Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
02:05 PM on 11/17/2009
Dick, Rummy and Albertorture need to also face this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeTheProgrammer
I love dogs.
01:59 PM on 11/17/2009
The last trial of the century was O.J. Doesn't that give you warm fuzzies?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:54 PM on 11/17/2009
By trying this group in our court system granting them the same rights as our citizens we will be allowing these men access to sensitive intelligence investigations on how we tracked them down to be captured, they will have a right to know how evidence was gathered and where or whom it came from to prepare a legal defense... This will be the true folly from all this...

We already know confessions were coerced by torture and will not be allowed... Most of us are appalled at the techniques used to get the confessions from these men, but the evidence and sensitive information they will become privy too should be enough of a reason not to try them in our public courts...

Quite often our court system becomes a circus, does anyone believe that these trails will be anything else?
northstar11
-i dont buy the big lie
04:54 PM on 11/17/2009
are you saying there is only one way to track a criminal and once it is exposed no one else will ever be caught because they know your one and only method,---that is true folly
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kobrock1
Clever only seems easy
10:10 PM on 11/17/2009
These savages were not tortured to obtain confessions; they were tortured to obtain information that could be used to prevent additional acts of terrorism.
01:51 PM on 11/17/2009
Just a few comments on your post.
First, I am sorry for anyone who lost a loved one to these murderers.
Second, the Nuremburg trials, to which you refer, were military tribunals.
Third, despite the fact that prosecutors don't bring trials unless they have good evidence, bad guys go free all the time. Does the name OJ Simpson ring a bell?
Fourth, a quick review of US law reveals that testimony obtained by using torture, which the defense will argue was used (waterboarding), is inadmissable in a US court of law. The defense will argue that most of the information was illegally obtained and if a lot of the evidence is thrown out, how solid are the chances of a conviction? And if KSM walks, how will we all feel?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:43 PM on 11/17/2009
If he walks it's because he was innocent!. That's justice. Admiting to a crime does not mean you did it! Not if that admission was taken under torture
10:38 AM on 11/18/2009
If he walks, he is not innocent - he is simply found "not guilty" in a court of law. There is a big difference.
01:41 PM on 11/17/2009
The motives of Republicans are pretty transparent, aren't they? But you left out one other reason why they don't want KSM tried in New York. They just want to delay his trial because as long as he's still being held, they can continue their "war on terror" and milk it for all it's worth.
01:37 PM on 11/17/2009
Awesome! I am so glad we can still have a trial in America where guilty is only one acceptable outcome!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:44 PM on 11/17/2009
yeah, a very telling and balanced justice system we have
01:35 PM on 11/17/2009
The danger in trying these men in New York is not that they might be acquitted. It's in giving the defendants THEMSELVES access to the methods by which they were investigated. The Constitution demands this of those arrested in this country by our police, but it by no means obliges our military to extend the same protections to organized forces engaged in combat against the US. Should our troops in Afghanistan be forced to tell people at checkpoints that they have the right to remain silent? Should everyone detained get a phone call?

The first thing you should get your head around, is that war is about DEPRIVING certain people (or states) of what they may regard as their "rights." "Borders" and "sovereignty" mean exactly nothing. A "war" fought by police can never be more than a standoff.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
srose74
01:16 PM on 11/17/2009
It hurts me to say it, but I agree with the R's on this one. There is no way he will get an impartial jury and his trial could be thrown out because of it. There's plenty to try him on, but it will continue to drain the system over and over again. I think someone in NYC will help the trial along by taking justice into their own hands.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sarnold15
01:49 PM on 11/17/2009
So, you want to add a few asterisks to the US Constitution? The Bill of Rights needs some modification? Who gets to decide future exceptions?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Texas Aggie
02:10 PM on 11/17/2009
Taking justice into their own hands.

This is Reuplicanese for "the terrorists have won." Anyone can figure out that the terrorists' objective was and is to destroy our society, everything that makes us what we are (or at least once were.) Now that the Cheney/Bush administration adopted the tactics of the terrorists and instituted a police state mentality, destroyed our economy, and broke our military, we are well on our way to becoming just like the terrorists. Thoughts like rose74's are just more evidence for the fact that the terrorists are winning. It's sad.
01:06 PM on 11/17/2009
Kristen I am sorry for your loss on 9/11. Having said that you really should check your history. The Nuremberg Trials WERE military tribunals that in your own words, "brought the murderers of millions to justice". I completely agree with you, that is the best place for these terrorists to stand trial, not in a federal court room, with the same rights as you and I.

In addition, there is information that does not need to be made public (I understand that the Nuremberg Trials were public, but the War was over). Why liberals believe that complete governement transparency is necessary in a democracy is beyond me. Maybe they should take there lead from Obama. He shared your views in transparency until he got into office and realized that it doesn't work, and can not work.

Finally, I would love to see the "quantitatvie analysis" of terror targets in the US, and how the statisticians factored in the trial of one of the most well know and revered terrorists in the world. In the future why don't you focus on substantiating your opinions with facts that support your position not your opposition.
03:51 PM on 11/17/2009
Why is transparency necessary in a democracy?
So you know what you're voting for in an election, plain and simple.
It is the main reason to oppose the widespread use of covert ops.
It is the only way to hold those in power accountable for their actions.
Democracy doesn't make it easy to be a superpower, and at some point you hit the wall and have to ask which you want - superpower or democracy. I choose democracy. Don't tell me about exceptions made in a time of war - despite what the politicians call it, we are not at war with terror. Al Qaeda is not Nazi Germany. Their greatest weapon is their capacity to sow terror, and that weapon is only available to them if we quail before their threats and hide in our "undisclosed locations" and believe that we must forego any or all of our "inalienable" rights if that's what it takes to prevent their attacks.
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
03:55 PM on 11/17/2009
Why do you hate America?
01:02 PM on 11/17/2009
Here's what's really funny (and sad). Obama would never allow this to happen if he wasn't 100% sure of a conviction because it would destroy him politically. So, when the President of the U.S. and all his minions at the Justice Department see this as a slam dunk, how can anyone see this as a fair trial?

When the outcome is predetermined, we call those trials "show trials". Where is the justice in that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tresco
Sistagirl Laughin' Thingy Award Winner!
12:02 PM on 11/18/2009
Obama and Holder would have to be a complete fools not to know that any trial could well result in a aquitals. I don't think I don't think they are fools.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:53 PM on 11/17/2009
Let me get this straight: A woman who went to law school and studied the constitution doesn't realize that KSM is a non-American citizen arrested in another country for crimes against American citizens? He does get the protection of our laws!
photo
andyboy
Little bit Country, little Chicago Blues
12:51 PM on 11/17/2009
Kristen,

Good luck. I just hope your right. I'm wondering what the evidence is. I hope it's strong. A conviction might give some closure.

It's right and just to try these people and let the chips fall where they may. Those who nit-pick the differences between a military tribunal and this criminal trial are disingenuous. It had to come down one way or the other. A civil trial will tend to have more legitimacy in the world's eyes.
01:04 PM on 11/17/2009
But the President himself has said that this man has been tortured. How can any evidence be admissible? And how can he possibly get a fair trial in NEW YORK of all places?

A first year law student would be able to get this guy acquitted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Texas Aggie
02:14 PM on 11/17/2009
Obviously some people haven't been keeping up with the news. The New York district where he is being tried has been collecting evidence on these guys since the first attack on the Twin Towers. They have plenty of noncompromised evidence from BEFORE KSM was even captured let alone tortured. That's all they need.

The mindset that thinks that somehow torture is necessary to get evidence doesn't understand the American legal system.
photo
andyboy
Little bit Country, little Chicago Blues
08:02 AM on 11/18/2009
hey hoosier,

Great point there. That's why I think the evidence will need to be strong. If the proof is there about a deed he commited pre-torture I think you can get him. Thanks.

Andy - f/f for you too :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JWB2012
12:42 PM on 11/17/2009
I think the investigation into 9/11 is not only totally incomplete, but also completely flawed. Millions upon millions agree with that summation. The "official" version is beyond unbelievable, it's ludicrous to put it mildly. They don't explain anything and left out everything of relevance. So, that for me, begs the question, why prosecute anyone before the real story is told ? Rational people out there know 9/11 has been covered up and until we bring ALL the conspirators to a reckoning, anything short of that will just be window dressing. BTW, I am a true patriot i.e. I don't put my country or justice ahead of any others. Someday, the real terrorists behind all this global domination agenda, cleverly disguised as a cultural / religious / political war, will be exposed for the vermin they truly are. And please, keep the hate posts to yourselves. I'm only interested in rational conversation. P.S. We can stop worrying. We are 10 times more likely to drown in our bathtub that dying from a terrorist attack. In peace.
04:26 PM on 11/17/2009
In fact, more people commit suicide. So... YOU are more danger to yourself than any terrorist!
comatoast
Mod? Rocker?...mocker.
12:32 PM on 11/17/2009
Courageous, beautiful and (as this piece so clearly shows) very smart- who doesn't love Kristen?
12:32 PM on 11/17/2009
Why are people so up in arms about trying a terrorist in a court of law? Just because they have no morals and don't observe any form of law above jungle law, doesn't mean we have to throw out our system to fight them. If we have to become like them in order to win, they have already won. Terrorism is a tactic, not something we can fight against. What we can do, is fight wars observing the Geneva Conventions, and use our system of justice to try terrorists and suspected terrorists under it. We don't have to lose our soul fighting our enemies.
12:51 PM on 11/17/2009
You miss the point entirely...which given your history on these forums is not surprising.

Trying unlawful enemy combatants using our well-established military tribunal system is analogous to 'being like' the Islamic extremists who murdered 3,000+ civilians?

These people are not afforded the rights and protections granted by our Constitution, nor are they protected by the Geneva Conventions. These are facts that you can confirm on your own using the internet...not subjective opinions from an emotional mind. As such, you may not understand or comprehend them.
01:36 PM on 11/17/2009
First off, you don't know my "history" in these forums. There is no such thing as an "unlawful" enemy combatant. That is a fiction. If a person is fighting against an invasion force in their own country, that is not "unlawful", it's called patriotism. I didn't suggest we should bring people from the battlefield to our civilians courts, I said we should oberserve the Geneva Conventions. I also said that terrorists and suspected terrorists should be tried under our system of justice, which even a military tribunal falls under. There is no need, if a suspected terrorist is captured in a non-cambatant capacity to place them under military custody. The Geneva Conventions apply to ALL signitory nations, even if the opposing belligerant nation is not one. America is a signitory nation, therefore the Geneva Conventions apply to the wars we're currently fighting. I know it may be hardfor someone like you to understand or comprehend that the law is the law, and we are bound to it though our enemies may not be. Rule of law's a b!t*h I know, but it i what it is.