What if KSM is acquitted?
Rick Saunders
Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so,
they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?
----
Hey, was he read his Miranda rights? No?
Case dismissed! KSM goes free!
Spartakus
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024941.php
Shorter John Assrocket: "I have no faith in the system in which I am
licensed to practice."
Ernst Blofeld
> Shorter John Assrocket: "I have no faith in the system in which I am
> licensed to practice."
Why should he have faith in a system designed to try civilians who
knock over stop-n-robs when it it applied to wartime enemies of the
United States, during wartime?
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
This might just be the most idiotic statement I've seen on Usenet this
year.
Foxtrot
* Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
* Every day news reports will give gory details about how KSM planned
the murders of 3,000 innocent Americans.
* KSM will now be in OUR neighborhoods, breathing the same air as us.
* Every day Americans will be reminded of those planes slamming into
the Trade Center towers and the subsequent images of people jumping
to their deaths.
* Other stories on the news every night will show Obama living the high
life partying in a black suit and white tie with his fatcat elite pals. His
narcissistic detachment will be on display for all to see.
* KSM's lawyers will paint him as the victim of an evil unjust American
judicial system, further angering Americans.
* In court he may be shaven and wearing a suit and tie to make him
look like a smug member of society.
* New York is filled with libs who despise Bush and will do anything to
embarrass him. They'll become KSM's jurists.
* As a result of these things, KSM may be acquitted.
* He'll then be flown back to the mideast to a hero's welcome by locals
chanting "Death to America." He'll be free to plan murders of potentially
millions more Americans.
Even if he's convicted, memories will be vividly re-lived. Obama will
have caused all of it. Dems had better pray none of it plays out like this.
Phlip
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024941.php
>
> Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
> Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
> Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so,
> they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?
Obama likes the Death Penalty, so he's being tried in New York, not
San Fransisco...
Spartakus
That question is so stupid, it's not worth responding to. But I'm
going to anyway. Let's see if you're man enough to acknowledge
*facts*. Since 2001, U.S. civilian courts have tried 214 people for
various acts of terrorism. These prosecutions resulted in 195
convictions - 91%.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56M66720090724
Sad to say, the military tribunals set up by the Bush administration
haven't done nearly as well.
So why shouldn't a *lawyer* have faith in what is arguably the finest
criminal justice system in the world? You really think that there is
any judge or jury in New York who is willing to cut him a break and
free him on a technicality?
Spartakus
> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024941.php
>
> >Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
> >Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
> >Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so,
> >they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?
> >----
>
> >Hey, was he read his Miranda rights? No?
> >Case dismissed! KSM goes free!
>
> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's
> a fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
Sorry, not being read one's Miranda rights is not sufficient to
overturn a conviction. Not only that, KSM made statements before he
was mistreated that would be admissible in court. And, it is a
virtual certainty that the prosecuting attorneys have other evidence
that is not tainted by KSM's being waterboarded.
> * Every day news reports will give gory details about how KSM planned
> the murders of 3,000 innocent Americans.
Yes? I thought we were supposed to NEVER FORGET what happened on
9/11. Allofasudden, it's time to move on?
> * KSM will now be in OUR neighborhoods, breathing the same air as us.
He's going to be in JAIL. Is that your neighborhood?
> * Every day Americans will be reminded of those planes slamming into
> the Trade Center towers and the subsequent images of people jumping
> to their deaths.
Since when is a murder/terrorism trial an event that's filled with
rainbows and ponies?
> * Other stories on the news every night will show Obama living the high
> life partying in a black suit and white tie with his fatcat elite pals. His
> narcissistic detachment will be on display for all to see.
Class envy. You've got it bad.
> * KSM's lawyers will paint him as the victim of an evil unjust American
> judicial system, further angering Americans.
Right. Do you know of anyone in New York who wants to cut KSM a
break?
> * In court he may be shaven and wearing a suit and tie to make him
> look like a smug member of society.
The decorum of the court calls for a certain level of personal
hygiene.
> * New York is filled with libs who despise Bush and will do anything to
> embarrass him. They'll become KSM's jurists.
They may despise Bush, but I guarantee you, they hate the perpetrators
of the 9/11 attacks more. Lots more.
> * As a result of these things, KSM may be acquitted.
If he is acquitted, it will be because of exculpatory evidence
presented in court by his defense attorneys.
> * He'll then be flown back to the mideast to a hero's welcome by locals
> chanting "Death to America." He'll be free to plan murders of potentially
> millions more Americans.
>
> Even if he's convicted, memories will be vividly re-lived. Obama will
> have caused all of it. Dems had better pray none of it plays out like this.
You wingnuts are absolutely pissing your pants over a guy getting his
day in court. How pathetic.
james g. keegan jr.
<7d85850a-840c-4203...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
the gop is going crazy because the trials will bring out all of the bush
administration crimes. rush was apoplectic.
given that, much of the evidence against these guys may not be admitted.
hmmmm.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024941.php
>>
>> >Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
>> >Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
>> >Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so,
>> >they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?
>> >Hey, was he read his Miranda rights? �No?
>> >Case dismissed! KSM goes free!
>>
>> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's
>> a fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>
>Sorry, not being read one's Miranda rights is not sufficient to
>overturn a conviction. Not only that, KSM made statements before he
>was mistreated that would be admissible in court. And, it is a
>virtual certainty that the prosecuting attorneys have other evidence
>that is not tainted by KSM's being waterboarded.
>
>> * Every day news reports will give gory details about how KSM planned
>> the murders of 3,000 innocent Americans.
>
>Yes? I thought we were supposed to NEVER FORGET what happened on
>9/11. Allofasudden, it's time to move on?
We'll see. I believe that shortly after 9/11, the public would have been
furious if dirtbags like KSM who murdered 3,000 people were brought
to the US and given the same dignity in court as a small time American
burglar or pickpocket gets.
If there's not much backlash, the public is showing signs of forgetting
9/11.
>> * KSM will now be in OUR neighborhoods, breathing the same air as us.
>
>He's going to be in JAIL. Is that your neighborhood?
He'll be stateside. He'll be riding past us and our families during the
trial. I don't think many people would want to have him sitting next to
them in the next lane.
He could be acquitted. With our political correctness and lack of
deportation policy, Bow Down Obama will probably give him amnesty
and US citizenship.
>> * Every day Americans will be reminded of those planes slamming into
>> the Trade Center towers and the subsequent images of people jumping
>> to their deaths.
>
>Since when is a murder/terrorism trial an event that's filled with
>rainbows and ponies?
Don't you understand this will give terrorists a forum? Libs' hero, Bow
Down Obama will be portrayed as an imperialist heretic.
>> * New York is filled with libs who despise Bush and will do anything to
>> embarrass him. They'll become KSM's jurists.
>
>They may despise Bush, but I guarantee you, they hate the perpetrators
>of the 9/11 attacks more. Lots more.
>
>> * As a result of these things, KSM may be acquitted.
>
>If he is acquitted, it will be because of exculpatory evidence
>presented in court by his defense attorneys.
>
>> * He'll then be flown back to the mideast to a hero's welcome by locals
>> chanting "Death to America." He'll be free to plan murders of potentially
>> millions more Americans.
>>
>> Even if he's convicted, memories will be vividly re-lived. Obama will
>> have caused all of it. Dems had better pray none of it plays out like this.
>
>You wingnuts are absolutely pissing your pants over a guy getting his
>day in court. How pathetic.
Mebbe. I suspect this will show Americans how weak Bow Down
Obama is on national defense. If so, it will damage him politically.
Baron_Mind
> Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> "faux_thought" was babbling with:
>>> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
---
>>> * Every day news reports will give gory details about how KSM planned
>>> the murders of 3,000 innocent Americans.
>> Yes? I thought we were supposed to NEVER FORGET what happened on
>> 9/11. Allofasudden, it's time to move on?
>
> We'll see. I believe that shortly after 9/11, the public would
> have been furious if dirtbags like KSM who murdered 3,000 people
I've got some bad news for you, sport..
--KSM will likely implicate Bush & Cheney in that plot..
Mitchell Holman
news:48tuf5dih269dckj6...@4ax.com:
If Bush Sr could try and convict Noriega, and Clinton
could try and convict the 1993 WTC bombers why could not
Bush Jr try and convict the 2001 bombers?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
I guess Fauxy doesn't have much faith, either in his own beliefs or his
countrymen.
Foxtrot
How exciting! Barney has a conspiracy theory!
Did Bush, Cheney, KSM, Bigfoot and Elvis have a secret meeting on
the grassy knoll, Barn Merde? Did they secretly hide dynamite
throughout the infrastructures of the WTC towers? Do you deny that a
plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 as some idiots claim?
Foxtrot
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>>> We'll see. I believe that shortly after 9/11, the public would have
>>> been furious if dirtbags like KSM who murdered 3,000 people were
>>> brought to the US and given the same dignity in court as a small time
>>> American burglar or pickpocket gets.
>>
>> If Bush Sr could try and convict Noriega, and Clinton
>> could try and convict the 1993 WTC bombers why could not Bush Jr try and
>> convict the 2001 bombers?
>
>I guess Fauxy doesn't have much faith, either in his own beliefs or his
>countrymen.
OJ Simpson.
Poetic Justice
Phlip
>
> Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
> Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
You mean thrown out on a technicality, such as the "speedy trial" rule
or the "no torture" rule?
One reason Obama's taking so long to close GITMO is probably he needs
to give legal teams time to research all the precedent (including the
rules made up by fiat by John Yoo). He needs trials to only focus on
the facts of each case, not the abuses since the capture.
BTW about Fox claiming terrorists will attack NY... In the Muslim
world view, anyone we capture is already a martyr. Also none of them,
even the real terrorists, have any intel, because terrorists plans are
obviously too easy to change.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
In other words, you want anyone you don't like to be guilty of something,
anything. It doesn't matter. Just as long as you can jail people you
don't like, you're happy.
Phlip
> KSM is being set up for a classic 'failed' trial ... failed
> due to the venue ... one which cannot possibly deliver a fair
> and impartial verdict.
>
> In short, they're gonna let him go on a technicallity.
The usual drivel of idiocy.
If you want a technicality, start with "speedy trial". Then try "no
torture", or "Habeas Corpus".
But you know that. You are just pissed Obama wants a jury of New
Yorkers, and his gambit has already started working.
Poetic Justice
wasn't in the USA, how did they convict him of anything?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Simple. They had a kangaroo court trial.
It was about then that respect for American justice began seriously
slipping.
Poetic Justice
wasn't in the USA, how did they convict him of anything?
KSM wasn't in America and isn't an American, how can you militarily
kidnap him and try him in a Federal court?
I can understand a military trial since he and his ilk declared war and
is a military prisoner, but that doesn't transfer to him having yo OBEY
U.S. Law while living in another country....
Poetic Justice
Federal law.....
Poetic Justice
Federal law.....
As has been stated before, the Federal government is over reaching it's
Constitutional authority and needs to be put back in it's box.
r wiley
If Jesse Jackson is right, New York is a real "Hymie" town.
Conviction seems to be a foregone conclusion.
rw
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Well, it's pretty clear that federal law doesn't pertain outside of US
borders...
Phlip
>> But you know that. You are just pissed Obama wants a jury of New
>> Yorkers, and his gambit has already started working.
>
> No way can he get a fair and unbiased jury
> from a pool of New Yorkers ... just a lynch
> mob. Therefore, it will later be determined
> that he didn't get a fair trial and the govt
> will either have to do it all over again OR
> just let him go.
Obama has everything to gain from an honest conviction, and everything to lose
from a slip-up. Your capacity for unearthly spin and contortions is noted, but
you are just reciting the "Obama's a Muslim terrorist mole" GOP party line.
Oh, and the real terrorists don't give two craps what happens to KSM - he is
already a martyr. They have no motive to try to "free" him...
Rick Saunders
> If you want a technicality, start with "speedy trial". Then try "no
> torture", or "Habeas Corpus".
In a rational world, with a rational Administration, KSM
would be tried as a war criminal -- because that's what
he *is.* The left will, sooner or later, come to regret
this course of action.
Rick Saunders
> BTW about Fox claiming terrorists will attack NY...
That's not so far-fetched. You libs had better pray
that NY doesn't have a terrorist attack during the
upcoming years-long circus.
Daniel
>
> > KSM is being set up for a classic 'failed' trial ... failed
> > due to the venue ... one which cannot possibly deliver a fair
> > and impartial verdict.
>
> > In short, they're gonna let him go on a technicallity.
>
> The usual drivel of idiocy.
>
> If you want a technicality, start with "speedy trial". Then try "no
> torture", or "Habeas Corpus".
Explain how those things apply to KSM.
Daniel
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:02:25 -0800, Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> >> Shorter John Assrocket: "I have no faith in the system in which I am
> >> licensed to practice."
>
> > over stop-n-robs when it it applied to wartime enemies of the United
> > States, during wartime?
>
> This might just be the most idiotic statement I've seen on Usenet this
> year.
How so? Please try to be specific.
Daniel
> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024941.php
>
> >Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
> >Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
> >they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?
>
> >Hey, was he read his Miranda rights? No?
> >Case dismissed! KSM goes free!
>
> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
How so? Miranda does not apply to KSM.
Daniel
> Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Shorter John Assrocket: "I have no faith in the system in which I am
> > > licensed to practice."
> > Why should he have faith in a system designed to try civilians who
> > knock over stop-n-robs when it it applied to wartime enemies of the
> > United States, during wartime?
>
> going to anyway. Let's see if you're man enough to acknowledge
> *facts*. Since 2001, U.S. civilian courts have tried 214 people for
> various acts of terrorism. These prosecutions resulted in 195
> convictions - 91%.
How many of those were American citizens? You know, the people the US
Constitution applies to, and how many were "Al Queda-Taliban" types,
to which the US Constitution does NOT apply?
Milt
Well, unless they have zero evidence against him, there's little or no
chance of that.
I'm glad you agree that torturing prisoners is really stupid, and
undermines our standing to do the right thing under the law. He would
not have to be Mirandized at the very beginning, if it would apply, in
any case. Given the unique circumstances, I'm not sure Miranda would
necessarily apply. As for the torture thing, they probably wouldn't be
able to use any information gathered while he was being tortured, but
from most reports, they didn't get much info then, anyway...
>
> * Every day news reports will give gory details about how KSM planned
> the murders of 3,000 innocent Americans.
Not likely. The judge in the case will likely issue a gag order.
>
> * KSM will now be in OUR neighborhoods, breathing the same air as us.
He'll be in prison. They won't set him up in a Park Avenue penthouse,
for Chrissakes.
>
> * Every day Americans will be reminded of those planes slamming into
> the Trade Center towers and the subsequent images of people jumping
> to their deaths.
>
> * Other stories on the news every night will show Obama living the high
> life partying in a black suit and white tie with his fatcat elite pals. His
> narcissistic detachment will be on display for all to see.
>
> * KSM's lawyers will paint him as the victim of an evil unjust American
> judicial system, further angering Americans.
No they won't, because they're really not allowed to lie. They're
entire defense will be based on, "Oh, yeah? prove it," and hopefully,
the government has enough proof.
>
> * In court he may be shaven and wearing a suit and tie to make him
> look like a smug member of society.
So? Most people sitting on death row right now were once in court
wearing a suit and tie. Do you think juries are stupid enough to see a
guy sitting in a coat and tie, and think he couldn't have done
anything horrible before that day?
>
> * New York is filled with libs who despise Bush and will do anything to
> embarrass him. They'll become KSM's jurists.
Most people despise Bush. One of the things we despise most is that
this asshole's been in custody for almost 7 years, and never brought
to trial.
>
> * As a result of these things, KSM may be acquitted.
I'll be willing to take bets on that. There is simply no way this guy
will be acquitted. Period.
>
> * He'll then be flown back to the mideast to a hero's welcome by locals
> chanting "Death to America." He'll be free to plan murders of potentially
> millions more Americans.
This is not the only country in which he's committed terrorist acts.
Even if a miracle happens and he's acquitted, he would likely be sent
to one of them.
>
> Even if he's convicted, memories will be vividly re-lived. Obama will
> have caused all of it. Dems had better pray none of it plays out like this.
Why? We're not the ones who sat all of these assholes in jail without
trials.
When did Americans become such pussies? We didn't even throw the Nazis
in jail without trial. We gave them speedy trials and speedy
executions when they were convicted. Now, some asshole lowlife helps
plan a low-tech terrorist attack, and suddenly we're too frightened to
put them on trial? Are you shitting me?
I hate to break it to you, but there are dozens, if not hundreds, of
plans to attack us being planned as we speak, by assholes who are not
KSM, and mostly because our policy in their countries over the last 20
years or so has invited it.
Spartakus
Maybe you'd better read the Constitution before spouting off such
ignorance. Specifically the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for
his defence."
Got that? ALL criminal prosecutions, not just the ones you like.
The ACCUSED shall enjoy certain rights, not merely citizens,
documented aliens or people you approve of.
The trial shall occur in the state and district where the crime
occurred. That would be Manhattan in New York.
What does YOUR constitution say about such matters?
Milt
He was tortured, so any information gained as a result of the torture
is inadmissible.
He was held for years without charges and without trial, which is a
violation of Habeas Corpus.
And since his trial will be in no way "speedy," it's possible some of
the evidence against him has spoiled.
I still can't imagine him being acquitted, but if it happens, the
blame falls squarely into Bush's lap.
Milt
wrote:
> 5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:19:20 -0500, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
> >> Foxtrot wrote:
> >>>>>> We'll see. I believe that shortly after 9/11, the public would have
> >>>>>> been furious if dirtbags like KSM who murdered 3,000 people were
> >>>>>> brought to the US and given the same dignity in court as a small
> >>>>>> time American burglar or pickpocket gets.
> >>>>> If Bush Sr could try and convict Noriega, and Clinton
> >>>>> could try and convict the 1993 WTC bombers why could not Bush Jr try
> >>>>> and convict the 2001 bombers?
> >>>> I guess Fauxy doesn't have much faith, either in his own beliefs or
> >>>> his countrymen.
> >>> OJ Simpson.
>
> >> Barak Obama.
>
> > In other words, you want anyone you don't like to be guilty of something,
> > anything. It doesn't matter. Just as long as you can jail people you
> > don't like, you're happy.
>
> What U.S. laws did Noriega break in America, he isn't a U.S. Citizen and
> wasn't in the USA, how did they convict him of anything?
>
> KSM wasn't in America and isn't an American, how can you militarily
> kidnap him and try him in a Federal court?
>
> I can understand a military trial since he and his ilk declared war and
> is a military prisoner, but that doesn't transfer to him having yo OBEY
> U.S. Law while living in another country....
Huh????
He was supposedly a major part of the plot to board American-owned
civilian planes in Massachusetts, fly them over a couple of states,
then back to New York City and the seat of the federal government in
Washington, DC to try and destroy buildings and kill people.
How is that a military activity? They committed roughly the same crime
that Timothy McVeigh did in 1995. Should he have been tried in a
military court?
Foreigners who commit crimes in a state aren't tried at the Hague;
they're tried in that state. When they commit crimes between states,
they fall under federal jurisdiction.
Phlip
> He was supposedly a major part of the plot to board American-owned
> civilian planes in Massachusetts, fly them over a couple of states,
> then back to New York City and the seat of the federal government in
> Washington, DC to try and destroy buildings and kill people.
>
> How is that a military activity?
Shock & Awe, right? Plus targeting Saddam by name. During the first Gulf War we
never did that...
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
You would have to send him to The Hague to do that.
Phlip
Good idea!
And we should send Cheney & Rumsfeld with him, just in case they get called. As
witnesses...
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
>> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>
>Well, unless they have zero evidence against him, there's little or no
>chance of that.
>
>I'm glad you agree that torturing prisoners is really stupid, and
>undermines our standing to do the right thing under the law. He would
>not have to be Mirandized at the very beginning, if it would apply, in
>any case. Given the unique circumstances, I'm not sure Miranda would
>necessarily apply. As for the torture thing, they probably wouldn't be
>able to use any information gathered while he was being tortured, but
>from most reports, they didn't get much info then, anyway...
Our "standing"?? In the rest of the world? When terrorists slam 767s
full of *their* people into *their* crowded buildings, then they can
express their views. In the meantime they can STFU. This is why libs
are seen as kowtowing cowards.
I didn't say anything about torture, you did. Libs would rather allow
thousands of people die from a lack of intel than splash water in a
terrorist's face. You're badly mistaken if you think your accusations of
terrorism will win anybody over to your side.
>Most people despise Bush.
THAT is what this is all about. RIGHT THERE.
You *despise* Bush and you'll do anything to make him into a war
criminal. Your hatred for him is what caused this decision. Who cares
what it does to our national security, you get to vilify Bush. You weren't
able to try him as a war criminal under Nuremberg law, so this is the
next best thing.
>> * As a result of these things, KSM may be acquitted.
>
>I'll be willing to take bets on that. There is simply no way this guy
>will be acquitted. Period.
>>
>> * He'll then be flown back to the mideast to a hero's welcome by locals
>> chanting "Death to America." He'll be free to plan murders of potentially
>> millions more Americans.
>
>This is not the only country in which he's committed terrorist acts.
>Even if a miracle happens and he's acquitted, he would likely be sent
>to one of them.
>>
>> Even if he's convicted, memories will be vividly re-lived. Obama will
>> have caused all of it. Dems had better pray none of it plays out like this.
>
>Why? We're not the ones who sat all of these assholes in jail without
>trials.
But now we get a chance to show BUSH is a WAR CRIMINAL!
WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Well, let's see: first there's the assumption that the legal system is
only for stop-n-rob gangsters. Like most right wingers, he figures the
courts are good for locking up niggers and nothing else.
Then there's the notion that these guys are "wartime enemies". They
aren't. They might be criminals, and believe it or not, just because a
politician says someone is a criminal doesn't mean that person is a
criminal.
America isn't at war. It's getting kids greased in a couple of grubby,
pointless occupations in the middle east, but those aren't wars.
And of course, what really scares guys like Sabot is that KSM -might- get
acquitted. We have only the word of the government that he did anything
at all, plus a confession clearly obtained under duress, if not torture.
No civilized country in the world would accept such a confession as
valid, and his interrogators are basically going to have to stick with
information they didn't obtain by torture or threat of torture. If the
court just takes them at their word that they didn't torture, America
becomes a laughingstalk.
Right wingers, being what they are, think courts exist to find people
guilty. That's why they make such shitty judges and dishonest
prosecutors. Bloharde is just going to have to live with the possibility
that Bush threw those people in Guantanamo to convince custard-heads that
he was doing something to "fight terrorism" and in fact, they weren't
even terrorists. The fact that after years, they had to let 90% of them
go ought to tell you something.
>
> Most idiotic statement, he's seen? What part of that are you too
> dense to understand?
> BTW I removed one group, so this idiot may not see this post, if he do's
> maybe he will leave my group off.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> Milt <milt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>>> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
>>> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>>
>>Well, unless they have zero evidence against him, there's little or no
>>chance of that.
>>
>>I'm glad you agree that torturing prisoners is really stupid, and
>>undermines our standing to do the right thing under the law. He would
>>not have to be Mirandized at the very beginning, if it would apply, in
>>any case. Given the unique circumstances, I'm not sure Miranda would
>>necessarily apply. As for the torture thing, they probably wouldn't be
>>able to use any information gathered while he was being tortured, but
>>from most reports, they didn't get much info then, anyway...
>
> Our "standing"?? In the rest of the world? When terrorists slam 767s
> full of *their* people into *their* crowded buildings, then they can
> express their views. In the meantime they can STFU. This is why libs are
> seen as kowtowing cowards.
Prove they did that.
Oh, right. That's the problem, isn't it?
You might not be able to. Bush fucked everything up so badly with his
off-shore Gulags that now that the American legal system is allowed to
function again, it may not be able to undo all the damage.
>
> I didn't say anything about torture, you did. Libs would rather allow
> thousands of people die from a lack of intel than splash water in a
> terrorist's face. You're badly mistaken if you think your accusations of
> terrorism will win anybody over to your side.
>
So tell us what makes you any better than the terrorists. Don't bore me
with whines about the twin towers. When American bombed the shit out of
Baghdad for no reason at all, they lost any moral authority they had
after 9/11.
Even if these men are terrorists, tell me what you have that puts you in
a position to judge them.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
yup. Witnesses. You betcha.
Stevie Nichts
And there, of course, lies the left's agenda revealed. Is
it also Obama's?
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:00:37 -0800, Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> Milt <milt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>>>> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
>>>> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>>>
>>>Well, unless they have zero evidence against him, there's little or no
>>>chance of that.
>>>
>>>I'm glad you agree that torturing prisoners is really stupid, and
>>>undermines our standing to do the right thing under the law. He would
>>>not have to be Mirandized at the very beginning, if it would apply, in
>>>any case. Given the unique circumstances, I'm not sure Miranda would
>>>necessarily apply. As for the torture thing, they probably wouldn't be
>>>able to use any information gathered while he was being tortured, but
>>>from most reports, they didn't get much info then, anyway...
>>
>> Our "standing"?? In the rest of the world? When terrorists slam 767s
>> full of *their* people into *their* crowded buildings, then they can
>> express their views. In the meantime they can STFU. This is why libs are
>> seen as kowtowing cowards.
>
>Prove they did that.
>
>Oh, right. That's the problem, isn't it?
Actually, there isn't any problem with that...
>You might not be able to. Bush fucked everything up so badly with his
>off-shore Gulags that now that the American legal system is allowed to
>function again, it may not be able to undo all the damage.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about torture, you did. Libs would rather allow
>> thousands of people die from a lack of intel than splash water in a
>> terrorist's face. You're badly mistaken if you think your accusations of
>> terrorism will win anybody over to your side.
>>
>So tell us what makes you any better than the terrorists.
Truth is, Id just as soon have old Zepp keep on believing that I come
and kill the people I don't like....
Don't bore me
>with whines about the twin towers. When American bombed the shit out of
>Baghdad for no reason at all, they lost any moral authority they had
>after 9/11.
As if the fat, old drunkard had any idea what moral authority
entailed...
Steve
<ROTFLMAO> I just love watchiung the lefterloons vent their
frustrations.....
Milt
Correction. Bush made himself into a war criminal. And yes, he should
be tried.
> Your hatred for him is what caused this decision. Who cares
> what it does to our national security, you get to vilify Bush. You weren't
> able to try him as a war criminal under Nuremberg law, so this is the
> next best thing.
I, personally, can't try him as a war criminal, anyway. But
investigations are ongoing, and the right thing may eventually happen.
I'm always hopeful that Bush and Cheney will be frog marched at the
Hague.
>
>
>
> >> * As a result of these things, KSM may be acquitted.
>
> >I'll be willing to take bets on that. There is simply no way this guy
> >will be acquitted. Period.
>
> >> * He'll then be flown back to the mideast to a hero's welcome by locals
> >> chanting "Death to America." He'll be free to plan murders of potentially
> >> millions more Americans.
>
> >This is not the only country in which he's committed terrorist acts.
> >Even if a miracle happens and he's acquitted, he would likely be sent
> >to one of them.
>
> >> Even if he's convicted, memories will be vividly re-lived. Obama will
> >> have caused all of it. Dems had better pray none of it plays out like this.
>
> >Why? We're not the ones who sat all of these assholes in jail without
> >trials.
>
> But now we get a chance to show BUSH is a WAR CRIMINAL!
>
> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
Bush IS a war criminal.
Milt
> >Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
> >> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
> >> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>
> >Well, unless they have zero evidence against him, there's little or no
> >chance of that.
>
> >I'm glad you agree that torturing prisoners is really stupid, and
> >undermines our standing to do the right thing under the law. He would
> >not have to be Mirandized at the very beginning, if it would apply, in
> >any case. Given the unique circumstances, I'm not sure Miranda would
> >necessarily apply. As for the torture thing, they probably wouldn't be
> >able to use any information gathered while he was being tortured, but
> >from most reports, they didn't get much info then, anyway...
>
> Our "standing"?? In the rest of the world? When terrorists slam 767s
> full of *their* people into *their* crowded buildings, then they can
> express their views. In the meantime they can STFU. This is why libs
> are seen as kowtowing cowards.
Libs aren't seen as that, except by the irrational right wing.
I simply don't think anyone should torture, period. If it's wrong for
"them" to torture us, then it's wrong for us to do so. I happen to
think that wrong is wrong.
>
> I didn't say anything about torture, you did. Libs would rather allow
> thousands of people die from a lack of intel than splash water in a
> terrorist's face. You're badly mistaken if you think your accusations of
> terrorism will win anybody over to your side.
>
Actually, you suggested that a lot of evidence would be thrown out of
court because of waterboarding, which is considered torture. That is
one reason torture is stupid; it makes whatever information you may
get (which is very little, since torture doesn't work) unusable in
court.
Steve
wrote:
>On Nov 16, 10:00�pm, Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> >> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
>> >> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>>
>> >Well, unless they have zero evidence against him, there's little or no
>> >chance of that.
>>
>> >I'm glad you agree that torturing prisoners is really stupid, and
>> >undermines our standing to do the right thing under the law. He would
>> >not have to be Mirandized at the very beginning, if it would apply, in
>> >any case. Given the unique circumstances, I'm not sure Miranda would
>> >necessarily apply. As for the torture thing, they probably wouldn't be
>> >able to use any information gathered while he was being tortured, but
>> >from most reports, they didn't get much info then, anyway...
>>
>> Our "standing"?? In the rest of the world? When terrorists slam 767s
>> full of *their* people into *their* crowded buildings, then they can
>> express their views. In the meantime they can STFU. This is why libs
>> are seen as kowtowing cowards.
>
>Libs aren't seen as that, except by the irrational right wing.
Keep that lie alive too... just like your nonsense about the "growing
startup." I see that doesn't seem to be doing so well...
BTW, people want to know why you don't include your two very
impressive stints as a Congressional page in your bio and your resume?
Oh wait, that was a lie to, wasnt it? ...and much too easy to check
out, eh?
>I simply don't think anyone should torture, period. If it's wrong for
>"them" to torture us, then it's wrong for us to do so. I happen to
>think that wrong is wrong.
But then Shook also thinks he can outrun buckshot.
Steve
wrote:
>On Nov 16, 10:00�pm, Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
<LOL> without their fanytasies, Lefterloons would be comotose..
>> Your hatred for him is what caused this decision. Who cares
>> what it does to our national security, you get to vilify Bush. You weren't
>> able to try him as a war criminal under Nuremberg law, so this is the
>> next best thing.
>
>I, personally, can't try him as a war criminal, anyway. But
>investigations are ongoing, and the right thing may eventually happen.
Riiiight.... <ROTFL>
>I'm always hopeful that Bush and Cheney will be frog marched at the
>Hague.
...and you should keep that hope alive.. it's mighty fine
entertainment...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> * As a result of these things, KSM may be acquitted.
>>
>> >I'll be willing to take bets on that. There is simply no way this guy
>> >will be acquitted. Period.
>>
>> >> * He'll then be flown back to the mideast to a hero's welcome by locals
>> >> chanting "Death to America." He'll be free to plan murders of potentially
>> >> millions more Americans.
>>
>> >This is not the only country in which he's committed terrorist acts.
>> >Even if a miracle happens and he's acquitted, he would likely be sent
>> >to one of them.
>>
>> >> Even if he's convicted, memories will be vividly re-lived. Obama will
>> >> have caused all of it. Dems had better pray none of it plays out like this.
>>
>> >Why? We're not the ones who sat all of these assholes in jail without
>> >trials.
>>
>> But now we get a chance to show BUSH is a WAR CRIMINAL!
>>
>> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
>> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
>> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
>
>Bush IS a war criminal.
That's from Shook who alos says:
--
"if you're standing on the corner, legally handing
out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of which you're
standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big
guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the basis for
a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
--Milt.Shook.. 08 May 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
Baron_Mind
> Baron_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "faux_thought" whined impotently:
>> "faux_thought" whined impotently:
>>> Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> "faux_thought" was babbling with:
>>>>> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ---
>>>>> * Every day news reports will give gory details about how KSM planned
>>>>> the murders of 3,000 innocent Americans.
>>>> Yes? I thought we were supposed to NEVER FORGET what happened on
>>>> 9/11. Allofasudden, it's time to move on?
>>>
>>> We'll see. I believe that shortly after 9/11, the public would
>>> have been furious if dirtbags like KSM who murdered 3,000 people
>>
>> I've got some bad news for you, sport..
>>
>> --KSM will likely implicate Bush & Cheney in that plot..
>
> How exciting!
Would you like to test that hypothesis, since you clearly
have no idea what a "theory" of any sort is constructed with?
> Did Bush, Cheney, KSM, [..] have a secret meeting
Why don't you tell us how they didn't, faux-pas..
--Try not to bruise your ego while attempting that, too..
Steve
>Baron_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"faux_thought" whined impotently:
>>> Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> "faux_thought" was babbling with:
>>>>> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>---
>>>>> * Every day news reports will give gory details about how KSM planned
>>>>> the murders of 3,000 innocent Americans.
>>>> Yes? I thought we were supposed to NEVER FORGET what happened on
>>>> 9/11. Allofasudden, it's time to move on?
>>>
>>> We'll see. I believe that shortly after 9/11, the public would
>>> have been furious if dirtbags like KSM who murdered 3,000 people
>>
>>I've got some bad news for you, sport..
>>
>>--KSM will likely implicate Bush & Cheney in that plot..
>
>How exciting! Barney has a conspiracy theory!
>
>Did Bush, Cheney, KSM, Bigfoot and Elvis have a secret meeting on
>the grassy knoll, Barn Merde? Did they secretly hide dynamite
>throughout the infrastructures of the WTC towers? Do you deny that a
>plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 as some idiots claim?
>
With Obama and the far left loons in Congress bombing on every front,
I see that the Usenet lefterloons are relying more and more on their
fantasies....
Daniel
> Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Shorter John Assrocket: "I have no faith in the system in which I am
> > > > > licensed to practice."
> > > > Why should he have faith in a system designed to try civilians who
> > > > knock over stop-n-robs when it it applied to wartime enemies of the
> > > > United States, during wartime?
> > > That question is so stupid, it's not worth responding to. But I'm
> > > going to anyway. Let's see if you're man enough to acknowledge
> > > *facts*. Since 2001, U.S. civilian courts have tried 214 people for
> > > various acts of terrorism. These prosecutions resulted in 195
> > > convictions - 91%.
> > How many of those were American citizens? You know, the people
> > the US Constitution applies to, and how many were "Al Queda-
> > Taliban" types, to which the US Constitution does NOT apply?
>
> Maybe you'd better read the Constitution before spouting off such
> ignorance. Specifically the Sixth Amendment:
The Constitution does NOT apply to KSM, and you failed to prove
otherwise.
Daniel
You failed to point out where any of those things apply to KSM, care
to try again?
Spartakus
I just did, in text you deleted. Here is the Sixth Amendment again,
with key words converted to uppercase:
"In ALL criminal prosecutions, the ACCUSED shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for
his defense."
Doesn't say anything about the citizenship of the accused, or about
the nature of the crime. This isn't a computer version of peek-a-boo,
Daniel. You can't make the Sixth Amendment go away by highlighting it
and hitting Delete.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Then it doesn't apply to any of us.
james g. keegan jr.
<2cce8c5a-b4b4-499d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Daniel <sabot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
it is my understanding that the sixth amendment was still valid. can you
provide any evidence that it is not?
Stevie Nichts
> Since 2001, U.S. civilian courts have tried 214 people for
> various acts of terrorism. �These prosecutions resulted in 195
> convictions - 91%.
But at what cost?
----
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/17/memo_to_holder_whos_accountable_now__99178.html
When the Clinton administration prosecuted the blind cleric,
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and nine co-defendants in federal court
in New York for their roles in the 1993 bombing of the World
Trade Center, much less was known about al-Qaeda and the risks
of using ordinary criminal process for terror suspects. Part of
the legacy of that trial was the disclosure of information to
the lawyers for the defendants that wound up promptly in the
hands of al-Qaeda members who eventually would plan and execute
the next attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11,
2001.
The information, which revealed some of what our government knew
about international terrorism and how we knew it, helped shield
some of the terror enterprise's deadly planning from those
trying earnestly to monitor and stop terrorism. No one will ever
know how to apportion responsibility, but there should be no
doubt that this was one of many contributing factors to the loss
of nearly 3,000 innocent lives in the horrific attacks of 9/11.
[...]
...what if Mr. Holder has guessed wrong? What if challenges to
the way evidence was obtained result in exclusion of enough
material that KSM is acquitted? What if discovery rules for
federal criminal trials again result in disclosure of sensitive
information -- ending up in the hands of our enemies -- on how
we gather information and who provides it?
What if that facilitates another attack with more lives lost?
----
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Most people despise Bush.
>>
>> THAT is what this is all about. RIGHT THERE.
>>
>> You *despise* Bush and you'll do anything to make him into a war
>> criminal.
>
>Correction. Bush made himself into a war criminal. And yes, he should
>be tried.
"Bush made himself into a war criminal. And yes, he should be
tried."
>> Your hatred for him is what caused this decision. Who cares
>> what it does to our national security, you get to vilify Bush. You weren't
>> able to try him as a war criminal under Nuremberg law, so this is the
>> next best thing.
>
>I, personally, can't try him as a war criminal, anyway. But
>investigations are ongoing, and the right thing may eventually happen.
>I'm always hopeful that Bush and Cheney will be frog marched at the
>Hague.
"I, personally, can't try him as a war criminal, anyway [...] I'm always
hopeful that Bush and Cheney will be frog marched at the Hague."
>> But now we get a chance to show BUSH is a WAR CRIMINAL!
>>
>> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
>> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
>> WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH WE HATE BUSH
>
>Bush IS a war criminal.
"Bush IS a war criminal."
Thank you for proving my point. In addition to attacking Bush, libs often
try to contribute additional ideas to a discussion to conceal the fact that
they're obsessed with him. But you didn't bother did you, Mitch? Nothing
to do with trying terrorists in New York. You went straight for Bush's
throat and began spewing your venomous hatred for him. That's all.
Point proven by a typical lib. Hatred for Bush is driving everything.
"Bush IS a war criminal."
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
>> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>
>How so? Miranda does not apply to KSM.
His attorneys will claim it does. They best chance he has is to get
as much evidence as possible thrown out.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Yeah, and who's to blame for THAT, bubbles?
Oh, I know, I know. As a right wing moron, you'll bitterly blame lawyers
and judges who uphold the Constitution, and not the dumb Republican
assholes who pissed all over it.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Daniel <sabot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>>> * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
>>> fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
That's the plan. Then they can blame Bush....
Milt
I hate to break it to you, but I checked the thread, and YOU brought
up Bush, not me.
Phlip
> Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
> Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
OH MY GAWD you are RITE!
He will go FREE, and immediately attack us AGAIN!
Then we will all rally around Obama in our time of duress, and CNN
will whip us into a warlike frenzy, and we will promptly invade Kenya.
Phlip
> the gop is going crazy because the trials will bring out all of the bush
> administration crimes. rush was apoplectic.
Will the trial cover KSM's career as a CIA asset?
Phlip
> >>> You would have to send him to The Hague to do that.
>
> >> Good idea!
>
> >> And we should send Cheney & Rumsfeld with him, just in case they get
> >> called. As witnesses...
>
> >yup. Witnesses. You betcha.
>
> <ROTFLMAO> I just love watchiung the lefterloons vent their
> frustrations.....
What happened when Rumseld went to France, hmm?
It's only a matter of time...
Phlip
What, sending people who commit crimes against humanity to the Hague?
Yup. The Left is all about law and order, and getting tough on crime...
Phlip
> On Nov 14, 10:06 am, Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>
> > Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024941.php
>
> > >Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh
> > >Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury.
> > >they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?
> > >----
>
> > >Hey, was he read his Miranda rights? No?
> > >Case dismissed! KSM goes free!
>
> > * Because he was waterboarded and not Mirandized, I think there's a
> > fairly good chance he will be acquitted.
>
Miranda applies to what officers of the court - people on _our_ side -
must do to arrest someone. Even if they arrest a black person, or an
illegal alien, or even if they go to another country and arrest that
person in it, they must mirandize to bring him before a judge.
Or maybe you would like US police behaving like the secret police in a
totalitarian state, disappearing people without any due process at
all?
But back to the point, Obama would not let the trial go forward
without some fix in place for these obvious technicalities...
Phlip
His trial was delayed, he was denied legal counsel, he was tortured,
and he was held without a charge. They all apply to him.
Steve
wrote:
Naw, there's not enough time for you to become educated...
Foxtrot
Doesn't matter. I described your irrational mouth foaming hatred for
Bush and how your goal in the KSM trial is to incriminate Bush for
war crimes. Then you confirmed it.
>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Bush IS a war criminal.
Milt
Um, how about wiping that foam from your mouth and taking a deep
breath for a second.
I'm not the Attorney General. I have no goal with the KSM trial. It
should be held in a civilian court, for the same reason McVeigh was
tried in a civilian court. The crime occurred on American soil during
peacetime. And your idiocy about Bush is insane, since KSM will be on
trial for 9/11, years before he was imprisoned and tortured by Bush.
In other words, it's not even likely that his attorneys will be able
to bring it up, because it happened years after the fact. The trial is
on conspiracy.
And I don't hate Bush, I don't know him. I hate what Bush did as
president, however, and he should be brought up on charges for much of
it. I can't believe Clinton was impeached for a blow job, but Bush
wasn't even considered for it. Our system is fast becoming a joke.
Daniel
I hate to break your libtard heart, but the US Constitution does NOT
apply to KSM in ANY way, and you cannot prove otherwise, no matter
which amendment you cut and paste.
Daniel
wrote:
You really are a simple little fuck, aren't you?
Daniel
> In article
> <2cce8c5a-b4b4-499d-abe2-30976b69e...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
NO one is claiming it isn't, but none of the US Constitution applies
to KSM. What part of that do you not grasp? Do I need to dumb it down
further?
Daniel
Your little temper tantrum was cute and all, but NONE of it has
anything to do with KSM.
Daniel
Care to try some specifics and move past the libtard talking points?
Spartakus
Ha ha! Philip wins the thread!
Beam Me Up Scotty
AG Holder is crossing the lines of Military Justice and civilian
Justice. Obama and Holder are taking a man who committed no crime inside
the USA and putting him on trial here. What's more is that man is a
member of an Afghanistan protected terrorist group, We not only had to
attack the Nation who supported them but we have to track down and have
our military capture or kill them.
This is a military capture and a military justice issue.
Spartakus
Because YOU say so? Sorry, little feller, that's not how it works.
Try as you may to piss on the Constitution, there ain't enough water
in you to have any effect.
Spartakus
> Care to try some specifics and move past the libtard talking points?
Time for you to move past the rightard talking points and document why
KSM is not protected by the Sixth Amendment. Case law, court
decisions, legislation. Take all the time you need, but get busy, you
smarmy little anti-American bastard!
james g. keegan jr.
<81a8268a-4bba-437f...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Daniel <sabot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
are you blaming me because you never read the sixth amendment?
here, i'll make it easy for you:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
do you see the word "all" in the first line?
need i say more.
james g. keegan jr.
<9bee889b-f2b3-48c5...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Daniel <sabot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
oh my, this is one of those cases where your errors have been
demonstrated and you're just going to whine and cry that you're right
even thought you and everyone else knows you are wrong.
Phlip
> AG Holder is crossing the lines of Military Justice and civilian
> Justice. Obama and Holder are taking a man who committed no crime inside
> the USA and putting him on trial here. What's more is that man is a
> member of an Afghanistan protected terrorist group, We not only had to
> attack the Nation who supported them but we have to track down and have
> our military capture or kill them.
>
> This is a military capture and a military justice issue.
And where was this zeal for law and order, oh, 6 years ago?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Fortunately for America, your opinion on the matter doesn't count.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Tell you what, bubbles: if he is being tried in criminal court in
America, what part of the Constitution doesn't apply to him?
Sure, we'll wait.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
I don't think you could possibly make it any dumber. We can all see it's
dumb.
Why don't you strive for clarity instead?
Steve
Irony anyone?
Ernst Blofeld
wrote:
>
> Tell you what, bubbles: if he is being tried in criminal court in
> America, what part of the Constitution doesn't apply to him?
That's kind of the point, isn't it? The Obama administration has made
the unprecedented decision to do this BY CHOICE, and it is unlike
anything the US has done before.
Andy McCarthy:
--
If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we
are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham this
morning, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we
captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the
United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights
of an American citizen. That's because hasn't happened. That's not how
you treat wartime enemies.
--
Milt
> On Nov 16, 5:14 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 3:11 pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 11:51 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 11:10 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > KSM is being set up for a classic 'failed' trial ... failed
> > > > > due to the venue ... one which cannot possibly deliver a fair
> > > > > and impartial verdict.
>
> > > > > In short, they're gonna let him go on a technicallity.
>
> > > > The usual drivel of idiocy.
>
> > > > If you want a technicality, start with "speedy trial". Then try "no
> > > > torture", or "Habeas Corpus".
>
> > > Explain how those things apply to KSM.
>
> > He was tortured, so any information gained as a result of the torture
> > is inadmissible.
> > He was held for years without charges and without trial, which is a
> > violation of Habeas Corpus.
> > And since his trial will be in no way "speedy," it's possible some of
> > the evidence against him has spoiled.
>
> > I still can't imagine him being acquitted, but if it happens, the
> > blame falls squarely into Bush's lap.
>
> You failed to point out where any of those things apply to KSM, care
> to try again?
No, your skull is too thick. It wouldn't penetrate no matter how many
times I repeated myself.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 18, 4:32 pm, "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Tell you what, bubbles: if he is being tried in criminal court in
>> America, what part of the Constitution doesn't apply to him?
>
> That's kind of the point, isn't it? The Obama administration has made
> the unprecedented decision to do this BY CHOICE, and it is unlike
> anything the US has done before.
I note that the bombers in 1993 were tried in civilian court. That
worked out quite well.
>
> Andy McCarthy:
> --
> If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we
> are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham this
> morning, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we
> captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the
> United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of
> an American citizen. That's because hasn't happened. That's not how you
> treat wartime enemies.
There's your problem. The US isn't at war. If the A-G really said that,
he's an idiot.
Milt
Well, that's rich. You're the one trying to claim that 235 years of
justice has to be turned on its head because one fucking punk asshole
might not be convicted somehow.
Spartakus
> > Tell you what, bubbles: if he is being tried in criminal court in
> > America, what part of the Constitution doesn't apply to him?
> That's kind of the point, isn't it? The Obama administration has made
> the unprecedented decision to do this BY CHOICE, and it is unlike
> anything the US has done before.
>
> Andy McCarthy:
Andrew McCarthy is a birther.
> If we are at war,
We're not.
> and the Attorney General said this morning that we are,
> we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham this
> morning, the AG could not name a single time when, during
> war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and
> brought him into the United States for a civilian trial
KSM was arrested by Pakistani security forces at the home of an Al
Qaeda associate and handed over to the FBI. Last time I heard, the
FBI was tasked with investigating crimes and apprehending criminals.
> — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen.
No, anyone who is accused of a crime in a U.S. court.
> That's because hasn't happened. That's not how
> you treat wartime enemies.
Did I mention that Andrew McCarthy is a birther?