• 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

EpicDude86 said:
I would agree with you if 'turning the other cheek' didn't end up giving us a boot to the face.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about turning the other cheek? Trying the guy, presumably finding him guilty, and executing him does not sound like turning the other cheek, it sounds like a justice system in action.
 
Redress said:
Who said anything about turning the other cheek? Trying the guy, presumably finding him guilty, and executing him does not sound like turning the other cheek, it sounds like a justice system in action.
Click to expand...

By giving him "Justice" regardless of the end result, we have taken the Moral high road, but that's hardly something to be afraid of if you're an enemy of the U.S.

OH NO! If they capture me I could stand trial!!!
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

The difference between you and me is that I can prove military tribunals which are legal and offer far less danger than civilian courts.

You cannot prove the opposite which is the entire point.
 
EpicDude86 said:
By giving him "Justice" regardless of the end result, we have taken the Moral high road, but that's hardly something to be afraid of if you're an enemy of the U.S.

OH NO! If they capture me I could stand trial!!!
Click to expand...

When we stop giving justice is when I will start to truly fear for this country. He is going to get justice, and it will almost certainly end with his execution(a point you managed to forget to mention). Once you start making exceptions, going down that path gets easier and easier.
 
texmaster said:
The difference between you and me is that I can prove military tribunals which are legal and offer far less danger than civilian courts.

You cannot prove the opposite which is the entire point.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove a realistic risk, just your own fears, which are exaggerated. We have tried terrorists, it's not something new. Your worry seems to be he will say something you don't like, but people do that every day, and we are here still.
 
SE102 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Exactly right. The difference is that I don't believe non US citizens should have the same rights as US citizens captured on foreign soil.

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

And risk more lives for nothing.

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.
Click to expand...

If you recognize that then how can you possibly claim giving these terrorists a platform to propagate their lives to people so cut off from the truth that they will believe them?

The fundamental flaw in believing this will do no damage relies on the incorrect assumption that all people in the world enjoy the same freedom of information and education as the west does.

I mean, what can these terrorists say that is any worse than what the average far lefty thinks?
Click to expand...

Its who they are saying it to and how they will take it that makes it so important.
 
Redress said:
You cannot prove a realistic risk, just your own fears, which are exaggerated. We have tried terrorists, it's not something new. Your worry seems to be he will say something you don't like, but people do that every day, and we are here still.
Click to expand...

Thats another lie.

I can prove the power of words by terrorists.

The Arkansas Islamic terrorist who shot and killed one US solider and wounded another.

UPDATE: Arkansas Terrorist had Links to Ohio Mosque | Radical Islam.org


Hasan also attended another Mosque used by 9/11 terrorists



Hasan attended radical Virginia mosque same time as 9/11 terrorists Creeping Sharia

Muslim school 'that taught pupils from race hate textbooks made photocopies after order to shred them'

Muslim school 'that taught pupils from race hate textbooks made photocopies after order to shred them' | Mail Online


Pakistan schools teach hatred for Indians and Hindus

Pakistan schools teach hatred for Indians and Hindus | Indiblog



I've seen many ignorant arguments trying to defend using civilain courts over military courts but no one has ever tried to pretend that hate and the preaching of hate is not dangerous.

You are still in a class by yourself.
 
Attack on America=matter of national defense=military tribunal.

Regardless of whether these guys want to use this as a platform for their rhetoric, I am still in the dark as to why these aren't military tribunals? What is the argument against this being tried in military court?
 
liblady said:
how is it harmful? the civilized world doesn't give a crap about why they did it
Click to expand...

the uncivilized world does, and that's a whole lotta world

holder is clueless

lindsey graham totally took him apart with the SIMPLE, pre-law question of precedent

asked if he could name ONE enemy combatant ever tried in us court, the ag answered, "i don't know, i'll have to look at that"

LOL!

graham---"i'll save you the time, it's never happened"

graham also exposed the prosecutor as pure poser by pinning down the problem of miranda rights

the AG had no response to ksm's not receiving his

that's ONE reason these trials should not be in new york---miranda

the trials also communicate umistakably to our enemies---if you kill a soldier you'll go before tribunal

but if you go after little girls and grammas you get the exact same treatment, enjoy all the rights and priviledges of michael jackson

these are not criminals we're talking about, they're warriors

their victims may be civilian, their impetus is not

that's WHY manhattan is wrong

holder himself said this would be the trial of the century

our last such paparazzi circus was oj

polls are overwhelmingly against this

9-11 families are mortified with offense

jon stewart was hoping for "a little more old testament"

he expresses what's on middle america's mind, here

the prez is way on the wrong side of this one, his dumbest move yet

he put holder out there, after all

not real bright
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Thats another lie.

I can prove the power of words by terrorists.

The Arkansas Islamic terrorist who shot and killed one US solider and wounded another.

UPDATE: Arkansas Terrorist had Links to Ohio Mosque | Radical Islam.org


Hasan also attended another Mosque used by 9/11 terrorists



Hasan attended radical Virginia mosque same time as 9/11 terrorists Creeping Sharia

Muslim school 'that taught pupils from race hate textbooks made photocopies after order to shred them'

Muslim school 'that taught pupils from race hate textbooks made photocopies after order to shred them' | Mail Online


Pakistan schools teach hatred for Indians and Hindus

Pakistan schools teach hatred for Indians and Hindus | Indiblog



I've seen many ignorant arguments trying to defend using civilain courts over military courts but no one has ever tried to pretend that hate and the preaching of hate is not dangerous.

You are still in a class by yourself.
Click to expand...

You are proving my point for me, and proving your inability to follow simple logic. As I have stated, the views are already out there. You show that they are already out there. There is no additional danger from some one expressing views that are already easy to find. Putting our hands over our ears is not going to make them go away.
 
the views are all out there

but so hi profile a platform has never been provided

hello
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

These war criminals have no intent of even trying to prove their innocence so what is the point of this trial? The ONLY reason why this trial needs to take place is to give these people a platform, there is no other reason.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
So it is freedom of speech that is the thing that you claim is harmful.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech for alien unlawful combatants? Now I've heard everything.

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?
Click to expand...

I find it terrible that these people will be allowed a platform to spew anti-American garbage and attempt to justify the murder of 3,000 American civilians.

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...

Can you think of a reason why it is necessary to give these murderers a platform from which to launch anti-American propaganda and attempt to justify the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians? They have no intention of trying to prove their innocence so what's the point?
 
Agent Ferris said:
These war criminals have no intent of even trying to prove their innocence so what is the point of this trial? The ONLY reason why this trial needs to take place is to give these people a platform, there is no other reason.
Click to expand...

Simply as part of the process. I don't think the purpose of the trial is for them, it's for us. I think it does us good to see him tried, and see him convicted(I assume), and know that he is executed. The terrorists try and change us, be we still stay the same, and we protect our own, and we do it in the light of day. I think that is what makes this a great country.
 
Agent Ferris said:
So you believe they have a right to a platform to launch anti-American propaganda? Since when do alien unlawful combatants have the right to freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

Have a right? No, I do not think so. I think it is just a side effect of the process.
 
holder and obama preconvicted them
 
SE102 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the rights apply outside of the country.

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

Oh so what you REALLY want is to put America on trial and not the terrorists.

You're not part of a country historically predisposed to genocides,
Click to expand...

Nope never happened.

mass forced movements of populations,
Click to expand...

As has every country on the planet.

invasions based on lies (multiple ones),
Click to expand...

Such as?

the murder of millions of civilians
Click to expand...

Such as?

and has an ideological vocabulary that is virtually fascist.
Click to expand...

So you're talking about Islamism right?

I mean, what can these terrorists say that is any worse than what the average far lefty thinks?
Click to expand...

And here I thought that people wanted to put the terrorists on trial and now we all know the truth, it's the U.S. that you people want to put on trial.
 
Redress said:
Simply as part of the process. I don't think the purpose of the trial is for them, it's for us.
Click to expand...

Really what do we game from it? The only winners in this will be the terrorists.

I think it does us good to see him tried, and see him convicted(I assume),
Click to expand...

You think it does us good to put the U.S. on trial rather than the terrorists?


and know that he is executed.
Click to expand...

Highly doubtful. FYI champ since 2004 the death penalty has deemed unconstitutional by New York Court of Appeals and the last person executed by New York was in 1963.

The terrorists try and change us, be we still stay the same, and we protect our own, and we do it in the light of day.
Click to expand...

Justice can be served through the military tribunal system without giving these war criminals a platform from which to spew Anti-American propaganda, justify the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians, and put the U.S. itself on trial.

I think that is what makes this a great country.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that giving court martials to our own soldiers makes our country not great? Because the rules of procedure are nearly exactly the same as that of the military tribunals. Tell me were you, Obama, or anyone on the left clamoring for civilian trials for those responsible for the Mahmudiyah rape and murders? Hell no they weren't because they don't care about their misconceived value of "justice" unless its for anti-American war criminals.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
B. I would argue that Pearl Harbor was worse.
Click to expand...

Pearl Harbor was a military action within the "Rules of War"

9-11 not only had a massively larger victim count, but was not perpetrated within the "Rules of War"

So, Japan got two atom bombs...logically you can figure what KSM deserves.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the rights apply outside of the country.

I guess you question their universality then.

Oh so what you REALLY want is to put America on trial and not the terrorists.

Yes I hate america. Good one, ho five you totally got me.

Nope never happened.

I giess this is a comedy thread now.

As has every country on the planet.

Afghanistan did that too?

Such as?

Murder of millions of civilians? Vietnam, hundreds of thousands in Iraq due to the war... Dresden? Tokyo Firebombing?

Such as?

Wars started based on lies? Vietnam, Iraq. But don't tell me, not according to your view of history. Im sure Tonkin Gulf and WMDs never happened.

So you're talking about Islamism right?

Im talking about intangible ethereal concepts such as 'freedom', 'liberty' democracy when it suits you etc.

And here I thought that people wanted to put the terrorists on trial and now we all know the truth, it's the U.S. that you people want to put on trial.
Click to expand...


Are you pretending not to know anything or do you actually not know anything?

And I said all hateful liberal stuff about genocides etc. that to fulfill a liberal stereotype.
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
Attack on America=matter of national defense=military tribunal.

Regardless of whether these guys want to use this as a platform for their rhetoric, I am still in the dark as to why these aren't military tribunals? What is the argument against this being tried in military court?
Click to expand...

They don't have one which is why Redress and the rest avoid the pointed question at all costs.
 
Redress said:
You are proving my point for me, and proving your inability to follow simple logic. As I have stated, the views are already out there. You show that they are already out there. There is no additional danger from some one expressing views that are already easy to find. Putting our hands over our ears is not going to make them go away.
Click to expand...

My God you cannot be this ignorant.

Are you claiming that if more pictures of ABU Graibe hit the internet it wouldn't recruit more Islamic terrorists?

If that were true then why did your Messiah refuse to allow the Communist Anti Christian League or ACLU to get its hands on the pictures?

First you tried to claim preaching hate isn't something to fear and now you are claiming that preaching more hate wont matter.

Mohammad Cartoon Sparked riots which killed people

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Muslim cartoon fury claims lives

False claim of mistreatment of the Qur'an in Afghanistan killed more people

15 dead in Afghanistan riots - false report of Koran flushing triggers mass hysteria in Muslim world: Stop Apologising to Islam - Why is US government probing a false report ? - Militant Islam Monitor - Militant Islam Monitor

Try opening up a newspaper or reading a few articles once in a while and stay away from Doonesbury.

You fall into more intellectual traps than Britney Spears in a CNN interview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom