11/28/2009 11:00:29 AM

^ Seriously, marko?

11/28/2009 7:14:57 PM

oh, i think it sums up the mentality and general grasp of reality held by the right-wing chickenhawks in this thread quite nicely.

and the version starting at 4:10 is espeically well done.

11/28/2009 11:57:13 PM

now this is sweet. someone embed.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/076041c13b/the-ballad-of-g-i-joe

11/29/2009 12:03:28 AM

Guantanamo Detainee Seeks Dismissal Of Charges, Cites Torture
DECEMBER 1, 2009

Quote :

"NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Lawyers for the first detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to face prosecution in the U.S. asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss the criminal charges against him, saying his lengthy detention overseas and the use of interrogation techniques 'amounting to torture' violated his constitutional rights. In a motion Tuesday, lawyers for Ahmed Ghailani said the U.S. government made a 'conscious and deliberate' decision to house him for two years at secret Central Intelligence Agency 'black sites' and subject him to so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' in an effort to make him an intelligence asset, rather than bring him to the U.S. in a timely manner to face trial. That decision violated his due process rights and right to a speedy trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, his lawyers Peter Quijano, Michael Bachrach and Gregory E. Cooper wrote."

Quote :

"Ghailani faces charges of conspiracy, murder, bombing of a U.S. Embassy, use and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. nationals, and other charges under a superseding indictment originally issued in 2001. Several of the counts carry a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty. However, prosecutors have said they don't plan to seek the death penalty against Ghailani. Separate military commission charges against Ghailani were withdrawn before he was transferred to New York."

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091201-716226.html

12/3/2009 12:31:28 PM

Quote :

"That decision violated his due process rights and right to a speedy trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution"

wait, i'm confused.. since when does the U.S. Constitution apply to non-U.S. citizens?

12/3/2009 12:41:46 PM

^ Since they decided to forgo a military tribunal and bring Ghailani to New York for trial.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-563.html

12/3/2009 12:58:59 PM

^^ haha, since always.

You realize that we have resident aliens, and foreign visitors that come to the US, that the constitution "applies" to.

The constitution is a set of laws that describe how the government anyway, not really people, and there's nothing that prohibits the gov. from trying people in our custody for crimes against us. There are certain things though that the constitution does specifically enumerate as for citizens only (voting, political office, etc), but the right to a fair and speedy trial isn't one of those things the gov. is restricted to citizens only by the constitution.

It's funny though how this blatantly idiotic talking point has spread throughout the right. It's like they are LOOKING for reasons to disregard what the spirit and sometimes letter of the constitution is saying.

12/3/2009 3:21:02 PM

^ You are a fucking fool. The al-Qaeda terrorist Ghailani, a Tanzanian, was captured in Gujrat, Pakistan, by Pakistani forces--how do you figure that he's "entitled" to anything?

BTW, the following are the charges against this scumbag:

Quote :

"Count(s) Description of Charge Maximum Penalties Counts 1 – 6: Conspiracies to Murder, Bomb, and Maim 1 Conspiracy to Kill U.S. Nationals Life 2 Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim At Places Outside the United States Life 3 Conspiracy to Murder Life 4 Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction Against U.S. Nationals Death or life 5 Conspiracy to Destroy Buildings and Property of the United States Life (mandatory minimum of 20 years) 6 Conspiracy to Attack National Defense Utilities 10 years Counts 7 – 286: The Africa Bombings 7 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya Death or life (mandatory minimum of 20 years) 8 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Death or life (mandatory minimum of 20 years) 9 Use and Attempted Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Against U.S. Nationals in Nairobi, Kenya Death or life 10 Use and Attempted Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Against U.S. Nationals in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Death or life 11–223 Murders in Nairobi, Kenya Death or mandatory life 224–234 Murders in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Death or mandatory life 235–275 Murder of U.S. Employees in Nairobi, Kenya Death or mandatory life 276 Attempted Murder of U.S. Employees in Nairobi, Kenya 20 years 277–278 Murder of U.S. Employees in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Death or mandatory life 279 Attempted Murder of U.S. Employees in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 20 years 280–281 Murder of Internationally Protected Persons in Nairobi, Kenya Death or mandatory life 282 Attempted Murder of Internationally Protected Persons in Nairobi, Kenya 20 years 283 Attempted Murder of Internationally Protected Persons in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 20 years 284 Using and Carrying An Explosive During the Commission of A Felony 10 years consecutive 285 Using and Carrying A Dangerous Device During the Bombing Of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya 30 years consecutive 286 Using and Carrying A Dangerous Device During the Bombing Of the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Life or 30 years consecutive"

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-563.html

12/3/2009 4:07:34 PM

^ why are you responding to me? My post has no bearing on anything you posted.

It is an unequivocally false statement that the constitution only applies to citizens, even given a loose interpretation of the word "citizen."

12/3/2009 5:03:16 PM

^ That's kinda the problem, though. Are these people subject to the U. S. constitution? They've not exactly been brought to U. S. soil, outside of being held in legal limbo in Guantanamo. Frankly I'd like to see that issue cleared up through these proceedings, so it's no longer a gray area created by the former administration.

12/3/2009 5:06:54 PM

^ military bases are considered "us soil."

And being in our custody, there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits us from trying them. I don't even see why this would be a question either when the crime they're being tried for is against us.

It wouldn't make sense for us to pick someone up from pakistan, and try them for crimes against China. We could detain them, then extradite them to China/Pakistan (whoever tries them). But that is not what we're doing.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 5:10:11 PM

^ *shrug* I'd just like to see some definitive rulings from the judicial branch, so we can move on with our lives.

12/3/2009 5:13:23 PM

^ there has been a ruling on this actually (it's somewhere in this thread IIRC), but i'll see if I can dig it up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

This one gave habeas corpus (you know... from the constitution) to Gitmo detainees.

This one, a NON RULING dicta: http://www.titleii.com/BardwellOLD/us_v_verdugo-u.txt

says that searches and seizures done by US agents but NOT on US soil aren't necessarily invalid if there is no warrant.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 5:14:03 PM

Quote :

"It's like they are LOOKING for reasons to disregard what the spirit and sometimes letter of the constitution is saying."

The left has been doing it for years. Only seems fair that the right could do it

12/3/2009 9:44:00 PM

sigh.

12/3/2009 9:51:32 PM

Quote :

"The left has been doing it for years. Only seems fair that the right could do it"

Holy shit, this is just as bad the "BUT BUSH DID IT" hacksaw is always decrying (usually before anyone actually does it).

Who cares thought, right? These guys should be unceremoniously shot in the back of the head!

12/4/2009 7:01:55 AM

hardly. I'm just commenting on moron bitching about righties trampling on the Constitution. It's clear the left does it, too, so why he would be concerned only about the right is absurd.

12/4/2009 7:35:44 AM

Hardly what? What you stated is exactly what "BUT BUSH DID IT" conveys--tu quoque.

12/4/2009 8:38:20 AM

NYPD Commish: Nobody Asked Us About Hosting the 9/11 Trials
"The trial here will do nothing to diminish that threat level," Kelly said
Dec 3, 2009

Quote :

"NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said the Justice Department did not consult the city officials before deciding to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to New York City for trial. 'There was no consultation, no consultation with the police department. That decision was made. We were informed,' Kelly said Tuesday. When asked if the NYPD should have been asked about security and other considerations in advance of sending the accused terrorist to the scene of the attack, Kelly said, 'The fact is we weren't asked. And we will make the best of a situation. We weren't.' A spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg said the Mayor was only informed the morning Attorney General Eric Holder made his announcement."

http://tinyurl.com/y9e7kds

12/14/2009 2:44:40 AM

I'm sorry that he feels butthurt about it, but it's not his call.

12/14/2009 7:44:52 AM

Quote :

"You realize that we have resident aliens, and foreign visitors that come to the US, that the constitution "applies" to."

sure. when they are in the country legally. otherwise, the constitution DOES NOT apply to them.

12/14/2009 8:55:54 AM

Illegal aliens the get drunk and drive into someone are prosecuted here and have protections afforded to them by the constitution, no?

12/14/2009 11:15:57 AM

^^^ Commissioner Kelly never said it was his call; however, the security of the entire area surrounding the trial site is his responsibility.

12/14/2009 11:34:40 AM

Well, it looks like he gets to man-up and do his job then.

12/14/2009 1:40:28 PM

^ Sweet Jesus.

It appears that Kelly and many others have been doing their jobs protecting New York. We don't need to make it an even bigger target by holding show trials there.

12/14/2009 1:44:25 PM

Call it an "appeal to numbers" if you want, but with only 3 convictions out of how many hundred for tribunals? And if you are worried about them skipping out due to a technicality then tribunals should be the last thing that you support. I'll take the success rate of federal courts any day in comparison. Besides, how is this going to be a "show trial" without cameras in the courtroom and the entire area pretty much on lockdown? This won't be like with OJ where folks just sit at home and watch the coverage on CourtTV all day.

12/14/2009 1:52:17 PM

^ It's a show trial because everyone knows the terrorists are guilty--and they admitted it. The only thing that can come out of that trial are life sentences and/or jihadist rhetoric and/or a terrorist attack--none of which I find desirable.

If we absolutely had to bring them to the United States for trial, why not bring them to a remote area? Why not hold the trial in a wing of a so-called supermax prison that so many here claim to love? Surely this would have satisfied the "rule of law" that many are flap-jawing about now, wouldn't it?

12/14/2009 1:58:37 PM

I do agree that this is a way of showing off the American judicial system and showing the rest of the world that we are civilized. Personally, I am rather fond of holding a Triumph. This would be especially true when (if) we ever catch bin Ladin. Parade his captured ass down Pennsylvania Ave while the crowd cheers and the president sits at the end of the road and gives the order for Osama to be strangled in front of everyone. But hey, we all can't have our way.

12/14/2009 2:06:36 PM

So, by your thought ALL trials where there's already ironclad evidence are just show trials?

KSM could plead guilty, which would end any need for a trial. He probably won't, which is his right in our system. At that point they're going to have a trial.

It's not a show trial unless the judge and jury aren't able to decide impartially based on the evidence at hand. No matter how many times you say it's a show trial, that doesn't make it true.

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2009 3:13:06 PM

Quote :

"KSM could plead guilty, which would end any need for a trial."

Do you even follow the news at all? From ABC News:

Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
November 23, 2009

Quote :

"The five detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay who will soon be brought to the U.S. for trial -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali , Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi – intend to plead not guilty, an attorney for one of the defendants confirmed to ABC News's Jason Ryan over the weekend. The story was first reported by the New York Times to whom Ali's attorney, Scott Fenstermaker, said the men would plead not guilty 'so they can have a trial and try to get their message out.'"

http://tinyurl.com/y8c6hd3

Now that you've been shown to be uninformed, you'll probably just post something like, "SO WHAT?! LET KSM ET AL RANT--WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!!1"

12/14/2009 11:47:53 PM

Not really.

12/15/2009 12:16:46 AM

Anyway. . .to timswar:

Do you even follow the news at all? From ABC News:

Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
November 23, 2009

Quote :

"The five detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay who will soon be brought to the U.S. for trial -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali , Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi – intend to plead not guilty, an attorney for one of the defendants confirmed to ABC News's Jason Ryan over the weekend. The story was first reported by the New York Times to whom Ali's attorney, Scott Fenstermaker, said the men would plead not guilty 'so they can have a trial and try to get their message out.'"

http://tinyurl.com/y8c6hd3

12/15/2009 12:33:35 AM

Quote :

"It's a show trial because everyone knows the terrorists are guilty--and they admitted it."

That's fucking scary. "Everybody knows they're guilty -- a trial would be silly." You're a real first-class American there, hooky.

Of course, I guess it's no surprise that you didn't answer:

Quote :

"So, by your thought ALL trials where there's already ironclad evidence are just show trials?"

Moving on to more scariness:

Quote :

"The only thing that can come out of that trial are life sentences and/or jihadist rhetoric and/or a terrorist attack--none of which I find desirable."

"But the trial might cause bad things so we shouldn't have it!" Likewise, many trials of mafia figures might lead to bribery or the murder of witnesses. But everyone knew Gotti was guilty, so I guess we could have done without. Ditto Capone, obviously.

Quote :

"Why not hold the trial in a wing of a so-called supermax prison that so many here claim to love? Surely this would have satisfied the "rule of law" that many are flap-jawing about now, wouldn't it?"

Wow, sarcastically referencing the rule of law. I misspoke earlier. You aren't just a first-class American. You're fucking Captain America, defender of truth, justice, and liberty.

What would holding the trial somewhere else accomplish? Do you really think it would make a terrorist attack less likely? If you're a terrorist moved to action by this trial, why not just go fuck shit up in New York regardless of where the proceedings are held? It'd be a good way to use the trial and the familiar setting to reinforce fear.

12/15/2009 2:58:54 AM

Quote :

" Now that you've been shown to be uninformed, you'll probably just post something like, "SO WHAT?! LET KSM ET AL RANT--WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

Brilliant, you managed to attack me personally and not respond to the point at the same time.

First, I said they COULD plead guilty, and despite announcing that they're pleading not-guilty THEY STILL COULD PLEAD GUILTY IF THEY WANTED TO BECAUSE THE PLEAS HAVEN'T BEEN ENTERED YET!

Or has time distorted and we're actually posting here after the trials?

Now please, if you would simply point out how the term "show trial" actually applies in this situation, and note that what you've said before about them admitting to being guilty does not equate to this being a show trial.

12/15/2009 8:57:02 AM

What's so scary about a "show trial" anyway?

For that matter, what exactly does a "show trial" even entail? All I've been able to gather is that it's a trial of obviously guilty defendants who will get to talk about, I don't even know, scary terrorist stuff? YIKES!

12/15/2009 9:33:18 AM

From Google:

Quote :

" show trial show trials plural People describe a trial as a show trial if they believe that the trial is unfair and is held for political reasons rather than in order to find out the truth."

Note the word "unfair", because it's important. You can argue about the political reasons for this trial all you want. There's pretty solid arguments for it either being political motivated or it being motivated by justice. But calling it a show trial immediately assumes that it's unfair, and that isn't something that anyone can predict yet.

12/15/2009 9:55:52 AM

Oh, so hooksaw is worried the trial may not be fair? That's admirable.

12/15/2009 10:03:00 AM

Indeed, I think we should all be concerned about that. A fair trial is the only way to get through this mess.

But he's calling it a show trial before it's happened, which is presumptuous at best.

12/15/2009 10:32:16 AM

Obama: KSM will be convicted, executed
Nov. 18, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama backtracked Wednesday after telling an interviewer Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be convicted and executed. In an interview with NBC News, Obama defended his administration's decision to try Mohammed and four other accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack in a New York court. Critics have said it is offensive to afford Mohammed the same legal rights and privileges granted to defendants in U.S. courts but Obama said those critics will not find it 'offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.'"

http://tinyurl.com/ygc7hhm

If I "backtrack" now and do the whole presumption-of-innocence mea culpa, will some of you give me a pass like you did Obama, a constitutional lawyer? It was a trap, doofuses--and you fell right into it.

To address some of the various "points," comparing a mob thug to terrorists who have committed war crimes is hardly apt. Sure, there are some similarities, but it's still apples and oranges.

Yes, New York is always a terrorist target and will continue to be. But holding trials of high-profile terrorists there will do nothing to improve that security--NYPD Commissioner Kelly confirmed this in his statement above--and it will be very expensive.

And speaking of expense, under my method we would save a lot of money. We would simply give the terrorists a few days before a military tribunal--and then summarily execute them. Given the circumstances, I would probably go with a firing squad.

In summary, I find the high moral tone that some of you take to be laughable. Cling to your "superiority" if it makes you feel better--but I am completely at peace with my positions. And I would have no qualms whatsoever about delivering the justice myself. None.

PS:

show trial

Quote :

"a trial held for show; the guilt of the accused person has been decided in advance"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/show+trial

See Obama's statement above. QED.

12/15/2009 2:31:23 PM

From your link

Quote :

" the public trial of a political offender conducted chiefly for propagandistic purposes, as to suppress further dissent against the government by making an example of the accused"

It's the first definition for a reason.

But let's keep going

Miriam Webster

Quote :

" : a trial (as of political opponents) in which the verdict is rigged and a public confession is often extracted"

It's hard to extract a confession at a trial if the person has already admitted guilt. Also there is no evidence of this being rigged.

But hey, lets do another

From the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Quote :

" an unfair trial that is organized by a government for political reasons, not in order to find out whether someone is guilty:"

This was organized for judicial reasons, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that this trial will in any way be unfair.

I can go on, but I'll stop on that.

Anyway, we're going in circles. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT OBAMA SAYS ABOUT THEIR GUILT. Obama is not the judge. We have separation of powers in the country for a good reason. Your continual ignoring of that fact does not make it any less true.

Which is something I pointed out to you on the 2nd page, yet you still cling to this "it's a show trial because Obama said they're guilty" ridiculousness.

Your lynch mob mentality, thankfully, has no place in the American judicial process.

12/15/2009 2:47:16 PM

^ Blah, blah, blather.

Obama: KSM will be convicted, executed

http://tinyurl.com/ygc7hhm

12/15/2009 2:49:41 PM

Obama is not a judge, his opinion on the matter is unimportant.

Once again, we separate powers.

It doesn't matter how many times you post what Obama said, it doesn't make it any more relevant.

12/15/2009 2:51:51 PM

^ And what branch of government is currently holding the terrorists? And what branch of government made the decision to put them on trial? And what branch of government could reverse this decision today?

Careful now--this one revealed joe_schmoe to be an uniformed boob.

12/15/2009 2:59:15 PM

Obama's administration made the decision to take the fate of these terrorists out of his (via the military) direct control and put it in the hands of the judicial system.

So, what you seem to be implying, is that Obama (who has stated his belief in the full guilt and suggested sentence) should take the decision out of someone else's hands and put it back into his directly?

Or are you simply stating that he has the ability to, even though he doesn't seem to be wanting to use that ability.

You're presuming a lot on things that haven't happened yet, and don't seem to be likely. I could just as easily assume that military tribunals would continue their current abysmal record of getting convictions. Or perhaps I could assume that failure to give these men a fair trial in a court of law would simply drive more and more people towards hating the United States which simply exacerbates the terrorism problem.

But I haven't enjoyed making assumptions like that for a while.

12/15/2009 3:19:44 PM

^ Wow, it took you about 20 minutes of Googling furiously to come up with that trinket? In other words, you can't answer the questions honestly.

And this. . .

Quote :

"Or perhaps I could assume that failure to give these men a fair trial in a court of law would simply drive more and more people towards hating the United States which simply exacerbates the terrorism problem."

. . .is laughable. What was Bill Clinton doing in 1993 to drive more and more people to hate the United States--you know, when the WTC was attacked the first time? As if the jihadists need an excuse.

12/15/2009 4:29:36 PM

Quote :

"As if the jihadists need an excuse."

So what is their motivation big guy?

12/15/2009 4:45:21 PM

^ Ask them. It's probably that the United States is "The Great Satan"--and our support of Israel.

But, as I indicated, do the terrorists really need an excuse?

12/15/2009 4:57:33 PM

Even by hooksaw standards, this shit has gotten stupid.

You're to have us believe that, just because Obama said so, a conviction and death penalty is a sure thing? That it's all a sham? There's no way they'll get anything less than death?

Obama's got the judiciary in his back pocket, huh?

No chance those statements are simply support for his Executive branch?


----


IT'S A TARP!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!1

l-the-fuck-ol

If the presiding judge said what Obama said, you'd have a point. Since the prosecution's boss said those things, you don't have a point.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2009 5:19:56 PM

^ Do you honestly believe that 12 jurors (plus alternates) can be seated that will presume the admitted terrorists to be innocent until proven guilty? Show me those 12-plus and I'll show you some people who could possibly acquit the admitted terrorists.

12/15/2009 5:28:03 PM