Did the U.S. make the right decision by announcing 9/11 plotters will be tried in New York?
The people behind the 1993 attacks on the WTC were tried in court and were sentenced to life in prison. The trial had a jury and it had a judge and it had lawyers and evidence. It's not enough for justice to be done. It needs to be seen to be done and nothing matches an open jury trial with a vigorous defense. In the case of these birds, I would expect that the death penalty is justified. I would also expect to have issues like enhanced interrogation techniques explored. It's time. We need to totally turn the corner on that.
Karen, I agree. No matter how long it takes to unwind the tremendously complex legalities, the trials need to begin now. If it takes 20 years to get through it all, so be it. There can be no missteps. The US needs to reclaim its pre-eminent moral place on the world stage, AND aggressively prosecute those who attacked and killed so many innocent people.
By the way, water boarding (WB) has been specifically defined as torture both in the US Army Field manual, and in the Geneva Convention, to which we are a signatory. We have executed WWII Japanese soldiers (including superior officers), and prosecuted American soldiers during Vietnam for WB.
I may be wrong (and tell me if I am), but I think that the difference with the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11 is that the perpetrators/masterminds were here on American soil when the attack was carried out. With this animal, he was in his own country graciously offering to send others to Allah without a willingness to do meet the almighty himself, because he's a coward.
I don't think it matters where the criminal is located when the crime occurs. Look at how the Nazi's were extradited to Israel to stand trial and execution. Their crimes were not committed in Israel - it wasn't even a recognized country at the time of the holocaust.
VERY WELL SAID "RUNTMaddawg"!!! INDEED!!! You have those "whiners" still trying to find something to discredit this current administration, but the truth of the matter is - I WANT THESE BASTARDS RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF ME SO THEY CAN SEE THE "RED" IN MY AMERICAN EYES as they get sentenced to DEATH!!!!
Repubs are whining and whining about this decision to have the terrorists tried here, but don't we trust our state of the art LAW ENFORCEMENT and MILITARY here in America to protect this country?? DAMN RIGHT WE DO, and we should!! I have all the faith in our Military and law enforcement enough for them to kick ass if any foreign terrorist interefers in the court proceedings. Besides, not only will our military and law enforcement be in full force, they will be "rest assurd" strongly supported by the American people, right there on the fore front!!! I say, let the terrorist "dare" to intervene in these trials, we are WAITING FOR THEM!!! SO, again, bring it on terrorists, we will be right there waiting in case you try someting STUPID on our soil!!!!
Also, this is a message for DICK CHENEY - Shut the hell up already! If it wasn't for YOU and your so-called TOUGH attitudes on almost EVERYBODY that doesn't have the likes of you, this war would not have happened in the first place!!! YOU HAD YOUR TURN, now shut up and go away, you are adding more fuel to the fire!!!!
People are seriosly scared of bringing this guy to New York? Please, grow a spine.
There are significant risks in bringing them here. Making NYC an even bigger target for Jihadists for one. The risk of our intelligence gathering being exposed. The risk of these criminals being freed on a technicality. If that occurred, it will be hard to argue that they must remain in detention when another defendant (a more conventional criminal) would have been freed.
A lot of risks in the name of THE RULE OF LAW, or some such slogan. A lot of people cheering this may be in for a rude awakening. Finally, the spectacle that KSM and his cohorts are going to make in this trial will be sickening. Even more sickening will be the American trial lawyers that will help them.
Amazing that to be politically correct we are giving more and more rights and freedoms to terrorist (oh excuse me that is plotters) while more of ours are removed. I find it interesting that you can kill thousands of people and the politicians will go to great extremes to see your rights are protected but they want to throw the rest of us in jail if we fail to buy insurance. And is there anyone who doesn't think the judge and jury won't be stacked??????
Also interesting that this is announced when President Obama is out of the country again for 8 days. Nice timing so he doesn't have to face the American public. Oh, I forgot he never does anyway, he only preforms in front of a stacked audience.
No wonder Hasan, the benificiary of our "protected class" of affirmative action medical schooling, thought he should be let out of his responsibilities to which he had pledged his 'honor'. The kind of thinking that denies personal responsibility seems prevalent here! Whew! So many bed wetters with no idea of responsibility!
Mike...
As Americans, our responsibility is to our Constitution. These defendants attacked American civilians on American soil, and typically, such people are tried in the jurisdiction where the crime took place. This is many years overdue, but the evidence of their guilt is still overwhelming, and the death penalty, which is well-deserved in this case, in on the table.
We need to end this while still following the laws we have honored for over two hundred years. It is possible to do both.
On the other hand, Hasan is a member of the military, and as such, he will be tried by a military tribunal. He has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder so far. They also have the death penalty.
I fail to see where anyone is denying any personal responsibility here.
Do you really think we will gain the moral high ground? There will always be some ridicules reason for these guys to strap bombs onto themselves. Look at this list alot of it happned before the big bad Americans water boarded.
I don't really care that any foreign terrorist get any rights. To me, they deserve none. But that point is a complete aside to people actually being afraid to bring him to New York. That's a level of cowardice I really think is as sad as it gets.
Just another reminder, why these individuals should be put on trial under the Military Court system and not our Civil Court system. Yes these men masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Or so the so called evidence seems to point to says. But because these men were picked up on the field of battle fighting against our soilders in Iraq or Afganistan, instead of our non-military law enforcement, these individuals are subject to the military court system.
To have enemy combatants put on trial in the Civil Court system, will have an unintended conequence of drastically changing the way the US can conduct a war in the future. This will lead to soilders having to issue Miranda rights to enemy soilders picked up on the battle field when they surrender. It will cause them to be shipped into the US, on taxpayer dollars, to under go a Civil Trial. If for some reason they're found not guilty, the government of the US would be open to lawsuits from anyone wrongly accused and found not guilty, because we ripped them out of their country, and brought them to the US to stand trial. The US will lose millions of taxpayers dollars to lawsuits, have to turn the US military more into a law enforcement agency for the world, and they'd be rendered ineffective.
How long until you think you'd see a lawsuit saying a soilder, used "excessive force" during war, because the US soilders had better guns and weaponry? Do you not see the can of worms that will be opened by trying these terrorists in the Civil Courts? Chances are none of that would happen from this case in particular. But it opens the doors to enemy combatants of future wars the ability to sue the American taxpayer for any sort of slight, or damages conducted in war.
This country stands for something very good when it finds its moral footing. And the world watches and frequently follows our example.
I have more confidence in the U.S. Judicial System than I do in the military's UCMJ-based judicial system. The UCMJ is very limited and often vague. Remember, that in the Federal judicial system, there is no provision for parole. It's always all hard time and we have two supermax prisons just sitting and waiting for these guys.
Seeing these people get a fair trial will do more to deter terrorism than a secret military tribunal. Remember that much of the world sees the U.S. military as just an extension of the Executive Branch. And that view was very much solidified when over 140 general officers who did not agree with the second Iraq war either resigned or were forced out of the military. This causes them to think of the military as serving at the whim of the President. Trying them in civilian courts leaves the military out of it and lets the world see what is being done.
I do worry some that the use of torture has tainted all evidence against these guys. That's something that has happened in the past and often courts' hands are tied (including military courts.)
I am reminded of the North/Poindexter convictions for their part in Iran-Contra and the pocketing part of the money. They both were given grants of immunity to testify before Congress in the Iran-Contra investigation. They did so and while they stonewalled a lot, they did give some information about the crimes. When they were tried, both North and Poindexter were found guilty on all counts. But they went to the ACLU who appealed the case. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that unless the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not a single word of the congressional testimony was used to develop evidence, that the decision had to be vacated. This was just an impossible thing for the prosecution to prove and North and Poindexter were released. (Neither had their military pensions restored however.) But even after they were released, the issue continued to have profound impact --- there had been an ongoing investigation of several other people's parts in Iran-Contra, including George H.W. Bush and Jeb Bush (who was the money-man in Venezuela for Iran-Contra). Because of how the North and Poindexter convictions were reversed, it also made it impossible to prove that evidence against either Bush was developed absolutely independently of North and Poindexter's congressional testimony. No further people were prosecuted because prosecutors would never be able to prove that the evidence was not tainted.
I can see this happening with evidence against these guys that was obtained through torture. It may end up that the prosecution may well have to prove that all evidence was developed without breaking the law and that may be extremely difficult to do. Luckily, however, the FBI obtained most of the information before torture was employed and then withdrew when torture was started. The military also had obtained information prior to torture being used and did voice some objections at the right time. It could be that this saves the day. It would have been so much better if everyone would have listened to the FBI and military interrogators who told them that torture was ineffective and illegal. But hindsight is 20/20.
Another problem that can arise is that any trial of these people (even with a military tribunal) is that the defense may be able to make a valid case for presenting information who ordered torture and actually go into this much deeper than anyone anticipates.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave ......
Bring these terrorists to U.S. soil and you can be, you will see a retaliation of Americans being help captive abroad and you will also see it on U.S soil. It will be their way of saying, "Release them and we won't kill our captives." If you think it won't happen, think again and don't hold your breath. I have studied terrorist for 10 years and read the Qur'an. This will be the nail in Obama's coffin of politics.
A military trial was good enough for the Nazis so why should this be different. This is a Military problem and should be delt with in that manner. Why would you bring them to New York and give the terrorist a chance to do something again during the trial. That is probably what will happen, and its on your head Obama.
WOOOHOOO!!! The War Is Over!!!!! UH Who won?
When are the troops heading home? Only way this could be even close to legal is for the war to be over! Making these folks civilians who are now being tried for war crimes.
And you think even with the most vigurous defense that the Muslim world will accept the results? The only thing they will remember is we did it on our soil and hate us more for that. They do not deserve to get the attention of a trial here.
The Guantanamo prisoners would prefer to be put to death. Even if they go to trial (by the way, I feel they have NO right to due process), and are found guilty, then put to death, they will be getting exactly what they want. Keep them in Gitmo to rot forever.
The 9/11 conspirators are criminals, and by definition they are "War Criminals". Also by definition, George Bush and Dick Cheney are "War Criminals" for allowing torture of these suspects. They all should be tried in the Hague.
In 2004, Terrorist entered a elementary school in Russia and held hostage the children demanding the release of Muslim terrorist being held in a nearby town. 280+ kids along with teacher were killed blown-up by these radical muslims. I cannot believe this administration would take this chance, yes they can guard the prisoners and the court, but what about the little school next door or in the next community...I hope to God they know what they are doing...
I agree with DumpCongress - these enemy combatants need to tried by the military, not in our civilian criminal court system. And New York of all places? Ugh, I can see the appeals now. How do they expect to find impartial jurors in New York right next to ground zero? E.D. Va. Alexandria would have been better - near the Pentagon, experience with handling terrorist cases and a community of military and government professionals to serve as jurors. Just ask Ken Feinstein, our current pay czar, who he preferred dealing with when he administered the 9/11 fund: families of NY victims or families of military victims.
Eric Holder first takes on the CIA and wants it and its personnel tried for torture.. Now he is getting his way in a round about way of trying the Former Administration. Senators and Congressmen in the Democrat party would not know a terrorist if they bit them in the ass.. Senator LEVIN thinks they are criminals.. THEY ARE TERRORIST..DEMOCRATS GET THAT STRAIGHT.
this is just another attempt of the obama admin. to deflect heat from his failure of running this country.
Radical Muslims across the world are ecstatic about this decision, we are naive idiots. How much will it cost to try then care for each one of these guys for 40 years (maybe 5-6 million each?), they will make sure we capture more each year. You must accept that these people want to kill us; they are not in a hurry, a few young solders here, cut off a head or two there, an occasinal rouge shooting, the suicide bomb of the week. They can't yet come to your house and drag your wives and daughters out and stab your sons but this is the goal. ... Everyone thank God we have elections every four years.
The difference between 1993 and 2001 was not just the number of innocent lives taken but those that were tried were here, caught by civil authorities and tried under civil law with all the built in protections provided. These perpetrators were not here and were taken as prisoners by the military and not provided the same civil law rights, but as enemy combatants. They did not receive any Miranda rights but were treated as enemies under military law. Why should they now be treated as though the military was never involved and now receive civil protections and challenges not afforded to war criminals? Can they use our own civil laws to exclude evidence obtained under military rules? This should be done through military tribunals especially since they have been detained by the military for all this time under military law.
indy...
Please check your facts. None of these five individuals were picked up by our military. All were picked up by Pakistani officials in either internet cafes or "safe house" raids. They were all turned over to the CIA, not to the U.S. military.
They were held in CIA "Dark Prisons" for several years before being transferred to Gitmo, where the military became responsible for their care. Only after many years, and two court decisions determining they were in fact not "enemy combatants" did the military arbitrarily reclassify them and begin hearings.
This is not supposed to be the way our legal system works.
These were not fighters in an army force with which we were at war. These were rich street thugs, who laundered money while traveling the world, staying in fine hotels, eating great food, and coercing people they felt were mentally inferior to their great minds into doing horrific things. Like mafia-style gangsters, they lived great lives, hatching plots and making plans.
And like common criminals, they should be brought to the scene of the crimes they abetted, which also happens to have the most experienced judiciary in this area, and tried by a jury of American citizens.
I believe in our Constitution and our laws, and I have every faith in my fellow Americans to administer the justice which is so long overdue.
Pinch: I feel as if I am picking on you lately, but I really think you are trying to defend a dead horse.
You wrote, "And like common criminals, they should be brought to the scene of the crimes they abetted, which also happens to have the most experienced judiciary in this area, and tried by a jury of American citizens."
I know of no US laws that says a criminal should be brought to the scene of their crimes. Do you? if so where do I find it?
The Judiciary of N.Y. may be experienced, but there probably is not one person in N.Y. that has not already formed an opinion on these terrorist guilt or not guilt. Remember we must have 12 impartial jurors and at least in those cases I am familiar with 3-4 substitutes. If even one lies and is not impartial, then at the end it will be declared a mistrial and if there is enough evidence the whole kit and caboodle could be thrown our. Please do not insult the rest of Americas Judicial system by dening them the right to try these Terrorist.
I passed over your remarks on the birthing question, as You mentioned so many courts and even the supreme court have confirmed the Hawaii birth certificate, but I would really like to see only one case where a judge has said, "Obama's birth certificate is legal and was issued by a registered Doctor". Or words to that effect. All to date have refused to hear the cases against the legality of the birth certificate. I will check, but I think the Supreme court does not have it on their docket until sometime late spring of 2010. To date they have heard about it, but never heard it. Ooops what a play on words. In other words the "Jury" is still out on this matter, so to speak.
Bill Reese
A lot of risks in the name of THE RULE OF LAW, or some such slogan
It isn't just some slogan, Bri (#1.7). It's the keystone of everything America is and stands for. Demean it the way you do, turn it into just another talking point for Americans to argue about, and it really doesn't matter where or even if these trials take place-- you will have already capitulated to them, already proved that their opinion of the West as a shallow, materialistic culture holding to no moral standards is correct.
We can disagree about the application, we can disagree about the way things are done or where the trials take place-- but never, ever make upholding the rule of law just another piece of divisive American politics, to follow or not as your opinion sways you.
Bill...
I in no way feel you are picking on me., so don't give that a second thought. I enjoy spirited intellectual discussions with civil, educated people, and therefore I certainly enjoy my conversations with you, whether we agree or not.
Relative to the location of the trial for the five Gitmo detainees, there are actually numerous consistent precedents and legal decisions for this. Our legal history has consistently held that the location of the crime has the legal jurisdiction. In cases where there is interstate involvement, the venue remains the same, but the jurisdiction now goes to a federal court in that location, unless there is reason to presume, in the opinion of the prosecution, that the venue may not be sympathetic to its case. That certainly in not the case here.
All facets of international law also give primary jurisdiction option to the State (or country, when so indicated) where the crime occurred, regardless of the nationality of the offender.
We have also the decisions of the emerging Obama administration, aimed at eliminating the term "enemy combatant", obviously addressed at the ultimate closing of Gitmo.
I certainly meant no disrespect to other judiciaries in the United States when I said that the federal district in New York is more qualified, but based my assessment on the fact that it has prosecuted more of these cases than any other location, and has done so successfully, managing the same problematic areas you and other have raised. Their 100% conviction rate indicates quite clearly that they have managed to seat appropriate and unchallenged juries, protect confidential security information, and meet all defenses offered.
The current administration could hardly afford a loss at this time (or any other), so I will assume they have done more than just their ordinary homework to insure that these trials will lead to the justice these defendants deserve. The strong support from all of the New York officials, at all levels, also means there has been a lot of planning and communication to make sure this will be done without incident.
Again, this nebulous enemy does not need a border location for this trial to retaliate, if that is their objective (and I really doubt that is a concern of theirs at this time). If they wanted to hold, for instance, a group of school children hostage over this, why would it mean more if they were New York children? They could just as easily be in Salt Lake City, and I think people there would feel the same impact. We could have tried them at Gitmo, and the school could have been in New Orleans, or Miami, or Chicago. It really wouldn't matter.
As stated in the post above, the point here is to demonstrate to the world what we have been saying for over 200 years. We are a nation of laws, and we can handle any challenge to that system.
Relative to the "birther" issue, I can only say, without being redundant, that unless anyone can actually find any creditable proof to demonstrate that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, it remains just a conspiracy theory. At this point, all evidence points to the fact that he is, and all facets of our government, the previous administration, and the many state courts where this has been broached have ruled this as an allegation without merit. One credible fact might make a difference, but so far there have been none.
The Supreme Court has in fact reviewed the matter several times and used their discretionary power to let stand the rulings of the lower courts, so they are most familiar with the particulars of every angle that has yet to be tried. They will undoubtedly do the same thing again, since there is no new evidence or approach in this case.
When you have a dispute where the facts and the law have been on one side for five years, and you have nothing but hypothetical and outright falsehoods on the other, it is hard to see why this continues, when we have so many real issues in this country. This is a distraction, and a major embarrassment for the Republican party, where even Ann Coulter says these are just the remnants "of the KKK". I don't necessarily agree with her (I rarely do), but I do know that this is a huge fundraiser for the groups fueling this, so I do believe there are a lot of people out there who are publicly keeping this alive and laughing all the way to the bank.
Pinch: I would first like to point out that Mr. Holder AG is not acting without Mr. Obama's approval or direction. Now you either think the readers on this site are not paying attention to all that is happening in our government or that we are all dumb or stupid.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other terrorist declared war on the USA and to then say that they deserve a US Civilian trial instead of a military UCMJ is really an insult to our military at this time, but then it is no worse than Obama taking (how many months) to talk to his hand picked General McCrystal, who by the way is one of the two most knowledgeable men on anti-terrorist tatics. That is alone with Gen. Petratus, not the White House administration.
You speak of the act of using children in other areas as hostages so that it is not as important on where the trial is located. I say if the school hold children of any of the jurors or court personnel then it is far more important than some other place in the US. Gitmo is still the place this trial should be held and it would send a message to the Terrorist, to have a little fear of Gitmo. There the names of all jurors and court personnel would not be known and the trial would have very little outside potential for challenges. I really do not understand your determination that N.Y. has to be the only place for this dumb trial. Do you not remember when there were some Pakistani Terrorist tried in N.Y. and then notes on discovery were found in Afghanistan by our troops? I am sure that you remember this and just conveniently forgot. I too have memory slippage sometimes. :-)
As to the birther issue, I will look up the Supreme Court docket today and see if it is still there for the spring of 2010 our benefit. What importance is it? If it determines he is a US citizen then that ends the Constitutional question, and if the Court ............, then all that he has done may become..........!
My last thought, why the dickens do we even want to consider closing Gitmo while we are still at war with Al Quaida? Oh, I understand the song and dance that we are creating more terrorist, but we are sending messages out of ou US prisons to encourage terrorist, we just had a Physiologist, from Fort Hood that was trying to recruit for Al Quaida. I personally think we need to set up a Terrorist training camp in the desserts of Afghanistan and train all the terrorist we can line up and then give them a final real test on IED's. This way we eliminate all the middle men.
I was reading your post again and I noticed a term that you use over and over again. It is "As stated in the post above, the point here is to demonstrate to the world what we have been saying for over 200 years. We are a nation of laws, and we can handle any challenge to that system." That is correct, but our laws do not say where or when if I am correct. I am sure it does not say N.Y. or at the scene of the crime. Or else we would be trying, Terrorist in Kenya or Tanzania for the embassy bombings. Or in Yemen for the Cole attack. Interesting concept.
Have a nice week
Bill Reese
Bill...
Jurisdictional law means that if it is an attack against a citizen or property of our country, they are extradited here. You are reaching on that one, or you did not read my post or do the research I recommended. I realize legal stuff is not always easy reading, but it is important to understanding the basis for this decision.
And again, the "birther" case will be tossed again because there is no factual evidence involved. There never has been any in this particular conspiracy theory. People just want to believe it, like kids want to believe in Santa Claus, and I can understand that, because reality is a lot more difficult to think about right now.
Also, private citizens cannot declare war on a sovereign nation. Three of these people have said they never did anything at all, or at least didn't know what they were doing. Do you really believe that?
And how do you suppose all this information got out? Do you really think there is a bubble of silence around Gitmo or any place else? But maybe it will make you feel better to know that there is an idea under consideration to have the trial held on Governor's Island to avoid disrupting so much of the New York traffic. That may be the best compromise.
Pinch:
This argument on where to hold the trial for the terrorist is one that you are losing the more it is discussed. first, why have we tried other terrorist on Gitmo with military Tribunals? Does that mean that we did not follow the Constitutional system, and the y must be release? Second, even if the t rial is transferred to Governors Island it will still cost the tax payer and the state of N.Y. a fortune in lost court time, security, and the additional court attendees. Then 3rd it will give our number one Terrorist for the 9/11 attack a venue for yelling at the world how terrible he has been treated (and he was not), but other radicals will not care they will form up behind him with every lie he tells. 4 th to think this will not break some intelligence secrets is a false hood and not understanding of the real intelligence world. every CIA officer brought before the cameras will make a new terrorist in Afghanistan for our troops to have to kill, and number 5 this is a witch hunt that is being perpetrated against our Intelligence community, and the Bush/Cheney administration (when will Obama give up running against the past administration?) and stand on his own two feet.
Over all this boils down to being political on the one hand and creating more terrorist targetss on the other. This has nothing to do with holding the trial in the city of where the dastardly deed occurred, or keeping with our Constitutional system of law, it has all to do with the ego and future of Obama.
We need to put our trust in our military Tribunal to do their job and stop giving an admitted (confessed in a court of law) terrorist his request as he has no American rights under our constitution.
Well Pinch, you have fought the good fight, now please let it go before you loose your credibility on the really important subjects that you defend very well.
Have a nice day :-)
Bill Reese
Bill...
Everything you have said was said before Moussaui was tried in our federal court system. It was said before the Blind Sheik was tried. It has been said every time before. It has never happened.
The military tribunals have had years to act. They have done nothing, and are now in the process of reorganizing their rules, so they are not even ready yet to proceed with any more than the three trials they have managed in all these years. Meanwhile, the United States court system has completed close to 200, with nary a hitch.
Since neither of us are fortune tellers, I will choose to place my faith in the system that has proven itself, and I will continue to believe in our Constitution, the laws of our land, and the American people. I guess we will see whether my credibility triumphs over fear of these common gangsters who have obviously been so successful in frightening so many into believing that they are somehow great military leaders, worthy of being treated as our equal adversaries, and also tried only in a land far, far away.
Pinch
I am sorry but these are not gangsters, as gangsters in most cases want a reward like money or gold or property, where as these people are radical muslims that want to kill and terrify infidels and are willing to go to heaven when they do so, as they feel there are virgins waiting there for them. So please lets call these terrorist what they are not gangsters but plain old lower than life Terrorist.
Thank you for your post, but I still think you are out in left field on this one, we are not afraid of these monsters, we show no fear, but we do not want to tie up a great city, risk loosing more intelligence gathering programs or having the family of one of the jurors killed just to satisfy the ego of our leader and try to put our CIA and Bush Cheney on trial. We are dumb Americans, but we are not stupid..
Have a nice day
Bill Reese
Karen, you are so right we should never ever interrogate those poor terrorist prisoners and by all means we should make sure no one every says anything to hurt their feelings,while we are at it why don't we make sure someone is there to tuck them in at night and sing a lullaby to the darlings.After all we want to make sure that the rest of the world knows what a good forgiving country we are.Or we could give the command to our army to take no prisoners and just shoot their asses of and we would not have to worry about what the rest of the stupid world thinks.
Pinch: You do write well and you have been thinking that you do not like the way Mr. Obama has been running this country for 11 months, but your use of the term, "common gangsters" just does not cut it with the people that have read you in the past. These Terrorist are not gangster, they are not Americans and do not deserve to have the protection of an American citizen, after all it was their choice to come to America and kill over 2000 Americans. No one asked them here and I wonder why we are not calling them for what they are Radical Muslim Terrorist, that came to commit murder. A gangster normally wants money, property or retribution, but not these Terrorist, they just wanted to kill infidels like you and me.
As to Fear, you make it sound as if everyone has fear that does not want these animals tried in New York. I must say, if that is your thinking you are wrong, way off base. Most people do not want the problems associated with a year trial tying up the legal court system for the trial of a Terrorist that has already admitted guilt. They also so not want the chance that other terrorist will decide it is the perfect time to enter the number one terrorist Target in America and kill even one child let along hundreds, it is not fear for ourselves it is the notion that Children will be killed or maimed, but that does not bother our leader, mr. Obama, as he is out for the political gain by putting our CIA on trial an President Bush and VP Cheney on trial, and giving away all the intelligence work that we have to track more terrorist. If Obama is so in love with these terrorist why not just fly them in to America by the plane load and turn them loose. That would make as much sense. Keep them at Gitmo where the next five (5) are to be tried! Why is there a difference between the five in N.Y. and the five in Gitmo. Because the ones in N.Y. said that is where they wanted to be tried, asinine!!! The are all equal, all radical muslim Terrorist, they should all be tried at Gitmo.
Have a nice night, and May God Bless the United States and all the peoples of the world.
Bill Reese
Its obvious the President does not hear the voice of the people...... AGAIN! The Attorney General is just an Obama puppet.
#2 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:33 AM ESTThis is absolutely ridiculous, and yet another example of the weakness and continued attempts at appeasement by this administration. Barack ZeroBama and Eric Holder need to go find their testicles, stop apologizing for this country and do what is right. These 5 pieces of sh&@ need only be taken out back and dispatched with a bullet to the head, with as much feeling as they had when 3,000+ people were killed in a TERRORIST! attack. The PC, "let's not offend anyone" mindset taking over this country is going to destroy it. Ft. Hood was just the beginning. Don't hurt anybody's feelings, let's let the radicalists kill a few innocent people. At least we didn't hurt the shooter's feelings. Just disgusting.
Don't be ridiculous - this should've gone to trial ages ago. The crimes they perpetrated were against the US - it was not a military action - it was an act of terrorism and it is perfectly sensible to try them in the criminal court system. This country is based on the rule of law and justice cannot be served by a back alley execution or keeping someone locked up in a hole. That's not the way we do it. That's they way they would do it; and we are better than that.
Andrew-
Look you right-wing POS, stop bashing Obama and start demanding that our justic system do what it was designed to do: prosecute and try criminals. These men are not soldiers and they are not members of any organized military. They are criminals who engaged in criminal behavior. We proved we can do it with WTC 1983 and with McVeigh. We can do it here and now. Should we have done to McVeigh what you suggest in your post? It would be the same thing as your are promoting. That is appalling and barbaric behavior. We are not barbarians and we should not be acting like barbarians. What you suggest would only inflame more attacks against this country and it would be deserved. Use your brain and stop thinking with your testicles.
ANDREW - if it wasn't for the "shrunked balls" of the Bush I & II administration, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place!!
Let me ask you this - do you know ow many foreign people are in AMERICAN jails, have been tried on American soil, and are on American death row?? LOADS OF THEM!!! Ahhh remember LEE MALVOE - sitting in Virginia with LIFE in prison - non citizen, need I go on?!!! You folks - REPUBS are just trying to find something to whine about - HELLO?? The NOVEMBER election is over and MCCAIN LOST!! Get over it!!!
I guess your pea brains are forgetting that when a foregner commits a crime on our soil and flee, we go get em and try them here!!! Goes to show you, most of you whiners have no faith in our military and law enforcement here in America! I support this decision big time, know why?? Bring those bastards HERE and let them sweat and see the "red" in our American eyes, and let them see that if anything happen during these trials, it will be an all out war on American soil - And guess who will win?!!! AMERICA hands down! You are also missing the point that if these terrorist are tried on their own foreign soil, they will be released quickly as their own always side with them. SO BRING THEM ON, AMERICANS will be right there waiting for the death penalty to be handed down!!
Sound like you all need new "pacifiers" to suck on!!!
KayCee,
Are you prepared for these men to be released? How can they remain in custody? No one read them their rights. No one offered them attorneys. Information gathered was done through physical coercion. Following the rule of law, these men must be released.
Now, when you calm down, maybe you will come to your senses and realize that these men are unique and stop comparing them to other foreigners in our prisons. Bringing them to New York is only fulfilling their wish to rant and rail against America in front of a willing press corp. A Jihadist dream.
More right-wing spew. You reactionaries had your shot and you screwed the pooch. It's not surprising that you would condemn every effort the new Administration is making to clean up the horrific mess Bushco made over the last eight years. After all, the devil you know...
If you can't be a part of the solution, then do us all a favor and stop being part of the problem. Obama won, the people voted, get over it. Push, pull or get the hell out of the way!
Bri...
Actually, you are incorrect on several points. They have been charged with only one of the many charges which can be brought against them, so if there was any remote chance they wold evade this one, they would immediately be re-arrested on yet another charge. They cannot even outlive the list of charges being held in reserve for them. They will never be free.
At this juncture, the death penalty is on the table, and since the pool of jurors will be drawn from the very population which lived through this horrific attack, I fail to see where the jury will be able to arrive at any other verdict but "guilty".
There is such a mountain of evidence against them that precedes even their detention at Gitmo, thanks to our exceptional investigators, that the things that happened there will never even be admitted in court. That will not be needed to convict them.
They will have no opportunity to rant and rail against America or anyone else. Defendants are not allowed to speak in court and if they do, they will be removed and allowed to watch the proceedings in a guarded room on closed-circuit TV. They certainly will not be allowed any access to the press, and I would suspect no press is interested in anything they have to say anyway. The press is American also, and many of them lost people they knew and cared about on 9/11.
In short, they are being tried where the world can see them, being handled according to the laws we have lived by for over 200 years, and they will finally be given the verdict they have earned. The prosecutors here have tried terrorist cases before, and are very familiar with everything the defense may bring up. They have never lost a case. They will not lose this one.
Kay-cee
ANDREW - if it wasn't for the "shrunked balls" of the Bush I & II administration, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place!!
So I would venture to guess that Clinton got it all right when he was in there.
Having worked in the legal field for over 30 years, I can tell the extenuating circumstances (of the prisoners being transferred over to civilian from military jurisdiction) will not allow these people to "go free". Do you think that the American Justice Department (no matter which political "party" is in power) doesn't do their homework with this kind of stuff? Sure, the defense counsel will put forward those arguments, but I'm willing to bet that contingency has already been covered and the prosecution has gone through whatever steps are necessary. We ARE a bunch of panty-waists in this country - we're "afraid" of words. So WHAT if these people "rant and rail against America in front of a willing press corp." If it comes down to the American people being "terrorized by WORDS", then we are truly in sad shape. Are YOU, Bri777, afraid of words??
I agree with you Andrew, this is nothing but a slap in the face to all the victims and the families. Unbelivable, they should have been shot several years ago
The way that Obama and his bright bunch have screwed everything else up the terrorist will probably get off and a free vacation to boot, and paid for all the time we kept them detained, dont laugh thats how screwwed up they are . Look at how they are feeling sorry for the muslim who killed all those at Fort Hood.
susan...
Who exactly has said anything about feeling sorry for Hasan? If you believe a ridiculous remark like that, you should have no problem backing it up with real quotes from real people.
Go ahead, please.
KayCee, what exactly are you blaming on Bush? In 1993 and 1998, Bill Clinton had chances to kill Osama bin Laden and failed. You could place blame on Clinton, why are you not doing so?
Osama bin Laden, in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.
These men are WAR criminals - and as a result they deserve a bullet after a tribunal. They do not deserve due process in a U.S. civilian court. Sorry, but you are wrong!
RV...
The fact that our Constitution does not agree with you is what separates us as Americans from the common mafia-type thugs these "men" (and I use the word very loosely) are. You elevate them to the very status they seek when you let them think they are "terrorists" or "WAR criminals". They are common gutter rats who happened to get together a lot of money and coerced other idiots (they sure weren't going to take any risks) to commit a heinous crime for them. These people are cowards, using women, children, and the young, impressionable, and mentally unstable to commit murder for them. They would love to think that they had to be tried by a table of people in our respected military's uniforms, with chests full of medals, rather than a jury of average Americans, still levels above them, like any shoplifter or pickpocket. It does not lower the horror of the crime they committed, but it most certainly lowers them down to the depraved status they warrant.
Our founding fathers were quite wise in making sure we could obtain justice, and even vengeance, when necessary, and still maintain the highest moral ground in the world.
Pinch: You make a lot of sense in most of your post on these terrorist, but the idea of having to try them in N.Y. where the towers went down is in my judgement, not only stupid but endangering the people of N.Y.
Of course the terrorist should not be tried in N.Y. for the safety and saneness of the people of N.Y. 1) It will be difficult to obtain an impartial Jury unless they are all Muslims, and in any case there will be many appeals due to misconduct of the Jury no matter what or who they are in N.Y. 2) These terrorist have many friends who are as warpped minded as they are and all they are interested in is killing "Infidels", yes you and all the rest of us. They will think nothing of hold a school hostage until their Terrorist friends are released to the mid East. These terrorist should have been tried in Gitmo where there is no judge or jury whose names will be public information. The Terrorist do not deserve a U.S. Civil trial as they wore no uniform, and did not represent a country at war. We need to wake up and let the UCMJ work with a Military Trial. Now is you want to try these Terrorist in the middle of the Arizona Dessert, fine, just do not publish the names of the judge or jury persons. Why in the world do we want to endanger more innocent Americans just to prove a point that Obama is some sort of a constitutionalist when he is NOT!
This health care bill that the house passed it one of the most socialistic of its kind as it does not cut cost, it does not allow choice of insurance plans, it does not allow one to not accecpt it. Let us all pray that the Senate does not try to pass any bill as stupid as the one the House just passed. In fact, why not just get some tax breaks to voters to buy their own policy's, and those not working put on the medicare program with a lot of cleaning up to start with. Also let add that illegals are no qualified for all the benefits. Give enough help to get them well and then shipped home. I think the public is getting sick and tired of all this non-sense of the Public option, no limitation on lawsuits, governmental control on what benefits you can receive, providing care to every illegal that comes to the USA, and a government person telling you if your life is worth a type of cure or not.
Tell our Senators to put an end to Obamacare before it is too late.
Bill Reese
A Proud tea bagger
Bill...
It's nice to talk with you again. I am always appreciative of people who can have civil conversations even when they disagree.
First, I hope you are not letting your discontent with the half reform business impact your opinions on this completely different issue. There are certainly other places where we can have that discussion, so if you don't mind, I will stick to this topic here.
Relative to the trials being held in the New York jurisdiction so assigned, there have been close to 200 prosecutions of this same type of crime (albeit on a much smaller scale) with no losses and no incidents. These people have an amazing track record, and they have had no problem seating impartial juries, according to our laws. The trials are closed, the jury is sequestered and members may or may not choose to identify themselves, on an individual basis, only after they are told they may do so by the judge. I would guess that with the possible trial of the "Blind Sheik", most people couldn't reference a single one of these many trials. Judges are always at risk, as they well know, especially when it is an important criminal figure, foreign or domestic, as are prosecutors. It unfortunately goes with the territory as we have seen all too often in the past.
Let's not forget that if the previous administration had felt that a military tribunal was the place to go, they certainly had plenty of time to do it. But since 9/11, there have been only three military tribunals held.
A military tribunal was as inappropriate for these five then as it is now, since they are not war criminals, according to our definition of the law. They were not picked up on the battlefield, they targeted civilians, not military or military installations, and in reality, they are nothing more than cowardly, mafia-type gangsters with over-inflated egos. They planned, plotted, and laundered money from fine hotels over nice dinners all around the world, and then coerced those they felt were mentally inferior to them to actually steal American property and commit these horrific murders.
To give them the elevation to "military", on a par with our own military men and women, is to give them a status they in no way deserve. They are common thugs, and New York can easily deal with that type.
And relative to their "friends" and supporters, they could have arranged something at any time in the past years anywhere in the world, to "ransom" their people back. Even bin Laden himself has not lifted a finger to even demand the release of any of them. I wonder if anyone really cares about them as much as they thought people would.
And I guess, for me, who did suffer personal losses which I mourn everyday on 9/11, that is what I will find most comforting about this - that these people who thought they were on top of the world be treated as the gutter-rat common criminals they really are and look into the eyes of my fellow Americans as our Constitutional justice is dispensed. It has been too long in coming.
Pinch, there is no way that you or anyone will ever convince me that N.Y. is the right place to put these 5 terrorist on trial. Sure others have been tried, but did they take out two large skyscrapers and 3000 people? Were they as high profile as these 5? Who are we kidding, the move to try these 5 in N.Y. is strictly political. There are 10,000 places in the US to try these rats, better than N.Y. To say that nothing ever happened after any other terrorist was tried in N.Y. is like saying, nothing happened after the first world trade center bombing, or after the Cole was hit, or how about the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To reduce these terrorist to an unorganized group of filth, is not helpful. They are a part of Al Quaida, and they do have powerful friends, what about mr Hazan in Fort Hood. He is a Terrorist and it is too sad that the lady cop did not have one better shot and we would not have to try him. He will get US Gov. funded attorneys and cost the tax payer millions before he is through. The non uniformed Al Quaida should be shot as spies for their combat unit.
Now even if I were to agree that they should not be tried by a military Court under UCMJ, I still think the decision to bring these 5 to N.Y. is asinine. Now why would Obama do this as he knows it makes N.Y. a target? He seems smarter than that, yet it may be to take the heat off the Senate deliberations on the dumb obamacare bill. We do not was to let this one slip past as we did the House bill. The majority of Taxpayers do not want the Obama public option bill, yet the house late on a Saturday night voted for it against the will of the people. Now, these 5 terrorist are being brought to N.Y. for trial against the will of the people.
Since when has the will of the people meant so little to our government as it does today?
Bill Reese
Bill...
I would appreciate you citing where it is the will of the only people I believe should really count here, and that is the citizens and officials of New York City, and any survivors of victims who live elsewhere now, that these five gangsters not be tried in New York.
What I have found is that the people of New York seem to generally be of the opinion that they feel an objection would be a sign of fear, and show the terrorists they have indeed won in breaking our spirit. To my knowledge, there has been no official poll of the will of the people, but both the Governor, the Mayor of New York, and the Police Commissioner have done informal surveys of their constituencies, and those have been in favor of bringing these people to the scene of the crime to show them just how common and unscary we consider them. Several groups composed of the families of 9/11 victims have spoken out independently in favor of this decision also, and plan to attend the trial as permitted.
This move is definitely in line with our Constitution, since these people are legally not "enemy combatants". We would not even be having this discussion if they had each killed only one or two Americans. It is the unprecedented horror of the number of deaths, and yes, I lost people that day also, that is inspiring all this rhetoric. We do not transfer people from our governmental entities to the military's custody for conspiracy to commit murder, and that is exactly what we did here, years after their capture from places in no way classifiable as "fields of battle", but from internet cafes and homes in a supposedly U.S. allied country.
There were even court decisions after that transfer that declared these people not "enemy combatants". But due to no decision on where to transfer these people, they were arbitrarily re-classified by the military to "enemy combatant" status, over the objections of our court system.
Now we have a chance to return to the legal path that was begun when they were first indicted by our own judiciary, long before they were actually apprehended. This is the path dictated by our Constitution, and this is the path we should follow. We have done it successfully in the past, and I have every confidence that we will do it yet again. We are Americans, and we are not afraid of a bunch of thugs who are obviously already forgotten by those people they claim they worked for.
PINCH, I just want justice to be swift. Maybe court would be faster. The gamble that I see is that these "men" end up with an awesome lawyer.
I can see it now - Confessions thrown out because they were tortured; Impossible to find an inpartial jury so the case is moved; The "jury of their peers" is more than slightly partial; I could even see Obama's statement that the men will likely be executed coming into play and the case is thrown out.
As you can see, I do not have the faith that you do in the justice system.
RV in GB#1, then at least have faith in the people who will be attending the trial. If by some horrible miracle they get of the hook, I highly doubt they will make it out of the city.
Gnosis, Like I said in my previous post, a good laywer will have the case moved to another court. There is no guarantee that this case will be in New York.
Also, I ran spell check on my previous post, and I read it twice, but still didn't notice that "impartial" is misspelled.
RVIn GB #1 Please do not overlook the fact that no one has read these Terrorist thei Miranda rights. I believe Mr. Obama has said that even our military must Merandize Al Quada when we capture them! I am sure there will be fewer captured after that statement.
Have a nice weekend
Bill Reese
Pinch: Here is what the Bloomberg press had to say about this stupid trial on the 18th of November: "
In a national poll this week, more than half, or 51 percent, of U.S. voters oppose the plan to try the suspects in New York City, while 29 percent were in favor of the decision, according to a Rasmussen Reports survey released today. The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted Nov. 15 and 16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Sixty-four percent of Americans surveyed for a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said that Mohammed should get a military trial, while 34 percent favored prosecution in a civilian court, CNN reported yesterday. The poll of 1,014 Americans was conducted by telephone from Nov. 13 to 15 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."
Now you mentioned the Mayor of N.Y., the Governor of N. Y. and the Police commissioner have done private polls and all of them favor the trials being held in N.Y. Well, I think the Democratic Governor has come out against holding the trial in N.Y., Please follow this statement in the bloomberg press again,
:Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Democratic U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, whose district includes Ground Zero, said they’re in favor of a New York trial, while Democratic Governor David Paterson and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, have come out against it. Bloomberg won re-election this month on the Republican and Independence Party tickets.
As to the Police Commissioner, I would not place any stock in what he would or has said as he has an axe to grind in this dog and pony show. He will get millions of tax payers dollars into his budget to make him the big man on the block for the months of trial. By the way his employers say,NO! and they are the ones that should be making the decision. Not some idiot safe in Washington that has ties to all the defense attorney's involved. There is a little oops a lot of reasons that Mr. Holder should recluse himself before we go any farther.
these five were sent to Gitmo as enemy combatants and they were deemed enemy combatants by the prior administration and that is the only term that we should be using as they are not gangster, or crooks or petty thieves, they are Radial Islamic Terrorist working for Al Quaida. We need to treat them as such or we are just opening the door to other Radical Islamic terrorist to follow suit and try to take advantage of our American Civil courts to attempt to get off the hook, as we cannot try them for there was no Miranda rights given, there cannot be found anyone in N.Y. that has not read, seen on t.v. or spoken about the twin towers, there fore there is no impartial jury and the case will have to be thrown out even if there is one or one thousand charges. Or if it goes on then the Terrorist will have one or one thousand reasons for appeal and appeal and appeal.
Are we insane, lets call this for what it is a political move by Obama and Holder, that want to put our Fine CIA and President Bush's administration on trial for all the world to see. Every terrorist in the world will no longer respect the legal system of the United States.
God Bless the US, the New Yorkers and all the people of the world.
Bill Reese
This time, they get the death penalty! None of PC crap this time. Muslim countries mete out the death penalty for less than what these scumballs did, so they should have nothing to complain about.
#4 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:35 AM ESTMaybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but I suspect the Feds will have all their ducks in a row for the death penalty long before these dirtbags ever touch down on American soil. No technicalities, just swift justice...but in American court, on behalf of American civilian victims.
The "war on terror" is not a declared war, and these terrorists are just thugs and butchers, not "enemy combatants." To dignify them with loftier labels just provides them with a credibility they do not deserve.
It will be years before this goes to trial. With over 500,000 pages of evidence, the defense will be provided sufficient time to examine all evidence in order to ensure a fair trial. It will be anything but, swift. "Hopelessly" optomistic? That's a matter of opinion, I suppose. Overly optimistic at least.
The United States of America is a government of laws, not of men. If these guys are guilty of a crime then let them be tried for it. But keeping them locked up in some limbo without rights makes no sense.
These terrorists are not US citizens and do not deserve the rights and protections of the US legal system. They are much more than common criminals, they are rogue terrorists who will bask in their own glory on the very stage of the scene of destruction that they created and take such pride in. It will be a world stage for them to mock and insult us, will embolden their cause and terrorists around the world who support them. This is bad... bad... bad...
Please tell me what rights the 3,000 + Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, and Friends had when the SCUM of the earth forced the planes to fly into the Trade Towers.
Harry
They have no rights. They are not Americans. They can rot to death as far as I am concerned.
But they should have been put to death a long time ago and not a penny wasted on these scum !!
They ARE war criminals.
Hmmm? Lee Malvo is sitting in a Virginia prison for LIFE and he is not a citizen!! Hmmm?
Whether or not these men are US citizens is totally irrelevant. The US is (was) a strong country because we extend the same rights to everyone, regardless of citizenship. We are not now and never have been an exclusive club. What makes (made) us strong was our recognition of everyone's common humanity. By calling them "rogue terrorists" you give them the special status they so desire. Treat them like the criminals they are and you take away any power they could have. The rights the "3,000 + Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, and Friends" have now is to havetheir killers brought to justice, and that justice under the law is carried out. Anything else is murder. If you murder them, you will only inspire more to be like them, and the world can't sustain that. Use some commone sense for a change.
KayCee-1390629
Of course Lee Malvo is sitting a Virgina prison convicted of his crimes and he's not a US citizen. He was a legal immigrant though that came over with him mother from Jamaica before being abandoned several times by her. THere's big difference in how and where Malvo was caught, and these terrorists where caught.
Malvo was caught, right here within the United States by domestic law enforcement. Required by law, they are to be tried through our Civil court system (which is the Civil and Criminal courts we are subject to).
These 9/11 masterminds were not caught on US soil, or caught by another country's law enforcement and then extradited to the US. These terrorists were picked up on the field of battle by our armed forces during wartime conditions. That makes these guys enemies of our nation, and they are not granted any of the legal protections that someone caught by our law enforcement is privy to.
Now I don't care where they do the trials for these scum. New York, DC, California, Kentucky, Gutanamo, I don't care. But they must be done by military tribunal, and the military court system, as these terrorists are enemies of the country, picked up on the field of battle in wartime conditions. They DO NOT get any of the legal protections or Consitutional Rights that we are subject to.
Obama is wrong to move these terrorists into the our Civil Courts system, it's setting a new precidence, and will change the way the US can handle people caught in times of war. It may not be a big deal from a application justice from these cases, because I don't see how they wouldn't end up with the Death Penalty, but it's going to change the was we conduct wars in the future. You don't want to open a can of worms by doing this.
In the future, when the US fights in another war, our soilders could end up having to issue miranda rights to enemy soilders when they surrender during times of war. Then we'd have to ship them all the US to try the under our Civil Court system for their war crimes.
Then what if in the furture they we found not guilty. These enemy soilders picked up on the field of battle would sue, that they were taken from their country and tried unjustly, and start winning multi-million dollar lawsuits against the US government.
Once you start loosening the standards of anything, the floodgate rip right open and you can never turn back. People need to be more observant about the long term effects of hasty decisions.
These people should be tried in the US by New York, it does not matter that they aren't American citizens. If an American commits a crime in another country they are tried under the laws of the country they committed the crime in. We are more then able to hold them in our jails. Even if they were tried by the military who do you think is going to foot the bill for jailing them ... we are. They committed a crime not on a military installation but a civilian one. We can not throw our laws and procedures out because of emotions. And to say it was an act of war is a bit silly, an act of war by what country????
Dump...
This was hardly a hasty decision. We have paying room and board on these people for years and doing nothing to make sure they receive appropriate justice for their crimes.
This is one of many charges there are against them, so in the very remote chance that a jury of Americans would even consider not convicting them and issuing the death penalty, they would be immediately re-arrested on another charge. This can go on longer than they will live. There will be no chance for any lawsuits or anything else.
Besides that, they are not members of any organized army, so they are not really prisoners of war. They are just common thugs who killed almost 3000 of our citizens. We do the same thing all the time with thugs like this, whether they are citizens or not, and we do it in the area of the crime they committed. In addition, this area also has the most experienced people in dealing with the prosecution of people accused of such crimes, so we are well prepared for this in New York.
We are following the Constitution which has stood us in good stead for over 200 years. I believe in this and I have faith in the courage and judiciary of our country, as do apparently many of the survivors of those we lost on 9/11, who want to see the final downfall of the ones who killed their loved ones. We owe them that.
PINCH
You don't seem to understand what I said. I say it's fine if they do the trials in New York, DC, Guantanimo, DC, wherever. They just need to be done by Military Court system and not our Civil Court system (that the civil and criminal court system we are all subject to).
These aren't just random indiviuals that banded together to commit an act of terror against Americans. They are part of a global organization, that is commited to the religous nation of Islam first, and then the country they live to second. It's an organization of hundreds of thousands of people around the the world, with the sole goal of destroying those that will not convert the nation of Islam.
What makes it so they shouldn't be put on trial in our Civil courts, is the fact they were picked up on the battlefield, and not by lawenforement. They were picked up during war. By being picked up this way they are subject to the military courts, where there is no course for punitive damages.
Just because George W. Bush "declared" the War on terrorism doesn't make it an actual declared WAR. And therefore, the rules of warfare (i.e., "But they must be done by military tribunal, and the military court system, as these terrorists are enemies of the country, picked up on the field of battle in wartime conditions." (emphasis mine) don't apply. They were not picked up on any declared battlefield.
Ally-913463
Actually it was a war. Bush went to Congress and got congressional approval to conduct a war against Terrorism. This was different than all other wars declared in our history because it was the first one that wasn't against a particular nation with defined borders. It was against a Worldwide organization consisting of a few hundred thousands of people with similar religious values that are waging a "guerilla" style war campaign against all that do not believe in their religous beliefs.
This was another slippery slope Congress opened up by allowing a declaration of war to be produced against an organization instead of a country. But it's still a war, because the appropriate steps were taken to get it declared as one.
Correction Dump: Congress never declared war. What Bush in fact received was the "Authorizations for the Use of Military Force" that gives Bush 60 days to use our military to catch the perpetrators of 9/11 and Osama, (which has yet to be done). At the end of the 60 days Bush can get an additional 30 days if he makes a formal request to congress, and congress can not legally deny him despite what they may think about it. And at the end of those 30 days if Bush makes another request he gets another 30 and again congress can't do s%&t about it.
Does not change the fact we are still over there, just pointing out that congress has yet to declare war. Only congress has the power to do so, not the president ( the constitution is very clear on this).
Dump...
Please go back and read the legislation. There was no declaration of war on terrorism or anything else. Bush asked for an appropriations bill from the House of Representatives and approval from the Senate for a military action. That was all.
is it because GWB declared the war on the terrorism that has you all riled up? or the fact that the war was declared at all?
this is an extreme example but... i can pretty much guarantee that in the immediate aftermath of pearl harbor (another unprovoked attack on americans on american soil - and spare me the history lesson - i already know it) that americans needed no OFFICIAL declaration that we were at war with japan. granted, an official statement was made eventually.
in the late morning hours of september 11, 2001, i (and many others) needed no official declaration from ANYONE that this country was at war with someone or something. the fact that the attack was perpetrated by terrorists as opposed to a country made no difference to me - war is war, plain and simple. they made the first move(s), we're retaliating.
was the statement that we're fighting the 'war on drugs' official? how about our fight against nazi-ism? the cold war? are any of these LESS official declarations of war?
my point is this: just because there wasn't an official enough (for you) declararion of war against terrorism or the declaration was made by someone you dislike doesn't mean that one isn't going on.
In 1998, al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. These people are prisoners of war and should have a military tribunal. They do not deserve due process in a U.S. court system.
These people should be tried by military tribunal at GITMO. 5 other terrorists are being tried by military tribunals at GITMO. Why did these 5 get picked to stand trial in federal civilian courts? It is a political showcase by this administration to appease the muslim countries. Remember the congress of the United States approved these tribunals and even the supreme court of the United States gave their blessing. It's not to late and I hope that congress and the american people put a halt to this injustice. Also for those of you blaming Bush, remember it was the liberals in congress and the federal courts that stopped the trials prior to them being started.
We can not throw our laws and procedures out because of emotions. And to say it was an act of war is a bit silly, an act of war by what country????
Sounds great. These terrorists were apprehended by the U.S. military. Try them according to the UCMJ, convict them of mass murder, and feed them to the sharks (shooting them with bullets is a waste).
The countries most directly tied to this act of war were Saudi Arabia (15/19 terrorists hailed from there, and the Saudis provided most of the funding) as well as Afghanistasn (for providing safe haven to the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden). So yes, the case can be made that the 9/11 attacks were acts of war.
Then came this bizarre statement:
Besides that, they are not members of any organized army, so they are not really prisoners of war.
Membership in an organized military is irrelevant. Quibbling over whether they should be classified as POWs, enemy combatants, or detainees is irrelevant. Their attack was an act of war against the U.S.
So, try them according to the UCMJ and give them the justice they deserve.
BJK...
According to our laws, it is necessary for there to be a declaration of war against a defined enemy, made by our Congress, which never happened (this was a "military action" - we have not had a declared war since WWII), in order to have actual prisoners of war.
Congress allotted money to go after bin Laden, as the President promised, and then to go into Iaq, because we were told we were in eminent danger of attack from WMDs.
These people were not even picked up on any battlefield - these are cowards who moved around in nice hotels and moved money around while getting other people to do their dirty work. Have you really ever seen real soldiers fighting in a suit and tie? These are common mafia-type thugs, and need to be brought down from the pedestal they want to be on and treated like any other common gutter rat, regardless of the horror of the crime they organized and financed, as our laws prescribe. They were civilians who arranged for the theft of American property and the murder of other civilians.
I have no doubt that the American citizens on the jury will make sure they get the justice they deserve, and none of the glory of being anything but common criminals.
Pinch, you are so wrong. We had POWs in the Korean War and in Vietnam. We had POWs in Iraq. There does not have to be a declaration of war in order to have POWs. This decision is nothing but a political decision to please the far left of the democratic party (ACLU, moveon.org, Soros, etc) who only want to see these trials as a way to bring out "so called" illegal actions by the Bush administration. As I said earlier the military commissions were approved by congress with the blessings of the supreme court. This is a left wing political move, pure and simple.
What a travesty - a sad day for America - these terrorists should be all tried by the Military Courts - and not brought to the US - or allowed the rights of our domestic courts - Have we forgotten they are terrorists?
#6 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:40 AM ESTThe law provides for the showing of evidence against them. The law presumes they are innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise.
Is that ok with you? Can you accept the laws of your country?
Dude-471844
The laws you refer to are for those who committed crimes against Americans, either domestically or from abroad. But when you an enemy of the US, is picked up on the field of battle during wartime conditions, they are subject to Military Court system. Not our civil court system (which is the Civil and Criminal Courts we are subject to). Sorry to burst your bubble but Obama is very wrong to bring these terrorists into our Civil Court system.
Our military courts are more than capable to handle these terrorists. But to be more on target to the question posed for these forums, doesn't matter where they do it, New York, California, Guatanamo, Kentucky, DC, it just needs to be done by our military courts.
The only "law" these TERRORISTS have any "right" to is a bullet from the end of a MILITARY rifle.
YEARS of pleadings and delays under ACLU maneuverings and lawyer game playing is a joke. They each earned at least one bullet apiece. Give it to them - quickly - and without wasting American taxpayer money.
The ultra-left whimpering and whining is an even sicker joke! Our Constitution does not apply to these ALIEN animals.
Rick...
These "men", and I do use the term loosely, are not members of a military unit in which we were engaged in fighting. Therefore, they are no more than common thugs, whether citizens or not. If you even looked at the pictures of them and the dates and places where they were picked up, you would find it was certainly not while they were all involved in any battle. We found them through the excellent skills of our investigators, and this dispensation of justice, according to our Constitution, is long overdue..
Many of the families want to see the faces of the thugs who killed their loved ones. We are allowing this while abiding by the Constitution which has sustained us for over 200 years. I believe in the Constitution, and I have great faith in the American people who will participate in the process of bringing these "men" to the justice they so richly deserve, since the death penalty is on the table.
People who believe as they do would do as you suggest. I prefer to believe we can show the world that we are above that level, and can dispense justice that is transparent and fitting, no matter who the accused are or claim to be.
This was never an act of war, it was a CRIME, a criminal act and should have been treated as such from the beginning. Had Bush done that we would have never had our misadventure in Iraq, and Gitmo would have not been ever even opened. They should stand trial in NYC. We are a country of laws and it is about time we start acting like it.
#7 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:41 AM ESTAbsolutely, Kathy. It's amazing and pathetic how people have such short memories. I will never forget. They are war criminals. They planned and executed an attack on the United States itself. Does the Obama administration want to protect them and coddle them? How long must the families and survivors endure a civil trial fiasco? Perhaps Obama and Holder should recruit Judge Idiot (Ito) from the Land of Fruits and Nuts. That would be an appropriate decision for these clowns.
Technically no - it was not an act of war. Only a state can commit an act of war. These were criminal terrorist acts. The idea that we have to throw out our justice system to deal with these thugs is ridiculous.
You elevate a few radical zealots to the status of nation and then what? These guys got lucky and even they admitted it. Now we fall right into their hands allowing the very aim they had to come true; pit the east against the west. They want it to be "good versus evil". It is not!
It was a handfull of criminals behaving criminally. No war, no martyrs, no glory, just criminal infamy and a few dopes. Let us treat fairly and then serve justice whatever the jury decides. It is what makes us different from them.
War was never declared, therefore it was not an act of war. It was a criminal attack against civilians carried out by civilians, and therefore, not subject to military justice. It is not a military problem. It is a civil, criminal justice problem. It is ONLY by rational, systematic criminal investigation and prosecution that we will overcome these extremists.
Yes it is an act of war.....get educated....It is Jihad, a Holy War, against we infidels!
A handful of psychotic, religious nut-jobs cannot declare war on a nation - they can only commit criminal acts of terrorism. We go by our rules and our definitions - not theirs. We do not stoop and debase ourselves to the same levels of degradation that they employ - we don't have to. We are smarter.
disgusted .... please read the US Constitution and stop making idiotic statement.
there has never been any Declaration of War by the US Congress for these so-called " wars on terrorism" as REQUIRED by the US
Constitution.
Sorry guys, but Al-Queda may not have a country or specific area of land on Earth to that they run, but it's a organization comprised of hundreds of thousands of individuals from around the world. Their leaders have openly declared war on the United States, Israel, and all other free loving nations of the world, unless they convert to the religious nation of Islam.
They are not to be taken as lightly as criminals committing an act of terrorism. They are an organization the sees their religious beliefs, transend any sort of border boundaried nation. You are a member of the religious nation of Islam first, and then the physical country you live in second.
To sit here and say since they don't have physical border defined country, then it makes them just regular criminals that committed acts of terroism, is to put the blinders on.
They are at war with us and we are at war with them, since they brought it to our doorstep. And don't try hit be with the BS that we're not at war with them. If we're not, then why do have our military in Afganistan and Iraq? Our military does not perform law enforcement. They fight wars.
Dump...
We were the invaders in Iraq. That nation did nothing to declare any war on us. Even our own government said it was a "pre-emptive " war.
And the fact remains that neither of these are wars. They are military actions that have turned into nation-building. This also was not what our military is for. Had we stuck with what was promised to the American people in the days after 9/11 (pursuing those who attacked us and bringing them to justice, "bringing the head of bin Laden back on a plate of dry ice", etc), this would be long over. Our government took its eye off the ball.
So now we have paid for the room and board and medical care of these thugs for years. Even survivors of those lost in that horrific attack want to actually see the justice finally dispensed to them. We can do that and still abide by our Constitution, which has held us in good stead for over 200 years, and made us a moral compass for the world. I believe in the Constitution and the American people. I believe we need to show the world how superior we are to common criminals such as these, and not allow them to be elevated to anything more than that.
PINCH,
I disagree. Which it's ok to disagree. But our country has a history of nation building since WWII. We rebuilt Western Germany and Japan. Turned Japan from a Feudal system of government into a more democratic form of government. We rebuilt South Korea from the Korean war, and now are rebuilding Afganistan and Iraq.
Iraq may have been a pre-emptive war, but a war is still a war. We're allowed to go to war against anyone we want, even if we're not provoked or attacked first. Though that would make us tyrants and the American people would be really upset if we had no provocation and went to war and that war would be unsucessful.
Iraq was a boo boo, and massive miscalcuation. Iraq, didn't have hidden training camps for Al Quieda. Afanganistan did, and Iraq didn't end up having a nuclear program, or some other massive destructive bomb program. That was bad on us. But none the less, by removing Saddam Hussein the Iraqi people are well on their way to being better off than before. Though the US shouldn't have been the ones to go in there and do it with bad intel.
In the case of these terrorists, since they were picked up on the battlefield in a war zone, they need to be put on trial in the Military Courts and not the Civil Courts. Sure we'll still the justice that is deserved from the Civil Cases this time, but 20, 30 or 80 years down the line, trying enemy combatants picked up on a field of battle during a war, is going to open an whole mess of legal manuvering by lawyers it could very possible render our military inneffctive at fighting wars. That is something far more worrisome than if these terroists are given Rights through a court system, that really doesn't have jurisdiction to put them on trial in the first place.
Dump...
Please check on when and where these people were finally caught. They are not enemy combatants. They belong to no army. They were just common mafia-type thugs who planned and financed an attack on American civilians. They were so cowardly they didn't even participate directly themselves, but coerced others to do their dirty work.
They do not deserve to be elevated to the status of a true enemy combatant or even terrorist. They are gutter rats, who moved in the darkness in several countries, planning and plotting this horrendous crime. To allow them to use the military tribunal process to elevate themselves in the eyes of their supporters as some kind of military heroes would give them a status they do not deserve.
They need to be treated like any other common murdering criminal, with an American jury, and in an American courtroom. Let's do as we should have done years ago. Let's treat them like thugs, take them to the jurisdiction where the crime, horrific though it was, was committed (and which also happens to have the most experienced judicial system for dealing with these types of crimes), and get this gang taken care of. The death penalty is on the table, the Americans in the city which suffered the most will be participating in the dispensation of the inevitable justice, and I trust them and the Constitution to show the world that we can handle this with the high moral ground we have maintained for over 200 years.
A full trial and the associated investigation is way overdue. New York deserves the honor of hosting this event.
Once the process starts to unfold it will become clear that it is physically impossible to bring down three world trade center towers with two airplanes. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have clearly proven that the physics, thermodynamics and structural engineering issues just don't work.
Once the investigations confirm that thermite was used it will be interesting to see where the trail leads. I wonder if the death penalty will still be popular once the real perpetrators are revealed.
#8 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:42 AM EST"Honor of hosting this event"??? I have a different perspective. The terrorists don't deserve the "honor" of stepping on our precious soil... let alone the opportunity to personally witness their cherished prize -- a hole in the center of downtown Manhattan. And New Yorkers don't deserve the anguish of having these terrorists mocking and insulting them -- again -- right in their front yard.
What a load of crap !! You really believe the Thermite theory ?? LOL. You really should pursue a career writing for the Enquirer. Maybe you can write about Obama meeting with space aliens too.
Not only is it TRUE that the planes had sufficient mass, velocity, and a near FULL LOAD OF jet fuel that burns FAR more than hot enough to melt steel, but the facts of the building design, combined with the stresses put on them when the planes penetrated to their very core, make it VERY clear that there was no thermite, C4, photon torpedoes or whatever you loonies wanna come up with. Just go back to playing Warcraft or whatever you do, and leave the rest to those with brains.
no ny trial.
how about putting them in handcuffs, in an air force c-130, slide them out the back over the deepest , furthest part of the ocean from land and see how long they last???? oh, don't forget the chicago mob concrete shoes.
#9 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:43 AM ESTHow about instead having a functional criminal justice system? Until the U.S. is run by the mafia, people like you will be continually disappointed.
So instead of letting them rot in jail in another country, we are going to bring them to one of the scenes of the crime.
Just like I watched the buildings burn for over 100 days, listened to the weather reports and how the weather affected the recovery work at ground zero for many months - now we get a trial that will go on forever and in the end they won't kill them anyway.
Lets spend millions of dollars to protect these guys and move them around NYC - way to go - better yet, lets just drop them in the middle of ground zero and tell the victims families and survivors that they are there.
What a decision Obama made on this one, he should stick to giving out Halloween candy.
#10 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:46 AM ESTHe couldn't even give out Halloween candy, properly! I hear he gave a lecture to every kid that under obamacare, they could eat as much candy as they wanted because of the excellent dental care that all illegal, er...citizens, would have. Of course that single tootsie roll will now cost .50 cents instead of a nickel because of the higher tax we all have to pay so that all illegals, dang...citizens can enjoy this "free" healthcare!
Bring them to NYC and endanger its citizens with further attacks? Lunacy! What do those who propose a "fair and open trial" in NYC think we should do when terrorists start executing innocent civilians or captured GI's to disrupt the trials? All these trials will do is create a new world wide platform for terrorists and show the United States as weak.
"sensible" is one thing you are definitely NOT. Do you really have so little faith in our criminal justice and Homeland Security System (Bush's baby, by the way)? The fact that we can hold and try these men does NOT make us look weak. On the contrary, it shows the world we are strong and fair and principled. The world will be watching us to see whether or not we really live up to the principles we hold dear in our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. Or are you so ready to trash those documents in favor of some cheap revenge?
Tell your line of BS to the victims of 9/11 families. One thing you are right about, bringing Bush into the equation, because that is exactly what this is about. Another tatic to drag the former administration through the mud to try and make Obama look better. Too late the whole world already knows that Obama is weak and incompetent and this latest turn of events justs proves it even more.
Shelia...
It is interesting that most of the survivors of the 9/1 victims, all city agencies, and even the state government all are in favor of this move, and feel it should have been done years ago.
We should have treated them like the common murdering thugs they are, instead of elevating them to the status as feared terrorists that they and their cohorts were hoping for, and allowing that, their free room, board, and medical care, to continue on our nickel for years.
The death penalty is on the table, and the Americans in the city which suffered the most will be participants in dispensing justice to these gutter-rats. Let's begin, finally, and dispose of them swiftly according to our laws.
If Bush hadn't turned over "his pair" after re-election, those scumbags would have had a 5 minute tribunal in GITMO, and quickly executed! These islamists deserve no better! Now we're going to hear from reporters the life story of these losers (the prisoners, not the "journalists"), the reporters will fall for every pitiful story these scum tell, and try to sell us on it. Too bad we can't put many of the journalists on trial too, come to think of it...
#12 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:48 AM ESTIf Bush had "a pair" in the first place, he would have served his time in the National Guard and not gone AWOL. What a loser.
They are terrorists. They are jihadists. The rejoiced with the smell of airplane fuel and burning bodies. Let's rejoice with what we are and have: A nation not of canibals and blood thirsty fanatics but a nation that pursues justice and needs justice to be served. No time in jail but the Death penalty for all of them
#13 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:50 AM ESTEd-743399 - If my "attitude" could get them dead quickly I'd be happy to pull the trigger myself.
For God's sake get your head out of your a**! They are TERRORISTS, not U.S. citizens. I have NO problem being "just like them" if that's what it takes to seal JUSTICE for the 3,000+ on 9/11.
Rick...
You are elevating them to a high station they do not deserve. They are common murdering thugs whether they are citizens or not. Let us not give them any more deference because of their religion, their associations, etc.
Let's do as we should have done years ago. Let's treat them like common criminals, take them to the jurisdiction where the crime, horrific though it was, was committed (and which also happens to have the most experienced judicial system for dealing with these types of crimes, and get this gang taken care of. The death penalty is on the table, the Americans in the city which suffered the most will be participating in the dispensation of the inevitable justice, and I trust them and the Constitution to show the world that we can handle this with the high moral ground we have maintained for over 200 years.
There's a big difference between having an opinion that someone should die for murderering innocent people, and murdering innocent people who have a different opinion. There is no possible way that twincitian could be "just like them" no matter how bad his attitude is, that argument is rediculous.
No they should be tried under a military tribunal. They have not rights under our constitution especially since they tried to destroy it
#14 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:50 AM ESTNo more than all the people advocating bypassing it to kill these guys.
Joan..
Military tribunals are for prisoners of war. We were not at war. Actually we were never at war, since both Iraq and Afghanistan are classified as military actions, not Constitutionally-declared wars.
Thse individuals do not deserve a military tribunal. It elevates their status above what they truly are - common murdering thugs. Let's do as we should have done years ago. Let's treat them like common criminals, take them to the jurisdiction where the crime, horrific though it was, was committed (and which also happens to have the most experienced judicial system for dealing with these types of crimes, and get this gang taken care of. The death penalty is on the table, the Americans in the city which suffered the most will be participating in the dispensation of the inevitable justice, and I trust them and the Constitution to show the world that we can handle this with the high moral ground we have maintained for over 200 years.
They should all be hung by the neck until dead. No trial, just kill them all.
Harry
#15 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:51 AM ESTRight Harry, do it the American way. The right-wing neoscum way.
Remember that the next time you run a red light. No trial, no fine, just hang him.
Ed-743399 Get your heaed screwd on right, Harry is speaking of Terroist not a simple traffic infraction. GO HARRY!
wagoner - trials are the basis of the criminal justice system. There is no presumption of guilt. Deal with it.
Wagoner...
I wish eople would stop elevating these people to the status of something like a terrorist and just call them what they are - cowardly, common, murdering thugs.
Citizens or not, they killed American citizens. Let's do as we should have done years ago. Let's treat them like common criminals, take them to the jurisdiction where the crime, horrific though it was, was committed (and which also happens to have the most experienced judicial system for dealing with these types of crimes, and get this gang taken care of. The death penalty is on the table, the Americans in the city which suffered the most will be participating in the dispensation of the inevitable justice, and I trust them and the Constitution to show the world that we can handle this with the high moral ground we have maintained for over 200 years.
They have no rights they are NOT AMERICANs they are scum. They want to die for allia I say Ok lets help them along, a short drop and a sudden stop, then let the ravinious birds of the air consum whats left.
#16 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:54 AM ESTThey are not americans is not the same as they have no rights under our laws. Clearly they do.
This is another, (and lately, OF MANY), decisions that the MAJORITY of US Citizens are against.
But...with Holder and Obama, it has nothing to do with majority...it's just whatever THEY think is right or what THEY want.
The honest, LEGAL US Citizen has NO representative(s) to protect the majority.
We now have Dictators who just do it their way
#17 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:55 AM ESTIf we had dictators we would not be fighting over health reform and financial reform, a dictator would just do it.
Yes the trials should be here. We are better than them and that is why we will deal with this the way it should have been dealt with years ago, the american way with trials and justice.
Skip...Phoenix
Since when is one person a majority? You right-wing neoscum really do live in a bubble don't you?
We are not a "majority rules" country. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. Clearly in criminal cases majority rule is inappropriate. You would convict them with no more evidence than the news said they were the guys.
Skip...
This has nothing to do with the majority. This has to do with our Constitution, which has stood us in good stead for over 200 years.
If you have faith in our way of life under law, and do not want to degrade ourselves to their level, you should be glad that we can rely on the bedrock of our country and still allow even thugs like this to feel the full weight of our law, while the rest of the world watches us maintain our standing as the true moral compass, even under these circumstances.
Let the WHOLE world see these people put on trial in the U.S.! Let the WHOLE world see the U.S. is not the U.S. of George Bush & Dick Cheney!
#18 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:55 AM ESTNothing like a little unifying, eh Tom?
In the U.S. of BHO, maybe we could just apologize to them.
We don't have to show the whole world anything. This is our business
I think a civilian trial is appropriate; however with the 911 attacks occurring in New York City; it would be impossible to get a non biased jury. I think another venue for the trial would be appropriate.
#19 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:55 AM ESTAre you freakin nuts. You want an unbiased jury. They killed over 3,000 people and you want them to have an unbiased jury. Kill the S.O.B.s and do it now. How is that for unbiased ?
That is insane! For one, they already admitted guilt and want to be executed (as martyrs), Secondly, they don't deserve a trial -- they are enemy combantants. Obviously, nobody from your family died on 9/11...
Malt, combatants have rights and everyone .... everyone I'll say it again everyone has a right to trail. Even in the military we don't just execute people.
if we were in iraq or their country what kind of rights do you think you would get or have. ill anser that no rights.they would cut your head off and laugh at you and america.wake up
Let me wake you up..... if you as an American are arrested in any other country you are subject to their laws period. Our government will not step in. The Red Cross will come in to see if you are being taken of and will ask you if they can contact anyone. Basically if you are arrested in another country... you are on your own. Just like if someone commits a crime here unless you are a diplomat your ass belongs to us and we will try and jail you. When you have served you time in our jail we will deport you. So dennis are you awake yet???
K777 It is you who are asleep...Your comments is not worthy of a response!!!!
And further more we have some of the strictest or harsh laws in most industrial nations life in Europe is 15 years here it's 30 now times that by 3,000. Now because of the crime it's a death penalty case most industrial nations do not have the death penalty. So yes they should be tried under our laws in our states so they will know we are not playing around. And I think it is only fitting for them to serve time in the country that they hate so much and let them live in fear for the rest of their life. And after they get the state's justice maybe they will get some street justice from the inmates.
I know they won't keep them in the general population, but I bet they will be looking over their shoulders the whole time.
everyone I'll say it again everyone has a right to trail. Even in the military we don't just execute people.
No argument with that. Of course, in the case of a military tribunal, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
Treat these bags of slime the same way we did the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.
They were tried, convicted, and hanged.
The 9/11 criminals deserve no less.
Other countries carry out punishment on Americans using their judicial system. Why should we be any different. No matter what the crime! Either way they will cost us to keep them alive as their punishment won't be as swift as if they had committed the crime in their own country.
#20 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:56 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
'Legendary' Beau Sancy diamond sells for $9.57 million at Sotheby's auction'We still need to live': Jaded Mexicans find distractions to horrors of violenceTeacher raises $10K, will shave her headU.S., Pakistan on verge of reopening supply linesUS-led imperative in peril as trained Afghans turn enemyNo-bake emotipopsChicago braces for violence at NATO summitPoliticsNation, Thursday, April 26, 2012Romney wins Nebraska presidential primary'King Tut' makes last stop in Seattle
Comment collapsed by the community
Nearly 3,000 people were killed in New York. It seems appropriate to end the No End imprisonment, and put them on trial. Legalities complex