911 terrorists to be tried in NYC

All of this is wonderful and deserving of its own thread.

However, the topic is civilian courts for war criminals.

The answer is clear and the Administration chose wrongly.


Be that as it may, it will not be solved tonight and I have to get up in four hours.

good night everyone.
 
plus..this whole "waterboarded 183 times" is a joke. What happened was water was poured on him 183 times. The libtard clowns make it sound like he was placed on a board 183 times after getting up 182 times for a stroll around the compound.
 
Exactly. But someone called it water-boarding and the SR-media has ran with that ever since.

Waterboarding is not limited to one specific technique.
In fact it is.

I know that there are people who would like to expand all techniques of ancient torture and their variations to infinity. But there comes a limit to how much spin one can put on a subject.

Water-boarding is the torture of holding an individual upside down and immersing their head in water for an unspecified amount of time. The technique did NOT induce the feeling of drowning. It WAS drowning. Quite often, the people who were subjected to this form or torture died.

Fast forward to today where a rag is held over a person who may or may not be laying on their back, and water is poured over the rag. This causes the a fear response that one is drowning. But in fact, one cannot die by this method.

In the past, the victim was alone.

Fast forward to today where a physician is standing by and there are witnesses that are sworn to ensure that nothing goes beyond what was authorized. In essence, the detainee will not be permitted to die.

Does the procedure cause great discomfort and panic in the detainee?

Why, yes it does.

Do I care?

Why, no I don't.

It is NOT torture, it has gleaned us real and valuable information that has saved the lives of our men and women in the armed services.

In the end. I support the method used.


The reason you claim it isn't torture is because you support it. It's also ludicrous to claim one can't die from having water poured on a rag that is over their fac
e. Drowning is not defined by being under water but by water entering the lungs preventing breathing. It's also a very tired justification to claim it has "saved lives." That is the end all justification for the most fucked up shit we do. We defended nuking civilians on that claim and now we are using it to defend torture.
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool
 
plus..this whole "waterboarded 183 times" is a joke. What happened was water was poured on him 183 times. The libtard clowns make it sound like he was placed on a board 183 times after getting up 182 times for a stroll around the compound.


That's one hell of a strawman. I pointed out the CIA said he was waterboarded 183 times, nothing more nothing less. The only "joke" is the camps who support the mythical war on terror the most usually don't know basic information.
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp. :clap2:
 
plus..this whole "waterboarded 183 times" is a joke. What happened was water was poured on him 183 times. The libtard clowns make it sound like he was placed on a board 183 times after getting up 182 times for a stroll around the compound.


That's one hell of a strawman. I pointed out the CIA said he was waterboarded 183 times, nothing more nothing less. The only "joke" is the camps who support the mythical war on terror the most usually don't know basic information.

Basic information ... you mean like what happened on 9/11 that kind of basic info..THAT WE WERE AT WAR WITH AL QAEDA.
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool



Most don't support it on the basis it "saves lives." They support it because they want to inflict as much pain as possible on the boogedyman. They say it saves lives to appear morally correct because they don't have the stones to be forthright.
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp. :clap2:

I was going to point out the circular logic myself but figured it would be better coming from a career CIA intelligence analyst.


"All the claims by the Bush administration of preventing additional terror attacks on the United States because of information gained by torture are unsubstantiated because of the methods used that can mostly gain false information and falsely "confirm" the same information.
"
Torture yields unreliable information - St. Petersburg Times
 
plus..this whole "waterboarded 183 times" is a joke. What happened was water was poured on him 183 times. The libtard clowns make it sound like he was placed on a board 183 times after getting up 182 times for a stroll around the compound.


That's one hell of a strawman. I pointed out the CIA said he was waterboarded 183 times, nothing more nothing less. The only "joke" is the camps who support the mythical war on terror the most usually don't know basic information.

Basic information ... you mean like what happened on 9/11 that kind of basic info..THAT WE WERE AT WAR WITH AL QAEDA.

"Alkida" is our government's way of saying "Be afraid. Be scared. Be so damn frightened you will support anything we do and celebrate the lawlessness.
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool



Most don't support it on the basis it "saves lives." They support it because they want to inflict as much pain as possible on the boogedyman. They say it saves lives to appear morally correct because they don't have the stones to be forthright.

Who said anything about torture? The interrogation methods used on the terrorists were all LEGAL and NO LAW had to be created to make them otherwise.
 
That's one hell of a strawman. I pointed out the CIA said he was waterboarded 183 times, nothing more nothing less. The only "joke" is the camps who support the mythical war on terror the most usually don't know basic information.

Basic information ... you mean like what happened on 9/11 that kind of basic info..THAT WE WERE AT WAR WITH AL QAEDA.

"Alkida" is our government's way of saying "Be afraid. Be scared. Be so damn frightened you will support anything we do and celebrate the lawlessness.

Right...there is no such thing as Al Qaeda...or terrorists either...they are just disgruntled goat herders.:cuckoo:
 
Just saying:

Attorney General Mukasey on the Transfer of KSM et al to Civilian Court - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

Attorney General Mukasey on the Transfer of KSM et al to Civilian Court [Andy McCarthy]
From Philip Klein at the Spectator:

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who as a judge presided over a trial stemming from the first attack on the World Trade Center, on Friday warned that the Obama administration's decision to bring Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, along with three other terrorist detainees, to stand trial in a civilian court, reflected a pre-9/11 mindset that viewed terrorism as a simple criminal matter.

Speaking at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, Mukasey described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”

Describing a pattern of decisions made since the the Obama administration pledged in January to close Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, Mukasey said that, "What’s followed has seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”

He noted that Congress already authorized the trial of detainees through military commissions, and that those trials would have already been underway.

“Now, that procedure is to be short-circuited — actually, long-circuited would be more accurate — so that they could be brought to this country and tried in a civilian court," he said. "We should all be aware that those cases which were scheduled to have already begun now have to start from scratch.”

The difficulty of trying terror suspects through civilian courts, he said, is that the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial "could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”

He pointed out that when capturing the enemy combatants, pieces of information “were not gathered, nor was evidence gathered, on the assumption that they would be presented in a federal court.”

There would also be tremendous security issues involved with making sure that courthouses, jails, the judge and jury, were all safe.

“It would take a whole lot more credulousness than I have available to be optimistic about the outcome of this latest experiment,” Mukasey said at the conclusion of his formal remarks.

During a question and answer session that followed, Mukasey was asked if he felt the jails in New York were secure enough to make sure terrorists would not escape, but he said that wasn't really the issue.

"If you ask the wrong question, you’re sure to get the wrong answer," Mukasey responded. "Of course it’s secure. They’re not going to escape. The question is not whether they’re going to escape, the question is whether not only that facility, but the city at large will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of KSM, whether this raises the odds that it will. And I would suggest to you that it raises them very high. It is also whether the proceeding, even assuming that it goes forward within the lifetime of anybody in this room, is one where confidential information is able to be kept confidential, and a trial is able to proceed in an orderly way.”

He later added that, "to the extent that they are within prisons, they are a threat there as well. Any of these people would be a virtually totemic figure in a prison.” He argued that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid's success in challenging his solitary confinement shows that there's no guaruntee that convicted terrorists would stay isolated from the rest of the prison population....
 
and one more:

Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.


Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp. :clap2:

so if you follow through with your twisted logic police should waterboard suspected criminals or gang members until eventually maybe some of the information is in some way confirmed as accurate or useful..no need for charges or any due process or representation just the belief that they may know something that could possible thwart something that could pose potential risk to others..
 
Last edited:
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp. :clap2:

and there is no danger that these waterboarded,,tortured confessions may prove to be inaccurate but politically convenient and you are going to give your blind trust to the government this is not something they would ever misuse ??..or you just don't care as long as it is happening to Muslims
 
15th post
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool



Most don't support it on the basis it "saves lives." They support it because they want to inflict as much pain as possible on the boogedyman. They say it saves lives to appear morally correct because they don't have the stones to be forthright.

Who said anything about torture? The interrogation methods used on the terrorists were all LEGAL and NO LAW had to be created to make them otherwise.


Do you know about the letters that were written to make the techniques legal? Do you know which ones were left and which were retracted? We also know the CIA admitted to waterboarding suspects....that is torture. We also know Bush's top Gitmo appointee already admitted we tortured. Do you not know this as well?
 
Why thanks for the compliment Eots. I at least have more sense than you ever will. You must be one of those liberal idiots that think eveyone is wonderful. Take your head out of your ass pal. These self same terrorists wouldn't bat any eye while killing you and your entire family. They are TERRORISTS. Human life means nothing to them. I pity our soldeiers on the field who now have mirandize terrorists they capture.

Holder is a flamming idiot for even suggesting these guys be tried in civil courts. They are terrorists and for my money, Oh yeah Eots, they should all be killed after we waterboard them for all the info we can get. Trials are reserved for criminals, not terrorists. Yes I can see beyond the end of MY nose. You obviously can't
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp. :clap2:

so if you follow through with your twisted logic police should waterboard suspected criminals or gang members until eventually maybe some of the information is in some way confirmed as accurate or useful..no need for charges or any due process or representation just the belief that they may know something that could possible thwart something that could pose potential risk to others..

You said it...I didn't...I guess in your fucked up bizzarro world that's how you think things should be but not me.
 
it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp. :clap2:

and there is no danger that these waterboarded,,tortured confessions may prove to be inaccurate but politically convenient and you are going to give your blind trust to the government this is not something they would ever misuse ??..or you just don't care as long as it is happening to Muslims

Nope!!!! It's all checked and rechecked....and obviously you, sitting in your momma's basement all day eating Doritos and drinking Coke dreaming up conspiracy theories, haven't a clue as to how an interrogation session proceeds and what sort of questions are asked.
 
Back
Top Bottom