• 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

Your mother called: she wants you to go back on your meds.

Typical liberal flame baiting, when defeated and bankrupt of ideas, she's personally attacks. And given the severe a$$hole attitude and low post count, perhaps is a puppet account... :roll:
 
There is a chance that KSM will get acquited....They are already talking about the point that these scum were not read their miranda rights.......There have been many trials thrown out for this reason.........Hussein Obama is really showing his inexperience and could be made out a fool in this matter.........Come to your senses Obama........Don't do what the left wing nuts in your party want.........Keep this scum in GITMO and try them in military tribunals just like we did the Nazis in WW2.......
 
Moderator's Warning:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDPjYZxi0n8"]YouTube- The Supremes At Hollywood Palace "Stop In The Name Of Love"[/ame]
 
Last edited:
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.

That is the most moronic theory I've read so far.

However, I'm only on page 1 of this thread, I'm sure someone will trump your moronic theory with an idiotic one of their own.

(So the President wants them to be set free... why?)
 
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.

This is the most brilliant thing I've read so far.

And I'm only on page 3. Very encouraging. I remain optimistic....
 
There is a chance that KSM will get acquited....They are already talking about the point that these scum were not read their miranda rights.......There have been many trials thrown out for this reason.........Hussein Obama is really showing his inexperience and could be made out a fool in this matter.........Come to your senses Obama........Don't do what the left wing nuts in your party want.........Keep this scum in GITMO and try them in military tribunals just like we did the Nazis in WW2.......

PBO won't allow that to happen. If KSM walks on a technicality, PBO might as well start packing his ****, so he can move out of the WH in January of 2013.
 
That is the most moronic theory I've read so far.

However, I'm only on page 1 of this thread, I'm sure someone will trump your moronic theory with an idiotic one of their own.

(So the President wants them to be set free... why?)

It isn't that he wants them set free, it is that by pandering to the intolerant, non-democratic dictatorships around the world who have the most to fear from an agressive US foreign policy, he is putting them in a position - civilian courts - which could theoretically set them free on a technicality inadmissable in military court.

All this for the sole purpose of trying to curry favor with the filth of humanity, and at this rate, Obama will cause the US to have ZERO allies by his 4th year in office.

If one looks at a list of former solid allied countries whom he has pissed off for the purpose of trying to suck up to our enemies, it's really quite appalling, and has destroyed a great deal of the crediblity that the US had:

- UK, France, Israel, Czech Republic, Poland, Japan, South Korea

For example, even if one hated the concept of the missile defence plan in Eastern Europe, to simply turn around to placate Russia and drop the missile defense shield - without getting a solid amount of support for either FAR stronger Iran sanctions, or approval of a military strike, is insanity. It places our East European allies in the line of fire, after they pushed hard to get approval in their own parliaments to accept the defense program.

All this is leading to one thing; a one-term president as bad if not worse, than carter.

A president cannot run the country from the vantage point of the Far Left, nor can he successfully operate his foreign policy from that margin. Unfortunately, the Democratic party just never learns that fact.
 
Last edited:
It isn't that he wants them set free, it is that by pandering to the intolerant, non-democratic dictatorships around the world who have the most to fear from an agressive US foreign policy, he is putting them in a position - civilian courts - which could theoretically set them free on a technicality inadmissable in military court.

All this for the sole purpose of trying to curry favor with the filth of humanity, and at this rate, Obama will cause the US to have ZERO allies by his 4th year in office.

If one looks at a list of former solid allied countries whom he has pissed off for the purpose of trying to suck up to our enemies, it's really quite appalling, and has destroyed a great deal of the crediblity that the US had:

- UK, France, Israel, Czech Republic, Poland, Japan, South Korea

For example, even if one hated the concept of the missile defence plan in Eastern Europe, to simply turn around to placate Russia and drop the missile defense shield - without getting a solid amount of support for either FAR stronger Iran sanctions, or approval of a military strike, is insanity. It places our East European allies in the line of fire, after they pushed hard to get approval in their own parliaments to accept the defense program.

All this is leading to one thing; a one-term president as bad if not worse, than carter.

A president cannot run the country from the vantage point of the Far Left, nor can he successfully operate his foreign policy from that margin. Unfortunately, the Democratic party just never learns that fact.

rogerredy,

You wrote, "to simply turn around to placate Russia and drop the missile defense shield - without getting a solid amount of support for either FAR stronger Iran sanctions, or approval of a military strike, is insanity."

Excellent point - it appears he's not giving the store away for bargain prices - that he may be instead giving the store away for free.

The thought reminds me of Carter's many naive indiscretions and oversights.

Would it be naive of me to hope that Obama is no Jimmy Carter?
 
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

Bush? I had not heard him mentioned in connection with this trial.

Paranoia strikes again.
 
rogerredy,

You wrote, "to simply turn around to placate Russia and drop the missile defense shield - without getting a solid amount of support for either FAR stronger Iran sanctions, or approval of a military strike, is insanity."

Excellent point - it appears he's not giving the store away for bargain prices - that he may be instead giving the store away for free.

The thought reminds me of Carter's many naive indiscretions and oversights.

Would it be naive of me to hope that Obama is no Jimmy Carter?

Last I remember about the missile shield is that he went from a land based one to a sea based one that covers the same area.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrObV84tD8g"]YouTube- Best Carlton Dance Fresh Prince[/ame]
 
Last I remember about the missile shield is that he went from a land based one to a sea based one that covers the same area.

YouTube- Best Carlton Dance Fresh Prince

PogueMoran,

The point is that Obama was giving something up, and the question is what did the U. S. and concerned Europeans get in return.

Obama reneged on our European allies by giving up the anti-ballistic missle system to be deployed in Poland - it is designed to take out missiles heading for Europe, and maybe even Russia, coming out of Iran - Iran is not all that far away from having a system that will reach Europe - and we all know their nuclear ambitions - our European allies know this too, and it upset them that the U. S. wasn't going to fulfill their commitment with an anti-ballistic missile defense shield for them.

Now, we can see it as the Obama administration wanting to calm the concerns of Russia, which is OK in of itself - but what was given up has caused major concern for Europe's protection from a future attack from Iran with a nuclear missile - granted, they can't do it today, but they may very well have the capability to do so in the near future if they continue as they are, which is why rogerredy wrote "to simply turn around to placate Russia and drop the missile defense shield - without getting a solid amount of support for either FAR stronger Iran sanctions, or approval of a military strike, is insanity."

rogeredy poses a very valid point - it was a lot to give up, it shouldn't be given up without something in return, namely help from Russia with dealing with Iran - which is what rogerredy suggested and most here agree with.

Now, you are saying that it is going from a land based shield to a sea based shield - interesting - I know the Aegis system is awesome, but we can't be sitting out in the Black Sea 24/7 365 the way a land based system could sit on land - besides, we are talking about two entirely different systems here - Aegis has multiple capabilities, and it is capable as a mother, but it is not designed to handle the same capabilties of the system that was intended to be installed in Poland. The Aegis only augments our anti-ballistic missile systems.

So, the Aegis system can stand in for a temporary fix, but it won't cover the mission down the road - I guess they need to hit the drawing board before it is too late, or take out the threat altogether.

The system to be based in Poland was proposed by Clinton and accelerated by Bush - we have a site in Alaska for protection from a long-range rogue missile out of North korea, which is not effective against missiles launched out of Iran, though Iran is a bit further away from developing a missile to reach us than it is from reaching Europe, which is a major concern for the Europeans.

The real question here is whether Obama just felt like reversing another Bush decision (Bush planned the shield with our allies) in order to appease his loons, or is he seriously seeking a solution for the threat while keeping peace with Russia - the latter is my hope, and I am sure the hope of other here, as well.

Bush was ahead of the curve on trying to protect Europe from a rogue attack from Iran - there is no doubt about it - and his intent would never be to place a threat against Russia - but if Russia sees it that way, and Obama wants to be cool about it, then Obama should make sure Russia helps out with the Iran problem, which is the concern here posed by rogeredy, and in turn others who followed, to include myself.
 
Last edited:
Oh Faux News is skeered. Say it ain't so! LOL!

I meant any credible source.

You said "Bush? I had not heard him mentioned in connection with this trial."

I offered you a link that explained the connection. I'm sorry you don't see the relevance.

Nevertheless, here are some more sources, if you like:

Coleen Rowley: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Criminal Trial May Shine Light on Roots of Terrorism

Weekend Opinionator: Terrorists on Trial; Counterterrorism, Too - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
 
Oh ****, he brought the Huff-Post into it! Now the Liberals will believe it.
 

From your first link ~ "The most pragmatic method of determining the guilt or innocence of criminals, including Al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has always been in criminal court."

I agree with that.


From your second link ~ "First, the facts, as per Charlie Savage of The Times:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday …

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he would seek the death penalty against the five defendants if they are found guilty in federal court."

I agree with that too.
 
From your first link ~ "The most pragmatic method of determining the guilt or innocence of criminals, including Al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has always been in criminal court."

I agree with that.


From your second link ~ "First, the facts, as per Charlie Savage of The Times:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday …

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he would seek the death penalty against the five defendants if they are found guilty in federal court."

I agree with that too.

I'm glad that you found something to agree with in each article, but what on earth does that have to do with what we were discussing?

Also, given that you don't think Bin Laden was involved in 9/11, why would you want KSM and his compatriots to get the death penalty? I mean, if Bin Laden wasn't involved, it's likely that they weren't involved either.
 
Back
Top Bottom