Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

This is an EPIC mistake!!!!

First off, any decent judge would throw the case out. How could you possible convict a guy on evidence obtained without warrrant and a confession without Miranda that was the results of waterboarding??? Honestly I know the liberals are stupid, but they really can't be this dumb!!! NOW, what if they do convict them, does that mean that the legal precendence is now set in the US that you can be convicted with evidence obtained without warrant (let's not even go into the chain of custody of that evidence) and with a confession that was obtained trough coersion without Miranda, does anyone want to live in a country where that legal precedence exists???

Let's start to think about why they are doing this..

First Off, "because it is the right thing to do" is complete BS, because they are similtaneously trying others caught the same way in militray tribunals.

Why move away from military tribunals? Legal history, NONE, Enemy combatants have been tried by the military since the Revolutionary War.

This is nothing more than a trail of the Bush Administration and the CIA, hoping to destroy both of them. What else could you get from this? Obama and Holder have both come out publicly and "guarenteed a conviction" rumour is that both of these guys went to law school, but wouldn't that create a sense for the defense counsel to claim that their clients were never going to get a fair trail??????

I can't even imagine the money that it is going to cost for security for this trail and how many other trails are going to be put off by this, all to give Al Queda some free propoganda!

None of this makes any sense, the only real purpose is to embarass Bush and the CIA and cripple the US Intelligence system. Can you imagine what the guys who caught these idiots are thinking now, am I going to get subpeonaed to testify in open court, as to the intelligence gathering capabilities of the US military and the CIA. ALso the black Ops that were used to capture these guys. It is mind numbing to even think about trying these guys like this. Let alone the horrific legal precedents that will be set.

Now what happens when the judge, rightly so, declares a mistrail, or finds them innocent? What do you do with them?

You can't deport them, because you brought the to the US, you can't capture someone in a foreign country and then bring him against his will to the US and then place him in deportation proceedings, the law specifically does not allow this. Now you have to bascially "ask them to leave" which means that you have to get some other country to issue them a travel document and accept them. Good luck with that!

So you are going to have terrorists, guilty as hell, and free as a bird, most likely KSM will be on the faculty of a college in Chicago in a few years.

Originally Posted by JackBauer

You understand that they're only trying those for whom they have rock-solid evidence of guilt in NYC, don't you?

Originally Posted by apple strudel

He already confess on al-Jazeera before we captured him. We don't need his confession. Holder is also saying that he's sitting on undisclosed evidence.

Seriously, nobody makes this case as public as it is without having a pretty good sense they're going to win.

Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

You do realize that Holder was defending these guys (for free) for the last 8 years, and now suddenly he is working his best to get them convicted. If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you.

Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

Keep trying to defend this as if it was anything more than surrendering to the terrorists.

Originally Posted by apple strudel

Feel free to bump the thread after the trial. I, for one, am disinclined to believe that anybody wants to be known as the guy who lost the 9/11 trial.

Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

The piont is that there should be no trail,

Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

The only thing Holder and Obama want out of this is to ruin Bush and the CIA, that is there only goal.

Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

Why else would you make the terrorists lawyer the AG?

Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

Evidence has to be admissible, which means it is subject to discovery, which means you have to disclose to the terrorists exactly how you figured out that it was them. SO even if you have "rock solid" evidence by disclosing it to Al Queda you have signed death warrants to anyone who gave you the evidence and handicapped the CIA for decades by disclosing their mythods to the terrorists.

Keep trying to defend this as if it was anything more than surrendering to the terrorists.

Originally Posted by apple strudel

Feel free to bump the thread after the trial. I, for one, am disinclined to believe that anybody wants to be known as the guy who lost the 9/11 trial.

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Since he confessed and asked to be executed when arraigned at Gitmo and recommended the same to his cohorts, why didn't we just grant his wish and let it go?

Who turns down a guilty plea and holds a trial? To what purpose?