+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default This, I think, will go down as one of the worst decisions any president has ever made

    Those are the words of Rep. Peter King in speaking of the idiotic decision to bring KSM and his band of merry men to lower Manhattan for trial on charges they were conspirators in the 9/11 murders.

    WASHINGTON -- Calling this the toughest decision he has made as attorney general, Eric Holder announced Friday that self-proclaimed Sept. 11 attack architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be moved to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court.

    "The Department of Justice will pursue prosecution in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. Further, I have decided to refer back to the Department of Defense five defendants to face military commission trials, including the detainee who was previously charged in the USS Cole bombing," Holder said at a Justice Department briefing.

    Holder, America's top law enforcement officer, said he is instructing attorneys in the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia handling the case to pursue the death penalty for the five. He said he has seen evidence that is not yet public that gives him confidence that "our outcome will be successful."

    "For over 200 years our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and to provide accountability to victims. Once again we will ask our legal system in two venues to rise to that challenge. I am confident that it will answer the call with fairness and with justice," Holder added.

    The decision drew outrage from some lawmakers and victims' families.

    "These terrorists planned and executed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans. Treating them like common criminals is unconscionable," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement.

    "This, I think, will go down as one of the worst decisions any president has ever made," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

    "The only thing they are going to do is give them a stage to mock us ... and this makes me sick to my stomach," said Tim Brown, a former New York City firefighter and founder of TheBravest.com, a group that is petitioning the administration not to bring terrorists to civilian courts.

    President Obama, speaking in Tokyo, said he will insist that Mohammed be subject to "the most exacting demands of justice" and called the move both a prosecutorial and a national security decision.

    "I'm absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheik Mohammad will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people insist on it. My administration will insist on it," he said.

    Mohammed and the four others -- Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali -- are accused of orchestrating the attacks that killed 2,973 people on Sept. 11, 2001. They will now stand trial in a courtroom down the street from the World Trade Center buildings that Mohammad takes credit for demolishing that day.

    Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

    Holder said Friday's decision "marks a significant step forward to close Guantanamo and bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad."

    The decision is a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about notorious terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.

    The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method -- waterboarding, or simulated drowning -- was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

    But some supporters said they have confidence that the U.S. courts could successfully try enemy combatants.

    "The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America's international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "However, it's disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantanamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. ... Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts."

    Former Rep. Tom Andrews, director of the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo, said the U.S. courts have already proved themselves capable of ensuring terrorist convictions, though he seemingly declined to classify Mohammed and the others as terrorists.

    "One hundred ninety-five terrorists have been convicted in U.S. federal courts since 2001. The terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were tried and convicted in U.S. courts and are now locked away in a federal supermax prison," Andrews said.

    "Those responsible for 9/11 are not warriors, they are criminals and mass murderers. Treating them as anything else plays into Al Qaeda's hands and rewards them an elevated status that only stokes their desire for 'martyrdom.' They need to be subjected to the full force of law and justice -- nothing less," he added.

    Sen. Joe Lieberman disagreed, saying the defendants are not the average criminal afforded access to U.S. federal courts.

    "The terrorists who planned, participated in and aided the September 11, 2001, attacks are war criminals, not common criminals. Not only are these individuals not common criminals but war criminals, they are also not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts," he said.

    Justice and Defense Department officials spent part of the morning notifying Sept. 11 victims' family members, members of Congress, state and local officials, governors, federal agencies and and others about the decision. Early Friday, an e-mail went out to victims' family members telling them that an announcement would be coming later. Since then a "series" of e-mails has been sent, according to one official.

    "The Defense Department and Justice Department are doing their best to provide information" to victims' family members and "we're trying to include as many people as we have," the official said. "Our paramount concern is informing them."

    The actual transfer of the detainees from Guantanamo to New York isn't expected to happen for many more weeks because formal charges have not been filed against most of them.

    Among those facing military commissions is Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of conspiring to blow up the USS Cole, which caused the death of 17 U.S. sailors while the ship was refueling in Yemen in 2000.

    The administration has already sent one Guantanamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to New York to face trial, but chose not to seek death in that case.

    At the last major trial of Al Qaeda suspects held at that courthouse in 2001, prosecutors did seek death for some of the defendants.

    Mohammed already has an outstanding terror indictment against him in New York, for an unsuccessful plot called "Bojinka" to simultaneously take down multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean in the 1990s.

    Some members of Congress have fought any effort to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial in the United States, saying it would be too dangerous for nearby civilians. The Obama administration has defended the planned trials, saying many terrorists have been safely tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the United States, including the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef.

    Mohammed admitted to interrogators that he thought up the attacks -- he allegedly proposed the concept to Usama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtained funding for the attacks from bin Laden, oversaw the operation and trained the hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The charges against the others are:

    -- Bin Attash, a Yemeni, allegedly ran an al-Qaida training camp in Logar, Afghanistan, where two of the 19 hijackers were trained. Bin Attash is believed to have been bin Laden's bodyguard. Authorities say bin Laden selected him as a hijacker, but he was prevented from participating when he was briefly detained in Yemen in early 2001.

    -- Binalshibh, a Yemeni, allegedly helped find flight schools for the hijackers, helped them enter the United States and assisted with financing the operation. He allegedly was selected to be a hijacker and made a "martyr video" in preparation for the operation, but was unable to get a U.S. visa. He also is believed to be a lead operative for a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London's Heathrow Airport.

    -- Ali allegedly helped nine of the hijackers travel to the United States and sent them $120,000 for expenses and flight training. He is believed to have served as a key lieutenant to Mohammed in Pakistan. He was born in Pakistan and raised in Kuwait.

    -- Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, allegedly helped the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler's checks and credit cards. Al-Hawsawi testified in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying he had seen Moussaoui at an al-Qaida guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in early 2001, but was never introduced to him or conducted operations with him.

    Fox News' Michael Levine and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    Pres. Obama and AG Holder are spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11-dead or living. These mutts will now benefit from freedoms given to the very "infidels" that they seek to erradicate from the face of the Earth. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how any sane and rational person could support this move.

    More assurance that there will be one term. That's it.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Since he had the poor graces to be taken alive,Kahlid Sheik Mohommed may be entitled to a trial but if giving him one is the hardest decision Eric Holder has ever made,he must not be allowed to make too many of them.
    KSM should be subject to the death penalty as should all of the people held at Guantanamo Bay Cuba for participating in the deaths of US citizens.
    Obama may be a one hit wonder but will the country be the same afterwards?

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    They will never kill these guys. They only give the federal death penalty to white males.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,432

    Default

    This is complete and utter BULLSH T!!! But what would expect from this dumb *** that we have in office. And that is change that you can believe in.

    Stay Safe
    Bull
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    They will never kill these guys. They only give the federal death penalty to white males.
    That "Beltway Sniper"guy but he was convicted while George Walker Bush was still in office,wasn't he?

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    That "Beltway Sniper"guy but he was convicted while George Walker Bush was still in office,wasn't he?
    He was convicted in VA state courts, not the federal system.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Those are the words of Rep. Peter King in speaking of the idiotic decision to bring KSM and his band of merry men to lower Manhattan for trial on charges they were conspirators in the 9/11 murders.



    Pres. Obama and AG Holder are spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11-dead or living. These mutts will now benefit from freedoms given to the very "infidels" that they seek to erradicate from the face of the Earth. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how any sane and rational person could support this move.

    More assurance that there will be one term. That's it.
    Could you elaborate on why you feel this way about trying these guys in a court of law where the crime was committed?

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Could you elaborate on why you feel this way about trying these guys in a court of law where the crime was committed?
    I have found that the people who are complaining about this the most are the same people who would demand a "fair trial" if US Citizens were held in a foreign jail.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but in any case, what was going to happen to all these clowns in Guantanamo? Just leave them there, no trial, no formal charges? I don't think your constitution would allow that, plus world opinion would be massively against you. At least this way, they'll get a trial, then spend the rest of their miserable lives in the Supermax lock up.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but in any case, what was going to happen to all these clowns in Guantanamo? Just leave them there, no trial, no formal charges? I don't think your constitution would allow that, plus world opinion would be massively against you. At least this way, they'll get a trial, then spend the rest of their miserable lives in the Supermax lock up.
    Remember our Constitution does not give any rights to non-US citizens. But other countries are supposed to honor it.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Could you elaborate on why you feel this way about trying these guys in a court of law where the crime was committed?
    a. It wasn't a crime, it was an act of war.
    b. Enemy combatants don't enjoy the freedoms we do.
    c. They have already pled guilty in a military tribunal.

    Any other questions, lib?
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    I have found that the people who are complaining about this the most are the same people who would demand a "fair trial" if US Citizens were held in a foreign jail.
    No I wouldn't. If you are stupid enough to commit a crime on foreign soil, you are subject to the laws of that country. No other country has the justice system we have, so you are probably in alot of trouble. Any rational person would think the same way.

    These animals did not commit a crime. They committed an act of war and deserve to be treated as such.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    Remember our Constitution does not give any rights to non-US citizens. But other countries are supposed to honor it.
    Utter nonsense and you know it.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    Remember our Constitution does not give any rights to non-US citizens. But other countries are supposed to honor it.
    OK I can understand that, but my question still remains. What the hell were they going to do with these guys. I don't think the US would keep a detention camp or prison camp open indefinitely. Maybe if in fact they have plead guilty to the charges as George said, they can be sentenced, but other than death, what was going to happen? I can understand the outrage of people over them being given a fair trial in the US, but once again, what are the options?

  15. #15
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Just a thought, but when he was captured do you think they read him his rights??? How will a civilian court deal with that. Matter of fact, he didn't even commit a crime in this country.

  16. #16
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    Remember our Constitution does not give any rights to non-US citizens. But other countries are supposed to honor it.
    Help me out here. Are you saying that the Chinese have to honor our constitution?

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Just a thought, but when he was captured do you think they read him his rights??? How will a civilian court deal with that. Matter of fact, he didn't even commit a crime in this country.
    That and a few other matters such as possible coerced confessions, National Security trumping calling of some witnesses, the fact that unless I'm mistaken, no actual declaration of War has been given so the act of war thing is out the window. Not a lot of use going to the War crimes tribunal in Den Haag, thats a waste of time. Its going to be quite interesting to see how the criminal justice system handles this.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Halligan84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Blackwood NJ, USA
    Posts
    816

    Default

    The due process parts of it concern me, they were not apprehended and processed in a way that civilian courts are used to. I see the lawyers having a field day with this and charges dismissed. When we start comparing how an enemy combatant is apprehended during war with how a US citizen is arrested for a domestic crime, we are asking for some huge problems. My other issue with this is the courthouse is going to be quite a target, particularly if he is convicted.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Southeast PA
    Posts
    110

    Default

    If you're not outraged. You're not paying attention.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halligan84 View Post
    The due process parts of it concern me, they were not apprehended and processed in a way that civilian courts are used to. I see the lawyers having a field day with this and charges dismissed. When we start comparing how an enemy combatant is apprehended during war with how a US citizen is arrested for a domestic crime, we are asking for some huge problems. My other issue with this is the courthouse is going to be quite a target, particularly if he is convicted.
    I've changed my opinion. I think their civil rights were violated. I think they should be granted a hearing in Manhattan Federal Court and have all the charges dropped. I think they should then be released and allowed to go free. They should be allowed to walk right out the front door of the courthouse. No guards, nothing. Total freedom.

    (Isn't 10 house less than a mile from Foley Square?)
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Isn't keeping a bunch of prisoners of war in a civilian prison in NYC just BEGGING for an enemy attack on that city and prison??

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I've changed my opinion. I think their civil rights were violated. I think they should be granted a hearing in Manhattan Federal Court and have all the charges dropped. I think they should then be released and allowed to go free. They should be allowed to walk right out the front door of the courthouse. No guards, nothing. Total freedom.

    (Isn't 10 house less than a mile from Foley Square?)
    I think this is an excellent idea. It would make all the liberal wennies and the ACLU shut up so we don't have to listen to them anymore. And they would be killed before they clear the front steps, for free.
    Last edited by nmfire; 11-14-2009 at 11:57 AM.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    That and a few other matters such as possible coerced confessions, National Security trumping calling of some witnesses, the fact that unless I'm mistaken, no actual declaration of War has been given so the act of war thing is out the window. Not a lot of use going to the War crimes tribunal in Den Haag, thats a waste of time. Its going to be quite interesting to see how the criminal justice system handles this.
    You "mistaken". Silly panty wetting leftists and war. The US Constitution does not contain a specification as to how Congress must authorize the US letting loose the dogs of war (or a can of wupass if prefer). That the placeholder in chief has no regard for the US Constitiution has not the equipment required to defend it not withstanding in Sept 2001 Congress passed Public Law 107–40 directing the President to destroy the enemies of the US.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ubl040.107.pdf

    Relatively clear and idn't even take 1990pg.

  23. #23
    makes good girls go bad
    BLSboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    On the beach, Fla/OCNJ
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Since when were enemy combatants caught on the BATTLEFIELD over seas subject to the laws of America, in an American courtroom?

    This is PC run absolutely amuck.

    Giving civil rights to SOLDIERS is insane. We are at war, and treating them with kid gloves. When will it end?
    Hold them until a military tribunal can be held, or the end of the war.
    This administration has its head so far up its own ***, it is pathetic.


    FTM.
    AJ, MICP, FireMedic
    Member, IACOJ.
    FTM-PTB-EGH-DTRT-RFB-KTF
    This message has been made longer, in part from a grant from the You Are a Freaking Moron Foundation.

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Giving Civil Rights to OUR soldiers certainly isn't insane.
    The people captured on the battlefield are only subject to the Geneva Convention protection of soldiers if they belonged to any nation's military.People in civvies caught taking an active part in combat can be shot on the spot as spies without a trial or hearing beyond the senior officer present making the call.The folks in Guantanamo Bay's detention facility were lucky there was PC pressure on troops when they were captured.
    If someone is in civilian clothes ann unarmed,they are to be treated as a non combatant and not targeted by any weapons system.

    Quote Originally Posted by BLSboy View Post
    Since when were enemy combatants caught on the BATTLEFIELD over seas subject to the laws of America, in an American courtroom?

    This is PC run absolutely amuck.

    Giving civil rights to SOLDIERS is insane. We are at war, and treating them with kid gloves. When will it end?
    Hold them until a military tribunal can be held, or the end of the war.
    This administration has its head so far up its own ***, it is pathetic.


    FTM.

  25. #25
    makes good girls go bad
    BLSboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    On the beach, Fla/OCNJ
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    Giving Civil Rights to OUR soldiers certainly isn't insane.
    The people captured on the battlefield are only subject to the Geneva Convention protection of soldiers if they belonged to any nation's military.People in civvies caught taking an active part in combat can be shot on the spot as spies without a trial or hearing beyond the senior officer present making the call.The folks in Guantanamo Bay's detention facility were lucky there was PC pressure on troops when they were captured.
    If someone is in civilian clothes ann unarmed,they are to be treated as a non combatant and not targeted by any weapons system.
    Doug, allow me to change that.
    CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

    All prisoners should be treated according to the Geneva Convention, but giving them due process?
    Charging and trying them in a Federal Court?
    C'monnnn
    AJ, MICP, FireMedic
    Member, IACOJ.
    FTM-PTB-EGH-DTRT-RFB-KTF
    This message has been made longer, in part from a grant from the You Are a Freaking Moron Foundation.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Emergency Situation Decisions
    By gilijev in forum Probie House: The Place for Newbies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-2009, 06:50 PM
  2. E-One Has New President!
    By gilamonster in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-13-2007, 08:04 PM
  3. Decisions Decisions..
    By Pancho in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-01-2007, 11:28 PM
  4. Life decisions..
    By parkerx209 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2006, 12:27 AM
  5. The President says........
    By AVFR452 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2002, 10:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register