• 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

Albert Di Salvo said:
Zacarias Moussaoui, arrested 2001, sentenced 2006.
Click to expand...

Do you have any reason to assume that these trials would be more like the Moussaoui timeframe as opposed to the Padilla/Yousef/Blind Sheik timeframe?

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?
Click to expand...

I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to argue. Fill in this sentence for me:

"Eric Holder made a politicized decision dealing with pardons almost a decade ago, so that means _____________ as relating to these terrorism prosecutions today."

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.
Click to expand...

I would have to assume that it's because he believes that there is enough admissible evidence to win convictions in federal court for these 5 individuals, but isn't convinced of that fact as it applies to the other detainees. That seems like a pretty logical conclusion from my perspective.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama's base is just giddy over the prospect of aligning themselves with the planners of 9/11.

texmaster said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think the danger is any more serious than what we face every day. There are plenty of situations where AQ would love to stage a terrorist attack for the publicity. The inauguration, the world series, the anniversary of 9/11, any one of the dozens of trials that have already occurred, etc.

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

We had one with the planners of the first WTC attack, one with the Shoe Bomber, one with the American Taliban, etc. All of those were "media spectacles." None of those resulted in terrorism.

Albert Di Salvo said:
How do you know? There will be separate trials.
Click to expand...

I don't "know" anything. I'm making an estimate based on the amount of in-court time that these trials will probably take. If you have anything that would lead you to believe that these trials will cost "hundreds of millions," feel free to share it.

Albert Di Salvo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing about anyone's motivation is an objectively determinable fact. I'm simply looking at the facts and drawing a reasonable conclusion. Do you think that Holder would be bringing these people here for a trial if he weren't convinced that he would get convictions?

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.
Click to expand...

Which means what?
 
RightinNYC said:
And I'm sure that there's absolutely no other evidence available other than his confession.

Link?

Want to bet on it?

Link to anything suggesting he would have done it, had he been able to?

No he's not. This garbage is seriously getting old.

Wow, ignorance and thinkly-veiled racism all rolled up into one unamusing joke. Nice work!
Click to expand...

1. There most certainly is but almost all of it was obtained by the use of torture and a liberal judge can drop the charges because of 180 some cases of wate rboarding.

2.
We are no longer fighting a "war on terror." We are instead conducting "overseas contingency operations" and, as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, responding to "mancaused disasters." (Napolitano might have used the gender-neutral "human-caused disasters.")
Click to expand...
Oh yes she takes her orders from your hero Obama. Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies - CBS News

3.& 4. These are both my opinion based on the examples that have shown Obama is a racist and clearly favors Muslims.

5. You are a joke for not knowing this. Obama spent his formative years in Islamic Madrasahs and before he changed his name it was Barry Soetoro and he changed when he was at Occidental where he stopped being called “Barry” and became Barack Obama a Muslim name as he was enrolled in school as a Muslim. them there is this. Obama: "My Muslim Faith" - Google Videos
Some would call this Classic Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is defined as; A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal an unconscious belief, thought, or emotion. In other words the truth.
It is encouraged that Muslims lie to infidels to get their way and he's the champ of all times.

6. It is generally those who openly admit to being Liberals that are the first to claim others are being racist because they either have no intelligent response to the facts or they are just trying to redirect focus.
Not a single thing I wrote is in any way racist it is below the dignity of a true conservative to make such a wild claim.

Just about everything Obama has done is either directly Anti-American or Pro- Socialist/Marxist and he has surrounded himself with admited Communists and those who quote and say the admire communists. He also uses radicals and those who are convicted Anti-American bombers and other jail birds. Just listen to his people like Anita Dunn. Oops she was found out and now she's following in the wake of Communist Van Jones.

I try to base opinions on evidence not wild speculation, but in the end it's still just opinion. But I do back it up with supporting facts even if some of it is just trends Obama has established himself.
 
RightinNYC said:
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 was captured outside the US outside of a combat zone: Boumedine v. Bush.
Click to expand...

This is the one I believe is applicable, and the one I remember reading. Scalia was particularly flummoxed with the majority's opinion:

BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH
SCALIA, J., dissenting

Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war. THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent, which I join, shows that the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act provide the essential protections that habeas corpus guarantees; there has thus been no suspension of the writ, and no basis exists for judicial intervention beyond what the Act allows. My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.

I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today.

...[Last Line]

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf
Click to expand...

Extending Constitutional legal rights to a notorious terrorist mastermind is not justifiable, as is the case concerning Kalid Sheik Mohommad.

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.
Click to expand...

I was just wondering how you felt about the current trial (KSM) and the applicable case law.
 
Last edited:
Arch Enemy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Grrrrr. Just shoot that ****er!!! Right in the ****ing face!!! He doesn't deserve a trial...
 
ScottD said:
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?
Click to expand...

But, for who? Who is this really for? Personally, I think this is nothing but a feel good moment for the Libbos, as if there are good sportsmanship awards in a war.
 
Obama Bin Laden IS NOT a Muslim (in today's definition).


I would, however, like to see your quotes from the Quran that say that Muslims are "encouraged that Muslims lie to infidels to get their way and he's the champ of all times."

Unless, the encouragement is subjective within the Muslim faith
 
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...

What planet are you from my left wing friend........This country was based on rights for its CITIZENS not a bunch of whacked out terrorists who wear no uniforms and represent no country...These thugs should be tried in military tribunals just like the NAZIS were at Nurenburg.........Your socialist leader is clueless...........I guess if people like you had their way we would have tried the thousands of POWs we had at the end of WW2 in civil courts.....This is a terrible mistake and you will find that out soon enough.........Giving these radicals a stage around the world is crazy......
 
Guiliani just scorched Obama over this and he is absolutely right. This trial is a terrible idea. This might be the WORST decision made by the Obama administraion thus far; truly awful. He makes an excellent case against this trial:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jS-LJpG3HI"]YouTube- Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (1 of 2)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aBn73x8kjM"]YouTube- Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (2 of 2)[/ame]
 
RightinNYC said:
Do you have any reason to assume that these trials would be more like the Moussaoui timeframe as opposed to the Padilla/Yousef/Blind Sheik timeframe?



I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to argue. Fill in this sentence for me:

"Eric Holder made a politicized decision dealing with pardons almost a decade ago, so that means _____________ as relating to these terrorism prosecutions today."



I would have to assume that it's because he believes that there is enough admissible evidence to win convictions in federal court for these 5 individuals, but isn't convinced of that fact as it applies to the other detainees. That seems like a pretty logical conclusion from my perspective.



Yes, Obama's base is just giddy over the prospect of aligning themselves with the planners of 9/11.



....


We had one with the planners of the first WTC attack, one with the Shoe Bomber, one with the American Taliban, etc. All of those were "media spectacles." None of those resulted in terrorism.



I don't "know" anything. I'm making an estimate based on the amount of in-court time that these trials will probably take. If you have anything that would lead you to believe that these trials will cost "hundreds of millions," feel free to share it.



Absolutely nothing about anyone's motivation is an objectively determinable fact. I'm simply looking at the facts and drawing a reasonable conclusion. Do you think that Holder would be bringing these people here for a trial if he weren't convinced that he would get convictions?



Which means what?
Click to expand...

Duration of Gitmo Five Trials: I'm speculating just like you. My speculation is based on the likely magnitude of the pre-trial motions, e.g., change of venue, admissibility of evidence acquired by coercion and duress, etc. These are issues not present in the Padilla and other trials you mentioned.

Do you have any reason to assume that the trials, probably held sequentially, will have a duration fitting within the Padilla timeframe?

Not Having The Slightest Clue: You say you don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about. Are you trying to insult me. If so I assure you there is nothing to gain. Eric Holder has an established record as a political lawyer. In view of the track record he's established the burden of proving nonpolitical intentions is on him, not me.

Your Evidentiary Assumption: You assume Holder believes there is sufficient evidence to convict in SDNY, and so it isn't necessary to try them before a military tribunal. Maybe so, maybe no. You're excluding political considerations. You have no basis to assume that political considerations are not a contributing cause to the decision to try the Gitmo Five in NY.

Giddiness of Obama's Base: Don't put words in my mouth. I said this is a sop to Obama's base because it will expose Bush and his administration to opprobrium. I never said Obama's base is giddy at the prospect of being aligned with the 9/11 planners.

Cost of Trials: Check my posts. I didn't say the trials will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I asked you how you knew? Stop attributing comments to me that I haven't made. Stop assuming.

Objective Determination of Holder's Intentions: Again you are guessing that Holder's intentions are purely legal based on your exclusion of political considerations. At best Holder probably has mixed motives, both legal and political.

Post Acquittal Detention Authority: The uproar from exercise of this power is a political consideration that any administration would consider. That's what my comment means.
 
They are not US military personnel and they did not commit a crime directly against the US military.

They committed a crime against the community of New York City where they will be tried.

They will be found guilty. And they will probably sit on death row for the rest of their lives.

It is where they belong for what they did against the community of NYC, so it is where they will go. It is what it is.

Like they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

The only thing between it happening is time. And the US justice system is not fast, but it is thorough - so it won't take too long.
 
Councilman said:
1. There most certainly is but almost all of it was obtained by the use of torture and a liberal judge can drop the charges because of 180 some cases of wate rboarding.
Click to expand...

And you're basing this on...?

2. Oh yes she takes her orders from your hero Obama. Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies - CBS News
Click to expand...

DHS official once referring to "man-caused disasters" somehow equals him ordering the banishment of the term "terrorism"?

5. You are a joke for not knowing this. Obama spent his formative years in Islamic Madrasahs and before he changed his name it was Barry Soetoro and he changed when he was at Occidental where he stopped being called “Barry” and became Barack Obama a Muslim name as he was enrolled in school as a Muslim. them there is this. Obama: "My Muslim Faith" - Google Videos
Some would call this Classic Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is defined as; A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal an unconscious belief, thought, or emotion. In other words the truth.
It is encouraged that Muslims lie to infidels to get their way and he's the champ of all times.
Click to expand...

You're concluding that he's a Muslim based on this and are claiming that I'm a joke?

6. It is generally those who openly admit to being Liberals that are the first to claim others are being racist because they either have no intelligent response to the facts or they are just trying to redirect focus.
Not a single thing I wrote is in any way racist it is below the dignity of a true conservative to make such a wild claim.
Click to expand...

It doesn't require one to be liberal or conservative to recognize your bull**** for what it is.

Ethereal said:
This is the one I believe is applicable, and the one I remember reading. Scalia was particularly flummoxed with the majority's opinion:

Extending Constitutional legal rights to a notorious terrorist mastermind is not justifiable, as is the case concerning Kalid Sheik Mohommad.

I was just wondering how you felt about the current trial (KSM) and the applicable case law.
Click to expand...

Setting aside how "bad" the guy is due to his actions, there has to be some form of process for dealing with these people. I personally don't see the problem with some form of military commission, provided that it has some decent protections.

Albert Di Salvo said:
Duration of Gitmo Five Trials: I'm speculating just like you. My speculation is based on the likely magnitude of the pre-trial motions, e.g., change of venue, admissibility of evidence acquired by coercion and duress, etc. These are issues not present in the Padilla and other trials you mentioned.

Do you have any reason to assume that the trials, probably held sequentially, will have a duration fitting within the Padilla timeframe?
Click to expand...

How do you figure that none of those issues were present in the other cases? The exact same concerns came into play.

An article I came across discussing this exact topic:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg assured the White House and New Yorkers that the city was capable.

"We have hosted terrorism trials before," Mr. Bloomberg said, citing the 1995 trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who was convicted, along with other Islamic militants. The New York Police Department, he said, has "experience dealing with high-profile terrorism suspects and any logistical issues that may come up during the trials."

Costs to the city during the 1995 terrorism trial were reimbursed by the federal government, a Bloomberg spokesman said. City police didn't provide figures.

The new trial is expected to be lengthy. Mr. Rahman's trial lasted eight months. Depending on the charges, Mr. Mohammed's trial could run as long.
Click to expand...

New York, Court Brace for Logistical Hurdles - WSJ.com

Not Having The Slightest Clue: You say you don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about. Are you trying to insult me. If so I assure you there is nothing to gain.
Click to expand...

I'm asking you what you're trying to say. You mentioned that Holder had mad a politicized decision almost a decade ago and then were implying that that had something to do with the logistics of this trial. I don't see how it's relevant.

Eric Holder has an established record as a political lawyer. In view of the track record he's established the burden of proving nonpolitical intentions is on him, not me.

Your Evidentiary Assumption: You assume Holder believes there is sufficient evidence to convict in SDNY, and so it isn't necessary to try them before a military tribunal. Maybe so, maybe no. You're excluding political considerations. You have no basis to assume that political considerations are not a contributing cause to the decision to try the Gitmo Five in NY.
Click to expand...

So when I make an assumption based on what I consider fairly obvious logic, you rush to point out that I don't know what's going on. Then, you turn around and argue that because someone once did something political, you assume that everything else that person does going forward is tainted by that. Okay.

Giddiness of Obama's Base: Don't put words in my mouth. I said this is a sop to Obama's base because it will expose Bush and his administration to opprobrium. I never said Obama's base is giddy at the prospect of being aligned with the 9/11 planners.
Click to expand...

And I think it's nuts to believe that liberals are going to be rushing to latch on to testimony from the guys behind 9/11.

Do you know what would really make Obama look good politically? 5 quick convictions followed by lethal injections.

Cost of Trials: Check my posts. I didn't say the trials will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I asked you how you knew? Stop attributing comments to me that I haven't made. Stop assuming.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you did - I merely asked if you had anything to support the figure that was offered earlier, as I had no reason to believe it would be that high.

That being said, based on some other articles I came across, it doesn't actually seem that outlandish.

Former AG Not a Fan of Decision to Try KSM in NYC - Law Blog - WSJ

As a federal district judge, Mukasey presided over the criminal trial stemming from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. For some seven years following the suit, Mukasey received protection from U.S. marshals, a detail which cost taxpayers nearly $28 million.
Click to expand...

Post Acquittal Detention Authority: The uproar from exercise of this power is a political consideration that any administration would consider. That's what my comment means.
Click to expand...

So you think the outrage from detaining KSM post-acquittal would be greater than the outrage of letting the mastermind of 9/11 walk free? If not, then I don't see what the point of your comment is.
 
RightinNYC said:
....
How do you figure that none of those issues were present in the other cases? The exact same concerns came into play.

An article I came across discussing this exact topic:



New York, Court Brace for Logistical Hurdles - WSJ.com



I'm asking you what you're trying to say. You mentioned that Holder had mad a politicized decision almost a decade ago and then were implying that that had something to do with the logistics of this trial. I don't see how it's relevant.



So when I make an assumption based on what I consider fairly obvious logic, you rush to point out that I don't know what's going on. Then, you turn around and argue that because someone once did something political, you assume that everything else that person does going forward is tainted by that. Okay.



And I think it's nuts to believe that liberals are going to be rushing to latch on to testimony from the guys behind 9/11.

Do you know what would really make Obama look good politically? 5 quick convictions followed by lethal injections.



I didn't say you did - I merely asked if you had anything to support the figure that was offered earlier, as I had no reason to believe it would be that high.

That being said, based on some other articles I came across, it doesn't actually seem that outlandish.

Former AG Not a Fan of Decision to Try KSM in NYC - Law Blog - WSJ





So you think the outrage from detaining KSM post-acquittal would be greater than the outrage of letting the mastermind of 9/11 walk free? If not, then I don't see what the point of your comment is.
Click to expand...


Admissibility and venue weren't serious issues in the Padilla case to the best of my knowledge. Padilla wasn't tortured and the exclusionary rule didn't apply. Padilla's trial was in Miami. Miami's juror's didn't reside in the location of a planned terrorist attack. No serious issue over venue as a result. KSM was tortured and Padilla wasn't. Admissibility is a serious issue with KSM. There will be endless motions over each item of evidence. Unlike Padilla, KSM is being tried at the scene of the terrorist attack, and the juror pool will be drawn from the residents of that location. That means voir dire is going to be a lengthy bitch. Moving on.

I believe the decision to bring the Gitmo Five to trial in SDNY is as much a political decision as a legal decision. One of the reasons I believe that to be the case is because I see Holder (and Obama for that matter) as intensely political animals. I believe Holder is a political animal because of his past actions. I presume that his present actions are consistent with his past actions. The presumption is rebuttable, but Holder has the burden of rebutting the presumption stemming from his past conduct. Let me give you a quasi apt analogy. Lawyers rarely flat out lie to each other because it's dangerous. Nevertheless, someday you will encounter a lawyer who flat out lies to you. Whenever you encounter him or her after that occasion you will presume he is always lying, even twenty years thereafter. Moving on.

You don't like my tactics? Too slippery? Come on. You of all people should understand the infinite variety of tactics. Tactical experience is the only thing that keeps someone as stupid as me going toe to toe with you.:2razz: Moving on.

Giddiness? Yeah, w/e. Costs of trial? Yeah, w/e. Post acquittal detention? Yeah, w/e. What do these three issues have in common with the Okavango River? They peter out.

Good night. We'll pick this up tomorrow.
 
RightinNYC said:
Setting aside how "bad" the guy is due to his actions, there has to be some form of process for dealing with these people.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to highlight how bad he was; I was trying to define his legal status.

He is a notorious terrorist mastermind who declared war on the United States and proceeded to orchestrate a series of attacks on American soil. Because of this he is not protected by the Geneva Conventions and he is not protected by the US Constitution. Morally and legally speaking he is entitled to nothing more than a summary execution, although I wouldn't be totally adverse to an expedient military tribunal where he is identified, sentenced, and shot in the head. Both options are totally justifiable under domestic and international law.

I personally don't see the problem with some form of military commission, provided that it has some decent protections.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer this to trying KSM in the criminal justice system?
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Admissibility and venue weren't serious issues in the Padilla case to the best of my knowledge. Padilla wasn't tortured and the exclusionary rule didn't apply. Padilla's trial was in Miami. Miami's juror's didn't reside in the location of a planned terrorist attack. No serious issue over venue as a result. KSM was tortured and Padilla wasn't. Admissibility is a serious issue with KSM. There will be endless motions over each item of evidence. Unlike Padilla, KSM is being tried at the scene of the terrorist attack, and the juror pool will be drawn from the residents of that location. That means voir dire is going to be a lengthy bitch. Moving on
Click to expand...

There were serious allegations of torture in the Padilla case.

Was Jose Padilla tortured by US military? | csmonitor.com

When suspected Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla was taken into military custody in 2002, his interrogators set out to crush any hope he might have that a neutral judge or a defense lawyer would come to his aid. It is difficult to convince a US citizen that legal protections guaranteed in the Constitution no longer exist for him. But that was the mission of US military interrogators ordered to extract as much intelligence as possible from Mr. Padilla. "Only after such time as Padilla has perceived that help is not on the way can the United States reasonably expect to obtain all possible intelligence information from Padilla," explained Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby in an affidavit to an inquiring federal judge.

The statement was made seven months into what became 21 months of strict isolation in a military brig without access to a lawyer or any other human contact besides Padilla's jailers and interrogators. Now, Padilla is facing an April trial in federal court here on charges that he became a willing Al Qaeda recruit in a violent global jihad. But his lawyers complain that Padilla's harsh treatment during nearly four years of military detention and interrogation has left him so psychologically damaged that he is unable to help wage his own defense.

US District Judge Marcia Cooke is being asked to decide whether Padilla is mentally competent to stand trial. In a hearing before Judge Cooke Friday, federal prosecutors are expected to urge the judge to ignore everything that took place during Padilla's military detention. They say his harsh treatment is irrelevant to whether he is mentally competent to stand trial. Padilla's lawyers disagree. They say their client was tortured by the military and they are asking the judge to order the government to fully account for its treatment of Padilla. "Mr. Padilla is suffering from mental defects stemming from his incarceration in the naval brig," writes Anthony Natale, an assistant federal public defender, in a brief to the court. "The effects of that incarceration ... have left Mr. Padilla in such a psychologically frail posture that he cannot bear to revisit his past and, hence, cannot assist counsel in defending him against the government's allegations."
Click to expand...

The issue of the scope of the judge's inquiry into Padilla's mental condition is important because it could open the door to the first detailed examination of torture allegations made by an alleged enemy combatant.

Was he tortured? Was he subjected to stress positions and forced hypothermia? Was he administered mind-altering drugs?

Defense lawyers alleged each of these abuses and more in a motion pending before Cooke to dismiss the entire case against Padilla because the government engaged in outrageous conduct during his military detention.
Click to expand...

The government managed to deal with the abuse arguments and admissibility issues then, and I'm quite confident that they will be able to deal with it now.

As to venue, we tried and convicted the people behind the first WTC bombing in the exact same courthouse. It wasn't an insurmountable problem then, and don't think it will be an insurmountable problem now (though it may well be more difficult).

I believe the decision to bring the Gitmo Five to trial in SDNY is as much a political decision as a legal decision. One of the reasons I believe that to be the case is because I see Holder (and Obama for that matter) as intensely political animals. I believe Holder is a political animal because of his past actions. I presume that his present actions are consistent with his past actions. The presumption is rebuttable, but Holder has the burden of rebutting the presumption stemming from his past conduct. Let me give you a quasi apt analogy. Lawyers rarely flat out lie to each other because it's dangerous. Nevertheless, someday you will encounter a lawyer who flat out lies to you. Whenever you encounter him or her after that occasion you will presume he is always lying, even twenty years thereafter. Moving on.
Click to expand...

This all may well be true, but I just don't see it reaching as far as you're implying. Again, I believe the absolute best political outcome for Obama would be 5 quick convictions followed by lethal injections. If Holder is really making his decisions based on politics, then doesn't it stand to reason that that would be his goal?

I don't buy into the "Obama's a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America" theme and it doesn't seem like you do either, so I'm just having a hard time imagining an outcome on this issue that benefits Obama politically that doesn't also benefit the nation.

You don't like my tactics? Too slippery? Come on. You of all people should understand the infinite variety of tactics. Tactical experience is the only thing that keeps someone as stupid as me going toe to toe with you.:2razz: Moving on.

Giddiness? Yeah, w/e. Costs of trial? Yeah, w/e. Post acquittal detention? Yeah, w/e. What do these three issues have in common with the Okavango River? They peter out.

Good night. We'll pick this up tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. :2wave:
 
Ethereal said:
I wasn't trying to highlight how bad he was; I was trying to define his legal status.

He is a notorious terrorist mastermind who declared war on the United States and proceeded to orchestrate a series of attacks on American soil. Because of this he is not protected by the Geneva Conventions and he is not protected by the US Constitution. Morally and legally speaking he is entitled to nothing more than a summary execution, although I wouldn't be totally adverse to an expedient military tribunal where he is identified, sentenced, and shot in the head. Both options are totally justifiable under domestic and international law.
Click to expand...

And I agree with almost all of this. I don't think the Geneva Conventions should apply and am uncertain whether he'd have recourse even if they did. Nonetheless, I do think there has to be some sort of process, and implicit in that is some sort of review by a neutral-ish tribunal.

Would you prefer this to trying KSM in the criminal justice system?
Click to expand...

Depends. If we had overwhelming evidence of guilt that was fully admissible in the civilian courts and would not harm our national security interests in any way, I would think that trying him in the civilian system would be a powerful statement about out commitment to our principles (and would get the ACLU to chill the **** out). However, given that we're leaving another 5 detainees to be tried in the military commissions and even more to just rot in Gitmo, it's not really sending that much of a message.
 
Arch Enemy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Osama bin Loadin' says, "I'm going to Disney World."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom