Security threats inside and out for 9/11 trial

[Denny Crane]

Well, it would be pretty hard for a US town's police force to arrest someone in a foreign country. The ISI certainly isn't the US military, either.

barfo

You finally figured out why these guys don't belong in civilian courts.

 

[barfo]

You finally figured out why these guys don't belong in civilian courts.

Oh? You think anyone arrested overseas belongs in a military court? Polanski maybe?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh? You think anyone arrested overseas belongs in a military court? Polanski maybe?

barfo

Polanski is an extradition case. Again, very different situation. There was a warrant for his arrest and he fled the country. He was a citizen or resident of the United States who committed a crime.

If 9/11 were committed by US citizens or organized and funded by people here in the United States, it would be a criminal situation, like Timothy McVeigh.

When the plotting is done overseas and funded by a militant (with an organized military) overseas organization, it's an act of war.

 

[yakbladder]

And again, its when they are considered more than a threat. When they commit treasonous and terrorists acts.

And again, who is saying they've committed these acts?!?!?! Again, I'm not arguing the specific case of Khalid, I'm saying what if the govt goes "Hey, Joe Butthead, U.S. citizen, blew up this building, so we're sending him to a military tribunal and going to execute him." and he won't get to present evidence to the contrary under the standard rules of law.

Not to mention the fact that you've pretty much established you're willing to breach the Constitution when it suits your whim.

 

[Buzz Killington]

I am the Constitution.

 

[Denny Crane]

Were these guys read their miranda warning? That's a technicality that gets cases thrown out.

Think about why they weren't read their miranda warning.

Does anyone who thinks there should be criminal trials for these guys realize there is a real war in Afghanistan? One that Obama called a "war of necessity." Why would he call it that?

 

[Sug]

If nothing bad comes of this whole thing, will you come back in here and say you were wrong?

I will.

 

[maxiep]

If nothing bad comes of this whole thing, will you come back in here and say you were wrong?

I will.

Something bad has already come from it. These people have been given a soapbox. The CIA and the previous administration will be put on trial instead of the terrorists. The message has been sent to the terrorists that we're soft. Furthermore, they now know if they attack a military installation, they receive a martial trial. If they attack a civilian target, they receive a criminal trial. Incentives matters, and we've given them some pretty big ones.

 

[yakbladder]

I am the Constitution.

You mean Mr. Constitution. Just being the Constitution you sound like a super hero or something.

I AM CONSTITUTION! Bring me your bills filthy mortals!

 

[Blaze01]

LoL @ people who still think that terrorists flying planes knocked down the towers.

No...actually it is LOL at those people who think that isn't what happened. Go off your meds much?

So let me get this right, we are going to hold a public circus...err...trial for these guys, where they will be able to spread thier message of hatred towards America, rile up thier supporters and listen to the defense talk about waterboarding and other "atrocities" committed by our government in a 24/7 media frenzy?

And if but 1 juror does not find them guilty then what? Because our illustrious leader and his pawn...err...Attorney General have said that these guys won't go free regardless of the outcome of the trial....So I ask you

WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?

Is it to appease liberals that there is this "sense" of a fair trial even for MASS MURDERERS who aren't even American citizens and frankly are "enemy combatants" in the new world we live in...

My oh my, how civilized we are...

but they won't go free...no, no, no, not under any circumstace...Failure is not an option as Mr Holder said, and besides even if the defense somehow...gasp...wins...or gets a hung jury...well, we'll just make up something else to keep them detained until that prison facility in Illinois is ready....

The whole thing is preposterous...

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I am the Constitution.

I think maxiep wants to ask you out on a date.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Update:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_flips_on_khalid_trial_Ti9ScNQl7WDJtLos2VMV9J

In his biggest policy flip-flop since taking office, President Obama yesterday gave up on his campaign pledge to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a federal courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero, while his top legal eagle blamed the move on Congress.
Attorney General Eric Holder said he made the decision reluctantly -- and begrudgingly -- following a firestorm of criticism from the city and across the nation.
The ruling came on the same day that Obama announced the formation of his re-election committee and a day before a House judiciary panel planned a hearing on foot-dragging in prosecuting the 9/11 cases, including emotional testimony from relatives of the victims.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_flips_on_khalid_trial_Ti9ScNQl7WDJtLos2VMV9J#ixzz1IdOX4dd9

good.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

YOUR SIDE LOST, HIPPIE!

(never thought I would get to say that again until Nov 2012. ) :MARIS61:

 

[maxiep]

It's a stunning admission that their strategy of outreach has failed. I actually think Holder should resign given this outcome. What's his point in being there? John Yoo had a good laugh in this blog post: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Break...Be-Tried-by-Military-Commission-at-Guantanamo

 

[oldmangrouch]

Foolish decision.

How long before the usual suspects start calling for military tribunals for drug dealers, or Mafiosa, or anyone else they view as "inconvenient" to try in a real court of law?