If Khalid Sheik Muhammed Gets Acquitted in a New York Courtroom, Obama will be a One Term President

NObama........................ wrote:

The only inconsistency I hear is that Eric Holder wants the DP, but NY abolished it a few years back.

Just more proof that you're a moron...

He's being tried in FEDERAL court in NYC. Not state court.

The Federal death penalty statute applies.

NO No NO don't kill them with the DP, that is exactly what they want.

Make them do labor in crappy state prisons forever, sleep in dv solitary confinement and always get covered by the media. That would be their nightmare.

They want to die on a public stage, that is their goal.

gloamer wrote:

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.

I believe the distinction is Khalid Sheik Muhammed is accussed of an unprovoked attack against americans on american soil as opposed to attacks against soldiers or war related crimes.

I am encouraged that we are seeing some action after eight years of delays.

I hope we can all have faith in the american justice system. This public trial may go along way to healing a wounded country and once again setting the standard that all other civilized societies aspire to reach.

66% of mankind are happy 9-11 occurred. To them it was payback for U.S. imperialism. Move the show to L.A. and it will be on TV live across the globe. Nobody cares what happens in N.Y. since the people there suck.

Did the thought ever cross your mind that maybe we have been lied to?

That, just maybe, Khald Sheik Muhammed, who looks like John Belushi in the middle of a two week bender, is not the genius mastermind behind 911?

Don't sweat it. Obama is a one and done.

We will have a series of one-term presidents for the next

20 years, presuming the US lasts that long.

why do liberals hate america?

Congress has to change the law to allow for "Honorable Discharge: Politics" to prevent Ft Hood tragedies in the future.

jsquire,

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say foreigners caught committing an act of war against the United States have the right to be tried in a U.S. criminal court?? Please point me to that part of the Constitution. I have a copy right here with me now, but I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

-5th amendment

Yes, I am admittedly dumb.....but it seems to me, Mr. Reality Check, that the 5th Amendment demands some process for every one accused of a serious crime.... not just US citizens. There are exceptions for a time of war, of course, but when read with the text of the Constitution, which provides for the suspension of habeas corpus (art I, section 9) and for congress to declare war (art I, section 8), it seems a pretty broad protection. And what is due process if not getting the procedure everyone else gets?

Nothing about this is water tight and there are many colorable arguments about the inherent powers of national security vested in the executive but, man.....if we want our leaders to invoke war powers...might as well follow the constitution to do it before we go screaming about our leaders ignoring the constitution

Obama is not "one and done." He would be done if the Republicans had someone even vaguely formidable to run against him. They do not. It's astonishing, the extent to which they don't.

Wrongo, my friend. Do you think Himmler or Goebbels, if caught by U.S. forces in 1945, would have or should have been afforded full habeas protections and could have lawyered up for trial in a U.S. court? Do you think the tribunal that sent Tojo to the gallows was wrong? What U.S. court would have jurisdiction?

The Congress declaring war has nothing to do with it. If anything, we should have afforded the AQ detainees full Article III protections. That's what a lot of Bush critics wanted too, until they realized that under Article III we have the right to hold enemy combatants until the war is OVER. That means we could hold KSM until radical Islam is decisively defeated.

Everyone needs to stop being weak-kneed pussies about this. AQ members are waging war against the U.S. That's exactly the way they're playing it, and we should play it the same way back.

dumb law student wrote:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

-5th amendment

Yes, I am admittedly dumb.....but it seems to me, Mr. Reality Check, that the 5th Amendment demands some process for every one accused of a serious crime...

The operative word here is 'crime'. Were the 9/11 attacks simply crimes? Or were they acts of war?

And why is the administration using federal court for some AQ suspects, but military tribunals for others?

A few thoughts wrote:

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.

Not according to the Geneva Convention since 1977!

Martyrs wrote:

In reality those guys are POWs, captured soldiers who should be accorded rights.

On what basis? According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention, a person must fit into one of the following categories to be considered a prisoner of war and given the rights of a POW.

1. A uniformed member of a country's military. (What uniform was KSM wearing?)

2. Carry their weapons openly. (Not under your robes.)

3. Their country must be one which signed and agreed to the Geneva Convention. (Show me where and where the Taliban signed.)

You have no basis for your bullshit claim. This man and those like him are enemy combatants. They have absolutely no rights under U.S. law!

So those idiots know they are dead. They are soldiers of Allah. Trying them will only give them a stage to recruit more resistance fighters. Plus why didn't they try the Zionists of the 2009 Gaza Genocide or 2006 Lebanon Genocide ? Truman should have been hung for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, just wait and see, the Taliban will capture a U.S. Crusader and try them on TV then chop the head off on TV.

Why all of this obsession over someone being a one term president?

Isn't that nitpicking, like saying someone will not defend their championship?

Yeah, you won but you won't do it again.

So if the economy is flourishing in 2012 and employment is below 3% with the deficit lowered and all troops are out of the Middle East and Israel allies with Iran and health care reform goes smoothly ... Obama will be voted out because of this trial in 2009.

Does this mean the war on terror is over now that they've got their man? Can I take toothpaste on long flights again?

Obama is still hooked on occupation. He has to end it all. The refugees need to be released free to roam their country. Unwanted U.S. troops, CIA, state dept employees still remain on Islamic lands. Those the reasons why the Islamic Revolutionary guys retaliated at the WTC.