• 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!

Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

texmaster

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
For those still claiming a civilian court wont be harmful, NOW do you believe us?

NEW YORK (AP) - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Anyone still professing civilian courts over military courts need to do two things.


Defend the cost of bringing them to New York instead of a military trial Its 75 million so far.

Then defend the access they will get to the press which has now been proven to be what they want.


Then explain how this isn't harmful :roll::roll::roll::roll:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091122/D9C4RM3O1.html
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
For those still claiming a civilian court wont be harmful, NOW do you believe us?
Click to expand...

I still think there is no harm in it. They can air their views, and we can laugh at and condemn them. Words are harmless.
 
texmaster said:
For those still claiming a civilian court wont be harmful, NOW do you believe us?

NEW YORK (AP) - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Anyone still professing civilian courts over military courts need to do two things.


Defend the cost of bringing them to New York instead of a military trial Its 75 million so far.

Then defend the access they will get to the press which has now been proven to be what they want.


Then explain how this isn't harmful :roll::roll::roll::roll:

My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views
Click to expand...
how is it harmful? the civilized world doesn't give a crap about why they did it, and we already know what happened.
 
Redress said:
I still think there is no harm in it. They can air their views, and we can laugh at and condemn them. Words are harmless.
Click to expand...

Really. Words are Harmless

So how did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and rest of the murderers get to power? A picture show?

Are you really this naive?
 
liblady said:
how is it harmful? the civilized world doesn't give a crap about why they did it, and we already know what happened.
Click to expand...

Now we get to the heart of the problem.

Western Countries aren't the only ones with TV or know how to use the internet.

Islamic Terrorists will USE this to recruit MORE members.

Here's some reading material on how they do it with the internet alone

The Web as Weapon - washingtonpost.com
 
texmaster said:
For those still claiming a civilian court wont be harmful, NOW do you believe us?
Click to expand...

First of all, who is us? The pathetically uniformed rubes that watch Glenn Beck?

Secondly, they've been prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts for years. The Federal prosecutors have become experts in protecting national security interests while presenting winning cases.

Thirdly, if they are acquitted (which they won't be) they can still be held as enemy combatants indefinitely.

Pick up a newspaper before sticking your foot in your mouth.
 
hazlnut said:
First of all, who is us? The pathetically uniformed rubes that watch Glenn Beck?
Click to expand...

No the incredibly niave people who actually believe giving terrorists a platform for their hate and putting it in the #1 target city in the US is actually a good thing.

Secondly, they've been prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts for years.The Federal prosecutors have become experts in protecting national security interests while presenting winning cases.
Click to expand...

Could you get lamer in that response? Can you name ANY terrorist ever tried that even killed 1/5th the people on US soil that were killed on 9.11? Talk about a pathetic excuse.

You do realize there are degrees in attacks right? Not all terrorist attacks are as destructive or kill as many people as the largest terrorist attack on us soil in US HISTORY :roll::roll::roll:

Thirdly, if they are acquitted (which they won't be) they can still be held as enemy combatants indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Which completly negates the last pathetic argument of using civilian courts to "show the world" our court system.

Starting to get it yet?

Pick up a newspaper before sticking your foot in your mouth.
Click to expand...

Wow are you uninformed.

All you have proven is that you excel in epic failure in proving a civilian court is better than a military court.

Well done genius.

Write back when you actually can justify the cost and show trial of doing it in civilian court vs military.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
For those still claiming a civilian court wont be harmful, NOW do you believe us?

NEW YORK (AP) - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Anyone still professing civilian courts over military courts need to do two things.


Defend the cost of bringing them to New York instead of a military trial Its 75 million so far.

Then defend the access they will get to the press which has now been proven to be what they want.


Then explain how this isn't harmful :roll::roll::roll::roll:

My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views
Click to expand...

How is the harmful? Freedom of speech?
 
Agent Ferris said:
So you think they deserve a platform to launch anti-American propaganda? Why?
Click to expand...

Do they deserve one? No. Is it going to happen as a side product of public justice? Yes. Do I think it will be effective? Not even a little bit.
 
texmaster said:
Really. Words are Harmless

So how did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and rest of the murderers get to power? A picture show?

Are you really this naive?
Click to expand...

Read your history. They had a lot more than words. Why are you conservatives so afraid of words? I just do not understand that.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
How is the harmful? Freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

There are at least 3 posts in this very thread explaining it to you.

Its giving terrorists a platform to lie and recruit new members.

Now answer my question.

Explain how civilian court is better than military court for these guys and explain how we are safer by doing it.
 
Redress said:
Read your history. They had a lot more than words. Why are you conservatives so afraid of words? I just do not understand that.
Click to expand...

If you cannot see how giving a terrorist an open mic is a bad thing then there is no hope for you at all.

Thanks for ignoring the link to how they use the internet to recruit.

It just displays your inability to argue the point by running away from the facts.
 
texmaster said:
If you cannot see how giving a terrorist an open mic is a bad thing then there is no hope for you at all.

Thanks for ignoring the link to how they use the internet to recruit.

It just displays your inability to argue the point by running away from the facts.
Click to expand...

Hint: this is the internet age. Terrorists do have an open mic. The only person this guy whose name I cannot even begin to spell will convince are those already convinced.
 
texmaster said:
There are at least 3 posts in this very thread explaining it to you.

Its giving terrorists a platform to lie and recruit new members.

Now answer my question.

Explain how civilian court is better than military court for these guys and explain how we are safer by doing it.
Click to expand...

So it is freedom of speech that is the thing that you claim is harmful. You say it's terrible because terrorists will be able to lie but does no else lie on TV with a viewing audience that is much larger than what the terrorists have? I can't really think of a reason why it's better for the military court than a civilian court for this case, can you? (besides your senseless platform arguement)
 
My gawd are you saying that there are forms of speech that are harmful to our country!!?

What does this imply?!??:shock:

::Strokes goatee::
 
Redress said:
Hint: this is the internet age. Terrorists do have an open mic. The only person this guy whose name I cannot even begin to spell will convince are those already convinced.
Click to expand...

So you are willing to risk more lives on that assumption not supported by any facts whatsoever. Great idea.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
So it is freedom of speech that is the thing that you claim is harmful. You say it's terrible because terrorists will be able to lie but does no else lie on TV with a viewing audience that is much larger than what the terrorists have? I can't really think of a reason why it's better for the military court than a civilian court for this case, can you? (besides your senseless platform arguement)
Click to expand...

So you favor non US citizens getting an open mic to lie about this country, lie about their treatment and provide brand new propaganda material for recruiting more members.

And of course this isn't harmful.

You do realize these Terrorists who you are supporting here had direct knowledge and support in causeing the worst attack on US soil in history right?

You do realize they are not US citizens right?

Are you claiming that these Islamic terrorists have the same rights as US citizens?

This is your claim?

Put your cards on the table.
 
texmaster said:
So you are willing to risk more lives on that assumption not supported by any facts whatsoever. Great idea.
Click to expand...

I do not see a risk. The views are out there to any who want to see them. Further, I do not think it is wise to always choose the course of least risk. We could make the country alot safer by withdrawing all our troops home and using them to vigorously defend our borders, and deny any outside person access to this country. We would be safer, but I don't think it would be wise to do.

I think the difference between you and I is I am not afraid of people saying things I don't like. It's going to happen, and I think we as a people are strong enough to withstand people offering extremist views.
 
texmaster said:
So you favor non US citizens getting an open mic to lie about this country, lie about their treatment and provide brand new propaganda material for recruiting more members.

And of course this isn't harmful.

You do realize these Terrorists who you are supporting here had direct knowledge and support in causeing the worst attack on US soil in history right?

You do realize they are not US citizens right?

Are you claiming that these Islamic terrorists have the same rights as US citizens?

This is your claim?

Put your cards on the table.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that our universal rights dont apply to percieved 'lessers' and that the rights our laws grant people stop taking effect at some sort of discretion defined by who knows who?

Allow them to say what they will, and face up to their allegations.

You're not part of a country historically predisposed to genocides, mass forced movements of populations, invasions based on lies (multiple ones), the murder of millions of civilians and has an ideological vocabulary that is virtually fascist.

I mean, what can these terrorists say that is any worse than what the average far lefty thinks?
 
texmaster said:
So you favor non US citizens getting an open mic to lie about this country, lie about their treatment and provide brand new propaganda material for recruiting more members.

And of course this isn't harmful.

You do realize these Terrorists who you are supporting here had direct knowledge and support in causeing the worst attack on US soil in history right?

You do realize they are not US citizens right?

Are you claiming that these Islamic terrorists have the same rights as US citizens?

This is your claim?

Put your cards on the table.
Click to expand...

Which part of the internet age and the wealth of 24/7 news channels giving every one with a point of view an open mic confuses you? You cannot stop terrorists getting their views out there, it's too late even if you figured out some way to do it. Our strongest weapon is proving that we are better than they are. I have a lot of confidence in us being better than terrorists.
 
texmaster said:
So you are willing to risk more lives on that assumption not supported by any facts whatsoever. Great idea.
Click to expand...

Your assumptions aren't that supported either.

We tried the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings, we tried the men behind the 1993 bombings of the Twin Towers, etc. We have a history of giving trials to those who attacked us, for Justice to be carried out, and so far, it hasn't failed us yet. Both bombings were the biggest compared to 9-11 on US soil, and nothing went wrong when we tried them.
 
Redress said:
Which part of the internet age and the wealth of 24/7 news channels giving every one with a point of view an open mic confuses you? You cannot stop terrorists getting their views out there, it's too late even if you figured out some way to do it. Our strongest weapon is proving that we are better than they are. I have a lot of confidence in us being better than terrorists.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if 'turning the other cheek' didn't end up giving us a boot to the face.
 
texmaster said:
So you favor non US citizens getting an open mic to lie about this country, lie about their treatment and provide brand new propaganda material for recruiting more members.

And of course this isn't harmful.

You do realize these Terrorists who you are supporting here had direct knowledge and support in causeing the worst attack on US soil in history right?

You do realize they are not US citizens right?

Are you claiming that these Islamic terrorists have the same rights as US citizens?

This is your claim?

Put your cards on the table.
Click to expand...

A. I don't know they will lie about their treatment since I am not treated like a terrorist by our government. Do you know exactly how they are treated? I didn't think so.

B. I would argue that Pearl Harbor was worse.

C. Yes

D. No

E. No
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom