Terrorist Aquited on over 200 counts.

[The Infidel]

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.

Here I will try to help you on this.... there was evidence left out of the civilian trial that would have been admissable in a military tribunal.
I think it had something to with the interigation... not sure, but what I am sure of is... THAT GUY DESERVED TO BE HANGED!

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.

The governmetn refused to carry out a proper trial.... The gov't pussed out!

It will be VERY ironic if maybe 5, 10, or however many yrs from now we find this guy at again.

They are winning b/c we reuse to treat the enemy... like the enemy

 

[theHawk]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

You see the slipperly slope we're going down?

 

[Madeline]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

Terrorists are not aiming to confront our soldiers in battle, theHawk. They are aiming to attack our civilians on our soil.


2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

No, in some cases execution without trial would be fine with me -- but only when even a modicum of due process places US interests at risk.

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

These criminals were not captured by soldiers and likely were never at any risk of such. They were caught by the CIA and removed to GITMO.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

Any criminal who poses a grave threat to the community or a flight risk can be denied bail. I cannot imagine bail would ever even be considered for a suspected terrorist.

You see the slipperly slope we're going down?

Not so far, theHawk.

 

[Madeline]

The Infidel wrote:

The governmetn refused to carry out a proper trial.... The gov't pussed out!

It will be VERY ironic if maybe 5, 10, or however many yrs from now we find this guy at again.

They are winning b/c we reuse to treat the enemy... like the enemy.

What was improper about the trial that just ended?

How did the government "pussy out"?

In 5 or 10 years, the defendant will still be in a US prison. I'm not clear what your concern is.

How, exactly, do you see Al Quaeda as "winning"?

The criminal gang that attacked the US at its embassies and here on 9/11 are not "enemies", they are "criminals". When you use words like "enemy", you suggest they have some legitimate government somewhere that endorses their acts. They have none, anywhere on Planet Earth. These men are no different from the Mafia or a Columbian drug cartel....they have evil goals and they seek them by evil means. We have always been able to cope with their sort and IMO, we always will be.

 

[Si modo]

...
The defendant was found not guilty for only one reason -- he wasn't.
....

So have so many who have been found not guilty been truly not guilty in the past. OJ, Al Capone, Bill Ayers (who even says he's guilty as sin), John Gotti, etc.

What an utterly fucking stupid thing to say, Madeline.

And, no surprise.

 

[Si modo]

This is the problem associated with taking these assholes prisoner. If he had of been a statistic from the war, there would have never been a trial.

So if we catch them alive, we should just have mass executions with no sort of trials whatsoever whether they be military or civilian?

Not my problem if the ass hole goes for my weapon.

Exactly. And did the whiners give this a thought?

Doubtful.

I am really curious as to how many 'detainees' we have actually taken in the last two years. Not a peep in the press/MSM that I have seen.

 

[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?

Ex parte Quirin. I suggest as a good primer.

What nation-state are we at war with that they are acting on behalf or in the interests of? They are an international crime ring/cult. Fundamentally no different than the mob or the cult that attacked the tokyo subway.

You appear to keep sliding by the comments I have made regards why a tribunal is necessary

You've made no case as to why they're '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.....

Doesn't demonstrate your premise that we need military tribunals

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?

I'm pretty sure the women and children whose homes are destroyed or who lost their husbands and fathers as they were driving home would have a hard time seeing why McVeigh is bad but the guys who just firebombed an entire city are good.

You have your excuses and justifications for burning men, women, and children- Osama has his excuses and justifications for doing the same on 9/11. At the end of the day, the facts are the same: civilian non-combatants who had and wanted nothing to do with the conflict were slain in the name of some higher struggle or greater war against evil.

Same excuses and justifications for carrying out fundamentally the same actions. The only difference is where you happen to be born and who you were taught the good and the bad guys are.

You seem really desperate to avoid addressing those facts.

You seem to recognize there are differences in status

Yes... the British saw the FF as terrorists and criminals- they were not soldiers in a recognized army of a recognized nation. Naturally, those engaged in any given conflict seek to apply those labels to themselves and to the other side which serve their own purposes.

, 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....

Which takes us back to their being civilians from various nations who've attacked Americans- in the case of 9/11, on U.S. soil.

Tell me... if I were to go to the base and open fire, would you demand I receive a military tribunal? What if someone though I took orders from Gunny, which he sent via PM? Now we've an 'unlawful command authority'. Would the court system suddenly be unable to prosecute me for my crimes?

 

[JBeukema]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

1)Nobody said that
2)their reports can be entered into evidence
3)isn't the whole point of the intelligence community to gather evidence in order to determine who's involved in plots/attacks against the nation? Where's all the evidence they supposedly had of this guy's involvement?

2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

The only ones interested in show trials are those on the Right who want a quick 'Welcome. Guilty. Hang him' tribunals.

Of course, it never occurs to people that our foreign policy is a huge part of why we have this problem in the first place. When the British sent troops in response to the FF's complaints, did that not simply strengthen their resolve to fight?

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

Again, their reports can be entered.

There is a case to be made for tribunals for many of those captured. You touched on it. Yet that case isn't being made by the right, which reveals their true concerns.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

Lots of people are denied bail. See, for instance 'flight risk'

 

[JBeukema]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

Terrorists are not aiming to confront our soldiers in battle, theHawk. They are aiming to attack our civilians on our soil.

The distinction between AQ and the insurgents can be very blurry

 

[Dr Grump]

278 counts dropped 1 count stuck...yeah, civilian courts are a real bitch.

The fact that only one count stuck, tells you a lot...

 

[Dr Grump]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

You see the slipperly slope we're going down?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) What is your definition of red handed?
4) A serial killer or murderer is hardly ever allowed bail.
5) What slippery slope? Treating a person innocent until proven guilty? That slippery slope? Gee, how un-American of them...

 

[Meister]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

You see the slipperly slope we're going down?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) What is your definition of red handed?
4) A serial killer or murderer is hardly ever allowed bail.
5) What slippery slope? Treating a person innocent until proven guilty? That slippery slope? Gee, how un-American of them...

Oh brother....I bet a war would never be won doing it that way.

 

[Meister]

278 counts dropped 1 count stuck...yeah, civilian courts are a real bitch.

The fact that only one count stuck, tells you a lot...

It sure does Grump....it tells me that it could be so easily overturned on appeal. Then he walks out the door.
Ollie had a good post on why they shouldn't be tried in a civilian court. There may have been a lot of evidence that was classified that would have been presented in a Military Tribunal that couldn't have been entered in the civilian court.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
The criminal gang that attacked the US at its embassies and here on 9/11 are not "enemies", they are "criminals" * * * *

I snipped the rest of your post, Maddy, because that one sentence jumped off the page when I skimmed your post.

You are absolutely, totally, 100% wrong.

They are NOT mere criminals. They attacked an embassy. They did so AS terrorists to affect the actions and determinations of a government.

They are THE enemy.

It astounds me that you have it so completely backwards.

You seriously could not be more wrong if your goal was to be wrong.

 

[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.

What nation-state are we at war with that they are acting on behalf or in the interests of? They are an international crime ring/cult. Fundamentally no different than the mob or the cult that attacked the tokyo subway.



You've made no case as to why they're 'necessary'


Doesn't demonstrate your premise that we need military tribunals



I'm pretty sure the women and children whose homes are destroyed or who lost their husbands and fathers as they were driving home would have a hard time seeing why McVeigh is bad but the guys who just firebombed an entire city are good.

You have your excuses and justifications for burning men, women, and children- Osama has his excuses and justifications for doing the same on 9/11. At the end of the day, the facts are the same: civilian non-combatants who had and wanted nothing to do with the conflict were slain in the name of some higher struggle or greater war against evil.

Same excuses and justifications for carrying out fundamentally the same actions. The only difference is where you happen to be born and who you were taught the good and the bad guys are.

You seem really desperate to avoid addressing those facts.

You seem to recognize there are differences in status

Yes... the British saw the FF as terrorists and criminals- they were not soldiers in a recognized army of a recognized nation. Naturally, those engaged in any given conflict seek to apply those labels to themselves and to the other side which serve their own purposes.

, 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....

Which takes us back to their being civilians from various nations who've attacked Americans- in the case of 9/11, on U.S. soil.

Tell me... if I were to go to the base and open fire, would you demand I receive a military tribunal? What if someone though I took orders from Gunny, which he sent via PM? Now we've an 'unlawful command authority'. Would the court system suddenly be unable to prosecute me for my crimes?

I'm pretty sure the women and children whose homes are destroyed or who lost their husbands and fathers as they were driving home would have a hard time seeing why McVeigh is bad but the guys who just firebombed an entire city are good.

You have your excuses and justifications for burning men, women, and children- Osama has his excuses and justifications for doing the same on 9/11. At the end of the day, the facts are the same: civilian non-combatants who had and wanted nothing to do with the conflict were slain in the name of some higher struggle or greater war against evil.

Same excuses and justifications for carrying out fundamentally the same actions. The only difference is where you happen to be born and who you were taught the good and the bad guys are.

You seem really desperate to avoid addressing those facts.

when you surface some, then I will. you make it a fact that there is no difference ( see above) between a solider and a saboteur, terrorist etc. ....and collateral damage tragic as it is or victims of a larger war, bombing victims from berlin to Afghanistan etc, your strong emotional identification with and statements along these lines has no place in the argument unless you just want declare straight up that you see no difference, none zip zero between say; Zarqawai and private snuffy smith US Amy infantryman with a rifle...then we can just call it a day.


This has become a circular debate, so to be clear- I did mention twice, that rules in military tribunals used by the likes of fdr etc. for extra ordinary acts, a military tribunal has rules of evidence used in MT's ( as I stated we have had a MT already for Osamas driver) allows the introduction of sensitive information and use of evidence we gleaned from interrogation and /or including a myriad of sources that we don't wish to advertise because they are secret and sensitive ( ongoing intel sources in place) to the individuals still alive who cooperated with us in Africa and the ME that helped us get this guy.

McVeigh didn't require a MT because the circumstances were infinitely different as to were the investigation took place how it took place and the case which was brought. And for the record, if they had used a MT I would have had no heartburn over that at all.




and this-

Same excuses and justifications for carrying out fundamentally the same actions. The only difference is where you happen to be born and who you were taught the good and the bad guys are.

Moral relativism in a nutshell.
When nations declare war on each other and engage in combat all bets are pretty much off. They do have, as absurd as it may sound, rules.
You appear to attach to terrorists etc. some specialty that allows them or provides them some extra-ordinary protection, you don't want to or really don't see a difference between a guy in the nose of a B-17 over Berlin, or a guy in civilian clothes way outside any war zone etc. puts explosives in a car, parks it in front of a building and blows it up, they are in the grand scheme of things one and the same which means they should be treated exactly the same......thats a hollow and frankly incredible argument, the law [has] crafted and recognizes degree of harm and culpability etc. as it coded into our law and Intl. law.

exit question- do you object to the Nuremberg Tribunal?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I've had to have said this at least 100 times. The world changed on 9-11-01 and if we don't accept that as fact and do a little changing with it then this great experiment called the USA will fail.

For decades we treated terrorists as criminals, we said it was a police problem. President Bush, if nothing else, will be remembered as the President who made terrorism a Military problem, and declared the terrorist not criminals but the enemy. We need to remember that they want us dead, not just you and I, but our friends and families as well.

They are in deed and in fact our enemy.

 

[Immanuel]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

You see the slipperly slope we're going down?

I hate to say it that is better than the policy of "just shoot everyone you come in contact because they might be terrorists".

My apologies, but I have a frigging problem with treating every human being in the middle east as something to be squashed under our feet. If that is your intention then you guys may as well just send a frigging atomic bomb over there and get this thing over with.

Immie

 

[Intense]

I've had to have said this at least 100 times. The world changed on 9-11-01 and if we don't accept that as fact and do a little changing with it then this great experiment called the USA will fail.

For decades we treated terrorists as criminals, we said it was a police problem. President Bush, if nothing else, will be remembered as the President who made terrorism a Military problem, and declared the terrorist not criminals but the enemy. We need to remember that they want us dead, not just you and I, but our friends and families as well.

They are in deed and in fact our enemy.

Agreed. We need to distinguish between Act's of War, Illegal Act's of War, And Civil Crime.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

You're not "innocent" if you are fingered by other terrorists under interrogation techniques someone doesn't like.

Torture doesn't work, when you're tortured you'd sell your granny to save yourself

 

[Intense]

You're not "innocent" if you are fingered by other terrorists under interrogation techniques someone doesn't like.

Torture doesn't work, when you're tortured you'd sell your granny to save yourself

Didn't Obama even do that before being Tortured. Tortured by having to answer a direct question.