Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists would be tried in a civilian court

[IMaDick]

Whats your opinion on this shit ?

do you think these fucking terrorists deserve to be protected by our constitution ?




Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists would be tried in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal. Pressing Holder on this decision at yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight hearing of the U.S. Department of Justice, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked: “Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?”

Holder responded: “I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made…” At which point Graham interjected: “We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.” Holder’s decision does make history. And not in a good way. Edwin Meese III, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation as well as the United States Attorney General between 1985 and 1988 released the following statement yesterday on Holder’s unprecedented decision

[SyberBitch]

I think it really depends on the amount of evidence they have against them.

I've seen a lot of cases where people who were innocent were thought to be terrorists and their lives were made hell for it. If the evidence overwhelmingly points to these guys (I'm assuming they are guys) being terrorists... they should not be tried in civil court.

[Luke Warmwater]

don't worry....they've teed up a 21^st c. Jack Ruby just for the occasion...

[Duchess]

Whats your opinion on this shit ?
do you think these fucking terrorists deserve to be protected by our constitution ?

Of course they don't deserve it but, this is America & we are a nation of laws...I recognize this guy as being one of those that "we" tortured...How the hell can we run around the world condeming others for doing the exact same thing "we" do ?...Serious question...And if you don't think America isn't guilty of her own terrorist activities then you just are not paying attention or you choose to disregard it.

[IMaDick]

Whats your opinion on this shit ?
do you think these fucking terrorists deserve to be protected by our constitution ?

Of course they don't deserve it but, this is America & we are a nation of laws...I recognize this guy as being one of those that "we" tortured...How the hell can we run around the world condeming others for doing the exact same thing "we" do ?...Serious question...And if you don't think America isn't guilty of her own terrorist activities then you just are not paying attention or you choose to disregard it.

tortured before they blew up the WTC? or after ?

rightfully I would just as soon had them killed on the battle field or where they were found .

like the article says this is the first time that an enemy of the country in an armed conflict will be given the protection of OUR Constitution which in reality only affords protections to US citizens .

while I can see some of your point ,I cannot in good faith agree with it .

[Duchess]

while I can see some of your point ,I cannot in good faith agree with it .

I never expect to be agreed with in regards to this particular subject...At least you didn't accuse me of siding with the enemy...Apparently, good & patriotic Americans are expected to blindly follow and obey their leader, you'd have to put a gun to my head in order for me to do that.

[LuMPyPussy]

It's a tricky situation... they aren't US citizens so should therefore not be protected by our laws. On the other hand, we apparently want to try them here, using our laws, so yeah, they should have the same protection as anyone else involved in our legal system.

[IMaDick]

It's a tricky situation... they aren't US citizens so should therefore not be protected by our laws. On the other hand, we apparently want to try them here, using our laws, so yeah, they should have the same protection as anyone else involved in our legal system.

Tell me what US law enforcement agency arrested these terrorists ?

if they were arrested by the military they deserve a military tribunal as war criminals .

tell me is there a war being fought over their actions ? was the wolrd trade center considered an act of war ?

show me where at any point that these people became civilian criminals ?

Im hoping your just poking around for a reaction and are not as dumb as your post makes you appear , this whole thing of trying these people in our courts is unconstitutional .

if our constitution applies to these then it applies to everyone in the world , do you think that was its intended purpose ?

[Duchess]

if they were arrested by the military they deserve a military tribunal as war criminals .

Agreed !...I don't know enough about this to make an arguement as to why it's not being done that way...Do you know why ?

[LuMPyPussy]

if our constitution applies to these then it applies to everyone in the world , do you think that was its intended purpose ?

You're calling ME stupid, then write this blather? If they're being tried in our courts, then the constitution applies to them. If they're tried in Tibet, then their laws apply. Fuckwit.

[IMaDick]

if our constitution applies to these then it applies to everyone in the world , do you think that was its intended purpose ?

You're calling ME stupid, then write this blather? If they're being tried in our courts, then the constitution applies to them. If they're tried in Tibet, then their laws apply. Fuckwit.

I guess getting an education is out of the question for you ?

the whole damn point is that they should not be tried as civilians in the US but as enemy combatants .



were these people arrested in this country ?
are they American citizens ?
did they kill Americans by an act of war ?
last time I checked the constitution does not cover foreign war criminals .

[The Antagonist]

if they were arrested by the military they deserve a military tribunal as war criminals .

Agreed !...I don't know enough about this to make an argument as to why it's not being done that way...Do you know why ?

To appease the far left is my theory on this.

It's been noted publicly that this guy openly and proudly admitted to the crimes he's being charged with BEFORE they water boarded him. They "tortured" him to get more information on who / what / where and all that.

I'm on the fence as to deciding if water-boarding is actually torture too. It's not nice but it does not leave lasting scars the likes that John McCain has suffered or any other POW in an enemy camp. To me torture has more meat to it than water boarding. I've seen it demonstrated on the TV when a news anchor had it done to him. He said it was awful but he also said that getting hit with a tazer was worse. But, that's one man's opinion.
Every one of our special forces soldiers is trained and "tortured" to help withstand the possibilities of what will happen should they get captured and I've yet to hear any of them not being able to do their jobs because of the lasting impression it's given them. I am sure some couldn't handle it. I'm am sure some are in treatment for it but I've not heard of the complaints openly to date.

This guy was captured on foreign soil by US soldiers. Military tribunal is how it should be.

I've seen the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and they have it way better than any prison on US soil. They're catered to and given any and all accommodations while they spit on our soldiers, throw piss and shit at them and try to break their arms when feeding them their specially prepared meals according to their religious beliefs. Our soldiers even go so far as to wear rubber gloves when handing them their Koran because they are considered "infidels" who denigrate the book by simply touching it.

If he were caught and captured on US soil, it would be a different matter. The president hit a brick wall on the closing of Guantanamo Bay and he's stuck. He's making decisions on the fly so it looks like he's actually doing something but in reality, he leaped before he took in the whole situation and made a rational decision. He wanted to hold up his campaign promise but now that turned into a giant clusterfuck for him.

[Maggot]

I would put them all on a plane and slam it into the ocean. Then say oops.

[The Antagonist]

I would put them all on a plane and slam it into the ocean. Then say oops.

Now, now that wouldn't be very compassionate of you would it? I mean, the poor terrorists do need their rights!

Know what's really funny? They whine they are being "tortured" at "Gitmo" and they'll be the first ones to grab knife and cut someone's head off and put it out there for all to see.

If they think that I for one minute believe they are truly feeling tortured and not using this as a tool to play us, they are bigger fools than I suspect. Sadly, it's working on quite a few people.

Granted many have been locked up that shouldn't have but hey, don't you think just maybe at the time they were grabbed there might have been just a little cause to do so? I don't think our fighting forces are that fucked in the head as to start nabbing anyone willy-nilly.

[Middle Finger]

I have a feeling that when your life depends upon it, you don't waste too much time fooling around with people you don't really think pose a threat or danger. Wasting time just means that the ones you really need to worry about have less resources being used against them.

[SyberBitch]

Tell me what US law enforcement agency arrested these terrorists ?

if they were arrested by the military they deserve a military tribunal as war criminals .

I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that. It's always possible that innocent people, or at least people who do deserve 'a fair trial' could be arrested by the military for whatever reason. It doesn't seem to be true in this case, but it certainly could be true and I'm sure it has been and will be again.

tell me is there a war being fought over their actions ? was the wolrd trade center considered an act of war ?

I believe it was considered 'an act of war'. Is there a war being fought over their actions? Sort of. The immediate (sort of) response to the WTC bombings, was to go bomb Iraq... when the terrorist organization responsible for the bombings was in AFGHANISTAN. So, yes, a war is being fought, but much of it has nothing to do with the bombings, it was just an excuse to invade Iraq.

show me where at any point that these people became civilian criminals ?

From what you have said (and I admit, I'm fairly ignorant on the subject since I haven't been following it), you're talking about people who admitted responsibility, or at least involvement, in terrorist attacks on the US.

I believe that anyone who would be foolish enough to admit that, should be given what they want - execution without trial. If there were doubt or if they were proclaiming their innocence, I would believe that they would be entitled to a 'fair trial', if they are on our soil, whether they are citizens or not.

People who are not citizens certainly are not entitled to all of the rights our citizens lay claim to, but there are certain moral obligations we, as a (hopefully) moral nation have toward any human being. A fair trial is one of them. There are rights of citizens and then there are basic 'human rights'. I believe a fair trial is one of the latter.

[SyberBitch]

It's been noted publicly that this guy openly and proudly admitted to the crimes he's being charged with BEFORE they water boarded him. They "tortured" him to get more information on who / what / where and all that.

If that's true, it's understandable.

I'm also aware, however, that Americans are guilty of torturing people who have NOT admitted to, or even been involved in, heinous crimes. That is never excusable.

I'm on the fence as to deciding if water-boarding is actually torture too.

Seriously? Water boarding, as I'm sure you know, involves nearly drowning a person, repeatedly. I'm assuming that your statement about our own Special Forces being submitted to torture as part of their training is fact. It seems logical enough. However, surely you would recognize a difference between torture that you VOLUNTEER for and torture that someone is doing to you against your will, right?

If water boarding isn't really 'torture', then why is it so damned effective at getting information from people? Of course, information acquired under 'torture' conditions, can never really be trusted, since most people will eventually say anything to get the torture to stop. Simple sleep deprivation is 'torture' when prolonged.

Do I think it's ok to torture people who are DESERVING of it?? Yes. But, I think the evidence against the person has to be damned overwhelming to justify it.

I've seen the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and they have it way better than any prison on US soil.

Was this before, or after they were 'shut down' for the raping, defecating on prisoners, and various other horrors perpetrated by American soldiers there?

[IMaDick]

It's been noted publicly that this guy openly and proudly admitted to the crimes he's being charged with BEFORE they water boarded him. They "tortured" him to get more information on who / what / where and all that.

If that's true, it's understandable.

I'm also aware, however, that Americans are guilty of torturing people who have NOT admitted to, or even been involved in, heinous crimes. That is never excusable.

I'm on the fence as to deciding if water-boarding is actually torture too.

Seriously? Water boarding, as I'm sure you know, involves nearly drowning a person, repeatedly. I'm assuming that your statement about our own Special Forces being submitted to torture as part of their training is fact. It seems logical enough. However, surely you would recognize a difference between torture that you VOLUNTEER for and torture that someone is doing to you against your will, right?

If water boarding isn't really 'torture', then why is it so damned effective at getting information from people? Of course, information acquired under 'torture' conditions, can never really be trusted, since most people will eventually say anything to get the torture to stop. Simple sleep deprivation is 'torture' when prolonged.

Do I think it's ok to torture people who are DESERVING of it?? Yes. But, I think the evidence against the person has to be damned overwhelming to justify it.

I've seen the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and they have it way better than any prison on US soil.

Was this before, or after they were 'shut down' for the raping, defecating on prisoners, and various other horrors perpetrated by American soldiers there?

did this happen before or after 9/11?

moral of the story is don't perpetrate terror attacks on the US, again my personal preference would have been for them to be killed on sight where ever and when ever they are found.

keep in mind that the prisoners that they were taking (many of them civilian) were being beheaded on video.

hung from bridges,and other such animalistic atrocities.

given the choice between the two scenarios which would you rather have endured?

[The Antagonist]

I'm on the fence as to deciding if water-boarding is actually torture too.

Seriously? Water boarding, as I'm sure you know, involves nearly drowning a person, repeatedly. I'm assuming that your statement about our own Special Forces being submitted to torture as part of their training is fact. It seems logical enough. However, surely you would recognize a difference between torture that you VOLUNTEER for and torture that someone is doing to you against your will, right?

If water boarding isn't really 'torture', then why is it so damned effective at getting information from people? Of course, information acquired under 'torture' conditions, can never really be trusted, since most people will eventually say anything to get the torture to stop. Simple sleep deprivation is 'torture' when prolonged.

Do I think it's ok to torture people who are DESERVING of it?? Yes. But, I think the evidence against the person has to be damned overwhelming to justify it.

I have seen the "torture" demonstrated on TV. This is why I'm on the fence about it. Did you know they don't actually get water in their face? Granted it's not pleasant by any stretch of the imagination but bribing them with specially prepared meals, games, books and other enjoyable thngs is NOT my idea of interrogation either.

I've seen the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and they have it way better than any prison on US soil.

Was this before, or after they were 'shut down' for the raping, defecating on prisoners, and various other horrors perpetrated by American soldiers there?

I think you are confusing this with the Abu Grahib (sp?) bullshit. Guantanamo Bay has been under close scrutiny and the public eye from the start.

[Cynical Ninja]

As long as they end paying the full price who cares what kind of court they end up at?