03 Jul 09
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree that the US should try, in federal court, those who we have captured who are alleged to have taken part in the 9/11 conspiracy. The fact that our government chose to torture some of them might make their statements during these "interrogations" inadmissible, but we have been told that there is ample evidence against them. If so, get them in front of a jury.
[/i]The nazis were tried by a court and found guilty.
SHOW ME THE TRIAL.
Oh. There hasn't been one.
Ahhhh... perhaps finding people guilty before the court case is...uh... illegal?
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe the purpose for torture in this case was to make sure it never got to court.
I agree that the US should try, in federal court, those who we have captured who are alleged to have taken part in the 9/11 conspiracy. The fact that our government chose to torture some of them might make their statements during these "interrogations" inadmissible, but we have been told that there is ample evidence against them. If so, get them in front of a jury.
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFActually, Hitler wasn't found guilty at Nuremberg; he wasn't part of the indictment (being certainly dead). Though since virtually all of his top advisers and cronies were, it's a pretty reasonable supposition to assume he would have been, too.
The word "moron" is relatively tame around here. It's used by people on all parts of the spectrum, including "pro-Americans".
Hitler WAS found guilty at Nuremberg. So I don't think I will get mucg traction (on your behalf) with that.
I think shavaxmir's point was that some documentary-reconstruction thing on Dutch TV. Something about Obama not being brough ...[text shortened]... e.
I reckon I need more than this Nimz. Trawl back through his posting history, maybe?
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserI assume the purpose of the torture was; A) To obtain information (though torture's efficiency for that purpose is debatable); and 2) Revenge.
Maybe the purpose for torture in this case was to make sure it never got to court.
I still find it very hard to believe that the US government really fears putting Khalid Mohammad in front of a jury even without his interrogation statements.
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by no1marauderTrue. I was sticking too closely to the bit of shav's post that Nimz quoted so I could make a daft point, for some daft reason. At this hour.
Actually, Hitler wasn't found guilty at Nuremberg; he wasn't part of the indictment (being certainly dead). Though since virtually all of his top advisers and cronies were, it's a pretty reasonable supposition to assume he would have been, too.
03 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFPoint of order. Not that it's really all that relevant to this discussion, but Hitler was not found guilty at Nuremberg because he was already dead. Bormann was the only one tried in absentia, and that was because there was a decent chance that he was still alive. Ley committed suicide before the trial and the charges against him were dropped (or at least not pursued) after her was already indicted. The tribunal did not assume the authority to try people posthumously.
The word "moron" is relatively tame around here. It's used by people on all parts of the spectrum, including "pro-Americans".
Hitler WAS found guilty at Nuremberg. So I don't think I will get mucg traction (on your behalf) with that.
I think shavaxmir's point was that some documentary-reconstruction thing on Dutch TV. Something about Obama not being brough ...[text shortened]... e.
I reckon I need more than this Nimz. Trawl back through his posting history, maybe?
I suppose you could argue that as a member of the Nazi party he was convicted because that organization was convicted, but the court ruled that no member of that organization could be punished without further trial.
Edit: I see No1 beat me to it.
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Why do you think the government seems so reluctant to put Khalid Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and some of the others on trial for 9/11? The evidence seems solid enough; after all, Moussaoui
Point of order. Not that it's really all that relevant to this discussion, but Hitler was not found guilty at Nuremberg because he was already dead. Bormann was the only one tried in absentia, and that was because there was a decent chance that he was still alive. Ley committed suicide before the trial and the charges against him were dropped (or at least not p ...[text shortened]... of that organization could be punished without further trial.
Edit: I see No1 beat me to it.
was convicted of being part of the conspiracy even though he was arrested four weeks before 9/11.
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI think it's clear that the government doesn't want certain information to come out that would come out in a public trial. Whether that's a legitimate fear or not is another issue. I can't know whether it's legitimate unless I knew the information that they don't want to come out.
Why do you think the government seems so reluctant to put Khalid Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and some of the others on trial for 9/11? The evidence seems solid enough; after all, Moussaoui
was convicted of being part of the conspiracy even though he was arrested four weeks before 9/11.
As you saw by Obama's refusing to release those photos and some of the interrogation docs, he believes that some information needs to be kept from the public. As long as he's doing it legally, I don't have a problem with that concept; he's chief executive to make those decisions; that's why he gets paid the medium bucks.
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFwell there are so many, how about: See Shavixmir's posts like the following he posted to me in the thread ""Thread: did terorists realy attack the trade center? Wh...""
The word "moron" is relatively tame around here. It's used by people on all parts of the spectrum, including "pro-Americans".
Hitler WAS found guilty at Nuremberg. So I don't think I will get mucg traction (on your behalf) with that.
I think shavaxmir's point was that some documentary-reconstruction thing on Dutch TV. Something about Obama not being brough ...[text shortened]... e.
I reckon I need more than this Nimz. Trawl back through his posting history, maybe?
" I guess you're not the brightest creation to have been spawned from that crack whore you call a mother, your father calls a sister and the police call trailer trash?" --shavixmir 10/27/2008
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Obama could be getting the medium bucks to decide to make sure these people do not get a fair trial too.
I think it's clear that the government doesn't want certain information to come out that would come out in a public trial. Whether that's a legitimate fear or not is another issue. I can't know whether it's legitimate unless I knew the information that they don't want to come out.
As you saw by Obama's refusing to release those photos and some of the interro ...[text shortened]... 's chief executive to make those decisions; that's why he gets paid the medium bucks.
03 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76I have a problem with these people not receiving justice and with the US citizenry not getting some closure. Their lack of a trial just fuels these conspiracy theories.
I think it's clear that the government doesn't want certain information to come out that would come out in a public trial. Whether that's a legitimate fear or not is another issue. I can't know whether it's legitimate unless I knew the information that they don't want to come out.
As you saw by Obama's refusing to release those photos and some of the interro ...[text shortened]... 's chief executive to make those decisions; that's why he gets paid the medium bucks.
The judge at the Moussaoui trial did a good job balancing the need to protect validly classified information and the defendant's rights. I see no reason to believe that another judge couldn't do the same.
03 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmir[/i]Now this, this is just silly. Osama did 9/11. Any other story is a myth and should not be taken seriously. It was not the Mossad, it was not Bush, it was not Saddam, and it was not Iran. Let's just move on.
http://story.michigansun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/154063713fe5da1f/id/490383/cs/1/
[i]Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Apr.16 : A fake jury that exonerated Osama bin Laden from the Sept. 11 terror attacks on America following a televised mock trial on a popular Dutch program has sent out a "disturbing" message to the world and could fuel conspiracy theories, s and murder thousands of women and children.
I know who I'd find guilty.
Shav, by the way, Osama is anticommunist.