NY Trial

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

appleciderus Jack Reed 11/15/2009 11:25:53 AM

This morning Senator Jack Reed appeared with Chris Wallace and defended the decision to try terrorists in criminal court rather than military tribunals, offering, among other reasons, it shows the world we are better than terrorists by trying them in NY. (This while Obama is traveling the world exclaiming we are not better than anyone)

After defending this position from both the upside and possible downsides, Wallace asked, and I paraphrase, - What if they are acquitted and set free?-

Reed responded that under international law the US can keep them detained.

Wallace asked again.

Reed said they would not be released.

So my challenge to any who believe the reason for this is decision to try these terrorists in a criminal court is?WTF?

Reed admits international law allows detaining these terrorist indefinitely?Bush policy!

Reed admits if found not guilty, they would be detained. Isn?t that contradictory to the official democratic position that holding these terrorists aids terrorist recruiting of acolytes?

I have recorded the interview, so if anyone cares to contradict my portrayal of Reed?s words, I will be happy to review the recording for errors and additional holes in administration logic.

This interview convinces me further that the decision to announce a trial in NY was made before administration policy was fully thought out and was made primarily to divert attention from the Fort Hood Massacre. (Has anyone seen a lead story on Fort Hood since Eric ?the bag man ? Holder?s Friday?s press conference?)

Madness! (but perhaps political genius)

Quote Reply

Vulture 11/15/2009 1:20:16 PM

I have my own suspicions for Obama choosing this venue for KSM.

Even though evidence obtained by torture can (and likely will) be excluded, KSM's defense team gets the facts that KSM was tortured into the trial record. An appeal can be based on it. SCOTUS will throw it out... in 3-4 years.

Even better once the "torture" is a matter of record, then the DOJ can open an investigation again in the GWB administration whose actions "threatened" (do we get a mistrial if they plant one juror on there who says KSM can't be punished because he was already tortured) the prosecution's case? So I see it as a back door way for AG Holder to go after Bush/Cheney.

/military tribunal since we are still in a declared War . even AG holder agreed to that fact.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 11/16/2009 4:45:43 PM

Very good article on WSJ

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

You should be chilling after you read this.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 11/16/2009 7:03:02 PM

KSM is not a criminal in my opinion and does not belong in a U.S. civilian court. There is a chance that he could be found not guilty and it would be legally binding. He is also not a soldier as defined by the Geneva Convention. This is clearly a legal grey area and I don't believe our legal system is properly designed to handle it. I think handling it this way could turn out to be a mistake.

a. How is KSM going to get a fair trial?

b. If he is found not guilty, it would be a disaster.

c. What exactly do you charge him with?

d. If convicted, what are the implications?

-DA

Quote Reply

appleciderus 11/16/2009 8:24:48 PM

I have to agree with Darth. He is correct on a number of points. KSM is not a criminal, he is a terrorist. He is not a soldier as defined by the Geneva Convention, he is a terrorist. On Darth?s other points:

A: He will get a 3, 4, or 5 year circus trial OJ would envy. Would it be fair? NO! It would be to his advantage.

B: It would be a disaster to have him found not guilty, especially since the administration spokesman, Senator Jack Reed, told the nation yesterday that he would never go free. Wouldn?t that be a fine example of US justice by the Obama machine. We put him on trial, he was found not guilty, and we put him back in jail.

C: You charge him with mass murder, crimes against civilization, conspiracy to commit murder, genocide, and double parking if you must.

D: If found guilty, the implications are profound. Firstly, hang him. Then allocate a few billion dollars to lifetime protection for the judge and jury since there is surely to be a fatah. Then educate a host of new junior attorney generals on how to prosecute a Fort Hood terrorist like attack as a criminal matter, with special attention to insanity defense.Install a London type camera system on every street corner in Manhattan, and tell the rest of the country to sleep with one eye open for the rest of their lives.

I can find no upside for the US in this disaster. Perhaps it deflected attention away from the Fort Hood massacre, or perhaps it placates his marxist base before he sends additional troops to Afghanistan, but one thing is certain. It is a political move that Obama sees as beneficial to him and him only. The Country, and NYC especially, be damned.

Quote Reply

Jimme Just Makes no sense 11/16/2009 10:41:08 PM

As stated by DA himself, this makes absolutely no sense at all and has no conceivable benefit other than appeasing liberal special interest groups. This is just totally unforgivable and reprehensible, to rub salt on open wounds just for the sake of Bush bashing and political pay back. Who the hell do these clowns from Chicago think they are?

Hillary Clinton even knows what a bad idea this is, evident in her " I won't second guess the decision" comment. Despite what Mayor Bloomberg assures us, fact is security cannot be guaranteed period. This isn't a one day or week event, this could drag on for years and the enormity of the whole situation is unprecedented so who really knows how much security is enough? then theres the whole who the hell is going to pay for this super stringent security, not to mention the delays it will cause for business in the area. Or how is the stock market going to handle all of this when its only blocks away from the court house!

Finally there is the public exposure of intelligence gather techniques. In the late 90s cell phone tracking was used to follow OBL's movements till the Embassy bombing trials let this fact be known to the public. Its no surprise intel notes that were supposed to be for the eyes of the lawyers involved with the case only, were found in AQ caves years later when the Afghan invasion began.

I really can't express how much this angers me. I saw 9/11 first hand with my own eyes, i felt the immediate effects, the confusion and the fear as i walked the 2 miles to my home.I know close friends that have lost loved ones .this event changed me to my core, a day before i was a Gore voting bleeding heart liberal, later that day i thanked god somebody with balls was president. Now this is all being trivialized by a clown who thinks this is a god damn game.

Quote Reply

appleciderus 11/16/2009 11:02:29 PM

Now that was a powerful post!

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 11/17/2009 3:57:45 AM

He is also not a soldier as defined by the Geneva Convention. This is clearly a legal grey area and I don't believe our legal system is properly designed to handle it.

I agree. Luckily, the Geneva Convention has a provision for people who are captured during time of war and wear no identifying markings. They're called spies. So...

SHOOT HIM.

Quote Reply

buzzard 11/17/2009 9:56:35 AM

Here's a good analysis by someone who ought to know:

h--p://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 11/17/2009 10:53:21 AM

He is also not a soldier as defined by the Geneva Convention. This is clearly a legal grey area and I don't believe our legal system is properly designed to handle it.

I agree. Luckily, the Geneva Convention has a provision for people who are captured during time of war and wear no identifying markings. They're called spies. So...

SHOOT HIM.

Actually, the Geneva Convention does cover some unidentified individuals as partisans. There is debate over if individuals such as KSM qualify for these protections. I've heard and read both sides of the debate and both have valid enough points that I think the law/rules should be re-written to provide clarity to avoid the mess we are dealing with now. However, I still do not believe that a US court is the appropriate venue. This is a military matter IMHO since individuals such as KSM are at war with the USA and constitute a national security threat. Also, if he is convicted, where does that leave the civilian planners who plan US covert operations? Would we be setting a precedent for their arrest and trial in other countries if their identities and actions were known? All of this needs to be worked out FIRST.

I can appreciate the concerns of human rights groups and others who think that KSM deserves legal protections. Perhaps he does. But as currently written criminal law is not sufficient to provide clarity on how to deal with this. What I would suggest or be more comfortable with is to hold KSM as a POW and provide him those protections until the conclusion of this conflict. During that time, better defined laws can be drafted nationally and internationally to deal with such individuals. I'm also okay with classifying him as a spy and executing him as well. I don't have a problem with the US prison system holding KSM though. Gitmo doesn't bother me either but I think it's outlived it's political usefulness and I know it's used as an enemy propaganda tool. My only issue is sending him to trial in a US court which as I said before is inappropriate.

I'll be watching this one very carefully. While I think this is a bad decision to try him in US court all things considered, I'm very interested to see HOW this trial is conducted and how the Admin plans to manage and minimize the various associated risk.

-DA

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT