• 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

That article is the kind of journalism i hate.Everyones an idiot except the guy writing.


That is what you get from the liberal elite today. Either you fully agree, or you are just too damned stupid to understand the scope of the argument.


j-mac
 
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.

That took balls. thanx
 
That is what you get from the liberal elite today. Either you fully agree, or you are just too damned stupid to understand the scope of the argument.


j-mac

And the problem with this is????
 
They hit a military target - therefore, they MUST be tried in a military tribunal.

Actually the Pentagon is a military target within the govt., so the govt. can decide where the trial is to be held. The exception would be any action entirely within the military. KSM is not military, no matter how anybody wants to redefine him as such.

Also remember:
A group of six radical Islamist[1] men plotting to stage an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey, United States, were arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on May 8, 2007. They were subsequently convicted of planning an attack against U.S. soldiers. The alleged aim of the six men was said to be to "kill as many soldiers as possible".[2] Their trial began on October 20, 2008 and was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.[3] On December 22, 2008, the plotters were found guilty on charges of conspiracy to harm US military personnel.

I don't recall the right wing up in arms about this! What no hysteria about terrorists attacks on NJ? No whining about diatribes that would bring down the govt! No carping about shaming the us military by taking it outside the military? Tsk, tsk, tsk.:mrgreen:
 
KSM IS NOT DUE A TRIAL, Well he wasn't til they brought his sorry ass onto American soil.


He is not covered under the Geneva Conventions as a Combatant so we can either:
A) Do what we're doing now and give him due process. >:C
or
2) Shoot him and string him up for all the other Extremists to see.
 
KSM IS NOT DUE A TRIAL, Well he wasn't til they brought his sorry ass onto American soil.


He is not covered under the Geneva Conventions as a Combatant so we can either:
A) Do what we're doing now and give him due process. >:C
or
2) Shoot him and string him up for all the other Extremists to see.

My bet is that there won't be very many new prisoners taken from this day forward.
 
Actually the Pentagon is a military target within the govt., so the govt. can decide where the trial is to be held. The exception would be any action entirely within the military. KSM is not military, no matter how anybody wants to redefine him as such.

Also remember:

I don't recall the right wing up in arms about this! What no hysteria about terrorists attacks on NJ? No whining about diatribes that would bring down the govt! No carping about shaming the us military by taking it outside the military? Tsk, tsk, tsk.:mrgreen:

Granted, they are not U.S. military personnel, but they are military personnel - they are military proxy for Iran - you can bet your bottom dollar on it - Iran has been working their proxies since soon after 1979 when Khomeini overthrew the Shah, then overthrew our embassy in Iran, took the personnel there hostage, funded their proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and you name it where their proxies have gone with their terrorist activities - look what they have done in Europe; Spain, London just to name a few - and here - they set up Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - it is my belief they set up Al Qadea - Iran's proxies are responsible for the bombing of our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya; funded by Iran through Sudan - the attempt on the Twin Towers, the USS Cole, the leveling of the Twin Towers, 3 civillian jet airliners with civillians onboard, the Pentagon, and killing over two thousand innocent people on 9/11 - they have been at war with us since 1979 - Iran's rallying cry is: "Death to America". They are the principal supplier of weapons and training for the the Taliban and Al Quadea in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

They are all proxies whom Iran uses to perpetrate their military activity - Iran is the puppeteer in all of this - and all of their proxy puppets are trained for what they do.

They are at war with us - granted, they don't wear uniforms like us, but they trained to do the rotten deeds they do - everybody has seen clips of them training on TV - the training is what makes them soldiers, and their training has all been funded by Iran, one way or the other - therefore, no matter how anyone spins it, they are military - and on top of it they hit the Pentagon and killed 55 U.S. military personnel.

The military must bring them before a military tribunal - the liberals can spin it all they want about their not being soldiers, but they can't spin it for the military personnel that they killed - if the government wants to try them before a judge, so be it - but they must also be brought before a military tribunal and answer for the 55 U.S. soldiers that they killed.

The intent, as well as the act of killing 55 U.S. soldiers at the Pentagon, is what counts - they intended to strike a big blow at our military when they hit the Pentagon - therefore, the intent adds to why they MUST be tried in a military tribunal.
 
Last edited:
if he does not skate it invalidates miranda and sets it up precedent for police to not have to read rights

If he doesn't skate it invalidates all of the protections we, the people of this country now enjoy.... so what else is new about this administration?
 
I believe the Obama apologists don't care about justice and they are so used to backing Obama as a way to continue hate and bash Bush they have lost all perspective on reality. They hae always been quick to call names because they lack the intellectual ability to converse intelligently based on either the facts or they can't understand basic morality issues.
 
I believe the Obama apologists don't care about justice and they are so used to backing Obama as a way to continue hate and bash Bush they have lost all perspective on reality. They hae always been quick to call names because they lack the intellectual ability to converse intelligently based on either the facts or they can't understand basic morality issues.

I think they also have a real problem foreseeing the consequences of the actions they take.


This could undermine our entire legal system, and all of the protections we have to ensure justice for the American citizen.
 
: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.

I did not say the Rand Report made recommendations on how we try the terrorist. It says that our war on terror has been a failure due to our large military footprint and our killing of innocent civilians, which only fuels the the terrorists recruitment efforts.

I referenced the Rand Report for comparison purposes because we were making the same mistake in our mistreatment of prisoners. If we ever expect to stop terrorism, we have to be more moral than the terrorists.


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.

Not quite, he is bringing some of the terrorists to trial through our court system, and demanding reforms at Bagram, but they do not go far enough. I agree with you that Obama is too much of a hawk. He was just better than the alternative.
 
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.

Excellent article! Thanks!
 
I believe the Obama apologists don't care about justice and they are so used to backing Obama as a way to continue hate and bash Bush they have lost all perspective on reality. They hae always been quick to call names because they lack the intellectual ability to converse intelligently based on either the facts or they can't understand basic morality issues.
What's the basic moral issue at stake?
 
What's the basic moral issue at stake?

You mean besides invading a country that never attacked us, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and torturing prisoners for 8 years without bringing them to trial?
 
You mean besides invading a country that never attacked us, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and torturing prisoners for 8 years without bringing them to trial?

I have to give you credit my far left wing friend.......You have moveon.org talking points down pat......To bad no one is buying that crap any more.
 
You mean besides invading a country that never attacked us, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and torturing prisoners for 8 years without bringing them to trial?



Hmmm.....Was their attack on 9/11 Justified?


j-mac
 
Hmmm.....Was their attack on 9/11 Justified?


j-mac

Of course not. Just our attack that resulted in 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths was not justified.

The ends do not justify the means, no matter what flag you are flying.
 
Of course not. Just our attack that resulted in 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths was not justified. The ends do not justify the means, no matter what flag you are flying.
I'm no fan of Bush & Co, but implying that the Iraqi civilian death toll was an anticipated and accepted means to an end is quite disingenuous.
 
I'm no fan of Bush & Co, but implying that the Iraqi civilian death toll was an anticipated and accepted means to an end is quite disingenuous.

I am talking about Gulf War ! when we knowingly bombed electrical plants and water treatment facilities that supplied potable water to the citizens that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 civilians, doubled the infant mortality rate, and was one of the reasons for the terrorists retaliation attack on 9/11.

My son was there and left the Air Force after 13 years service due to our inhumane treatment of the Iraqi people.
 
My bet is that there won't be very many new prisoners taken from this day forward.

Sure there will be - they'll just be sent to Bagram instead.

Here's the thing - while Obama might be throw a few guys into the Art. III courts, he's not an idiot. He knows that it's just a sham and wants to win this war as much as everyone else. That's why he talks tough on Gitmo, but is fighting as hard as he can under the radar to keep Bagram exactly the way it is.

I really can't complain that much - he throws a sop to the ignorant by making moves like this, but then generally does what needs to be done behind the scenes.
 
I'm no fan of Bush & Co, but implying that the Iraqi civilian death toll was an anticipated and accepted means to an end is quite disingenuous.

They were all going to die someday anyways.
 
Back
Top Bottom