How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Fair....and slightly unbalanced???   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Fair....and slightly unbalanced???

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


25 posted 11-21-2009 06:22 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
but, look at what the Republicans are saying Grinch -- they don't want the trial in this country either -- because they're chickens!  They feel it would put America at too much risk.

I think they’re right Reb.
Some of the people outside the US that believe that he’ll be found guilty, that there’s no way he’ll be found innocent, will use that doubt as evidence that the trial was fixed. Even if he pleads guilty it will be claimed that he was coerced, forced or under the influence of drugs hypnotism or black magic. The conspiracy theories will abound along with a deep seated resentment among those that are less inclined to give the US the benefit of the doubt.
Propaganda is easily manufactured and readily believed when it’s aimed against people you already distrust.
Would you trust the judgement of an Iranian court 100% if the accused was American?
quote:
The air is rather too thin on Mars for a show trial one would think....

I was thinking closer to home LR. Closer to his home to be more exact - I’d try him in Iran with a Muslim Judge and Jury and a Muslim prosecution and defence. Give them the responsibility and opportunity to show the world that true Muslims are as committed to truth and justice as the next man.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


26 posted 11-21-2009 10:20 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“I was thinking closer to home LR. Closer to his home to be more exact - I’d try him in Iran with a Muslim Judge and Jury and a Muslim prosecution and defence. Give them the responsibility and opportunity to show the world that true Muslims are as committed to truth and justice as the next man.”


Why not Palestine, Gaza?
There’s the added advantage that all the media covering
the event would surely help the economy.


.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


27 posted 11-21-2009 10:32 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Why not Palestine, Gaza?

Because terrorist attacks to disrupt the proceedings are less likely in Iran.

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 11-21-2009 10:57 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I’d try him in Iran with a Muslim Judge and Jury and a Muslim prosecution and defence. Give them the responsibility and opportunity to show the world that true Muslims are as committed to truth and justice as the next man.



There was a time Grinch, after 9/11, when the world was standing behind the U.S.  When they held a candlelight vigil in Tehran for the U.S., when the Taliban offered to give us Osama Bin Laden if we would give them material evidence of his guilt and move him to a neutral country for trial.

But what we got was tough talk -- a war started by men who never went to war ostensibly against non-state actors, but nevertheless carried out against state governments instead -- a mess in Iraq, a mess in Afghanistan with a government that's no more credible than when we started, a skeptical world, a divided nation, and now a bunch of whimpering, whining, Republicans who are trying to peddle fear to try to keep Gitmo open as long as possible to try to embarrass this president and make it his problem instead of George W. Bush's.

Now we're left with this guy who's been waterboarded 183 times (because he's not a uniformed soldier that's part of a state army), held in captivity for years without trial outside the United States, who wants to go down as a general in an army.

Let's just try to imagine what the headlines would be if Eric Holder turned him over to Iran, now, for trial -- a country that wasn't harmed by the 9/11 attacks who's government is hostile toward the United States -- and let's try to imagine the outcome -- not of the trial -- but of the next Congressional election in the United States, and then the Presidential election in 2012 -- do you really think the world would be a better place with John Boenher as Speaker of the House, Mitch McConnel as Senate Majority Leader, and Sarah Palin as President of the United States with her hands on the worlds largest military and nuclear arsenal?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


29 posted 11-21-2009 10:58 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


.

“Because terrorist attacks to disrupt the proceedings are less likely in Iran”

Good point, I forgot about the IRGC,
nobody messes with them.

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


30 posted 11-21-2009 11:48 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
a country that wasn't harmed by the 9/11 attacks who's government is hostile toward the United States

It sounds ideal. He might get a fair and unbiased trial and America wouldn’t be implicated in any imagined conspiracy to influence the decision.
Or don’t you think he’d get a fair trial in Iran LR? I wouldn’t blame you if that was the case, almost every Muslim I’ve spoken to doesn’t believe he’ll get one in New York either.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


31 posted 11-21-2009 03:42 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Actually, Grinch, it would give the man less of a fair trial than he'd get here, as I think you know, so it would be a deeply ironic gesture both toward Iran and the United States.  As somebody who's more hopeful for the United States, I'd rather that the current government had its chance.  I also like your point about the Taliban.  They got in our way in our rush for war.  We could have had Osama on trial in a neutral country and history could have been very different.  I simply think it didn't fit in with GB's plans at the time.

     There is a chance that KSM will get off if he goes on trial.  Why wouldn't there be?  The way that the evidence was collected was corrupt and disgusting and is constitutional only by the merest wisp of the the fantasy of the more draconian of our judges.  Heaven knows what conditions were in which the man was imprisoned and how they fit with any notion of legality.  The conditions of his arrest may have legal precedent, but all these comments about getting off on technicalities is simply shorthand acknowledging that we tortured the man and are afraid that that might get in the way of trying him in some sort of clean way.

     We're not talking about DNA evidence, here as a technicality, we're talking about behavior on the part of our government.  I'd hope that tortures and beatings are not mere technicalities.  I hope that this trial tries to deal with that bad business .  As for the crime  I think KSM undoubtedly committed,  he's guilty in my book.  Now the problem is whether or not our behavior has been so far outside the spirit and letter of our own laws that we will actually have the standing to convict him of them?

     This isn't a mere technicality.

     I suspect that the reason that KSM and Tim McVeigh aren't supposed to be tried in military tribunals is that both incidents are classified as crimes on the soil of the United States, and the military does not have jurisdiction on the soil of the United States unless martial Law is declared.  Military jurisdiction on U.S. soil is pretty limited, or at least has been.  I don't know that this is still so with the PATRIOT ACT now in place.

     For Grinch, as far as I know, there is no verdict of "innocent," insofar as I know, in American courts.  There is only  "Guilty" or "not Guilty."  This reflects the bias the courts are supposed to have that says the prosecution is supposed to prove its case and it either does prove it, or it does not.  I suspect that it also reflects the reality that once you brush with the court system, folks may tend to wonder whether the court got it right or not.  Nobody gets away untouched.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 11-21-2009 06:26 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists, writers, and NGOs. The United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission have condemned prior and ongoing abuses in Iran in published critiques and several resolutions.

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments that follow the Islamic Republic's constitution and law, and for actions that do not, such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians.

Restrictions and punishments lawful in the Islamic Republic which violate international human rights norms include: harsh penalties for crimes; amputation of offenders' hands and feet; punishment of "victimless crimes" such as fornication, beatings of Iranian citizens for expressing speech in public places,[1] homosexuality, apostasy, poor hijab (covering of the head for women); execution of offenders under 18 years of age; restrictions on freedom of speech, and the press, including the imprisonment of journalists; unequal treatment according to religion and gender in the Islamic Republic's constitution - especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion.

Reported abuses falling outside of the laws of the Islamic Republic that have been condemned include the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes.[2] Also condemned has been firebombings of newspaper offices and attacks on political protesters by "quasi-official organs of repression," particularly "Hezbollahi," and the murder of dozens of regime opponents in the 1990, allegedly by "rogue elements" of the government.

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly" according to the group Human Rights Watch,[3] and following the 2009 election protests there were reports of torture, rape and killing of detained protesters,[4][5] and the arrest and publicized mass trials of dozens of prominent opposition figures in which defendents "read confessions that bore every sign of being coerced." [6][7][8]

Officials of the Islamic Republic have responded to criticism by stating the IRI is not obliged to follow "the West's interpretation" of human rights,"[9] and that the Islamic Republic is a victim of "biased propaganda of enemies" which is "part of a greater plan against the world of Islam."[10] Those who human rights activists say are peaceful political activists being denied due process rights are actually committing Offenses Against the National and International Security of the Country.[11] and those protesters claiming Ahmadinejad stole the 2009 election are actually part of a foreign-backed plot to topple Iran's leaders.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran



The question Grinch -- is why do you think KSM would be tried fairly in Iran -- and more importantly -- if 99% of the American people don't think it would be fair then it doesn't pass your litmus test for an acceptable outcome.

Water has been found on the moon -- but I'm fearful that the terraforming process will be too slow to meet the Constitutional requirement for a speedy trial.

I imagine that one of the very first motions filed by the defense will be for a change of venue -- so the case might be moved to Pennsylvania or Washington D.C. -- but I seriously doubt that.

Defense will have full power of peremptory challenge at voir dire and an impartial jury will be empaneled -- the trial will be public -- we'll be able to hear KSM's plea and his defense -- and as the Republicans are complaining so loudly -- he will have all the rights afforded those accused of a crime in the United States of America by the Constitution.  If his defense lawyers and he can convince those 12 ordinary people that the state has no case against him -- then he will go free -- it's as simple as that.

If only our own nationals accused of crimes elsewhere enjoyed those same rights!  

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


33 posted 11-21-2009 08:45 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
why do you think KSM would be tried fairly in Iran

You answered your own question Reb.
quote:
If only our own nationals accused of crimes elsewhere enjoyed those same rights!

Americans naturally don’t believe an American would get justice in an Iranian court, guess what, Muslims look at your country in the same way. It doesn’t matter whether they, or you for that matter, are right; it’s the perception that counts.
If KSM was found guilty in America there isn’t a Muslim alive that wouldn’t harbour at least some doubts, however small, that the trial was fair and above board. The more radical and militant among them would have no doubt at all that it was a sham and that’s a terrorist recruiters dream. If an Iranian court finds him guilty the chances of acceptance among Muslims is greatly increased.

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


34 posted 11-21-2009 10:48 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Americans naturally don’t believe an American would get justice in an Iranian court,



Do you believe that a British national would get justice in an Iranian court?  In an American court?  Where would you prefer to stand trial?

quote:

guess what, Muslims look at your country in the same way. It doesn’t matter whether they, or you for that matter, are right; it’s the perception that counts.



What on earth would have made you perceive that any of this is news to me Grinch?  And it's exactly those perceptions, 'naturally', that make Iran in particular the most ridiculous choice you could possibly make.

Of course if you were actually serious -- you'd be looking for a more neutral Muslim court if you think a Muslim court is required -- but I notice that your Lockarbie Bomber trial -- that wasn't exactly a Muslim court now was it?

And last time I checked -- our old 'friend' Muammar is much more moderate toward the West than in days of old.

Islam respects a justice system like America's.  Islam developed very sophisticated justice systems in centuries past -- it's unfortunate the condition that we would find most of them in now -- but this trial will go a long way toward repairing the damage that's been done to America's image abroad -- in the West, East, and Middle East.  

But what I would like for my friends on the right to observe very carefully is the depth of tarnish the Liberty Bell has acquired abroad -- when our closest allies -- and the only ones that have really been dirtying their own hands in Iraq and Afghanistan -- don't believe that KSM can get a fair trial in America.  Bravo.  Way to go.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


35 posted 11-22-2009 03:07 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I don't know that a fair trial is actually possible, with the pretrial conditions and publicity that have been generated.  It's not clear to me, though, that a fair trial could be had anyplace.  That doesn't mean that he shouldn't have a trial with conditions that are as close to fair and unbiased as the law can provide; and that means that a lot of pretrial motions are going to be very controversial, especially about what evidence the jury can and cannot hear and what they may take into account in coming to a verdict.

     Is evidence gathered under torture "fruit from a poisoned tree" and therefore to be excluded?  It's only one of several possible questions awaiting possible rulings.  Is this a speedy trial?  What has the extended imprisonment and KSM's treatment during that time done to his ability to aid in his defense?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


36 posted 11-22-2009 06:03 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Of course if you were actually serious -- you'd be looking for a more neutral Muslim court if you think a Muslim court is required

I can’t think of another Muslim country that could return a guilty verdict and not be accused of being a pawn of, or pressurised by, the American government. That’s what’s needed here. If KSM was found guilty by a totally independent Muslim court everyone – including all those terrorists in waiting - would believe, without doubt, that he must be guilty.
quote:
but I notice that your Lockarbie Bomber trial -- that wasn't exactly a Muslim court now was it

No the Lockerbie case wasn’t heard in a Muslim court, in hindsight perhaps it should have been, it was held in the Netherlands though to at least give it the hint of neutrality and due, in part, to the perception that the accused couldn’t get a fair trial in the US or UK.
quote:
Islam respects a justice system like America's.

You’re joking, right? Extraordinary renditions, abuse of prisoners, forced imprisonment without trial, torture and kangaroo courts behind closed doors run by the military – I don’t know a single Muslim, and living near one of the largest Muslim communities in the UK I know quite a few, that respects the American justice system.
Even some Americans don’t trust it – OJ ring any bells?
quote:
Do you believe that a British national would get justice in an Iranian court?

No.
quote:
In an American court?

No.
  
quote:
Where would you prefer to stand trial?

In a UK court judged by a jury of my peers - how about you?

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


37 posted 11-22-2009 10:25 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

In a UK court judged by a jury of my peers - how about you?



I prefer that you answer the question that I asked -- which was -- would you prefer to stand before a U.S. Court or an Iranian Court?

In which country would you prefer to have been accused of committing a crime?

Of course you've already answered all my questions -- you don't believe that a British national would get a fair trial in an Iranian court -- so why should the United States turn over KSM to Iran for trial?

You aren't presenting a serious argument.

quote:

You’re joking, right? Extraordinary renditions, abuse of prisoners, forced imprisonment without trial, torture and kangaroo courts behind closed doors run by the military – I don’t know a single Muslim, and living near one of the largest Muslim communities in the UK I know quite a few, that respects the American justice system.
Even some Americans don’t trust it – OJ ring any bells?



Again, you're joking.  Moving KSM out of all of the violations of American law you mention is what you decry.   So which is it?  

Three options

a)The American Constitution with a presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, an impartial jury, right to representation, right of appeal, right to face accusers,  right not to incriminate oneself, right not to be tortured or coerced to testify

b) a Military tribunal with all the offenses perpetrated by the Bush administration

c) trial on the moon.  

Which do you pick?

The people who would criticize the O.J. trial do so because they presume that a guilty man went free -- because of the very rights afforded to defendants in the American justice system.  So what is your argument exactly?


quote:

I can’t think of another Muslim country that could return a guilty verdict and not be accused of being a pawn of, or pressurised by, the American government. That’s what’s needed here. If KSM was found guilty by a totally independent Muslim court everyone – including all those terrorists in waiting - would believe, without doubt, that he must be guilty.



And certainly you've already agreed that no American (or even you) is going to feel that the Iranian court is going to impartially try KSM.  So if there is no consensus on your ideal change of venue to one that everyone is going to agree is impartial -- what's your next move?

quote:

Is evidence gathered under torture "fruit from a poisoned tree" and therefore to be excluded?  It's only one of several possible questions awaiting possible rulings.  Is this a speedy trial?  What has the extended imprisonment and KSM's treatment during that time done to his ability to aid in his defense?



Good question -- but the first one we need answered is what is KSM's plea going to be in federal court?  If he's merely going to persist in pleading guilty -- there will be no jury to hear evidence at all.

quote:

According to the WSJ’s Jess Bravin, a threshold question awaits. That is, will KSM confess to orchestrating attacks? A yes to such a move, of course, would make his case relatively easy for prosecutors. Bravin writes that if Mohammed acts to speed his own execution and await what he asserts is glorious martyrdom with a guilty plea in federal court, that would bypass a trial, eliminate the need to select a jury and lead to sentencing probably before the end of 2010.

Perkins Coie’s Harry Schneider, who helped defend Osama bin Laden’s former driver, in a military commission, thinks a confession is the likeliest scenario.

“I think the most likely scenario is these guys don’t make any bones about it and they confess their involvement,” said Schneider, who helped defend Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, in a military commission. “They are proud of what they did.”

That said, writes Bravin, if Mohammed works with his American lawyers to stall the case, he has plenty of tools at his disposal, criminal lawyers say.

David Kelley, a Manhattan U.S. attorney under George W. Bush now at Cahill Gordon, says “first and foremost” among the issues Mohammed could raise is the conduct of the government.

According to government documents, Mohammed faced waterboarding 183 times while in government detention. Defense lawyers could seek to have the case dismissed because of the harsh treatment. Kelley said it was hard to conceive of a federal judge dismissing the charges, but the judge might take more seriously defense challenges claiming that detainee statements were coerced.

“The government has lots of information about these folks. The challenge is converting that information into admissible information under the rules of evidence,” Mr. Kelley said.

The “forced confession” tactic was echoed in this NYT article from the weekend. If the Justice Department does try to introduce evidence that the defense lawyers argue was coerced by torture, “I think that we’re going to shine a light on something that a lot of people don’t want to look at,” Denny LeBoeuf, an ACLU lawyer who led the group’s efforts in Guantánamo capital cases, told the NYT.  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/11/16/looming-ksm-questions-will-he-confess-get-       the-death-penalty/



But there is one question I'm eagerly awaiting to hear before the court -- and that is -- are you KSM the accused?

From October 2002:
quote:

KARACHI - Ever since the frenzied shootout last month on September 11 in Karachi there have been doubts over whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed head of al-Qaeda's military committee, died in the police raid on his apartment.

Certainly, another senior al-Qaeda figure, Ramzi Binalshibh, widely attributed as being the coordinator of the September 11 attacks on the United States a year earlier, was taken alive and handed over to the US. The latest information is that he is on a US warship somewhere in the Gulf.

Now it has emerged that Kuwaiti national Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did indeed perish in the raid, but his wife and child were taken from the apartment and handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in whose hands they remain.

Sources close to Pakistani intelligence agents say that the wife, under intense interrogation, has revealed information that is likely to lead to a new crackdown in Pakistan, as well as in Southeast Asia.

After the Taliban and al-Qaeda were routed in Afghanistan at the end of 2001, many fled to Pakistan to regroup and set up new cells. One of these, as described in Asia Times Online, From the al-Qaeda puzzle, a picture emerges, was in Karachi, with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as its head.

Initially, the joint ISI-FBI plan was to take Shaikh Mohammed alive so that he could be grilled, especially as he was believed to have knowledge of other al-Qaeda cells in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and elsewhere. However, as a plainclothed officer climbed the stairs toward the third-floor apartment, a hand grenade was thrown, and he retreated. Reinforcements then arrived, and for the next few hours a fierce gun battle blazed.

The FBI, still keen to take Shaikh Mohammed alive, teargassed the area, and a number of people were captured. However, despite instructions to the contrary, a few Pakistan Rangers entered the flat, where they found Shaikh Mohammed and another man, allegedly with their hands up. The Rangers nevertheless opened fire on the pair.

Later, the Pakistani press carried pictures of a message scrawled in blood on the wall of the flat, proclaiming the Muslim refrain of Kalma, in Arabic: "There is no God except Allah, Mohammed is his messenger"). An official who was present in the flat at the time of the shooting has told Asia Times Online that the message was written by Shaikh Mohammed with his own blood as his life drained from him.

Subsequently, to their surprise, the raiders learned that Ramzi Binalshibh had been netted in the swoop. And nothing further was said of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

But now it emerges that an Arab woman and a child were taken to an ISI safe house, where they identified the Shaikh Mohammed's body as their husband and father. The body was kept in a private NGO mortuary for 20 days before being buried, under the surveillance of the FBI, in a graveyard in the central district of Karachi. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html



The question remains -- were the detainees at Gitmo really who we were told they were -- and is this one of the dark secrets some don't want admitted in a public trial?

What a tangled web Bushco weaved.

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (11-22-2009 11:01 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


38 posted 11-22-2009 02:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


This in a way reminds me of a story by Chekhov
in which the people of a town refuse to convict
an accused caught with damning evidence of the murder
of their beloved old doctor because they find it
inconceivable that anyone would kill a man so good,
only here the underlying theme seems to be that
a nation and/or its government is so blameworthy
that any even admitted mass murder of its citizens
by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his kind must
have thereby been for good reason and therefore
they are innocent. . .  Indeed, instead, every aid
should be given to assist any civil litigation to gain them
substantial compensation for their detention.


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-22-2009 04:58 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 11-22-2009 03:56 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Even non sequitur
laden with free
enterprise captain kirk
makes krauthamer
look at nails
on a blackboard
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


40 posted 11-22-2009 05:11 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

NEW YORK  —  The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576219,00.html


Oops

Try to keep in mind that 911 was at least two years in the making
which was some time before Adolph Bush was president . . .
.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


41 posted 11-22-2009 05:38 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I prefer that you answer the question that I asked -- which was -- would you prefer to stand before a U.S. Court or an Iranian Court?

As a Muslim I’d prefer the Iranian Court.

quote:
You aren't presenting a serious argument.

Sorry I thought I was.
Muslims do not trust America to give KSM a fair trial. If KSM is found guilty in an American court that mistrust will be used to fuel hatred against the United States and recruit more terrorists. Muslims prefer Sharia law, if KSM is found guilty by a Muslim court all Muslims will accept the findings.


quote:
Three options

a)The American Constitution with a presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, an impartial jury, right to representation, right of appeal, right to face accusers,  right not to incriminate oneself, right not to be tortured or coerced to testify

b) a Military tribunal with all the offenses perpetrated by the Bush administration

c) trial on the moon.  

Which do you pick?

d) KSM is tried in a Muslim court where the verdict isn’t used as recruiting tool for radical terrorists.
quote:
And certainly you've already agreed that no American (or even you) is going to feel that the Iranian court is going to impartially try KSM.  So if there is no consensus on your ideal change of venue to one that everyone is going to agree is impartial -- what's your next move?

I believe KSM would get as fair a trial in Iran as he would in the US, the only difference is that a guilty verdict from only one of those would be perceived by Muslims to be 100% trustworthy.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 11-22-2009 07:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Try to keep in mind that 911 was at least two years in the making
which was some time before Adolph Bush was president . . .


John, do you realize you're saying that it was planned during Slick Willie's time???

Maybe that's why Bin Laden stated that they were encouraged by the US lack of action concerning the Cole bombing, so much so that they decided to go ahead with 9/11.
.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


43 posted 11-22-2009 07:18 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I don’t believe in god or fairies btw. http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum8/HTML/000798-2.html#25



quote:

As a Muslim I’d prefer the Iranian Court.



So then are you saying that you are an atheist of Muslim heritage -- or that you're a recent convert to Islam?

quote:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN)  -- The European Union, France and Britain denounced Iran's ongoing mass trial after two embassy employees and a French citizen appeared in court Saturday on charges related to post-presidential election violence.

The French and British embassy employees and a French scholar were among 100 defendants who appeared in Tehran's Revolutionary Court as a mass trial of Iranians and others resumed Saturday.

The EU presidency, currently held by Sweden, said Iran will be held responsible.

"The presidency reiterates that actions against one EU country -- citizen or embassy staff -- is considered an action against all of EU, and will be treated accordingly," the European Union said in a statement. "The EU will closely follow the trial and demand that the persons will be released promptly."

Britain's Foreign Office also denounced the proceedings, calling them an "outrage."

Among those named in court Saturday were Clotilde Reiss, a French academic working in Iran, and Nazak Afshar, an employee of the French embassy in Tehran.

France called for the release of both women, saying the charges against them are unfounded.

"France also stands against the conditions of that [court] appearance," the French foreign ministry said. "The embassy was not informed in advance nor permitted to attend the hearing, in accordance with international rules of consular protection. We regret that Ms. Clotilde Reiss and Ms. Afshar are not being assisted by a lawyer."

The semiofficial Fars News Agency said Reiss admitted to her crimes in court Saturday and asked for clemency.

"I shouldn't have participated in the illegal demonstration and shouldn't have sent the pictures, I am regretful," Fars quoted her as saying. "I apologize to the Iranian people and court and I hope the people and the court forgive me."

Human rights groups and Iran's opposition leaders have accused the government of coercing such confessions.

An analyst for the British embassy in Iran also was put on trial Saturday, the British Foreign Office said. Hossein Rassam was one of several British Embassy employees who were arrested.

"This is completely unacceptable and directly contradicts assurances we have repeatedly been given by Iranian officials," a British Foreign Office spokesman said.

Fars reported that Saturday's trial was for a second group of people accused of involvement in the unrest. The first trial was August 1.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/08/iran.detainee.trials/index.html




If that's the court that you'd rather stand in Grinch -- then that's your choice.  If I were a British citizen I'd take this one:

quote:

The presiding judge was Hiller B. Zobel. The prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorney Gerald Leone, presented eight physicians involved in Matthew Eappen's care, including a neurosurgeon, an ophthalmologist, a radiologist, two pathologists and an expert in child abuse, who testified to their belief that his injuries had occurred as a result of violent shaking and from his head impacting with a hard surface. The defense challenged this, among other things, on the grounds that there were no neck injuries to Matthew Eappen—injuries that would have been expected if he had been violently shaken. The prosecution had also claimed initially that Matthew Eappen's impact injuries were the equivalent of having been thrown from a two-story building, but they equivocated over this claim as the trial progressed. The defence presented expert medical testimony that the infant's injury may have occurred three weeks before the date of death, implying that the parents, Sunil and Deborah Eappen, were as fully implicated by circumstances as Woodward. There were old wrist injuries to the infant that may have been incurred before Woodward even arrived at the house. Woodward, however, admitted under cross-examination that she never noticed any slight bumps, marks or any unusual behavior by the baby at any time prior to the night he was taken to hospital.

The lead counsel at Woodward's trial, and the architect of her medical and forensic defence, was Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project. As part of the defence strategy, Woodward's attorneys requested that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter (what the law calls a lesser included offense), and instead either convict her of murder or find her not guilty.

On 30 October 1997, after 26 hours of deliberations, the jury found her guilty of second-degree murder. She faced a sentence of a minimum of 15 years to life in prison under Massachusetts' law.

The conviction had a side effect on killing legislation in Massachusetts to restore capital punishment.[1]
[edit] Appeal

Woodward's legal team filed post-conviction motions to the trial court, and the hearing opened on 4 November. In the days following the verdict it emerged that the jury had been split about the murder charge, but those who had favoured an acquittal were persuaded to accept a conviction. This fact was of no legal consequence, however. None of the jury "thought she tried to murder him," one member said.

On 10 November, at a post-conviction relief hearing, Judge Hiller B. Zobel reduced the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, stating that "the circumstances in which the defendant acted were characterised by confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity and some anger, but not malice in the legal sense supporting a conviction for second-degree murder," adding: "I am morally certain that allowing this defendant on this evidence to remain convicted of second-degree murder would be a miscarriage of justice".[2][3]

Judge Zobel's decision to release his findings simultaneously online and in print was widely misinterpreted as an Internet first. He made history for the wrong reason when a power outage delayed the e-mailing of his judgment to the media.

Woodward's sentence was reduced to time served (279 days) and she was freed. Assistant District Attorney Gerald Leone then appealed the judge's decision to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Woodward's lawyers also asked the court to throw out her manslaughter conviction. The court affirmed the guilty verdict and the reduction in conviction to involuntary manslaughter by a 7-0 vote. In a close, 4-3 split decision the court rejected the prosecution's appeal against the reduction of the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, and the sentence 16 June 1998. Woodward then returned to the United Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward




quote:

Muslims do not trust America to give KSM a fair trial. If KSM is found guilty in an American court that mistrust will be used to fuel hatred against the United States and recruit more terrorists.



Unfortunately Grinch --a military tribunal or a Sarah Palin administration would go much farther toward the recruitment of terrorists than allowing the Gitmo 5 to stand trial in New York.  So, the greater logic resides with a public and constitutional U.S. trial.

quote:

I believe KSM would get as fair a trial in Iran as he would in the US, the only difference is that a guilty verdict from only one of those would be perceived by Muslims to be 100% trustworthy.



But if Americans wouldn't accept an Iranian trial Grinch -- then what good does your premise do?  I understand you're looking for neutral ground -- but it is your persistence in trying to persuade us that Iran is neutral that's causing you to not be taken seriously.

As John has pointed out in his article from Fox news -- these guys are going to have their day in court -- they will get to say what they want to say -- they aren't going to deny what they've done.  How does it get any fairer than that?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


44 posted 11-22-2009 08:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If I understand things correctly, the Iranians are as upset with the Al Qaeda folks as we are, though for very different reasons involving a millennium old religious split.  They're not thrilled with the Saudis, either.  They had a war with Iraq because Iraq at the time was being run by Sunni folks and there was not a lot of goodwill there, and none between the Iranians and Saddam.  The notion of KSM getting a fair trial in Iran is not something that seems very likely to me.  They may not be thrilled with the United States, but they were willing to share intelligence with us, and did, apparently, when it came to al Qaeda at the beginning of the 2nd Gulf war.

     All Muslims are not interchangeable, any more than all Christians are.

     I suspect that putting the man on trial in any Muslim country other than one that would be willing to let him off before the trial began — I'm thinking maybe Libya, here — would quite possibly tear that country apart.  Despite the complaining, I doubt you'd see any "neutral" muslim countries step up to the plate for fear of internal chaos.  If such a thing had happened right after 9/11, I believe you'd have had lots of volunteers among them — though you can't really prove that; it's hindsight.  

     I think we're trying to do the thing that the closest to the Just thing that we can come up with.  What is Just is not always the most cheerful, the happiest or most delicious thing; it is only the thing that is the most Just.  That would be Just for everybody, right?, not simply for one party.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 11-22-2009 08:35 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

In a UK court judged by a jury of my peers



Sure about that?

quote:

He discovers that for many in the Muslim community, Britain is becoming a very frightening place. Dispatches meets a range of British Muslims who now live in daily fear, some because their homes are constantly vandalised, others because they or family have suffered devastatingly violent attacks.

An exclusive ICM opinion poll commissioned for Dispatches reveals the extent to which Muslims have experienced hostility, abuse and prejudice since 7/7. The same poll also reveals the general public's attitudes towards Islam and relations with Muslims.

Since the bombings there has understandably been much press coverage of the attacks and other terrorist incidents. Oborne investigates whether this coverage has had the side-effect of portraying Islam and British Muslims in a relentlessly negative fashion, leading to the demonization of a diverse group of two million people, most of whom have nothing to do with terrorism.

Dispatches commissioned a sophisticated study of press coverage from Cardiff University's School of Journalism. The research examined articles published in the British press over the last eight years and their depiction of Muslims and Islam. The troubling results of the study are revealed in the film.

Oborne also investigates the sources and accuracy of a rash of press stories that have entered the public consciousness - such as a London council 'banning Christmas' out of deference to Muslims and a 'Muslim hate mob' wrecking a house rented to returning soldiers from Afghanistan.

Oborne concludes that in today's climate the media say things about Islam and Muslims they would never say about other groups. When he replaces the word' 'Muslim' in some recent headlines with 'Jews', 'Blacks' and 'Gays' and shows them to members of the public, they find those headlines deeply offensive. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/it+shouldnt+happen+to+a+muslim/2314592  



quote:



Britain's high court has ruled that more secret information relating to the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, should be disclosed.

Mohamed, a UK resident born in Ethiopia, claims the United States and Britain were complicit in his torture in Pakistan and Morocco.

His lawyers are pressing for the UK to release a seven-paragraph summary of US intelligence files on his detention, a document he claims proves Britain's complicity.

Thursday's high court ruling concerned four paragraphs from an earlier court judgment that the government says reveal the content of the secret material in the seven-paragraph summary.

Lord Justice John Thomas and Justice David Lloyd Jones said the paragraphs, which relate to how Mohamed was treated while in custody, should not be kept secret.

"Of itself, the treatment to which Mr Mohamed was subjected could never properly be described in a democracy as 'a secret' or an 'intelligence secret' or 'a summary of classified intelligence," they said in their ruling.

Lawyers for David Miliband, Britain's foreign minister, have argued that releasing the information would harm the UK's national security and its relations with Washington.

Clare Algar, executive director of Reprieve, a UK-based legal action charity, said it was "truly bizarre" that Miliband was seeking to withold the information since much of it was already in the public domain.

"The government's obsession with secrecy is starting to feel like a hall of mirrors," Algar said.

"Nobody believes that disclosure will upset the US when the very same information has already been disclosed by the Obama administration."

Edward Davey, the foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrat Party, said: "The government's claim that this evidence would endanger national security looks more flimsy than ever.

"David Miliband must end this shameful episode now and allow the judges to publish the redacted material from their judgment.

"It is especially galling that the foreign office has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in an attempt to cover up the truth."

The foreign ministry is appealing against the release of the seven-paragraph summary, as well as Thursday's ruling, and the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on 14, 15 and 16 December. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/11/2009111917335749407.html


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


46 posted 11-22-2009 09:44 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Muslims do not trust America to give KSM a fair trial. If KSM is found guilty in an American court that mistrust will be used to fuel hatred against the United States and recruit more terrorists. Muslims prefer Sharia law, if KSM is found guilty by a Muslim court all Muslims will accept the findings.

Muslims who prefer Sharia law should probably confine their crimes to countries other than the United States. I also don't think the American judicial system should be used as a tool for political propaganda. The goal of a trial shouldn't be to placate enemies, but to serve the interests of justice. Whether it fuels hatred against the United States shouldn't, in my opinion, ever be an issue. On the contrary, I think an awful lot of that hate is predicated on a history of trying to do what's been expedient when we should, instead, be trying to do what's right. Sometimes, I know, that's not always black and white.

Sometimes, though, it is. And this, I believe, is one of those times.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


47 posted 11-23-2009 04:20 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
So then are you saying that you are an atheist of Muslim heritage -- or that you're a recent convert to Islam?

I’m an atheist, as most people who’ve been here any length of time will know.

You seemed to be finding it difficult to understand that asking an English atheist which legal system she trusted was a pointless question – I already explained that people naturally place the most trust in their own systems and that Muslims were no different in that regard, so I borrowed the shoes of some of my friends and work colleagues and answered your question as a Muslim would.

How does it get any fairer than that?

You still seem to be missing the point Reb. You can be as fair as fair can be, you can follow as close to the letter of the law as you like, you could get the Pope and his brother to swear on a stack of bibles that everything was above board but most Muslims simply won’t believe you. There’s nothing you can do or say to change the fact that some people don’t trust anything that Americans say or do any more, the sad thing is that that way of thinking isn’t restricted to Muslims. I’m not sure if you actually realise how much the actions of your country over the past few years has damaged your image outside America. The consensus of opinion from the people I’ve asked, both Muslim and non-Muslim, is that KSM will be found guilty whether he’s guilty or not and there’s no way you can change that perception over the short term.
The damage is done LR, you can whistle at the wind as loud as you like about how fair the trial is going to be – nobody outside the US is listening. The western world will smile and mumble that you did the “right” thing and the Muslim world will be polishing their AK47’s and RPG’s.

Ironically you may as well take KSM out and shoot him in the head without a trial – at least in that scenario you might deter one or two of the wing nuts that are likely to take up arms against you.

Your only hope is that by some miracle KSM is found not guilty but if that happens the Democrats can put their head between their legs and kiss the White House goodbye. There isn’t a scenario I can think of where the outcome of this is anything close to good – apart from  my earlier suggestion – let someone else, preferably a Muslim, find him guilty.
quote:
The goal of a trial shouldn't be to placate enemies


The trick Ron is not to make enemies in the first place.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 11-23-2009 05:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

a guilty verdict on the Lockerbee bomber certainly didn't diminish him in the eyes of muslims, if the rousing reception he got upon his return to Libya is any indication.

This will be no different...we will give him the platform to be more of a hero than he already is.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


49 posted 11-23-2009 05:15 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The trick Ron is not to make enemies in the first place.

I disagree, Grinch. I think the real trick is to do what's right even when you feel it might hurt you. In the long run, that course will make fewer enemies than letting potential consequences dictate your action. Expediency should never be allowed to trump principle.

quote:
This will be no different...we will give him the platform to be more of a hero than he already is.

Our Constitution already gave him that platform, Mike. It's the cost of insuring that you and I also have a platform should we need it.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Fair....and slightly unbalanced???   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors