KSM and 4 others to face trials in NYC Civilian Courts. - New England Patriots Forums

Patriot_in_NY · 11-13-2009, 08:30 AM

What could go wrong?

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet.

Quote:

5 Gitmo detainees to be tried in Manhattan

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.

The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning. …

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Looks like we're headed back to the "Law Enforcement" model for terrorism like we did in the 1990's. It worked so well back then, right?

Good luck to "the One" should KSM get off on a technicality. I imagine the collective anger at that will be fairly high.

***DarrylS*** · 11-13-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY

What could go wrong?

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet.

Looks like we're headed back to the "Law Enforcement" model for terrorism like we did in the 1990's. It worked so well back then, right?

Good luck to "the One" should KSM get off on a technicality. I imagine the collective anger at that will be fairly high.

You mean the constitutional model???

Patriot_in_NY · 11-13-2009, 09:19 AM

The attacks on Sept. 11 was an act of war, committed by a transnational terrorist group aligned with, and protected by the Taliban, which was a regime that was recognized as a government by three nations who are sitting members of the UN.

KSM and co. should not get the full protection of American criminal system.

Course, as they are outside the command and structure of a uniformed military, they shouldn't be afford the full protection of the laws of war either. This is a sui generis situation that nobody could have planned for, but there certainly is a need to deal with these type of transnational terrorists. Certainly not within the criminal court system, and probably a system much closer to the military one. The civilian courts and law enforcement agencies are not equipped to handle the complexities of the international scope of these events.

***Harry Boy*** · 11-13-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY

What could go wrong?

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet.

Looks like we're headed back to the "Law Enforcement" model for terrorism like we did in the 1990's. It worked so well back then, right?

Good luck to "the One" should KSM get off on a technicality. I imagine the collective anger at that will be fairly high.

I was going to post it this morning but I knew what the reaction would be, when I post this stuff they blame me for putting it in the newspaper, the left wing always goes after the messenger (Fox News)

***reflexblue*** · 11-13-2009, 09:30 AM

To try these people in a military court validates them, it raises they're stature as more than just religious fanatics.

By trying them in a civilian court in the city they are most famous for attacking sends a message that we are not afraid.

This whole absurd idea that we can't allow terrorists into this country to be triad, or imprisioned just gives them what they were try to achieve in the first place, that they can scare and manipulate us.

***Harry Boy*** · 11-13-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

To try these people in a military court validates them, it raises they're stature as more than just religious fanatics.

By trying them in a civilian court in the city they are most famous for attacking sends a message that we are not afraid.

This whole absurd idea that we can't allow terrorists into this country to be triad, or imprisioned just gives them what they were try to achieve in the first place, that they can scare and manipulate us.

You said the word "religious" thats racist unless you mean "christian"

Patriot_in_NY · 11-13-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Your childish response is not worthy of intelligent discussion, will suggest that if you are looking for a like minded site.. go to Fox.com, Townhall or Stormfront..

Really do not have the time or energy to debate you right now, as your mind is completely made up and I could cite example after example, and all you will do is resort to name calling... kind of like autoerotic behavior, wash your hands when you are done.

Translation: I got nothing

Classic....... I forgot more then you'll ever know, but I don't have the time or energy...... Whatever then.

I'd love to have SOMEONE ELSE that has a little more energy to go into how this decision to try KSM in the civilian courts is good for the country. How the Law Enforcement model (which this move represents) used from 1992-2001, is superior to the military/CIA based one we used from 2001-now.

Should be an interesting discussion should anyone with the time or inclination choose to discuss it.

Patriot_in_NY · 11-13-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

To try these people in a military court validates them, it raises they're stature as more than just religious fanatics.

By trying them in a civilian court in the city they are most famous for attacking sends a message that we are not afraid.

This whole absurd idea that we can't allow terrorists into this country to be triad, or imprisioned just gives them what they were try to achieve in the first place, that they can scare and manipulate us.

That doesn't make sense. First, bringing them here for trail is a HUGE security risk. I don't think it has anything to do with "making some kind of political statement". How is it that KSM, who masterminded what amounts to an act of war against this country, becomes eligible for our civil protections afforded in our court system. War criminals need to be tried in a military setting. This is not just some guy that killed a bunch of people. The Pentagon was attacked, which makes this an act of war, not a crime.

Which of course is besides the main point of switching back to the Law Enforcement model from a military model.

**ADDED**

Keep in mind, we're not totally going that way as it appears (from the article) that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (USS Cole bomber) is going to be tried under a military commission. Not sure what the purpose of the "hybrid" approach is, beyond the speculative "better case" approach. This inconsistency is worse then all one, or the other IMO.

Stokes · 11-13-2009, 10:04 AM

I don't really agree with this decision, IMO you try these guys in a military court, and if there is sufficient evidence presented you execute them. Done and done. Why move guys captured on foreign soil to the US court system? There may be a good legal justification for it, but I do not know what it is. I mean, what do the feds plan to do if he's found innocent on a technicality, release him? Does anyone think that would actually happen? No way do they let this guy free again while he breathes, which to me makes this whole trial process a sham. And if its not a sham and they'd actually consider setting him free, well, that's a possibility I just can't even consider.

***DarrylS*** · 11-13-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stokes

I don't really agree with this decision, IMO you try these guys in a military court, and if there is sufficient evidence presented you execute them. Done and done. Why move guys captured on foreign soil to the US court system? There may be a good legal justification for it, but I do not know what it is. I mean, what do the feds plan to do if he's found innocent on a technicality, release him? Does anyone think that would actually happen? No way do they let this guy free again while he breathes, which to me makes this whole trial process a sham. And if its not a sham and they'd actually consider setting him free, well, that's a possibility I just can't even consider.

A quick and dirty look of the news indicates that the details have not yet been disclosed, so may want to wait for what Holder has to say...