They're really going to try this guy in civilian court!

[top gun]

Obama suggests 9/11 suspect will get death penalty

If it's really a fair trial, isn't he presumed innocent? What if he gets off, then what? Rant radio was saying that he wouldn't be let go even if he were acquitted. If they are right, which, of course, rarely happens anyway, then how is this a real trial? If hey are wrong, then is there a possibility that he will be let go?

Isn't a lot of the evidence tainted, probably inadmissible due to "enhanced interrogation"? Was he ever read his rights?

Either it is a fair trial or it isn't. If it isn't, then is it just a show? If it is, and he gets off, then what? Either way, it could be a real circus.

President Obama was simply projecting what he thinks will happen and he's in the best seat in the house to know... he's seen and been briefed fully on EVERYTHING available.

But you do make a good point about a show trial. In a way it is a show trial. Not that the verdict will not be independently ajudacated... it will be. But that we want the world to see American justice at work.

The same whining could have been done about Saddam Hussein could it not? He got a full trial in his country and he was supposedly the mass murderer, state terrorism sponsor that required a frickin full scale invasion.

It's easy to see what's going on here. The Republicants see a coming good thing for the administration... the death penalty handed out to these terrorists. So they know they better make some hay today because when that happens it will all be about how our American system worked beautifully.

Same thing with Health Insurance Reform. Once it's past it's historic legislation by a President that knew how to get things done. So for Republicants their only option is to at least get some air-time now.

America will be at it's best regardless...

 

[PLC1]

I agree there needs to be some sort of trial. That should have already happened.

I was just showing what holder had said. I listen to talk radio and I did not hear them say anything but what I posted to you and that is what holder said.


Personally I think its stupid to say we need to do this so the world can see a fair trial but then turn right around and say they are getting the death penalty and they are guilty and even if they get off we wont let them go. exc.

I think that makes us look worse.

That's exactly the point I wanted to make in the OP.

Either it is a fair trial, or it isn't. If we're going to have a show trial to make the world think our justice system is working, that will make us look worse.

As for Holder's words, how does that make this trial anything but a show trial? If we're not going to let him off even if he's acquitted, then it isn't a real trial, is it?

On the other hand, who wants to take a chance that he will get off?

 

[PLC1]

Individuals matching that description never made it to Gitmo... Unless of course you think our military is completely inept, or simply corrupt.

Gitmo can only hold about 400 people and they had to pass through several layers of screening to get sent to there and, because of the minimal space, the people who sent them had to be able to offer very compelling evidence as to why they should be sent to Gitmo.

Of course, we discussed all of this before, I even gave you detailed stats relating to detainees but you chose to ignore me then and continue to ignore me now.

How do we know that individuals who may not be terrorists didn't make it to Gitmo? Have they already been tried?

The entire conundrum of what to do with detainees goes back to semantics: We can't tor... I mean use "enhanced interrogation" on POW without violating agreements we have made. We can't call the detainees criminals without having a trial. We get around that by giving them a new name. Now, we've got them, they've been held for years without charges, and we have to do something with them, but what?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is what makes me sick these days. The United States is going to bring to justice, convict, and execute the mastermind of 9/11. And somehow our two political parties find a way to argue about it, and thus divide the country over an issue that is so ridiculous it invites the question, "what the hell is wrong with us?"

The obvious......

....The Right has run-outta-Deciders.​

 

[BigRob]

First if somehow he got off, then they have a stack of charged to file against him right after,

Such as? And what of those would carry the death penalty?

2nd, yes some evidence could be not used due to Torture ( thanks again Bush co.) but evidence not gained form that would still be fine ..and we had alot well before we even got him.

Do we have to turn that evidence over to the defense? Of course the answer is yes, which could result in classified materials being leaked, just as they were in 1993.

3. courts ruled a while back that Miranda rights did not in fact have to be read ...so far as I know that last ruling was not overturned...aslo you don't' know that he was not told his rights ( then again under Bush he did not have a right to a lawyer...untill later even...thanks again)

He was Mirandized at GITMO anyway, his comments there can be used.

4. Obama can in fact pre judge...you have as well have you not? Your not on the jury, your not a judge...nor is he. If we did not pre judge then why are you so scared he would get off? because you pre judged his guilt right? of course your correct that he is guilty.

Pre-judging is not a bad thing sometimes, but it seems that the President ought to not make the comment, given that he wants the trial to show how well our justice system works, and in theory we should not be prejudging.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

President Obama was simply projecting what he thinks will happen and he's in the best seat in the house to know... he's seen and been briefed fully on EVERYTHING available.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwww, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean....he's NOT goin'-with-his-GUT??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That's exactly the point I wanted to make in the OP.

Either it is a fair trial, or it isn't. If we're going to have a show trial to make the world think our justice system is working, that will make us look worse.

Gee....it's always gotten "conservatives'" approval, up-until-now!!!!


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The entire conundrum of what to do with detainees goes back to semantics: We can't tor... I mean use "enhanced interrogation" on POW without violating agreements we have made.

....Not-to-mention the fact, COMPETENT, EXPERIENCED people say it doesn't WORK; the perfect-analogy for The Bush Years (in-general).

*

 

[BigRob]

Gee....it's always gotten "conservatives'" approval, up-until-now!!!!


​

Please offer actual evidence that the people you listed did not get a fair trial. You can have a fair trial and be wrongly convicted. Further, doesn't the fact that many of them won on appeal just demonstrate even more that the system was fair?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Please offer actual evidence that the people you listed did not get a fair trial.

Gee.....let me try.......​

"People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty ... I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial." - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Further, doesn't the fact that many of them won on appeal just demonstrate even more that the system was fair?

Ah, yes....after how-many years of confinement?????

​

 

[GenSeneca]

How do we know that individuals who may not be terrorists didn't make it to Gitmo? Have they already been tried?

According to the General's briefing I quoted the last time we had this discussion, Detainees went through no fewer than SIX layers of military bureaucracy before landing in Gitmo. They call the Gitmo detainees "the worst of the worst" because they had been so thoroughly screened that it was determined to be a higher risk to keep them in country (Iraq or Afghanistan), so they were sent to Gitmo.

Need I remind you that the general stated there were roughly 10,000, that's ten thousand, detainees processed every month. Each detainee would be sent before a military commission within 60 days of being incarcerated and only about 10% of those who went before a commission remained in custody until moving onto the next level of screening.

In the two years that general had been in charge of processing detainees, only 89 of those who were caught, processed, and released, returned to the detention centers after having been caught in the act of taking up arms against our soldiers.

At its peak, Gitmo held 650 terror suspect but the average number of detainees at any given time was around 400. Last year, that number had shrunk to just 250. So again, given the volume of detainees that were processed by our military and the limited space available in Gitmo, you would have to think our military was totally inept, or flat out corrupt, to take up valuable Gitmo space with "innocent civilians" who were simply swept up in bounty hunter raids.

We can't tor... I mean use "enhanced interrogation" on POW without violating agreements we have made.

They didn't qualify for POW status under the GC. You know this to be true but you continue to brow beat the fact we didn't give them what they didn't qualify to receive.

We can't call the detainees criminals without having a trial. We get around that by giving them a new name.

They don't get "Trials" because they're not criminals... they took up arms against our military in a foreign country.. they were rightfully declared "enemy combatants". If the GC would have had a designation for the people we determined to be EC's, we would have gladly used the GC term for them rather than having teams of lawyers come up with the term EC.

Now, we've got them, they've been held for years without charges

You're totally hung up on the fact that Gitmo detainees didn't get a "Trial" but they did get appearances before military tribunals and commissions before landing in Gitmo.

we have to do something with them, but what?

The right thing to do, is precisely what we were doing, letting the military handle it. The absolute wrong thing to do was politicizing the issue and granting terror suspects constitutional rights and trials in American civil courts.

One last thing... You said you wanted the Gitmo detainees to have constitutional rights and a fair trial in civilian court but you also said that you didn't want such rights and trials for people like KSM... Why do you think you can demand rights and trials for terror "suspects" in Gitmo then pick and choose which "suspects" actually get to exercise the rights you argued to grant them?

 

[PLC1]

According to the General's briefing I quoted the last time we had this discussion, Detainees went through no fewer than SIX layers of military bureaucracy before landing in Gitmo. They call the Gitmo detainees "the worst of the worst" because they had been so thoroughly screened that it was determined to be a higher risk to keep them in country (Iraq or Afghanistan), so they were sent to Gitmo.

Need I remind you that the general stated there were roughly 10,000, that's ten thousand, detainees processed every month. Each detainee would be sent before a military commission within 60 days of being incarcerated and only about 10% of those who went before a commission remained in custody until moving onto the next level of screening.

In the two years that general had been in charge of processing detainees, only 89 of those who were caught, processed, and released, returned to the detention centers after having been caught in the act of taking up arms against our soldiers.

At its peak, Gitmo held 650 terror suspect but the average number of detainees at any given time was around 400. Last year, that number had shrunk to just 250. So again, given the volume of detainees that were processed by our military and the limited space available in Gitmo, you would have to think our military was totally inept, or flat out corrupt, to take up valuable Gitmo space with "innocent civilians" who were simply swept up in bounty hunter raids.


They didn't qualify for POW status under the GC. You know this to be true but you continue to brow beat the fact we didn't give them what they didn't qualify to receive.


They don't get "Trials" because they're not criminals... they took up arms against our military in a foreign country.. they were rightfully declared "enemy combatants". If the GC would have had a designation for the people we determined to be EC's, we would have gladly used the GC term for them rather than having teams of lawyers come up with the term EC.


You're totally hung up on the fact that Gitmo detainees didn't get a "Trial" but they did get appearances before military tribunals and commissions before landing in Gitmo.


The right thing to do, is precisely what we were doing, letting the military handle it. The absolute wrong thing to do was politicizing the issue and granting terror suspects constitutional rights and trials in American civil courts.

One last thing... You said you wanted the Gitmo detainees to have constitutional rights and a fair trial in civilian court but you also said that you didn't want such rights and trials for people like KSM... Why do you think you can demand rights and trials for terror "suspects" in Gitmo then pick and choose which "suspects" actually get to exercise the rights you argued to grant them?

OK, so if all of the Gitmo detainees are the wost of the worst, what do you think we should do with them?

If they took up arms against the United States and were captured on the battlefield, how is it that they are not POW?

If they are POW, then we keep them until the war is over. If they are criminals, then we give them a trial, either military or civilian. If they're guilty, then they get jail sentences.

But they can't be POW, because then the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used were not legal.

Further, since we're bringing up what has already been posted over and over, we know that there was a lot more to such "enhanced interrogation" than waterboarding a few of the worst terrorists.

Making up new words to describe what would otherwise not be acceptable is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Just to call them all the "worst of the worst" and lock them up indefinitely is contrary to our idea of justice, isn't it?

The bottom line is that there is no good solution to the detainees un Gitmo, nor to the ones held elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"....putting KSM and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but also an opportunity. It's a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel -- that we really do practice what we preach.

Even if a military tribunal would be just as fair -- and a military court might be even more offended than a civilian one by the fact that KSM was subjected to waterboarding -- a trial by men and women in uniform would be seen as an extension of the "war on Islam."

But there's one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we're not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven't changed us or our ideals -- and that they never will.

I say bring it on."

We're America.

We can HANDLE IT!!!!

(You "conservatives" & Chickenhawks can proceed/RUN to the nearest-exit, while everyone-else is left to do the actual-work....as usual.)​

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, so if all of the Gitmo detainees are the wost of the worst, what do you think we should do with them?

Hold them until the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been concluded and then have "trials" to determine whether to keep them locked up or have them executed. In WW2, for those charged with war crimes, we didn't bring them to the US for trials while the war was still being fought, we held them till the end of hostilities and then tried them. That is the legal and traditional precedent for dealing with such individuals.

If they took up arms against the United States and were captured on the battlefield, how is it that they are not POW?

First, you're conflating statements I made in my last post about the 89 people released and recaptured and applying those statements to my statements about Gitmo detainees.

Second, they don't qualify for POW status because:1. they were not in uniform, 2. they were not fighting for a country, 3. they didn't sign, and don't abide by, the GC accords.

If they are POW, then we keep them until the war is over. If they are criminals, then we give them a trial, either military or civilian. If they're guilty, then they get jail sentences.

Or we could have followed the GC convention guidelines and simply executed them... of course then you'd really be wringing your hands.

Further, since we're bringing up what has already been posted over and over, we know that there was a lot more to such "enhanced interrogation" than waterboarding a few of the worst terrorists.

And, like every other time, you have no evidence to support this.

Just to call them all the "worst of the worst" and lock them up indefinitely is contrary to our idea of justice, isn't it?

Giving them Constitutional rights and civilian trials in the US while we are still prosecuting wars in two countries goes against every historical precedent ever set regarding our wartime obligations to seek justice.

The bottom line is that there is no good solution to the detainees un Gitmo, nor to the ones held elsewhere.

There is no perfect solution but your plan of giving them constitutional rights and trials in US civilian courts is, by your own admission, becoming a circus and is a worse solution than holding them till the end of hostilities (which you refer to as "indefinitely").

 

[PLC1]

Hold them until the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been concluded and then have "trials" to determine whether to keep them locked up or have them executed. In WW2, for those charged with war crimes, we didn't bring them to the US for trials while the war was still being fought, we held them till the end of hostilities and then tried them. That is the legal and traditional precedent for dealing with such individuals.

In other words, treat them like POW.

Second, they don't qualify for POW status because:1. they were not in uniform, 2. they were not fighting for a country, 3. they didn't sign, and don't abide by, the GC accords.

Which would make them ordinary criminals, wouldn't it? They weren't part of an army, they weren't fighting for a country, yet they were committing acts of violence. How is that different from anyone else who is not representing an army or a nation, yet is committing acts of violence?

Or we could have followed the GC convention guidelines and executed them... of course then you'd really be wringing your hands.

Before or after a tribunal? If they are POW, then executing them would not have been in accordance with our own agreements. If they aren't, then they are criminals.

And, like every other time, you have no evidence to support this.

Unlike every other time, I'm not going to take the time and effort to post it yet again so it can be ignored yet again.

Giving them Constitutional rights and civilian trials in the US while we are still prosecuting wars in two countries goes against every historical precedent ever set regarding our wartime obligations to seek justice.

Yes, it does. So, is this a war, in which we take prisoners of... well, you know. They were in a war, they are captured, they are prisoners of something. Not of war?

There is no perfect solution but your plan of giving them constitutional rights and trials in US civilian courts is, by your own admission, becoming a circus and is a worse solution than holding them till the end of hostilities (which you refer to as "indefinitely").

which would be tantamount to treating them as POW, except, of course for the "enhanced interrogation".

But, it does seem that this war (It is still a war, or is it?) is going on indefinitely.