So, because you believe 12 jurors can't be found (and the defense can't do their jobs either, apparently) the whole process should be bypassed?

Can I make that call if you ever happen to be on trial?

12/15/2009 5:37:26 PM

How in the world will we give Nidal Hasan a fair trial? You think you're going to find impartial military judges to hear his case?!? We should execute him now!

It's hilarious that you're up in arms about Obama's statements and KSM having a fair trial yet you simultaneously want to take him outback and shoot him yesterday.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2009 5:42:25 PM

Who knows what the fuck hooksaw thinks? He can't tell the difference between one person saying "The terrorists will be convicted and executed" and another saying "Kill 'em all. Now."

Because of that, he thinks he's sprung some clever trap where everyone has been caught being hypocritical.

12/15/2009 5:55:19 PM

^^^ Concerning your latter point, please don't put me on the level of terrorists. I love this country with everything that I am; the terrorists are trying to destroy it--there's a big difference (and please spare me any lectures about the concept of justice and so on as it relates to the United States). And concerning the former, simply answer my question:

Quote :

"Do you honestly believe that 12 jurors (plus alternates) can be seated that will presume the admitted terrorists to be innocent until proven guilty?"

^^ It's not "hilarious"; the situation is deadly serious. I'm not concerned with the admitted terrorists getting a "fair" trial--I believe they should be summarily shot. I'm simply pointing out the various aspects of the situation and the absurdity of it all.

Do you actually think the trial in question will be "fair"?

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ^ Yes, kill all who want to destroy the United States--now you have it. ]

12/15/2009 5:55:38 PM

Holy sweet fucking jesus, we're back to the ol' answer-my-question-before-I-answer-you're-question game.

Quote :

"Yes, kill all who want to destroy the United States--now you have it."

Summary execution, huh?

Holy shit, you and everyone who thinks like that scares me.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2009 5:57:54 PM

Yes, 12 jurors can be sat that are willing to presume innocence. If you're wondering why then you're not thinking too clearly.

I'd be willing to bet that if you went to NYC and walked down the street polling 1000people you'd be able to find 12 who hadn't heard KSM or any other terrorist's name.

It'll take a while, and it sure as hell won't be easy, but a jury can be found. NYC's courts are set up for easy sequestering, which would be required immediately.

And why should you be spared a lecture about the importance of the judicial system to America, is it because it exposes your particular brand of anti-American sentiment?

12/15/2009 5:59:42 PM

^^ Yes, now you have it.

^ Wrong.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2009 5:59:52 PM

Let's summarily execute enemies of the state!

It's the freedom loving American way!

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2009 6:20:19 PM

Quote :

"Show me those 12-plus and I'll show you some people who could possibly acquit the admitted terrorists."

Jesus God, it keeps getting worse. "We can't let the jury presume innocence because then we might not get a conviction!"

He doesn't want a show trial, he just wants a show trial.

12/16/2009 11:19:51 AM

^ Just answer the fucking question:

Quote :

"Do you honestly believe that 12 jurors (plus alternates) can be seated that will presume the admitted terrorists to be innocent until proven guilty?"

12/16/2009 1:42:39 PM

The question you should really be asking is:

Do you honestly believe 12 impartial (i.e. objective) jurors (plus alternates) can be seated?

12/16/2009 5:05:55 PM

^ Okay. Answer your own question then.

Attorneys routinely request and often receive changes of venue--particularly in high-profile cases--related to issues concerning a biased jury pool. Do you honestly think that an "impartial" jury can be seated when the case is against those who committed the deadliest attack on United States soil since Pearl Harbor? If you truly believe so, just post it.

12/16/2009 5:20:59 PM

Do I believe 12 objective people can be found?

Yes, I do.

I have more faith in Americans than you do, apparently.

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : I'm sure hooksaw is making an entry in his diary right now in the event there is a change of venue]

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : he can say "See, I told you so!" like he's a fucking 8 year old girl]

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 5:39 PM. Reason : Also, I hope he doesn't put on the list of those who should be summarily executed because I give the]

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 5:40 PM. Reason : judiciary more credit than he does]

12/16/2009 5:31:14 PM

^ What a bunch of rubbish.

12/16/2009 5:39:28 PM

What's a bunch of rubbish?

12/16/2009 5:40:33 PM

^ Anything hooksaw disagrees with, of course. No matter how many times he's shown to not have a legal or ethical leg to stand on.

12/16/2009 6:12:08 PM

^ Keep feeding yourself that horseshit.

UNC murder suspect wants federal case moved out of state
Dec. 15, 2009

Quote :

"Winston-Salem, N.C. — The attorneys for one of two men accused of killing the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's student body president last year want to move the federal trial in the case out of state. In a motion filed last week in U.S. District Court, Demario James Atwater's attorneys cite 'extensive' media coverage that has tainted the jury pool throughout the state as grounds for moving the trial outside North Carolina."

Quote :

"'The media latched onto the story and has not let go,' the motion, filed Dec. 11, states. 'The publicity surrounding this case has been staggering.' [But nowhere near 9-11 coverage, right?] The motion cites a statewide survey conducted in June that found 80 percent of respondents have knowledge of the case and that 52 percent already believe Atwater is guilty of killing Carson. Fifty-two percent said they believe Atwater should be sentenced to death."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6624848/

But New Yorkers are so much better than North Carolinians, right? Never mind the nearly 3,000 horrible deaths and the 6,000-plus injuries that occurred on New Yorkers' soil and that left a gaping psychological and physical wound --they're all just "impartial" citizens of the world, am I right, fellas?

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 7:07 PM. Reason : Right?]

12/16/2009 7:06:18 PM

I have knowledge of that case. Based on what I've heard in the news, I believe they are likely guilty.

That doesn't mean I couldn't be an objective juror. It doesn't mean 11 other objective jurors cannot be found.


In any case, the solution for being unable to find an impartial jury shouldn't summary execution.


Also: Who said New Yorkers are better than North Carolinians?

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 7:15 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2009 7:11:45 PM

Blah, blah, blah.

12/16/2009 7:36:58 PM

Don't get pissy because you're too big a pussy to let the judiciary do its work and would rather just shoot everyone.

What are you scared of?

12/16/2009 7:51:23 PM

^ he’s afraid that the perception people here have of him being a self-delusioned idiot might be the reality in real life, and the only way he can stave off this realization is by blindly attacking anything Obama does.

12/16/2009 9:22:58 PM

You dumbfucks got owned and you know it. Stop trolling and STFU.

12/17/2009 2:35:10 PM

Who got owned?

Who's trolling?

We're all still waiting for you to defend summary execution of a prisoner in government custody (and who has been for close to 2 years).

12/17/2009 4:07:47 PM

KSM did admit guilt, right? Im fine with shooting him. I am also fine with a "trial" or whatever this baloney is we are going to see, as long as the end result is the same...if thats what has to happen for this cocksucker to die, fine. however, I still dont think he should be given the right of a trial in our civilian judicial system.

I would actually prefer he were executed by incineration in an aviation fuel explosion, but, whatever.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 4:16:19 PM

Quote :

"KSM did admit guilt, right?"

Confession does not equal a guilty plea. If he enters a guilty plea, then we can get on the fast track to needling his ass. If he doesn't, we have to give him a trial, because we're America and not Soviet goddamn Russia.

Quote :

"Do you honestly believe that 12 jurors (plus alternates) can be seated that will presume the admitted terrorists to be innocent until proven guilty?"

Yeah. It'd maybe be more difficult than the average case, but not substantially more difficult than any other high-profile one. If they could find 12 people who could presume the innocence of Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson (both of whom are much better known among the general public than KSM), they can find 12 for this asshole.

What worries me is the close connection you draw between people who can presume innocence and people who are likely to let the guy off.

12/18/2009 1:29:07 AM

Yeah, it's just a bunch of tea-baggers who hate justice opposing the KSM trial in New York[/sarcasm]:

New Yorkers Stand Against U.S. Terror Trials
12/16/2009

Quote :

"Last night a group of New Yorkers -- Manhattanites, many of whom were there on 9-11 -- took a stand against the Obama administration's plan to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other 9-11 plotters in New York’s federal court."

Quote :

"Community Board 1 of Lower Manhattan considered a resolution at its monthly board meeting opposing Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try KSM in Manhattan federal court. Mark Ameruso, Assistant Secretary of Community Board 1, a downtown resident and civilian responder on September 11, led a vocal group of residents in specifically asking the board to withhold its support for holding the trials in the area. Ameruso introduced the resolution requesting that the administration reconsider its decision to hold a civilian trial for al-Qaeda's most notorious operative blocks from the site where 19 terrorists carried out Mohammad's plan, murdering nearly 3,000 Americans. Ameruso, a Democrat, said that his resolution was not motivated by politics or ideology. 'Nearly everybody in that room is going to be a Democrat…many of them are liberal Democrats. We all are Democrats here in Lower Manhattan and we are saying, "Please, Mr. President, reconsider this for the safety and quality of life of Lower Manhattan."' Several residents spoke in opposition to the trials in the meeting's public comment period. Carolyn Harley, a resident of the community since before the facility where Mohammad will be held was even built, was the most passionate. 'I do not understand the necessity for having the trials of the terrorists here in Manhattan,' she told the audience. 'This places so many of our lives in jeopardy. We did not ask for this.' "

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34860

N.Y. gov slams KSM trial move

Quote :

"'This is not a decision that I would have made,' the governor said when asked about the upcoming federal trial of KSM and his four underlings."

Quote :

"'Over 2,700 lives were lost,' he went on. 'It's very painful; we're still having trouble getting over it. We still haven't been able to rebuild that site, and having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all of New Yorkers.'"

http://tinyurl.com/ycvxy4y

12/18/2009 4:20:51 AM

But you're against a trial period. Stop trying to confuse the issues. And those new yorkers will get over it.

Freedom isn't free!!!

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 7:54 AM. Reason : A]

12/18/2009 7:53:44 AM

Quote :

"Confession does not equal a guilty plea. If he enters a guilty plea, then we can get on the fast track to needling his ass. If he doesn't, we have to give him a trial, because we're America and not Soviet goddamn Russia."

I understand that reasoning and I am not so against this specific trial. I just dont want us to get into putting every terrorist in the world through our judicial system, which is a privilege that should be reserved for our citizens and legal visitors. Our system is not set up for enemy combatants...regardless if they are fighting under a flag or as an entity.

12/18/2009 8:27:43 AM

^^^ No one has said anything about tea baggers. Are you trying to make some sort of point?

As jwb9984 mentioned,

We're still waiting for you to justify your position: summary execution without a trial.

Nothing in the two articles you posted suggests that there shouldn't be a trial, only that the trial shouldn't be in NYC.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 8:39 AM. Reason : ]

12/18/2009 8:38:43 AM

^^ Not every terrorist, just the ones who have acted against us. It's not like we're going after the London subway bombers or the bombers from Spain.

As for the folks in NYC, well the fact that they still haven't gotten over it is another reason that NYC is the PERFECT place to hold the trial.

The City, State, and Federal authorities have offered very little in the way of (I hate this word) "closure" for the folks in NYC. There's still a gaping wound in the middle of Manhattan and nobody's been brought to justice for the actions. We don't have Obama, but we have one of his comrades and it only makes sense to have his trial in the same place as his crime.

It will likely help many mentally to know that just up the road, a man responsible is being tried for the murder of their neighbors and loved ones.

This isn't going to reopen the wounds, it's going to help heal them.

12/18/2009 9:38:03 AM

Quote :

"We don't have Obama, but we have one of his comrades and it only makes sense to have his trial in the same place as his crime."

heh... Freudian slip?

12/18/2009 11:36:58 AM

^^^ Can you read, troll?

1.

Quote :

"KSM and his cohorts should have never been given 'rights.' They were not prisoners of war--thus the term 'enemy combatants' was applied--and they were not in the United States. So, they could have simply been given a military tribunal and promptly executed--just as Obama says they will be. Except in my scenario, there is no opportunity for those fuckheads to violate us and the families of the dead yet again--and it would be significantly less expensive and risky. And let's not forget that left-wing attorneys blocked many attempts by the Bush administration to do something with the enemy combatants."

message_topic.aspx?topic=581598&page=2

2. There is precedent for this--established by a Democrat:

Quote :

"**Haupt, Herbert Electrocution; White; Sabotage; 22; 08/08/42; DC **Heinck, Heinrich; Electrocution; White; Sabotage; Unk; 08/08/42; DC **Keiling, Edward; Electrocution; White; Sabotage; Unk; 08/08/42; DC **Neubauer, Herman; Electrocution; White; Sabotage; Unk; 08/08/42; DC **Quirin, Richard; Electrocution; White; Sabotage; Unk; 08/08/42; DC"

Quote :

"** Tried by a military commission appointed by President Roosevelt on July 8, 1942."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-executions-1927-2003

3. Now answer my questions:

Quote :

"1. How are military tribunals unlawful? 2. How will allowing KSM et al to put America and/or Bush on trial serve justice? 3. How were KSM et al's 'rights' not already violated? 4. How will an impartial jury be seated? 5. To what venue would the trial(s) move if a change request were granted? 6. Can you give me a case in United States history that an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?"

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : Answer the questions.]

12/18/2009 3:31:24 PM

lol @ troll. It seems everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or a moonbat.

----

Well, now I'm confused. You're changing your claims.

Do you believe:

1) KSM should be subjected to a military tribunal.

or

2) KSM should be summarily shot.


Those are two different (and incompatible) things and you've claimed both of them in this thread.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

12/18/2009 4:02:28 PM

^ You're an idiot--I've done nothing of the sort. Being summarily executed after a U.S. military tribunal is not the same thing as a "summary execution."

My position is clear and it has been all along:

Quote :

"So, they could have simply been given a military tribunal and promptly executed--just as Obama says they will be."

Answer my questions!

And, yes, you are a troll.

12/18/2009 4:06:33 PM

Quote :

"I'm not concerned with the admitted terrorists getting a "fair" trial--I believe they should be summarily shot."

-hooksaw

Quote :

"Summary execution, huh?"

-A Tanzarian

Quote :

"Yes, now you have it."

-hooksaw

Quote :

"sum·ma·ry [suhm-uh-ree] Show IPA noun, plural -ries, adjective –noun 1. a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements. –adjective 2. brief and comprehensive; concise. 3. direct and prompt; unceremoniously fast: to treat someone with summary dispatch. 4. (of legal proceedings, jurisdiction, etc.) conducted without, or exempt from, the various steps and delays of a formal trial."

If you're executed after a tribunal, then it wasn't a summary execution.

12/18/2009 4:16:28 PM

summarily

Quote :

"1. in a prompt or direct manner; immediately; straightaway."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/summarily

Answer my questions!

12/18/2009 4:20:43 PM

lol

We all know what you meant. And so do you.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM. Reason : And no, I'm not going to answer your loaded questions.]

12/18/2009 4:30:23 PM

^^How does that definition help your case at all? It even uses the word "immediately". It's like you're not even trying at this point.

Seriously, hooksaw, reading over this thread just makes me feel bad for you. You really should be embarrassed over the whole thing, but as usual you try to present a strong (a.k.a. stubborn) front in the face of more reasonable opposition.

12/18/2009 4:34:44 PM

Quote :

"^ You're an idiot--I've done nothing of the sort. Being summarily executed after a U.S. military tribunal is not the same thing as a 'summary execution.'"

12/19/2009 3:35:15 AM

Quote :

""KSM and his cohorts should have never been given 'rights.' They were not prisoners of war--thus the term 'enemy combatants' was applied--and they were not in the United States. So, they could have simply been given a military tribunal and promptly executed--just as Obama says they will be. Except in my scenario, there is no opportunity for those fuckheads to violate us and the families of the dead yet again--and it would be significantly less expensive and risky. And let's not forget that left-wing attorneys blocked many attempts by the Bush administration to do something with the enemy combatants.""

you might not be aware of this, but we actually DID sign and ratify the Geneva Convention in 1949. Doing so invalidated the previous court ruling regarding unlawful combatants.

If you don't believe my opinion on it then perhaps you'll trust the Supreme Court's: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld?wasRedirected=true

Also, I wouldn't go claiming anything under the military comissioms act. Parts have already been declared unconstitutional by the SC and it still doesn't deal with our resposibilities to the Geneva Conventions

12/22/2009 1:19:41 AM

While I agree that we should just try the assholes, let's not get too carried away with the Geneva Convention/POW concept. In order to qualify for POW status during a conflict, you have to meet three standards, including:

1) Wearing a "uniform" (can be any article of clothing or identifying mark that distinguishes you as a member of a certain group and is recognizable from a distance).
2) Having a leader with a clear responsibility for the people under his command.
3) Bearing arms openly.

To the best of my knowledge, KSM and many of the other fighters caught in Afghanistan and elsewhere do not meet qualification #1. Arguably they do not meet #2, and they may or may not meet #3. In other words, they may be many things, entitled to various levels of legal protection, but they are not entitled to POW status or any of the privileges thereof.

---

Woops, I forgot the 4th qualification: they have to be "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." I doubt that KSM or virtually any other member of al Qaeda, its offshoots, or the Taliban meets that qualifier.



[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2009 5:52:15 PM

Quote :

"Article 4 1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; * that of carrying arms openly; * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. 5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. 2. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. 3. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. "

^Those 4 criteria you mention are only one of 8 possible ways someone could be classified as POW according to the actual convention text. 1-3 in the text quoted above are the most relevant. And when in doubt, the convention text also says to err on the side of POW


[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 6:43 PM. Reason : this feels like an old discussion. highlighted relevant parts]

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 6:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/22/2009 6:26:29 PM

What other category would a pro-Taliban or al Qaeda member be likely to belong to? None of them are part of a regular armed forces.

I don't see a whole lot of room for doubt, really. If KSM and many other detainees count as a POWs, then the term might as well have no meaning.

12/22/2009 8:51:34 PM

Well, frankly I've always thought of terrorist organizations as a form of volunteer militia.

12/22/2009 9:27:19 PM

Volunteer militas or corps that are "forming part of such armed forces" would fit into category (section, number, whatever) one.

Since the enemy forces in Afghanistan do not form part of regular armed forces, they fall under the second section. As such, in order to be treated as POW's they have to meet those qualifiers.

Realistically, those four qualifications are applied to anybody involved in a conflict. If you capture a spy, you're allowed to shoot him. If you capture a member of a military unit that uses your uniform (to spread confusion, like in the battle of the bulge), you're allowed to shoot him. But for purposes of this discussion I'll work with the quoted parts of Article 4.

12/22/2009 9:34:46 PM

^ And neither the actions of the spy nor the imposter are anywhere near as atrocious as killing nearly 3,000 people by burning them alive and by forcing them to jump to their deaths and chopping a journalist's head off.

12/23/2009 1:33:52 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

12/23/2009 9:05:52 AM

I'm not concerned with how atrocious the thing was, and the law shouldn't be, either. There isn't some magical level of tragedy at which we all get to ignore rule of law.

But I'm not trying to establish what KSM, et al, are under the law. I'm not sure I know. But I know for damn sure one thing they're not, which is POW's under the Geneva Conventions.

12/23/2009 2:47:35 PM

^ the letter of the law isn’t as clear is certain people are making it out to be.

But I’m fairly confident that the spirit of the law was not to allow the US to be able to treat people captured in a guerilla war immorally.

The purpose of the law seems to be more aimed at preventing our military from picking up random drug dealers or thieves, or even more sophisticated criminals, and treating them as soldiers in a war. Our military isn’t supposed to be used as a police force.

12/23/2009 4:29:55 PM

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the letter of the law (with regards to Geneva) classifies many al Qaeda and Taliban fighters that we have captured as POWs.

The law was specifically shaped with an eye towards allowing military forces to deal with francs tireurs, spies, saboteurs, and terrorists differently from POW's.

And you're completely wrong about the purpose of the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention, which make it perfectly clear that their purpose is to establish who qualifies as a POW and what you can do with them, and to govern how belligerents treat incapacitated members of opposing armed forces. It does not concern itself in the least with common criminals.

12/23/2009 5:44:34 PM