What an idiotic thing to say: "President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed as Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed: "Failure is not an option." Obama: Professed 9/11 mastermind will be convicted (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C237QG0&show_article=1)

Ah, the anointed one is sooooooooooo intelligent.

Yes George, he really is a dufus. Ex, says that's progress (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/un-american-again-416497-5.html#post2091101).

Yes George, he really is a dufus. Ex, says that's progress (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/un-american-again-416497-5.html#post2091101).Hello again:

Come on, Steve... Trying him is two steps forward. Proclaiming him guilty is one step back.

In answer to your question, George, it didn't make any difference in the Charles Manson trial when Nixon said he was guilty too. Manson even held up the headline to the jury, emblazoned with Nixon's guilty proclamation. He still got convicted...

excon

Hello again:

Come on, Steve... Trying him is two steps forward. Proclaiming him guilty is one step back.

As I said (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/un-american-again-416497-3.html#post2089251) in the previous discussion, if they've picked NY based on a predicted outcome and won't release him even if he's found not guilty that would make this faux pas the 3rd step backwards wouldn't it?

in the previous discussion, if they've picked NY based on a a predicted outcome and won't release him even if he's found not guilty that would make this faux pas the 3rd step backwards wouldn't it?Hello again, Steve:

I'm sure they've got 100's of charges that they're holding in abeyance, that they could levy, and WILL if he's acquitted. He will NEVER see the light of day, your scare tactics notwithstanding.

I, for one, am a firm believer in our ability to convict people.

excon

PS> For a tough guy right winger, you sound pretty scared.

I'm sure they've got 100's of charges that they're holding in abeyance, that they could levy, and WILL if he's acquitted. He will NEVER see the light of day, your scare tactics notwithstanding.

Pointing out the administration's mistakes and flip flops is a scare tactic? I thought that was doing the job the media should be doing.


PS> For a tough guy right winger, you sound pretty scared.

Maybe you need to clean your ears. I'm not scared, I'm dumbfounded by this administration's incompetence... but then again that IS kind of scary.

Excon,

The thing about trying terrorists and POWs in a civilian court is that that the rules of evidence are much stricter in the courts than they are in military tribunals. Under those evidentiary rules, the prosecution HAS NO CASE because KSM was never marandized, no warrants were issued, and little evidence was ever collected. What evidence WAS collected violate the rules of civilian courts.

The sole piece of evidence is his own confession, and that came after he was waterboarded, which thanks to you and people like you, is going to be thrown out by the courts, despite the fact that waterboarding isn't actually illegal.

This is going to be true of all the "100's of charges they're holding in abeyance".

So... unless you are going to throw out the civilian justice system rules of evidence, KSM is going to walk.

And if we DO decide to throw out those rules, why bother with this charade in the first place? Just try them in military tribunals where the evidentiary laws don't apply in the first place and these problems all go away.

This is what I have been saying to you for the past 8 years... the civilian justice system cannot be applied to POWs. The circumstances of criminal cases and POW cases are too different for the rules of one to apply to cases of the other. But you wouldn't listen.

Now the lib's chickens are coming home to roost... unfortunately it's the rest of us who are going to have to suffer because of it.

When the Dems lose their majorities in the House and Senate next year, there is going to be a reason for it, and this is just one of many.

Elliot

Obama showed very poor judgment with these comments and a lawyer of all people should know better. Their lawyers will now be able to argue that they won't be able to get a fair trial. It would be tragic to see them get off on a technicality.

This is what I have been saying to you for the past 8 years... the civillian justice system cannot be applied to POWs.Hello again, Elliot:

Well, it's like I told tom. If I had to choose between the legal arguments YOU make, and the ones our Attorney General makes, I'm going to go with him...

excon

Obama showed very poor judgment with these comments and a lawyer of all people should know better. Their lawyers will now be able to argue that they won't be able to get a fair trial. It would be tragic to see them get off on a technicality.

Obama is no lawyer, friend. His passion is community organizing and he's going to eat those words many times before this trial is over. Come to think of it: he may be a witness for the defense. Lol

Hello again, Elliot:

Well, it's like I told tom. If I had to choose between the legal arguments YOU make, and the ones our Attorney General makes, I'm gonna go with him...

excon

I'm looking forward to this AG fixing the messes his boss is making for the show trial, that may very well never take place.

Obama is tragically amazing; he conducts the office he holds as though he were on the playground, or Chicago ward politics. It ain't going to wash. I'm from Georgia and the most embarrassing POTUS of the USA is from here; I did not vote for him. Obama is going to replace Carter as the most incompetent of all presidents in our history. It's just a pattern of Democrat presidential politics: find the least known operative in the land, and push him/her as the greatest candidate. Bwe he he.

Obama is no lawyer, friend.

Like I said in the other thread, if he ever worked a courtroom he would plead "present."

Like I said in the other thread, if he ever worked a courtroom he would plead "present."

I've been there, too; they don't ask whether you are 'present'; they ask whether you are 'ready'. We have too many laws and too many regulations; and too few people concerned about individual freedom and liberty. Perhaps the nation is waking-up to the challenge.

Some one has to explain how this improves our world image (which the President professes to care so much about) by announcing a show trial and then assuring that not only will KSM be convicted ;but that the death penalty will be applied.

Some one has to explain how this improves our world image (which the President professes to care so much about) by announcing a show trial and then assuring that not only will KSM be convicted ;but that the death penalty will be applied.

This where progressives say, Don't judge me by the outcome, but judge me by my intentions.

Hello again,

I agree when we have a leader who misspeaks, it DOES diminish us in the eyes of the world...

But, the world should NOT misunderestimate us.

excon

Ex, Jonah Golberg has some more thoughts on how we're taking 2 steps forward with this...


How the KSM Trial Will Undermine the Law (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjNhZDg5ZmI4ODBiMTljMWVhZTk2OWYzYmYyOWFhOTE=) [Jonah Goldberg]

The ACLU loves that we're bringing these guys to civilian courts. They should be careful what they wish for. From an e-friend and lawyer with very relevant government experience.


Dear Jonah,

It is a really bad idea to have a trial where the accused is so vile and dangerous no jury or judge would ever let them off. The saying “bad cases make bad law” is a cliché for a reason. The judge in the KSM case will bend over backwards to make sure KSM is convicted. The appellate courts will do the same. No one wants to be the guy who let him off. The problem with that is that they will make all kinds of screwy and destructive rulings justifying the use of government power that will then be precedence for other criminal cases. Some day when a guy gets convicted on a two bit federal charge thanks to the KSM rules that will no doubt result from this trial, we will have Eric Holder and his liberal and libertarian enablers to thank. KSM and his case is like a virus that should be isolated from the civilian justice system.

No worries, right?

Ex, Jonah Golberg has some more thoughts on how we're taking 2 steps forward with this...

No worries, right?

Not unlike the OJ Simpson case?

Ex, Jonah Golberg has some more thoughts on how we're taking 2 steps forward with this...Hello again, Steve:

It's apparent that Goldberg (and you) have NO CLUE how the federal courts work.. In fact, MOST of the people yelling about this have NO CLUE how the federal courts work..

I do.

Besides that, he's not suggesting, is he, that the federal judges will be "empathetic" towards the government?? Even the ones the dufus picked?? DUDE!

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Well, it's like I told tom. If I had to choose between the legal arguments YOU make, and the ones our Attorney General makes, I'm gonna go with him...

excon

Uh huh...

And what legal arguments has Holder made?

He can't even tell us why he's made the decision to try these guys in a civilian court. He hasn't given a legal argument for it. And when pushed yesterday by Lindsay Gramm, he couldn't explain the reasoning to Congress either. Nor could he explain why KSM might be tried in a civilian court but OBL might not. He couldn't explain his logic or his legal reasoning because he isn't using logic or legal reasoning.

So don't listen to MY reasoning. Listen to HOLDER'S reasoning... or lack thereof.

Elliot

What's funny ex is the 180 you've done since Obama was elected. A year ago you would have agreed with those concerns.

Hello again, Steve:

It's apparent that Goldberg (and you) have NO CLUE how the federal courts work.. In fact, MOST of the people yelling about this have NO CLUE how the federal courts work..



Let's assume that this is true. Let's assume for a moment that nobody on this board except you has a clue about how federal courts work.

What does that have to do with the fact that KSM's trial doesn't belong in a civilian court?

But, are you actually prepared to argue that you have more extensive knowledge of the civilian federal court system than a Constitutional Attorney and former White House legal advisor like Mark Levin? Or former Congressman and Constitutional Attorney John LeBoutillier? Or Senator and former attorney Lindsey Graham? Or any of the other attorneys and members of Congress who have given very strong arguments of why this is a BAD IDEA?

Sorry, excon, but your limited experience in the federal court system does not make you a legal expert, whereas these guys all are.

Elliot

He can't even tell us why he's made the decision to try these guys in a civillian court.

He made that decision because he's a really smart guy.

Sorry, excon, but your limited experience in the federal court system does not make you a legal expert, whereas these guys all are.Hello again, Elliot:

See that green "expert" tag beside my name?? Where's yours?

Are you saying that whomever can provide the longest list of believers is going to win this argument?? Is that what I've reduced you to? Poor righty.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

See that green "expert" tag beside my name??? Where's yours?

So, like Holder you're a really smart guy so we should just say "hey, he's a really smart guy so he must be right."

He made that decision because he's a really smart guy.Hello Steve:

I'm glad you brought that up. It relates to Elliot's suggestion that I may NOT be an expert in the law...

But, here's the thing. Our founding fathers knew how to write stuff in short little sentences that even a 3rd grader could understand. The Constitution is only a couple pages. They wrote it that way on purpose so that even a regular guy like me, or Eric Holder perhaps, could understand it.

excon

It must not be that easy to read because there's all manner of morons out there that think it bans God from government and gives them the right to kill babies and a right to health care, but that's another thread.

So tell me what this means:


The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Hello again, Steve:

It says that the towers once stood in the state of NY, and that's where he should be tried.

What do YOU think it says?

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

See that green "expert" tag beside my name??? Where's yours?

Are you sayin that whomever can provide the longest list of believers is gonna win this argument??? Is that what I've reduced you to? Poor righty.

excon

Uh huh... so now you're an "expert" in the federal court system because AMHD labeled you an "expert".

Got it.

If that's all you got...

And we've been through this before. I'm a Senior Member, meaning that my member is senior to yours... yours is just formerly pert.

Elliot

It says that the towers once stood in the state of NY, and that's where he should be tried.

Didn't you say KSM was captured at home? Did he not plan the attacks from abroad? If we're treating this a law enforcement issue it says to me that he can be tried "at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Didn't you say KSM was captured at home? Did he not plan the attacks from abroad? If we're treating this a a law enforcement issue it says to me that he can be tried "at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."Hello again, Steve:

Here's the relevant passage you provided:

"... such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed...."

The crime DID occur within a state. Consequently, the balance of the passage doesn't apply. Where he conspired, or where he was arrested are not relevant.

Now, I suppose the list of Constitutional experts Elliot provided are going to say the passage says something else... But, they can't fool me. I know how to read.

excon

The crime DID occur within a state. Consequently, the balance of the passage doesn't apply. Where he conspired, or where he was arrested are not relevant.

OK, maybe I'm just being dumb today (no comments) but would that not depend on what they're going to charge him with? As far as I know they plan on charging him with "material support" which traditionally is a war crime and which was upheld in Hamdan as such.

Add Article I, Sec. 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8), Clause 10 and Congress has the authority to decide where and how to try KSM. No?

Hello again, Steve:

I never heard of the crime "material support". If it's a war crime, they're not going to be charging him with that. I'll bet they charge with 3,000 counts of murder. Ok, 2,500 just in case they need the other 500 later.

Or, because it's federal, 3,000 counts of denying people their civil rights. Maybe they'll bring him to state court. I don't know. Do you?

excon

You've never heard of material support? It was one of the counts Hamdan was found guilty of. I don't know what they're going to do, but as I posted last (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/un-american-again-416497-7.html#post2093126) it apparently doesn't matter because they have no plans for letting him go if he wins.

... it apparently doesn't matter because they have no plans for letting him go if he wins.

I do not believe you mean it to sound this way, but you are saying the USA is a nation of thugs. A man can be found innocent in a court of law and not allowed to walk out?? I've never seen that happen; haven't heard of it, either, unless during Prohibition.

I've never seen that happen; haven't heard of it, eitherHello again, George:

Let me the first to introduce you to this well known phenomenon.

excon

Hello again, George:

Let me the first to introduce you to this well known phenomenon.

excon

Fine: your cite?

The McVeigh trial was held in Denver ;the crime committed in Oklahoma City . Imagine that .
To answer Steve's question ,Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

It won't happen; but Congress could over ride the decision today if it wanted to by limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. In fact ;the Republicans should publicly announce that they have crafted such legislation with as much fanfare as they can muster.Let the nation know which Representative approves of this folly .

I do not believe you mean it to sound this way, but you are saying the USA is a nation of thugs. A man can be found innocent in a court of law and not allowed to walk out??? I've never seen that happen; haven't heard of it, either, unless during Prohibition.

I absolutely mean it to sound that way. Look here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/un-american-again-416497-7.html#post2093126)and here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/un-american-again-416497-3.html#post2089251) and follow the links. Ex thinks if the first trial ends with acquittal they'll just keep charging him until one sticks, but that's not the rhetoric coming from the administration, which is if he's acquitted he will return to “preventive detention.”

The McVeigh trial was held in Denver ;the crime committed in Oklahoma City . Imagine that .

Nice work, I was trying to think of an example. Thanks.

Protection against double jeopardy is a real guarantee. What Ex means is they will hold back some charges and keep prosecuting on different charges. Trial one through 3,000 they can make individual charges for every victim . Then they can make charges of conspiracy etc.

That is why they can hold trials ad infinitum . However ;how will that look to the world . How's that restoring our standing thingy working when that happens ?

;how will that look to the world . How's that restoring our standing thingy working when that happens ?Hello again, tom:

Let me see. The world is going to see us struggle to hold on to our principles. That's good. Without the trial, the world saw us as one who spoke with forked tongue. That's bad.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Lemme see. The world is going to see us struggle to hold on to our principles. That's good. Without the trial, the world saw us as one who spoke with forked tongue. That's bad.

LOL, what part of guaranteeing the outcome - conviction or indefinite detention - while speaking of justice is not speaking with a "forked tongue?" My goodness ex, what if Bush and Gonzales had done that?

The Israeli's kidnapped Eichmann and brought him to justice . How'd that work out for the Israeli world standing ? In your's and my eyes it may have been the correct thing to do. I assure you we hold a minority opinion on that . Many call it a show trial .

LOL, what part of guaranteeing the outcome - conviction or indefinite detention - while speaking of justice is not speaking with a "forked tongue?" My goodness ex, what if Bush and Gonzales had done that?Hello again, Steve:

Obama misspoke. He doesn't do that very often. But, our prosecutor is acting like EVERY other prosecutor in the world when he speaks about the conviction he's going to get...

What?? You never heard a prosecutor say that?? Dude!

excon

Obama misspoke. He doesn't do that very often.

He misspeaks quite often just as he passes the buck quite often. He said he no part in this decision but he is the decider now, he handed off to Holder and said "don't look at me, it was his decision."


But, our prosecutor is acting like EVERY other prosecutor in the world when he speaks about the conviction he's going to get...

Not the same thing. It's entirely different to predict a conviction than it is to guarantee the outcome, conviction and punishment by the death penalty - or acquittal and detention anyway. You're not that dumb, ex, that IS an affront to our civil justice system and the world will see it exactly as such. You would have agreed with me under the previous administration and you know it.

Not the same thing. It's entirely different to predict a conviction than it is to guarantee the outcome... You would have agreed with me under the previous administration and you know it.Hello again, Steve:

Couple things.. I don't see that Eric Holder "guaranteed" a conviction. He did say that failure is not an option, and I agree with him... Given how he plans to prosecute KSM, I think his conviction can be all but guaranteed... Unless, you think he can be acquitted in 3,000 separate trials...

But, no matter what he said, or inferred, or even guaranteed (if he did), I got news for him. In OUR justice system, there ain't no guarantees...

Is THAT the part where we agree?

Look. Let's put your right wing money where your mouth is... I think they'll get a conviction in the first trial. You don't. Let's put up a dollar. I'll give you odds of 3,000 to 1 that he's convicted on the first go round. If, however, your right wing fears come to pass, at least you'll make a little bread.

excon

John Gotti Jr is on his 4th trial in a slam-dunk case of racketeering .

John Gotti Jr is on his 4th trial in a slam-dunk case of racketeering .Hello again, tom:

If he's acquitted, let's hope the prosecutors have a few charges they held back.

As you argument relates to the KSM case, however, you don't think Gotti would be acquitted 2,999 times, do you?

excon

Ex I have no doubt they will secure their "guarantee" . Nonetheless ;proclaiming it as such exposes the process as a show trial . As you well know ;the constitutional protections you would afford him already destroys the government's case . The fact is ;he is a war criminal and the proper place to try a war criminal is in a tribunal.

Ex I have no doubt they will secure their "guarantee" . Nonetheless ;proclaiming it as such exposes the process as a show trial . Hello again, tom:

And, why shouldn't the US put Jihad on trial? Why shouldn't we show them up to be the cowards they are? I asked before why you think that Democracy would LOSE in a show trial against Jihad. Isn't that why we have public trials - for SHOW? Isn't the idea to deter future law breakers from considering crime?? Isn't the idea to SHOW the world how our system of justice works??

excon

Hello again, tom:

And, why shouldn't the US put Jihad on trial? Why shouldn't we show them up to be the cowards they are? I asked before why you think that Democracy would LOSE in a show trial against Jihad. Isn't that why we have public trials - for SHOW? Isn't the idea to deter future law breakers from considering crime??? Isn't the idea to SHOW the world how our system of justice works???

excon

So you're saying that putting KSM on trial in NY isn't about law or about constitutional rights. It's about creating a political show trial. There's no legal precedent for it, it's just for show.

Glad to see that you're admitting it.

But I though that our goal in all this was to conduct a war against terrorism, not showcase our justice system by rigging the outcome of the trial, thus showing the entire world that there IS no justice in America.

Elliot

A tribunal is also a public trial . Our system is based on the premise of a trial in front of a jury of peers.

There are no loyal American citizens who are peers to this scum illegal enemy combattant.

As I've said many times and I'm sticking to the premise ;The guarantee of constitutional protections to enemies of the country is something the founders would never agree to and they in fact made it clear that they crafted the Constitution for us exclusively . To grant them to enemies who are hell bent to militarily destroy the nation is to weaken the foundation that they were built on... yes a suicide pact .

Now both Holder and the President are supposedly schooled on these matters .They know what constitutional issues will arise from treating illegal combatants as common criminals and are pursuing this nonsense anyway. Wonder why I question their motives ? I posted the Cloward-Piven strategy when discussing the President's economic policies earlier today. Perhaps in it is also the rationale behind this decision;create a crisis that undermines American confidence in the system. Obama has complained about the lack of "positive guarantees" in the Constitution before. Maybe he see's this as a way to expidite it's destruction. And when it all comes crashing down the President like you will wring his hands and say. "It's Bush's fault" .

As I've said many times and I'm sticking to the premise ;The guarantee of constitutional protections to enemies of the country is something the founders would never agree to and they in fact made it clear that they crafted the Constitution for us exclusively . To grant them to enemies who are hell bent to militarily destroy the nation is to weaken the foundation that they were built on ....yes a suicide pact . Hello tom:

Given that you think the Constitution IS a suicide pact, it's apparent that you'd be willing to throw it overboard in favor of something else. Therefore, since you and I don't have the same allegiances, we couldn't agree on the solutions to ANY of our problems. And, we don't..

Tell me, what kind of system DO you have in mind?? Would anybody have any rights under a system like that? Probably not.

excon

You are the one who would water it down by granting provisions and protections guaranteed to Americans, to enemies bent on destroying it ;not me .

Tell me, what kind of system DO you have in mind??? Would anybody have any rights under a system like that? Probably not.

excon

There are plenty of people who are granted such rights under that system. They're called CITIZENS.

You are the one who would water it down by granting provisions and protections guaranteed to Americans, to enemies bent on destroying it ;not me .Hello again, tom:

So, when Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that "....we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....", his mention of ALL men, meant ONLY Americans? Is that what you'd have us believe?

Really. You believe, do you not, that the rest of the world doesn't have any such unalienable rights? They're ours and ours alone, to be coveted, and guarded with our lives. They're CERTAINLY not to be spread around. Is that what you believe?

Who, besides your right wing brethren, could believe such tripe? Tell me please, tom. When you talk about spreading democracy around the world, what kind of democracy are you talking about??

excon

thus showing the entire world that there IS no justice in America.Hello again, Elliot:

Sometimes you sound positively liberal.

excon

Really. You believe, do you not, that the rest of the world doesn't have any such unalienable rights?

Of course I do . The Declaration is not the legal document of the nation. The Constitution is and in the preamble the Founders themselves restricted the parameters to "for us and our posterity ".

Really. You believe, do you not, that the rest of the world doesn't have any such unalienable rights?? They're ours and ours alone, to be coveted, and guarded with our lives. They're CERTAINLY not to be spread around. Is that what you believe?
...
excon

You have entered into the land of the absurd with both feet. The Declaration did not and does not address the frustration of the people of England, France, China, or anywhere else, other than the colonists with King George III.