Eric Holder Explains KSM (9/11, crime, biased, federal government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I appreciate the different rules. Different rules apply in different jurisdictions, too. And bounty hunters don't have to follow the same rules as civilian police.
I don't think that AG Holder made this decision lightly. I'm sure the Justice Department did a careful vetting of the evidence that would be available to the prosecution and evidence that might be challenged. They have no intention of letting KSM go. So given that, why is it such a matter of contention that we captured KSM in foreign territory?
For me, it's not about location, but about conditions and context. If they really just want the best avenue for prosecution, why not let him plead guilty like he wanted?
For me, it's not about location, but about conditions and context. If they really just want the best avenue for prosecution, why not let him plead guilty like he wanted?
I stated several reasons in an earlier post.
One possible reason may be that there have been families of the 9/11 victims who have been calling for a trial. Who want the opportunity to testify for the record what they have lost, what happened to them and their loved ones on that dreadful day. And during the penalty phase of a trial, they get this opportunity.
A second possible reason is that Obama is trying to restore America to a status and reputation it enjoyed prior to the Bush administration. One aspect of that reputation was an open and transparent judicial system that had a well-deserved credibility around the world. I'm not trying to bash Bush here, I think he was privy to information the general public doesn't have access to, and that he loves this country and every decision he made was in his opinion to protect and serve the United States. But we do know that some of his actions resulted in a worldwide opinion of our country that was marked by distrust. A public trial, where the legal process is exposed, would hopefully restore some degree of trust, and that would help our diplomatic relations tremendously.
A third possible reason is that as time goes on, memories fade, and this country's enemies keep spreading propaganda that paints Americans as the bad guys. We have made mistakes in foreign relations, as has every country on this planet. But it doesn't hurt to remind the world that the terrorists weren't the victims on 9/11, that innocent people from all over the world, from every religion, innocent people going to work, having business meetings, grabbing a cup of coffee, innocent people were the victims.
Right-leaning posters keep harping on the fact that this is a unique situation, we've never tried an enemy combatant who was captured on foreign soil in a civilian court before. One of the things they should remember, is that the rule of law is designed to deal with unique situations. That's why there are so many precedents. Every single precedent is the result of a unique situation coming before the law.
Law deals with unique siutations logically. For instance, we've tried people who were enemy combatants or terrorists successfully before. So any questions that arise from that issue will be addressed by precedent. Directly when a precedent applies directly, and indirectly, when the judge evaluates the logic and philosophy supporting the precedent. We've extradited people from foreign soil before, that's nothing new. We've transferred people from different authorities, and we do not hold every authority to the same standard, ie, the Miranda standard. When bounty hunters apprehend someone, they do not have to meet this standard, and the police accept the transfer of such suspects as well as evidence and information the bounty hunters provide. And we have precedent for that in the courts for the exact same challenges that people are suggesting KSM will challenge his military detention. The military has established in courts that it does not have to meet the Miranda standard when taking people and holding them into custody. The federal judge in NYC isn't going to throw away all these precedents to make new law that favors the interests of foreign terrorists.
Why would his confession not be admissible? He made a video for his followers before he was even captured taking full credit for the attack and detailing exactly how he did it. Why would they not admit that confession/boast into court and skip all the bull that was obtained with torture?
he is in a civilian court. Any thing he said after torture is not admissible. Police can not beat confessions out of car thief.
any video that was obtained without a search warrant is not admissible.
they are in civilian court where even Miranda rights must be given.
he is in a civilian court. Any thing he said after torture is not admissible. Police can not beat confessions out of car thief.
any video that was obtained without a search warrant is not admissible.
they are in civilian court where even Miranda rights must be given.
He wasn't in police custody when he was interrogated. Miranda rights are not retroactive. When police take custody, they must administer Miranda rights. When the military or bounty hunters take custody, they don't have to.
One possible reason may be that there have been families of the 9/11 victims who have been calling for a trial. Who want the opportunity to testify for the record what they have lost, what happened to them and their loved ones on that dreadful day. And during the penalty phase of a trial, they get this opportunity.
A second possible reason is that Obama is trying to restore America to a status and reputation it enjoyed prior to the Bush administration. One aspect of that reputation was an open and transparent judicial system that had a well-deserved credibility around the world. I'm not trying to bash Bush here, I think he was privy to information the general public doesn't have access to, and that he loves this country and every decision he made was in his opinion to protect and serve the United States. But we do know that some of his actions resulted in a worldwide opinion of our country that was marked by distrust. A public trial, where the legal process is exposed, would hopefully restore some degree of trust, and that would help our diplomatic relations tremendously.
A third possible reason is that as time goes on, memories fade, and this country's enemies keep spreading propaganda that paints Americans as the bad guys. We have made mistakes in foreign relations, as has every country on this planet. But it doesn't hurt to remind the world that the terrorists weren't the victims on 9/11, that innocent people from all over the world, from every religion, innocent people going to work, having business meetings, grabbing a cup of coffee, innocent people were the victims.
Right-leaning posters keep harping on the fact that this is a unique situation, we've never tried an enemy combatant who was captured on foreign soil in a civilian court before. One of the things they should remember, is that the rule of law is designed to deal with unique situations. That's why there are so many precedents. Every single precedent is the result of a unique situation coming before the law.
Law deals with unique siutations logically. For instance, we've tried people who were enemy combatants or terrorists successfully before. So any questions that arise from that issue will be addressed by precedent. Directly when a precedent applies directly, and indirectly, when the judge evaluates the logic and philosophy supporting the precedent. We've extradited people from foreign soil before, that's nothing new. We've transferred people from different authorities, and we do not hold every authority to the same standard, ie, the Miranda standard. When bounty hunters apprehend someone, they do not have to meet this standard, and the police accept the transfer of such suspects as well as evidence and information the bounty hunters provide. And we have precedent for that in the courts for the exact same challenges that people are suggesting KSM will challenge his military detention. The military has established in courts that it does not have to meet the Miranda standard when taking people and holding them into custody. The federal judge in NYC isn't going to throw away all these precedents to make new law that favors the interests of foreign terrorists.
we are treating these guys like they are car thief. So yes all the standards will apply. If you were a defense attorney for these guys would you not make that an argument? If you were the defensive team would you not call Bush and Cheney.
Can you cite the court case where it says the military does not need to meet Miranda while in a civilian court?
Can you cite the court case where it says the military can allow a confession by torture in a civilian case?
Can you cite the court case where it says the defense can not call former presidents?
Can the defense ask for a change of venue.
The president and Ag have said they are guilty and we will execute them.
How do you get an untainted jury pool after that?
If it is jury of peers , should a Muslim be allowed to be on the Jury? if not is it appealed.
the verdict of guilty would be appealed
The president has said if he is found not guilty we would continue to hold him. So he is going to tear up the constitution and not free and person found not guilty?
This is nothing but a political attack on the bush white house in a situation that has never been dealt with in this manner.
The president is willing to hold the guy and says he has confessed so why risk having it thrown out.
This move is just bad for the country for the victims for NYC and because of a vendetta against Bush.
He wasn't in police custody when he was interrogated. Miranda rights are not retroactive. When police take custody, they must administer Miranda rights. When the military or bounty hunters take custody, they don't have to.
we are treating these guys like they are car thief. So yes all the standards will apply. If you were a defense attorney for these guys would you not make that an argument? If you were the defensive team would you not call Bush and Cheney.
Can you cite the court case where it says the military does not need to meet Miranda while in a civilian court?
There is no case. BECAUSE THE MILITARY DOESN'T MAINTAIN CUSTODY WHEN A DEFENDANT GOES TO CIVILIAN COURT. THE MILITARY TRANSFERS CUSTODY TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES.
Can you cite the court case where it says the military can allow a
confession by torture in a civilian case?
I consider the waterboarding to be torture, as evidently you do. However, the military took great pains to say this was not the case. And the military actions are separate from the actions of civil authorities. The military will have to show that it lived up to its standards while it had custody of KSM.
Can you cite the court case where it says the defense can not call former presidents?
That matter will have to be determined by the judge. Since this is an ongoing conflict, I would expect the federal prosecutors to make a case that any testimony by members of current or previous administrations would have to carefully vetted to protect national security issues. This will not be a case of putting a president in front of a grand jury which has substantially more leeway in the questions they ask, in part because of the secret nature of their investigations. Even if Bush/Cheney were to appear in court, something I would consider highly unlikely, every question would be objected to, and then the judge, prosecutor and defense would have to hash out its relevance, and the national security concerns that could be implicated. A much more likely scenario would be that the federal government would offer briefs outlining the events as they happened, and that the judge would then enter the briefs in lieu of testimony.
Can the defense ask for a change of venue.
Yes, defense attorneys can. But where are they going to go? That's why the previous trials have occurred in NYC. Where are you going to change venue to, and expect additional fairness. Federal court is Fayetteville Arkansas isn't going to get you a more unbiased jury than federal court in Manhattan. The World Trade Center was an American tragedy as well as a New York tragedy.
The president and Ag have said they are guilty and we will execute them.
How do you get an untainted jury pool after that?
Any highly publicized case faces the same challenges.
If it is jury of peers , should a Muslim be allowed to be on the Jury? if not is it appealed.
I don't think you can exclude Muslims from the jury. Why would you want to? Muslims died on 9/11. There are many Muslims who are loyal Americans and upstanding citizens.
the verdict of guilty would be appealed
You have to have grounds for an appeal. The judge will be very careful to try and avoid such grounds.
The president has said if he is found not guilty we would continue to hold him. So he is going to tear up the constitution and not free and person found not guilty?
No, I would suspect that the federal government can hold him indefinitely without any Constitutional issues. KSM is being charged with the crimes at the WTC in this case. What about the Pentagon attack? What about his involvement in other conspiracies, like the attack in Los Angeles? This crime isn't the only crime KSM has involvement with. So clearly, authorities can hold KSM in conjunction with those other crimes.
This is nothing but a political attack on the bush white house in a situation that has never been dealt with in this manner.
Just because it's a unique situation doesn't mean that the American judicial system cannot handle it.
The president is willing to hold the guy and says he has confessed so why risk having it thrown out.
I've outlined some of the possible reasons at least twice before. I shouldn't have to belabor the fact that AG Holder had a choice to make, with reasons supporting each choice. Certainly political considerations were part of the decision-making process.
This move is just bad for the country for the victims for NYC and because of a vendetta against Bush.
That's your perspective, and I respect that perspective even if I don't agree with it.
A
Can you cite a case where the law has said that the military must observe and follow civilian standards when detaining a suspect?
Because that's the real question, not the questions you've posed which are routinely dealt with by the established precedents in cases where a suspect has been transferred from one authority to another.
Your entire argument is based on the fact that legally we distinguish between military law and civilian law. You advocate a military tribunal solely because of that distinction. You cannot then dismiss that distinction in your argument against a civilian trial. If there is a distinction, which there is, then it is acknowledged by both military judiciary and civilian judiciary.
Can you cite a case where the law has said that the military must observe and follow civilian standards when detaining a suspect?
Because that's the real question, not the questions you've posed which are routinely dealt with by the established precedents in cases where a suspect has been transferred from one authority to another.
we are treating these guys like they are car thief. So yes all the standards will apply. If you were a defense attorney for these guys would you not make that an argument? If you were the defensive team would you not call Bush and Cheney.
Can you cite the court case where it says the military does not need to meet Miranda while in a civilian court?
There is no case. BECAUSE THE MILITARY DOESN'T MAINTAIN CUSTODY WHEN A DEFENDANT GOES TO CIVILIAN COURT. THE MILITARY TRANSFERS CUSTODY TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES.
So you admit there is no case so a civilian court my rule as civilian courts rule
Can you cite the court case where it says the military can allow a
confession by torture in a civilian case?
I consider the waterboarding to be torture, as evidently you do. However, the military took great pains to say this was not the case. And the military actions are separate from the actions of civil authorities. The military will have to show that it lived up to its standards while it had custody of KSM.
So you can not cite a court case
Can you cite the court case where it says the defense can not call former presidents?
That matter will have to be determined by the judge. Since this is an ongoing conflict, I would expect the federal prosecutors to make a case that any testimony by members of current or previous administrations would have to carefully vetted to protect national security issues. This will not be a case of putting a president in front of a grand jury which has substantially more leeway in the questions they ask, in part because of the secret nature of their investigations. Even if Bush/Cheney were to appear in court, something I would consider highly unlikely, every question would be objected to, and then the judge, prosecutor and defense would have to hash out its relevance, and the national security concerns that could be implicated. A much more likely scenario would be that the federal government would offer briefs outlining the events as they happened, and that the judge would then enter the briefs in lieu of testimony.
If the defense calls them and they will, then Holders Lawyers can cross .this is why holder is doing this
Can the defense ask for a change of venue.
Yes, defense attorneys can. But where are they going to go? That's why the previous trials have occurred in NYC. Where are you going to change venue to, and expect additional fairness. Federal court is Fayetteville Arkansas isn't going to get you a more unbiased jury than federal court in Manhattan. The World Trade Center was an American tragedy as well as a New York tragedy.
You can not predicrt what a civilian court will do
The president and Ag have said they are guilty and we will execute them.
How do you get an untainted jury pool after that?
Any highly publicized case faces the same challenges. No most prosecutors would not taint the jury pool
If it is jury of peers , should a Muslim be allowed to be on the Jury? if not is it appealed.
I don't think you can exclude Muslims from the jury. Why would you want to? Muslims died on 9/11. There are many Muslims who are loyal Americans and upstanding citizens. I think there will have to a mulsim on it to makeit legitimate
the verdict of guilty would be appealed
You have to have grounds for an appeal. The judge will be very careful to try and avoid such grounds.
Already have grounds tainted Jury . If they allow the confession.
The president has said if he is found not guilty we would continue to hold him. So he is going to tear up the constitution and not free and person found not guilty?
No, I would suspect that the federal government can hold him indefinitely without any Constitutional issues. KSM is being charged with the crimes at the WTC in this case. What about the Pentagon attack? What about his involvement in other conspiracies, like the attack in Los Angeles? This crime isn't the only crime KSM has involvement with. So clearly, authorities can hold KSM in conjunction with those other crimes.
there are no charges currently against him for those crimes so they would have to scramble to file them. he would walk for the time being. Otherwise the Muslim world would cry foul
This is nothing but a political attack on the bush white house in a situation that has never been dealt with in this manner.
Just because it's a unique situation doesn't mean that the American judicial system cannot handle it. Does not mean the system is not being used for political attacks
The president is willing to hold the guy and says he has confessed so why risk having it thrown out.
I've outlined some of the possible reasons at least twice before. I shouldn't have to belabor the fact that AG Holder had a choice to make, with reasons supporting each choice. Certainly political considerations were part of the decision-making process. Political reason were his sole reason he had a guilty confession in a miltiary tribunal
This move is just bad for the country for the victims for NYC and because of a vendetta against Bush.
That's your perspective, and I respect that perspective even if I don't agree with it.
A
Can you cite a case where the law has said that the military must observe and follow civilian standards when detaining a suspect?
in a civilian court it is with civilian rules
Because that's the real question, not the questions you've posed which are routinely dealt with by the established precedents in cases where a suspect has been transferred from one authority to another.
This has never happened it is not routine . The country is against it.
this will blow up in our face I hope not literally
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
