U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-24-2009, 01:12 PM
 
31,372 posts, read 32,700,786 times
Reputation: 14904

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdne View Post
Trial before a military commission according to the applicable military laws/rules
[quote]where there would be much fewer security issues,[/b]

What security issues? We've tried members of major violent drug cartels, the former President of Panama and numerous other terrorist without a single problem. What makes this trial and this prisoner the exception?

Quote:
fewer delays for national security issues,
Ah, these cases have been delayed for over 7 years under the military tribunal system, while in the meantime Jose Padilla, and Zacarias Moussaoui have been tried, convicted and are currently serving their sentences.

Quote:
not having the nightmare of having to qualify an unbiased jury.
See above and add Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who was tried and convicted in New York for the 1994 bombing of the World Trade Center, no problem with jury selection in that case.

Quote:
The same safeguards are afforded the defendants without the public display that will be years in the making.
Funny, two Supreme Court decisions have disagreed, even the chief prosecutor found the military tribunal system to be irreparably flawed.

David Frakt: Military Commissions “A Catastrophic Failure” | Andy Worthington

Quote:
To me, trying these terrorist in public is an admission by this administration that it doesn't trust its own military. It's just another way of apologizing for America.....
Worse yet are the sorry behind psuedo Americans who don't trust the very principles upon which the American judicial system was established or the stellar record held by the Justice Department in upholding the law.

PS - Before writing such nonsense and removing all doubt regarding your knowledge of the issues, try reviewing the stellar conviction rate of the military tribunals so far, two convictions on lesser charges, with sentences ranging from 9 months to time served, with only one major conviction which, guess what, is winding its way through the courts of appeal.

god help us!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2009, 02:15 PM
 
15,246 posts, read 17,261,032 times
Reputation: 25470
Bush was too busy attacking Iraq to worry about bringing Osama Bin Ladin to justice when he had the chance and Alberto Gonzalez was too busy firing assistant U.S. Attorneys who didn't toe the political line to try any of the perps in federal court.

We should all be thanking Eric Holder for acting like the prosecutor he is and bringing these criminals to justice in a court of law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 02:58 PM
 
3,854 posts, read 3,804,620 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdne View Post
.....you're in the minority on this point. Well over 60% of Americans feel the terrorists should be tried in a military court,...since the actions of this murderous band of hooligans can be nothing less than an act of war. But, keep protecting those who vow to take American lives,...you are in good company. You, Holder, Obama, and the 9/11 terrorists have a lot in common,...all of you dislike this country to varying degrees.
Did anyone ever tell you that when it comes to the LAW that there is no "popularity contest"...........doesn't matter what percentage of the population want things to be a certain way, bottom line is what is appropriate according to our justice system. You didn't answer the question as to EXACTLY WHAT COUNTRY ATTACKED us on 9/11. Do you know the answer? If you can tell me what COUNTRY attacked us, that would be a start toward dealing with this issue in a military court. Oh, yes. Also, if those guys were POWs of the U.S. then we would have some issues to deal with regarding our treatment of POWs. Were they POWs in your opinion?

You actually described it perfectly yourself: "murderous band of hooligans"........and THAT'S WHY it's being tried in a court of LAW.

Since when is a trial in a court of law in this country "protecting those who vow to take American lives"? and exactly HOW IS IT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE? How does that work?

When you ignore our courts, our justice system, and want to have a "military court" try a "murderous band of hooligans" then I think you've completely missed the point. IMO, you are the one who wants to change the way our courts work, the way our government works, and who wants to give the terrorists EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED when they attacked on 9/11........destroy our freedom and make everyone so afraid (terror) that they are willing to give up freedom for the ILLUSION OF SAFETY. You clearly scare yourself with your panic.

Got a secret for you: There is no such thing as absolute safety and there is no such thing as absolute security. And THAT'S A FACT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 03:03 PM
 
3,854 posts, read 3,804,620 times
Reputation: 557
[quote=ovcatto;11761049]
Quote:
where there would be much fewer security issues,[/b]

What security issues? We've tried members of major violent drug cartels, the former President of Panama and numerous other terrorist without a single problem. What makes this trial and this prisoner the exception?



Ah, these cases have been delayed for over 7 years under the military tribunal system, while in the meantime Jose Padilla, and Zacarias Moussaoui have been tried, convicted and are currently serving their sentences.



See above and add Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who was tried and convicted in New York for the 1994 bombing of the World Trade Center, no problem with jury selection in that case.



Funny, two Supreme Court decisions have disagreed, even the chief prosecutor found the military tribunal system to be irreparably flawed.

David Frakt: Military Commissions “A Catastrophic Failure” | Andy Worthington



Worse yet are the sorry behind psuedo Americans who don't trust the very principles upon which the American judicial system was established or the stellar record held by the Justice Department in upholding the law.

PS - Before writing such nonsense and removing all doubt regarding your knowledge of the issues, try reviewing the stellar conviction rate of the military tribunals so far, two convictions on lesser charges, with sentences ranging from 9 months to time served, with only one major conviction which, guess what, is winding its way through the courts of appeal.

god help us!
Bravo, ocatto! Well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 03:14 PM
 
3,854 posts, read 3,804,620 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by twista6002 View Post
Whatever. He'll be getting a fair trial. Like I said, this sends a better message around the world if we give the guy a fair trial and a life sentence rather than if he got a quicky in military court and hung, he'd be a hero in some places.

Not really sure why people are so worried about him "spewing garbage propaganda". Most people realize his whole movement is full of nonsense, most rational people like myself will probably laugh.

Then again these are the same people that take Rush Limbaugh's words as Gospel so they might be the gullable types...
Indeed! And what in the world can these guys say that we ALL have not heard before many, many times. If the guy is allows to give a speech on the witness stand, who is going to listen and take it seriously, other than people in the world who believe exactly the same as the defendant believes?

How absurd of us to actually practice what we preach in the world by giving these guys trials!

You know, I think we have a LOT OF WOULD-BE DICTATATORS living in this country.........the same people who take Rush Limbaugh's words and Glenn Beck's words as Gospel! They like DRAMA, high DRAMA, and if they were given any power at all, we'd be living in a brutal police state in no time at all!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
59,822 posts, read 57,273,647 times
Reputation: 71278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin13 View Post
Did anyone ever tell you that when it comes to the LAW that there is no "popularity contest"...........doesn't matter what percentage of the population want things to be a certain way, bottom line is what is appropriate according to our justice system. You didn't answer the question as to EXACTLY WHAT COUNTRY ATTACKED us on 9/11. Do you know the answer? If you can tell me what COUNTRY attacked us, that would be a start toward dealing with this issue in a military court. Oh, yes. Also, if those guys were POWs of the U.S. then we would have some issues to deal with regarding our treatment of POWs. Were they POWs in your opinion?

You actually described it perfectly yourself: "murderous band of hooligans"........and THAT'S WHY it's being tried in a court of LAW.

Since when is a trial in a court of law in this country "protecting those who vow to take American lives"? and exactly HOW IS IT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE? How does that work?

When you ignore our courts, our justice system, and want to have a "military court" try a "murderous band of hooligans" then I think you've completely missed the point. IMO, you are the one who wants to change the way our courts work, the way our government works, and who wants to give the terrorists EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED when they attacked on 9/11........destroy our freedom and make everyone so afraid (terror) that they are willing to give up freedom for the ILLUSION OF SAFETY. You clearly scare yourself with your panic.

Got a secret for you: There is no such thing as absolute safety and there is no such thing as absolute security. And THAT'S A FACT.
Thank you. This is something that has puzzled me since 9/11. People saying they no longer felt "safe". WHEN did you ever feel safe? Perhaps it's a regional thing--we who worked in the WTC knew we were a terrorist target since the 1980's and then we were attacked once in 1993. Some people left at that time, because the terrorists made it clear that they weren't going to stop trying, but most of us stayed. It was worth it--anything worth doing in life takes risk, for god's sake, and if you want to be "safe" all the time, you might as well just roll over and die.

I'm sure there are terrified people somewhere in the city--no place is ever 100% of anything, but you don't see New Yorkers by and large running around willing to give up freedom over some goofy illusion of safety.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 03:20 PM
 
31,372 posts, read 32,700,786 times
Reputation: 14904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin13 View Post
If the guy is allows to give a speech on the witness stand,
The only speech Mr. Mohammad will be allowed to make will be one prior to sentencing. Oh, he may try to deliver one hell of a stem winder but there will be no television coverage, no photographs and only a text provided if one one of the media outlets chooses to print it. Whoop ti do!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 03:21 PM
 
3,854 posts, read 3,804,620 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccersupporter View Post
Where these gentlemen given their Miranda Rights?


Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?
A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.

Miranda Rights Questions and Answers
Don't know. Do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 03:22 PM
 
3,854 posts, read 3,804,620 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdne View Post
Please answer this question: why are these five men being tried in federal court when five others are being sent before a military commission? Why is this administration affording these five a civil trial guaranteed by our constitution (when none are citizens), and the others sent before military commissions? IMO, this is another PR stunt,..another photo-op for this administration to try to impress other countries, not just obtain the swift and deliberate justice a military trial would afford.

These men are NOT citizens and have made it clear that they are "terrorists to the bone",...just read their own statements.

In a military trial there wouldn't be the concern of finding an impartial jury, the staggering expense of security, and national security issues that will come into play.
Are these guys being given a CIVIL trial????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 03:28 PM
 
3,854 posts, read 3,804,620 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Thank you. This is something that has puzzled me since 9/11. People saying they no longer felt "safe". WHEN did you ever feel safe? Perhaps it's a regional thing--we who worked in the WTC knew we were a terrorist target since the 1980's and then we were attacked once in 1993. Some people left at that time, because the terrorists made it clear that they weren't going to stop trying, but most of us stayed. It was worth it--anything worth doing in life takes risk, for god's sake, and if you want to be "safe" all the time, you might as well just roll over and die.

I'm sure there are terrified people somewhere in the city--no place is ever 100% of anything, but you don't see New Yorkers by and large running around willing to give up freedom over some goofy illusion of safety.
IMO, looking for absolute safety is a prison in itself! I don't remember any time in life which was absolutely safe and absolutely secure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top