9/11 Suspects to Face Death Penalty in NYC Trial...

gimmesometruth27

prfctlefts wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

so much for due process. yeah lets martyr them and encourage more terrorists, what a brilliant idea.

Obviously you don't get it... They could all walk on a technicality such as their miranda rights never being read to them. Which would not happen in a M.T. And not to mention this is exactly what he wants. They will use this trial for nothing more than propaganda so that he can become a martyr and that will create more Jihadist. It will also bring the pain back to the families that lost loved ones on 911,but Im sure you and the rest of the lefties on here could care less about how the families feel. You're all more worried about the KSM's feelings or fox news.

obviously YOU do not get it. if they can walk on a technicality, and if that is a well known possibility, then why did those responsible for their arrest and holding them not do things by the book? why were they not read their rights, if it is your contention that they were not read them? why were they not given legal representation? why were they tortured? why did it take 8 years to charge them and bring them to some sort of trial? whatever happened to a speedy trial by jury of your peers? to become a martyr one has to DIE....if we kill them we make them martyrs and inspirational leaders to the next generation of jihadists, if we leave them in jail they do not become martyrs in that sense, they become more like that mumia muhammed guy that was imprisoned under shady circumstances which caused a groundswell in favor of giving him a new trial or outright release. if this case was so open and shut why was it not carried out years ago instead of being drug out and drug out and drug out? if they defendants want to die and be made martyrs why do you want to give them that satisfaction??

i do not know if a trial will bring back the pain that has never really left for these families. i am sure a lot of them would want some sort of closure, and dragging out this process is doing quite the opposite of closure, more like allowing the wounds to fester. by doing this feet dragging it seems to me that YOU and the government are allowing the pain of the families to continue instead of getting these proceedings over and done with. personally i do not care about these defendants. i was not directly affected by 9/11 so i have no stake in what happens. i am however a stickler for the rule of law and the legal process. if the system is broken and these guys walk, you have nobody to blame other than those responsible for carrying out this case. if we fucked it up by not going by the book then that is the lesson these people will learn. you should stop painting liberals as uncaring about these families and people in general. i know for a fact that i have a great deal of empathy for these families. last i checked the right were the ones that are against any form of assistance for less fortunate, thus not caring for people other than themselves. i do not care about KSM's feelings, rather i expect my government to do things by the book. after 8 years they better have done so, if not you can blame the people in charge of this, and only them. i am concerned about fox news because they LIE to their viewers. which i am pretty sure this is where your paranoia of these defendants walking on a technicality is coming from in the first place.

ledvedderman

prfctlefts wrote:

but Im sure you and the rest of the lefties on here could care less about how the families feel.

Damn those on the left for their feelings about bringing the criminals to justice the American way. You all should be more respectful to their feelings...like this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf33g9ep4YU

dimitrispearljam

NoK wrote:

Maybe during the course of the trial they can finally tell us what the link between 9-11 and Iraq was. Then the Iraqis can understand why 1 million of them had to die.

+1

dimitrispearljam

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

so much for due process. yeah lets martyr them and encourage more terrorists, what a brilliant idea.

Obviously you don't get it... They could all walk on a technicality such as their miranda rights never being read to them. Which would not happen in a M.T. And not to mention this is exactly what he wants. They will use this trial for nothing more than propaganda so that he can become a martyr and that will create more Jihadist. It will also bring the pain back to the families that lost loved ones on 911,but Im sure you and the rest of the lefties on here could care less about how the families feel. You're all more worried about the KSM's feelings or fox news.

obviously YOU do not get it. if they can walk on a technicality, and if that is a well known possibility, then why did those responsible for their arrest and holding them not do things by the book? why were they not read their rights, if it is your contention that they were not read them? why were they not given legal representation? why were they tortured? why did it take 8 years to charge them and bring them to some sort of trial? whatever happened to a speedy trial by jury of your peers? to become a martyr one has to DIE....if we kill them we make them martyrs and inspirational leaders to the next generation of jihadists, if we leave them in jail they do not become martyrs in that sense, they become more like that mumia muhammed guy that was imprisoned under shady circumstances which caused a groundswell in favor of giving him a new trial or outright release. if this case was so open and shut why was it not carried out years ago instead of being drug out and drug out and drug out? if they defendants want to die and be made martyrs why do you want to give them that satisfaction??

i do not know if a trial will bring back the pain that has never really left for these families. i am sure a lot of them would want some sort of closure, and dragging out this process is doing quite the opposite of closure, more like allowing the wounds to fester. by doing this feet dragging it seems to me that YOU and the government are allowing the pain of the families to continue instead of getting these proceedings over and done with. personally i do not care about these defendants. i was not directly affected by 9/11 so i have no stake in what happens. i am however a stickler for the rule of law and the legal process. if the system is broken and these guys walk, you have nobody to blame other than those responsible for carrying out this case. if we fucked it up by not going by the book then that is the lesson these people will learn. you should stop painting liberals as uncaring about these families and people in general. i know for a fact that i have a great deal of empathy for these families. last i checked the right were the ones that are against any form of assistance for less fortunate, thus not caring for people other than themselves. i do not care about KSM's feelings, rather i expect my government to do things by the book. after 8 years they better have done so, if not you can blame the people in charge of this, and only them. i am concerned about fox news because they LIE to their viewers. which i am pretty sure this is where your paranoia of these defendants walking on a technicality is coming from in the first place.

dont have to worry about new jihadiss...their familys that their people know that usa hold them 8 years without trial already join the club..

Kel Varnsen

A civilian trial seems like kind of a weird way to play this, it does make me wonder a few things though (although most of my legal knowlege comes from law and order). Who will they get to defend these guys? How the hell will they deal with jury selection, especially in NY trying to find 12 jurors who are impartial? What if one of the defendants decided he wants to represent himself?

soulsinging

Kel Varnsen wrote:

A civilian trial seems like kind of a weird way to play this, it does make me wonder a few things though (although most of my legal knowlege comes from law and order). Who will they get to defend these guys? How the hell will they deal with jury selection, especially in NY trying to find 12 jurors who are impartial? What if one of the defendants decided he wants to represent himself?

these guys are going to have people tripping over themselves to defend them. the kind of press and notoriety you'd get from a case like this is a career maker. not to mention the possibility of fat defense checks cut by saudi oil princes on behalf of their distant cousins...

jury selection... that'd be tough anywhere in the country probably. new yorkers are probably better equipped to serve as jurors anywya. as some comedian pointed out, the people most bloodthirsty for war and revenge in the wake of 9/11 are often those that live in places that would never be the target of an attack like this (ie. red state neocon strongholds). new yorkers generally have a solid handle on things at this point.

if they want to defend themselves they can within reason. if they act out of line or prove unfit to mount a legal defense, that right will be taken from them and an attorney will be appointed. so they can't try to turn it into a circus. judges have some discretion.

even flow - question mark

A trial???? Aren't these guys already guilty?

We'll get to hear the mastermind either tell the real story or just brag about the whole thing. The security will have to be so tight as you can bet some other loser will want to make a name for themselves by causing an uproar at the expense of NYC again. Just have the boat sink on the way from Cuba to FLA and be done with it.

WaveCameCrashin

My greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trial that ignores all established legal precedent.the ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself. None of the prerequisites exist for a fair trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.

For example, just for starters what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the KSM who planned 911? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the Gov.. claims he is ?

What about chain of evidence ? KSM wasn't captured by civil law enforcement ,but by our military who were fighting a war,not gathering evidence. Did they carefully log every piece of evidence and log every time someone touched it. How will the prosecution refute a claim that evidence was tampered with ?

what about KSM being water-boarded ? In a normal civil trial that would make his confession entirely inadmissible.Even if the jury knows of the confession external to the trial,an honest jury member would have to disregard such information. If the confession is allowed against all precedent,the jury could honestly
disregard it just as they would in any proven instance of police brutality.

A civil defendant has the right to face his accusers. Are we going to force intelligence officers and special agents to reveal their identities in open court ? If we don't,how do we prove that the Gov. witnesses are real people and that they are telling the truth about real people ? The defendant also has the right examine any and all evidence. So why not just let KSM and his defense team examine the the internals of the software and hardware we use to track enemy communications.

These and other factors could all combine create a plausible defense that simply says that all the evidence presented was fabricated by the GOVernment . Such fabrication does occur in much less prominent,so a jury cannot disregard the possibility it could occur in such a high profile case. So how could the Gov. objectively refute such a claim when it employed none of the safeguards used by civil law enforcement ?

Drowned Out

prfctlefts wrote:

My greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trial that ignores all established legal precedent.the ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself. None of the prerequisites exist for a fair trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.

For example, just for starters what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the KSM who planned 911? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the Gov.. claims he is ?

What about chain of evidence ? KSM wasn't captured by civil law enforcement ,but by our military who were fighting a war,not gathering evidence. Did they carefully log every piece of evidence and log every time someone touched it. How will the prosecution refute a claim that evidence was tampered with ?

what about KSM being water-boarded ? In a normal civil trial that would make his confession entirely inadmissible.Even if the jury knows of the confession external to the trial,an honest jury member would have to disregard such information. If the confession is allowed against all precedent,the jury could honestly
disregard it just as they would in any proven instance of police brutality.

A civil defendant has the right to face his accusers. Are we going to force intelligence officers and special agents to reveal their identities in open court ? If we don't,how do we prove that the Gov. witnesses are real people and that they are telling the truth about real people ? The defendant also has the right examine any and all evidence. So why not just let KSM and his defense team examine the the internals of the software and hardware we use to track enemy communications.

These and other factors could all combine create a plausible defense that simply says that all the evidence presented was fabricated by the GOVernment . Such fabrication does occur in much less prominent,so a jury cannot disregard the possibility it could occur in such a high profile case. So how could the Gov. objectively refute such a claim when it employed none of the safeguards used by civil law enforcement ?

:roll:
YOUR greatest concern, huh?
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10191.html

gimmesometruth27

Drowned Out wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

My greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trial that ignores all established legal precedent.the ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself. None of the prerequisites exist for a fair trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.

For example, just for starters what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the KSM who planned 911? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the Gov.. claims he is ?

What about chain of evidence ? KSM wasn't captured by civil law enforcement ,but by our military who were fighting a war,not gathering evidence. Did they carefully log every piece of evidence and log every time someone touched it. How will the prosecution refute a claim that evidence was tampered with ?

what about KSM being water-boarded ? In a normal civil trial that would make his confession entirely inadmissible.Even if the jury knows of the confession external to the trial,an honest jury member would have to disregard such information. If the confession is allowed against all precedent,the jury could honestly
disregard it just as they would in any proven instance of police brutality.

A civil defendant has the right to face his accusers. Are we going to force intelligence officers and special agents to reveal their identities in open court ? If we don't,how do we prove that the Gov. witnesses are real people and that they are telling the truth about real people ? The defendant also has the right examine any and all evidence. So why not just let KSM and his defense team examine the the internals of the software and hardware we use to track enemy communications.



These and other factors could all combine create a plausible defense that simply says that all the evidence presented was fabricated by the GOVernment . Such fabrication does occur in much less prominent,so a jury cannot disregard the possibility it could occur in such a high profile case. So how could the Gov. objectively refute such a claim when it employed none of the safeguards used by civil law enforcement ?

:roll:
YOUR greatest concern, huh?
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10191.html

wow.....i did not think he wrote that. i actually googled a few sentences from that post a little while ago and got the same link.

the lesson in this is if you are going to plagiarize a blog, try to save yourself the embarrassment and at least cite the author and say "i agree with what this person says" instead of posting it as if it is your own work. this just proves that people are intelligent enough around here to tell the difference between posters' writing styles....

Wilds

Drowned Out wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

My greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trial that ignores all established legal precedent.the ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself. None of the prerequisites exist for a fair trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.

For example, just for starters what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the KSM who planned 911? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the Gov.. claims he is ?

What about chain of evidence ? KSM wasn't captured by civil law enforcement ,but by our military who were fighting a war,not gathering evidence. Did they carefully log every piece of evidence and log every time someone touched it. How will the prosecution refute a claim that evidence was tampered with ?

what about KSM being water-boarded ? In a normal civil trial that would make his confession entirely inadmissible.Even if the jury knows of the confession external to the trial,an honest jury member would have to disregard such information. If the confession is allowed against all precedent,the jury could honestly
disregard it just as they would in any proven instance of police brutality.

A civil defendant has the right to face his accusers. Are we going to force intelligence officers and special agents to reveal their identities in open court ? If we don't,how do we prove that the Gov. witnesses are real people and that they are telling the truth about real people ? The defendant also has the right examine any and all evidence. So why not just let KSM and his defense team examine the the internals of the software and hardware we use to track enemy communications.

These and other factors could all combine create a plausible defense that simply says that all the evidence presented was fabricated by the GOVernment . Such fabrication does occur in much less prominent,so a jury cannot disregard the possibility it could occur in such a high profile case. So how could the Gov. objectively refute such a claim when it employed none of the safeguards used by civil law enforcement ?

:roll:
YOUR greatest concern, huh?
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10191.html

I enjoy reading posts in the MT once in a while and don't feel compelled to post here, but I'll make an exception cause this made me shoot cola out of my nose.


That is some funny shit. "YOUR greatest concern"

Thank you for the laugh.

Cosmo

Drowned Out wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

My greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trial that ignores all established legal precedent.the ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself. None of the prerequisites exist for a fair trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.

For example, just for starters what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the KSM who planned 911? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the Gov.. claims he is ?

What about chain of evidence ? KSM wasn't captured by civil law enforcement ,but by our military who were fighting a war,not gathering evidence. Did they carefully log every piece of evidence and log every time someone touched it. How will the prosecution refute a claim that evidence was tampered with ?

what about KSM being water-boarded ? In a normal civil trial that would make his confession entirely inadmissible.Even if the jury knows of the confession external to the trial,an honest jury member would have to disregard such information. If the confession is allowed against all precedent,the jury could honestly
disregard it just as they would in any proven instance of police brutality.

A civil defendant has the right to face his accusers. Are we going to force intelligence officers and special agents to reveal their identities in open court ? If we don't,how do we prove that the Gov. witnesses are real people and that they are telling the truth about real people ? The defendant also has the right examine any and all evidence. So why not just let KSM and his defense team examine the the internals of the software and hardware we use to track enemy communications.

These and other factors could all combine create a plausible defense that simply says that all the evidence presented was fabricated by the GOVernment . Such fabrication does occur in much less prominent,so a jury cannot disregard the possibility it could occur in such a high profile case. So how could the Gov. objectively refute such a claim when it employed none of the safeguards used by civil law enforcement ?

:roll:
YOUR greatest concern, huh?
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10191.html

...
Busted.
Proof that independent thinking and critical thought is not in his arsenal. His greatest weapon against us 'Liberal, America hating, Kool-Aid drinking, Obama loving, socialist, commie Nazis' is plagerism.
Unless, of course, his name is Shannon Love and he has a vagina. If that is the case... nevermind.

Thorns2010

Cosmo wrote:

Unless, of course, his name is Shannon Love and he has a vagina. If that is the case... nevermind.

I can't find on that site if Shannon Love is male or female. Shannon, originally was a male name.

Not that I believe our friend here is this Shannon Love person, but just on the name alone we can't rule it out.

brandon10

Drowned Out wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

My greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trial that ignores all established legal precedent.the ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself. None of the prerequisites exist for a fair trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.

For example, just for starters what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the KSM who planned 911? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the Gov.. claims he is ?

What about chain of evidence ? KSM wasn't captured by civil law enforcement ,but by our military who were fighting a war,not gathering evidence. Did they carefully log every piece of evidence and log every time someone touched it. How will the prosecution refute a claim that evidence was tampered with ?

what about KSM being water-boarded ? In a normal civil trial that would make his confession entirely inadmissible.Even if the jury knows of the confession external to the trial,an honest jury member would have to disregard such information. If the confession is allowed against all precedent,the jury could honestly
disregard it just as they would in any proven instance of police brutality.

A civil defendant has the right to face his accusers. Are we going to force intelligence officers and special agents to reveal their identities in open court ? If we don't,how do we prove that the Gov. witnesses are real people and that they are telling the truth about real people ? The defendant also has the right examine any and all evidence. So why not just let KSM and his defense team examine the the internals of the software and hardware we use to track enemy communications.

These and other factors could all combine create a plausible defense that simply says that all the evidence presented was fabricated by the GOVernment . Such fabrication does occur in much less prominent,so a jury cannot disregard the possibility it could occur in such a high profile case. So how could the Gov. objectively refute such a claim when it employed none of the safeguards used by civil law enforcement ?

:roll:
YOUR greatest concern, huh?
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10191.html

hahahahahahaha I can't stop laughing.

Cosmo

Thorns2010 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Unless, of course, his name is Shannon Love and he has a vagina. If that is the case... nevermind.

I can't find on that site if Shannon Love is male or female. Shannon, originally was a male name.

Not that I believe our friend here is this Shannon Love person, but just on the name alone we can't rule it out.

...
Actually... you are correct. Shannon is one of those names that is gender neutral, like Pat or Chris or Jean. And the more I read Shannon Love's blog... I figured out he is a guy. An older guy... probably Viet Nam Era... and pretty well versed. Opposite of many of my points of view, but I think I'd like to discuss things with him.
Definately... NOT our guy. For one, he understands why the Bail-outs were required and why Executives deserve the pay they get and I'm guessing doesn't listen to Pearl Jam. And I have a feeling, Shannon doesn't seem to be the kind of person who'd watch FOX News for anything other than fuel for humourous commentary about broadcast 'journalism'.

aerial

Commy wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

KSM should not be tried in a federal court. HE should be tried in a military tribunal. This is a vey bad decision on the part of Obama and Holder. Not only that it Unconstitutional. wtf is this president thinking ? What's going to happen if he walks on a technicality ? :x :x :x

so he should be tried in a military court to guarantee conviction?


why even have a trial?

Obama says they will be convicted...hmmm so why have a trial... just as you say... Obama could give a rats ass about this country...his main goal is to please the world not his country.....This man is selfserving...

brandon10

aerial wrote:

Commy wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

KSM should not be tried in a federal court. HE should be tried in a military tribunal. This is a vey bad decision on the part of Obama and Holder. Not only that it Unconstitutional. wtf is this president thinking ? What's going to happen if he walks on a technicality ? :x :x :x

so he should be tried in a military court to guarantee conviction?


why even have a trial?

Obama says they will be convicted...hmmm so why have a trial... just as you say... Obama could give a rats ass about this country...his main goal is to please the world not his country.....This man is selfserving...

I think the PJ song insignificance was made to describe your posts. Your thoughtless blabber gets old fast.

Do us a favour, when you finally post something that you actually thought up without Glen Beck telling you what to say....let us know. We'll throw a party.

TriumphantAngel

aerial wrote:

Obama says they will be convicted...hmmm so why have a trial

tell me aerial, what would you have preferred your president to say? that he has no faith in the justice system?

damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

the GOP is shitting themselves at the thought of KSM's trial being held in the fed court system. i wonder why that might be aerial? why are they so damn afraid? isn't there already over 300 tried and convicted terrorists currently in custody, including those responsible for the 93 WTC bombing?

of course it wouldn't have anything to do with all the lies that were told by bush and co, and more of them being made public now, would it?

WaveCameCrashin

So what all of you cut and paste shit all the time what's the difference
and I didn't even type out the whole opinion and Cosmo I can think for myself so piss off you're nothing but a jerk who likes to talk shit. All of you should know by now I'm not that articulate. I just thought the author made some really good points,but just as I expected all of you would just focus on the fact that I didn't write it and not the real issue at hand

Drowned Out

prfctlefts wrote:

So what all of you cut and paste shit all the time what's the difference
and I didn't even type out the whole opinion and Cosmo I can think for myself so piss off you're nothing but a jerk who likes to talk shit. All of you should know by now I'm not that articulate. I just thought the author made some really good points,but just as I expected all of you would just focus on the fact that I didn't write it and not the real issue at hand

The difference is we post the link and we don't fucking change words to make the article our own. Just as you expected? If you describe yourself as 'not that articulate', and realize you'd probably get busted...why not just post the bloody link? Some people here are 'not so articulate', hell english isn't even their first language. They don't do this....others, like me, have zero education and are taking the time to learn about the topics we're posting in, and to put some actual thought into our replies, so it's a bit of a piss off when someone pulls this kind of shit.