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.
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!
Yeah, it seems to me long, long narratives from the witness stand don't often get very far. At some point it becomes non-responsive.
You'll be back in the morning if you can figure out how to respond to the posts regarding your knowledge about the justice system in practical terms or when someone gives you the answers. LMAO
So, just answer me this, Sanrene: At which portion during the trial would the defendants be allowed to make statements blaming the U.S. for their actions and at which portion of the trial would they be allowed to basically put the U.S. on trial? Do you know the answers?
They can stand and make any statements they want until they are either gagged or removed from the court...It happens.....and the media would love to report it.. Remember charles manson and his followers?
I will ask the question, wasn't it mostly knee-jerk reactions, contempt for all things middle-eastern, payments for turning people in and propaganda that got most of these people arrested in the first place?
You mean like paid informants here in the states????
They can stand and make any statements they want until they are either gagged or removed from the court...It happens.....and the media would love to report it.. Remember charles manson and his followers?
I hope you argument isn't that this couldn't possibly happen in a military tribunal?
They can stand and make any statements they want until they are either gagged or removed from the court...It happens.....and the media would love to report it.. Remember charles manson and his followers?
Houston, there are Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure........whatever the witnesses/defendants say or do must be within the rules of court and the law as far as what is allowed.
I cannot imagine the Court allowing the defendants to get up and make speeches unrelated to the issues at hand. I have never seen any defendants allowed to stand and make any statements they want until they are either gagged or removed from court. Usually, if they stand and make unsolicited statements, the Court will advise them to talk to their lawyers, and if they cannot contain themselves within the rules of procedure, they can be removed from the courtroom.
Refresh my memory about Charles Manson. I don't remember his trial. I've seen documentaries about the whole murder, etc., but I don't remember Manson getting up in court and making statements apart from being asked questions. I really don't know what you mean.
You know, I think most people in the world have already heard the grievances of the AQ folks. So I can't imagine that anything which might be said in a trial would shock anyone, nor change anyone's mind about what happened and why. We all KNOW why the terrorists did what that did. We know what they believe. Nothing new there. And if the media did report it everywhere, what difference would that make? I have no fear of anything the accused terrorists may have to say, no fear at all.
Last edited by Austin13; 11-24-2009 at 03:01 PM..
Reason: spelling error
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdne
One might ask the the question in another way,...."why didn't the Bush administration pursue a criminal trial in federal court"? Now you tell me why.........
Or, one might ask why didn't that lackluster administration do something?
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.
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!
I hate to shatter your bubble, but I'm not the only one who believes what you consider "nonsense". Just try reading something other than the liberal talking points regarding this court fiasco, you'll certainly find other who voice many of the same concerns I mentioned. Your paltry examples pale in comparison to the thousands killed in the 9/11 attacks.
You can't answer the basic question that was asked: "why are these five being tried in a federal criminal court, and five more of their Gitmo brothers are being brought before military commissions?". It certainly appears to be a PR ploy,...one that will cost us millions in security alone. If one terrorist is judged by our civilian court system, why not ALL?
This administration is affording constitutional protection to terrorists who are not citizens/residents of the United States,...and weren't even apprehended on our soil. Please explain why they should be given the advantage of being judged in our civilian court system.
Don't feel bad about those things that you can not do.
Quote:
you'll certainly find other who voice many of the same concerns I mentioned
I've never been one to accept the legitimacy of any argument simply by the number of people who advocate it.
Quote:
Your paltry examples pale in comparison to the thousands killed in the 9/11 attacks.
Well that is the dumbest example of comparing apples and turnips that I have ever read. The number of victims vs comparing the results of Federal criminal courts vs military tribunals is the definition of an absurd argument.
Quote:
You can't answer the basic question that was asked: "why are these five being tried in a federal criminal court, and five more of their Gitmo brothers are being brought before military commissions?".
I've answered that question several times, I suggest that instead of folks authoring multiple threads on the exact same subject that they stick to one so that I don't have to constantly repeat myself. So, please avail yourself of the search feature on this site.
Quote:
It certainly appears to be a PR ploy,...one that will cost us millions in security alone.
And I suppose you think that Guantanamo is free of charge?
Quote:
This administration is affording constitutional protection to terrorists who are not citizens/residents of the United States,...and weren't even apprehended on our soil. Please explain why they should be given the advantage of being judged in our civilian court system.
Redundant aren't we.
The administration? In two separate decisions the Supreme Court of the United States has granted Constitutional protections to Guantanamo detainees.
As for those constitutional protections here is what the Constitution says (once again I might add)
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If you care to point to where those rights are only extended to citizens or residents, please be my guest.
Now when you can come up with any arguments other than talking points, perhaps we can try this again.
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.
