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  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 11-18-2009 05:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


WASHINGTON – From opposite ends of the globe, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected criticism Wednesday of the planned New York trial of the professed Sept. 11 mastermind and predicted Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.
"Failure is not an option," Holder declared.
The president, in a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, said those offended by the legal rights accorded Mohammed by virtue of his facing a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Obama, who is a lawyer, quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sept11_trial;_ylt=AhbzEs5rUUPRKnyVsyAO_JiMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJpc2xidjRuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE4L3VzX3NlcHQxMV90cmlhbARjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG 9yaWVzBHNsawNvYmFtYWhvbGRlcnA

No, of course not! Just because the president of the United States assures the country that the evil one will be exposed, convicted and killed shouldn't be interpreted as prejudging...c'mon, ya gotta smile.

Reminds me of a line from an old western where the sheriff says, "He's gonna get a fair trial and then we're gonna hang him."

Too bad there are no vaccinations against foot in mouth disease.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


1 posted 11-18-2009 06:12 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I can't get my head around the trial in New York. Whoever thought of that wants his noodle examining. It's a catastrophe in waiting.

There's no doubt in anyone's mind what the outcome is going to be and that'll automatically raise claims that the trial was blatantly unfair and a sham. The propaganda that'll hand to the wing nut extremists will be priceless, America will give them just what they want - a martyr executed by the great Satan.

That's if the trial doesn't become a target for anti-muslim wing nuts or pro-jihad wing nuts or both.

Why couldn't someone use a bit of sense and get the international court to try them in a neutral country that has the death penalty? That way America would be somewhat insulated from the outcome and consequent responsibility and blame and an added benefit would be that a clear message would be sent to the wing nuts that the world won't tolerate acts of terror.

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


2 posted 11-18-2009 07:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hell has just frozen over!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 11-19-2009 01:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Why do you say that, Mike?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


4 posted 11-19-2009 02:48 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Why couldn't someone use a bit of sense and get the international court to try them in a neutral country that has the death penalty? That way America would be somewhat insulated from the outcome and consequent responsibility and blame and an added benefit would be that a clear message would be sent to the wing nuts that the world won't tolerate acts of terror.



First -- The ICC didn't come into existence until July 1, 2002 -- so it wouldn't hold any jurisdiction on a crime that was committed prior -- which the 9/11 attacks were.

Second -- An act of terror needs to be seen by the world as a CRIME, and not an act of War -- KSM would like nothing more than to be seen as a holy warrior instead of what he is -- a mass murderer.  He's all too willing to plead guilty to being a soldier in a military tribunal and then executed and martyred.

Third -- The United States has never joined the ICC.

Fourth -- Mike -- do you remember when we were complaining about Geneva Convention violations in the 'War on Terror'?  What was the Bush administration's response? -- "these aren't uniformed soldiers on a battlefield'.

Fifth -- "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."  -- Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


5 posted 11-19-2009 04:00 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


The first should be easy to resolve LR, article 11 has a possible loophole that allows a state accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC to petition for crimes committed before their acceptance to be included in the ICC's jurisdiction.

It's a small loophole, I admit, but it doesn't actually set any limit on how far back they could go at the request of a joining state.

If that didn't work it'd take about a month to amend the charter, you could even petition the ICJ, who does have jurisdiction, for a ruling, then table a resolution - no country would vote against it.

Number two probably isn't a problem either - As I recall the charter doesn't restrict cases to only war crimes.

Number three? The US accepts the ICC's jurisdiction and legitimacy on a case by case basis and, as I understand it, can join any time it likes - all it takes is a request.

Number four - see number two.

Number five - he isn't a US citizen LR so is the constitution applicable?

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


6 posted 11-19-2009 06:48 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Of all the infuriating aspects of the decision to transfer five 9/11 war criminals to civilian federal court, the one that grates most is the contention that the Obama administration is finally moving forward after “eight years of delay” — as Attorney General Eric Holder put it at his Friday press conference — during which the Bush administration managed to complete only three military-commission trials.

This is chutzpah writ large. The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.) . . .

It is mind-boggling that the delay in completing commission trials would be derided by Eric Holder, a lawyer whose firm is among those responsible for the litigation-driven delay that became a lawfare triumph for al-Qaeda. Holder and his comrades did everything they could do to undermine the commission system, both in legal motions and in public appearances accusing the Bush administration of torture, war crimes, and disregard for the legal rights of terrorists.


Yet, within two years (i.e., in less time than most civilian terrorism cases), KSM and four fellow war criminals stood ready to plead guilty and proceed to execution. But then the Obama administration blew into Washington. Want to talk about delay? Obama shut down the commission despite the jihadists’ efforts to conclude it by pleading guilty. Obama’s team permitted no movement on the case for eleven months and now has torpedoed a perfectly valid commission case — despite keeping the commission system for other cases — so that we can instead endure an incredibly expensive and burdensome civilian trial that will take years to complete. . . .

How many years? Terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in 1998. It took three years to bring four of them to trial. (There would have been a fifth, but the civilian system failed to detain him securely: He maimed a prison guard during an escape attempt and was never brought to trial for the bombings.) The embassy-bombing trial took seven months to complete and failed to result in death sentences for the two capital defendants. Guess when the appeal was decided? Just a few months ago — eleven years after the attacks and eight years after the trial. The convictions were upheld by the appellate court, so now we move on to the Supreme Court. Once that’s done, they’ll have a couple of years to relitigate their trial and sentences by filing habeas corpus motions.



But it’s good to hear we’re finally ending all this unseemly delay.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjJjYTIxNGFlZjRiNzFmYzFiM2ZhMGI4NTRmMWNhMzg=&w=MA==

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


7 posted 11-19-2009 11:51 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    
Dear Grinch,

          The only reason he's seeing the light of day at all is the constitution.  

     I'd suggest to you that you'd have difficulty convincing folks here that international law trumps it.   He has considerable protections under the constitution, and with good lawyers, the outcome is never a slam dunk for anybody.  If the defense feels the man cannot get a fair trial in New York, he can request and perhaps get a change of venue to another place.  I doubt that would change things much.  I have no idea what his defense would be, but I suspect that the man wants a trial there or we would have heard a great deal about the unfairness of this situation by now.

     We'll see how well it works out.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

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


8 posted 11-20-2009 04:53 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

crimes committed before their acceptance to be included in the ICC's jurisdiction.



Yes, prior to acceptance -- but not prior to the creation of the court.

quote:

The court's jurisdiction does not apply retroactively: it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002 (the date on which the Rome Statute entered into force). Where a state becomes party to the Rome Statute after that date, the court can exercise jurisdiction automatically with respect to crimes committed after the statute enters into force for that state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Temporal_jurisdiction



quote:

If that didn't work it'd take about a month to amend the charter, you could even petition the ICJ, who does have jurisdiction, for a ruling, then table a resolution - no country would vote against it.



The ICJ exists to adjudicate disputes between states.  This is why the ICC was established.

I would agree that an Ad Hoc could be established for the case of KSM, but if it was done it would have ex-post-facto jurisdiction which wouldn't really have much credibility would it?  Not to mention how long it would take for member nations to agree to the parameters of the Ad Hoc court.

quote:

Number two probably isn't a problem either - As I recall the charter doesn't restrict cases to only war crimes.



quote:

Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes, which it refers to as the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression: it provides that the court will not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.[2][3]

Many states wanted to add terrorism and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however, the states were unable to agree on a definition for terrorism and it was decided not to include drug trafficking as this might overwhelm the court's limited resources.[3] India lobbied to have the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction included as war crimes but this move was also defeated.[30] India has expressed concern that “the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the international community.”[30]

Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely. For example, China has argued that the definition of ‘war crimes’ goes beyond that accepted under customary international law.[31]

A Review Conference is due to take place in the first half of 2010.[32] Among other things, the conference will review the list of crimes contained in Article 5.[33] The final resolution on adoption of the Rome Statute specifically recommended that terrorism and drug trafficking be reconsidered at this conference.[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Crimes_within_t he_jurisdiction_of_the_Court



Furthermore;
quote:

The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if:

    "(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

    (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

    (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

    (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court."[11]

Article 20, paragraph 3, specifies that, if a person has already been tried by another court, the ICC cannot try them again for the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

    "(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or

    (b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice."[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Complementarity



quote:

Number five - he isn't a US citizen LR so is the constitution applicable?



Yes it is -- if he's accused of a crime in the United States --

quote:

Al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui will spend the rest of his life in a maximum security prison for his role in the Sept. 11 attacks after a federal jury rejected the government's four-year quest to secure his execution for the deadliest terrorist strike on U.S. soil.

After weeks of listening to harrowing testimony from 9/11 family members, hearing heartbreaking emergency calls and watching painful footage of victims jumping to their deaths, the anonymous jury of nine men and three women methodically deliberated for 41 hours over seven days before reaching its verdict yesterday.

Jurors carefully went over each question on a 42-page verdict form that gave only a few clues to their thoughts and reasoning. In the end, though, the form indicated that prosecutors could not surmount the main obstacle hanging over their case from the start: Moussaoui did not hijack anything Sept. 11, 2001, because he was sitting in jail.

The panel could not decide unanimously that Moussaoui caused the nearly 3,000 deaths, nor could it agree that he committed his crimes "in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner." Three jurors took it upon themselves to write that Moussaoui had "limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans."

"The jury seemed to be saying that he is a bit player, someone at the periphery," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp. "It boils down to someone whose hands were not drenched in blood."

As the verdict was announced in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Moussaoui rolled his eyes and looked glum. But he yelled, "America, you lost. . . . I won!" as he was escorted back to jail. Family members of Sept. 11 victims, who had long awaited this day, showed little visible reaction in the courtroom's third row.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050300324.html  



How disappointed he must have been not to become a martyr and meet his virgin brides.

And it is actually quite common;
quote:

Soon after the 1993 attack, the FBI, on April 21, 1993 made him the 436th person added to the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. On February 7, 1995, Pakistani intelligence and U.S. Bureau of Diplomatic Security Special Agents Bill Miller and Jeff Riner captured Yousef in Islamabad, Pakistan. On February 7, 1995, they raided the Su-Casa Guest House in Islamabad, Pakistan, and captured Yousef before he could move to Peshawar. He was captured thanks to Istaique Parker, a man Yousef had tried to recruit. Parker was paid $2 million for the information leading to Yousef's capture.[4][5] When he was discovered, Yousef, about to leave his hotel room that day, had chemical burns on his fingers. Agents found Delta Air Lines and United Airlines flight schedules and bomb components in children's toys.[19]

He was sent to a prison in New York City and held there until his trial. In court, Yousef said, "Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites." [8] On September 5, 1996, Yousef, and two co-conspirators were convicted for their role in the Bojinka plot and were sentenced to life in prison without parole. U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Duffy referred to Yousef as "an apostle of evil" before recommending that the entire sentence be served in solitary confinement.[21]

On November 12, 1997 Yousef was found guilty of masterminding the 1993 bombing and in 1998 he was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers.[22][23]

He is held at the high-security Supermax prison ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado[3]. The handcuffs Ramzi Yousef wore when he was captured in Pakistan are displayed at the FBI Museum in Washington, DC.[24]

According to interviews with ADX Florence staff, upon Yousef's arrival at the facility he prayed almost every hour and refused to leave his cell for recreation as he did not wish to undergo the strip search required at the ultra-high security prison.[25] However, Yousef now leaves his cell, has started eating pork and says he has converted to Christianity.[26] The prison staff does not believe Yousef's conversion is sincere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef#Arrest.2C_conviction_and_prison_life



quote:

Immediately after Noriega's apprehension, the standby crew of a USAF 8th Special Operations Squadron MC-130 Combat Talon at Howard AFB was alerted, and within 12 minutes had its engines running. Accompanied by U.S. Marshals, DEA, and other federal law enforcement agents, Noriega was flown to Homestead Air Force Base, under conditions of minimum radio communications.[21] He was tried on eight counts of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in April 1992. His trial was held in Miami, Florida, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In 1992 he was convicted under federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in Miami, Florida. Sentenced to 40 years in prison (later reduced to 30 years), Noriega is held at the Federal Correctional Institution, Miami, Florida (FCI Miami).[22]

The prosecution presented a case that has been criticized by numerous observers.[citation needed] The prosecution's case was completely reworked several times because problems developed with the witnesses, whose stories contradicted one another. The United States Attorney negotiated deals with 26 different drug felons, including Carlos Lehder, who were given leniency, cash payments, and allowed to keep their drug earnings in return for testimony against Noriega. Several of these witnesses had been arrested by Noriega for drug trafficking in Panama. Some witnesses later recanted their testimony, and agents of the CIA, Drug Enforcement Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Israeli Mossad, who were knowledgeable about Central American drug trafficking, have publicly charged that accusations were embellished.[citation needed] Noriega was found guilty and sentenced on September 16, 1992, to 40 years in prison for drug and racketeering violations. His sentence was reduced to 30 years in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Trial



The groans and grumbling Mr. Grinch are purely and ridiculously partisan.  Are Republicans too chicken to try a terrorist?  Why do they have no faith in the Constitution of the United States of America?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 11-20-2009 07:45 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

How disappointed he must have been not to become a martyr and meet his virgin brides.

Well, we're giving KSM a virginal shot, aren't we?

The groans and grumbling Mr. Grinch are purely and ridiculously partisan.

Actually, THAT comment is ridiculously partisan. There are many Democrats who are also opposed to this decision. Read between their lines, if you're able, and you will see it. Screaming partisan prejudice really doesn't wash here except to try to deciate from the fact that it is a horrible decision.

Are Republicans too chicken to try a terrorist?

That's what we've come down to...kindergarten rants? "Whatsamatter, Billy? You a chicken??"  Trying a terrorist is not the question here.... but you know that.

Why do they have no faith in the Constitution of the United States of America?

There you have it, right? Republicans have no faith in the Constitution. I doubt, LR, if you are qualified to call ANY statement ridiculously partisan, after that one.

We will give the terrorist a world stage. He will become a rock star, a martyr, a spokesman for terrorists everywhere. He will thumb his nose at America and millions will cheer him. He will be Braveheart, screaming JIHAD! instead of FREEDOM! That's what you approve of?

Faith in the constitution? Or faith in our judicial system? What do you think about a president who declares the terrorist will be found guilty and put to death - after he receives a fair trial?? I can only marvel at what you could have done with that if Bush had made such a statement. Do you feel it is ok to assure the public that a guilty verdict will be found before the trial even begins? One can envision a prosecutor or defense attorney saying it but...the president?

It's going to be a dog and pony show, get your peanuts and popcorn here! - just like OJ, another man who was CERTAINLY going to be found guilty. KSM will be a hero to terrorists everywhere and a martyr when he dies....and we are giving him the stage to do so.

The only reason you support it, in my view, is because it is a Democrat decision. I cannot believe you would support it for any other reason, being the intelligent man you are. Partisanship? Oh, yes, it's very much alive and well....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


10 posted 11-20-2009 10:59 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The only reason you support it, in my view, is because it is a Democrat decision. I cannot believe you would support it for any other reason, being the intelligent man you are. Partisanship? Oh, yes, it's very much alive and well....



So then what's the reason for my support of the decision to try Zacarias Moussaoui, Ramzi Yousef, or Manuel Noriega?

The Constitution of the United States.

And, I love America!

quote:

Faith in the constitution? Or faith in our judicial system?



And the difference is?  None.  The Constitution is our judicial system.  You didn't think we got it from Sam's Club did you?

quote:

What do you think about a president who declares the terrorist will be found guilty and put to death - after he receives a fair trial??



If that's what he said I would say that president has a lot of faith in his AG and most certainly has access to information that will come out in the trial -- and it's no different than a statement that a mayor or governor might make about a notorious criminal -- particularly one who has already confessed to the crime and said he seeks the death penalty (how's that for a world stage?) and is set to be tried in New York -- a venue with a zero acquittal rate for terrorists.

But what he actually said was:
quote:

During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama’s visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime.

“I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn’t trying to dictate the result.

“What I said was, people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury,” Obama said. “What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism.”  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29661.html



Trying the accused in court is one of our cherished American values that our brave men and women in uniform fight to protect.  If we abandon our values -- the terrorists win!    

quote:

It's going to be a dog and pony show, get your peanuts and popcorn here! - just like OJ, another man who was CERTAINLY going to be found guilty. KSM will be a hero to terrorists everywhere and a martyr when he dies....and we are giving him the stage to do so.



So then you would prefer that he be stood up before a secret kangaroo court where the world can say he didn't get a fair trial? Or are you suggesting that the evidence gathered against him by the Bush administration is invalid?

There is nothing that KSM can say to the world in court that he hasn't already said -- excepting for maybe some information that might prove embarrassing to the Bush Cheney administration.

quote:

That's what we've come down to...kindergarten rants? "Whatsamatter, Billy? You a chicken??"  Trying a terrorist is not the question here.... but you know that.



I'm just listening to what Republicans like  Boehner, King, and Giuliani are saying Mike:

quote:

“We should not be increasing the danger of another terrorist strike against Americans at home and abroad,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14terror.html



Giulianni's ridiculous rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jS-LJpG3HI&feature=player_embedded  

If trying a terrorist isn't then question -- then maybe I am missing something.  What is the question?  How is putting the accused on trial not facing our 'enemy'?  What's Rudy scared of?  Does he hate America?

quote:

There are many Democrats who are also opposed to this decision. Read between their lines, if you're able, and you will see it.



I don't see 'many' Democrats opposed to this decision Mike -- I've seen one that I know of:

quote:

Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, questioned the wisdom of trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts, arguing that military commissions were more appropriate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14terror.html



Ok,  I'm reading between the lines -- here's what Jim Webb is saying....

"My state just elected a conservative Republican to be governor by a huge margin.  I need to show my state that I'm a conservative on a throw-away issue like this that doesn't require any kind of official action by me -- like a vote in the Senate -- so that later -- after they've already forgotten why -- the more conservative independents will still remember those warm fuzzy feelings they had for me when they saw me taking issue with this decision... kewl huh?"
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


11 posted 11-20-2009 11:59 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.
So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, in which the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York — what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury, and spectators into fresh victims? — it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That’s precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. “Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,” wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”

Finally, there’s the moral logic. It’s not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his November 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime — an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform — everything but your own blog.

Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It’s Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.

Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjAxZWY3OWMyY2ZkMmE5NzI3ZGFmYmI2NWNjZDQ3ZDc=


I would like to read successful arguments
against the above.

.

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


12 posted 11-20-2009 01:49 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.



Hmmmm.... confessed.  Asked for death penalty.  If I had this case and I was Holder I'd pretty much think failure was not an option too.


quote:

“Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,” wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”



OMG!!! and to think -- prior to that bin Laden had no idea at all that he was a terrorist!

quote:

Finally, there’s the moral logic. It’s not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his November 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.



Gee -- this one is really really really hard John... um... let's think about this for a second -- ummm.... hmmmm.... civilian murders tried in civilian criminal court -- attacks on military personnel and materiel tried by the military -- let's think about this --- now... what could the possible answer be?

How hard is it?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 11-20-2009 03:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

How hard is it to give a successful argument against it? Apparently, very...

“I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

So is Obama saying it WILL be offensive should there not be a conviction?

Failure is not an option..... Holder

Two of our top dogs stating how a conviction and death penalty are almost givens....and LR sees nothing wrong with that. Well, one thing is certain. It's going to be the death penalty for someone, either KSM or Obama/Holder, either actual or political.

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


14 posted 11-20-2009 03:18 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh c'mon Mike... don't get so surly just because I muddled up your little thread with facts again....of course I've made my arguments -- make yours.

All you've done so far is what Republicans have done since last November -- criticize and complain -- you haven't actually made an argument here.

Let's start with this question -- why should the most important suspect in the 9/11 attacks be tried in an untested, unprecedented military tribunal instead of the most advanced criminal justice system in the world?  

quote:

Two of our top dogs stating how a conviction and death penalty are almost givens....and LR sees nothing wrong with that.



Confessed -- asked for death penalty -- and I expect any AG to claim he's going to get a conviction -- if he doesn't think he's going to get a conviction he shouldn't be proceeding.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 11-20-2009 03:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

civilian murders tried in civilian criminal court -- attacks on military personnel and materiel tried by the military

I see...so, if Timothy McVeigh had blown up a National Guard headquarters then he would have been tried in a military court, right?

Trying to defend the indefensible is never easy, LR.....it's just a bad decision in a long list of bad decisions by this administration and their attempt (and yours) at damage control justifications doesn't change it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 11-20-2009 03:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Me? Surly?? C'mon, you know I'm a teddy bear at heart!

Let's start with this question -- why should the most important suspect in the 9/11 attacks be tried in an untested, unprecedented military tribunal instead of the most advanced criminal justice system in the world?  

Simple...the publicity. That's exactly what they want and we are going to be generous enough to give them a world stage. Do you think this trial will not be watched by terrorists all over the world? Do you think this trial will not elevate the defendants in terrorist eyes, regardless of the outcome? All KSM would have to do would be to give the muddle finger to the camera and he would evoke applause and praise from the the entire terrorists community.

Untested military tribunals? Military tribunals have been around a long time. You think they can't handle murder trials?

The most advanced criminal justice system in the world? There are those, and not a few, who would disagree with you on that one. What makes us so much more advanced, in your eyes? There are times when our most advanced system goes way past the point of stupidity....hold your breath that this is not one of them.

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


17 posted 11-20-2009 03:54 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
The groans and grumbling Mr. Grinch are purely and ridiculously partisan.

Maybe in America Reb, outside looking in the view seems to be fairly consistent across all party lines – KSM will be found guilty, there’s no chance he will be found innocent - and regardless of how guilty or innocent we think he is that worries us. “there’s no chance he will be found innocent” allows the claim that he’ll be found guilty no matter what.

quote:
Are Republicans too chicken to try a terrorist?

I don’t think so; I think they simply want this dealt with as little fuss as possible, whereas I on the other hand want it, not only to be as fair as possible, but so squeaky clean that even KSM’s mother would accept that the verdict was beyond reproach. I’d like the trial to be held in neutral country so that revenge isn’t seen as deciding factor and where no blame can be levelled at America, and I’d like to see the verdict delivered by a judge and jury that can’t be accused of bias and who leave no room for a claim of conspiracy. I’d also like it to be a big deal- with all the bells and whistles – big enough that the verdict will ring in the ears of KSM’s defenders or accusers when a guilty man is found guilty or an innocent man found innocent.

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


18 posted 11-20-2009 05:29 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

But they not only admit their guilt,
they are proud of it, (as has happened
before).  Why is that ignored?

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


19 posted 11-20-2009 07:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

even KSM’s mother would accept that the verdict was beyond reproach.

They don't care about the verdict. There's little question about his guilt. They are PROUD of his actions and, the more publicity it gets, the prouder they will be and the more of a martyr he'll become...so we give him more publicity. SHould the unthinkable happen and he beats it on some technicality, he will be MORE 0f a hero.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


20 posted 11-20-2009 10:22 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

SHould the unthinkable happen and he beats it on some technicality, he will be MORE 0f a hero.



Aha!  So, you don't presume that he's innocent at all Mike?  There's no chance that he might get off because he's actually innocent?  So then, what you're really saying is that you don't want him to get a 'show trial' in the criminal justice system because you prefer that he gets a 'show trial' in the military system.

I see.

I've never understood this about conservatives -- they hate government but love the military.  It's like my cousin who ran away from home when he was 17 to join the Navy because he didn't want anyone telling him what to do.  Imagine that.  In the Navy, no one telling you what to do...

They love the police but hate courts and juries.  

Perhaps Grinch has a point.  But only to a point.  Because it isn't Holder's job to give the impression that a defendant is innocent.  It's his job to tell us why we're supposed to prosecute him.  Then the jury is supposed to decide whether or not Mr. Holder has made his case.

quote:

Untested military tribunals? Military tribunals have been around a long time. You think they can't handle murder trials?



The entire problem Mike -- is not that 'the left' has been trying to delay justice by throwing stumbling blocks into the military justice system -- it's that the Bush administration was trying to circumvent the Constitution by using it -- this according to the Supremes -- which led the Congress to pass a new Military Commisions Act in 2006 which was still found to be, partially, unconstitutional in 2008 by the Supreme beings.

Now, if Holder says that he feels the Criminal Justice System is the best place to get a conviction, after KSM (et al) have told the Justice of the military tribunal that they want to plead guilty -- then that must mean the Justice Department still sees potential vulnerabilities in that system -- a system that should never have been used to begin with -- a system that wasn't required to get a conviction of Zacarias Moussaoui.

quote:

Simple...the publicity. That's exactly what they want and we are going to be generous enough to give them a world stage. Do you think this trial will not be watched by terrorists all over the world?



And there you have it -- one of our cherished American values -- the accused get to speak in their own defense -- and the world will get to see it -- but, don't count on it being on the Tele.   I doubt the judge will allow it.

But we don't 'not' try criminals because they might put forth a political message (Dollar Bill Jefferson)-- it's because by trying them, and convicting them, we put forth a much better political message -- that we are a nation of laws.

quote:

Do you think this trial will not elevate the defendants in terrorist eyes, regardless of the outcome?



No.  I think the opposite.  Trying him in a military court, being treated as a prisoner of war, elevates him to the level of General in an army -- instead of being a cappo in a mob.  Being tried in criminal court gives KSM nothing that he wants.

quote:

The most advanced criminal justice system in the world? There are those, and not a few, who would disagree with you on that one. What makes us so much more advanced, in your eyes? There are times when our most advanced system goes way past the point of stupidity....hold your breath that this is not one of them.



Well if you're talking about the times that we've executed innocent men and ignored important evidence -- like DNA -- then count me in as one who thinks it goes way past stupid Mike.

If, on the other hand, you're making one of your right-wing runs at 'getting off on technicalities' again -- then -- I think that is the very thing that makes it superior.  Those technicalities you keep complaining about -- it's that little thing called the Constitution.  Why do you hate it?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (11-20-2009 11:15 PM).]

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


21 posted 11-20-2009 10:41 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Maybe in America Reb, outside looking in the view seems to be fairly consistent across all party lines – KSM will be found guilty,



So what would you suggest then?  Moving the trial to Switzerland with American Judges, American Law, and an American jury the way Megrahi was tried?  The Constitution will do just fine in New York.  

quote:

I don’t think so; I think they simply want this dealt with as little fuss as possible, whereas I on the other hand want it, not only to be as fair as possible, but so squeaky clean that even KSM’s mother would accept that the verdict was beyond reproach. I’d like the trial to be held in neutral country so that revenge isn’t seen as deciding factor and where no blame can be levelled at America, and I’d like to see the verdict delivered by a judge and jury that can’t be accused of bias and who leave no room for a claim of conspiracy. I’d also like it to be a big deal- with all the bells and whistles – big enough that the verdict will ring in the ears of KSM’s defenders or accusers when a guilty man is found guilty or an innocent man found innocent.



The air is rather too thin on Mars for a show trial one would think.... 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.  

Somehow Magneto is going to get out of his cell and wreck New York -- we have to leave him at the fortress of GITMO.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


22 posted 11-20-2009 10:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I see...so, if Timothy McVeigh had blown up a National Guard headquarters then he would have been tried in a military court, right?



Now, that would be a prickly pear -- considering that National Guard 'headquarters' are owned and operated by the States in which they reside.  Good question.

But, according to you -- since Timothy McVeigh attacked the United States -- he should have gotten a Military Tribunal?  Why?

Damage control?  What's been damaged?  I mean -- besides the Constitution under the Bush administration.

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


23 posted 11-20-2009 11:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I've never understood this about conservatives -- they hate government but love the military.
They love the police but hate courts and juries
they don't want the trial in this country either -- because they're chickens!


Reb, for a man who goes the distance to research, find links and check out facts to present them in a logical way, those are very telling comments. You may want to do a self-evaluation of the rationality of your own conclusions and prejudices.

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


24 posted 11-21-2009 12:07 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well let's take a look Mike:

quote:

In Illinois, the question of housing Guantanamo detainees at an unused prison facility, rather than prosecuting them, is center stage in the crowded race for Obama’s former Senate seat.

Rep. Mark Kirk, the GOP front-runner, has loudly opposed the federal government’s consideration of housing terrorists at the Thomson Correctional Center in northwest Illinois.

Kirk wrote a letter to Obama last Saturday — which he publicized in an e-mail to supporters — calling on the administration “to put the safety and security of Illinois families first and stop any plan to transfer Al Qaeda terrorists to our state.”

He said O’Hare International Airport and the city of Chicago could otherwise become jihadist targets. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29645.html



Ok Mike --so what you're saying is that Republicans aren't chickens -- they're just peddling fear again to try to win elections?

Whoda thunkit?

quote:

Senate rejects bid aimed at Sept. 11 terrorists

By ANDREW TAYLOR (AP) – Nov 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday turned back a GOP-led effort to bar Sept. 11 terrorists from being prosecuted in civilian federal courts.

Instead, senators voted 54-45 to support a request by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder to have the option of prosecuting Sept. 11 terrorists such as accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in either federal courts or by military commission.

The vote capped an impassioned — and substantive — Senate debate between those who believe the Sept. 11 terrorists simply don't belong in civilian courtrooms and those who say deciding where to prosecute them should be left to the best judgment of the Pentagon and the Justice Department.

Opponents noted that the government prosecuted 195 terrorists in civilian courts since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with a 91 percent conviction and that only three terrorists have been tried before military tribunals. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4XgS_KksokXcOrVpeS9EBB9gwrAD9BPN0180



WoW!  195 TIMES!  During the BUSH administration!  You really ARE right Mike!!  The Republicans aren't chicken at all to prosecute terrorists!  They're just the worlds biggest hypocrites.  Or liars.  Or, both.

My bad.

 
 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