Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

O

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • O

    ...[
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

  • #2
    ...[
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh davdah calm down. I unfortunately had the pleasure of watching Faux News yesterday while waiting for a new set of tires to be put on my car.

      They had Rudy Guilani going on just like you saying it's an act of war and they should be treated as POWs etc. Thing is, Bush tried very hard to stop them leaving the military justice system and yet the Supreme Court kept ruling that access to lawyers etc should be allowed. The legal military defense has more restrictions than a civilian court. Overruling Bush meant that it was already strengthening the military defense system.

      To continue what Bush tried to do will fail because of challenges to the Supreme Court. Locking them up without trial is un-American so what's left to do??

      More than half have already been released to home countries or any country that will take them. We only have the government's word they are terrorists. The evidence is largely kept secret. How can you say they did it without examining the evidence?

      Under civilian law NYC is an obvious choice for venue because the attacks took place there. I guarantee you, you won't be able to sneeze in NYC during the trial without the authorities knowing about it LOL

      Innocent till proven guilty davdah remember?
      "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

      Comment


      • #4
        There are two things to note here.

        What's wrong with the Civil Court?

        How can someone be captured as suspected of masterminding 911 and render Civil court incapable of proving their guilt?

        What punishment higher than death penalty exists?

        Wouldn't Civil court be able to impose it if the suspect was found guilty?

        If anything, the SMK trial will put an end to many conspiracy theorists rantings out there.

        The posters of the article (linked by davdah) claim that "Oh, but this guy will be tried in court where all the classified info must be released".

        That's a rubbish. The only person classified info will be released to is the Judge, not the public. The defendant will only get a summary, without details, and will be given an opportunity to answer to the charges and allegations based on such short summary.
        Remove that minimum requirement and i can prove you that davdah plotted to jump into the time machine to eliminate Lincoln.


        As to the right to an attroney.
        Attorneys don't make guilty people innocent. They are there to make sure that the guilt is proven beyond any doubt, without stitching up a case out of the thin air.

        That Eric Holder decided to bring the case to NYC court is actually a bold move and shows his confidence that they've got the person guilty as charged.
        http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

        "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

        Comment


        • #5
          Well... I thought these Obama moronic moves were much better


          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...GVfM&feature=related

          Comment


          • #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
            Oh, this will be a fiasco alright. There are a few errors in your assumptions. One being the burden of reasonable doubt in reaching the conclusion of guilty or not, not any doubt. The judge will only decide what evidence is admissible. He, along with the jury and viewing public will see and hear it. The jury decides his guilt, not the judge. The defense will, by it's nature, go after evidence that through speculative reasoning render doubt. And of course it will be all the classified material they know can't be released. By the mere mention of it's existence puts people in unnecessary danger. I think the rights of the defense attorneys should mirror the amount of thought and compassion they are displaying for the victims of 9-11. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            No, davdah, when classified info introduced by prosecution it's not being released to public.
            Only summary is given to the defendant.

            Now take this minimum requirement away and i can prove that you raped Indira Gandhi because "so I heard some people say". And you won't even know it. You will just get guilty verdict. Because we can't be compassionate to someone who raped that nice lady. How about that?

            Your argument is illogical.
            It has no bearing on KSM since that guy must be guilty enough for administration to bring him to NYC.
            It would highly undermind govs case if they refused to charge him in public court.
            http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

            "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

            Comment


            • #7
              Here we have it. Brit exposes himself as a pro-terrorist.

              He does not believe that the terrorists at Gitmo are terrorists. He thinks they are innocent.

              This is why immigrants are bad for America, they are either evil or stupid.

              And, Brit, prisoners of war may be held for the duration of the conflict. So, yes, they can be held indefinately.

              And, Brit, we used military tribunals for Japanese and German war criminals, terrorists, and spies.

              So you are wrong again.

              And, not, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the military commissions established by Congress are unconstitutional. All it said was that military commissions must be established by legislation.

              Please go home before you immigrants destroy my country.

              Oh, I forgot, the UK is already a Muslim hellhole.

              I guess that explains why Brit came here, to destroy us like he destroyed his own country.

              Comment


              • #8
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, davdah, when classified info introduced by prosecution it's not being released to public.
                Only summary is given to the defendant.

                Now take this minimum requirement away and i can prove that you raped Indira Gandhi because "so I heard some people say". And you won't even know it. You will just get guilty verdict. Because we can't be compassionate to someone who raped that nice lady. How about that?

                Your argument is illogical.
                It has no bearing on KSM since that guy must be guilty enough for administration to bring him to NYC.
                It would highly undermind govs case if they refused to charge him in public court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



                You really think 'summary' isn't going to be exploited by the defense? What defines summary? What is left out? Would the omissions be enough, if known, to provoke a not guilty verdict? Those will be arguments of the defense. That is the picture the defense will create. Take away the requirement of full disclosure and you can never prove guilt, only reasonable doubt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                I have read about cases where that "summary" was enough to convict someone in a court of law, so defense will not be able to "provoke non-gulty verdict" if summary has good factual basis.
                It is the judge who makes verdict and is given full access to decide the case. And it is defendant who gets summary, to answer charges and allegations in it.
                I don't see why this shouldn't work in case of SKM and likewise.

                But i can't imagine how would you be able to prove your innocence if somebody brought you to court on charges of raping Indira Gandi and convicted as guilty without even telling you what were you there for.
                http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                Comment


                • #9
                  I can see another davdah vs OldE argument starting here LOL

                  Davdah, for someone who doesn't like anything that smacks of Big Brother, if we did what you want, we'd be convicting potentially innocent people on hearsay evidence in secret. They would be branded as Enemies of the State. 1984 sound familiar?

                  The Falklands War was a conventional war fought over land rights. This is an ideological/religious war started by a bunch of extreme brainwashed idiots who think the true path to Islam is by blowing up non-believers (innocent) people. I certainly don't agree with them. But to not allow them to be tried in a relatively open court as Bush tried to do makes a mockery of the US claiming the high moral ground.

                  As to the argument of National Security ie. we don't want to let the terrorists know what we are doing to stop them, consider this. 911 happened more than 8 yrs ago. The tactics used back then by the CIA, FBI etc are very likely to be different to what is used now. Al Queda try to stay one step ahead. It's a cat and mouse game always evolving. To me, any evidence on the tactics used will be out of date now. Since Bin Laden still exists (as far as we know) one can assume Al Queda already knows about the tactics the CIA used back then.
                  "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just imagine the complaints if the case were moved to San Francisco?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Maybe we'll get lucky and he will meet a similar fate as Lee Harvey Oswald. The thought of this terrorist being brought into the USA for a trial makes me want to vomit. What were they thinking?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Oh rubbish davdah. The reasons I've given seem perfectly logical to me. You're acting on that neo-con fear and instinct. Keep fighting till we win a la Cheney...whatever that is? When we eradicate every Muslim terrorist from the world?? Get real will ya. What happened to rational thought? You're arguments are the reason why Bush and Gitmo became so unpopular and 8yrs on we're still fighting this war.

                        In any case, the fact it's going to happen in NYC seems to suggest a virtual likelihood of a conviction since just about anybody in a jury will know of 911 and find them guilty. How the he-ll could they find un-biased jurors?
                        "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How is it that it took 8 years to determine he should be tried within the US court system? If it is an acceptable way to deal with him, why did he and others sit in Gitmo for so long? What changed?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                            E, you don't prove innocence. This isn't China just yet. With it being a summary disclosure it falls to circumstantial value. The jury would have to form conclusions leaving the door open to disclosing national security interests. Perhaps you don't care, but I do. The jury would need to reach a finding of fact. What would that fact be? The freakin things we're trying to keep secret. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            According to scenario you suggest one need not prove guilt, let alone innocence.
                            Just grab davdah , bring him to the dark empty room, have few people behind the wall murmur something to each other that he can't hear and then throw him in jail. No need to tell him why since there is no compassion for cannibals

                            Again, let me make this clear.
                            Summary disclosure is given to defendant so they at least know what the charge or allegation is.
                            It's the judge who makes the decision and one who actually has full access to allegations. So, no disclosure of NS interests there.
                            No need for jurors.

                            It would essenatially leave the Judge and Prosecution with full access to all relevant materials and defendant with a summary to answer charges.
                            There are provisions in law regarding secrecy and Courts have always sided with government on anything involving NS.
                            With this, what to freak out about?
                            http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                            "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                              This won't be some come before the judge and a decision made in two minutes ordeal. This will be a full blown circus, jury and all.

                              Aside that, the scenario you painted would never fly. No one could be convicted without being permitted a vigorous defense. It would necessitate his defense having full access to evidence presented against him, hence shared discovery. They would have the right to cross examine witnesses and repudiate physical evidence presented. They're won't be anything left to the imagination by the time this is over and done with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              No, davdah, you are wrong as usual.

                              I am not a legal expert, but since i had few better things to do i did a lot of reading.
                              And i did read about cases where the government claimed secrecy and almost invariably was granted.

                              The judges were ones who would get full access and defendant along with lawyers would only be given a summary to rebute.
                              Lawyers would ask for more, but judges would refuse and side with prosecutorial objection, referring to NS and secrecy laws.

                              So, not that it can't fly but it did. Why shouldn't it work in SKM and likewise trials?
                              http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                              "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X