15 Nov 09
(Shrug) I'll leave it to the Republican lawyer to tell you how likely a change in venue motion would be to be granted and how even in the extremely unlikely event it was that the result isn't an acquittal. Debates here is too much of an intellectual cesspool for me to waste any serious amount of my time in.
15 Nov 09
Here's a point of view on this issue:
The Right's Textbook 'Surrender to Terrorists'
"We're too scared to have real trials in our country" is a level of cowardice unmatched in the world. by Glenn Greenwald
Understanding and Combatting Terrorism, USMC Major S.M. Grass, 1989:
[quote]Terrorism is a psychological weapon and is directed to create a general climate of fear. As one definition cogently notes, "terror is a natural phenomenon, terrorism is the conscious exploitation of it." Terrorism utilizes violence to coerce governments and their people by inducing fear.
William Josiger, Fear Factor: The Impact of Terrorism on Public Opinion in the United States and Great Britain, 2006:
At its heart terrorism is about fear. While terrorist attacks destroy, maim and kill, the intended audience for these attacks is almost always the whole body politic and the terrorist's goal is to strike fear into their hearts.
GOP House Leader John Boehner, condemning Obama's decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial, yesterday:
The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people.
This is literally true: the Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement -- we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It's the same fear they've been spewing for years. As always, the Right's tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it's hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.[/quote]
Rest of the article here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/14/terrorism/index.html
Hasn't there been a lot of talk about how we in the West won't let terrorists change how we live our lives or stop us from standing up for what is good and right? How does that square with 'cancelling' the Geneva Convention and refusing due process to terrorists/criminals? Isn't 'rule of law' supposed to be part of the bedrock of how we live our lives? Wasn't the Guantanamo mindset, in fact, a case of chalk a real big one up for Al Qaeda?
18 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by torch71My main objection to this is its not a slam dunk case as Holder would suggest, for one. Trials are very unpredictable. Also,the intelligence info they will be privy too. If this guy represents himself many things will be disclosed to him that he should not know about,and then pass it on. He will be able to cross examine, have a voice to ramble on about the evils of the great satan america,anti semetic tirades, etc. It could very well turn into a 3 ring circus making a mockery of our judicial system.
Prosecute them in NY, however many years it takes.
Ask for the death sentence, if they are aquitted for some rare reason, set them free in the streets of NY. Just make sure you broadcast it publicly before you do so including time, place and date.
Holder said today in the senate hearings "yes we are at war". Ok then military tribunals are in order. Just like Nurennburg. These nazis were not tried as felons.They were war criminals.Some will say this is not a war.It is not in the traditional sense, from what we are used to in the past. None the less it is war.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI understand you concerns and share many of them, although I believe the course is set. I do however hope they at least have enough inteligence to not have it broadcasted at all. It should be done behind closed doors in my opinion.
My main objection to this is its not a slam dunk case as Holder would suggest, for one. Trials are very unpredictable. Also,the intelligence info they will be privy too. If this guy represents himself many things will be disclosed to him that he should not know about,and then pass it on. He will be able to cross examine, have a voice to ramble on abou ...[text shortened]... s not in the traditional sense, from what we are used to in the past. None the less it is war.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think the whole Guantanamo Bay fiasco has already done this.
It could very well turn into a 3 ring circus making a mockery of our judicial system.
The brouhaha in the U.S. about whether it should behave in a proper and legal way or whether it should gird its loins with comic book stuff about "Being at war" and demonstrate the utter fragility of its much vaunted integrity and courage (and constitution), could scarcely be a more apt monument to Al Qaeda's otherwise scarce achievements - even as the terrorist consortium's popularity has slumped to all but nothing.
Here's the next paragraph or two from the article quoted above:
People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.
It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials. As usual, it's the weakest and most frightened among us who rely on the most flamboyant, theatrical displays of "strength" and "courage" to hide what they really are. Then again, this is the same political movement whose "leaders" -- people like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts -- cowardly insisted that we must ignore the Constitution in order to stay alive: the exact antithesis of the core value on which the nation was founded. Given that, it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFthat bit sounds accurate.
GOP House Leader John Boehner, condemning Obama's decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial, yesterday:
The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragon"it could very well turn into a 3 ring circus making a mockery of our judicial system. "
My main objection to this is its not a slam dunk case as Holder would suggest, for one. Trials are very unpredictable. Also,the intelligence info they will be privy too. If this guy represents himself many things will be disclosed to him that he should not know about,and then pass it on. He will be able to cross examine, have a voice to ramble on abou ...[text shortened]... s not in the traditional sense, from what we are used to in the past. None the less it is war.
If the turban doesn't fit you must acquit.
GRANNY.
22 Nov 09
hahahahahahahaha!!!! ....
------
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzQ4Mzg2M2RlZmMwMjBiMWNjNDM2Yjg4ZWVlZDEyZDI=
...
Which brings us to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. He’d been brought before a military commission, and last December indicated he was ready to plead guilty, and itching for the express lane to the 72 virgins.
But that wasn’t good enough for Obama, who in essence declined to accept KSM’s confession and decided to put him on trial in a New York courthouse. Why? To show “the world” — i.e., European op-ed pages and faculty lounges — that America would fight terror in a way “consistent with our values,” and apparently that means turning KSM into O. J. and loosing his dream team on the civilian justice system. But, having buttered up Le Monde and the BBC and many of his own lefties by announcing that Mohammed would get a fair trial, Obama then assured NBC that he’d be convicted and was gonna fry.
So it’s like a fair trial consistent with “our values” except for the one about presumption of innocence? If the head of state declaring you guilty and demanding the death penalty doesn’t taint the jury pool, it’s hard to see what would.
....
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotDoes seem a little odd that his deal was at a closing in military court and then they wash the whole procees to bring him to NYC. Just the waste of money alone is absurd.
hahahahahahahaha!!!! ....
------
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzQ4Mzg2M2RlZmMwMjBiMWNjNDM2Yjg4ZWVlZDEyZDI=
...
Which brings us to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. He’d been brought before a military commission, and last December indicated he was ready to plead guilty, and itching for the express lane to the 72 virgins.
...[text shortened]... nd demanding the death penalty doesn’t taint the jury pool, it’s hard to see what would.
....