Terrorists to be Tried in Civilian Court

[Dutchcedar]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged admitted mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and four others accused in the attacks will be put on criminal trial in New York, Attorney General Eric Holder announced today.

They were apparently all prepared to plead guilty in front of military tribunals.

Are the people Democrats running this country out of their friggin' minds or just plain nuts?

A jury of their peers will be a tough one. Besides Chris Mathews, can you think of a candidate for the jury?

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/1...ork-for-trial/

Maybe that's the point, that the Won wants a show trial for the world. Where are those Greek columns? Let's hope they're still available. They'll add that extra touch.

[mostholycerebus]

Maybe that's the point, that the Won wants a show trial for the world. Where are those Greek columns? Let's hope they're still available. They'll add that extra touch.

Just like OJ proved to the world that you can't get away with murder in the US?

[AeroSim]

....
A jury of their peers will be a tough one. Besides Chris Mathews, can you think of a candidate for the jury?
....

Actually- I can think of a few. And they would be completely imparital.

Here are some that come to mind....

[Dutchcedar]

Just like OJ proved to the world that you can't get away with murder in the US?

Ah jeez. You're probably spot on. We can enjoy the breaking daily news of the motorcades transporting from jail to the courthouse. Its gonna be a cluster f**k of distracting this and that.

A comment I heard over lunch was interesting... what about their Miranda rights? Were they even given?

[Dutchcedar]

Keep an eye on those presidential popularity polls next week. Unless the Won's able to make big news in Asia, this is gonna tank his popularity.

[/\/\adGamer]

Sounds like its going to be a Kangaroo court. Maybe they can get the judge from the Anna Nicole Smith custody battles to preside over it or maybe Judge Mathis from TV.

[liteman]

Glad to see you all have such great faith in our court system...you know that only 3 convictions have come from tribunals while our regular court system has far more convictions of terrorists.

[/\/\adGamer]

Glad to see you all have such great faith in our court system...

I am not surprised your glad...... See now days there isnt many government run programs that seems to work very well including the judicial system or even the military tribunals. I guess I am old school you know lock up the enemy until the war is over its worked pretty well over the last 233 years. Yes I understand that its not comfy for the enemy combatants locked up indefinitely but there is no time limit on war.Its simple when the war is over the enemy gets to go home no need for tribunals and trials except in the few cases where crimes have been committed that's maybe why they have only had 3 actual trials. These enemy combatants get 3 hots a day and a cot plus koran/prayer time that's more than some of our soldiers in the field get. I think people should be more concerned with how the enemy treats our soldiers and marines as prisoners than how we treat them.

[falcon_view]

I think people should be more concerned with how the enemy treats our soldiers and marines as prisoners than how we treat them.

Oh, we are, like everything in life how many play by the rules. It would be easy to lower ourselves to others but where would that get us?

As for the trial, my only question is which court covers what happened on 9/11? Are we crossing out Ts and doting our Is? I don't know because I don't know that much about our legal system.

[Invictus]

I used to be of the idea that we not need give them rights...but the true test of a society is how that society treats the least among them.

That and it's hard to get away from the wording of the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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.

It says " No person", not "No citizen".

[/\/\adGamer]

Oh, we are, like everything in life how many play by the rules. It would be easy to lower ourselves to others but where would that get us?

I don't see the enemy opening up Gitmo style prison camps, But we have to go a whole lot lower than we are now to be on an even playing field with this enemy... you know like cutting off a few heads,drag a few dead prisoners bodies thru streets or hang a few off bridges. We aren't even close to the inhumanity they have dished out to our soldiers.

It says " No person", not "No citizen".

but it also says

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

I would say people picked up on a battle field fighting our forces do not qualify for protection under our constitution.

[Frank1946]

I'll bet none of them were given "Miranda" warnings. so the civilian court will throw their cases out. What a stupid moonbat liberal idea!

[mostholycerebus]

Also, if they are found 'not guilty' or the case is throw out, doesnt the Army (and the individual servicemen) become liable to be sued or even charged? Since they are not sworn law enforcement officers, they don't have any extrordinary arrest powers, so what they did was in effect a citizens arrest.

[Dutchcedar]

Good points...

Friday, November 13, 2009

Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...JjMTA1ZDFiODQ=

Its gonna be Al Qaeda's O.J. trial. Thank you Mr. Obama, you ignorant arse.

[ai5000]

Its gonna be Al Qaeda's O.J. trial. Thank you Mr. Obama, you ignorant arse.

Unfortunately, I am of the belief he knows exactly what he is doing. I wonder who will play the role of Johnnie Cochran this time?

Just in case anyone forgot, Al Qaeda already declared war on us. Twice (1996 and 1998). Just because they don't wear the uniform of a foreign army doesn't mean they are civilians.