[Public_Domain]

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

This nonsense is just more ideological anti-Obama sleaze from the right-wingers who take their talking points direct from FOX news.

That might be true if the criticism of civil trials for enemy combatants was something new. It is not.

Here's one from 2004

Here's one concerning one of the cases you mentioned - Jose Padilla

Naturally the critique gets louder when you start talking the 9/11 attack. That has nothing to with the Obama-Fox news dynamic. It's something any reasoning person would expect knowing this issue of civil trials for enemy combatants has often attracted controversy. Start talking 9/11, and multiply that controversy by ten. That's just common sense.

However the commentators at least, of Fox News will of course blame Obama for what they see as a mistake (even though Barry tells them it's all Eric Holder's fault), and if something goes wrong Obama will, of course, blame Fox News for noticing it, because you see, if nobody calls attention to it, there never was a problem.

Here's a question for you. If a military tribunal is not called for involving an incident which led, not just to a declaration of war on terror, but war led to directly, or indirectly on two foreign countries by that incident, what would the circumstances be which would call for a military tribunal?

[Gunnair]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I'd agree if this follows the Nuremberg trials but I suspect this will be more like the OJ trials instead.

That's simply a nonsensical assumption designed to make you feel better about removing rights and freedoms.

[commanderkai]

Thanos Thanos:

For anyone interested in the actual facts, here's an article and list of major terrorist figures, both pre- and post-9/11, who were successfully prosecuted and imprisoned to lengthy or life-long terms in US federal prison:

Not all of those individuals received "life-long" terms, as you describe them. Long, sure, but not exactly what you're implying. But that's semantics.

One question, and of course, ignoring your long list of insults for Fox News which seems to make up half your posts. How many of those individuals were detained in Afghanistan without any contact on US soil? I think that's the major distinction between those cases, and now.

Edit: Also, you really shouldn't post from left wing blogs if you want to be critical of right wing news sources. It's rather...partisan? Just because they might act like a legitimate news source doesn't mean they actually are.

[Canadian_Mind]

If found guilty these vermin should be soaked in jet fuel and burned to death in Battery Park. I said before that they should still burn if they were acquitted based on a technicality, but that could cause a shit storm I don't wanna be a part of.

[Public_Domain]

[ridenrain]

Mr. Canada. You just might have more credability if you stopped saying you hate all things American then keep lauding Jon Stewart as your source of news.


Let's re-visit the story:

$1:

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

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

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

One might ask, Who cares what terrorists from hostile nations think.

They are clearly stringing this out so thay can voice public disaproval of US foreign policy. Who stands to benefit here? Can the democrats be so foolish to believe they can cut off their noses to spite their faces?
I guess that's the Chicago way.

[xerxes]

And again the question is to that: so fucking what? Who cares that they'll go on some Quadaffi-esque harangue about the "Great Satan"? It won't be anything anyone has heard before and it certain;y won't do them any favours in the courtroom.

That is, unless, that the rihgt-wing is so afraid of these people (and the term is used loosely) that they have given them potential terroristical abilities beyond their means. "Why, if we let them speak in public, then who knows how many will join their cause?"

[commanderkai]

xerxes xerxes:

And again the question is to that: so fucking what? Who cares that they'll go on some Quadaffi-esque harangue about the "Great Satan"? It won't be anything anyone has heard before and it certain;y won't do them any favours in the courtroom.

That is, unless, that the rihgt-wing is so afraid of these people (and the term is used loosely) that they have given them potential terroristical abilities beyond their means. "Why, if we let them speak in public, then who knows how many will join their cause?"

A few things you keep on forgetting. These people were not arrested in processed in a civilian legal system, but detained by soldiers and put through the military legal and prison system. The judge, reasonably (since he's following the law) will have to toss out a majority of the evidence, and hell possibly even their arrests, because of the lack of due process, assumption of innocence, evidence collection procedures, etc that they "suffered" when they were detained by military officials. Their interrogation evidence will be tossed out because it is ALL tainted by torture, the implied use of torture, or hell, the lack of a lawyer present.

You know what this will do? It'll force the military to treat their detainees as civilian prisoners. Maybe this isn't that bad...until you realize they will have to act like a police, CSU team, and detectives in one of the most dangerous places in the world, something that will put soldiers at unnecessary risk.

After all of that, they're given a big soapbox to spew whatever hatred or condemnation, as well as say how evil those American soldiers were at Gitmo when they drank beer, or ate pork chops for dinner one night, or played with a ball made out of pigskin (do they still make footballs out of that? Hmm...) What will that do here? Absolutely nothing. What will that do in the Middle East? Who knows. You're making this sound like some typical murder case. It's not.

Edit: I'm just curious, for people who understand legalese better than I do, but isn't it true that the state has to turn over any and all evidence it has to the defense before the trial, even if it won't be used in court? Sensitive information or individuals?

[martin14]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Edit: I'm just curious, for people who understand legalese better than I do, but isn't it true that the state has to turn over any and all evidence it has to the defense before the trial, even if it won't be used in court? Sensitive information or individuals?

yes it is.

Lots of evidence wont even get used, the prosecution will speak
about National Security, such as we don't want to broadcast the locations
of the CIA Prisons,

and the defence will howl about this and that and the other,
lots of stuff will come out that didnt need to,
and the whole thing will turn into a circus.


I'll agree with the OJ and Nuremburg statement.

[ridenrain]

" The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "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."

Where are they going to find 12 impartial peers of these fellows in America?

To read what Xerxes, it's clear that since he has no problem with twisting the law, why do we need to have the trial in the first place? This is just a bully pulpit to beat on the previous admin, while completely stripping the inteligence community of any cover.

[xerxes]

Which it has courtesy of a law from 1980:

$1:

the Classified Information Procedures Act, a short and crystal clear 1980 law that not only permits, but requires, federal courts to undertake extreme measures to ensure the concealment of classified information, even including concealment from the defendant himself. Section 3 provides: "Upon motion of the United States, the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States." Section 9 required the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to consult with the Attorney General and Defense Secretary to develop rules to carry out the Act's requirements, and the resulting guidelines provide for draconian measures so extreme that it's hard to believe they can exist in a judicial system that it supposed to be open and transparent.

[N_Fiddledog]

I read somewhere it's going to cost 3 billion dollars to hold that trial in New York. Seems kind of high, so don't quote me. On the other hand I heard an estimate of 75 million for security. That feels low.

Whatever...apparently there's a facility built into Gitmo to hold military tribunals. That's gotta be cheaper. Especially when you consider the American economy is already bleeding dollars.

I've gotta feeling Obama's going to have a lot s'plaining to do, on a lot of levels before this is all over.

[Choban]

A bullet in the head as opposed to arrest would have solved this issue from the start, dead combatants as opposed to live prisoners. The only one they nedd to take to trial in court is Osama

[ridenrain]

Speaks for itself.