[speechlesstx]

Ex, your 'steps forward' argument is getting harder and harder to defend, even Newsweek sees through that.

'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works.

Yep, two steps forward. How's that restoring our standing in the world thing going to look now?

[excon]

At least that's the way the system usually works.Yep, two steps forward.... How's that restoring our standing in the world thing gonna look now?

Hello Steve:

No, it isn't. It works the way I said it does. If he's acquitted of ONE charge, they'll charge him again, and then again, and even again if they have to... I'm telling you, he will NEVER walk the streets again, no matter what the email you received said.

What makes you think the system is fair? It ISN'T fair. It's biased toward the prosecutor. If it wasn't how come we got more people in jail than that evil old China who has, what, 10 times as many people as we do?

excon

[speechlesstx]

It wasn't an email, it was Newsweek - no friend of conservatives - I made that clear.

[tomder55]

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.
Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said. "Their assessment is negative," he said.

My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

[excon]

My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

Hello again, tom:

And, that should scare us how?

excon

[tomder55]

Scare us ? No . But they should not be given this platform.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

And, that should scare us how?

excon

So you think that it's OK that POWs get a forum to vent their political and religious hatreds and justifications for mass murder.

And here I thought that the purpose of giving them a trial was to deliver justice, not political propaganda.

In point of fact we COULD give them a fair trial without giving them such a forum by using the military tribunal system. But now we know that your goal for this trial isn't justice, it's political venting against the USA. That's why you're fighting so hard to justify this nonsense.

Elliot

[excon]

No. But they should not be given this platform.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed, the defense lawyer's wishes notwithstanding. Judges run those courts with an iron hand.

They'll be allowed to defend themselves on the charges - nothing more. As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that the prosecution will bring charges that don't relate to one's views. Therefore, one's views won't be allowed.

excon

[tomder55]

Yes and I know that regardless of the iron fist defendants motives are part of the process. I know in the Manson trial his motives were explored by both prosecution and defense.Time Magazine described his statement at the end of the trial as :90 minutes of extraordinary sermonizing about himself and society in general .

I saw the transcripts of the Berrigan and Chicago 8 trials and at the end their motivating factors were well understood.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed, the defense lawyer's wishes notwithstanding. Judges run those courts with an iron hand.

They'll be allowed to defend themselves on the charges - nothing more. As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that the prosecution will bring charges that don't relate to one's views. Therefore, one's views won't be allowed.

excon

So... you think that the defense attorney isn't going to ask "So why did you do this," and then let KSM rant on in answer to the question?

You think that this isn't going to become a forum for Fundamentalist Islamic hatred?

Then you are an even bigger fool that I gave you credit for.

But not by much.

Elliot

[excon]

You think that this isn't going to become a forum for Fundamentalist Islamic hatred?

Hello again, Elliot:

And, if it is, that should scare us HOW? Do you actually think that when democracy puts jihad on trial, jihad will win??

Dude!

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

And, if it is, that should scare us HOW? Do you actually think that when democracy puts jihad on trial, jihad will win???

Dude!

excon

And here, I thought the purpose was to put KSM on trial for his crimes, not to put "jihad" or "democracy" on trial.

Just goes to show, one more time, that your goal isn't justice or upholding the Constitution. It's politics and ideology.

So please drop the talk about defending the Constitution, because you have now proven SEVERAL times in this thread that that isn't your goal.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed

You mean like in the Moussaoui trial?

[excon]

Just goes to show, one more time, that your goal isn't justice or upholding the Constitution. It's politics and ideology.

Hello again, Elliot:

We hold public trials in this country for SHOW. That's why they're public. Are they public to send a message? Yes.

Are they public, just for the sake of being public, and for no other reason as you assert?? Dude. Why would you think that if JUSTICE wasn't the goal, we'd want to show it to the world?

Is all of this news to you? Dude!

excon

[speechlesstx]

The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is not too pleased with Holder's decision:

November 20, 2009

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense
Washington, D.C. 20301

The Honorable Eric H. Holder
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Sirs:

One week ago today, you announced that the Attorney General, in consultation with Secretary Gates, had determined that the United States government will prosecute in the Southern District of New York five detainees who are currently detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are charged in military commissions with conspiring to commit the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. These detainees are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. You also indicated your intention to withdraw pending military commission charges against these detainees, once federal charges are brought against them.

The decision to terminate the prosecution of these self-confessed terrorists in military commissions, transfer them to the United States, and bring them into a federal courthouse for trial raises many serious questions which I would like you both to address in a full committee briefing on December 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM. We would be willing to accommodate a classified briefing, upon request, due to the nature of the information that may need to be discussed.

As you know, the recently enacted Military Commission Act of 2009, which my colleagues and I carefully drafted, is a vast improvement over the previous military commission system by curing many of the legal infirmities of the latter. The new law ensures that hard fought convictions stick and are not overturned on appeal due to these structural deficiencies. I and many others, including the President, have argued that strengthened military tribunals are an appropriate forum to try detainees for law of war violations, such as those perpetrated against us in this country eight years ago. I am interested to know how the decision was made to take these detainees out of the military system and into federal court, how the July 20, 2009 protocol, “Determination of Guantanamo Cases Referred for Prosecution,” for making this decision was applied in these particular cases, the procedural status of the five detainees who will remain in the military commissions system, the location of future military tribunals, and the budgetary and other implications of these decisions. As a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue.

I look forward to engaging with you on this critical topic in the full committee briefing to ensure that justice is served and preserved. I expect that the full committee briefing will also help define the scope of a subsequent full committee public hearing.

Should you have any questions concerning this request, please have your staff contact the committee at 202-225-4151.

Very truly yours,


IKE SKELTON
Chairman

He wants to drag him before the committee to explain why he chose to ignore the legislation "carefully drafted" by he and his colleagues for just such cases, contrary to the President's own assertion that military tribunals were appropriate and wants to know where he's headed next. A Democrat controlled Congress drafted the military commission legislation that would pass SCOTUS' muster and Obama blessed it. It's not just us "cowards" pushing back, ex... Holder's got some explaining to do.