• 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!

New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind

I'm glad that you found something to agree with in each article, but what on earth does that have to do with what we were discussing?

Also, given that you don't think Bin Laden was involved in 9/11, why would you want KSM and his compatriots to get the death penalty? I mean, if Bin Laden wasn't involved, it's likely that they weren't involved either.

Just one question..... what rules will they be tried under? Are the rules going to be the same as any other murder trial? Or are they going to be different?
 
Just one question..... what rules will they be tried under? Are the rules going to be the same as any other murder trial? Or are they going to be different?

Mostly. Holder has said that the gov. will try to censor or otherwise refuse to turn over some information due to national security concerns, but beyond that, it will be a regular trial.
 
Mostly. Holder has said that the gov. will try to censor or otherwise refuse to turn over some information due to national security concerns, but beyond that, it will be a regular trial.

Then by all of the rules for a regular trial, they will have to dismiss the case.
 
I'm glad that you found something to agree with in each article, but what on earth does that have to do with what we were discussing?

I do not know, you posted the links.

Also, given that you don't think Bin Laden was involved in 9/11, why would you want KSM and his compatriots to get the death penalty? I mean, if Bin Laden wasn't involved, it's likely that they weren't involved either.

That is the purpose of a trial, to determine if the charges are valid. If they are found to be guilty as charged, I have no problem with the death penalty. Being carried our under the rule of law is what is important.

It is important for our allies and potential terrorists recruits to know that we are not the great Satan with morals no higher than those that attacked us.
 
Because....?

Because KSM was never read his miranda rights.

KSM was coerced into talking.

The president has unduely influenced the outcome of the trial.

The list goes on, but those are just the high points.
 
I do not know, you posted the links.

.....


.....


I posted them as a response to your claim that no "reputable" news organization would put two and two together and conclude that political considerations, i.e. demonizing Bush Administration detainee policy, may have come into play here.

That is the purpose of a trial, to determine if the charges are valid. If they are found to be guilty as charged, I have no problem with the death penalty. Being carried our under the rule of law is what is important.

But you already said that Bin Laden didn't do it, so how could they be guilty? I mean, if I were you, I'd be worried that people were going to let their emotions convict these 5 innocent people.

It is important for our allies and potential terrorists recruits to know that we are not the great Satan with morals no higher than those that attacked us.

And how exactly does the show trial portion of our newly bifurcated system of justice do that?
 
But you already said that Bin Laden didn't do it, so how could they be guilty? I mean, if I were you, I'd be worried that people were going to let their emotions convict these 5 innocent people.

Well to begin with, unlike with Bin Laden there are official charges against KSM for the 9/11 attack. It will be up to the judge and jury to determine guilt.

And how exactly does the show trial portion of our newly bifurcated system of justice do that?

Its not new, many more terrorist have been convicted under the court system than by military tribunal at Guantanamo.

"This weekend, with developments on civilian and military trials for Guantanamo detainees, a secure prison facility to house some of them in the US and reforms to the military prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, the Administration showed significant progress toward a comprehensive plan that uses military and law enforcement tools to keep Americans safe. National security experts, military and prosecutors, and the people of Thomson, Illinois responded positively.

But fringe conservatives offered an assault on America’s legal system while providing no legitimate solutions on how to deal with terror detainees aside from keeping Guantanamo open. Given that the facility has produced only three successful prosecutions while blackening the US reputation and becoming a prominent extremist recruiting tool, it is clear that the status quo is inadequate. But extreme conservatives responded with crass politicization that undermines the very institutions they say they want to protect."
Conservatives Attack America?s Legal System | National Security Network
 
New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind - Times Online

Interesting, they will be tried under a civilian court, I wonder if evidence obtained through questionable means will be dismissed
I think the Civilian court makes a big difference in the case.

Along with any evidence gathered by questionable means (torture).. there will first be a very well grounded Motion for 'change of venue'.

If ever there was situation where changing it was justified.. it would be 1000 yards from a crime scene and crime witnessed by/affecting Ten million people/Everyone in the surrounding area.

They might as well move it to Miami or Cincinnati now.
which would be more of a security problem.
Something Holder SHOULD have thought of.
 
Its not new, many more terrorist have been convicted under the court system than by military tribunal at Guantanamo.

I'm referring to the Obama Administration's new policy of looking at each individual detainee and deciding what to do based on how strong the admissible evidence is.

If we have a surfeit of admissible evidence that will guarantee conviction, we try them in the Article III courts.

If we have a fair amount of evidence, but a significant portion of it is either inadmissible or questionable, we try them in the military tribunals.

If we have a small amount of evidence, or if all the evidence is inadmissible or questionable, we simply keep them locked up in Gitmo or Bagram.
 
I'm referring to the Obama Administration's new policy of looking at each individual detainee and deciding what to do based on how strong the admissible evidence is.

If we have a surfeit of admissible evidence that will guarantee conviction, we try them in the Article III courts.

If we have a fair amount of evidence, but a significant portion of it is either inadmissible or questionable, we try them in the military tribunals.

If we have a small amount of evidence, or if all the evidence is inadmissible or questionable, we simply keep them locked up in Gitmo or Bagram.


Apparently not, and I for one am glad to see them finally brought to justice after 8 years.
 
Hey Genius. Due process of law also allowed them to be tried in a military court.

According to the President's order authorizing military tribunals under the War on Terror, entitled the "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism", the conditions of trial are less protective of the defendants' rights and more favorable to the prosecution. [insert FN to Pres Power Stories --- not sure what this source is & what page #, etc to put in the footnote -- ajay; It is the book "Presidential Power Stories" but it is not available at any of UCLA's libraries--alicia]. "Conviction, for example, [is] possible on a two-thirds rather than unanimous vote, upon a lesser standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt, on evidence [that is not allowed in federal courts and on secret evidence], and with no right of appeal."
Doesn't sound like due process to me, and it's not a system you would allow yourself to be adjudicated under.

No you don't. You want to put politics ahead of keeping New York City more safe instead of keeping this guy at Guantanamo and being tried there, again perfectly legal and instead put political pot shots at the past administration and risk more American lives.
Right wing fear mongering which I don't remember when McVeigh was tried in civil court, or Mousaaoui or the blind sheikh.

I wouldn't be proud of that.
You are quite proud of making sure that justice is a rubber stamp.
 
good, can you put him up in your home when he's acquitted? I am sure he would appreciate the hospitality....:roll:


j-mac

Anybody who thinks he'll be acquitted is caving in to the usual right wing fear mongering.
 
So you are suggesting the fix is in? That this is a show trial, and the outcome is predetermined?

I did not see that in their statement. They are saying that there is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

Do you doubt the evidence against the terrorists?
 
So you are suggesting the fix is in? That this is a show trial, and the outcome is predetermined?

And you are suggesting that the govt hasn't vetted this case with heavy duty lawyers, has plenty of evidence without bringing out "tainted" testimony, and that KSM won't absolutely love to confess his crimes to the world?
 
I did not see that in their statement. They are saying that there is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

Do you doubt the evidence against the terrorists?




I doubt the confession or any subsequent evidence gets in, if it does, it sets precedent for your local pd to waterboard you. :shrug:
 
I doubt the confession or any subsequent evidence gets in, if it does, it sets precedent for your local pd to waterboard you. :shrug:

You miss the all important point that do not need the tortured info as evidence.
 
And you are suggesting that the govt hasn't vetted this case with heavy duty lawyers, has plenty of evidence without bringing out "tainted" testimony, and that KSM won't absolutely love to confess his crimes to the world?





I don't think this administration is any better than a one move chess player.... This is a collosal **** up.


how do you know what KSM wants to do? And if its true, why give him the platform?

tell me what was wrong with the tribunals?



oh and:


One Juror Between Terrorist And Death - washingtonpost.com


Only one juror stood between the death penalty and Zacarias Moussaoui and that juror frustrated his colleagues because he never explained his vote, according to the foreman of the jury that sentenced the al-Qaeda operative to life in prison last week.

The foreman, a Northern Virginia math teacher, said in an interview that the panel voted 11 to 1, 10 to 2 and 10 to 2 in favor of the death penalty on three terrorism charges for which Moussaoui was eligible for execution. A unanimous vote on any one of them would have resulted in a death sentence.



So tell me... how is this trial going to go?
 
Apparently not

Er...that's what is happening. Like, right now.

Doesn't sound like due process to me

It does to the Supreme Court.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin]Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

and it's not a system you would allow yourself to be adjudicated under.

I'm not an unlawful combatant, so I don't think that's relevant.
 
speculation on your part.

And your fear mongering is fact? :rofl

If there had not been sufficient evidence, they would not have brought them to trial.

"This weekend, with developments on civilian and military trials for Guantanamo detainees, a secure prison facility to house some of them in the US and reforms to the military prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, the Administration showed significant progress toward a comprehensive plan that uses military and law enforcement tools to keep Americans safe. National security experts, military and prosecutors, and the people of Thomson, Illinois responded positively.

But fringe conservatives offered an assault on America’s legal system while providing no legitimate solutions on how to deal with terror detainees aside from keeping Guantanamo open. Given that the facility has produced only three successful prosecutions while blackening the US reputation and becoming a prominent extremist recruiting tool, it is clear that the status quo is inadequate. But extreme conservatives responded with crass politicization that undermines the very institutions they say they want to protect."
Conservatives Attack America?s Legal System | National Security Network
 
Er...that's what is happening. Like, right now.



It does to the Supreme Court.

Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm not an unlawful combatant, so I don't think that's relevant.

The case you referred to was in 1942. I thought you were going to link to a current challenge by the Supreme court over the Justice Dept's current plans to try the terrorists.

As far as being an enemy combatant. That is simply a term used incorrectly by the previous administration. As I showed before, that misnomer is not being applied by the current administration ~

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a dramatic break with the Bush administration, the Justice Department on Friday announced it is doing away with the designation of "enemy combatant," which allowed the United States to hold suspected terrorists at length without criminal charges."
U.S. reverses policy, drops 'enemy combatant' term - CNN.com
 
Back
Top Bottom