• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

First Guantanamo Detainee to Come to NYC for Trial

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON -- An Obama administration official says a top Al Qaeda suspect held at Guantanamo Bay will be sent to New York City for trial.

Ahmed Ghailani would be the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S., and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court.

An official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to disclose the decision, tells The Associated Press that the administration has decided to bring Ghailani to trial in New York. He was indicted there for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa -- attacks that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

Ghailani, a Tanzanian, is a high-value detainee captured in Pakistan in 2004 and transferred to the U.S. detention center in Cuba two years later.
Click to expand...
First Guantanamo Detainee to Come to NYC for Trial - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Basically, we're back to pre-911 terrorist mentality.

How'd that work out again?
 
Last edited:
goldendog said:
How is this "back to pre 9-11 mentality as opposed to being post 9-11 mentality?

Please expain what those mentalities are??

Seems like somebody is finally taking the bull by the horns and they are doing the right thing. Finally.
Click to expand...

Doing the right thing?

from 1990-2001 we treated Terrorist like criminals.

2001-2008 we treated them like a military threat..

The difference? Multiple attacks on US Soil, embassies, ships... and so forth.

Treat them like Military threat... no attacks.


So it's smart to go back... to the way that us being attacked? Riight.
 
What I like is this guy is most likely to end up getting life without parole.
So how does that solve the problem with where to hold him?
AHHHH...I wasn't supposed to notice that now was I Obama?
..maybe you should collect more seashells for your shell games.
 
MrVicchio said:
Doing the right thing?

from 1990-2001 we treated Terrorist like criminals.

2001-2008 we treated them like a military threat..

The difference? Multiple attacks on US Soil, embassies, ships... and so forth.

Treat them like Military threat... no attacks.


So it's smart to go back... to the way that us being attacked? Riight.
Click to expand...

Please provide a link to the "multiple attacks on US soil" between 2001 and 2008?
 
MrVicchio said:
Doing the right thing?

from 1990-2001 we treated Terrorist like criminals.

2001-2008 we treated them like a military threat..

The difference? Multiple attacks on US Soil, embassies, ships... and so forth.

Treat them like Military threat... no attacks.


So it's smart to go back... to the way that us being attacked? Riight.
Click to expand...

Can you please illustrate the logical connection between giving this guy a fair trial, and other people who aren't in our prisons being more likely to fly planes into buildings? :confused:
 
MrVicchio said:
Doing the right thing?

from 1990-2001 we treated Terrorist like criminals.

2001-2008 we treated them like a military threat..

The difference? Multiple attacks on US Soil, embassies, ships... and so forth.

Treat them like Military threat... no attacks.


So it's smart to go back... to the way that us being attacked? Riight.
Click to expand...

No, it was because you wore colored shorts before 2001 and then changed to white shorts.
Don't get your little white shorts in a knot about it, I think New York can handle this guy with no problem.
 
MrVicchio said:
First Guantanamo Detainee to Come to NYC for Trial - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Basically, we're back to pre-911 terrorist mentality.

How'd that work out again?
Click to expand...

That was 9-11-2001, right? Who was president, again.

It doesn't seem like you have any faith in the system. Or the military personnel, the DOJ lawyers, the U.S. Marshals. I'd like to believe they're all smart, hard working people who are really good at their jobs. I think NYC is the best place to bring terrorists who wish harm to the U.S.

Personally, I wish our last president would had made it his mission in life to make sure Osama Bin Laden was brought to trial in the NYC on or before Sept. 11, 2002.

None of the Bin Laden family should have ever left the country. They should have been put under house arrest in hotel rooms with a view of ground zero. Their assets should have been frozen--no special clearances or consideration. We should have stopped at nothing to capture Bin Laden.

We have the greatest military in the word. We have smart lawyers in the DOJ. And U.S. Marshals rule. Bring 'em to NYC!! It's about time.
 
And how exactly is this a threat again? If we don't have evidence then why are we holding him? If we do have evidence then why are you worried? Do you honestly think that we aren't able to hold him in a prison on US soil without them escaping? Your lack of faith in the rule of law is shocking.
 
MrVicchio said:
Doing the right thing?

from 1990-2001 we treated Terrorist like criminals.

2001-2008 we treated them like a military threat..

The difference? Multiple attacks on US Soil, embassies, ships... and so forth.

Treat them like Military threat... no attacks.


So it's smart to go back... to the way that us being attacked? Riight.
Click to expand...

So are you seriously asserting that treating terrorists like criminals is what led to 9/11 happening?
 
goldendog said:
Please provide a link to the "multiple attacks on US soil" between 2001 and 2008?
Click to expand...

I wasn't tlaking about attacks on US Soil between 2001-2008, I meant to infer 1990-2001.
 
Kandahar said:
Can you please illustrate the logical connection between giving this guy a fair trial, and other people who aren't in our prisons being more likely to fly planes into buildings? :confused:
Click to expand...

Can you give a logical explanation how giving terrorist captured on foreign soil deserve a trial and can be convicted? You really think a defense lawyer couldn't get ever last bit of evidence tossed out because the military didn't follow "proper police" procedures?
 
MrVicchio said:
Can you give a logical explanation how giving terrorist captured on foreign soil deserve a trial and can be convicted? You really think a defense lawyer couldn't get ever last bit of evidence tossed out because the military didn't follow "proper police" procedures?
Click to expand...

the military does not have to follow police procedures. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep quiet.
 
goldendog said:
Please provide a link to the "multiple attacks on US soil" between 2001 and 2008?
Click to expand...
Military ships are considered US soil, just in case you didn't know. So are embassies.
 
MrVicchio said:
The difference? Multiple attacks on US Soil, embassies, ships... and so forth.
Click to expand...

Attacks against military targets are NEVER terrorist attacks.

Terrorist attacks only occur against civilian targets.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Attacks against military targets are NEVER terrorist attacks.

Terrorist attacks only occur against civilian targets.
Click to expand...
Terrorists are not military. Therefore I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Terrorist, not being military, cannot carry out a military attack, therefore they must be carrying out a terrorist attack.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military"]Military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Personally, I wish our last president would had made it his mission in life to make sure Osama Bin Laden was brought to trial in the NYC on or before Sept. 11, 2002.
Click to expand...

Do you have any CREDIBLE evidence that Bush didn't actively attempt to bring Osama to justice?

I am always amazed when people make such farcical asinine claims.

hazlnut said:
None of the Bin Laden family should have ever left the country. They should have been put under house arrest in hotel rooms with a view of ground zero. Their assets should have been frozen--no special clearances or consideration. We should have stopped at nothing to capture Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure I understand your logic here; you think that because Osama is a distant relative to Saudi's in the Royal family they should be illegally detained for the mere fact that they are related?

Are you one of those people screeching hysterically about illegal torture too?

hazlnut said:
We have the greatest military in the word. We have smart lawyers in the DOJ. And U.S. Marshals rule. Bring 'em to NYC!! It's about time.
Click to expand...

Once more, the problem with bringing these terrorist thugs onto US soil is the issue of evidence.

I have attempted to educate the uninformed on numerous occasions and still, many don't get it; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

These are people who we know to be bad guys who have been captured in Afghanistan or Iraq while engaged in activities that could range from being a fighter to having been rounded up in a terrorist training camp. There may be NO evidence of direct crimes because when you are engaged in a firefight, you don't keep track of who the person captured may have shot and killed; you only know they were with a group attacking or intent on attacking.

They do not meet the evidentiary requirements of typical prosecutions. This is why they are being kept indefinitely in Guantanamo. They are non-uniformed enemy combatants; they are deemed dangerous but we cannot PROVE it with standard rules for prosecuting people in the US. I am amazed so many STILL don’t get it.

:doh
 
Truth Detector said:
Do you have any CREDIBLE evidence that Bush didn't actively attempt to bring Osama to justice?

I am always amazed when people make such farcical asinine claims.



Let me make sure I understand your logic here; you think that because Osama is a distant relative to Saudi's in the Royal family they should be illegally detained for the mere fact that they are related?

Are you one of those people screeching hysterically about illegal torture too?



Once more, the problem with bringing these terrorist thugs onto US soil is the issue of evidence.

I have attempted to educate the uninformed on numerous occasions and still, many don't get it; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

These are people who we know to be bad guys who have been captured in Afghanistan or Iraq while engaged in activities that could range from being a fighter to having been rounded up in a terrorist training camp. There may be NO evidence of direct crimes because when you are engaged in a firefight, you don't keep track of who the person captured may have shot and killed; you only know they were with a group attacking or intent on attacking.

They do not meet the evidentiary requirements of typical prosecutions. This is why they are being kept indefinitely in Guantanamo. They are non-uniformed enemy combatants; they are deemed dangerous but we cannot PROVE it with standard rules for prosecuting people in the US. I am amazed so many STILL don’t get it.

:doh
Click to expand...

Truth, i agree 100%. Thanked you in this post.:2wave:
 
Indy said:
And how exactly is this a threat again? If we don't have evidence then why are we holding him? If we do have evidence then why are you worried? Do you honestly think that we aren't able to hold him in a prison on US soil without them escaping? Your lack of faith in the rule of law is shocking.
Click to expand...

Because many were picked up or rounded up in terrorist training camps or during combat engagement with our forces.

It's not like our troops are going to be gathering "criminal" evidence while fighting for their lives. I am amazed how many people in the world continue to be so uninformed about what is going on here. I guess we can also blame the mainstream media along with willful denial.


We are HOLDING them because they are a THREAT which is the reason they are kept at Guantanamo OFF our shores in order to not have to meet the typical "criminal" evidentiary rules if they are brought here.

There is a reason they are called NON-UNIFORMED ENEMY COMBATANTS. :doh
 
Indy said:
And how exactly is this a threat again? If we don't have evidence then why are we holding him? If we do have evidence then why are you worried? Do you honestly think that we aren't able to hold him in a prison on US soil without them escaping? Your lack of faith in the rule of law is shocking.
Click to expand...

What? They are held because they threaten that rule of law. The rule of law is far from perfect.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Attacks against military targets are NEVER terrorist attacks.

Terrorist attacks only occur against civilian targets.
Click to expand...

Any unprovoked, suprise attack doing any sort of damage is a terrorist act.
If i walk into a French Barracks and blow myself and the men inside to Kingdom Come, is this not a terrorist act?
 
Truth Detector said:
You have GOT to be kidding right? :doh
Click to expand...

Here is what I do not understand, you assert that terrorists should not be tried in the United States as civilians because they are military, not civilian criminals, yet Bush on several occassions said that he was going to capture Bin Laden and have him tried in a U.S. courtroom.

While the Bush Administration pursues its official policy of arresting and trying bin Laden in a US court, however, it must also re-examine its policies in the Middle East: on the Israel-Palestine conflict, on economic sanctions against Iraq, on isolating Iran and on its stationing of US troops and military hardware on the Arabian Peninsula. That is the only sure way to prevent a recurrence of the September 11 tragedy. --http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hiro

It was stated policy, so I guess there is a question as to who a terrorist is. Surely Obama is a terrorist?!?!
 
Maxientius said:
Any unprovoked, suprise attack doing any sort of damage is a terrorist act.
If i walk into a French Barracks and blow myself and the men inside to Kingdom Come, is this not a terrorist act?
Click to expand...

Do you consider the Kamakazi pilots of WWII terrorists? I have never heard of them refered to as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom