|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 19, 2009 10:54:12 GMT -5
I'm not surprised by Republican's lack of faith in our judicial system. After all, they are neofascists. So you wouldn't really expect them to have faith in our Constitutional system of justice despite the fact that it's been entirely successful in punishing perpetrators of domestic terror attacks.
But I'm puzzled by the motivations of Republicans in hitting the airwaves to predict a terrorist attack on New York if the criminals are tried there. After thinking about it, the only plausible explanations I can come up with are:
1. The are transmitting a message to Al Qaeda that another terrorist attack will cause a change back to Bush-style leadership which, I can easily understand, is also what Al Qaeda wants.
2. They are the biggest pussies in America.
So I thought I'd see if anyone else can come up with a plausible, logical explanation for their baffling behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 19, 2009 12:39:10 GMT -5
They don't actually care about justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 19, 2009 12:55:20 GMT -5
Oh come on, Jim. They aren't "neo-fascists." They're plain old garden variety fascists.
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 19, 2009 13:28:06 GMT -5
It's just huffing and puffing by the huffing and puffing brigade. It's all they have, so they are doing it. The funny thing is how offended they would be if a Democrat said something similar.
|
|
county
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by county on Nov 19, 2009 15:41:22 GMT -5
Another opportunity to whale on Obama.
The interesting question to me is whether America (NY) is strong enough to do the trial. Score big points for the terrorists if we allow fear of terrorism to affect the trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 19, 2009 18:06:32 GMT -5
So they'd basically issue a call to action to Al Qaeda without realizing it? I surely don't buy that.
|
|
|
|
Post by timd99 on Nov 19, 2009 21:14:15 GMT -5
I have some reservations about this trial. I have conflicting opinions on civil vs. military, on having it in NY, and on having it in the first place. I have confliction on why they should be allowed to use resources to build a defense, and the fact that Obama should shout out "they will be convicted".
The whole thing stinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 20, 2009 0:08:01 GMT -5
I have some reservations about this trial. I have conflicting opinions on civil vs. military, on having it in NY, and on having it in the first place. I have confliction on why they should be allowed to use resources to build a defense, and the fact that Obama should shout out "they will be convicted". The whole thing stinks. I never understood how the military had legal jurisdiction over the 9/11 attacks in the first place. It is one thing for the UCMJ to prosecute terrorist attacks against military targets, like the bombing of the Cole or terrorist attacks on US forces in Afghanistan or Iraq, but what legal authority did the Department of Defense have over the domestic US on the morning of 9/11? The acts committed by the hijackers and the co-conspirators were domestic crimes, from hijacking to three thousand counts of murder and everything else that happened that day. About having the trial in NY - you can lose a lot of money betting on how a judge will rule on motions, but I won't be surprised if the trial is moved out of NYC. Finding jurors who haven't heard about the case will be impossible no matter where the trial is held, but if you hold it in Lower Manhattan you're going to have to exclude a very high percentage of potential jurors who have a first or second-degree relationship with someone who worked in the towers or witnessed the attack. I don't think the defense team (whoever it is) will have a lot of luck keeping out evidence or testimony because of toture, but I think there is a very good chance the trial will be moved out of NYC. Regarding Obama pronouncing them guilty - that's nothing about nothing. Yes, members of the bar are not supposed to speculate about the outcome of a case before trial - but every lawyer does it. This actually happened in the Manson trial, too. Nixon told a reporter he thought they were guilty and Manson's co-defendants made a courtroom protest about it during the trial, but it had no legal bearing because the defense lawyers were unable to show that Nixon in his role as president was exerting pressure on the judge. I don't even remember his lawyers even trying to file a motion for mistrial, but they could have and I might have forgotten. About KSM and the other defendants putting on their defense - I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised by what happens during a trial like this, timd. The defendants are going to want to put on a necessity defense, which is probably most common in something like a burning-bed case where a victim of abuse murders their spouse even though they were not in danger at the time they committed the murder. The problem for them is, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. The necessity defense, where it is recognized and I'm not sure it has any standing in the federal courts, doesn't allow something like what KSM organized and plotted against the US. There's a recent example of this in the trial of Timothy McVeigh. He wanted to use a necessity defense, his lawyers made a motion to the court to use that defense, and the judge shot it down. His lawyers were prohibited from even getting near using McVeigh's grievances as a justification for what he did. But, and this gets to the part I think you'll like, prohibiting a necessity defense does not mean the prosecutors can't use actions and statements made by the defendant against him. McVeigh wanted to list his grievances, actions before the bombing, and statements to the police and have the jury decide he acted out of necessity. Instead, his lawyers were prohibited against making the trial a referendum on Waco and Ruby Ridge, but the prosecution got to use all the same stuff as evidence against him. I don't think this stinks at all. KSM and the rest of al Qaeda operate under their reading of an ancient religious text. We are a nation of laws, something that has been forgotten in the last decade. This is who we are. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 20, 2009 2:40:02 GMT -5
I have some reservations about this trial. I have conflicting opinions on civil vs. military, on having it in NY, and on having it in the first place. I have confliction on why they should be allowed to use resources to build a defense, and the fact that Obama should shout out "they will be convicted". The whole thing stinks. When the millenium bomber was sentenced, the judge that sentenced him answered most of your questions as to why. I have yet to read, anywhere, a more concise and clear statement as to why an open court room is the best place to meet justice for these assholes. ___ First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.
Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.
I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections. Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens. Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.
The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.__ Entire statement is here. seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/ressam.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by keystonejenks on Nov 20, 2009 20:03:58 GMT -5
Jim, it's amazing how all of a sudden the justice system has lost all of its competence isn't it.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Nov 21, 2009 0:14:04 GMT -5
Not to mention that our government is obviously trying to subvert the Constitution by using due process.
|
|
|
|
Post by keystonejenks on Nov 21, 2009 9:29:00 GMT -5
Not to mention that our government is obviously trying to subvert the Constitution by using due process. I hope you're being sarcastic. |
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 21, 2009 11:51:06 GMT -5
I'm fairly confident that he is.  |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 21, 2009 16:01:40 GMT -5
Bank on it. Cleverly so, don't you think? ;D
|
|
