KSM Trial in NYC

[Seatacus]

Could someone explain the need to try a self admitted terrorist in Federal Court? I heard he has confessed to the plot on 9/11. This trial will cost millions and will need large amounts of security and it will put the good people of NYC at risk. It may expose in the trial many national security mthods that may help the terrorists. I believe this unprecedented. What is the point???????

 

[southwind]

Because Nobama and his cronies love to waste other peoples money !

 

[tech2101]

Because Nobama and his cronies love to waste other peoples money !

How about Rudy.

“He’d have a lot more credibility if he hadn’t previously praised the prosecution of the World Trade Center bombers in U.S. courts in the past and if he hadn’t pleaded to have convicted felon Bernie Kerik in charge of our nation’s security,â€￾ Sevugan said, tossing in Giuliani’s disgraced former police commissioner, who nearly became the homeland security chief.

link

 

[JS]

Could someone explain the need to try a self admitted terrorist in Federal Court? I heard he has confessed to the plot on 9/11. This trial will cost millions and will need large amounts of security and it will put the good people of NYC at risk. It may expose in the trial many national security mthods that may help the terrorists. I believe this unprecedented. What is the point???????

you're right, dropping the charges and letting him go free would be a lot cheaper

 

[dapoes]

you're right, dropping the charges and letting him go free would be a lot cheaper

Except he already plead guilty to a military tribunal. This is nothing but show trial for liberal administration to weep over.

 

[JS]

In my opinion, a military tribunal is not Constitutional.

If he pleads guilty in his Constitutional trial, what's the big fuss? Even if he doesn't plead guilty, it's his Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

 

[dapoes]

In my opinion, a military tribunal is not Constitutional.

If he pleads guilty in his Constitutional trial, what's the big fuss? Even if he doesn't plead guilty, it's his Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

Theres no constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

See the idiocy and hypocrisy...

Holder says alleged attacker of USS Cole and 4 others to be tried by military commission.

But to KSM and his buddies for the reward of planning 9/11 they are given the same rights as americans?

Its all to be a show trial for left to prosecute Bush.

 

[delldude]

In my opinion, a military tribunal is not Constitutional.

If he pleads guilty in his Constitutional trial, what's the big fuss? Even if he doesn't plead guilty, it's his Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

All his confessions were not mirandized.....so anything from the military likely won't be admissible.

He get's off and lives within sight of WTC.................

2101 linked Comedy Central as a source....somebody needs a drug test.... :huh: .................Jeezus I thought I was bad..............

Somebody has reality issues......

"Comedy Central is a reliable source of information as you can compare their ratings any day against Fox"

 

[Seatacus]

it's his Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

but it is not his Constitution...................

Do you want our government to treat him like a citizen of this country? So everything that happened to him can happen to you. No Miranda rights, waterboarding, habeus corpus etc. Ain't it cool.

You know how fickle juries are in this country, what if he goes free?

 

[delldude]

but it is not his Constitution...................

Do you want our government to treat him like a citizen of this country? So everything that happened to him can happen to you. No Miranda rights, waterboarding, habeus corpus etc. Ain't it cool.

You know how fickle juries are in this country, what if he goes free?

When then does constitutional protection apply?

Several years since custodial apprehension?

Holder under Obama's orders is making the most monumental indecision of any President since day one.

At least one thing for sure...........like HC.....the DNC owns this................

 

[southwind]

In my opinion, a military tribunal is not Constitutional.

If he pleads guilty in his Constitutional trial, what's the big fuss? Even if he doesn't plead guilty, it's his Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

BTW..............Jihad means Holy "WAR" ! Hence, why they should be tried by a Military Tribunal !

Also, to take advantage of our "Liberal" Judicial systerm, all 5 of the "Islamic Terrorist", just plead "NOT" guilty !.....................so much for your "Pleading guilty in a constitutional trial, why the big fuss" theory ! :down:

 

[southwind]

but it is not his Constitution...................

Do you want our government to treat him like a citizen of this country? So everything that happened to him can happen to you. No Miranda rights, waterboarding, habeus corpus etc. Ain't it cool.

You know how fickle juries are in this country, what if he goes free?

Move into the spare bedroom next to Obama or Holder, works for me !

 

[tech2101]

BTW..............Jihad means Holy "WAR" ! Hence, why they should be tried by a Military Tribunal !

So by your definition all people who are drug suspects should be tried by a military tribunal...since we are in the "War On Drugs".

Just because someone calls it the War on Terror, does not make it so.

Who surrenders or raises the white flag when someone wins the War on Terror?

 

[ORDmech]

One bullet to the head...end of story. Give him the same justice we would get from his sick ass!

 

[Garfield1966]

You folks really need to read the news more and learn to use Google or Yahoo.

In 2008, the SCOTUS rules that the detainees held in Gitmo were entitled to apeal their cases in US civilian courts.

IIRC, they also ruled in 2006 that the tribunals were not authorized so I do not know how KSM could have confessed anything to a tribunal. He may have admitted to doing the acts he is accused of but an admission does not bypass the need for a trial.

I also believe that in 2006 the SCOTUS struck down sec 7 of the Military Commissions Act which prevented a military detainee from challenging their detention in court.

These are decisions made by the SCOTUS, not Obama and not Bush. The POTUS must abide by the law of the land. I realize that some of you would like to ignore the law when it is not to your liking but that is not how it works in the US. The laws apply to everyone equally. They apply to those you like and those who you dislike.

If you disagree with these decisions, then take it up with the SCOTUS. This has nothing to do with Obama unless someone can provide proof (court decision or some other such proof .. op ed piece or your personal opinion does not count) that this is he made this decision on his own.

As most of you right wingers like to point out, if you don't like the way the US law works, there are plenty of other countries who would be willing to take you in who's laws or lack there of may be more to your liking.

BTW, feel free to look any of this up. The internet is a wonderful thing.