I can't believe we are going to try war criminals that are not American citizens in a civilian court. Did Nazi war criminals get tried in U.S. courts? No.
I don't get this decision by AG Holder. It's a huge risk if one of these mas murdering slimeballs gets off.
I'm sure the America haters on this board will be on this thread in no time.
Why would he be acquitted?
Yeah, the '93 WTC bombers were all convicted in the same court. There is no issue here. Better to have an open trial where the world can see US justice at work. And there is no chance he will be acquitted.
his brains should be blown out.
This is unprecedented and extremely beneficial for the mastermind of 9/11. Absolutely puzzling. The administration breaks the law repeatedly, but when it comes to terrorists, they extend to them rights to which they are not entitled. It's a shameful slap in the face of people who were victimized on 9/11.
if there is absolutely no possibility for aquittal or reasonable doubt, then why have a civilian trial?
Andrew McCarthy has some interesting points on this:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTVkN2ZhMTU0NzcwYWVmYTNmODI1ZTJjMTA1ZDFiODQ=
This summer, I theorized (link:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGMyYTQ1ZTM5YTQ5NjJjNzJmNGUxZDIyOTFjYzIyM2Y=
) that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
Rightfully So wrote:
If they were so obviously guilty, why the f*ck did they waterboard the guy 183 times? Was Cheney masturbating while this was going on??
He admitted to so much stuff, none of it is believable.
Because, dumbass, the purpose of the interrogation program was not to gather more evidence for a future criminal trial, it was to get intelligence so we could disrupt other Al Qaeda plots and roll up other AQ operatives. KSM was the most senior AQ operative caught to that point, so it is understandable that he would have tons of valuable info in his head.
I think the Bush Administration went way too far with interrogations. But that doesn't change the central dilemma of how we should treat these guys when captured: as criminal defendants desrving all the rights of any American accused of a crime, or as unlawful enemy combatants??
Mister Reality Check wrote:
I can't believe we are going to try war criminals that are not American citizens in a civilian court. Did Nazi war criminals get tried in U.S. courts? No.
I don't get this decision by AG Holder. It's a huge risk if one of these mas murdering slimeballs gets off.
I'm sure the America haters on this board will be on this thread in no time.
You all know I hate Hussein as much as the next man, but I like what he's doing in this case. What better than to try a mass murder three blocks away from where he committed the crime. He's going to get the book thrown at him with not an ounce of remorse.
The only inconsistency I hear is that Eric Holder wants the DP, but NY abolished it a few years back. As long as this aint none of that liberal snake oil lip service, Hussein finally did something that would make me raise his grade from and F- to an F.
NObama........................ wrote:The only inconsistency I hear is that Eric Holder wants the DP, but NY abolished it a few years back. As long as this aint none of that liberal snake oil lip service, Hussein finally did something that would make me raise his grade from and F- to an F.
I'm sure given the trial's venue the State would be willing to make an "exception." Public opinion for their execution has to top 99%. The whole lot of em' will be lucky *not* to go out Lee Harvey Oswald style.
Mr. Price wrote:
NObama........................ wrote:The only inconsistency I hear is that Eric Holder wants the DP, but NY abolished it a few years back. As long as this aint none of that liberal snake oil lip service, Hussein finally did something that would make me raise his grade from and F- to an F.I'm sure given the trial's venue the State would be willing to make an "exception." Public opinion for their execution has to top 99%. The whole lot of em' will be lucky *not* to go out Lee Harvey Oswald style.
I'm really not familiar with the DP but can the state actually make an exception? My gut says no, but like I said, I'm not familiar with DP laws.
Yes it can make exceptions.
What does this have to do with Obama? Is Obama going to be the prosicuting lawyer or something?
Also, in order to call this man a war criminal we have to find him guilty through our system. As of right now he is just a suspect. Innocent until proven guilty, that's the name of the game. Like it or not, this man has not been found guilty of anything because he has not gone to trial.
"If Khalid Sheik Muhammed Gets Acquitted in a New York Courtroom, Obama will be a One Term President"
His trial won't even be over by the next Presidential election.
They are Mujahadin and expect Martyrdom. They want the attention and relish it. Having the U.S. kangaroo court in NYC is a perfect way to get publicity and is a dream come true for them. The countless of people in Islamic countries who indirectly funded their operation are very pleased with the outcome of their investment. Mujahadin know what to expect. The believe in fate. Martyrs are like samurai, they do not fear death, they are like soldiers who leap on a grenade to save the lives of their buddies.
Trial won't be until after 2012.
But it does beg the question -- why try one dude in a military tribunal and another in civilian courts? There is no obvious logic to it. And while some people think this will "show the world" how just we are, the idea of staging a trial with a preordained outcome doesn't seem very just, does it?
The precedent also dramatically changes the nature of a terrorism investigation. Now the FBI/CIA has to be thinking about criminal convictions and not jeopardizing the case at trial. That's quite a big different motivation from trying to wrap up networks and prevent possible future attacks.
Shaking my head over this one.
In reality those guys are POWs, captured soldiers who should be accorded rights. Attacks are inevitable in all wars. If the U.S. occupies a country then it has to expect retaliation by it's army and soldiers. There's nothing new in this case.
Bin Laden wasn't caught and that didn't seem to stop Bush from getting re-elected.
New Y is where 9-11 was so that's where Holder wants the trials, but we all know it would be better to get 10,000,000 times the TV coverage and publicity if held in L.A.
It's a political move anyways. Those 9-11 jerks are soldiers who attacked at civilian target in a hostile nation. Civilian facilities are legitimate targets in warfare. They did not commit a crime but acted as soldiers.
You just know that Hamas, Hezbollan, Taliban, AlQ are planning the same thing. They are now shopping their Israeli Army and Mossad spies for IDF soldiers to kidnap and hold trial. The Sunni and Shiite Warlords in Iraq will kidnap a Crusader to hold trial.
The Union didn't put Robert E. Lee on trial so how can they put Khalik on trial ?