TexasCHLforum.com

Are they nuts?!!!

Can we add yet another "Target" on New York City, when we bring these "Misguided Men of Muslim Faith" to trial?...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Peter Finn, Carrie Johnson and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 13, 2009; 2:44 PM

Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- and four co-defendants will be tried in federal court in New York instead of a military commission, with prosecutors likely to seek the death penalty, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Friday.

The long-awaited decision, part of President Obama's quest to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, sparked immediate outrage from Republican lawmakers, who said military commissions are a more secure and appropriate place to try suspected terrorists. But the announcement drew praise from civil rights advocates, who argue that the detainees' civil rights have been violated by years of detention without trial and the use of military commissions.

"Our nation has had no higher priority than bringing those who planned and carried out the attack to justice," Holder said.

He said the detainees will be transferred to the United States after all legal requirements, including a 45-day notice and report to Congress are fulfilled, and after state and local authorities have been consulted. They will be housed in maximum-security units in New York that have held other terrorism suspects. Once federal charges are filed against the five men, military charges now pending against them will be withdrawn.

"They'll be charged for what we believe they did, and that is to mastermind and carry out the 9/11 attacks," Holder said of the five defendants...

more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00740.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good God, those morons are blithely going about in a 9/12 world with a 9/10 mentality. They really think those murderous psychopaths really care about being prosecuted?

At least Holder is going to seek the death penalty.

I think they should be force-fed a pork chop before they are hung, beheaded and their bodies fed to pigs. One by one while the others are forced to watch.

whats that thing we all love here? the 2ndA
Dont forget about this bad boy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amen ... nstitution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
THE 6th is just as important as the 2nd

marksiwel wrote:whats that thing we all love here? the 2ndA
Dont forget about this bad boy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amen ... nstitution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
THE 6th is just as important as the 2nd

If they make us be like them they win.

Jim

The Daily Show's John Stewart raised the question of
what would happen if KSM is found innocent.

He'd be released to the streets of New York.

The death penalty would then be administered by someone
other than the judicial/correctional system!!

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:The Daily Show's John Stewart raised the question of
what would happen if KSM is found innocent.

He'd be released to the streets of New York.

The death penalty would then be administered by someone
other than the judicial/correctional system!!

SIA

I would submit, most respectfully, that,

a. Courts do not find people innocent. They find them either guilty or not guilty.

b. I simply cannot conceive of him "being released into the streets of New York" regardless of the verdict. Anyone who thinks this is possible does not understand, or, if they do understand, they are once more fostering decisions based on illogical fear.

Jim

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They'll be charged for what we believe they did-Erick Holder

Most Americans know what they did. All that remains is to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to obtain convictions. Holder is skirting the same kind of political correctness that got us Fort Hood. I could say more, but this is a family board.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:He'd be released to the streets of New York.

Cadre Productions presents:

"The Running Man!"

Casting calls for potential network Stalkers will be coming soon to a city near you!

just a reminder, KSM has already confessed to being the master mind of 9/11, and has requested a death penalty be carried out.

Just a reminder, Bill Clinton turned down accepting the prisoner Osama Bin Laden. Because he did not think he could press the right kind of charges on him.

They are low level bureaucrats that think they can run the military. The same way my 6 year old grand-daughter knows how to run a tea party.

57coastie:
"He'd be released to the streets of New York."
Keep in mind that The Daily Show is fake news and this statement
was made in the setup of the joke that KSM would be killed by
street punks in NYC, not as an accurate prediction of reality.

I stand corrected on the "innocent" vs. "guilty or not guilty" distinction.

By the way, if KSM was given a fair trial, found "not guilty", then we
send him back to Gitmo, will it have been even worth it to send him
to a civilian court?

It's curious that a "guilty" verdict will sentence him to death,
but "not guilty" will simply mean a return to jail.

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote: It's curious that a "guilty" verdict will sentence him to death,
but "not guilty" will simply mean a return to jail.

SIA

Right you are, SIA. That's the world we live in today. In my opinion two administrations got this wrong, and we find ourselve hoist by our own petard. The latest news speculates that several of the defense lawyers (not necessarily the defendants themselves) plan to take insanity pleas. That could at least let us say that they would be going to a mental institution rather than jail after that not guilty verdict. Of course it would be a jail in a mental institution, but we could rationalize that we finally got this sorted out. Like it or not.

Jim

I think that A) AG Holder has stepped in the poo big time with this particular decision; and B) this administration's decision to criminalize terrorism is a huge strategic error. By "criminalizing," I mean making it a law enforcement issue rather than a national security issue.

You can't get other nations to commit their national resources to international cooperation in defeating terrorism unless it is regarded as a military problem and a national security issue within their own national context. Once you change it to a law-enforcement problem, you remove the concept of national security from the playing field. To get other nations to collaborate, you have to appeal to their national security interests, and what is illegal in one nation, might not be so in another. The Pakistanis, for instance, don't give a rip about Afghan poppy fields producing opium which funnels through Pakistan and winds up as heroin in New York City. They never have... not for many decades. However, when that Afghan opium profit is used to fund Al Qaeda which is destabilizing Pakistan through terrorism, now you have a compelling national security argument to persuade the Paks to cooperate in the WOT, and to allow US-SOCOM to operate across the Afghan/Pakistan border in pursuit of Al Qaeda.

In their foolish determination to completely repudiate the "Bush Doctrine," regardless of its efficacy, this administration is rushing headlong where angels fear to tread. They are children playing in a grown up world, and their foolishness is going to get better men than they are killed.

Basically you either treat them as POWs or you treat them as Criminals.
You cant treat them like they have been treated over the past 8 years.

marksiwel wrote:Basically you either treat them as POWs or you treat them as Criminals.
You cant treat them like they have been treated over the past 8 years.

+++
Jim