DC trial eyed for Gitmo terror suspect

[snookums1]

Buried in the internals of the new Marist poll of New York City residents is a striking finding: Opposition to trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a New York court is almost entirely driven by old, white, and Republican voters.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/poll-in-new-york-opposition-to-terror-trial-is-old-white-and-republican/

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Buried in the internals of the new Marist poll of New York City residents is a striking finding: Opposition to trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a New York court is almost entirely driven by old, white, and Republican voters.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/poll-in-new-york-opposition-to-terror-trial-is-old-white-and-republican/

LOL


Yet they and YOU LEAVE out the national poll ( from the SAME LINK and article) which says:


Opposition To Terror Trial Strong Among Dems, Independents, Young

Below we wondered whether opposition to trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York is primarily driven by opposition among older and Republican voters. That seems to be the case among New Yorkers. What about nationally?

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/opposition-to-terror-trial-strong-among-dems-independents-young/

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

And...

Washington (CNN) – Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16/cnn-poll-americans-want-ksm-tried-in-military-court/

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

So everyone else Dems, Indy's and young wanted the trial to be in their own home town, not in NYC?

Uh no, read the srticle EVERYONE to include DEMS, LIBS, YOUNG OLD, REPUB, Indy's, every age and race do not want this trial in NY.

They all, everyone want a military trial.


Turns out it isn’t. In fact, opposition is strong across party and age lines.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/opposition-to-terror-trial-strong-among-dems-independents-young/

[Not Telling]

And...



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16/cnn-poll-americans-want-ksm-tried-in-military-court/

The US has successfully convicted 195 terrorists in civilian courts and only 3 in the military tribunals... I thought as a nation we vowed to bring the terrorists to justice? Letting them sit in Gitmo indefinitely is not bringing them to justice, it just gives the impression that we are afraid to bring them to justice... jmo

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

And the article in the OP tries to claim it is only an "old white thing"... as addressed by the second article in the SAME LINK.


Nationally, opposition is strikingly uniform across the board. Which underscores again how politically difficult the route the Obama administration chose really is.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/opposition-to-terror-trial-strong-among-dems-independents-young/

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

The US has successfully convicted 195 terrorists in civilian courts and only 3 in the military tribunals... I thought as a nation we vowed to bring the terrorists to justice? Letting them sit in Gitmo indefinitely is not bringing them to justice, it just gives the impression that we are afraid to bring them to justice... jmo

Tell it to the nation as the NATION agrees that this should be in a military court not just "old white repubs" as the OPs link tries to infer.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/opposition-to-terror-trial-strong-among-dems-independents-young/

[Brat2002]

Tell it to the nation as the NATION agrees that this should be in a military court not just "old white repubs" as the OPs link tries to infer.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/opposition-to-terror-trial-strong-among-dems-independents-young/

From what I can see, the majority of people of all races, age and parties believe it should be a military trial. The title of the article and thread is grossly misleading. While the article was honest about the objections actually being across the board, they may be hoping that a lot of folks simply rely on headlines for their education on current events. What a cheap trick!

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

From what I can see, the majority of people of all races, age and parties believe it should be a military trial. The title of the article and thread is grossly misleading. While the article was honest about the objections actually being across the board, they may be hoping that a lot of folks simply rely on headlines for their education on current events. What a cheap trick!

Quite, I see a lot of "cheap tricks" with headlines of late. Seems the someone or some party is worried.

Many seem to forget this was a crime against America not just New York. It was a crime against US as a nation, not just NY. Look at the death rate Pennsylvania and New Jersey from the destruction of the Towers. Look at the Pentagon and a field on PA. This was a crime against America and American’s of all political affiliations, ages, and color do NOT want this trial to be a public trial giving these terrorists the same rights as we enjoy but a Military trial.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Yes. He was for it before he was against it. Hmmmm! His view is bipartisan, not what is right.

The majority of the county is AGAINST it are they all "wrong"?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Well, it is getting to be pretty apparent that most of this is just partisan oriented and you always have to look at the source. Even when it is a poll, these sites will put a twisted spin on it.

Many people just can't see the sense in turning 9/11 into a circus just so the left wing can relish Bush being excoriated in the media everyday. I heard someone say that even if these people would be found innocent, they would never be released and that tells you what the motive is in publicly airing these trials.

And *that* is scary IMO. To allow a sham of a trial to prove a point in showing what Bush did wrong then NOT following the laws of our country ( releasing an "innocent" person) is just as bad as what Bush is accused of.

[snookums1]

When did the people of this country become a bunch of cowards? Other countries capture and try terrorists in courthouses in their cities. I could list them. Spain and England for train bombings. One trial was in Madrid, the other London. Indonesia-nightclub bombing in Bali. There are a couple others. But then those people all have courage and rules of law, something this country used to have. Well, guess what. The only success story the terrorists can point to is the victory in this country. They have many of the people in this country quaking in their shoes and hiding under their beds.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

When did the people of this country become a bunch of cowards? Other countries capture and try terrorists in courthouses in their cities. I could list them. Spain and England for train bombings. One trial was in Madrid, the other London. Indonesia-nightclub bombing in Bali. There are a couple others. But then those people all have courage and rules of law, something this country used to have. Well, guess what. The only success story the terrorists can point to is the victory in this country. They have many of the people in this country quaking in their shoes and hiding under their beds.

Sounds like you need to step away from the extreme leftist sites and do a reality check.

Cowards because people want a military tribunal for terrorists who colluded to commit an act of war against the US? Cowards because they do not want the same rights afforded to these terrorists?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

:no: A reality check would be YOU respecting a grandmother of children and grandchildren serving in the military.

What part of IF all or even many of the detainees had been terrorists, perhaps tribunals could have been a possibility did you miss?

O O :ohmy: Cowards??????? For respecting the rule of law? Come again, who needs a reality check?

I never called anyone coward, snookums1 did. I asked why she would do such, so take your faux outrage back to post 19 (of this thread) were snookums1 calls every US citizen who favors a military tribunal a coward--

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Let me ask those who favor a civilian trial a question. Do you think every terrorist, suspect, detainee, and prisoner in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo should be given access to the US Justice system and should we as tax payers should foot their legal bills?

If Joe-Bob Extremist Muslim blew up 3 Marines, and we catch him in Afghanistan....should we ship over a few US Judges to preside over their trial? Give them a few appeals?

Are you going to pay for it? Do we have trials for every person involved ver the last 8 years a civilian trial?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

You're talking about far left sites that are willing to put everyone, including the troops, in danger just to make an obscure political point. Just remember their inane rhetoric over the eight years of the Bush administration.

And it is totally sickening IMO. They would rather weaken this county in castigating Bush and make us into a larger target than to prosecute terrorism. I can’t imagine what will happen to our troops. How many will be beheaded in retribution – how many families will be forced to watch as they had to Paul Berg being beheaded just to be happy that the Abu Graub photos were released to the public. I see them wringing their hands in anticipation of “getting Bush” without thinking of the bigger picture. Beyond sick.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

That has always been the actions of the far left and yet they turn a blind eye when it is a Democrat doing it. To be fair, it is the same with the far right.

This should be quite the media feeding frenzy and for absolutely no real purpose.

ITA 100 percent.

I do not know what other than "getting Bush" this will accomplish. It has been said that even if found "innocent' they would never be released. There is no fairness in this trial or any freedoms for terrorists-- it is a dog and pony show for those who hate Bush to the core.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Reading 101, snookums1, posted no such thing. Please quote the post, if you cannot paraphrase with a modicum of honesty.

That is an honest question, imo, particularly in view of some of the cowardice shown as to how we should disentangle ourselves from the Bush2 catch of the day.

Well when you take the entire quote awat it takes away from the meaning. This thread is about not wanting the 9-11 trials in NY and in response snookems said:

When did the people of this country become a bunch of cowards? Other countries capture and try terrorists in courthouses in their cities. I could list them. Spain and England for train bombings. One trial was in Madrid, the other London. Indonesia-nightclub bombing in Bali. There are a couple others. But then those people all have courage and rules of law, something this country used to have. Well, guess what. The only success story the terrorists can point to is the victory in this country. They have many of the people in this country quaking in their shoes and hiding under their beds.

No matter HOW you slice it that is saying those who do not want the trial there are "cowards" and those who do not "lack courage" or are fearful. Nothing to do with fear for many. For many it is about them having the same rights we are afforded and them being able to use our system to their advantage NOTHING about cowardice and courage!

Stop pigeonholing everyone.

[snookums1]

All I can say is look at the numbers. Look who is afraid of a trial in New York and who is not afraid. Those afraid and against it are for the most part over 50, white and Republican. You cannot deny the figures. Of course that only applies to me in one catagory. I am white and over 60, but I want this to be ended and I sure as heck am not going to quake in fear because a terrorist is on our soil going to court. Heck, I have faced a lot worse in my lifetime and survived.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

All I can say is look at the numbers. Look who is afraid of a trial in New York and who is not afraid. Those afraid and against it are for the most part over 50, white and Republican. You cannot deny the figures. Of course that only applies to me in one catagory. I am white and over 60, but I want this to be ended and I sure as heck am not going to quake in fear because a terrorist is on our soil going to court. Heck, I have faced a lot worse in my lifetime and survived.

Since when does "Opposition" equal "fear or afraid"? :huh: You have totally SKEWED the poll.

Here it is-- no where is fear mentioned! It is asked if it is a good idea or a bad idea. No one asked if anyone was fearful at all.

The poll question you posted:


Five alleged 9/11 attackers of the World Trade Center will be tried in federal court. Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea to have this trial located in New York City?

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/poll-in-new-york-opposition-to-terror-trial-is-old-white-and-republican/

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

:lol: Yeah some "pigeon hole," when a bird builds its own nest, then flies into it.

:bored: Someone else care to continue parsing for the functionally illiterate? tia

Now, about that crazy little Due Process thing; it could have been UCMJ or Geneva Convention. OOPSY Doing an end round of all laws, Bush2 left a full net and no place to dump it. Broken laws stink more than fish, after 8 years.

Perhaps you need to read the question again as well? Show me where it says anything about "fear". TIA

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/nycpolls/c091116/Terror%20Trial%20in%20NYC_Good%20or%20Bad%20Idea.h tm

Again stop with the pigeonholing!

[Not Telling]

ITA 100 percent.

I do not know what other than "getting Bush" this will accomplish. It has been said that even if found "innocent' they would never be released. There is no fairness in this trial or any freedoms for terrorists-- it is a dog and pony show for those who hate Bush to the core.

Can you please explain exactly how these trials will be "getting Bush"....???

[crocdog1]

The US has successfully convicted 195 terrorists in civilian courts and only 3 in the military tribunals... I thought as a nation we vowed to bring the terrorists to justice? Letting them sit in Gitmo indefinitely is not bringing them to justice, it just gives the impression that we are afraid to bring them to justice... jmo


Will someone please tell me why we have not these TERRORISTS in a Military or Civilian tribunal court before 2009?

This is America folks. Have we lost all of our sense of our Bill of Rights and of our Constitution?

What is it with these Republicans?

Bill O'Reilly says he doesn't care about the Constitution. IMO, Dick Cheney doesn't either.

I thought the Republicans were the true Patriotic Americans.

Just wondering..........


Just My Humble Opinion

[ninetoes]

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The first detainee transferred from Guantanamo Bay to face charges in a U.S. civilian court will not be represented by military lawyers as he had requested, a U.S. judge in New York ruled on Wednesday"

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AH4HO20091118

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Can you please explain exactly how these trials will be "getting Bush"....???

As I said in the post you quoted, if it is true that even if found NOT GUILTY that these "terrorists' will never be released. It is a mockery of our justice system. And therefore a trial was not needed to being with if that is the case. It won't be trying them but Bush, the CIA. Cheney, etc.

[snookums1]

Attorney General tells senators 'We need not cower in the face of this enemy'

Holder vowed that the U.S. would not surrender to fear or politics in seeking justice against the alleged Sept. 11 plotters in federal court.

“We need not cower in the face of this enemy,” Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee at a packed hearing. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/68345-holder-we-need-not-cower-in-the-face-of-this-enemy

[Brat2002]

Will someone please tell me why we have not these TERRORISTS in a Military or Civilian tribunal court before 2009?

This is America folks. Have we lost all of our sense of our Bill of Rights and of our Constitution?

What is it with these Republicans?

Bill O'Reilly says he doesn't care about the Constitution. IMO, Dick Cheney doesn't either.

I thought the Republicans were the true Patriotic Americans.

Just wondering..........


Just My Humble Opinion

Had it not been for liberal lawyers donating their time since 2001 and delaying the military trials in an effort to have the terrorists tried in civilian courts, it likely would have been over a long time ago. Law firms, including Holder's, have donated thousands of hours to assisting the terrorists.

[Roux]

I watched almost all of the hearing today and Atty General Holder has me confused. He indicated that Miranda rights may or may not be read to enemy combatants. It seems to be situational according to him.

Having watched many civilian criminal trials, I am very concerned about wily, foxy defense attorneys. I'll wager there will be numerous delays, motions, appeals, etc.

All politics aside, IMO Lindsey Graham made the best argument for military tribunals over trials in federal court.

[ninetoes]

I watched almost all of the hearing today and Atty General Holder has me confused. He indicated that Miranda rights may or may not be read to enemy combatants. It seems to be situational according to him.

Having watched many civilian criminal trials, I am very concerned about wily, foxy defense attorneys. I'll wager there will be numerous delays, motions, appeals, etc.

All politics aside, IMO Lindsey Graham made the best argument for military tribunals over trials in federal court.

You have legitimate concerns in my opinion. I mentioned before the whole miranda issue, and feel it will be used to keep massive amounts out of trial. Not to mention change of venue motions, having to have lawyers who hold top secret clearances so they may view all of the evidence, how they (either side) can present secret documents/information to a jury compromised of "everyday citizens" also has me baffled. Will the jury have to be investigated and granted security clearances before the trial can commence? Lets face it, these folk wont get a "jury of their peers", no matter who sits on that jury.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Quote *SNIPPED*







Gee, we seem to have been able to convict other terrorists without any problem at all. So why should we be so afraid now?



Quote *SNIPPED*

There you go again with the fear. You refuse to accept the fact that many reason have nothing to do with fear, But you go ahead and keep making up YOUR facts.

[Roux]

You have legitimate concerns in my opinion. I mentioned before the whole miranda issue, and feel it will be used to keep massive amounts out of trial. Not to mention change of venue motions, having to have lawyers who hold top secret clearances so they may view all of the evidence, how they (either side) can present secret documents/information to a jury compromised of "everyday citizens" also has me baffled. Will the jury have to be investigated and granted security clearances before the trial can commence? Lets face it, these folk wont get a "jury of their peers", no matter who sits on that jury.

I have real concerns about the jury as well. If John Gotti Sr. was able to get to a juror, you know darned good and well that they can get to a juror -- through either $$ or threats.

[Pat]

Attorney General tells senators 'We need not cower in the face of this enemy'

Holder vowed that the U.S. would not surrender to fear or politics in seeking justice against the alleged Sept. 11 plotters in federal court.

“We need not cower in the face of this enemy,” Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee at a packed hearing. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/68345-holder-we-need-not-cower-in-the-face-of-this-enemy

17 members of Holder's law practice are defense attorneys for some of these terrorists. The issue of conflict-of-interest in making this decision is going to come up.

The places to go to find intelligent discussion, based on the law rather than political jockeying regarding the implications of a military trial vs a civil trial, along with discussion of the impact the public statements by Holder and the President (and other officials) regarding convictions, is on professional law boards (not general crime boards) where opinions are backed up by citing case law, legal statutes, and politics are left completely out of the discussion.

Unlike some posts I've been reading here, the discussions are based on interpretation of law rather than emotion or politics, and participants can respectfully disagree with each other. Which, of course, can make for dull and boring reading. But you learn a lot.

Regardless of how anyone feels about when, where and how this trial is conducted, there are any number of groups with a vested interested, not in justice but in scoring points, and will use this trial to further their own agendas. There will be no "speedy trial" and the last estimate I saw for a starting trial date was about 4 years out. At the earliest.

IMO, 9-11 was an unprovoked terrorist act, perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, a government in Afghanistan, who at the time didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. They committed terrorist acts instead of declaring war, so IMO the rules of the Geneva Convention don't apply to those who are terrorist combatants. Again, IMO a military tribunal is the proper place to try these terrorists, not a civilian court in New York City. Who get the next bite at the apple? Virginia (the site of the Pentagon attack, also where the plane was hijacked)?

Crimes were committed in three states. Does that mean if Terrorist #1 gets a "Not Guilty" conviction, the government will insure there is a trial in VA and then Penn? After all, both the President and Holder have pretty much assured the people of NYC and country these people will be rightfully convicted. But what if that doesn't happen? What happens to the presumption of "innocent until proved guilty" when you have Holder and the President practically guaranteeing a convictions before a single trial has been held?

There are a lot of generally unanticipated consequences that merit their own discussions, and the professional boards are the place to read them. That way one can be assured that quotes won't be snipped to distort the original meaning and posts containing sources won't be clipped in order to leave out important information so it supports a particular poster's opinion.

IMO

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I do believe CW has said time and time again that blogs are nothing, but more opinions and are not a source of fact. Do you have something a little more credible?

Here you go again. :rolleyes:

You do realize that the OP's link is a BLOG?

The Plum Line Greg Sargent's blog

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/




The link I provided to CNN, also included a link the full poll conducted by CNN:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/16/rel17b.pdf


If that is not enough for you and if you don't care to read it and bait some more, I do not know what to tell you. :wink:

[Details]

We have 3 independent branches. The President does not control the judicial branch, and has no input on KSM's verdict nor sentence. Thus, he can say whatever he likes. This is not a military case, this is a civil case, so he's not limited in his statements.

[LisaM22]

... and when the death penalty is applied to him." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/18/obama_expresses_confidence_ksm_will_be_convicted_s ays_he_isnt_prejudging_verdict.html) Despite claims of not prejudging KSM the video doesn't lie. Not that I care but how can the world believe KSM will get a fair trial, Obama, the president, has already stated not only the verdict but sentence.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw this on tv, but to be fair it doesn't matter where he is tried, same result, just like sadam, the results are already in, it's just red tape at this point

[ninetoes]

I was thinking the same thing when I saw this on tv, but to be fair it doesn't matter where he is tried, same result, just like sadam, the results are already in, it's just red tape at this point

Doesnt sound like he will get a fair trial, if his guilt has already been decided, IMO.

[LisaM22]

Doesnt sound like he will get a fair trial, if his guilt has already been decided, IMO.

I do not see how he could... anywhere

[Brat2002]

I do not see how he could... anywhere

With each passing day, the chances of a fair trial diminish as this circus grows bigger. If the lawyers had not prevented a military trial from happening years ago, it wouldn't have been the huge controversy it is now and the defendants would have gotten not only a fair trial, but certainly a more speedy one.

Now we will watch as the lawyers and the prosecutor fight over choosing the best jurors. A true "peer" of any of these men must hate America. Obviously, 12 peers of the terrorists will not bring justice for the victims and their families, yet we have to be fair to these men as our system guarantees for citizens (and the rest of the world, apparently). Who out there does not hate nor sympathize with America, especially the victims of 9/11? Do such people exist that can be found in time for the trial?

IMHO

[Lady_Jean_La]

I do not see how he could... anywhere

Wouldn't a military tribunal be fair?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Wouldn't a military tribunal be fair?

It would be a "lot more fair" IMO than the circus that is taking place now, Can you imagine the president of the US declaring Shaniya Davis' mother guilty and proclaiming that she will be executed? The entire case would need to be moved to another country to be fair IMO. Echoes of Nixon declaring Manson guilty.

In our court of law if he is to be tried as a civilian as is being pushed for he has rights, and two of those is a jury of his peers and Miranda rights-- both of which he WILL NOT and DID NOT GET.

How can this trial be fair on a civilian level?

Everyone keep saying that Obama "learned" from the Crowley case in opening his mouth in these matter-- it is quite obvious he did not.

[LisaM22]

With each passing day, the chances of a fair trial diminish as this circus grows bigger. If the lawyers had not prevented a military trial from happening years ago, it wouldn't have been the huge controversy it is now and the defendants would have gotten not only a fair trial, but certainly a more speedy one.

Now we will watch as the lawyers and the prosecutor fight over choosing the best jurors. A true "peer" of any of these men must hate America. Obviously, 12 peers of the terrorists will not bring justice for the victims and their families, yet we have to be fair to these men as our system guarantees for citizens (and the rest of the world, apparently). Who out there does not hate nor sympathize with America, especially the victims of 9/11? Do such people exist that can be found in time for the trial?

IMHO

you think a military trial would be any fairer? give me a break

[LisaM22]

Wouldn't a military tribunal be fair?

I do not think any trial could be fair to be honest, do you think sadam got a fair trial? is it even possible? it would really require a neutral 3rd party in this case another country that was neutral doing the trial imo

I think a trial is just a chance to show the evidence against him to the world before he is found guilty and sentenced

[ninetoes]

Wouldn't a military tribunal be fair?

I think a military tribunal would be the best and least political way to go, but the decision has been made, and the maker of that decision will have to carry the burden if it fails, as well as get the praise if it succeeds. Either way, I think I read we are at least 4 years away from a trial, so lots of time to banter the issue back and forth.

[crocdog1]

Doesnt sound like he will get a fair trial, if his guilt has already been decided, IMO.

Obama has the same right to give his opinion as you and me and all other Americans.

If he were in the Jury pool, he would be eliminated from the jury just like any other American who has prejudged this Terrorist. BTW, I would be eliminated just as anyone else who feels the man is guilty and deserves to be put to death.

It will not interfere with the trial as you can tell by this board, there are those who have different opinions than that of Obama.

Obama believes in the DP for this man. So do I. However, there are many on this board who believe otherwise.

So all we are looking at is one man's opinion--nothing more, nothing less.
It is not going to carry any more weight toward the outcome than anyone else's opinion.

Just my Opinion on this matter.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Obama has the same right to give his opinion as you and me and all other Americans.

If he were in the Jury pool, he would be eliminated from the jury just like any other American who has prejudged this Terrorist. BTW, I would be eliminated just as anyone else who feels the man is guilty and deserves to be put to death.

It will not interfere with the trial as you can tell by this board, there are those who have different opinions than that of Obama.

Obama believes in the DP for this man. So do I. However, there are many on this board who believe otherwise.

So all we are looking at is one man's opinion--nothing more, nothing less.
It is not going to carry any more weight toward the outcome than anyone else's opinion.

Just my Opinion on this matter.

And you do not think that as the CIC as the President of the United States his "opinion" would not sway other jurors? His opinion that KSM will be EXECUTED and will be found GUILTY--You do not think that this would taint a large amount of the jury pool? If course it would! People look to their president as being knowledgeable of a case of this sort and would take his lead

[ninetoes]

Obama has the same right to give his opinion as you and me and all other Americans.

If he were in the Jury pool, he would be eliminated from the jury just like any other American who has prejudged this Terrorist. BTW, I would be eliminated just as anyone else who feels the man is guilty and deserves to be put to death.

It will not interfere with the trial as you can tell by this board, there are those who have different opinions than that of Obama.

Obama believes in the DP for this man. So do I. However, there are many on this board who believe otherwise.

So all we are looking at is one man's opinion--nothing more, nothing less.
It is not going to carry any more weight toward the outcome than anyone else's opinion.

Just my Opinion on this matter.

Well, first off I wasnt speaking of what Obama thought. I was speaking of the poster who said he couldnt get a fair trial anywhere.

Second off, I happen to agree, an impartial jury will be impossible to find, meaning a trial will be impossible to have, unless, of course, people lie to get on the jury.

[LisaM22]

Well, first off I wasnt speaking of what Obama thought. I was speaking of the poster who said he couldnt get a fair trial anywhere.

Second off, I happen to agree, an impartial jury will be impossible to find, meaning a trial will be impossible to have, unless, of course, people lie to get on the jury.

can't be any different then someone like couey getting a fair trial, we all knew he was guilty before he even set foot in court, I can't imagine anyone not hearing of that case... I do not know how to honesly handle those cases, you can't just let them go, so we just ignore the fact it isn't really a fair trial in the literal sense and let what happens happen as we know the outcome will be justice served

[ninetoes]

can't be any different then someone like couey getting a fair trial, we all knew he was guilty before he even set foot in court, I can't imagine anyone not hearing of that case... I do not know how to honesly handle those cases, you can't just let them go, so we just ignore the fact it isn't really a fair trial in the literal sense and let what happens happen as we know the outcome will be justice served

I disagree. I think there were many who never heard of Couey. It wasnt national news. cable viewers knew all the details from day one, others probably still dont know who couey is.

[Mahalo]

... and when the death penalty is applied to him." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/18/obama_expresses_confidence_ksm_will_be_convicted_s ays_he_isnt_prejudging_verdict.html) Despite claims of not prejudging KSM the video doesn't lie. Not that I care but how can the world believe KSM will get a fair trial, Obama, the president, has already stated not only the verdict but sentence.

Clear case of 'I hate the President'. No matter what he said, or did, you'd attack. shameful....And ya wonder, why did we lose the elections?

[Not Telling]

With each passing day, the chances of a fair trial diminish as this circus grows bigger. If the lawyers had not prevented a military trial from happening years ago, it wouldn't have been the huge controversy it is now and the defendants would have gotten not only a fair trial, but certainly a more speedy one.

Now we will watch as the lawyers and the prosecutor fight over choosing the best jurors. A true "peer" of any of these men must hate America. Obviously, 12 peers of the terrorists will not bring justice for the victims and their families, yet we have to be fair to these men as our system guarantees for citizens (and the rest of the world, apparently). Who out there does not hate nor sympathize with America, especially the victims of 9/11? Do such people exist that can be found in time for the trial?

IMHO

What an absolute ridiculous crock of *&$%...!! Do you have to hate children to be able to convict a child killer?

To be considered a person's "peer"....does not mean you must share the same ideas, beliefs, feelings, morals or values.... In fact, juries are to be impartial, not favoring one side or the other... They must evaluate the evidence that is presented and render an impartial finding of fact based on that evidence... Whether you sympathize with America or hate it, religious beliefs, personal beliefs, gender, age, sexuality, education, financial status, social standing, etc....must not be taken into consideration when evaluating evidence and determining facts...Otherwise, only murderers could sit on juries for murder cases, only drug addicts or dealers could sit on juries for drug cases, only child molesters could sit on juries for molestation cases, etc.... jmo

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I often think the way you do too, Lisa. You pointed to a perfect example. Everyone KNEW that couey was guilty. I don't even know how any juror could be impartial in that case, as they are supposed to be. American "justice" being what it is, however, demands that everyone get a "fair" trial, by a jury of their peers. I wonder where they are going to find "peers" for KSM ??

jmo


Hi Lady! Good to see you. However I disagree with you.


"Knowing" Couey is guilty is far from having the President declaring such and tainting the jury pool. Again most would feel that as our CIC, Obama would know and be aware of such things ( he may even have 'inside information" in some minds) --which would and will sway jurors opinions.

.

[ninetoes]

Hi Lady! Good to see you. However I disagree with you.


"Knowing" Couey is guilty is far from having the President declaring such and tainting the jury pool. Again most would feel that as our CIC, Obama would know and be aware of such things ( he may even have 'inside information" in some minds) --which would and will sway jurors opinions.

.

I would disagree also. I have no doubt I could walk down the street and find several dozen people who would not know who John Couey is. I also have no doubt I could walk down the street and not find a single person who would say they have an ounce of doubt about the guilt of these terrorist.

[Not Telling]

Hi Not Telling. Actually, when you're talking about a jury of your "peers" .... according to Webster, you're talking about a jury consisting of "people of equal status". Obviously juries are NOT of equal status as the murderer on trial, or the drug dealer, or child molester. I wonder where they're going to find jurors "of equal status" as KSM ??

jmo

According to Law. com....

The term "impartial jury" in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the pool of jurors must include all races, ethnic groups and women as well as men in percentages relative to the general population.

The term "jury of one's peers" is a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

[LisaM22]

Hi Lady! Good to see you. However I disagree with you.


"Knowing" Couey is guilty is far from having the President declaring such and tainting the jury pool. Again most would feel that as our CIC, Obama would know and be aware of such things ( he may even have 'inside information" in some minds) --which would and will sway jurors opinions.

.

I agree Obama should not of commented on the case.. especially not the outcome... no doubt about that - but I think Fairlady was responding to my post, not commenting on what Obama said

[fiver]

Obama has the same right to give his opinion as you and me and all other Americans.

If he were in the Jury pool, he would be eliminated from the jury just like any other American who has prejudged this Terrorist. BTW, I would be eliminated just as anyone else who feels the man is guilty and deserves to be put to death.

It will not interfere with the trial as you can tell by this board, there are those who have different opinions than that of Obama.

Obama believes in the DP for this man. So do I. However, there are many on this board who believe otherwise.

So all we are looking at is one man's opinion--nothing more, nothing less.
It is not going to carry any more weight toward the outcome than anyone else's opinion.

Just my Opinion on this matter.
He does? You mean like Nixon did in the midst of the Mason trial?

You don't find it a tad bit off for a President who keeps going on about due process has declared someone GUILTY of a crime and even followed that up with the declaration that even if acquited, KSM will be detained forever.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Pentagon held in contempt for failing to tape Guantanamo detainee's testimony

Washington (CNN) -- A federal court has held the Defense Department in contempt after officials at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, failed to videotape the testimony of a Yemeni detainee as ordered.


Defense Department in contempt


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/10/gitmo.contempt/index.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/us/11brfs-DEFENSEDEPAR_BRF.html

If this had been during the Bush admin everyone would be screaming torture or his admin was hiding something in having something to do with not taping the interview as ordered by the judge.

So why did Obama's defense department not follow the judges orders? :glare:

[watcher2005]

War is peace.

[CANDYKISSES]

Oh, I am so shocked - NOT. This is just par for the course and it certainly does not bode well for the administration given the President is now entertaining a favorable rating of 47% IMO. :thumbdown:

[daniel green]

Pentagon held in contempt for failing to tape Guantanamo detainee's testimony




Defense Department in contempt


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/10/gitmo.contempt/index.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/us/11brfs-DEFENSEDEPAR_BRF.html

If this had been during the Bush admin everyone would be screaming torture or his admin was hiding something in having something to do with not taping the interview as ordered by the judge.

So why did Obama's defense department not follow the judges orders? :glare:

Am I missing something? Didn't this happen in 2005? What am I missing? :confused:

[daniel green]

Ah, got it, the appeals hearing heard this June were not videotaped.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Ah, got it, the appeals hearing heard this June were not videotaped.

Yup, so where is the outrage?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Not missing ANYTHING.... BUSH ADMINISTRATION, someone here wants to pin this on Obama!!!! What else is new?

You need to read the article this just happened this past JUNE UNDER OBAMA.

Obama's defense department did not follow the judges orders.

Even Daniel admits her mistake in post 5 of THIS thread.

Ah, got it, the appeals hearing heard this June were not videotaped. '

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13707788&postcount=5


But hey, if it makes you feel better make up facts.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Let me get this straight, you don't mind torture under Bush, think it is OKAY with you, but if a hearing isn't videotaped, you're gonna blame who? Obama didn't decide not to videotape a hearing, what a a crime Obama didn't have anything to do with! Despicable!


Tell me why they did not tape this testimony?. Why do you think the judge ordered it taped?

Nope this is under Obama’s umbrella. Every errant bombing and civilian causality was pinned on Bush. Obama owns this war now escalating it and not ending it. In one month (May of this year) the war was responsible for

140 civilians, including about 95 children and teenagers, were killed this month in what may be the deadliest such incident since the 2001 invasion that drove the Taliban from government.

Air strike kills civilians in Afghanistan

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gGyoZaSxS31JT_rXTy9wkPLxikJQ

[ninetoes]

"The criminal case against the first Guantanamo detainee standing trial in a US civilian court should be thrown out because he was denied the right to a speedy trial, defence lawyers have argued."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/20101121515870754.html

[Dadof6Dopes]

"The criminal case against the first Guantanamo detainee standing trial in a US civilian court should be thrown out because he was denied the right to a speedy trial, defence lawyers have argued."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/20101121515870754.html:shrug: At a minimum, we could discuss how many of the detainees arrived at GITMO.

However, I challenge anyone to expalin how the US system of Justice was supendend and how that served the US.

[MercedesV]

:shrug: At a minimum, we could discuss how many of the detainees arrived at GITMO.

However, I challenge anyone to expalin how the US system of Justice was supendend and how that served the US.

There was absolutely nothing good about Gitmo, and I don't see how anything done there has in any way served the US well. It's no surprise to see these kind of motions being made. Let's hope that the Bush admin and their practices with Gitmo hasn't made it impossible to serve justice.

[ninetoes]

"The case is being watched for precedents that could affect others, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks, who is also due to be tried in Manhattan federal court."

""I think everybody can agree that whatever I do here would be unprecedented," the judge said, alluding to the importance of the proceeding, which coincided with the anniversary of the first group of 20 detainees being brought to Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray in 2002."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A5I420100111

I sure hope a trial can procede, since the president assured the American public he was confident convictions would be obtained when he chose to prosecute these terrorists in civilian courts, with all the rights of American citizens.

[Dadof6Dopes]

There was absolutely nothing good about Gitmo, and I don't see how anything done there has in any way served the US well. It's no surprise to see these kind of motions being made. Let's hope that the Bush admin and their practices with Gitmo hasn't made it impossible to serve justice.imeo The question you ask is one reason I am ready to give the Obama admin a degree of latitude.

I hope my degrree of law in America begins with B1 ... and any of those who cannot comprehend have their justice begin the seven sisters.

[MercedesV]

These defendants should have been inside a courtroom years ago. Tried, convicted and sentenced years ago. But instead we had the national disgrace and total mess called Gitmo.

There will be a trial. But there will be monumental hurdles to climb thanks to Bush policies which never should have happened.

[Dadof6Dopes]

These defendants should have been inside a courtroom years ago. Tried, convicted and sentenced years ago. But instead we had the national disgrace and total mess called Gitmo.

There will be a trial. But there will be monumental hurdles to climb thanks to Bush policies which never should have happened.ITA and appreciate the Obama adminstrion, as many are 'cut loose' and others are brought to trial. IMO? The US law is WONDERFUL ... until some would do as did B2 and his pals. IMO B2 and cronies should answer to American law.

[ninetoes]

You would think that if anyone close to a mistrial or a verdict of innocence were achieved, it would be revealed that this sham is nothing but pandering to the party base. Other than that, it would be pure political suicide.

IMO, the important thing now that the trials have been moved into our civilian court system, and the defendants given all the rights of an American citizen is going to be making sure the trial is fair, and follows the very letter of the law.

As much as I would hate to see these people set free, I also would hate to see a judge "give the prosecution" any slack when it comes to getting a conviction. The law is the law, and now that the cases are where they are, the law should be applied fairly.

[watcher2005]

There was absolutely nothing good about Gitmo, and I don't see how anything done there has in any way served the US well. It's no surprise to see these kind of motions being made. Let's hope that the Bush admin and their practices with Gitmo hasn't made it impossible to serve justice.

Adding moral relativism to large swathes of the American psyche may be the most lasting effect.

[MercedesV]

IMO, the important thing now that the trials have been moved into our civilian court system, and the defendants given all the rights of an American citizen is going to be making sure the trial is fair, and follows the very letter of the law.

As much as I would hate to see these people set free, I also would hate to see a judge "give the prosecution" any slack when it comes to getting a conviction. The law is the law, and now that the cases are where they are, the law should be applied fairly.

We should have been following the law all along. Instead of getting cute and calling things different names and pretending it was all above board.

[ninetoes]

We should have been following the law all along. Instead of getting cute and calling things different names and pretending it was all above board.

They should be in a military tribunal, IMO. As far as Im concerned, they should NOT have the same rights as I have.

[Zanzi]

They should be in a military tribunal, IMO. As far as Im concerned, they should NOT have the same rights as I have.

Do you know if there could have been an International Tribunal established to handle these trials?

[ninetoes]

Do you know if there could have been an International Tribunal established to handle these trials?

I have no idea. But having a trial in an international court would have been far more appropriate than in our civilian courts, IMO.

[ninetoes]

"Judge Tosses Out Most Evidence on Gitmo Detainee"

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/08/us/politics/AP-US-Guantanamo-Detainee.html?_r=2

[Sesame Seed]

There was absolutely nothing good about Gitmo, and I don't see how anything done there has in any way served the US well. It's no surprise to see these kind of motions being made. Let's hope that the Bush admin and their practices with Gitmo hasn't made it impossible to serve justice.

I agree with you, Mercedes.

[Zanzi]

"Judge Tosses Out Most Evidence on Gitmo Detainee"

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/08/us/politics/AP-US-Guantanamo-Detainee.html?_r=2

Based on the article the judge is going to be meticulous in looking at ALL of the evidence presented. MO

[ninetoes]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/ap-sources-dc-trial-eyed-for-gitmo-terror-suspect-1.1703590

[Zanzi]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/ap-sources-dc-trial-eyed-for-gitmo-terror-suspect-1.1703590

:scared: Ridiculous idea - IMO.

[Brat2002]

Update to the trials and promised closing of GITMO.

Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/doj-hold-50-gitmo-detainees-indefinitely

According Obama's administration officials, 50 of the detainees at GITMO should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war. Of course, the ACLU disagrees saying that there is no statutory regime in America that allows us to do that. But, these men are not American citizens who fall under our laws and they are not prisoners of war either. I think it's time to clarify how terrorist suspects should be handled. Of the 196 detainees, they have concluded that there are 110 who can be released, 35 who should be tried in a federal or civilian court and 50 who should be held indefinitely without a trial. The task force said it considers those 50 to be too dangerous and officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and they fear that detainees would challenge evidence gathered through coercion. (read: enhanced interrogation)

Some European officials want GITMO closed without indefinite detention and are suggesting that we create an internationally funded rehab center for terrorists in Yemen or Afghanistan, you know, the experts in turning terrorists into productive citizens.

Looks like a big dose of reality for the Obama administration. Obama was one who sharply criticized Bush for the same things he is now realizing are necessary. Our congress does not want any bought here unless they are to be tried, so it looks like GITMO is here to stay- indefinitely.

[Brat2002]

These defendants should have been inside a courtroom years ago. Tried, convicted and sentenced years ago. But instead we had the national disgrace and total mess called Gitmo.

There will be a trial. But there will be monumental hurdles to climb thanks to Bush policies which never should have happened.

If not for the ACLU, the suspects would have been tried in military courts years ago. It was the lawyers who stopped the military trials and held things up trying to get the suspects tried in civilian courts. Are you angry at the ACLU?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

If not for the ACLU, the suspects would have been tried in military courts years ago. It was the lawyers who stopped the military trials and held things up trying to get the suspects tried in civilian courts. Are you angry at the ACLU?

Didn't Eric Holder's law firm hold up the trials as well?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/ap-sources-dc-trial-eyed-for-gitmo-terror-suspect-1.1703590

So can any Dem supporter explain why these two are being tried with OUR RIGHTS in CIVILIAN court for crimes committed in Bali? Anyone?

This two commited the BALI nightclub bombings. Not 9-11 but the Bali Night club bombings. Why should they not be tried in Bali or Australia who had 88 deaths? Why D.C. with the same rights we enjoy??

[RedSocksFan]

Didn't Eric Holder's law firm hold up the trials as well?

YES they did. They donated their time to defend those who hurt us. Can you say conflict of interest?

http://thetruthtracker.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/club-gitmo-and-eric-holders-law-firm/