• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind

I think people are freaking out without understanding what's going on.

Agent Ferris said:
It doesn't matter, no evidence will be entered, as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil they will be entitled to full Constitutional protections, their right to a speedy trial has been violated, thus they must all be released on this technicality which is precisely what the Harvard Law graduate boy king wants. These people were just responding to us white oppressors after all.
Click to expand...

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

Erod said:
The more I think of this - the absurdity, the outcry it will cause, the political fallout.....

I just can't believe we've reached a point where we're trying people from halfway around the world in our court system for plotting to fly two jumbo airliners into our two tallest buildings in New York!

Is this really what liberals want our country to look like?
Click to expand...

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.

Albert Di Salvo said:
Yeah! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. Free the Gitmo Five.:rofl

Are you familiar with the process known as "discovery" in legal circles? Do you know how the discovery process will be used to expose American intelligence sources? Is this one of the reasons why KSM wasn't tried in the US District Court (SDNY) in the first place?
Click to expand...

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?

AlbqOwl said:
Fox News devoted a good deal of time re this issue this morning. The Administration of course is arguing that the public should be able to see and know of the proceedings in this trial and a military tribunal would deny that to them. They can't give a reason for that, but that is their 'reason' for bringing the five culprits to the USA for trial.

They are pooh poohing any possibility that a liberal judge might dismiss the case outright or release these guys on a technicality.
Click to expand...

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

If they are released they would be released IN the USA.
Click to expand...

No they would not.

Another 'legal expert' stated an opinion that a military tribunal would probably be held and sentence pronounced within the next year; however, it will be at least a decade before opening arguments will be heard in a civil trial.
Click to expand...

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: Our Muslim-sympathetic Administration is most likely throwing a bone to the Muslim world by ensuring that these guys will likely never go on trial until the current Administration is done and long gone.
Click to expand...

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.
 
They all want to be martyrs, Obama provides that opportunity.

Think this will turn into a clown show? What kind of information or testimony will come to light? How much will security cost?

And then.....do I hear the President asking that we don't draw conclusions at Fort Hood, is this the same? Innocent until proven guilty, will they get fair trials three blocks from where the killed thousands?
 
RightinNYC said:
....
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?
....
Click to expand...

Well Counselor, you're going to have to educate me.

You ask whether I'm aware the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York doesn't have to turn over all of it's sources. A Federal District Court Judge will make this determination. Since KSM will be on American soil does he not then acquire the right to confront his accusers? Sources will be compromised. Lawyers for criminal defendants use the right of discovery as leverage against the prosecution. The Govt. is forced to choose between compromising sources and intelligence, or holding back evidence incriminating the defendant.

You also ask me if I am familiar with the fact that the Govt. wouldn't bring a civilian prosecution if it didn't have admissible evidence to convict. What is your factual basis for making this assertion. This happens all the time. Have you ever heard of Wen Ho Lee?

Finally, you ask me whether I am familiar with the fact that the Gitmo Five have already stated their desire to plead guilty, thus obviating the need for discovery. Here is where I can tell that you are a layman. The Gitmo Five asked the Military Tribunal in Gitmo if they could enter a guilty plea. They were not allowed to do so. Obama killed the Military Tribunals. Prosecution in Federal District Court is an entirely new proceeding. What was said in the Military Tribunals will not be admissible. Even if it was the Gitmo Five would claim they were coerced into making those incriminating statements, plead not guilty, and since the death penalty may be on the line, no court in America will deny them the right to full, comprehensive, and complete discovery.
 
Charles Martel said:
They all want to be martyrs, Obama provides that opportunity.

Think this will turn into a clown show? What kind of information or testimony will come to light? How much will security cost?

And then.....do I hear the President asking that we don't draw conclusions at Fort Hood, is this the same? Innocent until proven guilty, will they get fair trials three blocks from where the killed thousands?
Click to expand...
i think it's a good thing these trials will be held in daylight. good for us, and good for our reputation.

and justice will be done.
 
liblady said:
this is federal court. what's the issue here?
Click to expand...

Yes, but where are the lines drawn? There are some issues that the Supreme Court has stated are purely political-question issues and to be considered by the legislative branch, only. So are there similar things that apply to this current case (civilian court ruling on a case when the guilty party was first in custody of the military)?

I don't understand how this is going to cross over fluidly.

Obviously I don't know how things in this way would work . . . I'm going to have to learn more before I understand what this truly means.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes, but where are the lines drawn? There are some issues that the Supreme Court has stated are purely political-question issues and to be considered by the legislative branch, only. So are there similar things that apply to this current case (civilian court ruling on a case when the guilty party was first in custody of the military)?

I don't understand how this is going to cross over fluidly.

Obviously I don't know how things in this way would work . . . I'm going to have to learn more before I understand what this truly means.
Click to expand...
they are being tried in federal court, properly. i just don't see the problem. McVeigh was tried in federal court, wasn't he?
 
Charles Martel said:
They all want to be martyrs, Obama provides that opportunity.
Click to expand...

Being forced to stand on trial and then sent to rot in jail will not make them a martyr. If US locked them up in Gitmo and tortured them then yes they can claim they are enduring pain for God so how did he provide this opportunity?
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Well Counselor, you're going to have to educate me.

You ask whether I'm aware the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York doesn't have to turn over all of it's sources. A Federal District Court Judge will make this determination.
Click to expand...

No, it won't. The government will decide what sources it wants to rely on to make its charges.

Since KSM will be on American soil does he not then acquire the right to confront his accusers? Sources will be compromised.

Lawyers for criminal defendants use the right of discovery as leverage against the prosecution. The Govt. is forced to choose between compromising sources and intelligence, or holding back evidence incriminating the defendant.
Click to expand...

Again, this doesn't mean that he gets to "confront" every bit of evidence against him, but only what the prosecutors choose to offer. By making the decision to bring these trials in a regular court, it seems obvious that the Justice Department feels that it has enough non-classified evidence to win the trials without exposing any national security secrets.

You also ask me if I am familiar with the fact that the Govt. wouldn't bring a civilian prosecution if it didn't have admissible evidence to convict. What is your factual basis for making this assertion. This happens all the time. Have you ever heard of Wen Ho Lee?
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's even remotely analogous, because we didn't have an alternative method of trying Wen Ho Lee, while we had another method available here (and are using it for five others).

Finally, you ask me whether I am familiar with the fact that the Gitmo Five have already stated their desire to plead guilty, thus obviating the need for discovery. Here is where I can tell that you are a layman. The Gitmo Five asked the Military Tribunal in Gitmo if they could enter a guilty plea. They were not allowed to do so. Obama killed the Military Tribunals. Prosecution in Federal District Court is an entirely new proceeding. What was said in the Military Tribunals will not be admissible. Even if it was the Gitmo Five would claim they were coerced into making those incriminating statements, plead not guilty, and since the death penalty may be on the line, no court in America will deny them the right to full, comprehensive, and complete discovery.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that their desire to plead guilty would be admissible against them - I said it to highlight the fact that they recognize the strength of the evidence against them and are in all probability okay with being sentenced to prison as part of their desire to get out of Gitmo and become martyrs.
 
Laila said:
Being forced to stand on trial and then sent to rot in jail will not make them a martyr. If US locked them up in Gitmo and tortured them then yes they can claim they are enduring pain for God so how did he provide this opportunity?
Click to expand...

Because they will suffer and no matter ho much hero worship they get from the rest of the Muslims, at least we'll get some statisfaction out of the deal.
 
How better way to insure putting the Government and interrogators on tril and getting his confession thrown out because it was obtained under duress.

I would not be surprised to find that these moves for trail to NY were Obama's own idea.

Obama has shown his racial prejudice in The arrest case of Henry Louis Gates Jr., the release and dropping of charges of the Convicted Black Panthers for intimidation at the polls last year, the firing of the IG who was investigating the crooked Black Mayor of Sacramento CA.

he has shown his prejudice in favor of anything Muslim in his speeches while in the Middle east, his bowing to Royalty in Saudi Arabia, his order that the term terrorism be replaced with "human caused disasters', and his latest example id his refusal to refer to Islamic Terrorist Hasan as such in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Mark my words Obama will in the future use the fact that this poor misunderstood picked on Major Hasan is paralyzed as an excuse to commute his death sentence when the time comes. Obama would have done it for DC sniper John Allen Muhammad if he had the power by fortunately obama can't commute sentences that come down in State Courts. Thank Allah for small favors.

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.

What was it Obama said in a speech in the middle East earlier this year? Oh yes he opened by saying to the Muslim hordes: showmeyourassesIliketolickem.. Or something like that.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
How better way to insure putting the Government and interrogators on tril and getting his confession thrown out because it was obtained under duress.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure that there's absolutely no other evidence available other than his confession.

he has shown his prejudice in favor of anything Muslim in his speeches while in the Middle east, his bowing to Royalty in Saudi Arabia, his order that the term terrorism be replaced with "human caused disasters'
Click to expand...

Link?

Mark my words Obama will in the future use the fact that this poor misunderstood picked on Major Hasan is paralyzed as an excuse to commute his death sentence when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Want to bet on it?

Obama would have done it for DC sniper John Allen Muhammad if he had the power by fortunately obama can't commute sentences that come down in State Courts.
Click to expand...

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

Obama is a Muslim
Click to expand...

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

What was it Obama said in a speech in the middle East earlier this year? Oh yes he opened by saying to the Muslim hordes: showmeyourassesIliketolickem.. Or something like that.
Click to expand...

Wow, ignorance and thinkly-veiled racism all rolled up into one unamusing joke. Nice work!
 
Red_Dave said:
Well they commited a crime in the US so putting them on trial in the U.S seams the logical responce.
Click to expand...

They committed a war crime against the U.S. so placing them on trial by military commission seems like a far more logical response.

Remove the system for determining whether someone is innocent or not and innocent people suffer.
Click to expand...

That's not the counterargument anyone is making, the counterargument is that they should be tried by military commission.

As has been demonstrated by extraordionary rendition etc. This isnt about being sympathetic to terroists, its about ensuring the terroists are killed and innocent people arent. Would you prefer to live in a country where people were killed in the absence of evidence they were guilty?

I can understand that a free trial is more then any of Al Qaedas victims ever got but giving them this only exposes their folly and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Once again nobody is proposing that they not be tried at all the proposal is that they should be tried by military commission. What I want to know is that why are 5 of the detainees to be tried by military commission and 5 of them (the most notorious of the 10 including KSM btw) to be tried in civilian court?
 
Orius said:
The terrorist suspects are not typical enemy combattants.
Click to expand...

No they're typical unlawful combatants and war criminals and thus should be tried by military commission.

They'll be tried in civilian courts and people need to get over it. It's done. It's happening.
Click to expand...

And the reason why it is happening is because the boy king wants them to go scott free.
 
RightinNYC said:
Obama is a Muslim
Click to expand...


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

I don't know if he believes the Quran or not, though he was corrected in an on-screen interview on ABC when Obama referred to his 'Muslim faith'. The interviewer corrected him, "You mean your Christian faith." Obama repeated, 'my Christian faith' and then forged right on, not the least bit flustered at what some could easily perceive as a Freudian slip.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw"]YouTube- Obama: "My Muslim Faith"[/ame]

It doesn't really matter whether Obama is a Muslim, however, because in so many ways. . .

--his bowing to the Saudi king, something only a deferential Muslim would presume to do. . .

--his statement that America is no longer a Christian nation. . . .

--his statement to a Muslim crowd that "I am one of you. . ."

--his many adulations, compliments, gushy rhetoric, and overtures to Islamic culture, some of which he had to make up while never, to my recollection, saying anything remotely comparable about the Christian faith.

--his continual apologies for America being the really crappy country that he sometimes seems to think it is. . . .

--his quick refusal to attribute Islamic radicalism as the reason for the Fort Hood massacre. . .

, , ,he doesn't have to be Muslim. All of this has convinced Muslim peoples around the world that he is Muslim and that is enough.

And therefore, I think speculation that he has no intention of putting five radicalized Muslim murderous terrorists on trial during his administration is not that far off base.
 
Red_Dave said:
Oh for **** sake i never said he was innocent. I said theres a need for a system to determine whether he was innocent or guilty. All im arguing for is the level of civilization attained in 1679. Im amazed this is so controversial.
Click to expand...

lmfao, and how does trying war criminals by military commission make us less civilized?
 
liblady said:
this is federal court. what's the issue here?
Click to expand...

The issue is that they will be released on a technicality as they have been denied their right to a speedy trial, much of the evidence was obtained through coercive interrogation, and the chain of evidence will not hold up under civilian standards. The issue is that these are not civilians, they are unlawful enemy combatant war criminals who should be tried by military commission.
 
The Liberals hope they walk. That way, they can have something else to bash Bush with.

Make no mistake, these clowns aren't on trial, Bush and the United States are on trial.
 
Agent Ferris said:
The issue is that they will be released on a technicality as they have been denied their right to a speedy trial, much of the evidence was obtained through coercive interrogation, and the chain of evidence will not hold up under civilian standards. The issue is that these are not civilians, they are unlawful enemy combatant war criminals who should be tried by military commission.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Speedy trial kicks in after indictment. Please stop spreading misinformation.
 
RightinNYC said:
That's not how the law works, at all. Speedy trial kicks in once you're indicted.
Click to expand...

Oh ya prove it, the entire point of the right to a speedy trial is to prevent lengthy incarceration prior to a trial, it starts once the suspect is detained and infact in some instances kicks in at the point of the commission of the crime itself.

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?
Click to expand...

Ya that was pretty crazy as it directly led to the 9-11 attacks because due to the trial of Ramzi Yousef, Operation Able Danger was not able to contact the FBI with pertinent information regarding the 9-11 attackers.
 
*sigh* The whole Obama Muslim thing. . . I don't like him, didn't vote for him, but I don't buy into those things as a means to be against him. There are countless legitimate reasons to have a beef with the man.

Even if he was a Muslim would that matter?

My life, religiously, mirrors his - and I'm definitely not a Christian. :shrug:
 
AlbqOwl said:
--his bowing to the Saudi king, something only a deferential Muslim would presume to do. . .
Click to expand...
Unintelligent move by Obama but has nothing to do with Islam.

AlbqOwl said:
--his statement that America is no longer a Christian nation. . . .
Click to expand...
We aren't. America has no nationally recognized religion. :roll:

Obama's statement: "Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."


AlbqOwl said:
--his statement to a Muslim crowd that "I am one of you. . ."
Click to expand...
Please provide full context.

AlbqOwl said:
--his many adulations, compliments, gushy rhetoric, and overtures to Islamic culture, some of which he had to make up while never, to my recollection, saying anything remotely comparable about the Christian faith.
Click to expand...
We are not trying to convince the Christian faith that American is not at war with the faith. We are trying to convince the 1.5 billion muslims in the world American is not at war wtih them, only the radical terrorists groups taht attack us.

AlbqOwl said:
--his continual apologies for America being the really crappy country that he sometimes seems to think it is. . . .
Click to expand...
All part of trying to increase diplomatic relations that Bush dragged through the mud for eight years.

AlbqOwl said:
--his quick refusal to attribute Islamic radicalism as the reason for the Fort Hood massacre. . .
Click to expand...
Because there was no evidence of it other then the man being a Muslim and visiting the Middle East, which almost every Muslims has done.

AlbqOwl said:
he doesn't have to be Muslim.
Click to expand...
That's good because he's not. He's Christian.

AlbqOwl said:
All of this has convinced Muslim peoples around the world that he is Muslim and that is enough.
Click to expand...
The only people that believe Obama is a Muslim are the anti-Obama crowd in this country.

AlbqOwl said:
And therefore, I think speculation that he has no intention of putting five radicalized Muslim murderous terrorists on trial during his administration is not that far off base.
Click to expand...

Would you also assume that any Christian President would have no intention of putting 5 Christians on trial for murder? Or do your assumptions only apply to Muslims?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The Liberals hope they walk. That way, they can have something else to bash Bush with.

Make no mistake, these clowns aren't on trial, Bush and the United States are on trial.
Click to expand...

Please source liberals that believe these men should be freed and are being wrongly convicted. I haven't seen any.
 
RightinNYC said:
No, it won't. The government will decide what sources it wants to rely on to make its charges.



Again, this doesn't mean that he gets to "confront" every bit of evidence against him, but only what the prosecutors choose to offer. By making the decision to bring these trials in a regular court, it seems obvious that the Justice Department feels that it has enough non-classified evidence to win the trials without exposing any national security secrets.



I don't see how that's even remotely analogous, because we didn't have an alternative method of trying Wen Ho Lee, while we had another method available here (and are using it for five others).



I didn't say that their desire to plead guilty would be admissible against them - I said it to highlight the fact that they recognize the strength of the evidence against them and are in all probability okay with being sentenced to prison as part of their desire to get out of Gitmo and become martyrs.
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried a criminal case in US District Court? If not, how do you know the things you aver?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom