitution and giving both sides of this a fair argument. They reached their conclusion on June 12, 2008 before Obama was even elected.

Obama is following the law and upholding the basic principles of justice our country was founded on by trying these men in a NY court. Where he goes so wrong, and undermines the value of their trial, is in setting up a multi-tiered justice system that will try those with less evidence against them under different circumstances in order to ensure a conviction and in cases where there is no evidence, to simply "preventitively detain" them for the rest of their lives. There is no risk any of these people would go free because Holder has already asserted the Orwellian right to post-acquittal preventitive detention. Even in the nearly impossible event that they weren't found guilty and sent to supermax prison for the rest of their lives or given the death penalty, they will never under any circumstances be "set free."

Those who oppose trying detainees in American courts, despite the fact that we've already tried 195 terror suspects since 9/11 and secured a 91+% conviction rate, with all convicts going to supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped, and the fact that this is how all other countries in the world try terror suspects (UK, Israel, India, Spain, Indonesia, etc.), all effectively and without incident, are no less than repudiating the justice system wholesale and declaring that they do not believe in the basic principles of justice on which our country was founded.

You must have copied off of Eric Holder on your LSAT's.

We have NEVER tried an Enemy Combatant in a US Criminal Court! NEVER! Not once in all our history!

Moreover, he's already plead guilty!

You really, obviously, have no idea what you're talking about. Your entire first post was one false assertion after another.

He plead guilty in a military commission review which the Supreme Court ruled was unConstitutional. Long before Obama took office, they ruled that the law applies to detainees at Gitmo and those the Bush administration called "enemy combatants" have a right to habeas corpus and access to US courts. His guilty plea was in an illegal "court" so it's null.

Now he's coming to NYC to plead guilty in front of a real judge and jury in a real trial. He'll still be getting lie in prison or the death sentence, but he'll have been afforded a trial as the constitution dictates.

You guys are rehashing old arguments and legal opinions offered by the last DOJ that have been adjudicated as pseudo-legal nonsense by the Supreme Court and routinely ruled against. That means this business about the Constitution not applying to them is just plain wrong. They have to be given real trials in the US, otherwise the DOJ itself would be in contravention of the law.

 

[QUENTIN]

Way to dodge the fact that I completely refuted, with evidence and law, all your reasons for why KSM would be found not guilty.

To recap:

1.) The Miranda warning is a non-issue here, it doesn't apply
2.) State secrets privileges protect any classified or otherwise sensitive national security document from being seen in court by anyone but the judge, so there is no threat of the defendants getting their hands on sensitive intelligence that might put us at risk.
3.) His confession is inadmissable because of torture, so anything else about it doesn't matter. But we have a mountain of evidence with which to convict him on other charges, all of which come with life sentences as a minimum.
4.) The Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo detainees have to have the right to habeas corpus and a trial in the US Court system (so the new DOJ is following the law by having these trials and breaking it by continuing military trials and 'preventitive detainment' for others)
5.) There is no risk whatsoever under any circumstances KSM will be let go because even if he were acquitted, which is as likely as the sun imploding tomorrow, he'd be held the rest of his life anyway.
6.) America and a dozen other countries have already proven their courts are more than equipped to handle terrorism cases without a problem.

So in short, you had absolutely no idea what the fuck you were talking about.

Maybe if you use big letters and call me a "dick" though there will be less shame in broadcasting your ignorance for all to see.

 

[tigerbob]

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?

Disbelief is wrong "Zulm" in Islam Zulm is an act of agression.

2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

The Noble Quran : Surat 2

Is it just me, or does the Quran appear to be littered with contradictions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader and Co scream: "Fuck you, founding fathers!"

Is there a stronger way to send a message to terrorists that they have won than the wholesale repudiation our core principles as a democracy under the rule of law?

KSM had NO STANDING under the Constitution! He's a Terrorist and ENEMY COMBATANT

He's already plead guilty before a Military Tribunal.

Don't tell me what the Founding Fathers would say about this, you DICK!

The Supreme Court, ultimate arbiters of the law in this country as designed by the Constitution, ruled in July, 2008 that that isn't true. In Boumediene v Bush, the court ruled that detainees held as enemy combatants have the right to habeas review and access to the US Court system and that military commissions illegally, unconstitutionally deny them that right.

I didn't tell you what the founding fathers would say about this, I let them speak for themselves. They're pretty blunt and they definitely believe in the rule of law and justice system, trial by juries. Not the gulags and sham trials you advocate.

This is why I won't compromise with Libruls. 5 Librul justices upended common sense and 230 years of American history. Terrorists and people at WAR with the USA have NO STANDING in the American criminal justice system. NONE!

SCOTUS can go fuck itself.

 

[Gunny]

Obama's decision to try KSM in a Criminal Court is perilous at best and at worst just plain fucking stupid, one of the worst decisions in human history

Though he claims to be a "Constitutional Law Professor" and was "President" of the Harvard Law Review, his grasp on basic American jurisprudence is tenuous.

First, despite Obama derisive, divisive, arrogant, bitter and frustrated statement that the American people won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him" we have a Presumption of Innocence in this country; this isn't Kenya. If a jury were impaneled today and asked to return a verdict prior to submission of any evidence, they MUST return with a Not Guilty Verdict! You should know that BEFORE you get to law school.

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

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!

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.

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

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?

Finally, if the turban don't fit, you must acquit! The Jury has no choice but render a Not Guilty Verdict to a defendant who already pleaded guilty to a military tribunal and asked to be executed.

Welcome to life under the Reign of the Boy who would be President

How about two .45s to the back of the head in the back yard? Works for me.

 

[Kalam]

How are the folks in the WTC considered hostile?

Disbelief is wrong "Zulm" in Islam Zulm is an act of agression.

2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

The Noble Quran : Surat 2

Is it just me, or does the Quran appear to be littered with contradictions?

It's you.

 

[rightwinger]

KSM had NO STANDING under the Constitution! He's a Terrorist and ENEMY COMBATANT

He's already plead guilty before a Military Tribunal.

Don't tell me what the Founding Fathers would say about this, you DICK!

The Supreme Court, ultimate arbiters of the law in this country as designed by the Constitution, ruled in July, 2008 that that isn't true. In Boumediene v Bush, the court ruled that detainees held as enemy combatants have the right to habeas review and access to the US Court system and that military commissions illegally, unconstitutionally deny them that right.

I didn't tell you what the founding fathers would say about this, I let them speak for themselves. They're pretty blunt and they definitely believe in the rule of law and justice system, trial by juries. Not the gulags and sham trials you advocate.

This is why I won't compromise with Libruls. 5 Librul justices upended common sense and 230 years of American history. Terrorists and people at WAR with the USA have NO STANDING in the American criminal justice system. NONE!

SCOTUS can go fuck itself.

Sorry but SCOTUS is 5-4 Conservative

Its tough on the wingnuts when even their own Supreme Court plants understand what justice means