• 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!

NYC Terror Suspect Takes Deal, Probe Continues

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NYC Terror Suspect Takes Deal, Probe Continues
By John Jessup
CBN News Washington Correspondent
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

WASHINGTON - Terror suspect Najibullah Zazi will likely spend the rest of his life in prison after pleading guilty to a plot to blow up New York City's subway system.

Prosecutors say the investigation of the 25-year-old Afghan native is ongoing and could lead to more arrests.

NYC Terror Suspect Takes Deal, Probe Continues - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

What in the world did the prosecution offer Zazi to get him to accept a 'life in prison' plea bargain deal???
 
It's better than execution?


(edit: for the public AND for the criminal!)
 
It's better than execution?


(edit: for the public AND for the criminal!)
It does not appear that execution was on the table.
 
As an aside, it is interesting how much cooperation the government is getting from Zazi. Looks like he has completely rolled over. One wonders if he would have been so cooperative in Gitmo.
 
As an aside, it is interesting how much cooperation the government is getting from Zazi. Looks like he has completely rolled over. One wonders if he would have been so cooperative in Gitmo.

or he is feeding officials a line of bs to save family members. Guess will know when all the leads are followed up on.
 
As an aside, it is interesting how much cooperation the government is getting from Zazi. Looks like he has completely rolled over. One wonders if he would have been so cooperative in Gitmo.

This from a guy who wanted to martyr himself.
 
or he is feeding officials a line of bs to save family members. Guess will know when all the leads are followed up on.
The government had enough confidence in his leads to offer him the deal, anyway.

We will find out soon enough.
 
This from a guy who wanted to martyr himself.
Suicide bombers are cowards. Frankly I'm surprised more of them don't roll over.
 
Excerpted from “Holder Was Right” By Joe Conason, The New York Observer, February 23, 2010 | 3:07 p.m
[SIZE="+2"]B[/SIZE]y convicting Mr. Zazi and pursuing the leads that his capture and interrogation have provided, the F.B.I. has shown that traditional American methods—rather than the “enhanced interrogation” and military tribunals favored by the right—are highly effective instruments of national security.

The system works. :clap:
 
Suicide bombers are cowards. Frankly I'm surprised more of them don't roll over.

Usually they roll a lot!

(the tiny leftover pieces of them that is)
 
“This attempted attack on our homeland was real, it was in motion, and it would have been deadly.” — Attorney General Eric Holder¹

No public congratulations from normally outspoken republicans about the Attorney General's major success in prosecuting Najibullah Zazi? No?

Excerpted from “GOPers Who Hit Obama On Xmas Bomber Now Mum On Zazi Guilty Plea” By Justin Elliott, TPMMuckraker, February 24, 2010, 11:15AM
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he Republicans who most vociferously blasted the Obama Administration for putting the attempted Christmas bombing suspect through the criminal justice system have apparently been silent on another high-profile terrorism case making its way through the civilian system. …

Given the GOP outrage over the administration's decision to charge attempted Christmas bomber Umar Abdulmutallab in criminal court, one might have expected a flurry of Republican press releases and TV appearance this week over the handling of the Zazi case.

But the press releases never came, and the TV appearances were never scheduled.

Republicans Sen. Kit Bond and Rep. Pete Hoekstra have been perhaps the most vocal critics of the administration's handling of Abdulmutallab. …

Neither Bond nor Hoekstra have commented on Zazi's plea this week, a search of news archives and their Web sites show. Spokespeople for Bond and Hoekstra have not responded to requests for comment on the Zazi case.
 
“This attempted attack on our homeland was real, it was in motion, and it would have been deadly.” — Attorney General Eric Holder¹

No public congratulations from normally outspoken republicans about the Attorney General's major success in prosecuting Najibullah Zazi? No?

I'm not sure exactly what you expect. The SDNY managed to parlay an overwhelming case into a plea, something it does every single day. The fact that this particular guy cooperated with the government doesn't indicate anything about how others would act, so the claim that this "proves" we can just use the civilian system as opposed to the military system is just ridiculous.
 
What you refuse to deal with is that this is just the latest instance in a long line of many instances, where the civilian system WORKED!

There's plenty of evidence that torture produced bad intelligence. There's plenty of evidence that the military tribunals didn't produce faster or more accurate justice.

It's time to acknowledge that the civilian justice system works and produces good intelligence. It's time to acknowledge that the civilian justice system should always be the preferred option when addressing terrorist acts.
 
What you refuse to deal with is that this is just the latest instance in a long line of many instances, where the civilian system WORKED!

Which proves what?

There's plenty of evidence that torture produced bad intelligence. There's plenty of evidence that the military tribunals didn't produce faster or more accurate justice.

It's time to acknowledge that the civilian justice system works and produces good intelligence. It's time to acknowledge that the civilian justice system should always be the preferred option when addressing terrorist acts.

Again, I don't know what you're basing this on. The Obama adminstration itself has explicitly stated that the military tribunal system (and indefinite detention) are fundamental and necessary parts of its anti-terrorism strategy. The fact that the civilian justice system has worked for the people that they've chosen to place in the civilian justice system does not indicate anything about how well the system would work for those that they explicitly choose not to place in the system.


edit: Let's say you come up with 25 math questions of varying difficulty and give them to a 10 year old. The 10 year old picks the 15 easiest questions and gets them all right. By your logic, the fact that the kid got the 15 easiest ones right means that he's almost certainly going to get the 10 hard ones right. It doesn't work like that.
 
Last edited:
You say 25 questions pick 15.

The truth is far different.

The real record is 300+ pick 3.

That's right just 3 cases have actually been resolved by the military tribunal system; all the the other terrorism cases were resolved in the civilian justice system.

And, you know what, of the 3 cases completed in the military system, 2 of those defendents are walking the streets as free men today.

Perhaps, that's the right outcome, but, for those who have us understand that the military system would deal a harsher punishment, a more just punishment in their eyes than that served up by our civilian system need to deal with the real record as it stands today.
 
You say 25 questions pick 15.

The truth is far different.

The real record is 300+ pick 3.

That's right just 3 cases have actually been resolved by the military tribunal system; all the the other terrorism cases were resolved in the civilian justice system.

And, you know what, of the 3 cases completed in the military system, 2 of those defendents are walking the streets as free men today.

Perhaps, that's the right outcome, but, for those who have us understand that the military system would deal a harsher punishment, a more just punishment in their eyes than that served up by our civilian system need to deal with the real record as it stands today.

Oh, I wasn't aware that the only two options were civilian trial or military tribunal. Given that you said that only three cases have been tried via tribunal, that must mean that everyone else was tried by civilian trial, right?

You seem to be forgetting a pretty important category of detainee here.
 
… Given that you said that only three cases have been tried via tribunal, that must mean that everyone else was tried by civilian trial, right? …

The U.S. Supreme Court has already determined that indefinite detention is unconstitutional.¹

So, the military tribunal or civilian court systems are the two options. And, comparing their records, I think it is clear what should be the preferred option.

Excerpted from “Terrorism Fight Creates Battle Over Prosecution” By SCOTT SHANE, The New York Times, Published: February 11, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE]n eight years, the Bush administration said it had obtained at least 319 convictions in “terrorism or terrorism-related” cases in the civilian justice system, according to a Justice Department budget document. …

Meanwhile, at Guantánamo, just three men were convicted by military commissions, largely because the tribunals drew countless legal challenges. Two of the three men convicted, including Mr. Hicks, are now free.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has already determined that indefinite detention is unconstitutional.¹

That's not actually what Boumediene said - the primary issue of that case was whether Gitmo was within the sovereignty of the US such that detainees had a habeas claim. It says nothing about places like Bagram where we continue to hold detainees without trial.

So, the military tribunal or civilian court systems are the two options. And, comparing their records, I think it is clear what should be the preferred option.

If those are the only two options, then what is the Obama administration doing with those who it's not putting in either system and is instead holding indefinitely?

Even for those for whom there will be trials, if the civilian system is clearly so much better, then how come the Obama administration has decided to try dozens in the tribunals?
 
That's not actually what Boumediene said - the primary issue of that case was whether Gitmo was within the sovereignty of the US such that detainees had a habeas claim. It says nothing about places like Bagram where we continue to hold detainees without trial.



If those are the only two options, then what is the Obama administration doing with those who it's not putting in either system and is instead holding indefinitely?

Even for those for whom there will be trials, if the civilian system is clearly so much better, then how come the Obama administration has decided to try dozens in the tribunals?

Because when we sent them to the civilian courts you conservatives FREAKED THE **** OUT!
 
Because when we sent them to the civilian courts you conservatives FREAKED THE **** OUT!

Incorrect. You're completely mistaken on the timing - never once did Obama say that he was moving everyone to the civilian courts. When he made his announcement, the decision was to divide the gitmo detainees up into three groups: Civilian trial, military tribunal, and indefinite detention. From day 1, he's been planning on doing this. The "conservative freakout" that you're referring to (which I don't recall ever participating in) happened re: the decision to put some people in the civilian court.

You can't blame everything on those evil conservatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom