Civilian Trial for KSM

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
Accused 9/11 Mastermind to Face Civilian Trial in N.Y.
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a decision that ignited a sharp political debate but took a step toward resolving one of the most pressing terrorism detention issues.

The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., could mean one of the highest-profile and highest-security terrorism trials in history would be set just blocks from where hijackers for Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Mr. Holder said he would instruct prosecutors to seek death sentences for Mr. Mohammed and four accused Sept. 11 co-conspirators who would be tried alongside him.

But while the civilian system would handle those cases, he said five other detainees would be prosecuted before a military commission.

Those facing a military trial include Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning Al Qaeda’s 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen. All 10 detainees are being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantánamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad,” Mr. Holder said.

No decision has yet been made about where to hold the military trials, Mr. Holder said. But the administration’s decision to bring five Sept. 11 detainees onto United States soil for prosecution in the civilian legal system drew immediate fire from members of Congress as well as relatives of victims and neighbors of the federal courthouse.

They argued that Qaeda suspects did not deserve the protections afforded by the American criminal justice system, that bringing them into the United States would heighten the risk of another terrorist attack, that civilian trials increase the risk of disclosing classified information, and that if the detainees were acquitted they could be released into the population.

“We should not be increasing the danger of another terrorist strike against Americans at home and abroad,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York.

Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, questioned the wisdom of trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts, arguing that military commissions were more appropriate. But many other Democrats praised the move, noting that New York had been the setting for other high-profile terrorism trials — including the prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik” who was convicted of plotting to blow up the United Nations headquarters and other New York landmarks.

“New York is not afraid of terrorists,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, adding, “Any suggestion that our prosecutors and our law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue.”

Mr. Holder said he was confident that the men would be convicted, and other administration officials said they had ample legal authority to keep classified information secret. They also suggested that they could continue to detain anyone deemed to be a “combatant” under Congress’s authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda.

Mr. Mohammed and the other detainees would not be moved right away. Under a recently enacted law, the administration must give Congress 45 days notice before bringing any Guantánamo Bay detainee into the United States. Mr. Holder said the administration would comply with that requirement as it seeks indictments from a grand jury.

The decision to prosecute some detainees in civilian court was a major policy shift from the Bush administration, which contended that suspected Al Qaeda members should not be treated like — nor given the rights of — ordinary criminals. It had charged the Sept. 11 defendants before a military commission at Guantánamo, which has a more flexible standard for evidence.

Days after his inauguration, President Obama signed orders halting the Bush era military commission trials and instructing officials to shut the prison within a year. But it became clear that closing the facility would be easier said than done, as political and legal pressures made it tough to move terrorism suspects into prisons in the United States, and other countries refused to accept them.

In a speech in May, Mr. Obama said that some detainees would be tried in civilian court, but that others could be prosecuted before a modified system of military commissions. Congress recently enacted legislation adding safeguards to the panels.

Kenneth Wainstein, an assistant attorney general for national security during the Bush administration, said he took “great comfort” from the Obama administration’s decision to use commissions to handle detainees who cannot be tried in civilian courts for reasons of evidence, security or applicable charges.

“They made what I think for them was a difficult policy and political decisions to retain military commissions — to fine-tune them but retain them,” he said, characterizing Mr. Holder’s approach as a “good call.”

In his May speech, Mr. Obama also said some detainees who are deemed too dangerous to release but too difficult to prosecute could be brought to the United States for preventive detention — essentially holding them indefinitely without trial. Mr. Holder on Friday offered no new details about that plan, which has drawn fire from civil-liberties groups and local communities.

In July, a task force of Justice and Pentagon prosecutors developed a system for evaluating what to do with each detainee, taking account of factors like where offenses took place, the identity of victims, and the manner in which evidence was gathered.

There was an internal debate over who would ultimately handle what is likely to be among the most visible trials in years.

Some military prosecutors who had spent years building cases against the accused Sept. 11 conspirators wanted to keep them.

New York prosecutors wanted them, too, as did those in the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction over the area surrounding the Pentagon, where one of the planes struck.

Mr. Holder said that over the past few weeks, he had “personally reviewed” the 10 cases and made the final determination about which system would prosecute the two sets of detainees. He also decided that the Sept. 11 prosecutorial team would include attorneys from the Eastern District of Virginia.

Political considerations did not come into play in his decision, he said.

On the morning before Friday’s announcement, Mr. Holder called Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Gov. David Paterson of New York to inform them of his decision. Mr. Bloomberg said that he supported having the trial in the city, and that its police force could handle any security issues.

“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

Civil-liberties and human-rights groups praised the decision to try the detainees in federal court. Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the announcement “an enormous victory for the rule of law.”

He also announced that the A.C.L.U. and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers would shut down a joint effort to provide defense attorneys for the detainees facing military commissions. They spent about $4 million on the effort, he said.

But civil liberties groups expressed disappointment that the Obama administration would continue to use military commissions — even with the modifications. They said they would continue to press for all detainees to receive regular trials or court-martials.

The prospect of prosecuting Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Nashiri has been particularly difficult because their defense lawyers are expected to argue that they were illegally tortured by the Central Intelligence Agency during their confinement. Both were subjected to waterboarding, a controlled drowning technique.

About 215 detainees remain at Guantánamo, although about 90 have been cleared for release. The task force is continuing to evaluate their cases and Mr. Holder is expected to make more announcements are expected in coming weeks.

Article in case you're in a cave.

So what does everyone think about this?

I think it's a horrible idea, I mean, considering we're supposedly at war with Al Queda... Not to mention problems with juries, cost to the city, security, getting a "fair" trial, etc.

and just for fun, ladies and gentlemen... mr. pat buchanan
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268
 
Al Queda is neither an army nor associated with a country much like the Mafia.

They break law? Collect evidence, have a trial, then set them free, kill them or stick them in prison.

Al Queda is an overhyped boogeyman used by the government to strip us of more rights.
 
The only issue I really see is the cost for security etc., but other wise I'm for it for the reason's FoC listed.

Terrorist groups aren't official state actors, so they shouldn't fall under military law IMO.

Hopefully this is a good precedent to dealing with terrorists as criminals that will allow us to clear out Guantanomo, and stop holding suspected terrorists indefinitely etc. Treat them as we would any other non-citizen who commits a crime in the US or against US property/personnel abroad.
 
Was wondering when a thread would be created for this. I didn't create one because I don't have very many strong feelings on the matter. Here are some random thoughts:

-I actually feel like I fully understand the people that are for and against this. But make no mistake about it - Holder is doing this to put the CIA and Bush on trial. It WILL be a huge ass media circus and will likely drag on for years. This is acceptable and necessary to those in favor of this. It will send ripples for years through the intelligence community and military.

-For better or worse we are taking a military/intelligence that mostly works, taking it apart, putting it in a bag, shaking it up, spilling it out and hoping the things some people found offensive are gone and it still functions.

-I do honestly feel that more than anything Obama has done so far in his presidency, this is the biggest risk to his reelection, depending on how big of a circus it turns into.

-I really don't get the "Al Queda isn't a nation so we can't call it war" argument. By making this decision, we just showed every single nation on earth that may wish us ill will, that as long as they create/fund terrorist groups without a national flag they can completely circumvent our definition of "war" and use our own PC against us. We just, quite literally, advertised that the United States of America doesn't recognize proxy wars as wars. The possible repercussions of this are truly mind-boggling and can't even be calculated for some time.

-I also think that the CIA/Military has learned a big lesson from all of this. You bet your bottom dollar they won't be "arresting" too many terrorists any more to be put on expensive trials when keeping them overseas in secret Pakistani prisons or just making sure they are made dead to begin with get much easier to swallow results. This is already widely talked about and decided by those on the front lines.

-And the gigantic elephant in the room question that nobody can answer, or seems to care to: Where in all of New York is it expected they will find 12 impartial jurors for this trial? Dmaul? Do you live in New York? ;)
 
You aren't going to get impartial jurors anywhere in the US. New Yorkers may feel more strongly about it, but this was obviously a national case and moving it wouldn't get impartial jurors anyway. Everyone knows about 9/11.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So if what you say is true (which I think it is), this trial is stillborn and ultimately pointless (except for political retroactive revenge).[/QUOTE]

Well the question is whether people with knowledge of the case can still decide his guilt/innocence based mostly on the evidence presented.

And the point is anyone accused of a crime has the right to a trial--the impartial jury part just can't always be guaranteed for many crimes that get a ton of publicity especially in today's media dominated age.

So I don't think it's just political revenge--there's just no better way to do it in terms of processing this case (and other terrorist cases) in a way that's fitting with the constitution etc.
 
The only good that could come of this case is any testimony from KSM as to how everything was planned out in great detail. I don't expect this though. I expect to hear stone cold silence throughout the whole thing from him.

To go on a tangent here; who the hell would want to defend this guy? I'd flag whoever defends him on every watch list in the country.
 
At first I thought Dutch airlines KLM were somehow on trial. Didn't realize KSM was a well known acronym.

Anyhoo, I actually agree with part of thrust's post, part of dmaul's, and all of fatherofcaitlyn. They're a band of terrorists, not connected by national ties which makes it difficult to declare war on them. In fact, this "war on terrorism" was a brilliant phrase because it's so insanely vague. Previous opinions on the topic have been that prisoners captured worldwide could be held until the end of the "War on Terror." How do we know when the end is? When They start listening to Britney Spears and watch the Hills in Mecca?

al-Qaeda IMO has been given way more power by the US than they actually possess.

Now I'm all for really bad guys who confess/are proven to be mas murderers like, heh "KSM", but the country needs to figure out what the hell he is, and how we can make policy out of this rather than pick and choose.

With regards to the trial being in NY, that's ridiculous. It should be somewhere far away. No you're not going to find 12 people that never heard of 9/11, but you're at least more likely to find 12 people that have no emotional tie to the city and the people.
 
[quote name='Magehart']
To go on a tangent here; who the hell would want to defend this guy? I'd flag whoever defends him on every watch list in the country.[/QUOTE]

That's a silly view. There are plenty of defense attorneys (public defenders included) who do it as even the people who committed the most heinous acts have a right to representation.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a silly view. There are plenty of defense attorneys (public defenders included) who do it as even the people who committed the most heinous acts have a right to representation.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, that's the whole point of being a lawyer - emotionally distant to your client. If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't represent him unless I was forced to -- not because of bias or what he's done, but because I know that's an already lost battle.

I think you'd be able to find a jury in New York. Keep in mind that most people who feel outrage over 9/11 instead of remorse are PROBABLY not from / near the NY area. We're all crazy Starbucks liberals in the tri-state area, lol. It's not so much that we've forgiven and forgotten, but because it happened to us we know that being angry still won't bring back our family and friends. It's very Jewish in that respect -- forgive, don't forget. But also NEVER AGAIN! *IDF fist pump*

However, I agree with Thrust on this point completely:
I really don't get the "Al Queda isn't a nation so we can't call it war" argument. By making this decision, we just showed every single nation on earth that may wish us ill will, that as long as they create/fund terrorist groups without a national flag they can completely circumvent our definition of "war" and use our own PC against us. We just, quite literally, advertised that the United States of America doesn't recognize proxy wars as wars. The possible repercussions of this are truly mind-boggling and can't even be calculated for some time.

So, I think that this shouldn't be a civilian trial for these reasons (as ripped from Wikipedia's definition of military tribunals):
1) we have already held them in military custody
2) "stand accused of being enemies in a conflict in which the military is engaged who a combatants [sic] who have violated a law of war [(i.e., genocide of civilians)]"

Despite agreeing with Thrust, I don't think that should play a role in determining the setting for this trial. The law's the law; you can't change it to serve the best interests of the day (unless it goes through Congress). I would just be glad that it would be avoided if it were held in a military court.
 
I think it's odd that anyone thinks they can get a fair trial in New York.

Here's a question I've posed before though: How do Christians who support the death penalty reconcile it with the teachings of J.C. (turn the other cheek, etc.)?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

-I really don't get the "Al Queda isn't a nation so we can't call it war" argument. By making this decision, we just showed every single nation on earth that may wish us ill will, that as long as they create/fund terrorist groups without a national flag they can completely circumvent our definition of "war" and use our own PC against us. We just, quite literally, advertised that the United States of America doesn't recognize proxy wars as wars. The possible repercussions of this are truly mind-boggling and can't even be calculated for some time.

-I also think that the CIA/Military has learned a big lesson from all of this. You bet your bottom dollar they won't be "arresting" too many terrorists any more to be put on expensive trials when keeping them overseas in secret Pakistani prisons or just making sure they are made dead to begin with get much easier to swallow results. This is already widely talked about and decided by those on the front lines.
[/QUOTE]

agree with both points.


[quote name='willardhaven']

Here's a question I've posed before though: How do Christians who support the death penalty reconcile it with the teachings of J.C. (turn the other cheek, etc.)?[/QUOTE]

really? gtfo, this has nothing what so ever to do with the topic.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I think it's odd that anyone thinks they can get a fair trial in New York.

Here's a question I've posed before though: How do Christians who support the death penalty reconcile it with the teachings of J.C. (turn the other cheek, etc.)?[/QUOTE]

Easy to answer: they're only Christian in name, they don't really follow the footsteps of Christ. They reconcile it by not being an adherent to the Good Word.
 
shout out to everybody in the room. Everybody check my profile out a give me a shout. Im a newbie and also a up and coming veteran. vandolizer
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']



really? gtfo, this has nothing what so ever to do with the topic.[/QUOTE]


Actually it does, no need to be so hostile (although this is the Vs. forum). If you follow the news (I live in NY), it's filled with people not asking if they are guilty and deserving of death, it's how best to serve it to them.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']-I really don't get the "Al Queda isn't a nation so we can't call it war" argument. By making this decision, we just showed every single nation on earth that may wish us ill will, that as long as they create/fund terrorist groups without a national flag they can completely circumvent our definition of "war" and use our own PC against us. We just, quite literally, advertised that the United States of America doesn't recognize proxy wars as wars. The possible repercussions of this are truly mind-boggling and can't even be calculated for some time.
[/QUOTE]

Not quite. Remember Afghanistan? Before ignoring it, we did kill a bunch of their people because they refused to bend over like Pakistan did or hand over the terrorists harboring there.

Let's pretend Hamas or Hezbollah decided to pull off the neocon wet dream: dropping a nuclear bomb in New York City. How many inches of shrapnel and depleted uranium would Iran be covered in by the next week? 3? 6? 70?

I'm sure another terrorist organization like COBRA could spring up out of nowhere, but, if COBRA were ever to do something major to the US, COBRA's sponsors would be found out and crushed.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I actually feel like I fully understand the people that are for and against this. But make no mistake about it - Holder is doing this to put the CIA and Bush on trial. It WILL be a huge ass media circus and will likely drag on for years. This is acceptable and necessary to those in favor of this. It will send ripples for years through the intelligence community and military.[/quote]
Don't speak on behalf of the military. You have no insight into how they feel about it because you chose to not be a member. So don't pretend. It's offensive to those of us that did choose to serve. When we talk about unemployment benefits, we'll ask for your informed opinion.

And those of us that actually were in know the rules at all times. If you run afoul of the UCMJ, your ass is comin up on charges. NOTHING, no terrorist attack or order from a superior or anything else supersedes your obligation to America as a uniformed military member. If someone felt they were above the law of this country that they have sworn to protect and defend, then their ass should be sitting in a jail cell.
-I also think that the CIA/Military has learned a big lesson from all of this. You bet your bottom dollar they won't be "arresting" too many terrorists any more to be put on expensive trials when keeping them overseas in secret Pakistani prisons or just making sure they are made dead to begin with get much easier to swallow results. This is already widely talked about and decided by those on the front lines.
There is no place in our military for this cowboy justice. This is the problem with you armchair chickenhawk pussies. You want to play like it's a movie.
-And the gigantic elephant in the room question that nobody can answer, or seems to care to: Where in all of New York is it expected they will find 12 impartial jurors for this trial? Dmaul? Do you live in New York? ;)
The jurors would be seated based on their understanding of KSM's relationship to the terrorist attacks. Surely we would be able to find 12 people that don't know who KSM is or at the very least, don't have an informed opinion on it. Lord knows we have plenty of uninformed opinion running around here and this is a pretty small sample.
 
This is pointless. Can anyone seriously see this guy as innocent until proven guilty? In New York no less. At this point a trial is just a formality.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']This is pointless. Can anyone seriously see this guy as innocent until proven guilty? In New York no less. At this point a trial is just a formality.[/QUOTE]

If KSM claims to have no affiliation with Al Queda and all of the proof was obtained through torture, should he still be executed?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I think it's odd that anyone thinks they can get a fair trial in New York.[/quote]
I think it's odd that anyone can think they would get a fair trial, period. KSM already admitted his guilt. This trial is just to give KSM an international mic so he can describe, in detail, all the scary things the CIA did to him because Holder has a huge boner for the embarrassment of certain people/agencies. And there are those that, unbelievably, believe that's all ultimately for the best as far as international policy goes.

Here's a question I've posed before though: How do Christians who support the death penalty reconcile it with the teachings of J.C. (turn the other cheek, etc.)?
That's a good question, but you could also use the same logic to say that Christians shouldn't believe in imprisonment, fines, or any other 'punishment' either. They should forgive everyone of everything and never dish out any punishment. Since most people would agree such a position would be socially insane, they just chalk capitol punishment up to one of the degrees of punishment the justice system uses. Just imo, of course.

[quote name='speedracer']Don't speak on behalf of the military. You have no insight into how they feel about it because you chose to not be a member. So don't pretend. It's offensive to those of us that did choose to serve. When we talk about unemployment benefits, we'll ask for your informed opinion. [/quote]
I don't recall trying to speak on behalf of the military. It's unfortunate you chose to believe so. I get opinions from friends and family in the military and intelligence agencies, and just like I can share those opinions on here if I want, you can choose to discount them if you want.

And those of us that actually were in know the rules at all times. If you run afoul of the UCMJ, your ass is comin up on charges. NOTHING, no terrorist attack or order from a superior or anything else supersedes your obligation to America as a uniformed military member. If someone felt they were above the law of this country that they have sworn to protect and defend, then their ass should be sitting in a jail cell.
So what are you saying? You really believe we should be on search and arrest missions in other countries for those that may be guilty of terrorist attacks for the strict goal of shipping them back here to our Hilton prisons and put them all on trial?
Well I guess you do believe that. But do you really believe the military and CIA operating right now in other countries share that view even if you think they should? After what's happened?

There is no place in our military for this cowboy justice. This is the problem with you armchair chickenhawk pussies. You want to play like it's a movie.
War isn't cowboy justice, even if you like to think it is. Our leaders have described this as a war, and war is much different than flexing the justice system of our own country - so it's either a war or it isn't. If it isn't, then what is it?

The jurors would be seated based on their understanding of KSM's relationship to the terrorist attacks. Surely we would be able to find 12 people that don't know who KSM is or at the very least, don't have an informed opinion on it. Lord knows we have plenty of uninformed opinion running around here and this is a pretty small sample.
I'd describe that opinion as a fantasy.
Not one person in all of New York that passes competency tests to be a juror is going to NOT know that the person they are getting paid to try didn't already admit to helping plan 9/11. Not one of them will NOT know what 9/11 is.

The entire reason those jurors are going to sit there is not for KSM; it's to listen to the stories of the awful scary things the CIA did to him to get him to confess. That's what will ultimately end up on trial here, and that has practically been admitted by Holder (if you read between the lines).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']The entire reason those jurors are going to sit there is not for KSM; it's to listen to the stories of the awful scary things the CIA did to him to get him to confess. That's what will ultimately end up on trial here, and that has practically been admitted by Holder.[/QUOTE]

Is there a problem with prosecuting torturers?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If KSM claims to have no affiliation with Al Queda and all of the proof was obtained through torture, should he still be executed?[/QUOTE]
Of course he shouldn't, but i'm betting on him not coming out of this alive. People would riot if he was let go.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is there a problem with prosecuting torturers?[/QUOTE]

No. But if that's your goal, then put them on trial. Don't try to put someone that's admitted guilt and pride over what he's accused for on an expensive international trial, giving our enemy some degree of credibility, just so you can hope he "spills the beans" on questionable interrogation tactics and attempt and hope to play pick up sticks with the entire justice system and build something better.

If they really want to put Bush and the CIA on trial (They do) then do it. Officially. Hell, use KSM as a witness if necessary.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Here's a question I've posed before though: How do Christians who support the death penalty reconcile it with the teachings of J.C. (turn the other cheek, etc.)?[/QUOTE]

It's been awhile since I watched Passion of the Christ, but I'm pretty sure Jesus supported the death penalty. He could have gotten away if he wanted.
 
There are enough ambiguities within Christianity to support or not support whatever you want. It's never a question of how they reconcile their thoughts with their religious teachings, but rather how they reconcile opposing teachings within the religion itself. Generally you end up picking one or the other.
 
[quote name='SpazX']There are enough ambiguities within Christianity to support or not support whatever you want. It's never a question of how they reconcile their thoughts with their religious teachings, but rather how they reconcile opposing teachings within the religion itself. Generally you end up picking one or the other.[/QUOTE]

Disclaimer: This is the case with all religions, some more than others. (Tip-Christianity is pretty low on the list).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Disclaimer: This is the case with all religions, some more than others. (Tip-Christianity is pretty low on the list).[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't disagree with the first part. It's the case with anything that a collaboration of people create (especially over generations).

Pretty low though? Maybe if you don't count anything from Judaism and imagineer the gospels into one coherent narrative, but that would be cheating. And of course you can't count anything Mormon in there buddy or you're just complicating it even more (although the book of Mormon is probably more consistent within itself, coming from fewer sources, but I don't have too much experience with that).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So what are you saying? You really believe we should be on search and arrest missions in other countries for those that may be guilty of terrorist attacks for the strict goal of shipping them back here to our Hilton prisons and put them all on trial?[/quote]
What does UCMJ say about prisoners of war? This is war right?
Well I guess you do believe that. But do you really believe the military and CIA operating right now in other countries share that view even if you think they should? After what's happened?
Um, yes. Americans should feel bound by the constraints of the Constitution, UCMJ, and all applicable laws. Crazy, I know. Where do I come up with this shit?
War isn't cowboy justice, even if you like to think it is. Our leaders have described this as a war, and war is much different than flexing the justice system of our own country - so it's either a war or it isn't. If it isn't, then what is it?
wat.

We're talking about those captured in war fighting. Bullets don't kill every single bad guy they hit.

I'd describe that opinion as a fantasy. Not one person in all of New York that passes competency tests to be a juror is going to NOT know that the person they are getting paid to try didn't already admit to helping plan 9/11. Not one of them will NOT know what 9/11 is.
Knowing about 9/11 is not an automatic disqualifier. And you're telling me that in the whole state of New York we aren't going to have 12 people without an opinion on Khalid Mohammed? Shit, I bet if you put 4 Turkish names above and below KSM's and starting asking people which one was involved in 9/11, a fairly solid percentage wouldn't be able to pick him out.
The entire reason those jurors are going to sit there is not for KSM; it's to listen to the stories of the awful scary things the CIA did to him to get him to confess. That's what will ultimately end up on trial here, and that has practically been admitted by Holder (if you read between the lines).
You're adorable when you minimize torture. I agree. I always felt there the government should have the ability to work behind a veil of secrecy also.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']This is pointless. Can anyone seriously see this guy as innocent until proven guilty? In New York no less. At this point a trial is just a formality.[/QUOTE]

It is just a formality for sure. But people have a right to that formality if they're going to be tried in civilian court vs. having the slippery slope of treating non-state actors as enemy combatants.
 
So... we have the President stating that the defendant will be convicted and put to death.

The Attorney General states that Acquittal is "not an option."

Does anyone really believe that Khalid will really receive a "fair" trial?

Then, the AG goes on to state that, even if Khalid is acquitted by a Jury, the Federal government has no plans to release him anyway.

So, what's the point of all this again? Regardless if he's innocent or guilty, if he's found guilty, "our enemies" will just say the trial was rigged and use quotes like Obama's and Holder's to bolster their claims. If he's acquitted, he won't be released and that'd look even worse than not trying him, IMHO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is just a formality for sure. But people have a right to that formality if they're going to be tried in civilian court vs. having the slippery slope of treating non-state actors as enemy combatants.[/QUOTE]
Oh i know, i wouldn't refuse the guy a trial, i just mean from a practical standpoint. They could let him go free right now and he wouldn't make it out of NYC alive probably.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake'] he wouldn't make it out of NYC alive probably.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone flew a plane into the courtroom. In all seriousness, this looks like a politically motivated move. While I don't want the guy executed (I think it will lead to more anti-American sentiment), I feel for the people who died or lost family and friends.
 
Well i know i'll get bashed for this, but i really don't know what executing the guy is supposed to solve. It isn't going to "strike fear" into anyone who might attack us, rather rjust give them even more reason to. Suicide during the process seems to be their given tactic, so showing them what will happen if their caught doesn't make much sense.

I hate to say it, but this seems more like a move to satisfy the blood lust a lot of people still have over 9/11.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... we have the President stating that the defendant will be convicted and put to death.

The Attorney General states that Acquittal is "not an option."

Does anyone really believe that Khalid will really receive a "fair" trial?

Then, the AG goes on to state that, even if Khalid is acquitted by a Jury, the Federal government has no plans to release him anyway.

So, what's the point of all this again? Regardless if he's innocent or guilty, if he's found guilty, "our enemies" will just say the trial was rigged and use quotes like Obama's and Holder's to bolster their claims. If he's acquitted, he won't be released and that'd look even worse than not trying him, IMHO.[/QUOTE]

If acquittal is not an option than it a kangaroo court by definition. I can't see how he WON'T be acquitted. This trial is part and parcel of America's apology to the world.

In fact, it's probably a predetermined quid pro quo to let him go as partial reparations for former torturous injustice.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... we have the President stating that the defendant will be convicted and put to death.

The Attorney General states that Acquittal is "not an option."

Does anyone really believe that Khalid will really receive a "fair" trial?

Then, the AG goes on to state that, even if Khalid is acquitted by a Jury, the Federal government has no plans to release him anyway.

So, what's the point of all this again? Regardless if he's innocent or guilty, if he's found guilty, "our enemies" will just say the trial was rigged and use quotes like Obama's and Holder's to bolster their claims. If he's acquitted, he won't be released and that'd look even worse than not trying him, IMHO.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. 100%. The only thing I'll point out is that I think technically Holder said something more along the lines of he'll never be released in the US. I read that and was surprised because it's quite specific. Now maybe they ship him off to an Albanian secret prison for life, but maybe he's saying that they'd be forced to release him overseas in his country of origin. Anyway, I thought that comment of his was quite interesting.

To me, there's no way they can't release him without creating a domestic and foreign PR grand scene if he's acquitted.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']War were declared.[/QUOTE]

Are you referring to World War II?

We have had authorizations for the use of force and tagged along with UN resolutions, but Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

I know I'm splitting hairs.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']he wasnt captured on a battlefield. and the charges that he was brought up for werent war related.[/QUOTE]


I know he was held up in the Vatican embassy but we invaded the damn country. And War on Drugs? He was found guilty of cocaine trafficking.
 
bread's done
Back
Top