| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Fair....and slightly unbalanced??? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
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. |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hell has just frozen over!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Why do you say that, Mike? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Yes, prior to acceptance -- but not prior to the creation of the court. quote: quote: 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: quote: Furthermore; quote: quote: Yes it is -- if he's accused of a crime in the United States -- quote: How disappointed he must have been not to become a martyr and meet his virgin brides. And it is actually quite common; quote: quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 quote: I'm just listening to what Republicans like Boehner, King, and Giuliani are saying Mike: quote: 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: I don't see 'many' Democrats opposed to this decision Mike -- I've seen one that I know of: quote: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: OMG!!! and to think -- prior to that bin Laden had no idea at all that he was a terrorist!quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well let's take a look Mike: quote: 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: 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. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Because terrorist attacks to disrupt the proceedings are less likely in Iran. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You answered your own question Reb. quote: 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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. quote: 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: 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: No. quote: No. quote: In a UK court judged by a jury of my peers - how about you? . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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? 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Even non sequitur laden with free enterprise captain kirk makes krauthamer look at nails on a blackboard |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: As a Muslim I’d prefer the Iranian Court. quote: 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: d) KSM is tried in a Muslim court where the verdict isn’t used as recruiting tool for radical terrorists. 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. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: So then are you saying that you are an atheist of Muslim heritage -- or that you're a recent convert to Islam? quote: 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: quote: 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: 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Sure about that? quote: quote: |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 trick Ron is not to make enemies in the first place. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: 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. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “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. At which a significant portion of the Muslim world would take insult unless the charge be justifiable homicide, ( a quarter of Muslims surveyed in England consider the attacks there justified). And why do we continue to evade the proud and open admission of responsibility on the part of the accused as if it were beyond our Western brains to comprehend? “Our Constitution already gave him that platform, Mike” Not true at all. This is a recent novelty, as more than one commentator, (or do I have post more articles by reputable authority), has pointed out. Or maybe the difference is because, as Whoopi would say, it isn't war war. . http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTFhMDhhZTc4NmZjZmFkYWQzMjQwMTAxZjg5NTllOTI= |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Really, Ron? I couldn't find anywhere in the constitution where it says trials should be televised.....maybe I missed it?  Couldn't find Miranda in there, either. She must be hiding... What we have is a jury-rigged version of the original constitution and the intents of the founders. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Who said anything about televised, Mike? The Sixth Amendment provides for "a speedy and public trial," which is the platform every accused is entitled to under law. If you want to talk about how big that platform should be, you should have said so up front. And, of course, if you want to talk about the intent of the founders, we can do that, too. They didn't know much about television, but they did know a bit about convicting people behind closed doors and the political dangers of too much secrecy. Personally, I suspect they believed that power, especially the power to imprison or even kill, should always be tempered by public scrutiny. What do YOU think was their intent? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Jury-rigged version? Miranda? Televised trials? Presumably this line of thinking was available to you when warrantless wire-tapping became standard operating procedure. Where were you when it became the President's prerogative to classify anybody as an enemy alien and have them thrown in jail, and when torture became standard practice in military operations. Your notion of constitutional protection is so partisan that it no longer functions as constitution protection, only as a mechanism for political advantage. Televised trials? Judges have always had discretion as to how open a trial would be, and have often chosen to allow maximum openness. Scopes drew reporters from all over the world. The trial of John Wilkes Booth and the various others that were crammed into the notion of the conspiracy around that assassination was reported in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly and in other large news organs of the time. If anything, the coverage was far more sensational than it would be today. If the horror of the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombers doesn't spring vividly to mind, that's because the trial was reasonably well managed, and there were no horrible incidents. It was just a grinding and uncomfortable trial about awful stuff. If the judge televises the trial, the judge needs to manage the trial appropriately. That's the case whether there's TV involved or not. If the fact that the United States tortured KSM plays a very large part in things, the US is going to look bad in the eyes of the world. Duh. Did you think it was going to help us when we went to trial? Of course it's going to make it hard for people to believe in what we say or do; we haven't been acting like Americans, we've been acting like terrorists ourselves. Also Duh. Bad behavior may have bad consequences, even when it's the good guys who act badly. And there are people about who don't think we're the good guys. The issue doesn't have to do with whether the trial is televised, it's the element of truth in what the criminals will have to say that's troubling. Miranda isn't in the constitution. . . You've got me there, Mike. Miranda isn't in the Constitution. However, the fifth ammendment, from which Miranda is derived is. Apparently the fact that once detained, you are in the clutches of the judicial system is not something that the police have ever decided to make clear to those that they have arrested for some odd reason, and that the right to self incrimination actually applies once you have been detained. It applies to all varieties of potential self incrimination, though not to such things as DNA samples, blood tests and so on. S-o-o-o-o-o, Miranda actually is in the Constitution in the form of the Fifth Ammendment. It’s simply that the police for a very long time have forgotten to let people know that the fifth ammendment applies to all levels of judicial encounters. The police do have a right to ask your name, address and date of birth, but beyond that silence is your right. Right to counsel has been extended from Federal, capital crimes downward, but not all states supply them for all offenses. Alaska, for example, may supply them only for very large cases. I think the issue is that forgetful police seem to find themselves reminded that their custom is not the same as the law, and that there is a certain amount of upset about that. Had the police been a bit more alert about this sort of thing, I suspect there would be no need for a Miranda warning. I may be wrong, however, since there seem to be equivalents in Canada, England and Australia. Perhaps it’s simply a protection that folks believe it’s civil to enjoy. At any rate, it seems to be in the Fifth Ammendment over here. Jury Rigged version means that you simply don’t like the document and you’d feel happier if the thing was rewritten your way by the people that you think ought to do it. I say it’s a deeply offensive document and was written to be that way, granting maximum liberty even to the people you least agree with, who should know well enough to think like you do, which is the way any right thinking person ought to think anyway. That Is something we may be able to agree upon. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Presumably this line of thinking was available to you when warrantless wire-tapping became standard operating procedure. No, Bob, that line of thinking was available to me while I sat, watching criminals, even murderers go free, because they were not read their rights properly. It was available when I saw a man go free because he ran outside with the police chasing him, threw a murder weapon into the back of a trash dumpster and, when the police pulled it out without getting a search warrant first, it was disallowed in court. I daresay that, if the founders of the constitution could see what we have done with their system, they would be shaking their heads in disbelief. we haven't been acting like Americans, we've been acting like terrorists ourselves. Yes, there are people who don't think we are the goods guys. Apparently, you are one of them. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The thing I like most about this conversation Grinch is that I'm not spending all my time attempting to clarify facts. quote: There is a fact that I would remind you of -- with which you would certainly agree. The mess the U.S. and the U.K. are in right now is a direct result of the British Empire's decay and the wake of badly managed foreign policy in setting up and dealing with it's remnants around the globe. (and there was a specific and significant event in 1776 I can think of that had a great shaping on the U.S. and it's attitude toward open courts and civil liberties) It really isn't even a process that's yet done: quote: quote: quote: I'd say that you need to talk to the Muslims then in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who are very dissatisfied with the unfairness of their own governments. While I would agree most people would say there is no place like home -- we seem to have a problem with people who say with their feet that they don't want to be at home at all. quote: You'll get no argument from me that damage has been done -- but I will in no way agree that damage is permanent -- any more than the permanence of enemies. The way back from that damage is to do the right thing and keep doing the right thing until our reputation is what it should be, and should have been. I know what your point is -- but it isn't a viable point. Therefore -- it is pointless. quote: And what would that perception be if we tried KSM in the military tribunal in which he was already prepared to enter a guilty plea? What would be the perception if we just kept Gitmo open and never tried the 'detainees' at all -- and just let them languish there forever? I'm pretty sure Muslims are good at geography. They know that America isn't at Gitmo -- but they also know that the American's were holding the detainees at Gitmo -- and blowing up Gitmo wouldn't get them anything -- they'd have to come here to make mayhem -- right? Trying KSM in New York is no more and quite probably less dangerous than trying him at Gitmo. The more I think about it -- I rather do hope that KSM's testimony will be televised. The Muslim world will then be able to see what they can't see in their own system -- freedom of speech.... No matter what KSM says -- the medium will be the message. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Aside from Bob's adept interpretation of Miranda's constitutionality based upon the 5th amendment -- the explicit element that you keep missing Mike is the Supreme Court -- the founders meant for the Supreme Court to interpret and apply the laws written by the Congress and Signed by the President. They knew their work wasn't done. They knew that our representative democratic republic was (and is) a work in progress. And I'm pretty sure that all the African Americans you know are glad that they're no longer counted as 3/5ths of a person! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Apparently you believe that the constitution only applies during Democratic administrations. This is as many Democrats have feared. I don't know who you think the framers of the constitution may have been, but they were pretty clearly not fans of police powers. Nor. for that matter, did they glorify the military. Your version of the framers seems to be the opposite of those who made it clear that they wanted no standing army, and who wanted to make search and seizure a matter of some difficulty — so difficult, in fact, that they specifically put that thing in the constitution. They knew how easily police powers could be abused, and the fact that you're in sympathy with the police wouldn't have made you Mr. Popularity with them. I suspect that if the founders had seen the damage to the protections they tried to build into the constitution, they'd be shaking their heads in disbelief. As far as I understand it, police were responsible personally for any damage done to a place that they had to search until late in the 19th century, and that they could be and were sued for damages if they weren't careful. That's the sort of thing that the constitution intended, near as I understand it. The people were supposed to have some protection against the depredations of the police. I suspect that the framers would be shocked indeed, though not in the way you imagine. And your "no" is clearly not true. A rhetorical flourish designed to suggest that your concern is actually for the constitution. If it were for the constitution, you'd be howling already at some of the stuff that's been going on during the Republican administrations, when you though that inroads against civil liberties were just swell, and even looked for ways of suggesting that torture wasn't really unpleasant: That would have had the framers of the constitution rolling in their graves, with their clear injunctions against cruel and unusual punishment. So, basically, No, Mike. I think not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A rhetorical flourish designed to suggest that your concern is actually for the constitution. Well, you pegged me, Bob. I have no concern for the constitution or civil rights or the country. I tried to hide it so well...for example, by not suggesting Americans are terrorists..but you found me out anyway. Nice going. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Q.E.D. If you'd actually been concerned, you wouldn't have been defending your political party, you would have been screaming about the violations to the constitution. The second we started torturing folks, we crossed the line. The second we started making excuses for it, we became hypocrites. Not suggesting Americans are terrorists when we act like terrorists by torturing innocent civilians and manufacturing excuses first to go to war and then to continue in that war is a betrayal of all that's just and lawful in our system of government. I don't care who's doing the torture, it's all wrong. I don't even want to find you out. What makes you think that Americans are exempt from thinking and acting like terrorists, for goodness sake? And why would you want to defend actions that you know will give us an international black eye because they'd give anybody an international black eye, like waterboarding prisoners? All of a sudden you have to be proud to drown people to make them confess to anything you want them to confess to? I don't share that pride and righteousness. The people who do share that pride and righteousness, ironically enough, are the very people you want to torture and kill, should you ever succeed in accurately identifying them in sufficient numbers to make it worth the time and effort. They feel the same way about us. Who started this chicken and egg game, I have no idea. Nice going? If speaking the truth as clearly as I can see it is nice going, then thank you very much. I am certain, by the way, that you have some concerns for civil rights and the constitution. I would not suggest otherwise. Yet you have been quick to advocate giving away privacy rights, and you side with the police powers when it comes to many constitutional protections. Search and seizure comes to mind in the example you gave about the guy tossing the gun. It's not supposed to be easy to put somebody in jail here, yet we have proportionately more prisoners than virtually anyplace else in the world. That is not a great advertisement for freedom, yet I don't hear you express anything but frustration that there aren't more people in jail, and that it isn't easier to put people there. I think this is not the intention of the Framers, frankly, and am somewhat stunned to think that you do. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A rhetorical flourish designed to suggest that your concern is actually for the constitution. I am certain, by the way, that you have some concerns for civil rights and the constitution. I would not suggest otherwise. Yet that's exactly what you did, Bob. Not suggesting Americans are terrorists when we act like terrorists by torturing innocent civilians and manufacturing excuses first to go to war and then to continue in that war is a betrayal of all that's just and lawful in our system of government. I don't recall where we tortured innocent civilians but then my memory isn't what it used to be. Manufacturing excuses to go to war? I'm surprised you would speak that way against the Democrats - you know, the Kennedys , Clintons and others in Congress who called for war against Iraq in the late 1990's. All of a sudden you have to be proud to drown people to make them confess to anything you want them to confess to? I don't share that pride and righteousness. No, Bob, what you share in is using isolated incidents and painting our military in the worst possible light. I don't recall anyone being drowned, do you? Waterboarded? Yes, in very isolated incidents, which Pelosi was fully informed of and didn't object to. You may recall lately that her denial of that was shot down immediately. So that's why they were waterboarded? To get confessions out of them, even if they were innocent? Your disdain for our military reeks with every statement you make, Bob. If you had ever been a part of it perhaps you would be able to see things in a different light, who knows? Yet you have been quick to advocate giving away privacy rights, Really? Have your privacy rights been given away? I certainly advocate giving away suspected terrorist privacy rights, such as monitoring calls and e-mails going to terrorist organizations overseas. That's called logical and reasonable, Bob. You must be referring to the Patriot Act, which Democrats voted for and Obama has not rescinded. WHy not? Because it's prudent and logical, regardless of what you think. Our latest group of terrorists who planned to blow up buildings in the US were found out by those same measures. Perhaps they should sue for violation of their rights as terrorists? yet we have proportionately more prisoners than virtually anyplace else in the world. Ask yourself why sometime, Bob? Why so many criminals in this Utopia the founding fathers created? You could be surprised at the answer, although you would not acknowledge it, I'm sure. I think this is not the intention of the Framers, frankly, and am somewhat stunned to think that you do. Then you are easily stunned, Bob? You don't know the intention of the framers any more than I do but I think they would be aghast at what we have done to the judicial system they originally set up...but, then again, I think they would be as equally shocked to see Christmas trees replaced by Holiday trees and carols being banned from school plays...so what do I know? Yes, I understand that, in your eyes, all of the woes that have beset the country come from Bush and the Republicans. I can envision your wife waking you up in the morning with a "Good morning, honey" and your response being "Yes, it is, no thanks to Bush". It would have been interesting to see what your attitude would have been if Bush had been a Democrat, employing the same actions. I have a feeling there would have been a great transformation there, from goat to savior....just a guess. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.newsweek.com/id/223862/page/1 QED . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Apparently a lot of misguided information about the founders and Christmas trees...I doubt most of them even heard of one: quote: It actually didn't take that long for at least one founder to be aghast at the Supreme Court -- that was Thomas Jefferson - who was immediately incensed that these nine people were going to be ultimately in control of his hard-crafted legislation. But that was the intent of the founders -- and that's what they wrote in the constitution. They were also not so much Christians (and not so worried about Christmas) and vehemently against any establishment of religion -- so -- they would have been aghast that children ever sang carols in public schools to begin with. quote: |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “The War on Terror is also heating up again. Fairly or not, the Fort Hood massacre sent the message that the United States is more worried about appearing politically correct in matters of diversity than about hunting down radical Islamists on its home soil. Those who seek to copy what happened at Fort Hood will be encouraged. And those charged with stopping them will be discouraged and confused. Such uncertainty was reinforced by the attorney general’s decision to try the architects of 9/11 in federal courts in New York City. At best, the confessed mass-murderer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will lecture the United States. At worst, one sympathetic juror could find the monster only 99 percent guilty, and therefore the court might fail to convict him of planning the murders of 3,000 innocent people.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM2ZGFjNTFlMDc2YzRjOWUyOTJmMjNlMTY5YWI4ZGQ= So no one can pretend . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That certainly could be the case. If it is, we should stand ready immediately to blame it on somebody else and not keep open minds as to why such a look at why such a thing might happen. It is our quickness to blame others that keeps us in our leadership position in world affairs. And it is publications such as The National Review that enable us to maintain that lead. Why already it has determined that it is likely that our laws are not enough, and that we must go beyond our system of laws to deal with the terrible threat from within represented by the Tories, I mean slaves, no I mean copperheads, perhaps it's the german third column, no, maybe the Spanish. Well, whoever they are. We must immediately throw our system of government into the sewer so that we can meet this latest threat. Thank goodness, The National Review has alerted us to this danger posed by the Semites in our midst. We must act post-haste. Thanks, Huan-Yi. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Also, John, if I understand your posting commenting on Newsweek correctly — and I may not — I find the Iranian's behavior as disgusting as I would find the behavior of any other torturer. It reflects very badly on him and his country, and, as you've no doubt noticed, makes anything the Iranians say or do very difficult to trust. It also shows exactly how misinformed that man and perhaps many Iranians are about American culture. The notions about western women I have heard from both occasional Muslim men and also from women who have dated Muslim men from time to time. Especially Muslim men who haven't spent time in the states or in Europe, where these notions are often disproven fairly quickly. The gulf is not simply unidirectional. That is, it's not only Americans who misunderstand middle eastern Muslims. It seems that the same holds true in reverse. The problem is that each of us believes that the other side has the problem instead of seeing that the problem is mutual. I'm told that the sexist approach that Muslim men take to western women can frequently be remedied by the woman using a few sharp words of Arabic, which seems to set things straight fairly quickly, makes the guy come up short and gives an attitude adjustment. Whether this is true everywhere, I don't know; but I dated a woman once for a couple of years who swore by it. Torture is vile no matter who does it; of course that means Iranians. I hope Mr. Rosewater's face falls off. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I still get confused about the Christmas tree controversies, LR. WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is now open for Christmas. First lady Michelle Obama, along with daughters Malia and Sasha, received the official White House Christmas tree on Friday: an 18 1/2-foot Douglas fir delivered from a farm in Shepherdstown, W.Va., by traditional horse-drawn carriage. Growers Eric and Gloria Sundback officially presented it to the family. THE OVAL: Holiday leftovers It's the fourth time one of the Sundback's trees has been selected for the White House. The tree is destined for the Blue Room, where scores of volunteers will decorate it. The tree will be the star attraction of Christmas at the White House, seen by thousands of people at holiday parties and on public tours of the executive mansion. Next Thursday, the Obamas will flip a switch to light the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse. So we can have a national Christmas tree but not a town Christmas tree? SO the White House, which I feel is a government building, can have a Christmas tree but the town square in front of city halls have to have "holiday" trees, at best? I feel fairly confident there may even be Christmas carols sung in and/or around the White House...but schools can't? It gets a little confusing to me....as does most of life |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
About the White House and Christmas trees, I find myself confused as well, Mike. I suppose it's because it may be a publicly owned building, and yet remains a private residence as well. I wonder what would happen if Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Taoists or Buddhists were elected, and that family wanted to celebrate their religious holidays in The White House? I suspect the issue might suddenly become very very important in some quarters, but I really don't know. What do you think? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'd have a hard time buying that it is a private residence and not a government building, Bob or even that, since people live there as a private residence in a government building, that it would be exempt from rules the rest of the nation is expected to follow. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to see the White House not have a Christmas tree but I would like to see any government building or park or school have that same right. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I grew up annoyed that my tradition was never represented in the America of my era. In school, I had to say The Lord's Prayer and watch Christmas pageants and celebrate Easter and Christmas with parties at school. Every time I mentioned what the Jewish holidays might have been I either got complete puzzlement or punched in the face because apparently I'd killed Christ. Try as I might, I could never remember doing that. As I got older, and my practice became more agnostic and then more Taoist, I found out that the framers were not the sort of guys that would have agreed with the practice that went on in my Canton, Ohio public Schools. They were 18th Century rationalists, very much against any sort of government celebration of religion, let alone celebration of Christian religion. If you wanted to celebrate religion on your own, that was fine; but it wasn't fine to bring it into the governmental sphere. Franklin wanted to encourage Mosques. I think mostly because he liked to do outrageous things, but also because that was very much the sort of thing he had in mind. No religious favoritism, and none certainly to Christianity or to any one particular brand of Christianity. The country hasn't developed that way, and the folks, even during the times of the framers didn't particularly like that decision. There were intrigues. L.R. included some information on some of that stuff somewhere not to long ago, I believe. The Framers didn't take the popular position on this issue. It was another one of their positions which provided a great deal of offense to a lot of people. The Framers, however, were taking a different view, not a popular view, and it remains as offensive in some ways today as it did then. They weren't trying to be inoffensive. They took a philosophical position and made whatever compromises they had to make to forge the constitution for a country out of it. If they'd have gone too much one way, they'd have alienated the south, too much the other, they'd have alienated the north, and if they'd have been to open to religion in general, they would have betrayed some of their own principles. Not too Catholic, not too Protestant, and not having any power over government policy. More reason than religion wherever possible because they were readers of Locke and Rousseau. I like a Christmas tree a lot, these days. My wife and I put one up, and we frequently have people over for the holiday, and we enjoy that particular tradition. I even enjoy the scene at the White House because I think of it as this election cycle's crop of Christians sharing the family experience with those who want to share it. If I thought that it was other than that, I'd be upset. We're not supposed to be a Christian nation. We're supposed to be a Free nation, which means that we get to choose and nobody is supposed to give us a hard time about it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Well we’ve managed to evade the subject again haven’t we? Here’s an idea: let’s put both Christ and Mohamed on display in urine at the National Gallery for the holidays and see which draws the most planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
How are you going to tell the difference between the extremists, John? Can't tell the players without a program, can you? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
