We find the defendant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Not Guilty

[Bill O'Olberman]

Whats wrong with U.S. citizens desiding the fate of the man whos being charged with helping to orchestrate the greatest terrorist attack carried out against U.S. citizens? It seems to me that having the people of this country hand down the sentence would be much more symbolic and just than any military court.

 

[tigerbob]

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

C'mon RW. Can't you just address the issue of whether a criminal trial is appropriate given the circumstances?

Let's just say, for the sake or argument, that Bush fucked up on all the points you have made above and that nothing can change that.

Given that scenario, is the decision to try him under criminal law appropriate, assuming that nobody wants the case thrown out on a technicality?

 

[Big Black Dog]

If this creep is found to be guilty, and let's say just for the sake of conversation that he gets an abode on death row, it will be years before he is actually put to death. Some justice, huh?

 

[uscitizen]

Bush screwed the pooch on something else and the right are whining for Obama to fix their mess.
Again...

 

[California Girl]

Hey, CG, why do you think the extremist right wing loons want this guy acquitted?

So that they can blame Obama, which is far more important than seeing justice done. The far left would also quite like to see them acquitted because they would much rather go after Bush.

Personally, I think military courts would be a more appropriate place to try these people.

 

[Ravi]

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.

We've convicted plenty of terrorists in civilian court that are now serving life without parole in supermax prisons.

Matter of fact, we have a better record of conviction and punishment in civilian court than we do with military tribunals (or whatever those things are called).

 

[tigerbob]

Bush screwed the pooch on something else and the right are whining for Obama to fix their mess.
Again...

Same question to you (post 22)

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

 

[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

C'mon RW. Can't you just address the issue of whether a criminal trial is appropriate given the circumstances?

Let's just say, for the sake or argument, that Bush fucked up on all the points you have made above and that nothing can change that.

Given that scenario, is the decision to try him under criminal law appropriate, assuming that nobody wants the case thrown out on a technicality?

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.

 

[uscitizen]

Bush screwed the pooch on something else and the right are whining for Obama to fix their mess.
Again...

Same question to you (post 22)

I have to wonder how many lawers have posted on this thread...

I am not a lawyer so I leave those things to those who are.

But imho bush screwed the pooch on the gitmo, waterboarding, hold indefinately things.
His actions on this were truely unamerican.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[jillian]

C'mon RW. Can't you just address the issue of whether a criminal trial is appropriate given the circumstances?

Let's just say, for the sake or argument, that Bush fucked up on all the points you have made above and that nothing can change that.

Given that scenario, is the decision to try him under criminal law appropriate, assuming that nobody wants the case thrown out on a technicality?

you think obtaining a confession by use of waterboarding is a "technicality"?

I don't.

But the way to get around it is not to use the confession. Presuimably they have enough admissible evidence to avoid that...

which would also serve the purpose of not allowing the defense to use the trial as a soap box.

 

[tigerbob]

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

C'mon RW. Can't you just address the issue of whether a criminal trial is appropriate given the circumstances?

Let's just say, for the sake or argument, that Bush fucked up on all the points you have made above and that nothing can change that.

Given that scenario, is the decision to try him under criminal law appropriate, assuming that nobody wants the case thrown out on a technicality?

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?

 

[jillian]

Hey, CG, why do you think the extremist right wing loons want this guy acquitted?

So that they can blame Obama, which is far more important than seeing justice done. The far left would also quite like to see them acquitted because they would much rather go after Bush.

Personally, I think military courts would be a more appropriate place to try these people.

I disagree about the "left"... but I have no doubt that there are people on both sides who would like to use this issue just so they can make a lot of noise. Personally, I'd like to see the loser convicted in an open court.

A military tribunal might have been ok six years ago, had they been granted POW status and all of the rights that go with that status.

I would prefer to see rules of evidence apply same as they did for every other terrorist we've tried.

 

[tigerbob]

C'mon RW. Can't you just address the issue of whether a criminal trial is appropriate given the circumstances?

Let's just say, for the sake or argument, that Bush fucked up on all the points you have made above and that nothing can change that.

Given that scenario, is the decision to try him under criminal law appropriate, assuming that nobody wants the case thrown out on a technicality?

you think obtaining a confession by use of waterboarding is a "technicality"?

I don't.

But the way to get around it is not to use the confession. Presuimably they have enough admissible evidence to avoid that...

which would also serve the purpose of not allowing the defense to use the trial as a soap box.

I though that when some evidence is inadmissible due to the manner in which it was gathered, this is generally known as a technicality? If you say no then I will of course concede the point - you would know more about this than I do. Though if I've used the wrong word, I suspect you still know what I'm talking about.

 

[tigerbob]

Hey, CG, why do you think the extremist right wing loons want this guy acquitted?

So that they can blame Obama, which is far more important than seeing justice done. The far left would also quite like to see them acquitted because they would much rather go after Bush.

Personally, I think military courts would be a more appropriate place to try these people.

I disagree about the "left"... but I have no doubt that there are people on both sides who would like to use this issue just so they can make a lot of noise. Personally, I'd like to see the loser convicted in an open court.

A military tribunal might have been ok six years ago, had they been granted POW status and all of the rights that go with that status.

I would prefer to see rules of evidence apply same as they did for every other terrorist we've tried.

Fair point, and I'd prefer as a point of principle to see all terrorists tried in criminal court, and was always (as far as I'm aware) done with the IRA. In the case of KSH, assuming the general view that the case should not be thrown out before it starts, I think we're clearly way past that point.

 

[bodecea]

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

Maybe they know that he'll be found not guilty, and that he will be released as a free man to walk down the front steps of the courthouse, thus allowing thousands of angry people the opportunity to bludgeon him into a pulp.

What can be more American than that?

 

[bodecea]

Also, since both Holder and Obama have given media interviews talking about "WHEN" he's found guilty, I would kind of expect a half decent defense lawyer to blow that word into a world of shit for the prosecution. Just sayin'.

It didn't work for Manson's lawyer...why would it work for them?

 

[rightwinger]

C'mon RW. Can't you just address the issue of whether a criminal trial is appropriate given the circumstances?

Let's just say, for the sake or argument, that Bush fucked up on all the points you have made above and that nothing can change that.

Given that scenario, is the decision to try him under criminal law appropriate, assuming that nobody wants the case thrown out on a technicality?

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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

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?