|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 20, 2009 20:35:26 GMT -5
Charles Krauthammer pens:
"Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning. "
Which is a valid point.
Lets assume worst case, and KSM is acquitted. You know damn good and well they won't release him. That would mean that the government does actually have some authority to hold you indefinitely, even despite a jury verdict, and due process, and all that good American stuff.
And if the government really can hold you indefinitely because it wants to, then why bother with a trial at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 20, 2009 21:53:55 GMT -5
For appearance's sake. That's why. And why any prisoner with a chance of an acquittal in federal court is still going to be tried by tribunal.
|
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 21, 2009 11:55:06 GMT -5
What's the alternative?
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 21, 2009 13:10:11 GMT -5
Krauthammer is a twit. Period. If Obama was a Republican, he would have his pom poms out cheering on whatever Obama did. But, Obama's a Democrat, so everything Obama does is bad. I don't bother reading his drivel, since he is 100% predictable and 100% valueless.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 21, 2009 14:28:32 GMT -5
The "alternative" is to try these criminals like any other (scale is the only variable between earlier terror cases and this one anyway)--and let the chips fall where they may. If some of these guys have to be released & deported--under our laws--because they have nothing but torture-derived evidence against them--so be it. If a jury actually sees fit to release some because the state failed to prove their case--that's the way it goes. Maybe our own people won't be so quick to use torture & flout our laws if they find that it works against them, in the end. Military tribunals are for use re; members of another nation's military. Period. Non-military persons perpetrating terror are criminals and we have a place to try criminals--criminal court. |
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 21, 2009 15:16:51 GMT -5
That's my thinking. I was just basically questioning the premise that there is no viable solution. They should be tried in court and that's that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 21, 2009 15:49:45 GMT -5
Even though you know someone is guilty, they still get a trial. Expecting them to be found guilty at trial is a reflection on one's faith in the Constitution, not the opposite.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 21, 2009 21:22:51 GMT -5
Even though you know someone is guilty, they still get a trial. Expecting them to be found guilty at trial is a reflection on one's faith in the Constitution, not the opposite. It's not an issue of whether they'll be found guilty or not. It's that the government has stated that they are going to keep these guys incarcerated regardless of the verdict. So why bother with the trial? Why not just admit that the government can declare you scary enoug to hold you forever because they want to? |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 21, 2009 22:53:26 GMT -5
What's at play is an attempt to do the right thing, combined with an attempt to minimize the political damage from it. The only way to minimize the political damage is to assure our most gullible citizens that they really have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 22, 2009 11:03:58 GMT -5
Isn't Krauthammer just laying up a (pretty lame) strawman? KSM publicly admitted planning the 9/11 attacks before we captured him, and we've recovered a lot of evidence on pre-9/11 planning that directly implicates KSM. From what we know there is more than enough evidence to convict even if the government doesn't include anything learned from KSM after he was captured. These kind of bullshit fairy tales piss me off because they only exist to prop up the kind of awful speculation reporting that we typically get out of Washington. I can not understand why someone would waste ten seconds of their time encouraging this garbage. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 22, 2009 12:04:04 GMT -5
Both of you are ignoring the issue. This has nothing to do with "what happens if he gets acquitted?" We all know damn good and well what happens if he gets acquitted; He goes back in his hole forever.
Which begs the question. Why bother with a trial?
|
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 22, 2009 13:46:35 GMT -5
I think you're ignoring the fact that this has been a slam dunk case from the beginning, so your question is immaterial. Now, as far as other detainees go, Krauthonker, and you, might have something.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 22, 2009 14:00:12 GMT -5
Both of you are ignoring the issue. This has nothing to do with "what happens if he gets acquitted?" We all know damn good and well what happens if he gets acquitted; He goes back in his hole forever. Which begs the question. Why bother with a trial? Okay, now that it's clear what you are trolling for - that's the most retarded question I've seen in a long time. Happy? We bother with a trial because we are a nation of laws. Just because someone has made their guilt beyond every reason of a doubt does not mean we throw our legal system out the window. What you think happens if he's acquitted is nothing more than a construct you've manufactured because you want to believe Obama is no better than Bush - regardless of what's happening in front of your eyes. I may be ignoring your strawman, but you and Krauthammer are ignoring the facts of this case because you want to use it as another example of how Obama is a disappointment. This only shows that if you can't find one, you'll make one up. |
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 22, 2009 14:49:12 GMT -5
Troll... ;D
When you have a nation with 1) criminal trials (for those who are guaranteed conviction) 2) military tribunals (for those who are not) and 3) indefinite detention with no trial whatsoever (for those even tribunals can't convict) tell me more about the "nation of laws" we have--and how exactly it differs from any other authoritarian regime which tries to maintain a halfway decent global PR image using the same multi-tiered, self-serving system of "justice"?
-------------------------------------
NBC: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?
Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.
NBC: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction — I mean one of the purposes of doing — going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.
Obama: Well —
NBC: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.
Obama: Look — what I said was people will not be offended if that's the outcome.
-----------------------------------------------------------
a real Fred Astaire, this guy,....
lollers...
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 22, 2009 15:06:31 GMT -5
I think you're ignoring the fact that this has been a slam dunk case from the beginning, so your question is immaterial. Now, as far as other detainees go, Krauthonker, and you, might have something. Would like a word with you about "slam dunk cases."  But lest just assume for a moment that his verdict is as done a deal as we suppose. That's one more reason to ask, why bother with a trial at all? |
|
