Originally posted by zeeblebotNo, he doesn't. Statements made because of the torture are suppressed and can't be used, but the case isn't dismissed. BTW, the rules of the military tribunals also bar the use of statements obtained by torture.
the govt tortured him. what happens to an inmate in Podunk, USA, who was tortured by the local police, after the judge finds out? will the judge throw out the case based on violation of the defendant's rights?
and why do you think the outcome is predetermined?
OJ was SO guilty ....
If the government doesn't have the proof to convince a jury in NYC that these defendants planned the WTC bombings then they should be acquitted. What are the reasonable chances of such occurring? I'd be perfectly willing to wager any amount of money that this trial doesn't end in an acquittal on all charges. I find it quite astonishing that right wingers actually distrust the American people so much that they are afraid to have a jury stand in judgment of these defendants.
Originally posted by generalissimoThe idea that the government "allows" you to have rights is anathema to the principles this country was founded on.
They should be trialed in a military court, and it is foolish of the obama administration to allow them the same rights as normal criminals.
however, I think shav is wrong, there is no way they could get citizenship, or be released in the streets.
Originally posted by no1marauderwas OJ guilty?
No, he doesn't. Statements made because of the torture are suppressed and can't be used, but the case isn't dismissed. BTW, the rules of the military tribunals also bar the use of statements obtained by torture.
If the government doesn't have the proof to convince a jury in NYC that these defendants planned the WTC bombings then they shoul ...[text shortened]... people so much that they are afraid to have a jury stand in judgment of these defendants.
Originally posted by no1marauderhow about change of venue?
No, he doesn't. Statements made because of the torture are suppressed and can't be used, but the case isn't dismissed. BTW, the rules of the military tribunals also bar the use of statements obtained by torture.
If the government doesn't have the proof to convince a jury in NYC that these defendants planned the WTC bombings then they shoul ...[text shortened]... people so much that they are afraid to have a jury stand in judgment of these defendants.
Originally posted by no1marauderhow about the documents provided in the WTC bombing trial that gave critical information to OBL?
No, he doesn't. Statements made because of the torture are suppressed and can't be used, but the case isn't dismissed. BTW, the rules of the military tribunals also bar the use of statements obtained by torture.
If the government doesn't have the proof to convince a jury in NYC that these defendants planned the WTC bombings then they shoul ...[text shortened]... people so much that they are afraid to have a jury stand in judgment of these defendants.
Originally posted by zeeblebotApparently not, at least in a legal sense (I presume you are referring to the murder trial).
was OJ guilty?
What is the ultimate destination of such an argument? After all, it is theoretically possible that a military tribunal could acquit or dismiss charges, too. Does the remote possibility of acquittal make any type of trial undesirable in your view?
Originally posted by no1marauderI think you've nailed the problem. KSM is such a perfectly good candidate for all of us to invest all of our unresolved issues of fear and hatred upon. Giving him a reasonable chance to prove anything else sort of spoils the happy ending doesn't it?
What is the ultimate destination of such an argument? After all, it is theoretically possible that a military tribunal could acquit or dismiss charges, too. Does the remote possibility of acquittal make any type of trial undesirable in your view?
Originally posted by kmax87He'd have the same chance to prove his innocence in either venue.
I think you've nailed the problem. KSM is such a perfectly good candidate for all of us to invest all of our unresolved issues of fear and hatred upon. Giving him a reasonable chance to prove anything else sort of spoils the happy ending doesn't it?
The only reasonable grounds I can see to oppose moving the trial to NYC are the expense involved and the possibility that prosecutors will have to reveal military secrets to obtain a conviction.
I'm not too worried about the expense because it's all being paid to NY workers and security firms. Think of it as another mini-stimulus. After 800b, what's another 100m?
I also figure that there's plenty of evidence from non-secret sources of KSM's guilt and that whatever info would have to be used is several years old in any case and probably not much of a secret by now.
So, why not? Try him here. If he's convicted, he'll either be executed or spend life in Supermax (which may be a worse punishment). If by some infinitesimal chance, he's acquitted or released on a technicality, they can always send him back to GitMo or hold him as a POW. If by some mini-infinitesimal chance, he really is innocent, then release him. But, somehow, I doubt that scenario.
Originally posted by FMFRec'd.
You shouldn't dignify them by deeming them to be soldiers in a war. You shouldn't create a legitimacy or additional mystique in this way. You just play into their hands. They are not "military". They are criminals. Murderers. Terrorists. Civilian psychopaths representing no nation and no faith. They are not soldiers. They are depraved criminals. They shou ...[text shortened]... her than it has been for the last several years. Military tribunals? Score one for Al Qaeda.
Ooops, I'm not a subscriber anymore.😳
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=778156
They exist only in the minds of right wingers.
Alt notes that Al Qaeda was able to use the civilian trial of blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York as an information-gathering tool -- a list of unindicted co-conspirators was later found in a cave in Torah Borah, Afghanistan.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=778156
...
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) in a Judiciary Committee hearing last week asked Attorney General Eric Holder a question that the nation's top cop could not answer. Graham asked: "Can you give me a case in United States history where a[n] enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?"
The inquiry was followed by an extensive silence before Holder attempted to answer, and the attorney general could only verbalize: "I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made...." before Graham sternly cut him off in mid-sentence.
"We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General," Graham stated. "I'll answer it for you. The answer is 'no.'"
...
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13851852
Fair trial
Public Forum Letter
Updated: 11/23/2009 03:14:50 PM MST
Let me get this straight. President Barack Hussein Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both say that they want to have the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attack and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees tried in a U.S. criminal court because they want to show the world how fair our judicial system is ("9/11 defendants to be tried in N.Y.," Tribune, Nov. 14). Then in their next breath they state that the terrorists will be convicted and executed. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? No wonder we have 10 percent unemployment and health care bills that are not read and then passed. We are being led either by idiots or by people who want to destroy everything America stands for. Both Obama and Holder have just ruined any chance for any type of fair trial. The American Civil Liberties Union should be all over this one. Let's see what happens.
Steve Williams
Sandy