• 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

Ethereal said:
Learn how to use it. It has nothing to do with your computer.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that.... it might have a very ignorant main processor. :mrgreen:
 
liblady said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see no good coming out of this whatsoever. This appears to be a political selfish move and that is all. This appears to be a front for future political attacks on the CIA and previous administrations. May as well make them US citizens at this point. Whoopee.
 
RightinNYC said:
I explained the new system. You said "Absolutely not," though you now say that you understand and prefer the new system. That makes absolutely no sense.

I prefer the terrorist being brought to justice in a more transparent federal court system over the Bush method of holding them without trial. I don't know how to make that anymore clear to you.

If I treat the detainees like unlawful combatants, does it matter whether I call them "unlawful combatants," "nonprotected persons," or "strawberry muffins"?

Except that one involves holding them indefinitely without a trial and the other allows them a trial by jury in a federal court system.


You said that this somehow demonstrates Obama's commitment to the "rule of law." That's patently false, as eloquently explained by someone who is a fan of the decision:

http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-ha...y-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-in-a-civilian-court/
Click to expand...

An internet blog plays what role in our criminal justice system?
 
Ethereal said:
Nobody becomes a terrorist because of the legal circumstances surrounding unlawful enemy combatants; to think as much is patently absurd. People become terrorists due to ignorance or poverty, and there is no shortage of either. If you actually think someone is going to risk their life fighting the American military because of the legal status of KSM then you're just foolish.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. That's probably enough to change the Justice Departments plans. ;)
 
Catawba said:
An internet blog plays what role in our criminal justice system?
Click to expand...

These people will not get a fair trial, this is the point here. Even if they were to be found not guilty, they would never walk out of this courthouse, never!

So one has to ask the obvious question, why are we doing this?:confused:

I am all for our courts, our system of justice, as imperfect as they are, they are still the best in the world, but this is silly.:doh
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion. That's probably enough to change the Justice Departments plans. ;)
Click to expand...

Another immature non-response. I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Bye...:2wave:
 
Ethereal said:
Bye...:2wave:
Click to expand...

See ya!:2wave:

If you hear of the anything that will change the Justice Department plans, please drop by and share with us!
 
Catawba said:
See ya!:2wave:

If you hear of the anything that will change the Justice Department plans, please drop by and share with us!
Click to expand...

So you cannot answer the obvious question, can you?:confused:
 
Catawba said:
I prefer the terrorist being brought to justice in a more transparent federal court system over the Bush method of holding them without trial.
Click to expand...

So you prefer a few selected terrorists being tried in the Art. III courts while the rest are either tried in the Bush/Obama tribunals or held without trial under the Bush/Obama detainee policy. That's fine, I just want you to understand what it is you're endorsing, since you don't seem to.

I don't know how to make that anymore clear to you.
Click to expand...

You could start by reading what you've said and understanding why it made no sense.

Except that one involves holding them indefinitely without a trial and the other allows them a trial by jury in a federal court system.
Click to expand...

Not even close. You're conflating two entirely different issues: our legal authority for detaining individuals and our judicial/military disposition of their cases. As to the first one, Obama has in all relevant aspects endorsed the Bush Administration policy. As to the second, he has affirmed the legal underpinnings of the Bush Administration policy and endorsed their use as to the vast majority of detainees. The only sliver of difference between Bush and Obama on either issue is that Obama has chosen to take the handful of detainees for whom we have overwhelming admissible evidence and put them on trial.

That's fine. Nobody is saying he doesn't have the authority to do that. Some people have disagreements about whether this is the best policy or not, which is a healthy discussion to have. Unfortunately, it's been derailed for the past few pages by off-topic arguments which would have been more properly eviscerated 5 months ago when the Obama Administration adopted the Bush Administration's legal conclusions on this topic.

An internet blog plays what role in our criminal justice system?
Click to expand...

JFC.

Where did I say that it "plays a role in our criminal justice system"?

I took the time to provide you with a link to an enlightening analysis of the Obama Administration's decision in the hopes that it would help you understand what we're talking about. If you don't want to understand, there's nothing else I can do for you.
 
Jackboot said:
So you cannot answer the obvious question, can you?:confused:
Click to expand...

It is only a obvious question to a few who misunderstand the causes, and more importantly, the solutions to terrorism.

As the Rand report to the Pentagon stated, military solutions have only been successful in ending 7% of the terrorist groups in the past. Political solutions are the predominant way that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past. It is all about influencing hearts and minds throughout the world in order to reduce their recruitment capabilities.

We've tried the military route for 8 years and it has been a failure. I think Holder thinks it more prudent to follow the recommendations of the Rand Report.

I do too!
 
RightinNYC said:
So you prefer a few selected terrorists being tried in the Art. III courts while the rest are either tried in the Bush/Obama tribunals or held without trial under the Bush/Obama detainee policy. That's fine, I just want you to understand what it is you're endorsing, since you don't seem to.

They can't be tried all at once. However, Obama is set to bring more terrorists to justice in his first two years than the status quo did in 8 years.
And that's fine if that's your opinion. I just want you to understand what it is you are endorsing, since you don't seem to.

The only sliver of difference between Bush and Obama on either issue is that Obama has chosen to take the handful of detainees for whom we have overwhelming admissible evidence and put them on trial.

He's attempting to do what the last administration said could not be done. Closing Gitmo. I give him an A for effort for that.

That's fine. Nobody is saying he doesn't have the authority to do that.
Click to expand...


We are in agreement then.
 
Catawba said:
It is only a obvious question to a few who misunderstand the causes, and more importantly, the solutions to terrorism.

As the Rand report to the Pentagon stated, military solutions have only been successful in ending 7% of the terrorist groups in the past. Political solutions are the predominant way that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past. It is all about influencing hearts and minds throughout the world in order to reduce their recruitment capabilities.

We've tried the military route for 8 years and it has been a failure. I think Holder thinks it more prudent to follow the recommendations of the Rand Report.

I do too!
Click to expand...

Holder doesn't think a goddamn thing about the Rand Report, nor is it his position to do so. The effect the Rand Report is referring to is entirely a result of military and foreign policy. How we resolve our detainee cases is not substantially related.
 
RightinNYC said:
Holder doesn't think a goddamn thing about the Rand Report, nor is it his position to do so. The effect the Rand Report is referring to is entirely a result of military and foreign policy. How we resolve our detainee cases is not substantially related.
Click to expand...

That is how you and the fringe right see it. We on the left see it as an integral part of our failed war on terror.
 
Catawba said:
That is how you and the fringe right see it. We on the left see it as an integral part of our failed war on terror.
Click to expand...

:rofl Not really. Holder is an intelligent guy - there's absolutely no way he thinks this process is designed to address the issues raised in that report.

But hey, if you've uncovered something nobody else has found, why don't you show us the part of the Rand Report that argues that the prosecution of a handful of terrorists in Art. III courts will reduce terrorism?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG741-1.pdf

There's the whole thing. Let us know how it goes.

They can't be tried all at once.
Click to expand...

Yes they could. The reason the others are not being brought to the Art. III courts is because of a desire to resolve those cases in another fashion, not out of any issue relating to capacity.

However, Obama is set to bring more terrorists to justice in his first two years than the status quo did in 8 years.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at it.
And that's fine if that's your opinion. I just want you to understand what it is you are endorsing, since you don't seem to.

He's attempting to do what the last administration said could not be done. Closing Gitmo. I give him an A for effort for that.
Click to expand...

Yea, and from now on, he'll just ship all our captured terrorists to Bagram instead, for which he's adopted the exact same position that the Bush Administration took as to Guantanamo.

al Maqaleh v Gates

Bagram is a great litmus test to distinguish between the principled individuals who come down on one side, the principled individuals who come down on the other, and those who don't know what they're talking about.
 
This article says it all! Every question asked and answered. So what is the right so worried about? Easy! That Obama might get it right publically and undeniably.

by Andrew Cohen

Khalid Sheik Mohammed and You

If you are upset about the Obama Administration’s decision to bring al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a federal civilian trial, and you are looking to blame someone, go straight to your bathroom and look into the mirror. You have no one to blame but yourself.

You sat passively by for years while President George W. Bush and conservatives in Congress (both Republican and Democrat) ginned up one unconstitutional set of military commission rules after another. You didn’t pay attention to the details of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 or the Military Commissions Act of 2006 or the major Supreme Court cases that told you the due process rules in place to try the terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were unlawful. You wanted revenge and retribution, even at the cost of justice and fairness, and, so long as the men you were (falsely) told were the “worst of the worst” were on a foreign island and away from you, you were fine with it.

For years, you didn’t raise your voice and tell your elected officials that you welcomed a fair trial for the detainees under military rules. For years, you didn’t demand that the detainees have lawyers, or access to some of the evidence against them, or meaningful appellate review, or protection from abuse. Either you didn’t have confidence in the evidence against the men, or the application of the law, or you believed that America would somehow be rendered diminished and vulnerable by giving people like Mohammed more justice than they deserve. When the White House and the Congress reluctantly followed the letter but proudly not the spirit of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Hamdan or Hamdi or Boumediene you just changed the channel and moved on with your life.

You were still so angry, so righteously angry, at what happened on September 11, 2001, that you just couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with the details. In good faith, you reckoned that the best and the brightest in Washington would figure out a way to get the job done, processing and prosecuting and sentencing the guilty efficiently and consistent with our nation’s ideals. You delegated the job.

When learned scholars told you that the vast majority of terror suspects on Cuba had nothing to do with anti-U.S. activities, you turned the page. When you first heard about the torture of terror suspects you said, “Good,” until you saw the pictures at Abu Ghraib. You had doubts then, perhaps, but not enough of them to demand of your representatives any sort of formal inquiry into our nation’s torture policy. You didn’t read the torture memos. You didn’t read the International Red Cross’s seminal report. You didn’t want to know what Bush-era lawyers like John Yoo and David Addington and Jay Bybee were up to.

But now it’s happened. As an indirect result of your inattention, and as a direct result of the strength of our Constitution and the concomitant failure of its political and legal stewards, one of these dark, sinister men is coming to Manhattan, to a courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero, for a federal civilian trial.

Stay in front of the mirror for a second. What are you afraid of? What about a Mohammed trial here in the States makes you so angry? Do you think he shouldn’t get the same rights as you? Okay, that’s fair. But so what? Aren’t you willing to set aside your rage at his treatment for the diplomatic and political benefits America will receive from giving the guy an open trial? Don’t you think that treating Mohammed and his colleagues like common criminals is precisely the right message to send to the world about terrorism and al-Qaeda? Don’t you think it hurts their cause to be considered murderers and not jihadist soldiers?

Are you distrustful of the federal judiciary? Have you taken the time to look at the track record that federal prosecutors have in successfully trying terror suspects in New York? Can you name a single case where the feds lost a major terror trial since September 11, 2001? Can you name one from before the terrible events that day? Is Tim McVeigh walking around Buffalo today? Is Terry Nichols walking around Kansas? Is Ramzi Youssef back in Brooklyn or Zacarias Moussaoui out on an airfield trying to fly planes in Minnesota? Have you heard from Jose Padilla or Richard Reid lately?

Are you really worried that Mohammed will go free? Do you really think that a judge and jury are going to let this guy walk? The United States in United States v. Mohammed has the biggest home-court advantage in American legal history. Not only will the government have enough evidence to convict him, it’s likely that Mohammed will gleefully help convict himself. Did you pay attention to the Moussaoui trial when he proudly declared his al-Qaeda allegiance in a Virginia courtroom? Have you paid attention to Mohammed’s incriminating statements made to tribunal officers in Cuba?

Are you worried that Mohammed will try to turn his trial into political theatre? So what? The world already has heard what he and his al-Qaeda pals think of America. The world already has seen the photos from Abu Ghraib. The world knows about waterboarding. It’s old news. Mohammed is just a man, and soon he’ll be a defendant, and then he’ll be a ranting, shrieking crazy person in court, then he’ll be convicted and then he’ll be sentenced. Don’t be angry about it now that is going to occur. Don’t fear it. Welcome it. And at the same time embrace your own role, and your own responsibility, for ensuring that it had to happen this way, at this time, and in this place.Khalid Sheik Mohammed and You - The Atlantic (November 16, 2009)
Click to expand...
 
The article doesn't say it all. It left out the points that Senator Graham made in this exchange with Eric Holder:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Lindsey Graham Destroys Eric Holder[/ame]
 
AlbqOwl said:
The article doesn't say it all. It left out the points that Senator Graham made in this exchange with Eric Holder:
Click to expand...
All Graham was saying is covered in the article: the right is looking for a way out of doing a trial that will likely make Obama look good.
 
tjinta ibis said:
All Graham was saying is covered in the article: the right is looking for a way out of doing a trial that will likely make Obama look good.
Click to expand...

Then you think Holder competently answered the question as to whether Osama bin Laden would receive the same treatment Holder wants to give the guys he already has? You honestly think this isn't setting a dangerous precedent that is highly unwise? Graham doesn't give a flying fig about Obama's reputation one way or the other--he has been more inclined to support Obama than oppose him on most things. He has been incurring the ire of conservatives for some time now.

But on this issue, Graham is absolutely right.
 
I hope some of you accept this appology - sorry - I was wrong.

I previously said that the choice to the Obama administration was up to them to go before a federal judge or a military tribunal - and because they hit civillians in NYC it did not necessitate a military tribunal - though I believe it is not a good choice, I believed the Obama administration rightfuly had that choice, and I figured what the heck, as long as they are found guilty and it doesn't become a trial against the former administration and our intelligence agencies - OK

I got wrapped up in it being only about NYC because the trial is set to go there - and seeing the Twin Towers and it's occupants as civillian only.

BUT - and I totally forgot all about it - again, sorry - they also hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and the Pentagon is all about our military - being housed with many military personnel who were directly affected by their actions.

They hit a military target - therefore, they MUST be tried in a military tribunal.
 
We shouldn't worry about the safety of New York, now that mastermind, codename, KSM is in New York. We have the Patriot Act remember!! We'll be just dandy.
 
Tom Jones said:
I hope some of you accept this appology - sorry - I was wrong.

I previously said that the choice to the Obama administration was up to them to go before a federal judge or a military tribunal - and because they hit civillians in NYC it did not necessitate a military tribunal - though I believe it is not a good choice, I believed the Obama administration rightfuly had that choice, and I figured what the heck, as long as they are found guilty and it doesn't become a trial against the former administration and our intelligence agencies - OK

I got wrapped up in it being only about NYC because the trial is set to go there - and seeing the Twin Towers and it's occupants as civillian only.

BUT - and I totally forgot all about it - again, sorry - they also hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and the Pentagon is all about our military - being housed with many military personnel who were directly affected by their actions.

They hit a military target - therefore, they MUST be tried in a military tribunal.
Click to expand...

Here at Debate Politics we don't ask for you to be right 100% of the time, but that you at least honestly admit mistakes when you are not correct.
 
tjinta ibis said:
This article says it all! Every question asked and answered. So what is the right so worried about? Easy! That Obama might get it right publically and undeniably.
Click to expand...

That article is the kind of journalism i hate.Everyones an idiot except the guy writing.
 
Catawba said:
It is only a obvious question to a few who misunderstand the causes, and more importantly, the solutions to terrorism.

As the Rand report to the Pentagon stated, military solutions have only been successful in ending 7% of the terrorist groups in the past. Political solutions are the predominant way that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past. It is all about influencing hearts and minds throughout the world in order to reduce their recruitment capabilities.

We've tried the military route for 8 years and it has been a failure. I think Holder thinks it more prudent to follow the recommendations of the Rand Report.

I do too!
Click to expand...

The ironic thing is that Holder has no right to move this from the military courts to the civil courts. None. Zero. Nada.

Only the president has this authority. He's hiding being Holder, but Obama acted alone on this move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom