You can’t successfully prosecute enemy combatants as criminals.

Waiting to hear from the 9th appealate court now about how we violated the terrorists civil rights... and how many millions we horrible people should pay them for interupting their Jihad.

What? You didn't know all this time your constitution conferred a right to jihad?

You have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to have weapons, freedom of religion and no right to make war, it doesn't make sense

It is a political farce I will never understand. In my opinion, Khalid Sheik Mohammed should have been marched in front of a firing squad immediately. I resent paying for housing and food for that dirtbag and his cronies.

Here is a great opinion piece on this subject by Richard Fernandez:
Belmont Club No Way Out (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/11/18/no-way-out-2/)

So are they going to abide by this dude's verdict, plan on holding him indefinitely anyway or are they going to send him back to Gitmo for a military tribunal?

I just read something here about not wanting another dufus running the country... too late.

You can’t successfully prosecute enemy combatants as criminals.Hello tom:

Yeah, 20 to life is pretty damn unsuccessful.

excon

So are they going to abide by this dude's verdict,Hello Steve:

YES. 20 years to LIFE in prison. He WAS convicted - just not of everything. What?? You didn't know??

excon

Hello tom:

Yeah, 20 to life is pretty damn unsuccessful.

excon

1 out of 280 counts? That's what, a success rate of roughly 0.3571428571428571 percent?

And they are appealing the one conviction of course

Ex ,I have no doubt that he will never see the light of day as a free man again .But that is besides the point. In a civil trial ;all they could convict this mass murderer on is conspiracy to bomb the embassies ,but not of the murders that resulted from the bombing . That is an absurd conclusion that makes a mockery of the very system we are claiming is superior.

The evidence that tied him directly was excluded from the trial even though the judge said the CIA and military did the right thing in holding and interrogating him for national security reasons.
So ;they can question him for national security reasons ;BUT ,the evidence against him can't be used in a civilian trial. Brilliant ! We are back to Miranda rights on the battle field .
That should be reason enough to use tribunals in these cases . (there was also an issue of an unstable juror that wouldn't have happened in a tribunal )

This smacks of an Al Capone type solution... everyone knew he was a criminal mob leader who ordered multiple murders... but all they could nail him with was tax evasion.

My opinion is real Soldiers should be treated to the all the allowances of the Geneva Convention...


Terrorists however are not real soldiers and should have no such protections... and should be taken out and shot unless they have sufficient accurate intelligence they share in exchange for their lives...

1 out of 280 counts? That's what, a success rate of roughly 0.3571428571428571 percent?

Only a Democrat could consider that a resounding win. But don't worry, Obama still has roughly 2 years to give him a pardon on that ONE thing the Kangaroo court convicted him on since he is a Muslim brother.

Only a Democrat could consider that a resounding win. But don't worry, Obama still has roughly 2 years to give him a pardon on that ONE thing the Kangaroo court convicted him on since he is a Muslim brother.

Is that the kind of record you want going into a trial of KSM?

1 out of 280 counts? That's what, a success rate of roughly 0.3571428571428571 percent?Hello Steve:

The last salmon I caught was one of about 50,000 hanging around near my boat. That's what, a success rate much smaller than the one you recounted above?? But, the salmon tasted just as sweet as it would have were it the only fish around...

When I was in Vietnam, there were at least 100,000 bullets shot at me. Only ONE hit. That's what, a success rate even to minuscule to measure? But it hurt the same as if it were the only bullet aimed at me.

Even though the glass LOOKS half empty to YOU, in reality it's overflowing... 20 years to life is NOT a failure!

excon

224 victims killed, and their justice is that the killer conspired to destroy a building . He was acquitted of 284 counts of murder or conspiring to murder the 224 people in the buildings. That decision doesn't even make sense. It was a compromise verdict by a jury that knew he was guilty of all the charges ;but had to get the one problem juror to convict him of anything .

Like I said... perhaps the Justice Dept can celebrate a Capone like conviction on a minor related charge ,but this is clear demonstration of the weakness inherent in using criminal prosecutions for war related mass murder .

And about that so called pr benefit of holding a civilian trial ;Holder blew that a long time before the trial began by stating that even if Ghailani was acquitted ,he would still be held as an enemy combatant.

this is clear demonstration of the weakness inherent in using criminal prosecutions for war related mass murder .

And about that so called pr benefit of holding a civilian trial ;Holder blew that a long time before the trial began by stating that even if Ghailani was acquitted ,he would still be held as an enemy combatant.Hello again, tom:

Actually, it's a clear demonstration of the FAILURE of torture, and the difficulty of using a coerced confession at trial... It doesn't work in our system. That's no surprise. If he's guilty of mass murder like you say, I'll bet we COULD have convicted him in a civilian court WITHOUT torturing a confession out of him... But, once we go down that road, we poison any chance we have at attaining justice... Fortunately, we eked out some justice in this case. But that's a testament to the STRENGTH of our courts - not its weakness's. To have overcome THAT self inflicted wound, and STILL get a conspiracy conviction, is pretty damn good.

excon

PS> I agree with you about Holder, and the idea of a show trial...

For the sake of berevity I'll go with your description of "torture" .

Even if the military and CIA treated him to ice cream sundaes during his questioning the information they obtained could not have been used in a civilian trial because of the evidentiary rules . Did they Mirandize ? No Should they when they are trying to obtain valuable intel ? No . Was his lawyer present during the interrogation ? No .
That is why the evidence was excluded .

The weakeness is in using civil trials for these cases.