JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
When it comes time to stand up to the terrorists and look them in the eye, conservatives run scared with their tails between their legs, effectively submitting our necks to their swords. :runaway:
Conservatives Terrified of Bringing Terrorists to Justice
- Thread starter JohnnyBz00LS
- Start date
When it comes time to stand up to the terrorists and look them in the eye, conservatives run scared with their tails between their legs, effectively submitting our necks to their swords. :runaway:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah that Moussaoui trial was a real smooth operation.
Holder and Obama both admitted that these are show trials. So much for the 'fairness' of the Democrat-Party-run American government.
Miranda rights or not? If yes, then KSM's confession is thrown out. He may go free. If not, mistrial and future repercussions for all American citizens who may be denied these rights.
Holder should recuse himself. Mistrial.
Command influence. Mistrial.
No lawyer for KSM. Mistrial.
KSM acquitted - goes back to Gitmo anyway. (Show trial)
RPG fired at courthouse from a passing car. Mistrial.
Yep, the adults are in charge now!
Holder and Obama both admitted that these are show trials. So much for the 'fairness' of the Democrat-Party-run American government.
Miranda rights or not? If yes, then KSM's confession is thrown out. He may go free. If not, mistrial and future repercussions for all American citizens who may be denied these rights.
Holder should recuse himself. Mistrial.
Command influence. Mistrial.
No lawyer for KSM. Mistrial.
KSM acquitted - goes back to Gitmo anyway. (Show trial)
RPG fired at courthouse from a passing car. Mistrial.
Yep, the adults are in charge now!
Do you really believe that.
Because if you're deliberately just acting like an inflammatory arsehole, there's no point in talk with you.
Foss, are you supporting Miranda rights?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
For whom?
Fox, are you supporting Obama's prejudging of the trial even before it starts?
topher5150
Dedicated LVC Member
do what they did after WWII, give them a trial then take em out back and hang them
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
By the way, the Attorney General cannot order the military to release a prisoner. Obama must take responsibility for this. He cannot escape it.
And Holder's former law firm defended dozens of terrorists. Conflict of interest much?
And Holder's former law firm defended dozens of terrorists. Conflict of interest much?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's an interesting analysis of Holder's 'reasoning.'
Graham grills Holder: Does Bin Laden need to be given his Miranda rights?
posted at 4:47 pm on November 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Per the last post, here’s how “carefully” Holder consulted the law before pulling the trigger on KSM. Not only does Graham have to tell him that there’s no precedent for trying battlefield detainees in civilian court, but Holder’s emphasis on how we don’t need a confession to convict Bin Laden completely misses the larger point Graham’s trying to make. The real worry in a district-court trial isn’t what’ll happen to archterrorists like Osama or KSM, whose perpetual detention is assured; the worry is that those trials will establish precedents that’ll be exploited by lesser jihadis at their own trials later on. KSM won’t be released because the political consequences to the administration are too dire, but what about some other terrorist who’s less well known to the public and whose guilt, while certain to the CIA, is less provable under normal evidentiary rules? A confession in a case like that might be critical — but what if he wasn’t Mirandized before he confessed? What then? That’s Graham’s point, and Holder seems to want nothing to do with it.
Another thing. He refers here to the DOJ’s “protocol” for deciding which terrorists get civilian trials and which get military tribunals. Did he happen to mention at any point today what that protocol might be, precisely? Graham seems to think it’s “civilian trials for terrorists who kill civilians, military trials for terrorists who kill soldiers,” which would, of course, be utterly perverse. There’s another possibility, though, and one which jibes with Holder’s dopey fixation on not needing a confession to convict Bin Laden. Maybe they’re simply looking at the pile of admissible evidence they have for each detainee and deciding that guys with big piles go to civilian court, where they’re likely to be convicted anyway and The One can crow about “due process,” while guys with smaller piles go to military court, since a civilian trial might well result in them getting off. If that’s what they’re doing — i.e. a two-track justice system designed purely to maximize the government’s odds at conviction while minimizing the political risk of acquittal — then, like Patterico says, KSM’s trial is even more of a show trial than we thought. Presumably, if Holder thought we did need confessions to convict him and/or Bin Laden, the plan to try them in Manhattan would be scuttled and they’d be off to a tribunal to make things easier on the prosecution. The decision on what “due process” is due, in other words, is based not on the nature of the underlying act — war perpetrated by a foreign enemy — but on the outcome The One wants to achieve, with Holder actually going so far today as to say, I kid you not, “Failure is not an option.” Isn’t failure always an option in a true due-process regime?
Graham grills Holder: Does Bin Laden need to be given his Miranda rights?
posted at 4:47 pm on November 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Per the last post, here’s how “carefully” Holder consulted the law before pulling the trigger on KSM. Not only does Graham have to tell him that there’s no precedent for trying battlefield detainees in civilian court, but Holder’s emphasis on how we don’t need a confession to convict Bin Laden completely misses the larger point Graham’s trying to make. The real worry in a district-court trial isn’t what’ll happen to archterrorists like Osama or KSM, whose perpetual detention is assured; the worry is that those trials will establish precedents that’ll be exploited by lesser jihadis at their own trials later on. KSM won’t be released because the political consequences to the administration are too dire, but what about some other terrorist who’s less well known to the public and whose guilt, while certain to the CIA, is less provable under normal evidentiary rules? A confession in a case like that might be critical — but what if he wasn’t Mirandized before he confessed? What then? That’s Graham’s point, and Holder seems to want nothing to do with it.
Another thing. He refers here to the DOJ’s “protocol” for deciding which terrorists get civilian trials and which get military tribunals. Did he happen to mention at any point today what that protocol might be, precisely? Graham seems to think it’s “civilian trials for terrorists who kill civilians, military trials for terrorists who kill soldiers,” which would, of course, be utterly perverse. There’s another possibility, though, and one which jibes with Holder’s dopey fixation on not needing a confession to convict Bin Laden. Maybe they’re simply looking at the pile of admissible evidence they have for each detainee and deciding that guys with big piles go to civilian court, where they’re likely to be convicted anyway and The One can crow about “due process,” while guys with smaller piles go to military court, since a civilian trial might well result in them getting off. If that’s what they’re doing — i.e. a two-track justice system designed purely to maximize the government’s odds at conviction while minimizing the political risk of acquittal — then, like Patterico says, KSM’s trial is even more of a show trial than we thought. Presumably, if Holder thought we did need confessions to convict him and/or Bin Laden, the plan to try them in Manhattan would be scuttled and they’d be off to a tribunal to make things easier on the prosecution. The decision on what “due process” is due, in other words, is based not on the nature of the underlying act — war perpetrated by a foreign enemy — but on the outcome The One wants to achieve, with Holder actually going so far today as to say, I kid you not, “Failure is not an option.” Isn’t failure always an option in a true due-process regime?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Johnny, are you aware that KSM was already on trial when Obama took office, and Obama halted the trial? He'd already be convicted by now.
Who's afraid again?
Who's afraid again?
I was asking about this bit from your post #2
And although he is being tried in New York and there has been much 'hoopala' that this creates citizen status for him, I haven't seen that in reality. I haven't seen where he has actually been declared a citizen by any legal or governmental authority. Non citizens get tried in US courts all the time, and they aren't suddenly 'citizens'. If you commit a crime in or against this country, you get tried in this country, regardless of where your citizenship lies. If suddenly you became a US citizen because you are being tried in the US there would be plenty of illegal immigrants committing small offenses, that would land them in jail for a short amount of time, just so they could become citizens.
So, since it looks like you believe the questions of Miranda rights with regards to a non citizen in this trial would have an impact on the rights of a citizen - Do you believe in Miranda rights, I guess for all... And if not for all - for who?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Please cite for me the legal precedent for an enemy combatant being tried in US civilian courts, and I'll answer your question.
Your off-topic, freeze-it/isolate-it Alinsky tactics won't work.
However, all of the rights protected by constitution and processes that an American citizen enjoy are extended to you in the court system, regardless your country of origin.
The reality is we don't know precisely which negative will be the worse consequence of the decision. Will it be the increased, international soap box offered to these high profile terrorists? Will it be classified information or tactics being disclossed to the plantiff attornies and then leaked to CAIR or the media? Will it be the huge cost and risk of another terrorist attack on NY or Chicago in the quest for sensationalism and martyrdom? Or the court precident that may be set under these unusual circumstances that will be applied in less high profile, or even unrelated, cases in the future?
Or will it be a way for the Obama administration to publicly destroy or prosecute the last administration and intelligence agencies without having to get his hands dirty?
I don't know.
But I'm not seeing any positive associated with the decision. In fact it's a needless, high risk decision that offers absolutely no benefit.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Fox, do you know which senator said this?
I know you have constitutional rights if you are an undocumented immigrant - but would he have Miranda rights? It is a way to protect the 5th, and has been upheld, but it has also been overturned in special cases. This might qualify.
Foss -during WWII Roosevelt sent 8 Nazi saboteurs (war criminals) to a military court where they were quickly found guilty and executed. However, after those 8, Nazi saboteurs were sent to criminal court, because of a supreme court intervention. Now, I believe some of these were not US citizens, but I am not sure. However, they were certainly all war crimes, they were tried as enemies of the state, and they were tried during a time of war - so that is as close as I can think of as a comparison to this case. Basically the same scenario.
Actually Foss I really was just interested in your stand on Miranda - you seem like someone who isn't all that concerned that Miranda rights are upheld. Not 'alinsky-ing' anything - just curious.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Waiting for a cite, not just your 'belief.' Thanks.
You probably are thinking of Ex Parte Quirin. Not at all the same situation, despite your attempts to conflate. Was KSM arrested on US soil?
You seem like someone who hates the United States. Just curious.
So, you think that trying the terrorists in civilian courts is a good idea? Why?
KSM was arrested by the Pakistani and then 'extradited' to the US (the extradition is questionable). But, this could be treated as an extradition case. That is where the Miranda rights get fuzzy, arrested and extradited often changes how the courts look at miranda.
However, after Ex Parte Quirin the remaining Nazi saboteurs were tried in US Criminal Court - so yes, the trails after the first 8 saboteurs (Ex Parte Quirin) are similar to this case.
Many compare what the US has done in the cases of the terrorists being tried in military court to Ex Parte Quinn (comparing Bush and Roosevelt) - in this case they are returning to what was considered 'legal' during WWII. It is a very close comparison Foss.
Oh, I love my country. I can't imagine calling anywhere else on earth 'home'.
So, how do you feel about Miranda? Lets start small - say, just a general viewpoint?
I am still trying to get more information on the ramifications of trying foreign terrorists in civilian courts. I need to have some questions answered before I would weigh in.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
What information do you require that hasn't already been mentioned here?
Do you believe that terrorists deserve to be given Constitutional rights?
I am actually interested to find out more about the Eichmann trial - I know a little about it, but don't really know if there were any lasting affects within the Israeli justice system. It really showed the world the horrors of genocide - a great stage for that. If KSM's trial could show the world the true horrors of terrorism that would certainly be a very good result of the trial in NYC.
That would follow once I find out more about Eichmann's trial and whether or not they afforded him 'rights' and what they really were.
And, speaking of rights - about those Miranda rights - how do you feel about them Foss?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So, staying on topic, since you dodged the question, if Obama has already said that KSM will be tried and convicted, do you believe this is just a show trial? If not, why?
Also, do you think that KSM will use his trial as an opportunity to bash Bush and Cheney for waterboarding him?
American civilian courts are aimed at providing and preserving justice for american citizens. The government is not, in any way, obligated to protect the rights of non-citizens. These people do not have any right to a "fair trial" under our Constitution.
Also, acts of war are not prosecutable in a criminal court. It belongs with a military tribunal.
And you just stated to the too "loop holes" that are being used here.
The rights in the constitution are inalienable rights and the constitution only prevents the federal government from trampling on them. But they are the basic rights that we are supposed to extend to all people regardless their citizenship, or so that is argued.
And prosecuting "acts of war" can only be done if we are actually at war with the state that sponsored the individual. In this case, there is neither a state or a formal declaration of war.
So because of the political handling of the "War on Terror" under Bush, the Obama administration can exploit the situation to advance their twisted agenda. Most likely, using the court system to damage or maybe even prepare the last administration and intelligence community to later prosecution (maybe even before a world court), with little regard to the consequences that such a trial would create.
And to take this in a direction which is particularly dark and paranoid.... in order to assure a conviction, this case could set legal precedents that would enable the federal prosecutors to take such liberties against Americans who are arrested for activities that are outside of the favor of the government as well.
The rights in the constitution are inalienable rights and the constitution only prevents the federal government from trampling on them. But they are the basic rights that we are supposed to extend to all people regardless their citizenship, or so that is argued.
And prosecuting "acts of war" can only be done if we are actually at war with the state that sponsored the individual. In this case, there is neither a state or a formal declaration of war.
So because of the political handling of the "War on Terror" under Bush, the Obama administration can exploit the situation to advance their twisted agenda. Most likely, using the court system to damage or maybe even prepare the last administration and intelligence community to later prosecution (maybe even before a world court), with little regard to the consequences that such a trial would create.
And to take this in a direction which is particularly dark and paranoid.... in order to assure a conviction, this case could set legal precedents that would enable the federal prosecutors to take such liberties against Americans who are arrested for activities that are outside of the favor of the government as well.
But that arguement is specious and turns the truth on it's ear; Philosophy (as practiced in the real world) vs. rhetoric (aimed at distorting reality to an agenda).
Rights have to be extended to someone to be tried in the criminal justice system; the system is set up that it does that. The process cannot function any other way. However, the constitution is not designed to protect the rights of non-citizens. While certain rights are universal, it is the responsibility of the government under which they are a citizen to protect their rights.
However, the since the criminal justice system is meant to protect the rights of American citizen, when a non-citizen commits a crime, that demands that they be tried in the criminal justice system. So they are extended all the rights of an American system.
However, what the left is arguing is that we have an obligation to extend those rights to these enemy combatants, which completely ignores the fact that rights are extended to non-citizens as a byproduct of a process aimed at seeking justice for American citizens. Basically, their reasoning puts the cart before the horse.
The problem seems to arise more from the fact of them not being enemy troops. There are other, international treaties designed to offer some protection of rights for enemy troops, but these people do not fit that description. So international law doesn't apply, and criminal court is entirely inappropriate to their actions (which go well beyond criminal acts). These guys are kind of in a gray area, but A military tribunal is the most appropriate.
KSM, if found innocent or the case is thrown out on a technicality, would not be allowed to go free. So the process of the criminal court system will already be changed for him and the rule of law rejected in this instance. Basically, the trial is nothing more then a show trial. It is not aimed at bringing him to justice as his actions are beyond the scope of a criminal court to try and out international security interests are incompatible with giving him a true trial in this venue; there is no "justice" to be found here.
KSM can do the same. He has already admitted to guilt. So he can effectively turn the trial into a defense of his actions; in effect, putting the US on trial. As Charles Krauthammer said it would provide "Act II" of 9/11; providing the soundtrack for it.
The author Vince Flynn was saying that if we are going to prosecute these terrorists within the continental U.S., we should build a structure on the site of the Flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania. Build it specifically to the hold the trial, hold an execution, and then be converted to a museum when we're all done.
Cal is very right Shag - the supreme court has been extending 'rights' to people in this country who aren't citizens since the 1800s, and our courts have tried numerous undocumented aliens, using the same 'rights' as afforded to citizens. And the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that all citizens are created equal, it very clearly states all men. And aren't they universal rights - or have somehow I been led astray? The founding fathers knew we should be treating all men equally... not just a chosen few.
And as discussed before, acts of war have been tried in criminal court - for various reasons. As far as this being an act of war - I think you could certainly call it such - that would be pretty far fetched to exclude it. Pearl Harbor was an act of war - and always referred to as such, even though at the time, we were not engaged with the Japanese.
Foss - what if it is a show trial - might there be good reasons to show the world what type of evil KSM embodies? I have been reading a bit more about Eichmann - and this could follow those same lines - the Eichmann trial was a slam dunk for the Israelis - It could be a bit harder for us - because of the actions that the Bush administration took. From what I have read so far - Eichmann was never tortured - unless one uses the pall of the death sentence as a means of torture. And also from what I have read that the Eichmann case had no ill effects on the judicial system in Israel. Once again - it was a great forum to show the world the horrors of the Holocaust. Obviously they were war crimes. We have the same forum here, a horrific act, the perpetrator being brought to justice - are we afraid to use the criminal justice system for this particular war crime, instead of the military justice system, because embarrassing things might be unearthed?
And as discussed before, acts of war have been tried in criminal court - for various reasons. As far as this being an act of war - I think you could certainly call it such - that would be pretty far fetched to exclude it. Pearl Harbor was an act of war - and always referred to as such, even though at the time, we were not engaged with the Japanese.
Foss - what if it is a show trial - might there be good reasons to show the world what type of evil KSM embodies? I have been reading a bit more about Eichmann - and this could follow those same lines - the Eichmann trial was a slam dunk for the Israelis - It could be a bit harder for us - because of the actions that the Bush administration took. From what I have read so far - Eichmann was never tortured - unless one uses the pall of the death sentence as a means of torture. And also from what I have read that the Eichmann case had no ill effects on the judicial system in Israel. Once again - it was a great forum to show the world the horrors of the Holocaust. Obviously they were war crimes. We have the same forum here, a horrific act, the perpetrator being brought to justice - are we afraid to use the criminal justice system for this particular war crime, instead of the military justice system, because embarrassing things might be unearthed?