• 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

tjinta ibis said:
You mean due process of law? That's a basic part of even your value system.....isn't it?
Click to expand...

Hey Genius. Due process of law also allowed them to be tried in a military court.

Miss that?

You mean a fair an open trial in the very place where the crime took place?
Click to expand...

Yes. Its called a military court.

You mean showing the world we've decided to go back to our basic values?
Click to expand...


Yes. Its called a military court.

Yes this is really what the liberals want our country to look like.
Click to expand...

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.

I wouldn't be proud of that.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Ok I'll simmer down. However, since you've made it your business to engage me let's have a comprehensive debate. What say you? The subject of this thread is the NY trial for the alleged 9/11 mastermind. What do you think about the decision to bring KSM and the other members of the Gitmo Five to the US District Court (SDNY) for trial? I'm interested in your conclusion on this subject and the reasons underlying your conclusion. Please state them. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I've already presented an argument against trying KSM in the criminal justice system. I think he should be summarily executed. The military should sell raffle tickets to the combat MOS's and whoever wins gets to shoot him; they would sell A LOT of tickets. Great propaganda victory for the troops.

And all of this is totally justifiable under international and domestic law since neither apply to KSM, the notorious terrorist mastermind that planned 9/11.

He does not deserve a trial.
 
tjinta ibis said:
You mean due process of law? That's a basic part of even your value system.....isn't it?

You mean a fair an open trial in the very place where the crime took place?

You mean showing the world we've decided to go back to our basic values?

Yes this is really what the liberals want our country to look like.
Click to expand...

Khalid Sheik Mohammad is a known terrorist that was captured by Pakistani intelligence. He is NOT entitled to Constitutional due process; those protections only apply to a specific set of people and a foreign terrorist mastermind is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
tjinta ibis said:
It is not and yes we do!
Click to expand...

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Hell we just spent 7 billion for 7,000 more Humvees in Afghanistan. We spent $79 million to see if the Moon has water!
Click to expand...

Lets see.

Humvees that save lives and help win wars of necessity vs. a trial that is totally unnecessary.

Or...

Seeing if the most crucial, life-sustaining element in the universe is on our nearest satellite vs. a trial that is totally unnecessary.

Mmmmmmm, those are some good points you make there...:doh

You may want the World to see us as barbarians, but many of us don't.
Click to expand...

So, instead of pissing off some snooty Westerners you would rather extend Constitutional due process to the terrorist mastermind that planned 9/11?

Why do Americans constantly feel the need to cater to the feelings of foreign countries? Do you actually think the French or the British or the Canadians give a DAMN about an American's opinion of their country?

This trial will not show the Muslim world how just America is. It will just reinforce the notion that we are a weak populace with no stomach for protracted wars.

Convince the American people that they can't win and they will quit fighting, just like in Vietnam. The Jihadists are learned students of history and brilliant strategists; they're simply counting on the useful idiots in America to win the war for them and Obama is playing right into their hands...
 
tjinta ibis said:
You may want the World to see us as barbarians, but many of us don't.
Click to expand...

Well I prefer greater security.

Niccolò Machiavelli said:
The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.
Click to expand...
 
EpicDude86 said:
Originally Posted by Niccolò Machiavelli
The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli's support for this belief:
"Love is held by a chain of obligation, which because of men's wickedness, is broken on every occasion for the sake of selfish profit; but their fear is secured by a dread of punishment which never fails you."

As true today than when he wrote it.
My kids do what i say, not because I love them and they love me, but because they also fear me to a degree - I have authority over them and that is what's respected.

There's a time and a place for everything and everything in moderation.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Machiavelli's support for this belief:
"Love is held by a chain of obligation, which because of men's wickedness, is broken on every occasion for the sake of selfish profit; but their fear is secured by a dread of punishment which never fails you."

As true today than when he wrote it.
My kids do what i say, not because I love them and they love me, but because they also fear me to a degree - I have authority over them and that is what's respected.

There's a time and a place for everything and everything in moderation.
Click to expand...

And we've loved well over a moderate level. It's time to get some fear going and level things out a bit.
 
Ethereal said:
I've already presented an argument against trying KSM in the criminal justice system. I think he should be summarily executed. The military should sell raffle tickets to the combat MOS's and whoever wins gets to shoot him; they would sell A LOT of tickets. Great propaganda victory for the troops.

And all of this is totally justifiable under international and domestic law since neither apply to KSM, the notorious terrorist mastermind that planned 9/11.

He does not deserve a trial.
Click to expand...

Actually, you haven't presented an argument that can withstand critical scrutiny. You've merely presented a series of disjointed conclusions without articulating the factual basis underlying each logical step required to reach those conclusions.

I am not at all hostile to your conclusions, but don't seek me out unless you are willing to do more than to pretend to go through the motions of debating. If you are prepared to demonstrate rigorous intellectual analysis I am still prepared for an exchange with you. If not please have the common courtesy of not communicating with me again.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Actually, you haven't presented an argument that can withstand critical scrutiny. You've merely presented a series of disjointed conclusions without articulating the factual basis underlying each logical step required to reach those conclusions.

I am not at all hostile to your conclusions, but don't seek me out unless you are willing to do more than to pretend to go through the motions of debating. If you are prepared to demonstrate rigorous intellectual analysis I am still prepared for an exchange with you. If not please have the common courtesy of not communicating with me again.
Click to expand...

Re-read the thread. I've already cited the legal and moral basis for my argument. Long story short:

KSM is not protected by the Geneva Conventions or the US Constitution. He is a foreign terrorist that refuses to abide by any international standards of conduct, as such, the United States would be totally justified under international and domestic law in summarily executing him.
 
Ethies got a point. He's not a combatant, he's a terrorist.


The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949 and remain the most popular regulations concerning the laws of war. There are four conventions: Convention I addresses the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers in the field of battle; Convention II includes the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers at sea; Convention III regulates the treatment of Prisoners of War; Convention IV concerns the treatment of citizens in times of war.

The Convention under debate is the third Convention, specifically Article 3, which establishes the guidelines for POW treatment, stating they should be treated "humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria." It then defines behavior against POWs that is prohibited, the most relevant to the current situation being "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular murders of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."

It doesn't take a Congressional Commission to determine that the photos at Abu Ghraib detail examples of "outrages upon personal dignity" and therefore a violation of the Geneva Convention. No one (except Rush Limbaugh, who refers to it as "good old American pornography') is arguing that the treatment of the prisoners is cruel and humiliating. The point of contention is whether these prisoners — and any prisoners in the war on terror — deserve the status of POW. Rush Limbaugh and like-minded individuals say they do not because, according to Article 4 of the third Convention, a POW is defined in part as " having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance . . . of carrying arms openly . . . of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Clearly, Al-Queda and other terrorists do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. A suicide bomber does not openly carry arms. A hijacker of a plane does not wear a uniform identifying him as such. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions, like most treaties, structure legal relationships between Nation States, not between Nation States and private interest groups and non-state actors, such as Al-Queda.

So, case closed. Perhaps Al Gore should stop harping on Bush for dishonoring the Geneva Conventions, because, according to these same conventions, the terrorists do not qualify for POW status. Except things are never so simple. The Geneva Conventions are long and complicated, and while Article 3 and 4 are the most discussed, there are over 100 articles in the third Convention alone, all of which discuss the status and treatment of a POW. In fact, one needs to look no further than Article 5 to see that the definition of a POW is not as clear-cut as Mr. Limbaugh would have us believe:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Click to expand...

Terrorist Prisoners of WarThe Geneva Convention Question
 
Moderator's Warning:
Textmaster and tjinta ibis...both of you stop the personal attacks or you will be thread banned.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Those competent tribunals were set up, all detainees have their status determined by a competent military tribunal, and if there is cause to hold them they are then entitled to a trial by a military commission. That is what was spelled out in the Military Commissions Act.
Click to expand...

Why did we even need to do that. he's clearly not protected by the GC, we could have just...lost him in a storm at GB...his body could just happen to wash up on shore somewhere...
 
Just another read on it:

Dozens of Gitmo detainees finally get day in court

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 15, 9:15 pm ET

WASHINGTON – In courtrooms barred to the public, dozens of terror suspects are pleading for their freedom from the Guantanamo Bay prison, sometimes even testifying on their own behalf by video from the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Complying with a Supreme Court ruling last year, 15 federal judges in the U.S. courthouse here are giving detainees their day in court after years behind bars half a world away from their homelands.

The judges have found the government's evidence against 30 detainees wanting and ordered their release. That number could rise significantly because the judges are on track to hear challenges from dozens more prisoners.

Scooped up along with hard-core terrorist suspects in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, these 30 detainees stand in stark contrast to the 10 prisoners whom the Obama administration targeted for prosecution Friday for plotting the Sept. 11 and other terrorist attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of 9/11, and four of his alleged henchmen are headed for a federal civilian trial in New York; five others, including a top suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole, will be tried by a military commission.

More detainees are expected to soon be added to the prosecution list. But there will still be plenty of cases left among the 215 detainees now at Guantanamo to keep the judges here busy as they work to clear a legal morass the Bush administration created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Bush administration Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once promised Guantanamo held "the worst of the worst." The judges here have rejected pleas for release from eight detainees, but they have concluded the government doesn't even have enough evidence to keep 30 other detainees behind bars.

"There is absolutely no reason for this court to presume that the facts contained in the government's exhibits are accurate," District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote in ordering the release of Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed. He was repatriated to Yemen after a seven-year stay at Guantanamo, where he was brought as a teenager.

"Much of the factual material contained in those exhibits is hotly contested for a host of different reasons ranging from the fact that it contains second- and third-hand hearsay to allegations that it was obtained by torture to the fact that no statement purports to be a verbatim account of what was said," Kessler said. She ruled the government failed to prove the detainee was part of or substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces.

The evidentiary record "is surprisingly bare," U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in ordering the release of Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah, a 50-year-old father of four from Kuwait who had been an aviation engineer for Kuwaiti Airways for 20 years. He has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since 2002.

Rabiah is one of dozens of men who won their cases in court or who have been cleared for transfer by the Obama administration who are still among the 215 detainees at Guantanamo. Finding countries willing to take the detainees has proved difficult. Since Obama took office, only 25 detainees have actually left.

In the case of a detainee from Syria, Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Ginco, who uses the surname Janko, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon pointed to evidence that the man had been tortured repeatedly by al-Qaida for three months into falsely confessing that he was a U.S. spy, then jailed for 18 months by the Taliban in Kandahar before he fell into the hands of U.S. forces.

"Notwithstanding these extraordinary intervening events, the government contends that Janko was still 'part of' the Taliban and/or al-Qaida when he was taken into custody," Leon wrote in ordering the detainee's release. "Surely extreme treatment of that nature evinces a total evisceration of whatever relationship might have existed!"

One detainee who lost his bid for freedom was Adham Mohammed Ali Awad, taken into custody seven years ago when he was a teenager.

"It seems ludicrous to believe that he poses a security threat now, but that is not for me to say, " wrote U.S. District Judge James Robertson.

"The case against Awad is gossamer thin," consisting of raw intelligence, multiple levels of hearsay and documents whose authenticity cannot be proven, said Robertson. "In the end, however, it appears more likely than not that Awad was, for some period of time, 'part of' al-Qaida."

The detainees' hearings — which usually last a day or two apiece — are expected to go well into next year, unless the Obama administration finds homes for them in other countries in the meantime.

Some 45 percent of the detainees are citizens of Yemen. Afghanistan is the home country of about one in 10 detainees. Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Tunisia together are home for about one in five, according to the Pentagon.

The courthouse's Guantanamo cleanup started with the Bush administration still in office, set in motion by the district judges just days after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees could go to civilian court to challenge their indefinite detention. After two earlier Supreme Court rulings in favor of the detainees, a Republican-controlled Congress stepped in to effectively keep detainees from seek freedom from civilian courts, but the Democratic-controlled Congress let the June 2008 ruling stand.

The district judges contacted the attorney general and the defense secretary to arrange for a secure video link to Guantanamo. A few judges have taken testimony by satellite from several detainees who wanted to speak on their own behalf.

Typically, the first half hour of a detainee's hearing is open to the public, with the prisoner listening by phone. Then the courtroom doors are locked, and the judges hear classified evidence.

The 15 judges' chambers were outfitted with safes, special laptop computers and printers and each of the judges' law clerks underwent background checks and was given a security clearance to deal with classified information that dominates the evidence.

One of the last bastions of judicial opposition to the detainees is the federal appeals court on the fifth floor of the courthouse.

There, a three-judge panel ruled the judges lack authority to order them released into the United States even if they have won their release and have nowhere else to go. Considered no threat to the United States, the detainees in that case are 17 Muslims, known as Uighurs. They were picked up in Afghanistan after fleeing western China and fear persecution if returned to China. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear their appeal, with a decision expected next spring. This year, the U.S. government found a home for four Uighurs in Bermuda and six on the Pacific island nation of Palau. The seven still at Guantanamo hope to live in the United States. To achieve that goal, their lawyers must persuade the Supreme Court to rule in their favor.
 
Laila said:
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
Click to expand...

Entirely possible. That is the price for obtaining information through questionable means. However, it seems clear they have enough evidence to convict the terrorists even without the tortured confessions. Otherwise they would not have felt confident in bringing them to trial.
 
Hatuey said:
Here I'll show you why you're a hypocrite and are intentionally being dense or just your usual inconsistent self. The best part is that I'll show you by quoting a piece Libertarians cum all over themselves quoting constantly which just goes to show what a face palm moment this will be for you :



But I'm sure they weren't talking about fair trials. ;) They were just talking about the silly stuff like voting and becoming president. Your hypocrisy is showing Ethereal.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct..... and this country needs to get out there and force the rest of the world to abide by those thoughts. :roll:

Or did you forget that this guy was captured in a foreign country, by a foreign country, and would never have set foot on US soil unless brought here by Obama?

So what is it going to be?… and please be consistent with your previous arguments.
 
Hatuey said:
But I'm sure they weren't talking about fair trials. ;) They were just talking about the silly stuff like voting and becoming president. Your hypocrisy is showing Ethereal.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if they knew something like 9-11 was going to happen they'd have made a clause for sub-human pieces of trash...but whatever. I guess fair is fair.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
I've been a lawyer longer than you've been a jerk.:lol:
Click to expand...

Seems I rubbed you the wrong way, which wasn't my intention.... I was pretty sure you did pass, unlike our current, resident "expert", RightinNYC.
 
Catawba said:
Entirely possible. That is the price for obtaining information through questionable means. However, it seems clear they have enough evidence to convict the terrorists even without the tortured confessions. Otherwise they would not have felt confident in bringing them to trial.
Click to expand...


I don't think this is about convicting KSM at all. This is about keeping Bush in the spotlight so that no one focuses on how badly Obama is doing with Afghanistan.


j-mac
 
Well, to get the thread back on topic, and to address the seeming stupidity of moving this trial into civilian courts:

John Yoo: The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda - WSJ.com

The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda
The government will have to choose between vigorous prosecution and revealing classified sources and methods.

By JOHN YOO

'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.

No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Together with Osama bin Laden, he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, and ran the whole operation from abroad.

After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan KSM eventually became bin Laden's operations chief. American and Pakistani intelligence forces captured him on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.

The Obama administration has rejected the tool designed to solve this tension between civilian trials and the demands of intelligence and military operations. In 2001, President George W. Bush established military commissions, which have a long history that includes World War II, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. The lawyers in the Bush administration—I was one—understood that military commissions could guarantee a fair trial while protecting national security secrets from excessive exposure.

The Supreme Court has upheld the use of commissions for war crimes. The procedures for these commissions received the approval of Congress in 2006 and 2009.

Stranger yet, the Obama administration declared last week that it would use these military commissions to try five other al Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, including Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. It should make no difference that this second group attacked a military target overseas. If anything, the deliberate attack on purely civilian targets in New York City represents the greater war crime.

For a preview of the KSM trial, look at what happened in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested in the U.S. just before 9/11. His trial never made it to a jury. Moussaoui's lawyers tied the court up in knots.

All they had to do was demand that the government hand over all its intelligence on him. The case became a four-year circus, giving Moussaoui a platform to air his anti-American tirades. The only reason the trial ended was because, at the last minute, Moussaoui decided to plead guilty. That plea relieved the government of the choice between allowing a fishing expedition into its intelligence files or dismissing the charges.

KSM's lawyers will not save the government from itself. Instead they will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.

Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
 
tjinta ibis said:
You mean due process of law? That's a basic part of even your value system.....isn't it?

You mean a fair an open trial in the very place where the crime took place?

You mean showing the world we've decided to go back to our basic values?

Yes this is really what the liberals want our country to look like.
Click to expand...

There is legal precedent for trying them in a military trial and executing them outright. Stop with this ****ing liberal slant BS, its enough already.

Who is it you are pandering to with this BS, the arab muslims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom