NYC terror trial

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
13,293
Reaction score
7,658
We all have to realize that we are at war. Not a war like we've had in the past where we could bomb the enemy's homeland or take their flag. We are at war with a virtual country, a loose knit group of hate filled ideologues who are using electronic communications, porus borders, weak governments and other means to fight us.

There is no country called Alqeadia or Hammasistan or Hezbollahia or Jihadistan...Just because these people are spread out amongst multiple countries, we should make ourselves vulnerable in any way to satisfy some political goal?

If the criminal courts that are being planned are modified to any great extent as to the rules of the court and the rules/proccesses, then they really won't be civilian criminal court proceedings will they? So, what's the purpose? If they won't be "REAL" criminal proceedings, why not use the Military Tribunal System which is constitutional, legal, efficient and secure?

Im not denying that we are at war and using military service. Those we are fighting are from wherever and not a military, so you cant have both.


I hear this from the conservatives I know, why is this making us vulnerable?


It is probably a hybrid court to handle this. In the laws eyes neither court applies to this situation. Yes we are at war, yes we are deployed in foreign territory, yes the cia nsa and fbi are working on keeping us safe :rolleyes: but we need to fix the mess.




I also wanted to add if I have my way next year this time I will be sending plenty of those little bastards to their virgins, 1 5.56 at a time
 

kmk108

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
8,342
The ironic thing about all of this is the us would have bombed Al qaeda, do you think they would take the masterminds behind it to court to try them? No, they'd put them up in front of a bunch of people and probably cut their heads off.
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
718
The ironic thing about all of this is the us would have bombed Al qaeda, do you think they would take the masterminds behind it to court to try them? No, they'd put them up in front of a bunch of people and probably cut their heads off.

But we as a nation are better than that. We are a nation of laws, not of cutting people's heads off.

- D
 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,430
Reaction score
12,401
If they were to do that, then they (the countries) could (speculation again) be held liable....But that would mean we would actually have to stand up to saudi arabia and the rest of the opec cartel, just like when it comes to iran and N korea, we cant say much to china....F-n BS

We should have nuked china back in 51 and been done with it, and even before that we should have kicked the crap out of the red army in Germany, and drove them all the way back to moscow and put mcd's and strip clubs in St petersburg:cool:


sorry off topic

Not only do I agree, but I concur. And these guys should be tried in a Military Tribunal, and it should have been done long ago.
 

kmk108

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
8,342
But we as a nation are better than that. We are a nation of laws, not of cutting people's heads off.

- D

most definately...sadly sometimes i feel as if being a "good" nation will do anything other than make us look good. Sometimes i think that someday the bad, animalistic behavior might pay off for someone.
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
718
Some fun facts about terrorist prosecutions past....

In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.

By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

It would seem that all the hand-wringing about Holder's decision ignores past precedent of prosecuting terrorists in federal courts. I don't remember hearing anyone say that John Ashcroft or George W. Bush were making us more vulnerable by prosecuting terrorists in federal courts.

- D
 

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
13,293
Reaction score
7,658
Some fun facts about terrorist prosecutions past....



It would seem that all the hand-wringing about Holder's decision ignores past precedent of prosecuting terrorists in federal courts. I don't remember hearing anyone say that John Ashcroft or George W. Bush were making us more vulnerable by prosecuting terrorists in federal courts.

- D
Thats because it was not noted in the talking points from FOX or Rush or Carl Rove oh or Dick Cheney :lol:

Im not a liberal but you have to admit that any of those figures are jusr ridiculous
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
718
Thats because it was not noted in the talking points from FOX or Rush or Carl Rove oh or Dick Cheney :lol:

Im not a liberal but you have to admit that any of those figures are jusr ridiculous

You have to admire the media for being able to generate alarmist hype.

Actually, you don't. I kinda despise them for it.

- D
 

Scooter2112

Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
24,047
Reaction score
35,054
the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

I believe all those people listed are either American citizens or foreign nationals detained in country. Not plucked from Pakistan.
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
718
I believe all those people listed are either American citizens or foreign nationals detained in country. Not plucked from Pakistan.

Lindh was captured in Afghanistan.

Lindh was captured on November 25, 2001, by Afghan Northern Alliance forces, and questioned by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Johnny "Mike" Spann and another officer at General Dostum's military garrison, Qala-i-Jangi, near Mazār-e Sharīf.

- D
 

Scooter2112

Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
24,047
Reaction score
35,054
I believe all those people listed are either American citizens or foreign nationals detained in country. Not plucked from Pakistan.
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
718
I believe all those people listed are either American citizens or foreign nationals detained in country. Not plucked from Pakistan.

Point taken. Re-reading is a wonderful thing. :D

Still, the broader point stands. There is ample precedent for terrorists being tried in Federal court.

- D
 

Scooter2112

Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
24,047
Reaction score
35,054
Stranger... it could go either way. At this point, we don't know what's going to happen. I'm concerned that Holder had no answer for this. I think that in order to confirm the legality of what he's about to do, he would have had positive answers to support his case.
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
718
Stranger... it could go either way. At this point, we don't know what's going to happen. I'm concerned that Holder had no answer for this. I think that in order to confirm the legality of what he's about to do, he would have had positive answers to support his case.

Agreed. But I'll assume for now that Holder made the decision taking into consideration how venue choice factored in past prosecutions. They must see some legal advantage in the venue chosen - while there are no doubt political motivations involved, an attorney's first instinct is to stack the deck in their favor, and Holder is probably no exception.

At any rate, the actual trial apparently is a long way off - I heard on the radio the other day that there won't even be any preliminary motions until after the new year, and the trial itself may not take place until 2011.

- D
 

River

Senior Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
57,237
Reaction score
91,396
Agreed. But I'll assume for now that Holder made the decision taking into consideration how venue choice factored in past prosecutions. They must see some legal advantage in the venue chosen - while there are no doubt political motivations involved, an attorney's first instinct is to stack the deck in their favor, and Holder is probably no exception.

At any rate, the actual trial apparently is a long way off - I heard on the radio the other day that there won't even be any preliminary motions until after the new year, and the trial itself may not take place until 2011.

- D
Drag it out so long that everyone gets bored with it, like an Italian homicide trial? ;)
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,513
Reaction score
46,676
They are going to change the rules of the civilian court in order to keep secret, sensitive information out of the public eyes, and out of the transcripts. They are going to change the rules of discovery as well. President Obama and AG Holder have ALREADY spoken publicly that the convictions of the accused will be a slam dunk. Where is the fairness and the basic idea that you are innocent until proven guilty?

It seems like a kangaroo court and it seems like the trials could become another rallying point for the jihadists if it does appear to be a faulty process. So, what's the point?

The trials of Padilla and Lindh were trials of AMERICAN citizens, not foreign nationals. Padilla and Lindh were guarenteed their civil rights and their day in court. The terrorists we are about to try in civilian court are NOT American citizens and have NO expectation of a day in civilian court.

We are at war, we aren't arresting and prosecuting burglars and common thieves...It's my opinion that this plan will end badly.
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
718
They are going to change the rules of the civilian court in order to keep secret, sensitive information out of the public eyes, and out of the transcripts. They are going to change the rules of discovery as well. President Obama and AG Holder have ALREADY spoken publicly that the convictions of the accused will be a slam dunk. Where is the fairness and the basic idea that you are innocent until proven guilty?

As my link to WaPo outlines, this is nothing new. Bush, Gonzales and Ashcroft did exactly the same thing. And as I mentioned in that post, there was none of the outrage when Ashcroft and Gonzales venue-shopped and bent the rules. Why now, KSG?

It seems like a kangaroo court and it seems like the trials could become another rallying point for the jihadists if it does appear to be a faulty process. So, what's the point?

It would seem that jihadists already have no shortage of 'rallying points.' Our very existence is a rallying point for them. Do you really think the choice of venue for KSM is going to rev them up any further than they are now?

The trials of Padilla and Lindh were trials of AMERICAN citizens, not foreign nationals. Padilla and Lindh were guarenteed their civil rights and their day in court. The terrorists we are about to try in civilian court are NOT American citizens and have NO expectation of a day in civilian court.

Richard Reid was a British subject. Prosecuted and convicted in a Federal court in Boston.

We are at war, we aren't arresting and prosecuting burglars and common thieves...It's my opinion that this plan will end badly.

In your opinion, did the prosecutions that set a clear precedent for what Holder's doing 'end badly?' Be honest.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,513
Reaction score
46,676
From the linked story:
"Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again."

Richard Reid - British citizen, attempted to blow up an American civilian airliner en route to American soil.
Jose Padilla - An American citizen, caught on American soil, by LEOs. Convicted of conspiracy, caught in 2002 when we were still trying to figure out what to do with these murderous thugs.
Lindh - An American citizen, caught on a foreign battlefield.
The Lackawanna Six - American citizens arrested on American soil, by LEOs
Moussaoui - French citizen captured on American soil, by LEOs

Outrage aside, these people, by virtue of their citizenship, who arrested them, where they were arrested and how the evidence against them was gathered, were all entitled to a civilian trial.

KLM was captured on foreign soil, by Pakistani ISI and CIA agents. He is not an American citizen, he was not captured on American soil, he was not captured by LEOs, but by foreign and US intelligence operatives. Much of the evidence against him, and his subsequent confession were not gathered under the rules of civilian law enforcement.

"...He told American interrogators he would not answer any questions until he was provided with a lawyer, which was refused to him.[46] He claims to have been kept naked for several days during his isolation and interrogations, during which he was "questioned by an unusual number of female handlers".[46]
According to the "unclassified summary of evidence" presented during the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in 2007 a computer hard drive seized during the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed contained the following:

*information about the four airplanes hijacked on 11 September 2001 including code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name and background information, and names of the hijackers
*photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 11 September 2001 hijackers
*a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta and biographies for some of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.
*images of passports and an image of Mohammad Atta.
*transcripts of chat sessions belonging to at least one of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.
*three letters from Osama bin Laden
*spreadsheets that describe money assistance to families of known al Qaeda members
*a letter to the United Arab Emirates threatening attack if their government continued to help the United States
*a document that summarized operational procedures and training requirements of an al Qaeda cell
*a list of killed and wounded al Qaeda militants.
*However, at the hearing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed that the computer belonged not to him but to Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi arrested together with him.[49]" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KLM was held, without trial, attorney or habeous corpus rights, he was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding and he confessed to multiple acts of terrorism and multiple terrorist plans. He's already confessed in his first Commission Hearing. A civilian trial will allow KLM to manipulate our system, to tie up our courts using our own rules, to get a public hearing of his ideology and generally to make a mockery of our government.

As to KLM's ability to use the trials as a rallying point for jihadis, he will get a chance to speak publically about his ideology, he will get a chance to put up a vigorous defense and to bring up his treatment, his captors, witnesses etc. This will be covered by every news agency in the world.

If he is to be tried under civilian rules, then he is PRESUMED INNOCENT until his guilt is proven. The President of the US and the AG of the US have ALREADY said that he will be found guilty. Talk about tainting the jury pool. If the rules are bent to much to keep our secrets safe and to ensure conviction, then his followers, wannabe followers and our enemies in the world will be able to use the sham conviction against us and our legal system. All for nothing, as he's already confessed in the military commission (the confession is invalid in the civilian court).

In my opinion, the risk of trying KLM and others like him, in our civilian courts, granting them the same rights as US citizens, sets a bad precedent for the future, makes us less safe, and is a bad move in many ways. I'm not a lawyer, these are just my opinions. I hope that I'm wrong and that everything turns out great, but it doesn't look right to me...
 

Latest Threads



Top