KSM TRIAL WILL BE AN OBAMA VICTORY
K9way
getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures
of his execution .
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they simply
dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
_____________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
susan
read this and tell me what is wrong with this article written by a very
prestigious politician.
Are we at war -- or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in
federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a
presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S.
citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked
up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies --
that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in
mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill
his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been
granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime
organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot
Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No
one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in
an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at
war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S.
soil, when America was at peace, and killed as many Americans as the Sept.
11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant
under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was
captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen.
Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding
renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for
trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot
when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a
jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary
Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair. When
eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat,
they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with
the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?
Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM
over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?
How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from
lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept.
11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied,
have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?
Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he
could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he
would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?
And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than
their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know
when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them?
Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they
are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S.
intelligence?
There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first
World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening
our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.
If the trial is held in lower Manhattan, how much security will be needed to
protect against a car bomber who wants the world to see a mighty blow struck
against the Great Satan? And if, as some suggest, the trial should be held
on Governor's Island, would that not make the United States look like a
nation under siege?
What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government
refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is
acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?
In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has
truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.
The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting
his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.
Irish Mike
hold the trial for KSM in NYC.
"Nothing good will come of this for America"
I think that will be proved to be an understatement.
Irish Mike''
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war
against Fox News.
Recession: When your neighbor loses his job.
Depression: When you lose your job.
Recovery: When Obama loses his job.
----�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
susan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlmQgW_uvNQ&feature=player_embedded
susan
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/DDD69D83476B6CB7862576750005F246?OpenDocument
Skelton unhappy with holding 9/11 trial in New York
Paterson No terrorism trial in NYC
http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/paterson-giuliani-agree-no-terrorism-trial-in-nyc-1.1593416
CNN POLL: EVEN MOST DEMOCRATS OPPOSE NYC TRIAL FOR KSM
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/11/cnn-poll-even-most-democrats-oppose-nyc.html
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/75649
Arlo-Payne
> The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein ,
> getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures
> of his execution .
>
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
>
> DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
>
> The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they simply
> dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
>
> Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
>
>
> Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
> does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
there was a time when I placed you in the wacko pile. That is when you
insisted you knew me. BTW when are you going to admit you don't?
Well in the case of this trial I must move you into the braindead pile.
Do you not really see how no good can come from this?
This matter 100% should stay a military issue. There is zero reason to
move him away from the military courts and less reason to transfer him NYC.
Come on even you should know this has nothing to do with party issues.
________________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
mccard
news:ujdlt6x...@recgroups.com...
> The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein ,
> getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak
> pictures
> of his execution .
>
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
>
> DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
>
> The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they
> simply
> dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
>
> Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
>
I'm positive the anti-death penalty movement will get a flood of
followers as the right wing moves and maneuvers its spineless shape
shifters to destroy this trial and its inevitable outcome.
johnny_t
> The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein ,
> getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures
> of his execution .
>
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
>
> DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
Um... That was a military tribunal. An accounting of facts, not a trial
of innocence, or presumption of innocence.
The accounting was made, a retribution required, and carried out.
This was NOT what the right is complaining about.
The right is complaining about giving a trial based on presumption of
innocence to prevent the tyranny of government. That the tyranny is so
aweful, that sometimes the guilty go free. That our entire process is
constantly under scrutiny to prevent tyranny. Because it continues to
exist (the judge that was sending kids to the corporate prison because
of kickbacks), and the tyranny must always be looked for, even if the
guilty walk free.
That is NOT what the trial in IRAQ was, it is NOT what we should be
doing with KSM. KSM, should have a good ol Nuremberg/Iraq accounting,
and retribution. This is what countries do in cases like this.
da pickle nospam
Agreed it is very smart and the only fair thing to do. It is going to
finally be shown that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. He was
railroaded in the beginning and then tortured and tortured until he
finally confessed. It’s time for some of the Bush/Cheney crimes to
come out into the light of day.
risky biz
> On Nov 21, 7:29�am, "K9way" <ad14...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein ,
> > getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures
> > of his execution .
> >
> > NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
> >
> > DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
> >
> > The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they simply
> > dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
> >
> > Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
> >
> > Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
> > does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
> >
> Agreed it is very smart and the only fair thing to do. It is going to
> finally be shown that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. He was
> railroaded in the beginning and then tortured and tortured until he
> finally confessed. It�s time for some of the Bush/Cheney crimes to
> come out into the light of day.
Even if a confession was obtained by torture and even if he is innocent he
would get convicted in an American court. Are you kidding? He's an Arab.
In any case he's claiming responsibility for 9/11. And, apparently, every
other act of terrorism in the last 10 years.
_____________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Jerry Sturdivant
Once again we find the right-wingers gagging; retching; flopping around on
the floor; convulsing because Obama and Americans Democratic representatives
moves forward with his promised changes and a show trial for the world to
see. The best the wounded neocons can do is bitch venue.
Hate Sarah? Hell Sarah and the neocons hate America and what she stands for.
They hate the facts of justice.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Racist is Politically Correct. Politically Correct is racist.
FL Turbo
Jerry! Jerry!
While I'm not a medical professional, I do recognize the signs.
You need to immediately go and get a wet washcloth, lay down in a dark
room, and place the washcloth on your forehead.
If you don't do that, you are in great danger of having your head
explode.
I'm only trying to help you.
susan
were actually involved.
Eric Holder's Baffling KSM Decision
The attorney general's Senate testimony this week did nothing to reassure
the families of 9/11's victims.
a.. By DAVID BEAMER
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Attorney
General Eric Holder about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
and four others in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. As the
father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93, I was able to
attend that hearing. What transpired caused me great concern and shook my
confidence in our current administration.
The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the
division in our country not only visually-the Democrats were seated on the
left and the Republicans on the right-but in every aspect of the
proceedings. I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and
that others would have challenging questions about his decision. What I did
not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the majority party.
It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty
is trumping concern for America's security interests.
In his opening remarks, Attorney General Holder acknowledged that these
defendants could have been brought to trial in civilian court or before
military tribunals. But he made the argument that trying them in our
criminal courts would restore the integrity of our judicial system. He
assured us that the trials would be quick, that the safety of New Yorkers
would be paramount, that classified information would not be revealed, that
the evidence was overwhelming, and that justice would be served.
Then he said that the USS Cole attackers would be tried in military courts
since they attacked our military. So how does Mr. Holder categorize the
Pentagon? Inexplicably, he offered up the body count of 9/11, the fact that
civilian deaths outnumbered military ones, as a rationale for his decision.
Then the Republican members proceeded to ask Mr. Holder thoughtful
questions. Some examples:
How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty? Given that
criminal courts are now the presumed venue for those captured on the
battlefield, will soldiers need to read them their rights at the time of
capture? Since you wish to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the
presumed civil venue, don't all those captured need to be read their rights
and have the opportunity to remain silent? Won't this venue expose
intelligence to our enemies? Can our classified information really be
secured? Can we in fact predict how the judge will rule? If these people are
brought into the country will they get additional rights under immigration
law? What if they claim asylum?
The attorney general seemed bewildered in the face of these inquiries.
Recurring themes in his responses included "I think," and "I can't imagine,"
and "I am not an expert in immigration."
Has our attorney general not considered these issues, or imagined the
possible unintended consequences that will arise from his historic decision?
It certainly seemed that way. If he had, he would have had better answers.
A second shocker: Mr. Holder said that he and his boss had not spoken in
person about this decision. This matter only involves upholding the
constitutional rights of Americans, establishing a precedent with
battlefield impact, and the safety and security of our citizens in a time of
war. What are the criteria to make something a priority with President
Barack Obama? How can it be that this matter didn't make the cut?
The Democrats used much of their questioning time to heap praise upon Mr.
Holder. They all repeated the same trope: We'll show the world that America
can conduct these trials openly in criminal courts. And we'll be successful,
even as we convey rights to the defendants that are not warranted.
Since when has "show the world" been a primary objective?
No thoughtful questions from the majority party regarding this decision were
forthcoming. Their questions mostly addressed other matters. They discussed
overcrowding in our prisons (too many drug criminals being sentenced), asked
why none of the $500 million in appropriations have helped the rape-kit
processing backlog, and inquired about when recommendations for additional
staff would be presented for confirmation. Their lack of attention to the
pressing matter at hand suggested apathy.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) did ask a question about how much the trials
will cost. Clearly there will be expense incurred if this does go to trial
in New York City. The early, and by no means complete, estimate is that it
will cost $75 million for the first year. Mr. Schumer did not express any
concern about the costs involved but only asked the attorney general for
assurance that all would be covered by federal funds. This question was
promptly and explicitly answered in the affirmative by Mr. Holder. After
all, this is a rather modest amount by Washington standards.
Our enemies must be thrilled. We are willingly handing them an opportunity
to inflict economic harm on New York City, keep their cause in the
headlines, gather new intelligence, create new terror strategies, stimulate
recruiting, celebrate new-found rights, and foist a fresh round of pain and
suffering upon their victims.
This decision is September 11, the sequel. It is my hope that Mr. Holder
will reconsider.
A final observation: During the proceedings a young lady, dutifully
attentive, sat with a stack of paper about 15 inches high on her lap. The
papers contained names, single spaced, of some 100,000 people who signed a
letter in opposition to this decision. This young woman, Jill Regan, lost
her dad, Donald J. Regan, FDNY of the Bronx, who died trying to save others
on 9/11. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Al.) asked that those names be entered into
the record at the end of the session. It was agreed, but by that time the
chairmen and most of the Democrats were already gone. I grieved for her-and
for all of us-anew.
Mr. Beamer is the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight
93 on 9/11.
K9way
You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the abortion
doctor to be prosecuted .
That doesnt make it right !!
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
------�
susan
"K9way"
> You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the abortion
> doctor to be prosecuted .
>
> That doesnt make it right !!
And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered not
wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release them?
Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence
collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have said
that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you
proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though the
outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty
General?
Jerry Sturdivant
"FL Turbo"
>> Once again we find the right-wingers gagging; retching; flopping
>> around on the floor; convulsing because Obama and Americans
>> Democratic representatives moves forward with his promised
>> changes and a show trial for the world to see. The best the
>> wounded neocons can do is bitch venue.
>>
>> Hate Sarah? Hell Sarah and the neocons hate America and what
>> she stands for. They hate the facts of justice.
> Jerry! Jerry!
>
> While I'm not a medical professional, I do recognize the signs.
Just another thing you think you know, where, again, you don't.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage.
Jerry Sturdivant
"susan"
> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will
> release them? Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know.
> Was all the evidence collected under our legal rules?
> I don't know.
Are they guilty? You don�t know. Nor does the rest of the world.
Jerry (the world is watching) �n Vegas
- Iraq's national bird?, DUCK
K9way
all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what is
going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " is so
afraid of everything that moves
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
________________________________________________________________________�
susan
"K9way" <ad1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Nov 22 2009 10:44 AM, susan wrote:
>
>> "K9way"
>>
>> > You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the
>> > abortion
>> > doctor to be prosecuted .
>> >
>> > That doesnt make it right !!
>>
>> And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered not
>> wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
>>
>> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release
>> them?
>> Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence
>> collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have
>> said
>> that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you
>> proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
>>
>> Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though
>> the
>> outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty
>> General?
>
>
> all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what is
> going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
>
> I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " is so
> afraid of everything that moves
we are never going to agree here.
Forget the possibility of it getting thrown out of court - take that off the
line. (this, for your sake)
How anyone, right left middle neutral could think that a bogus kangaroo
court is a symbol of something other than idiocy is ridiculous. The outcome
has been predetermined. No one is stupid enough to not put 2 and 2 together
when O and Holder have already PROMISED the outcome.
gtech1
------�
K9way
does that rebuttal bolster your point or mine ?? you say you are worried
about them somehow escaping justice , yet in the next sentence you say the
outcome is predetermined
he is going to be convicted , then he is going to be executed ..great fopr
symbolism and great for our country .. i hope they schedule execution for
Oct 2012 ..lol
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
-------�
Irish Mike
> "susan"
>
>
> > Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will
> > release them? Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know.
> > Was all the evidence collected under our legal rules?
> > I don't know.
>
> Are they guilty? You don�t know. Nor does the rest of the world.
Obama knows. In a televised interview a few days ago he said KSM was
guilty and that the American people can be assured that he will be found
guilty and that "he will have the death penalty applied to him". So what
does that show the world? It shows them that the American president has
declared KSM guilty before the trial begins and has assured the American
people that he will get the death penalty. There's no difference between
that and one of the show trials conducted in China, Iran or North Korea.
Obama's decision to try KSM in a civilian court for purely political
reasons is a travesty for the families of the 9/11 victims and a disgrace
for America.
Irish Mike
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war
against Fox News.
-------�
Irish Mike
The only "great" thing about this trial is the propaganda and recruiting
tool it provides for muslim extremists all over the world. Obama has made
a decision to hand al Queada exactly what it wants. Full color, prime
time non-stop media coverage which will be shown through out the muslim
world. It will give KSM and his lawyers an opportunity to spread their
propaganda while they put America, President Bush, our military and our
CIA on trial. It will force the court to release classified information
and/or throw out evidence that we can not use because of the security risk
it poses. Obama made a stupid, unnecessary decision to try this in
civilian court at a cost to tax payers of $75 million for the first year.
And for what? So Obama can sling some more mud at President Bush, our
military and our CIA.
Irish Mike
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war
against Fox News.
________________________________________________________________________�
susan
"K9way" <ad1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
actually it shows that I am capable of seeimg more than one way unlike you
who only see things in black and white.
susan
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:BWuOm.78192$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
also - either way is disasterous for our image.
Jerry Sturdivant
"susan"
> How anyone, right left middle neutral could think that a
> bogus kangaroo court is a symbol of something other than
> idiocy is ridiculous. The outcome has been predetermined.
> No one is stupid enough to not put 2 and 2 together when
> O and Holder have already PROMISED the outcome.
Obama went to law school and has a law degree. Go in any court and you�ll
hear opening statements claiming guilt and how they�ll prove it. Remember
OJ?
Jerry �n Vegas
- I have been alive just a little longer than I can remember.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike"
>>> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will
>>> release them? Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know.
>>> Was all the evidence collected under our legal rules?
>>> I don't know.
>> Are they guilty? You don't know. Nor does the rest of the world.
> Obama knows.
No, he doesn't know either.
> So what does that show the world?
A trial shows the world we're ignoring the fact Bush rounded up anybody and
everybody: "The usual suspects," then violated international rules and
tortured them for a confession.
> Obama's decision to try KSM in a civilian court for purely
> political reasons is a travesty for the families of the 9/11
> victims and a disgrace for America.
No, it's for political reasons because Bush violated our constitution and
violated international rules. The politics is to regain world trust.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- It's as bad as you think, and they *are* out to get you!
Irish Mike
On Nov 23 2009 10:17 AM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
Snip Jerry's standard Obama rationalizing and ass kissing.
You conveniently left out the statement Obama made a couple of days ago
where he said that KSM is guilty and that the American people can be
assured that he will be found guilty and that
"the death penalty will be applied to him". This show trial is a disgrace.
Irish Mike
____________________________________________________________________�
JerseyRudy
Um, it is one thing to have the wrong opinion, but try to get the basic
facts right. Saddam Hussein was given a trial in Iraq that determined his
guilt or innocence (he pled not guilty). The United States actually
assisted in setting up the trial, and many of the rules were based on the
American criminal justice system.
The bottom line is this: KSM and his 4 co-defendants need to be tried
either in military or civilian court. Either way it will be a trial to
determine guilt or innocence. Either you have confidence in our criminal
justice system to handle this type of terrorism trial (the very same court
is currently conducting the trial of Ahmed Ghailani without any
controversy) or you don't. I feel sorry for those who don't, but I am glad
that our current administration has such confidence.
---�
JerseyRudy
Ya gotta love this idiocy! No wonder Sarah Palin has such a strong base
of support!
With a straight face, we have people arguing that trying terrorists in
federal court will be disastrous for our image. Torturing them was not
disastrous for our image. Sending them to secret CIA prisons in foreign
countries was not disastrous for our image. But trying them according to
the laws of the United States will be disastrous for our image!!
Either these people truly have contempt for our Constitution, or they are
so conditioned to criticize any decision of our current President that
they don't spend any time thinking about what they are actually arguing
for. Either way it is pathetic.
____________________________________________________________________�
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike"
> Snip Jerry's standard Obama rationalizing and ass kissing.
Snipped because you couldn't address it.
> You conveniently left out the statement Obama made a couple
> of days ago where he said that KSM is guilty and that the
> American people can be assured that he will be found guilty
> and that "the death penalty will be applied to him".
No I did NOT leave it out. Look up at my reply to Susan. Then Run, like you
usually do.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- I am correct, the rest of you are wrong!
Irish Mike
What is pathetic is some left wing loon who doesn't know the difference
between a criminal and a terrorist or between a crime and an act of war.
On a brighter note, Obama's decision to give these muslim terrorists a
full color, prime time propaganda platform and recruiting tool will be
greatly appreciated by al Queada, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban.
Irish Mike
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war
against Fox News.
_______________________________________________________________________�
susan
> On Nov 23 2009 2:05 PM, JerseyRudy wrote:
> With a straight face, we have people arguing that trying terrorists in
> federal court will be disastrous for our image. Torturing them was not
> disastrous for our image. Sending them to secret CIA prisons in foreign
> countries was not disastrous for our image. But trying them according to
> the laws of the United States will be disastrous for our image!!
Boy Rudy, PDS is really D today. I had always thought that the laws of the
United States mentioned something about innocent until proven guilty. I
guess I will have to mark up another Rudyism to my ever increasing
knowledge.
JerseyRudy
I thought you killfiled me. That must be another 'Susan."
Innocent until proven guilty is the standard IN the criminal court that
will be trying the case. That is the standard that will applied to KSM and
all the other defendants being tried in federal court. That was the same
standard that would have been used in military court.
You are making a common mistake. You are taking the legal standard
applicable in the criminal courts of this country, and you are
extrapolating it to other contexts in which it has no relevance.
Outside the context of the actual criminal court trial, anyone is free to
comment on the guilt or innocence of any defendant (the only exception
being a gag order imposed the judge). This was President Bush commenting
on KSM at a prime time news conference after his arrest in March 2003: "we
captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our
nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and
directed the actions of the hijackers."
Were you asking what happened to "innocent until proven guilty" when
President Bush made those remarks?
------�