9-11 trial in NY as a POLITICAL TACTIC

You nailed it!

EXCEPT for the part where Obama has alienated a major portion of the electorate.

And WE will get even ;-) ...Jim Thompson

I guess the fastest way to close the base would be just to shoot all the inmates ^-). If a civilian trial con't convict him, then how can a military, or would you just kill him anyway, irrespective of guilt ?.

Some of our own people are more of a threat to democracy than the terrorists could ever be. Kill one suspect because you think he's guilty and the next thing is anyone you don't like the look of, or just disagree with.

Have you ever been to Dachau ?. Quite an eye opener, especially the ovens...

Regards,

Chris

Your ignorance and random conclusions are under-whelming.

This trial is simply an Obama-game-way of "trying" the Bush administration.

I pray for all who are unfortunate enough to have to live on the east coast. But then they've always been a bit clueless like you, ChrisQ, so they won't be missed. ...Jim Thompson

Seems to me that a full public hearing is the best way to go, to show the world that due process has taken place and provide some closure on all the murky rumours, which do real damage even when untrue. Show that there is nothing to hide. You either believe in the democratic process or not and not everything is a conspiracy despite the best efforts of all the paranoics.

What do you think should happen then ?...

Regards,

Chris

The democratic process doesn't (and shouldn't) apply to POW's. By international law POW's stay in the pen until the war is over... it isn't. After the war ends the POW's are then repatriated IF and ONLY IF they are not to be charged with a war crime.

Learn the rules before you opine.

Warm and fuzzy isn't LAW.

Otherwise I have to label you an ignorant leftist weenie with all the rights and plonking thereof ;-) ...Jim Thompson

the

lty

vens...

=A0 =A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

As usual, Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson hasn't noticed that Al Qaeda isn't a nation state, so the US isn't at war with them, and the criminals under investigation aren't prisoners of war.

They are outlaws/bandits/pirates and can be tried - like any other lawbreaker - by the community whose laws they broke.

Most of the people in Guant=E1namo Bay were picked up during the American invasion of Afghanistan and initially handled as if they were prisoners of war, though some - at least - were non-combatants and should never have been imprisoned in the first place, while the Al Qaeda members weren't part of the Afghan military organisation and thus aren't entitled to prisoner of war status.

Not that Bush and Rumsfeld paid any attention to the Geneva Convention.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

That would happen, IF THEY WERE US CITIZENS.

The act on 9-11 was a multiple murder carried out by people who managed to talk others into dieing in the process. To call it an act of war gives those who did it the position of being soldiers. Soldier is an honorable thing that those people do not deserve to be called. There is no reason to give them a military trial as though they are military.

Yes the Bush administration did blow it by not taking them to trial quickly but at this point, he could still be found guilty of the charges. According to the legal experts I have heard, the prosecution will do this without going anywhere near the "fruit of the poisoned tree". None of KSM statements will be introduced. Even using those from long after he was tortured would be dangerous. Even if it is held admissible, it still could cause trouble on appeal.

The whole trial could turn into a major circus. This is the biggest risk being taken. New York has previously held trials for some very bad folks so New York is a good place to do this. They have the systems in place and have enough security to be able to do it.

The Bush administration gets blamed for a lot but the public will blame Obama if KSM gets off. The guy in charge when it happens tends to get the blame from the public. If this was a calculated move by Obama to get KSM off and blame Bush he has seriously miscalculated. The public will have none of it.

So perhaps the Hague would be the best place to try them, or their own country. Problem is that most of them are not war criminals in any conventional sense.

Part of the trouble is that they have been assembled from all over the place, under different circumstances. Some probably caught red handed, but others just taken because of hear say evidence or because they were found in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just being accused of being a terrorist doesn't make you one and if you were imprisoned under dubious circumstances, the lawyers will have field day.

Not a problem I would want to have the responsibility of solving and neither you nor Jim have suggested any practical alternative solution either. It's easy to criticise if a) you don't have to make the decision or b) you have no better alternative plan :-)...

Regards,

Chris

No problem Jim and as Bill will no doubt tell you, I tend to make my own mind up irrespective of the views of others :-)...

Regards,

Chris

The military ones tend to give the prosecution more advantages. Secret evidence can be used.

I have no doubt that KSM was involved. That he was the master mind of the attack I do question. He expects to be put to death in any case so taking "credit" for the whole thing could just be his ego talking.

A military trial could have worked if the process hadn't been turned into kangaroo courts. Since many of the lawyers for the defense have pulled out of the cases saying that the system is corrupted, the trials would no longer be credible.

...

To see the danger to America you need only look within America. Consider the ones who say that 9-11 was an inside job. If you look closely at them you will see many with the logic: A) Bad things can never happen to the US B) A bad thing happened to the US C) It must have been an inside job D) The jews did it

I have heard basically A-D stated as though it was a logical argument from someone inside the US. It is scary.

Again... it's getting tedious... your "mind-view" doesn't make LAW.

"Bill"?? My filters are working perfectly ;-) ...Jim Thompson

We've lost it. But the usual rule WAS... winner decides the rules.

I'd find out what Islamic rite would send them to (their) hell, and perform it ;-) ...Jim Thompson

NEWS FROM North Central Florida's Congressman CLIFF STEARNS For Immediate Release: November 13, 2009

STEARNS CONDEMNS DECISION TO TRY TERRORISTS IN CIVILIAN COURT

CALLS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO PROSECUTE 9/11 MASTERMIND IN NEW YORK CITY ?DANGEROUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE.?

?The decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four co-defendants in federal court in New York instead of a military commission is both dangerous and irresponsible,? stated Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Sixth). ?President Obama is unfortunately treating terrorism as a law enforcement activity. These war criminals should be tried in a military court and not be treated as common criminals.?

Stearns says, ?To treat these terrorists as U.S. citizens is wrong and will give them access to secret intelligence information that was collected against them and other terrorists involved with 9/11 attack. These terrorists could possibly go free due to a mistrial or as a result of prejudice against U.S. anti-terror efforts. The fact that this trial will occur in New York City, in the backyard of Ground Zero, is all the more ironic and tragic.?

Stearns goes on to say, ?This decision represents a left-wing ideology, which caters to groups who are against the war. This has far-reaching ramifications and is a bridge too far, and all U.S. citizens should be outraged by this decision by President Obama.?

###

BTW, Cliff Stearns is on the VA steering committee.

l the

?.

uilty

ovens...

sQ,

=A0 =A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

The majority were really taken after the invasion and after the country had fallen. Many were not captured by the US military. They were handed over to the military in return for money. In one of the bigger mistakes of the effort, the US offered large sums of money for "the bad guys". It wasn't "if you know of a bad guy, we will take care of him". It was "bring us someone and claim he is a bad guy and we will make you rich." The US ended up with the folks who where unpopular with their neighbors and didn't have the resources to flee.

In a war you are allowed to hold someone while you determine their status. The determination should happen as soon as logistics allow but it doesn't have to happen right on the battle field. Until you know, erring on the side of them being POWs would be OK.

Unfortunately, his mind-view has been making law for almost a year.

Agreed. This is another dumb, amateurish move by O's team of clowns. They should have ordered a military trial in Guantanamo, which would have taken a few days and been followed by a firing squad execution the following morning.

John