The KSM Show Coming To New York

[S55inPA]

we can all thank president dummy and is moronic side kick eric holder for this travesty. unable to contain the liberal disease that rots their minds they have decided to try KSM an some of his best buddies in downtown NY. brilliant! civilian trials in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the world. security? who needs security bestowing the rights that we have as US citizens on this human scum is repulsive and IMO politically self serving. very little good will come from moving these trials from gitmo to NY. "KSM-Hits New York Again" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...533459520.html Eric Holder's decision to move a trial on war crimes to American soil is morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault. Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other al Qaeda planners of 9/11. Be sure to get your tickets early, and don't forget to watch out for the truck-bomb barricades and rooftop snipers. Attorney General Eric Holder, who dropped this legal bomb on New York yesterday, called his decision to move their trial on war crimes from a military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay to American soil "the toughest" he has had to make. Other words come to mind. For starters, intellectually and morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault. This decision befits President Obama's rushed and misguided announcement on his second day in office that he would close Gitmo within a year. This was before the Administration had thought through what to do with the 215 prisoners there, though it did win him applause in Europe and on the American left. Yesterday's decision rids Gitmo of these meddlesome detainee cases in order to speed up this entirely political shutdown. Please spare us talk of the "rule of law." If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal "enemy combatants" captured since 9/11. Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren't a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday's decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence. As it happens, Mr. Holder acknowledged their worth himself by announcing that the Guantanamo detainee who allegedly planned the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen and four others would face military commission trials. (The Pentagon must now find a locale other than the multimillion-dollar, state-of-the-art facility at Gitmo for its tribunal.) Why the difference? Mr. Holder seemed to suggest that the Cole bombers struck a military target overseas and thus are a good fit for a military trial, while KSM and comrades hit the U.S. and murdered civilians and thus deserve a U.S. civilian trial. But this entirely misunderstands that both groups are unlawful enemy combatants who are accused of war crimes, whatever their targets. Mr. Holder's justification betrays not a legal consistency but a fundamentally political judgment that he can make as he sees fit. The Military Commissions Act, by contrast, devised a careful, consistent legal process for every detainee. Remember when critics blamed President Bush for exercising too much executive discretion? Mr. Holder expressed confidence that KSM and the rest will be convicted, but it is telling that he also delayed filing formal charges. Will KSM be formally charged with the 9/11 murders, or merely with "material support" for terrorism or some lesser offense? The specific charges may depend on how much evidence is admissable in a civilian courtroom. The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against enemy combatants may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield, not in Brooklyn. There is no CSI: Kandahar. A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence. KSM and his co-conspirators so far have refused legal counsel and at one point tried to plead guilty. They may again. But an army of self-declared defenders of human rights from Yale Law and Shearman & Sterling will clamor to represent them. Those lawyers are certain to challenge all evidence obtained after KSM's March 2003 capture on grounds that it was produced by "torture," if you call waterboarding torture. As he said at a hearing in 2007, "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z." But even that admission will probably be challenged on grounds that the trauma of his "torture" means he wasn't capable of "informed consent." Oh, and once he got to Gitmo in 2006, he may not have been read his Miranda rights in full. The possibility exists that one or more of these detainees could be acquitted on procedural grounds, which would be a travesty of justice. One certain outcome is that an open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction. Osama bin Laden learned a lot from the 1995 prosecution in New York of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the first World Trade Center attack. His main tip was that the U.S. considered bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, leading him to abandon his hideout in Sudan for Afghanistan. Terrorists also love a big stage, and none come bigger than New York. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, made his civilian trial a spectacle. Not even the best judge can entirely stop KSM and others from doing the same. And Mr. Holder has invited grave and needless security risks by tempting jihadists the world over to strike Manhattan while the trial is in session. Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[Chucky300]

You remember when every liberal went after W Bush for pardoning Isaac Toussie? They mocked him as if he pardoned Adolf Hitler.

Check out the daily news...both links are daily news. How hilarious!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...er_isaac_.html

What the liberal media wants you to forget is that Holder pardoned Marc Rich!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ric_holde.html

HYPOCRISY!

[Yacht Master]

Eric Holder is just doing what his Muslim boss wants him to do.
Now the git-mo detainees have a real chance of being set free.
Don't forget jury of peers, all Muslims.
I say send them home now and save the hundreds of millions
the trial would have cost. That way they would once again be
on the "battle field" and cost of disposal would be greatly reduced.
Simple.

[dmatre]

Do you guys really have that little faith in our judicial system?

If it's so flawed that we can't prosecute a terrorist, then why are you still living here? I'd think that you'd want to move someplace where a fair trial is followed by a first-class hangin'. (maybe you could try Iran)

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Do you guys really have that little faith in our judicial system?

If it's so flawed that we can't prosecute a terrorist, then why are you still living here? I'd think that you'd want to move someplace where a fair trial is followed by a first-class hangin'. (maybe you could try Iran)

first it is a complete waste of money.
second. why should these animals have the same rights
as US citizens?
three. if you are still going to have military tribunals....why
try these guys in NY?......politics?

[Yacht Master]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Do you guys really have that little faith in our judicial system?

If it's so flawed that we can't prosecute a terrorist, then why are you still living here? I'd think that you'd want to move someplace where a fair trial is followed by a first-class hangin'. (maybe you could try Iran)

Once upon a time we had a trial in LA, it wasted more time and money than it was worth. Ill fitting glove? Waterboard won't fit you must acquit.
This will make our Judicial system the joke of the decade on a worldwide basis.
I still say better to let them go now.

[BrianS]

Originally Posted by dmatre

...a show trial is followed by a first-class hangin'...

And the problem is??

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

we can all thank president dummy and is moronic side kick
eric holder for this travesty. unable to contain the liberal
disease that rots their minds they have decided to try KSM
an some of his best buddies in downtown NY. brilliant!
civilian trials in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the
world. security? who needs security
bestowing the rights that we have as US citizens on this human scum is
repulsive and IMO politically self serving. very little good
will come from moving these trials from gitmo to NY.


"KSM-Hits New York Again"

OK, I'm intrigued.

I know that one of the reasons that you don't want our least favourite Rosie O'Donnell lookalike* (GG - that photoshopped pic you posted has been burned forever into my brain: I see it in my mind every time KSM is on the news) to face trial in NY is because the decision was made during the Obama Presidency and must, therefore, be wrong.

But I'm interested in the specifics. Why, exactly, do you think that this is a bad thing?

- Do you think he shouldn't get a civil trial because he might get off? Is that because you think your country doesn't have a reliable legal system, or because you think he's not guilty? (Or, of course, that the idiotic decision to torture him means that so much evidence is inadmissible that a trial will be far more difficult than it would otherwise have been?)

- Do you think he shouldn't be tried in the city where the majority of his victims were murdered because it's inconvenient? If so, should we move all trials away from big cities? Or should we drop the right to trial by jury in cities with fairly heavy traffic?

- Do you think he shouldn't be tried in the city where the majority of his victims were murdered because you don't think it's possible to provide security? In that case, should all security risks be expunged? Should Presidential candidates, for example, be banned from meeting the public? After all, their security is surely a risk. Or should they just be banned from meeting the public in big cities, or cities with heavy traffic?

- Do you think this "war on terror" isn't, after all, a "war to preserve our way of life", as it's been described so many times? Do you think that your way of life - such as the right to a trial - should be suspended when it's not convenient?

- Do you think he should get a military trial rather than a civil trial because he deserves the respect that one accords a warrior? Do you think this man isn't just murdering criminal scum?

(My opinon here is that the fact that he killed loads of people in a single stroke doesn't make him a soldier deserving a military trial. It just makes him more of a c--t. He is just a murderer. He's not a hero. He's not a leader of the oppressed against the oppressor. He's not fighting God's Good Fight. He's just a murdering, hate-filled b----d, no better than the f---ed up perverts who go around murdering prostitutes or old ladies. He should be treated like these people, and it should be made clear that this is why he's getting a civil trial: it's not that we respect him; it's that we don't.)

- Do you think it makes sense to give him a closed military trial rather than exposing his crimes to the public? Don't you think a closed trial just gives more ammunition to the idiotic conspiracy theorists?

(I understand entirely that you don't want to give him a platform, but I think it is the most effective way for justice to be seen to be done. And a good prosecution case should make the guy look like scum, not a hero. It's the job of the prosecution to more than counteract any of this f---wit's proclamations, and to make him look like what he is: a moron who believes in stupid s--t, and who happened to get lucky.)




* It should be noted that KSM is our least favourite Rosie O'Donnell lookalike with the possible exception of Ms O'D herself, obviously.

[revstriker]

I think the original article that was posted answers a lot of your questions. But one of the most concerning elements of this dog and pony show is highlighted by this paragraph:

"One certain outcome is that an open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction. Osama bin Laden learned a lot from the 1995 prosecution in New York of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the first World Trade Center attack. His main tip was that the U.S. considered bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, leading him to abandon his hideout in Sudan for Afghanistan."

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by hkmb

- Do you think this "war on terror" isn't, after all, a "war to preserve our way of life", as it's been described so many times? Do you think that your way of life - such as the right to a trial - should be suspended when it's not convenient?

- Do you think he should get a military trial rather than a civil trial because he deserves the respect that one accords a warrior? Do you think this man isn't just murdering criminal scum?

The attacks on our country has been recognized as an act of war. By both sides. The murder of innocent civilians would then be considered a war crime. War crimes should be tried under a military tribunal. Nobody is suggesting that these men not stand trial for the crimes they have committed. And a military tribunal is the proper venue for a war crime. It is not some respectful recognition of a warrior.

[NdnMbLova]

Originally Posted by revstriker

The attacks on our country has been recognized as an act of war. By both sides. The murder of innocent civilians would then be considered a war crime. War crimes should be tried under a military tribunal. Nobody is suggesting that these men not stand trial for the crimes they have committed. And a military tribunal is the proper venue for a war crime. It is not some respectful recognition of a warrior.

I would have to agree with this.

[Kaz]

Giuliani is not happy..

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/1...er-ksms-trial/

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I think the original article that was posted answers a lot of your questions. But one of the most concerning elements of this dog and pony show is highlighted by this paragraph:

"One certain outcome is that an open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction. Osama bin Laden learned a lot from the 1995 prosecution in New York of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the first World Trade Center attack. His main tip was that the U.S. considered bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, leading him to abandon his hideout in Sudan for Afghanistan."

Yeah, I suppose that intelligence is something worth protecting. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to know about intelligence that's several years old, and that led to such a decisive victory in Afghanistan and such success in catching Osama Bin Laden.

And there'd be that secret thing about how you can quickly get crucial, timely information out of someone by waterboarding him only 183 times, over 183 days. It'd be terrible if that got out.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by revstriker

The attacks on our country has been recognized as an act of war. By both sides.

Weren't some of you righties complaining the other day that your current administration won't call it a "war on terror"?

Originally Posted by revstriker

The murder of innocent civilians would then be considered a war crime. War crimes should be tried under a military tribunal.

By considering it so, you're giving them legitimacy. You're suggesting that they are fighting for a country or the idea of a country, or at least a popular movement.

They're not. They're just c--ts. Murdering c--ts.

Yes, they use an ideology that mythologises their "oppression" and their "military heroics". By suggesting that their crimes merit a military tribunal, you're agreeing with them.

Originally Posted by revstriker

Nobody is suggesting that these men not stand trial for the crimes they have committed. And a military tribunal is the proper venue for a war crime. It is not some respectful recognition of a warrior.

You are, however, suggesting that they not stand pubic trial for their crimes. You're suggesting that the evidence of their criminality not be exposed to the public. You're suggesting that the US should go ahead with a secret trial, exposing any guilty verdict to even more doubt on the part of the millions of conspiracy theorists inside and outside the US. And you're helping build their fantasies of oppression.

I, on the other hand, would love to hear this murderous f---wit try to justify his actions. I'd like to hear him tie himself up in knots as he explains the bizarre logic that meant that he thought he could murder thousands of innocent people. If he's not allowed to speak, he maintains a level of mystique that gives him credibility that he would never otherwise have. A pubic trial is an opportunity to humiliate him. And you, it would seem, don't think America should have the balls to do that.

But it's the "security" argument that annoys me the most.

While the word "war" is inappropriate, it is a "war" (or whatever) on terror.

If you're too frightened to hold standard legal proceedings in the city in which a crime took place, it's because you're terrified. You're letting terror win.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Weren't some of you righties complaining the other day that your current administration won't call it a "war on terror"?



By considering it so, you're giving them legitimacy. You're suggesting that they are fighting for a country or the idea of a country, or at least a popular movement.

They're not. They're just c--ts. Murdering c--ts.

Yes, they use an ideology that mythologises their "oppression" and their "military heroics". By suggesting that their crimes merit a military tribunal, you're agreeing with them.



You are, however, suggesting that they not stand pubic trial for their crimes. You're suggesting that the evidence of their criminality not be exposed to the public. You're suggesting that the US should go ahead with a secret trial, exposing any guilty verdict to even more doubt on the part of the millions of conspiracy theorists inside and outside the US. And you're helping build their fantasies of oppression.

I, on the other hand, would love to hear this murderous f---wit try to justify his actions. I'd like to hear him tie himself up in knots as he explains the bizarre logic that meant that he thought he could murder thousands of innocent people. If he's not allowed to speak, he maintains a level of mystique that gives him credibility that he would never otherwise have. A pubic trial is an opportunity to humiliate him. And you, it would seem, don't think America should have the balls to do that.

But it's the "security" argument that annoys me the most.

While the word "war" is inappropriate, it is a "war" (or whatever) on terror.

If you're too frightened to hold standard legal proceedings in the city in which a crime took place, it's because you're terrified. You're letting terror win.

you want reality television. i want justice without the fanfare.
what if these animals represent themselves?
the only thing your position allows is for these a holes to
have a forum to mock the very people they have already
killed and the millions they have terrorized.

the perverse sense of justice obama and holder have makes
me sick. they are cowards and manipulators. if anymore
blood in NY is spilled because of this....it is on their hands.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

you want reality television. i want justice without the fanfare.

Honestly, I see your point.

But the trouble is, the "war on terror" isn't a conventional war. It's not about capturing flags, or taking control of a nation's capital. It's about perception, and feelings (terror being the main feeling, obviously), and, most fundamentally of all, public relations and propaganda.

A closed, or even partially-closed, military trial doesn't allow America to achieve its propaganda objectives. Quite the opposite, in fact: it hands the propaganda victory to al-Qaeda. They can say that America didn't have the evidence to prosecute; they can say that the trial was unfair; they can say that the decision to prosecute in a military tribunal shows that they're fighting a real war; they can say whatever they like.

Originally Posted by S55inPA

what if these animals represent themselves?
the only thing your position allows is for these a holes to
have a forum to mock the very people they have already
killed and the millions they have terrorized.

If they represent themselves - which I suspect they will - it's up to the prosecutors to run rings round them. It shouldn't be difficult: these people are stupid. If you look at how idiotic people like Milosevic and Karadzic have made themselves look in their trials, that should surely give you some hope.

If they're isolated in a closed trial, without the chance to look like idiots, they'll maintain that mystique: they'll still be thought of as evil geniuses by some and heroic geniuses by others. I think this is one of those rare cases where humanising someone actually diminishes them, and I think that's the best thing to do from a propaganda point of view.

Originally Posted by S55inPA

the perverse sense of justice obama and holder have makes
me sick. they are cowards and manipulators. if anymore
blood in NY is spilled because of this....it is on their hands.

I don't understand why you're calling them cowards, other than as a generic pejorative. If anything were cowardly (and I'm not going to call it cowardly as I think it's perfectly understandable), it would be being too scared to conduct normal legal proceedings in the face of a perceived threat. As I said to Rev, if you're too terrified to do this, the terrorists are winning. And as I said earlier, this is a propaganda war: being seen to be winning is what matters.

Originally Posted by S55inPA

if anymore
blood in NY is spilled because of this....it is on their hands.

Are you saying that no administration should do anything that might increase the risk of terrorist attacks?

Can I assume that you were opposed to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, then? Opposed to US government support of Israel? Opposed to US support of the Saudi monarchy?

[Mister Brenton]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Honestly, I see your point.

But the trouble is, the "war on terror" isn't a conventional war. It's not about capturing flags, or taking control of a nation's capital. It's about perception, and feelings (terror being the main feeling, obviously), and, most fundamentally of all, public relations and propaganda.

A closed, or even partially-closed, military trial doesn't allow America to achieve its propaganda objectives. Quite the opposite, in fact: it hands the propaganda victory to al-Qaeda. They can say that America didn't have the evidence to prosecute; they can say that the trial was unfair; they can say that the decision to prosecute in a military tribunal shows that they're fighting a real war; they can say whatever they like.



If they represent themselves - which I suspect they will - it's up to the prosecutors to run rings round them. It shouldn't be difficult: these people are stupid. If you look at how idiotic people like Milosevic and Karadzic have made themselves look in their trials, that should surely give you some hope.

If they're isolated in a closed trial, without the chance to look like idiots, they'll maintain that mystique: they'll still be thought of as evil geniuses by some and heroic geniuses by others. I think this is one of those rare cases where humanising someone actually diminishes them, and I think that's the best thing to do from a propaganda point of view.



I don't understand why you're calling them cowards, other than as a generic pejorative. If anything were cowardly (and I'm not going to call it cowardly as I think it's perfectly understandable), it would be being too scared to conduct normal legal proceedings in the face of a perceived threat. As I said to Rev, if you're too terrified to do this, the terrorists are winning. And as I said earlier, this is a propaganda war: being seen to be winning is what matters.



Are you saying that no administration should do anything that might increase the risk of terrorist attacks?

Can I assume that you were opposed to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, then? Opposed to US government support of Israel? Opposed to US support of the Saudi monarchy?

On the other hand, KSM's buddies back home would likely cheer for him if he gets camera time on Al J and CNN, resplendent in his flowing robes and long beard, battling the infidels in NYC.

In a private tribunal, he remains a virtual nobody. I'd bet most of the people in the Middle East don't even know who he is.

[Kaz]

[Kaz]

ok never mind, Obama has clearly said that guy will die

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57329


Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Muhammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

[BrianS]

What exactly are we waiting for then? Pour bacon grease down his throat and a bullet through the skull will save plenty of money. Maybe a PPV event to make some back. I'd pay for that.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

On the other hand, KSM's buddies back home would likely cheer for him if he gets camera time on Al J and CNN, resplendent in his flowing robes and long beard, battling the infidels in NYC.

In a private tribunal, he remains a virtual nobody. I'd bet most of the people in the Middle East don't even know who he is.

I can see your argument, but I do think it's the other way round. In a private tribunal, he remains a mysterious hero. I'm sure his hardcore fanboys will be cheering for him, but it's the middle ground that you're fighting for.

[S55inPA]

here are a couple of articles that articulate how idiotic
it is for president dummy to try these cases in NY.
"stupid is as stupid does"

"Two Ground Zeroes"
by Bret Stephens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...097275800.html

"Holders al Qaeda Incentive Plan"
by William McGurn

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...069224238.html

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

here are a couple of articles that articulate how idiotic
it is for president dummy to try these cases in NY.
"stupid is as stupid does"

"Two Ground Zeroes"
by Bret Stephens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...097275800.html

"Holders al Qaeda Incentive Plan"
by William McGurn

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...069224238.html

So you're willing to concede that the terrorists have indeed won?

That's very sad.

[SteveHI]

I think Holder's decision is debatable, but so is the option of keeping them locked up at Gitmo and/or limiting them to military tribunals. There's room for reasonable people to disagree here as there are merits to both methods.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I think Holder's decision is debatable, but so is the option of keeping them locked up at Gitmo and/or limiting them to military tribunals. There's room for reasonable people to disagree here as there are merits to both methods.

if we were discussing what to do with the scumbag bernie madoff
i would say fine but with these animals no way. let them rot or
better yet what bret stephens said.......

"I have long thought it would be a good idea to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his accomplices to lower Manhattan. In my concept, the men would be taken by helicopter to a height of about 1,000 feet over Ground Zero and pushed out the door, so that they, too, could experience what so many of their victims did in the awful final flickering seconds of their lives."