Is it a good idea to hold the trial in NY and a civilian federal court?
Probably not, but what else is there? The ICC, I don’t know.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Probably not, but what else is there? The ICC, I don’t know. [/quote]
Military tribunal, summary execution. No way this trial actually happens in NY. FIRST thing the defense attorneys will do is move for change of venue. Probably try to get it to Vermont where they can all get acquitted and freely molest children.
[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Probably not, but what else is there? The ICC, I don’t know.
Military tribunal, summary execution. No way this trial actually happens in NY. FIRST thing the defense attorneys will do is move for change of venue. Probably try to get it to Vermont where they can all get acquitted and freely molest children.[/quote]
Yeah I think the biggest problem will be finding an impartial jury especially in NY. I don’t know what is gonna happen though.
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?[/quote]
Just my wild ass guess, but it likely has something to do with committing multiple murders on American soil. That’s a crime here, and we have a judicial system designed to deal with that type of thing.
[quote]tme wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?
Just my wild ass guess, but it likely has something to do with committing multiple murders on American soil. That’s a crime here, and we have a judicial system designed to deal with that type of thing.
[/quote]
You are one consistent retard I’ll give ya that.
[quote]tme wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?
Just my wild ass guess, but it likely has something to do with committing multiple murders on American soil. That’s a crime here, and we have a judicial system designed to deal with that type of thing.
[/quote]
Oh, I see. Kind of like what the Japanese did in Nanking, then. Thanks for setting me straight.
[quote]tme wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?
Just my wild ass guess, but it likely has something to do with committing multiple murders on American soil. That’s a crime here, and we have a judicial system designed to deal with that type of thing.
[/quote]
Brother your “wild ass guess” is completely wrong:
-
They committed war crimes (including flying a plane into the pentagon remember that?)
-
They are not US citizens
-
We have military tribunals for this
-
The US treated al-Qaida’s first World Trade Center bombing as a “crime.” And al-Qaida’s attack on the U.S. embassies in Africa as a “crime.” And even al-Qaida’s attack on the USS Cole as a “crime.”
All were prosecuted in U.S. courts. Do you want to take a “wild ass guess” as to how it worked out?
Right ~ we got 9/11 in return.
The fact that it was an attack on our very homeland should make it all the more a military matter. They came to this country with the premeditated motive of carrying out public attacks of maximum possible damage. They are enemies in war, not criminals.
God almighty people we are committing national suicide on every front for all the world to see.
This will quickly turn into an uproarious media circus with the Bush administration and the CIA on trial instead of these animals.
It is going to be astronomically expensive and will absolutely be used as the most powerful recruiting tool these lunatics could have ever hoped for.
It will expose loads of sensitive national security information and will make a hideous mockery of the judicial system and rightly so. It was not designed for war criminals.
We should have taken their confessions and sent them to eternity like they requested.
If we don’t start playing hardball with these people they may destroy this country before liberals do, but that’s doubtful.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The fact that it was an attack on our very homeland should make it all the more a military matter. They came to this country with the premeditated motive of carrying out public attacks of maximum possible damage. They are enemies in war, not criminals.
God almighty people we are committing national suicide on every front for all the world to see.
This will quickly turn into an uproarious media circus with the Bush administration and the CIA on trial instead of these animals.
It is going to be astronomically expensive and will absolutely be used as the most powerful recruiting tool these lunatics could have ever hoped for.
It will expose loads of sensitive national security information and will make a hideous mockery of the judicial system and rightly so. It was not designed for war criminals.
We should have taken their confessions and sent them to eternity like they requested.
If we don’t start playing hardball with these people they may destroy this country before liberals do, but that’s doubtful.[/quote]
X2
This trial will be a circus which Al-Qaeda may use for propaganda and recruiting purposes.
Not only that, whatever courtroom it is in may be a target.
Judges, attorneys and juries could all be in potential danger.
The implications are astounding.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?[/quote]
We don’t have to give them constitutional rights until they are on US soil. This is all about the democrats desire to politicize the ongoing overseas contingency operation.
The deomcrats see it as a win win situation. By bringing KSM here they open up the possibility that he gets the charges against him dismissed and he walks free because of the way he has been treated. Then the democrats will all heap blame upon the Bush administration for violating their civil rights and not doing it the right way from the start.
Or there is the longshot possibility that they get a conviction which the democrats can then use to say “see the Bush administraton was wrong, we didn’t need to use tribunals”. Then with the appeals process this will stretch the whole process out for many years beyond even a second term for the Obama administration.
That is why the Attorney General when announcing this move said I am certain we will get a satisfactory result. That is a carefully nuanced statement which even FOX news has not picked up on, because their reporters keeps saying that Holder said he is certain he can get a conviction.
Holder did not say he is certain he can get a conviction. Holder said he is certain he can get a satisfactory outcome. A conviction may be the only satisfactory outcome to the reporters at FOX news (and a lot of other people) but a conviction is not what Holder said he is certain he can get.
A satisfactory outcome for the Obama administration doesn’t have to be a conviction. For them a satisfactory result could be something they can smear the Bush administration with.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?[/quote]
Because those rights are defended at the periphery and not when they finally come for you.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?
We don’t have to give them constitutional rights until they are on US soil. This is all about the democrats desire to politicize the ongoing overseas contingency operation.
[/quote]
That is blatant nonsense because the US constitution, ahem, constitutes what the US government can or cannot do, wherever it may act.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
<<< Not only that, whatever courtroom it is in may be a target.
Judges, attorneys and juries could all be in potential danger.
The implications are astounding. >>>[/quote]
Did anybody think about this? Anybody in anyway seen as instrumental in convicting these guys will require professional protection for life or we risk some other Nidal Malik Hasan type offing their asses in yet another jihadist assault.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?
We don’t have to give them constitutional rights until they are on US soil. This is all about the democrats desire to politicize the ongoing overseas contingency operation.
That is blatant nonsense because the US constitution, ahem, constitutes what the US government can or cannot do, wherever it may act.
[/quote]
You are very very wrong about that. Non US citizens who are not on US soil are not entitled to the rights of a US citizen. A non US citzen has to be physically on US soil to be entitled to the same rights as a US citizen.
The war powers clause of the constitution allows for the congress to set the rules for how enemy combatants are processed.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Under the war powers clause people who we capture during a time of war who are not physically on US soil can be treated very differently from US citizens or non-citizens who are physically present in the US. Also enemy combatants caught in the US have been tried in military tribunals.
During world war two eight Abwehr sabotuers caught in New York and Florida were tried in tribunals and executed.
After world war two we tried the Nazi leadership in Nuremburg. We didn’t bring them to New York and give the same rights as US citizens.
Contrary to what the liberals are saying the US constitution is not written so strictly that when new situations arise (ie a war) the government can’t create appropriate rules to deal with them.
The founding fathers were not stupid like liberals. The founding fathers realized that the world is not black and white, that there are grey areas that the new government they were creating would need to be able to deal with.
What librals like Obama want to do is reinterpret the constitution so that future governments cannot adapt to deal with new realities. They want stupid rules like the Europeans have.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?
We don’t have to give them constitutional rights until they are on US soil. This is all about the democrats desire to politicize the ongoing overseas contingency operation.
That is blatant nonsense because the US constitution, ahem, constitutes what the US government can or cannot do, wherever it may act.
You are very very wrong about that. Non US citizens who are not on US soil are not entitled to the rights of a US citizen. A non US citzen has to be physically on US soil to be entitled to the same rights as a US citizen.
[/quote]
And again:
The US Constitution does not apply " to US citizens".
It addresses the federal government of the United States and tells it what it can or cannot do.
There is not even a war on right now, because congress has not declared one.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What a huge political blunder. Either these guys, Obama and Holder, are just plumb stupid or they are the most conniving, dirty, stab their own country in the back jackasses I’ve ever seen.[/quote]
This is no mistake on their part. It is a carefully coldly calculated plan of action to change the rules by which American governments can operate forever.
During his campaign Barack Obama clearly stated that he intended to fundamentally change America. Why? Because Obama and his cronies feel that America is fundamentally flawed as a country. Obama believes that the American founding fathers got it fundamentally wrong when they wrote the constitution.
What did you think was going to happen when they elected a man wo was not raised to be an American?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
pushharder wrote:
What a huge political blunder. Either these guys, Obama and Holder, are just plumb stupid or they are the most conniving, dirty, stab their own country in the back jackasses I’ve ever seen.
This is no mistake on their part. It is a carefully coldly calculated plan of action to change the rules by which American governments can operate forever.
During his campaign Barack Obama clearly stated that he intended to fundamentally change America. Why? Because Obama and his cronies feel that America is fundamentally flawed as a country. Obama believes that the American founding fathers got it fundamentally wrong when they wrote the constitution.
What did you think was going to happen when they elected a man wo was not raised to be an American?[/quote]
Are you sure you didn’t copy n paste one of my old posts here?