9/11 Terrorist Trial - Attacking the Constitution

[Pandora]

They where captured in war, so no they should not have civilan trials!

No they where terrorist, they should not be POW's


Torture is good, we need to do it to protect America....

No you can't what if they bring up the fact they where tortured and they can't use that evidence because evidence under torture is not valid!

We Declare, war , but are fighting no one so no POWs'
Terrorism is a crime....but not one we can't prove in court

we don't want to elevate them in a civilian court...we want to treat them like US Military instead...


to bad the right can't make up there mind, and just hope we can leave them in some magic bubble of no rights , no trials, no evidence needed...

If water boarding is torture and or if torture is good or bad to do isnt the point here, this guy who was a key player in 911 and he cut off danny pearls head. Sending him to New York for trial will just get him off all charges

and terrorists are not pow as far as I know they are two differnt things,

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Franklin Said: Please get a grip. Stop focusing on Bush and Obama and focus on the constitution. These are not U.S. Citizens. They were captured during war. They should be given a fair trial, but it should be a military tribunal.

Well, here is my hang up on this entire issue:...they weren't ALL captured during an act of war...most were turned over as they were caught by BOUNTY HUNTERS FOR CASH and those BOUNTY HUNTERS had their very own Religious AX to grind about the people that they identified as TERRORISTS.

Doesn't that bother/worry/concern you that their 'LABEL' as a terrorist seem highly compromised and questionable...especially give the amount of time that has passed for a speedy trial?

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Well, here is my hang up on this entire issue:...they weren't ALL captured during an act of war...most were turned over as they were caught by BOUNTY HUNTERS FOR CASH and those BOUNTY HUNTERS had their very own Religious AX to grind about the people that they identified as TERRORISTS.

Doesn't that bother/worry/concern you that their 'LABEL' as a terrorist seem highly compromised and questionable...especially give the amount of time that has passed for a speedy trial?

Yes, some of these individuals came into our hands this way. I emphasize some. That is why these individuals should have a trial. We have a burden of proof. It just shouldn't be in a U.S. Criminal court because they don't get the rights of a U.S. citizen or even someone arrested in this country.

Again, my concern is that we will be gutting the U.S. Constitution in order to provide a clear path to convicting these individuals. I can't believe that minorities aren't going crazy over this. They were the one's who fought so hard to get these rights put into the Constitution in the first place, so they wouldn't be taken advantage of by racially prejudiced judges and juries.

 

[top gun]

I'll take the bet...the problem is how will we know who wins? The Patriot Act has already smudged the line. On top of that, the scar created by this won't show up immediately. It will come about over time as the law is challenged over and over again. Prosecutors will test the line until it eventually gets decided by the Supreme Court.

I also don't need someone else's public acknowledgment. I'm just trying to make people aware that there is more at risk than a political jousting match. You guys want to play, "I hate your President more" and Your President is dumber than my President", while a few of us are attempting to point out the dangers of making decisions for political reasons alone.

So you're going to just say it will happen "sometime"... kinda like Armageddon? Pleeeease!

That's because you know it will not happened. You are simply fearmongering.

I'm very clear in saying your pronouncement is total BS. The trials of these terrorists will not cause Miranda to be thrown out for people arrested IN AMERICA. These terrorist will be seen as picked up in a foreign country as enemy combatants, treated militarily, and later on given counsel so that a civilian trial could go forward.

I'll be here when the trial is complete. We will see if you will live up to your end of an agreement.

 

[BigRob]

So you're going to just say it will happen "sometime"... kinda like Armageddon? Pleeeease!

That's because you know it will not happened. You are simply fearmongering.

I'm very clear in saying your pronouncement is total BS. The trials of these terrorists will not cause Miranda to be thrown out for people arrested IN AMERICA. These terrorist will be seen as picked up in a foreign country as enemy combatants, treated militarily, and later on given counsel so that a civilian trial could go forward.

I'll be here when the trial is complete. We will see if you will live up to your end of an agreement.

In 1993 the trial still presented problems.

For example, the government had to turn over a list of all unindicted co-conspirators to the defendants. This list included OBL, and it took a mere ten days to find its way to the Middle East, tipping off everyone else who was involved.

Additionally, during the testimony, it came out that the US government had managed to track these people through their cell phones, which were then immediately shut off, causing the US to lose untold amounts of intel.

It is not so black and white. Painting it as a "victory" for the rule of law is simplistic, just as declaring that there can be no trial is simplistic.

However, the worst possible solution is blindly running towards a trial without addressing the obvious concerns of turning over classified evidence to the defense.. especially should KSM fire his council and demand to represent himself...

 

[TheFranklinParty]

So you're going to just say it will happen "sometime"... kinda like Armageddon? Pleeeease!

That's because you know it will not happened. You are simply fearmongering.

I'm very clear in saying your pronouncement is total BS. The trials of these terrorists will not cause Miranda to be thrown out for people arrested IN AMERICA. These terrorist will be seen as picked up in a foreign country as enemy combatants, treated militarily, and later on given counsel so that a civilian trial could go forward.

I'll be here when the trial is complete. We will see if you will live up to your end of an agreement.

I'm glad you are clear on your pronouncement. You have the right to your opinion. I disagree with it, but you have the right to it. Cool how the Constitution works.

I will call you out on the fact that you are quick to suggest I'm spreading fear, but you're too busy preaching and slinging mud to look at the risks. You don't back your claims with facts. My fear comes from the the ability of the courts to set precedent with one case that changes the way rulings happen for decades. If you don't believe me just examine the Federal Court cases that all but took every right away from the emancipated slaves after the civil war. This led to the horrible treatment of the black community for over 5 decades. This could have been avoided, in part, by not allowing the courts to ignore the laws that were put in place.

I have been the first one to suggest the right wing is way too dramatic about most of the issues we are dealing with. I'm not a conspiracist and I don't believe there is a master plan. Mostly, because I don't think any of them are smart enough, so please address me without the bravado, it's wasted on me.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

In 1993 the trial still presented problems.

For example, the government had to turn over a list of all unindicted co-conspirators to the defendants. This list included OBL, and it took a mere ten days to find its way to the Middle East, tipping off everyone else who was involved.

Additionally, during the testimony, it came out that the US government had managed to track these people through their cell phones, which were then immediately shut off, causing the US to lose untold amounts of intel.

It is not so black and white. Painting it as a "victory" for the rule of law is simplistic, just as declaring that there can be no trial is simplistic.

However, the worst possible solution is blindly running towards a trial without addressing the obvious concerns of turning over classified evidence to the defense.. especially should KSM fire his council and demand to represent himself...

All good points!