Putting 9/11 terrorists on trial in New York

• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:

  jmog wrote: BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.

  I have been paying very close attention.
  
  I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.
  
  When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.
  
  Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.

  Ok BCS, find me one situation we are currently in, from the economy, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to this trial, to 9/11, to terrorist, to our foreign affairs, that this admin hasn't blamed even a little bit on Bush?
• CharlieHog

  Sorry about that, not sure why the link isn't working. Here's the crux of the argument:
  
  The foolhardiness of President Obama's decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 and four cohorts in civilian court grows ever clearer as the outlines of the proceedings take shape.
  
  It is offensive that Obama gave his blessings to designating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his Al Qaeda crew as common criminals rather than as enemy combatants, perpetrators of the worst attack on American soil from abroad.
  
  But that offense, high as it is, pales in comparison with the serious practical and legal consequences of hauling these avowed enemies of the nation into Manhattan Federal Court with all the rights and protections under the Constitution.
  
  Such as Mohammed's right to rummage through the government's intelligence and investigative files for information that is purportedly useful to his defense - but will be more helpful to Al Qaeda operatives in the field.
  
  (Oh, so that's what the CIA has been up to!)
  
  Such as Mohammed's right to mount a defense that attempts to put the U.S. on trial for supposed human rights violations in the detention and interrogation of prisoners.
  
  Such as Mohammed's right to act as his own lawyer even as he perverts protections he has been granted by making a circus of the trial.
  
  Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html#ixzz0XEGjejPj
  
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Wouldn't a military base be considered part of the US?
• Gobuckeyes1

  If you believe in our Constitution and Judicial system, you should have no problem with this. To me, it's that simple.
• dwccrew

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Wouldn't a military base be considered part of the US?

  It would, but the military court system is different than the US court system. Under the Constitution, the 9-11 suspects would be considered foreign combatants that committed acts against the US in the US. Therefore, under the US Constitution, they should be tried in a US court, not a military court.
  
  The suspects accused of attacks on US troops in foreign lands should not be tried in US courts, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the military courts.
• BCSbunk

  jmog wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  jmog wrote: BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.

  I have been paying very close attention.
  
  I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.
  
  When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.
  
  Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.

  Ok BCS, find me one situation we are currently in, from the economy, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to this trial, to 9/11, to terrorist, to our foreign affairs, that this admin hasn't blamed even a little bit on Bush?

  Sorry Jmog it does not work like that. That is why I called your statement a baseless one.
  
  He who made the original assertion has the burden of proof.
  
  Show me where Obama states in every one of his addresses that it is Bush's fault?
  
  I have watched many of his speeches where Bush was not mentioned nor even alluded to.
  
  In fact I will go ahead and show you a speech 8 full pages long on healthcare reform that does not blame Bush.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html
  
  I suppose now you come back with that does not count eh?
• LJ

  

  On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.
  
  And as per the rules, if you want to claim something as fact, that proof needs to be provided upfront, this back and forth is a good example of why this rule is in place. You can offer anything up as your opinion, but you have to show proof if you claim it as fact.
• BCSbunk

  CharlieHog wrote: Sorry about that, not sure why the link isn't working. Here's the crux of the argument:
  
  The foolhardiness of President Obama's decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 and four cohorts in civilian court grows ever clearer as the outlines of the proceedings take shape.
  
  It is offensive that Obama gave his blessings to designating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his Al Qaeda crew as common criminals rather than as enemy combatants, perpetrators of the worst attack on American soil from abroad.
  
  But that offense, high as it is, pales in comparison with the serious practical and legal consequences of hauling these avowed enemies of the nation into Manhattan Federal Court with all the rights and protections under the Constitution.
  
  Such as Mohammed's right to rummage through the government's intelligence and investigative files for information that is purportedly useful to his defense - but will be more helpful to Al Qaeda operatives in the field.
  
  (Oh, so that's what the CIA has been up to!)
  
  Such as Mohammed's right to mount a defense that attempts to put the U.S. on trial for supposed human rights violations in the detention and interrogation of prisoners.
  
  Such as Mohammed's right to act as his own lawyer even as he perverts protections he has been granted by making a circus of the trial.
  
  Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html#ixzz0XEGjejPj
  

  Not only does this person want to violate the Constitution he is guilty of special pleading.
  
  The Constitution has spoken IMO that is the end of the matter.
• BCSbunk

  LJ wrote: On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.

  Exactly, when Jmog claims that this administration has been ALL about blaming Bush it is his burden to prove that statement if someone should call him out on it.
• eersandbeers

  Charliehog,
  
  That article doesn't really make any sense. It is basically arguing that those who are accused of a crime should not have access to the evidence against them. Let's say for example a rich warlord gave us KSM. Should he not have access to that info to defend himself against a detention based on flimsy evidence.
  
  
  Again I will mention, we already successfully tried Moussaoui and there was no outrage.
  
  I don't know how any American could argue against granting someone the right to defend their innocence. Regardless of who it is.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  dwccrew,
  
  Do we know where the thoughts to do the act originated? For example, if the original plans were inititated in another country, but further elaborated on in this country, which country, exactly, do we want to zero in on? Would that decision be politically motivated? Would that decision be a "statement"?
  
  See, I don't think this is as cut and dried as some people, including myself, would like to think. That's why I continue to ask questions. Now, that doesn't mean that I've changed my mind and think it is a good idea to put the terrorists on trial in NY. I still think its a bad idea, but willing to learn more and keep an open mind.
• fish82

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  LJ wrote: On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.

  Exactly, when Jmog claims that this administration has been ALL about blaming Bush it is his burden to prove that statement if someone should call him out on it.

  Fine. They've been mostly about blaming Bush. Happy?
• fish82

  

  Gobuckeyes1 wrote: If you believe in our Constitution and Judicial system, you should have no problem with this. To me, it's that simple.

  Dude. :rolleyes:
• LJ

  

  I think the debate over whether or not this administration is all about blaming Bush and his administration will be treated as opinion on here, as there is no way to determine one way or the other which is totally factual.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  If anybody is interested, this will especially catch the eye of those who want to argue every little thing...
  A great example of "Bush bashing" and the "Presidential blame-game" can be found in the video of Rachel Maddow. In the video, she clearly points out how President Obama blames/rebukes President Bush for doing something out of one side of his mouth, and then says that he will continue to do the same thing in addition to improving the wording of the current laws to make this more acceptable.
  Now, if somebody from MSNBC finds it ridiculous enough to point that out, that says quite alot, don't ya'll think?
  
  
  
  Just one example. I know I put it out there alot, but it seems that people don't acknowledge it alot LOL!
  But it really is an important thing to keep in mind, because it has such a pivotal meaning on a few different things. Also, it's a good example that is't hearsay. It's something actually caught forever on tape and cannot be refuted.
• dwccrew

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: dwccrew,
  
  Do we know where the thoughts to do the act originated? For example, if the original plans were inititated in another country, but further elaborated on in this country, which country, exactly, do we want to zero in on? Would that decision be politically motivated? Would that decision be a "statement"?
  
  See, I don't think this is as cut and dried as some people, including myself, would like to think. That's why I continue to ask questions. Now, that doesn't mean that I've changed my mind and think it is a good idea to put the terrorists on trial in NY. I still think its a bad idea, but willing to learn more and keep an open mind.

  
  It doesn't matter where the idea was originated, it matters where the act was carried out. It's cut and dry in the Constitution.
  

  Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html
• majorspark

  

  The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.
  
  During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.
  
  Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?
  
  If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?
• fish82

  

  It was an act of war. Anyone thinking otherwise has a major malfunction.
• majorspark

  

  fish82 wrote: It was an act of war. Anyone thinking otherwise has a major malfunction.

  Exactly. These people that are trying to use the constitutuion to justify this will turn a blind eye when confessions and unconstitutionally collected evidence is presented at trial.
  
  Added bill of rights. Pay attention to Amendements IV, V, VI, VIII. Those of you that are demanding that we follow the constitution will you demand that these parts be followed as well.
  http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#4
• Glory Days

  

  Great post majorspark!
  

  dwccrew wrote:
  It would, but the military court system is different than the US court system. Under the Constitution, the 9-11 suspects would be considered foreign combatants that committed acts against the US in the US. Therefore, under the US Constitution, they should be tried in a US court, not a military court.
  
  The suspects accused of attacks on US troops in foreign lands should not be tried in US courts, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the military courts.

  if these people are higher ups in terrorist organizations, i am pretty sure we can pin some foreign attacks on our troops on these guys, shouldnt be hard if they are telling their goons to blow us up right?
• Captain Cavalier

  

  majorspark wrote: The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.
  
  During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.
  
  Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?
  
  If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?

  Agreed.
  
  This will be a media circus putting America "on trial" to a lot of radical Muslims and could end up as another "Rodney King Riot" in the worst sense.
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark wrote: The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.
  
  During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.

  This is a good question. I'm not sure what it is considered by the government. In my eyes, it is an act of war. Not saying I don't believe you, but could you provide a link that supports your
  statement that we can kill enemy operatives that have been captured?
  
  

  majorspark wrote:Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?

  Herein lies the problem. As you said, which parts of the Constitution do we throw out? We already have thrown them out! The fact that they were not read their rights, given a lawyer present during questioning, etc.,etc. supports the argument of some that say we have violated the Constitution. In my last post I provided an excerpt and link from Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution.
  

  majorspark wrote:If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?

  Again, this just supports the fact that the way this situation was handled was totally botched. The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that foreign combatants are granted habeas corpus. This is the fault of the former administration and current one. They neglected to follow proper procedure and now we are in this big mess.
  
  I certainly want these guys to face punishment, but if they did walk on technicalities (which I don't think they will), it would be the fault of our government.
  
  Many other "terrorist suspects" that have been caught plotting or planning ahve been tried in the US court system, what is the difference between them and these guys?
• Glory Days

  

  ^^^^^because i believe they were caught inside the US. for the example the last hijacker that didnt make the trip. what other terrorists have been tried so far?
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days wrote: ^^^^^because i believe they were caught inside the US. for the example the last hijacker that didnt make the trip.

  Very true. I'm not real sure how this should be tried. I just know that justice needs to be brought swiftly.
• 2trap_4ever

  I have to say this may be a really good idea, what a better and legal way of torture than to get this cowards in twined in the American legal system, if we are lucky they will hang themselves in their holding cells waiting to go to court.