• 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

ScottD said:
This nation was founded upon the idea of everyone, no matter what the case, having rights when in the US. Practicing the ideal is far from stupid. I applaud Obama for this decision, when these terrorists are found guilty in a fair court, it will be a day that we show that we will not forfeit our ideals to fear.
Click to expand...

Yea, that'll really show those terrorists. I'm sure they're quaking in their boots at the thought of a fair trial.
 
RightinNYC said:
I think people are freaking out without understanding what's going on.

That's not how the law works, at all. Speedy trial kicks in once you're indicted.

Is it any crazier than trying people from halfway around the world in our court system for plotting to blow up the world trade center with a truck bomb?

We've done this for years and it's worked just fine. The blind sheik, Ramzi Yousef, John Walker Lindh and others have all been convicted in civilian courts. It worked just fine when Bush and Clinton did it, so I don't see any reason to think it wont work when Obama does it.

Are you familiar with the fact that they don't have to turn over all their sources? Or with the fact that they wouldn't bring a civilian prosecution if they didn't have admissible evidence to convict them on? Or with the fact that they've already stated their desire to plead guilty, thus obviating the need for discovery?

Good for Fox News, because they're absolutely right. It's not happening, as much as it seems some on here would love it.

No they would not.

That "legal expert" is a goddamn moron. Again we've done this many times before. This is not some new thing that Obama is just making up.

Conclusion: People will use any excuse to attack their political opponents on something, even if they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Stop knowing the law so much. You're making their hysterics seem well....hysterical.
 
Ethereal said:
Yea, that'll really show those terrorists. I'm sure they're quaking in their boots at the thought of a fair trial.
Click to expand...

If I ever catch you on one of your rants about freedom and liberty please remind me to bring up this post? Thanks. :2wave:
 
apdst said:
Why waste time? Take him out back, put a couple rounds in the back of his head, then burn his body.
Click to expand...

Who says we are putting on a show? We are standing for our ideals, not making a Broadway play.

A trial was done for the soldiers in the Boston Massacre, a trial was done for the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing, a trial has been done for many people, no matter how atrocious their crimes, no matter how obvious their guilt. Never failed us yet, why stop now?
 
apdst said:
Why waste time? Take him out back, put a couple rounds in the back of his head, then burn his body.
Click to expand...

What is truely amazing are people who do not see the extreme risk in this.

We are going out of the military court and trying these Islamic Terrorists in the #1 target for terrorists in the United States.

Islamic terrorists live for publicity and the Obama adminsitration has painted the world's largest target on the back of New York city which I am personally angry about since my sister lives there.

He is putting millions of Americans in danger with no reason whatsoever. This could have been done in a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay with little to no risk to American civilians.

And lets not forget the extreme danger he is putting the judge and jury. Their lives will never be the same again.

The Obama administration is now personally responsible for any Islamic terrorist attacks that occur during that show trial because he is unnecessarily putting people at risk for a show trial designed only to attack the Bush administration.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
How is the Constitution even relevant? He's an enemy combatant captured on foreign soil, which means he's not entitled to the legal rights enumerated in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Whether or not I'm inclined to agree with your position, the Supreme Court has said that this is incorrect in a series of cases addressing this question.
 
texmaster said:
What is truely amazing are people who do not see the extreme risk in this.

We are going out of the military court and trying these Islamic Terrorists in the #1 target for terrorists in the United States.

Islamic terrorists live for publicity and the Obama adminsitration has painted the world's largest target on the back of New York city which I am personally angry about since my sister lives there.

He is putting millions of Americans in danger with no reason whatsoever. This could have been done in a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay with little to no risk to American civilians.

And lets not forget the extreme danger he is putting the judge and jury. Their lives will never be the same again.

The Obama administration is now personally responsible for any Islamic terrorist attacks that occur because he is unnecessarily putting people at risk for a show trial designed only to attack the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think that the decision to host this trial here in NY will have a demonstrable impact on the threat of terrorism in the city? I find that hard to believe.

Again, we've had plenty of terrorism trials here in NY and in other places. There were never any attacks as a result of them.
 
rightinnyc said:
do you actually think that the decision to host this trial here in ny will have a demonstrable impact on the threat of terrorism in the city? I find that hard to believe.

Again, we've had plenty of terrorism trials here in ny and in other places. There were never any attacks as a result of them.
Click to expand...

stop it! You're being factual and logical!
 
Hatuey said:
If I ever catch you on one of your rants about freedom and liberty please remind me to bring up this post? Thanks. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Khalid Sheik Mohammad was an enemy combatant captured on foreign soil by the Pakistani ISI, therefore, he was never entitled to the legal rights enumerated in the US Constitution.
 
RightinNYC said:
Whether or not I'm inclined to agree with your position, the Supreme Court has said that this is incorrect in a series of cases addressing this question.
Click to expand...

I know the case to which you're referring, and the majority's reasoning was at odds with sanity. I believe Scalia summed it up quite nicely in his dissent.

What are your thoughts?
 
Ethereal said:
Khalid Sheik Mohammad was an enemy combatant captured on foreign soil by the Pakistani ISI, therefore, he was never entitled to the legal rights enumerated in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

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 :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[6]
Click to expand...

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
Apparently.



Which is exactly what I pointed out 3 hours ago.



And if the government doesn't seek to offer sensitive evidence, then this is a non-issue.



Again, what are you basing this on?

Jose Padilla was indicted on Nov. 22, 2005, convicted on Aug. 16, 2007, and sentenced on Jan 22, 2008. That's 21 months from indictment to conviction and 26 months from indictment to sentencing. Ramzi Yousef went from being captured in Islamabad to being convicted and sentenced to life in prison in around 18 months. The blind sheikh went from indictment to verdict in a little over 2 years.



And neither of those will come into play if they don't seek to introduce evidence obtained from him while he was at Gitmo or if they think that the evidence they do plan to introduce will be otherwise admissible.

Again, I'm going to go our on a limb here and guess that the USAO in NY and main DoJ have a better idea of how to handle this case than you or I do. The fact that they're only moving a few detainees to NY for trial while charging others in military commissions and leaving the rest in detention indicates that they've thought this over pretty thoroughly.
Click to expand...

Zacarias Moussaoui, arrested 2001, sentenced 2006.

Eric Holder was the Justice Dept. official who made the political decision during the Clinton Administration to overrule career prosecutors and recommentd the pardon of Marc Rich. Remember? Based on his record political considerations are relevant criteria in the administration of justice. Otherwise, how do you explain the pardon of Marc Rich?

Why has Obama created a two tier system of justice with some detainees receiving trials before a military tribunal and other detainees receiving trials in the federal court system? If you don't know say so and I won't ask again, but don't ask me to have faith in Eric Holder or Obama.

Why do I say this is as much a political decision as a legal decision? The Gitmo Five trials will be a massive anti-American propaganda circus. The defendants will put the prior administration on trial. This will please Obama's base.

One of us is too naive and the other is a tad too cynical based on his experience.
 
RightinNYC said:
Do you actually think that the decision to host this trial here in NY will have a demonstrable impact on the threat of terrorism in the city? I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...

How can you not?

This is a trial the world will be watching. Do you really think Islamic Terrorists would pass up a chance for that kind of publicity?

Again, we've had plenty of terrorism trials here in NY and in other places. There were never any attacks as a result of them.
Click to expand...

You've never had a show trial like this with these kinds of terrorists for defendants.
 
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...

So, you construe the DOI's language to mean that enemy combatants captured on foreign soil are entitled to the legal rights enumerated in the US Constitution?

Your idiocy knows no bounds.
 
RightinNYC said:
If AG Holder thought that there was even a one in a thousand chance that these people would be acquitted, he would have never allowed this to go forward in the federal court system.

Hell, even if they were somehow acquitted, that doesn't mean that Obama wouldn't simply exercise his "post-acquittal detention power" to keep them in custody anyway.
Click to expand...

How do you know the truth of the matter you assert on Holder's opinion and actions? Imo it's not humanly possible to know Holder's intentions. Are you speculating? That's ok, but it's not an objectively determinable fact.

If Obi Wan exercises his post acquittal detention authority there will be an uproar on the American and European left the likes of which none of us has ever seen imo.
 
Ethereal said:
So, you construe the DOI's language to mean that enemy combatants captured on foreign soil are entitled to the legal rights enumerated in the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

No. I construe the DOI to mean that enemy combatants tried by the U.S. are entitled to fair trial. One of those inalienable rights all men are entitled to. But I see you're still being dense as most libertarians seem to be when Ron Paul isn't around to cum liberty into their faces.
 
Hatuey said:
But I'm sure they weren't talking about fair trials.
Click to expand...

Also, I would like to point out that the right to trial is not actually an "unalienable" right, so your sarcastic comment was really an exercise in delicious irony...:)
 
Ethereal said:
Also, I would like to point out that the right to trial is not actually an "unalienable" right, so your sarcastic comment was
really an exercise in delicious irony...:)
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out whether you're trying to be a grammar Nazi or a complete Ron Pauligan tonight. Not sure yet but here :

uc06330.jpg


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights]Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Article 10 said:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
No. I construe the DOI to mean that enemy combatants tried by the U.S. are entitled to fair trial.
Click to expand...

Your reference to a "fair" trial is utterly nonsensical since it erroneously presupposes that he has any right to Constitutional due process in the first place.

A military tribunal would have sufficed, and is consistent with the principles espoused in the DOI and the US Constitution.

One of those inalienable rights all men are entitled to. But I see you're still being dense as most libertarians seem to be when Ron Paul isn't around to cum liberty into their faces.
Click to expand...

Why are you so obsessed with cum?
 
Councilman said:
.

Obama is a Muslim and remember they are allowed to lie to us infidels but they have to come to the aid of their fellow Islamists. Look for more of it to come as he gets closer to his goals of Socialism/Marxism.
.
Click to expand...

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

If you had the slightest idea what an Islamist is, then you would understand that Socialist/Marxist Islamist not only makes no sense, but that it is a contradiction.

The very purpose the Islamist movement(s) is to derail these "isms" within their country. They reject these Western terminology.

Obama is a Muslim, according to the Qu'ran, same for Mary, Jesus, and Billy Graham
 
Ethereal said:
I know the case to which you're referring, and the majority's reasoning was at odds with sanity. I believe Scalia summed it up quite nicely in his dissent.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to, as there are a multitude of cases dealing with this topic. Everyone being held is entitled to some sort of process, but the question of what that process must entail is incredibly complex. There are cases that fall into almost every category.

Detainee is a US citizen captured in the US: Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Detainee is an alien captured in the US: Al Marri v. Pucciarelli
Detainee is a US citizen caputred outside the US: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Detainee is an alien captured outside the US: In re Guantanamo Bay Detainees Litigation

Beyond that 2X2 matrix, there are even more factors:

Detainee was captured outside the US in a combat zone: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Detainee was captured outside the US outside of a combat zone: Boumedine v. Bush

or

Detainee is being held on the battlefield: Al Maqualeh v. Gates
Detainee is being held off the battlefield: Boumedine v. Bush

My personal opinion is that it's incredibly difficult to look at these cases and conclude that you can draw a clear line about what rights each of these individuals deserve.


Does someone being held in the territorial US deserve more protections than an identical person being held at Guantanamo, and do both of those people deserve more protections than a third person being held at Bagram AFB?

As a practical matter, I don't know how I would rule on this. While it seems obvious that someone being held in a US prison should be treated differently than someone being held in Afghanistan, enforcing such a rule would just create a perverse incentive. The reason the US began using Guantanamo was because it was a place that the government thought would be under its control but would not offer the detainees the same rights as if they were held on US soil. Since Boumedine, the government has simply been shipping everyone they capture to Bagram. Now that a judge has indicated that that might be a no-go, who knows what will happen next?

Should someone captured on a battlefield in Afghanstan be treated differently than someone captured while plotting an attack in Pakistan or someone captured while traveling through the US?

I think the current approach on this is somewhat counterproductive - it offers additional protections to people captured here in the US while giving the fewest freedoms to those captured in Afghanistan. If we're trying to prevent terrorism, who is more dangerous - someone in a cave in Afghanistan or someone who is part of a sleeper cell driving to Chicago O'Hare?

In summary, I just don't know how I feel about this general approach. If you have a more specific question, I'll try to explain my thoughts on it as best as I can.
 
I'm not gonna lie.

This post Gitmo pic is a bit threatening.

09lede_ksm.350.jpg



He could pass as a Sesame Street Character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom