Will pending 9/11 trial prosecute Bush administration?

[WillowTree]

I remember cons saying that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Things look different now.

no they don't I double dog dare the left lunatics to put President Bush on trial.. The democrats won't see office for a hundred years! go for it!

 

[WillowTree]

Why are people so concerned about the rights of these guys. This was a terrorist act not the holdup of the corner liquor store. Why are we going out of our way to make sure that they are afforded rights that are there for our citizens not for the jack off who stay up late planning any way they can to wipe us out....

why would liberals pass up a chance to show their terrorist buddies how much they love them..

 

[driveby]

Whether they did or did not do anything wrong, they are not the ones that killed the 3000 people on 9/11. Seems you are more than happy to let those that did, walk, as long as you get 'revenge.'

Check this out, the analysis makes sense: http://www.usmessageboard.com/1719353-post127.html

Ah...it's revenge is it? Silly us. The U.S. legal system and using it as per the Bill of Rights is all about "revenge" against the government. Riiiiiiiiight.

Don't forget that these terrorists are not US citizens, and are not entitled to full Constitutional protections. The USSC got it wrong. I'd drop them off at the USSC and let them deal with them, assuming that they don't simply behead the USSC.

Agreed, KSM is a WAR CRIMINAL but the libtards, Obama and Holder want to treat this like he robbed a liquor store on Broadway and 5th, but then the criminal says police used excessive force when arresting him. Ar that point the arresting officer is on trial more than the criminal .....

 

[Annie]

I remember cons saying that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Things look different now.

Here's what you seem to be missing, who cares if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft are all indicted? But if those terrorists walk, watch out. Literally and politically.

 

[QUENTIN]

I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread on this:

195 terror suspects, including 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, have been tried in US criminal court since 2001. EVERY SINGLE ONE was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Laws against terrorism are extremely severe and easy to prosecute. None of the defendants got off, none escaped, none of their trials resulted in further terrorist attacks. Every other country in the world tries terrorist suspects in their normal judicial system. Our judicial system has proven time and again it is more than suited to prosecuting terrorism suspects.

Anyone who thinks these guys will walk, won't get life in supermax prison at the least, is genuinely, certifiably crazy.


http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/350.pdf

 

[Annie]

I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread on this:

195 terror suspects, including 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, have been tried in US criminal court since 2001. EVERY SINGLE ONE was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Laws against terrorism are extremely severe and easy to prosecute. None of the defendants got off, none escaped, none of their trials resulted in further terrorist attacks. Every other country in the world tries terrorist suspects in their normal judicial system. Our judicial system has proven time and again it is more than suited to prosecuting terrorism suspects.

Anyone who thinks these guys will walk, won't get life in supermax prison at the least, is genuinely, certifiably crazy.


http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/350.pdf

Where were they apprehended and under what circumstances? Who apprehended them? Was the crime scene kept?

 

[QUENTIN]

Only three terrorism suspects have been convicted in military commissions in the eight years
since they were first established. None of those convicted were considered high-level
terrorism suspects.

U.S. federal courts have convicted 195 terrorism suspects since 2001, including 9/11
conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid.

Since 2001, there is a 91% conviction rate for terrorism suspects charged in federal courts.
Among those suspects who were originally acquitted or had their charges dismissed after
arraignment, most were subsequently prosecuted and convicted pursuant to new
charges.

Terrorists convicted in federal courts are now imprisoned in U.S. supermax prisons, from
which no one has ever escaped.

Oh, but the military commissions! If we try them in court they'll attack again! They'll get off! It will throw America under the bus!

This has nothing to do with honest, legitimate concern because there is no reasonable basis for it and everything to do with partisan politicking.

 

[QUENTIN]

I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread on this:

195 terror suspects, including 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, have been tried in US criminal court since 2001. EVERY SINGLE ONE was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Laws against terrorism are extremely severe and easy to prosecute. None of the defendants got off, none escaped, none of their trials resulted in further terrorist attacks. Every other country in the world tries terrorist suspects in their normal judicial system. Our judicial system has proven time and again it is more than suited to prosecuting terrorism suspects.

Anyone who thinks these guys will walk, won't get life in supermax prison at the least, is genuinely, certifiably crazy.


http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/350.pdf

Where were they apprehended and under what circumstances? Who apprehended them? Was the crime scene kept?

Runs the gamut. Abroad, in the US, by foreign soldiers, American soldiers, foreign police, American police. In many cases, there was no "crime scene" as most were picked up based on suspicious activity, purchases, interaction with known terrorists, etc. rather than in the act of committing terrorist attacks.

 

[Annie]

I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread on this:

195 terror suspects, including 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, have been tried in US criminal court since 2001. EVERY SINGLE ONE was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Laws against terrorism are extremely severe and easy to prosecute. None of the defendants got off, none escaped, none of their trials resulted in further terrorist attacks. Every other country in the world tries terrorist suspects in their normal judicial system. Our judicial system has proven time and again it is more than suited to prosecuting terrorism suspects.

Anyone who thinks these guys will walk, won't get life in supermax prison at the least, is genuinely, certifiably crazy.


http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/350.pdf

Bi-Partisan? Hmm, yet they helped fund:

Commission on Accountability

Funding for both includes George Soros.

Bet you hate 'Faux News?'

 

[Modbert]

Annie gets fact thrown in her fact and goes to the classic "George Soros" conspiracy theory.

Quentin is right, there is already precedent in place. These terrorists will not walk off scot free or escape. Fools.

 

[Annie]

Annie gets fact thrown in her fact and goes to the classic "George Soros" conspiracy theory.

Quentin is right, there is already precedent in place. These terrorists will not walk off scot free or escape. Fools.

Right, with facts and link right back. To ignore the truth right in front of you. Pffft.

 

[QUENTIN]

I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread on this:

195 terror suspects, including 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, have been tried in US criminal court since 2001. EVERY SINGLE ONE was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Laws against terrorism are extremely severe and easy to prosecute. None of the defendants got off, none escaped, none of their trials resulted in further terrorist attacks. Every other country in the world tries terrorist suspects in their normal judicial system. Our judicial system has proven time and again it is more than suited to prosecuting terrorism suspects.

Anyone who thinks these guys will walk, won't get life in supermax prison at the least, is genuinely, certifiably crazy.


http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/350.pdf

Bi-Partisan? Hmm, yet they helped fund:

Commission on Accountability

Funding for both includes George Soros.

Bet you hate 'Faux News?'

Annie, that the facts you can easily independently verify are collected and reported on by a group with an ideological bent does not discredit their legitimacy or factual nature. Look at the sourcing. Everything in there is indisputably true and quite easy to double check, they've simply compiled it onto one fact sheet. Frankly, I don't know anything about the funding of that project, I do know that all those statements are accurate though. That's what I care about.

Fox News is certainly intentionally misleading. But when Fox reports that Barack Obama is the president of the US and lives in the White House, I don't assume that's not true just because it was reported on their channel. That'd be really specious reasoning.

In this case, but especially generally it is true that people on this forum need to stop citing sources as though that alone disproves a factual assertion. "Oh, you got it from Drudge! Or DailyKos! Automatically isn't true! lalala" Facts are facts regardless of who utilizes or broadcasts them. Each side will have ideological reasons for highlighting certain evidence, but if it is solid evidence, the fact that someone highlighted it for ideological reasons doesn't make it not so.

 

[chanel]

I hope for the families that jutice is served and this doesn't turn into a circus to score political points. But I have my doubts, and if these guys walk, I can't even fathom the division that will result in this country.

 

[Annie]

I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread on this:

195 terror suspects, including 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, have been tried in US criminal court since 2001. EVERY SINGLE ONE was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Laws against terrorism are extremely severe and easy to prosecute. None of the defendants got off, none escaped, none of their trials resulted in further terrorist attacks. Every other country in the world tries terrorist suspects in their normal judicial system. Our judicial system has proven time and again it is more than suited to prosecuting terrorism suspects.

Anyone who thinks these guys will walk, won't get life in supermax prison at the least, is genuinely, certifiably crazy.


http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/350.pdf

Bi-Partisan? Hmm, yet they helped fund:

Commission on Accountability

Funding for both includes George Soros.

Bet you hate 'Faux News?'

Annie, that the facts you can easily independently verify are collected and reported on by a group with an ideological bent does not discredit their legitimacy or factual nature. Look at the sourcing. Everything in there is indisputably true and quite easy to double check, they've simply compiled it onto one fact sheet. Frankly, I don't know anything about the funding of that project, I do know that all those statements are accurate though. That's what I care about.

Fox News is certainly intentionally misleading. But when Fox reports that Barack Obama is the president of the US and lives in the White House, I don't assume that's not true just because it was reported on their channel. That'd be really specious reasoning.

In this case, but especially generally it is true that people on this forum need to stop citing sources as though that alone disproves a factual assertion. "Oh, you got it from Drudge! Or DailyKos! Automatically isn't true! lalala" Facts are facts regardless of who utilizes or broadcasts them. Each side will have ideological reasons for highlighting certain evidence, but if it is solid evidence, the fact that someone highlighted it for ideological reasons doesn't make it not so.

A reasonable response, that admits bias, is worth checking your link, so I did. (Robert could use a lesson in reasonable responses). Heading, not that I was surprised:

Beyond Guantanamo: A Bipartisan Declaration
Fact Sheet

Now I read the 'facts' and I see the names of Kissinger et al. However, I'm not finding the links to the trials you are referring to. I'm familiar with Moussoui of course, but the others?

 

[QUENTIN]

Wait a minute. What you linked to isn't even the right group, Annie. Why did you link to the "Commission on Accountability" and point out that they were funded by George Soros?

The report I linked to was by The Constitution Project: Constitution Project > Home

Different groups, why did you link one as the other? The "Commission on Accountability" you're trying to discredit isn't even listed as a source on the Constitution Project's report. The report is well-sourced though and like I said, easily independently verifiable.

 

[QUENTIN]

Here's a brief rundown on the Constitution Project: Constitution Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm seeing no link with this "Commission on Accountability" nor link to Soros. Lots of conservatives and republicans helping run it though, and it does say it's non-profit and bipartisan.

 

[QUENTIN]

I hope for the families that jutice is served and this doesn't turn into a circus to score political points. But I have my doubts, and if these guys walk, I can't even fathom the division that will result in this country.

There is no reason, none, based on well-established precedent to think this has an even remote chance of happening.

Feel free to worry, but you're as well off saying "I can't even fathom the division that will result in this country if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow"

 

[QUENTIN]

Bi-Partisan? Hmm, yet they helped fund:

Commission on Accountability

Funding for both includes George Soros.

Bet you hate 'Faux News?'

Annie, that the facts you can easily independently verify are collected and reported on by a group with an ideological bent does not discredit their legitimacy or factual nature. Look at the sourcing. Everything in there is indisputably true and quite easy to double check, they've simply compiled it onto one fact sheet. Frankly, I don't know anything about the funding of that project, I do know that all those statements are accurate though. That's what I care about.

Fox News is certainly intentionally misleading. But when Fox reports that Barack Obama is the president of the US and lives in the White House, I don't assume that's not true just because it was reported on their channel. That'd be really specious reasoning.

In this case, but especially generally it is true that people on this forum need to stop citing sources as though that alone disproves a factual assertion. "Oh, you got it from Drudge! Or DailyKos! Automatically isn't true! lalala" Facts are facts regardless of who utilizes or broadcasts them. Each side will have ideological reasons for highlighting certain evidence, but if it is solid evidence, the fact that someone highlighted it for ideological reasons doesn't make it not so.

A reasonable response, that admits bias, is worth checking your link, so I did. (Robert could use a lesson in reasonable responses). Heading, not that I was surprised:

Beyond Guantanamo: A Bipartisan Declaration
Fact Sheet

Now I read the 'facts' and I see the names of Kissinger et al. However, I'm not finding the links to the trials you are referring to. I'm familiar with Moussoui of course, but the others?

It's a brief fact sheet, not a detailed breakdown of every single case. Like I said, there are ample links and it's all independently verifiable. If you'd like to know more about those 195 cases, I encourage you to research them.

 

[Annie]

Here's a brief rundown on the Constitution Project: Constitution Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm seeing no link with this "Commission on Accountability" nor link to Soros. Lots of conservatives and republicans helping run it though, and it does say it's non-profit and bipartisan.

I'm just looking for the cases. Padillia was arrested in US, sent to Gitmo, ordered for trial in US. I'm looking for people that were caught on the battlefield, and brought to US to stand trial.

I can think of those with Ft. Dix, arrested in US, tried in US. The Y2K attempt, arrested in US or maybe CA, but chain of evidence in tact. The wannabees down in FL. The al Qaeda guys right after 9/11, one in Peoria, one in Macomb, both hiding out near universities. But from the battlefield? I can't think of one.

 

[QUENTIN]

Here's a brief rundown on the Constitution Project: Constitution Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm seeing no link with this "Commission on Accountability" nor link to Soros. Lots of conservatives and republicans helping run it though, and it does say it's non-profit and bipartisan.

I'm just looking for the cases. Padillia was arrested in US, sent to Gitmo, ordered for trial in US. I'm looking for people that were caught on the battlefield, and brought to US to stand trial.

I can think of those with Ft. Dix, arrested in US, tried in US. The Y2K attempt, arrested in US or maybe CA, but chain of evidence in tact. The wannabees down in FL. The al Qaeda guys right after 9/11, one in Peoria, one in Macomb, both hiding out near universities. But from the battlefield? I can't think of one.

None were captured on the battlefield that I'm aware of. Many were arrested by foreigners and sent here, or arrested by our agents in foreign countries. Others arrested here by domestic police and security agencies. I'm not seeing the distinction without difference in how being captured on a nebulous "battlefield" (anywhere in a foreign country we are occupying) significantly changes things. What the 195 convictions demonstrate is that our court system is more than adept at trying AND CONVICTING terrorism suspects since 9/11.

You really should research the cases because in many instances, the only evidence was that one person was acquainted with another, or visited websites, or pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda without ever actually taking part in any terrorist activities. Yet they were convicted to supermax prison for life. For those behind 9/11 like KSM, well-known long time figures of Al-Qaeda, the fact that a tortured confession is potentially inadmissible won't cause so much as a dent in the prosecution's case. There is so much else to tie him to terrorism and assure an easy conviction.

One thing a lot of folks here seem to be forgetting is that the DOJ is only trying these high profile suspects in US courts, they've got a multi-tiered system of justice now including military commissions and even preventitive detention without trial to assure no one gets off (even the genuinely innocent). Holder has asserted the right to detain suspects EVEN IF they are found not guilty in a criminal court or military commission. The only reason this lot is being tried in NYC is because they're high profile and the case is a slam dunk. If there were any doubt about that, they'd still be rotting in a cage.

There is NO evidence or precedent to suggest they have any chance of getting off and a mountain that suggests otherwise. But even in the nigh impossible case that they're found not guilty, they'll still be held indefinitely. No one's walking free from this no matter what, that's been assured in advance which is why this is essentially a show trial.

Guantanamo - Salon.com (again, read the substance and the sources (mostly official and government), don't just poo-poo it off the bat because the writer works for a left-leaning site.

If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).