These guys won't get a fair trial

“NBC: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

Obama: I do not think it will be offensive at all when he is convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

NBC: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction — I mean one of the purposes of doing — going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the world our fairness in our court system.

Obama: Well —

NBC: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

Obama: Quack quack quack backtrack quack quack obfuscate quack quack quack quack…”

“can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

fvck who was offended. it was a non-military operation carried out by civilians on civilians. therefore, it doesnt get carried out by a military court. fvck. what is so goddamn hard to understand about that? those are the rules. we cant change them to suit our needs. jesus christ. even when obama is doing things by the book, (which we need to be doing in something as important as this, lest khalid doesnt get whats coming to him), either your need to troll or your hatred of obama drives you to criticize a perfectly legit (what should be) a non-issue
last edited: 11/18/09 1:00:30 PM”

“in before "crash is so silly"

in before "crash loves terrorists"

in before "obamessiah"”

“Thilly Thupie.”

“I wonder what evidence obtained by Cheney_s goons will be admissible. If interrogators follow the law, that sort of problem is more easily avoided at trial (IF for no other reason...).

Capice?


Hell, wingnuts don_t support civil liberties even when defendants grow up playing baseball, eating hotdogs, driving Chevrolets and baking apple pies.

”

“~insert cartoon here~”

“oh i have a lot of wingnut friends that send me junk like this. my bet is they are all part of some wingnut grass roots pr campaign and they signed up to do their part. st00pid if you ask me.”

“From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903470.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


Reasonable minds can disagree about Attorney General Eric Holder’‘s decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 perpetrators in a Manhattan federal court. But some prominent criticisms are exaggerated, and others place undue faith in military commissions as an alternative to civilian trials.

Mohammed is many things: an enemy combatant in a war against the United States whom the government can detain without trial until the conflict ends; a war criminal subject to trial by military commission under the laws of war; and someone answerable in federal court for violations of the U.S. criminal code. Which system he is placed in for purposes of incapacitation and justice involves complex legal and political trade-offs.

A trial in Manhattan will bring enormous media attention and require unprecedented security. But it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed’‘s nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would -- a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden’‘s driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions’‘ validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.

By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’‘s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.
[...]”