9/11 Suspects to be tried in U.S.

[Nicoleta01]

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, officials said Friday.
~SNIP~
The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Appearing at a joint news conference Friday with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Obama called the move both a prosecutorial and a national security decision.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33905323/ns/us_news-security

Still breaking and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is holding a press conference at the time of this post.

I'm a bit iffy on this issue, as I haven't yet formed a true opinion on whether or not Gitmo detainees of anysort should be tried in a U.S. court. I do support Military-Tribunals for the detainees, but even then I'm stuck in the grey area....

Thoughts? Concerns?

 

[Big Lutz]

What a very reckless and stupid gamble by this administration. Two of these men were water boarded and given who knows what other techniques because of their knowledge of Al Qaeda, because of that key information cannot be given in civilian courts.

What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away?

Stupid Stupid Stupid gamble.

Edit: Not to mention you are going to have months and months of pretty much "al-Qaeda’s case against America" and sending the same stupid and dangerous message Clinton sent. "No matter what you do to us, we will try you in civilian court" it was stupid then and stupid now, and leads to things like "You can talk to my lawyer after I get to New York" the first words out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's mouth when we captured him.

 

[Mitchman]

Well damn. If we have the damn suspects and got a lead what the hell was the war for? But I hope these guys get the death sentence. I'll never forgive those who caused 9/11 to happen and ruin such a beautiful city.

 

[Juicy Jazzy]

What a very reckless and stupid gamble by this administration. Two of these men were water boarded and given who knows what other techniques because of their knowledge of Al Qaeda, because of that key information cannot be given in civilian courts.

What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away?

Stupid Stupid Stupid gamble.

If they are found not guilty they will be... uh... taken out by the US secret service.

 

[Netto Azure]

What a very reckless and stupid gamble by this administration. Two of these men were water boarded and given who knows what other techniques because of their knowledge of Al Qaeda, because of that key information cannot be given in civilian courts.

What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away?

Stupid Stupid Stupid gamble.

Edit: Not to mention you are going to have months and months of pretty much "al-Qaeda’s case against America" and sending the same stupid and dangerous message Clinton sent. "No matter what you do to us, we will try you in civilian court" it was stupid then and stupid now, and leads to things like "You can talk to my lawyer after I get to New York" the first words out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's mouth when we captured him.

Yeah, and let's establish the precident of trying people in sham military commisions and make ourselves look even more hypocritical to those we are courting to support us. >.>

I'm willing have some sort of official secret FISA-like courts though as a middle ground, but that is unlikely as congress is slow to establish such things. =P

AND WHAT? You do know that these terrorists are trained to endure much worse things than the water-boarding we do? They do live in dictatorships where pulling finger nails is a normal occurance to obtain (false) information, anybody will say anything to make the pain stop! =/

 

[Big Lutz]

Yeah, and let's establish the precident of trying people in sham military commisions and make ourselves look even more hypocritical to those we are courting to support us. >.>

Military Tribunals have not only been verified as legal but also worthy of use, hell Obama considers them worthy of use because he is using one to try one of the suspects. Do you realize how completely stupid it is to try a suspect in open court? I mean do you honestly realize that? Obama needs to look at the worst case scenario here, what is absolutely the worst thing that could happen in this situation and is it worth it. Remember Bush was criticized for always being too optimistic about things, never looking at what would be the worst possible outcome of his actions. The worst thing that could happen is this guy, a genius in terrorism, gets set free.

AND WHAT? You do know that these terrorists are trained to endure much worse things than the water-boarding we do?

They are trained to endure interrogation and some torture, that being said the man cracked from being water boarded so apparently he wasn't trained that well. Not to mention this guy wasn't a run of the mill al Qaeda terrorist, he was a mastermind, a architect, he doesn't go through the normal training, he sits around in cafe's and apartments and makes bombs and thinks up horrible plots, and sends them to Bin Laden for approval.

They do live in dictatorships where pulling finger nails is a normal occurance to obtain (false) information, anybody will say anything to make the pain stop! =/

And yet we got reliable information out of him to stop a terrorist attack. Information that we had not gotten out of him before hand. The whole "He will lie to make the pain stop" falls flat on its face when the truth comes out that he did talk at length about al Qaeda plots and leadership once he was waterboarded.

 

[Falconwing]

...

Why are they still alive again?

 

[Metalwario64]

What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away?

There are many, many charges placed on them. If they are found innocent on one charge, they will bring up the next. There is no way they are getting off "scott-free."

Chances are they will be found guilty and sentenced to death.

 

[Big Lutz]

There are many, many charges placed on them. If they are found innocent on one charge, they will bring up the next. There is no way they are getting off "scott-free."

Nothing ever is a done deal, especially in a court of law. Also due to the many legal obstacles lawyers for KSM can use now, much of the evidence against him will be thrown out. Not to mention on procedural grounds alone they have a chance to throw out the whole trial because he wasn't read his Miranda Rights when brought into custody.

Chances are they will be found guilty and sentenced to death.

Which can easily be done with a Military Tribunal, at that point you do not risk, no matter how remote him getting off. You also do not jeopardize national security through discovery and other parts of the trial, and you do not let this case becomes "al Qaeda vs the US Government" with every news paper, radio station, and TV station reporting on it. Nor do you risk making downtown New York a terror magnet during the trial.

 

[Falconwing]

I've decided these guys are getting "Vissered." Basically, a couple charges may be dropped on them, but they've got the other dozen or so to make up for it.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003

Holy shit.

Anyways I think they'll be convicted to either life in prison or get the death penalty.

 

[The Big Al]

Once again Lutz, you let your party ideology blind you.

If we try them in a military tribunal, we will validate Al Qaeda's claim they are at war with us. We would play right into their hands. We treat these people like enemy soldiers, and Al Qaeda will declare that this is indeed a war.

However, terrorism is not an act of war. It is a crime and it's perpetrators are criminals. So we'll treat them like criminals. We'll throw the book at them like we do criminals. We'll put them in front of a jury like criminals. We'll convict them like criminals. We'll throw them in a cell or execute them like criminals.

We're sending a message that will break Al Qaeda's back. They aren't holy warriors. They're lowly criminals and their support will evaporate when exposed for what they really are.

 

[Big Lutz]

Once again Lutz, you let your party ideology blind you.

When did considering the worst case scenario or national security issues a act of blind ideology? Mind you I have already mentioned that Bush was rightfully attacked for never considering the worst case scenario ( Iraq invasion being the best example ) Obama is doing the same thing.

If we try them in a military tribunal, we will validate Al Qaeda's claim they are at war with us. We would play right into their hands. We treat these people like enemy soldiers, and Al Qaeda will declare that this is indeed a war.

Okay first off this is insane on many grounds.

1: If so why are we trying the Cole bomber in a military tribunal? If we are so worried about playing into Al Qaeda's claim then shouldn't he be as well as all the others be in a civilian court?

2: Al Qaeda has already declared this a war, they have been at war with us since the Clinton Administration. Seeing how we have been bombing the hell out of them for the last 9 years. I don't think they need any more proof we are at war with them.

3: It is even a bigger Al Qaeda victory by having him in a civilian court as Discovery as well as the trial phase allows for many national security secrets to come out. This gives Al Qaeda valuable information that they could not other wise have.

However, terrorism is not an act of war. It is a crime and it's perpetrators are criminals. So we'll treat them like criminals. We'll throw the book at them like we do criminals. We'll put them in front of a jury like criminals. We'll convict them like criminals. We'll throw them in a cell or execute them like criminals.

ARE YOU INSANE?!

Of course Terrorism by a Terrorist Group is a act of war. Infact by doing this they are neglecting the fact that we are at war with Al Qaeda. I mean of all the things you have ever said this is the most... mind boggling.

To quote terrorism analyst Neil Livingstone "This was an act of war when they struck in New York,"

As for treating them like criminals, if we treated KSM as a criminal there is a good chance that one of the largest buildings on the west coast would be gone right now. We would have a whole lot less knowledge about Al Qaeda and more people would be dead. But I am sure the dead will be comforted that we treated these War Criminals like common thugs.

We're sending a message that will break Al Qaeda's back. They aren't holy warriors. They're lowly criminals and their support will evaporate when exposed for what they really are.

You know what message we will send? The same pathetically stupid message that we sent during the Clinton Administration. We capture you, we will treat you like criminals, we will give you all your rights, you will have a attorney, and you do not have to spill the beans. That is pathetically stupid, and leads to people dying from terrorist attacks.

To quote KSM himself when he was captured: You can talk to my lawyer after I get to New York

THAT is the message we are sending to Al Qaeda, they don't give a flying s' if we treat them as Holy Warriors or not, but they do care if we treat them as criminals, see criminals have rights, criminals do not have to speak until they have a attorney present even if it could stop as a terrorist attack. To treat them as petty criminals is not only incredibly stupid but it is also reckless and dangerous.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Once again Lutz, you let your party ideology blind you.

If we try them in a military tribunal, we will validate Al Qaeda's claim they are at war with us. We would play right into their hands. We treat these people like enemy soldiers, and Al Qaeda will declare that this is indeed a war.

However, terrorism is not an act of war. It is a crime and it's perpetrators are criminals. So we'll treat them like criminals. We'll throw the book at them like we do criminals. We'll put them in front of a jury like criminals. We'll convict them like criminals. We'll throw them in a cell or execute them like criminals.

We're sending a message that will break Al Qaeda's back. They aren't holy warriors. They're lowly criminals and their support will evaporate when exposed for what they really are.

We aren't at war?

It takes a special kind of moron to believe that. Terrorism IS AN ACT OF WAR BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO KILL AS MANY OF US AS THEY CAN! Why can't you get that through you head?

You're also ignoring a key point: They want us to treat them as criminals. Why? Because if they're tried as criminals, their lawyers are going to squeeze very sensitive information out of this case that will compromise intelligence sources.

He should be tried in a military tribunal. Hush hush, and killed by lethal injection. And when he's executed, make a big public announcement with the message: Bin Laden, YOU'RE NEXT!

No terrorist should get concessions. Period.

 

[The Big Al]

I don't take kindly to being called a moron, especially from people like you. I don't want to live in a country where we secretly try, convict, and execute people. You might like it, but I don't. I live in the land of the free and home of the brave. National security means nothing if we comprise on our principles to maintain it.

 

[Big Lutz]

You might like it, but I don't. I live in the land of the free and home of the brave.

And if we were to convict and kill KSM in a military tribunal, something that has been okayed both by our Congress (of both parties), President ( of both parties ), and Supreme Court. We would still be living in the land of the free and home of the brave. Now if we started doing that to private citizens you could possibly have a point. As usual, you don't.

National security means nothing if we comprise on our principles to maintain it.

National Security also means nothing if we allow all of our secrets to be dragged out infront of our allies AND our enemies in a court room. Or while a man who could hold the key to saving thousands of lives sits happily in a jail cell awaiting his trial as his lawyer protects him and by extension his terror cell.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

I don't take kindly to being called a moron, especially from people like you. I don't want to live in a country where we secretly try, convict, and execute people. You might like it, but I don't. I live in the land of the free and home of the brave. National security means nothing if we comprise on our principles to maintain it.

This man gave up his freedom when he had 3000 innocent people killed. Morality means nothing if we're all dead or under Shariah law.

 

[Nicoleta01]

I DO question the intelligence of wanting to try these terrorist suspects in New York City less than 1,000 yards from the World Trade Center site. Really, gotta wonder why NYC of all places.

 

[Big Lutz]

I DO question the intelligence of wanting to try these terrorist suspects in New York City less than 1,000 yards from the World Trade Center site. Really, gotta wonder why NYC of all places.

Well besides the symbolism, NYPD also has one of the best counter terrorism forces in the US, having put alot of funding into it since 9/11. While NYC does have alot of targets as well as the possibility of a attack on either a judge, or the lawyers. They are better equipped than any other city to stop it.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Well besides the symbolism, NYPD also has one of the best counter terrorism forces in the US, having put alot of funding into it since 9/11. While NYC does have alot of targets as well as the possibility of a attack on either a judge, or the lawyers. They are better equipped than any other city to stop it.

While that is true, the families and the whole city can be said to have not truly moved on from the tradegy. We all saw how quickly the City panicked when Air Force One flew over without telling many people. A repeat of something even minor, could send parts of the city over the edge....

I have found a petition to ask Obama to do military tribunal instead of court, anyone interested can sign here:
http://marklevinfan.com/?p=5948