This is WHY Trying Terrorists in Civilian Court is a BAD Idea (conspiracy, death)
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.
And what would have happened if he had been acquitted of all charges? That's right...indefinite detention as an enemy combatant. Obama gave the go-ahead for this over a year ago.
So what exactly did this dog and pony show reveal? Because regardless of verdict, the outcome WAS predetermined. Waste of time. Waste of money. Obama gambled on civilian trials for terrorists being shining examples of America's system of justice. Fail, again. Because guilty-we hold you. Not guilty-we hold you.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
This acquittal of 280+ counts is evidence of why obama and holder were WRONG in wanting to try terrorists in civilian court.
You do KNOW that KSM, mastermind of 9/11, will be held indefinitely, don't you?
Really? WHAT number of acquittals would be acceptable in a civilian court?
1?
15?
100?
Or would you prefer we just tag the accused as guilty and be done with it? Would you prefer we contravene what our laws have stood for more than 200 years?
Since WHEN do we adjust the law based on batting average or just because someone wants to, just WHEN did this MO come into being?
Because these trials are fair trials and not show trials where the outcome is predetermined!
That's vile, creepy right wing ideology for you! They are against fair trials now.
It was a civilian jury that heard the evidence........but that's not good enough for haters.....they really just want to skip the trial and go straight to the death penalty.
What a shining example of America they are setting!
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
The reasoning of a 2nd grader or a modern day Nazi? ....because all the trials didn't result in convictions on ALL counts...the system is flawed......LOL
personally i like fair trials, my problem is with some jurors who refuse to connect the dots. for instance in this case the guy was convicted on one count of conspiracy to bomb an american building. as part of the bombing, people died, and one juror refused to follow the law that allows that the person committing a crime is responsible for what happens as a result of that crime. for example, of two people go in and rob a bank, and as a result of that crime a person dies, lets say one of the criminals committing the crime, the other criminal can, and should, be convicted of murder in the death of his partner even though the partner many have been killed by someone else.
in the case of this terrorist, he WAS convicted of conspiracy, and as a result of that conspiracy, people died, thus he should also have been convicted of murder as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
Actually we DO give them the same rights. The Constitution requires it.
Isn't there a 3rd World despot you could go to work for instead of polluting our society?
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
"No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense"
She hates America for being this generous.
yeah throw up the constitution, and then read the part i highlighted, and tell me it really applies. and remember that the crime he was convicted of happened in africa, NOT here in the US. this is why he should have been tried in a military tribunal and NOT civilian court in the US, because the US civilian courts HAVE NO JURISDICTION!!!!!
Convicted of one charge of conspiracy to blow up a government building.
Ah gawds! Can this get any worse for the worst president in our history?
Oh such a terrible thing, that due process..
Let me guess, if you had your way there would be no trial at all. The whole process would be having him 'put to the question' until he confesses to everything including being an alien from Neptune if they asked such a question, and then straight to the gallows based on torture confessions alone, right?
Convicted of one charge of conspiracy to blow up a government building.
Ah gawds! Can this get any worse for the worst president in our history?
What about the detainees that were just released from Gitmo by the Bush administration without any trial?
Quote:
Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, most have been released without charge or transferred to facilities in their home countries. As of November 2010, 174 detainees remain at Guantanamo.
One prisoner recently pleaded guilty to murder and other charges, and just one more, Noor Uthman Mohammed of Sudan, is charged with war crimes for alleged complicity with Al Qaeda. Of nearly 800 terrorism suspects brought to this remote U.S. base in southern Cuba over nearly nine years, 174 remain, most because of diplomatic troubles between Washington and their home countries rather than out of concern they would pose a security threat if freed.
Oh well that settles it....The civilian courts have no jurisdiction!....Let's just forget the fact that they already had the trial....You would have thought that little detail would have come out?????
No sir...the legal experts are right here at City Data.
personally i like fair trials, my problem is with some jurors who refuse to connect the dots. for instance in this case the guy was convicted on one count of conspiracy to bomb an american building. as part of the bombing, people died, and one juror refused to follow the law that allows that the person committing a crime is responsible for what happens as a result of that crime. for example, of two people go in and rob a bank, and as a result of that crime a person dies, lets say one of the criminals committing the crime, the other criminal can, and should, be convicted of murder in the death of his partner even though the partner many have been killed by someone else.
in the case of this terrorist, he WAS convicted of conspiracy, and as a result of that conspiracy, people died, thus he should also have been convicted of murder as well.
yeah throw up the constitution, and then read the part i highlighted, and tell me it really applies. and remember that the crime he was convicted of happened in africa, NOT here in the US. this is why he should have been tried in a military tribunal and NOT civilian court in the US, because the US civilian courts HAVE NO JURISDICTION!!!!!
Unless they changed international law, embassies are considered sovereign territory of the country they belong to so a trial in a civilian U.S. federal court for an act of terrorism against a U.S. embassy is justifiable.
yeah throw up the constitution, and then read the part i highlighted, and tell me it really applies. and remember that the crime he was convicted of happened in africa, NOT here in the US. this is why he should have been tried in a military tribunal and NOT civilian court in the US, because the US civilian courts HAVE NO JURISDICTION!!!!!
I have the feeling that is not quite correct. There are such things as federal long arm statutes for cases where criminal acts or omissions occurred abroad.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 11-17-2010 at 07:05 PM..
And what would have happened if he had been acquitted of all charges? That's right...indefinite detention as an enemy combatant. Obama gave the go-ahead for this over a year ago.
So what exactly did this dog and pony show reveal? Because regardless of verdict, the outcome WAS predetermined. Waste of time. Waste of money. Obama gambled on civilian trials for terrorists being shining examples of America's system of justice. Fail, again. Because guilty-we hold you. Not guilty-we hold you.
1 conviction on 280 counts. You are right, if he had been acquitted of all charges, he wasn't going anywhere.
What was that the Leftists were chirping about due process?
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Really? WHAT number of acquittals would be acceptable in a civilian court?
1?
15?
100?
Or would you prefer we just tag the accused as guilty and be done with it? Would you prefer we contravene what our laws have stood for more than 200 years?
Since WHEN do we adjust the law based on batting average or just because someone wants to, just WHEN did this MO come into being?
Now, wouldn't it have been real nice to convict the guy on the 224 murders he committed?
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.
