Basso- Would you mind responding to post #37? As someone who has "thought through the implications" of trying KSM in civilian court, how would you evaluate the accuracy of Ottomaton's claim?
i'm unaware that Ottoman's claims are accurate. KSM was based in Yemen, captured in Pakistan, in the spring of 2003. all 'Stans not being created equal, what are his crimes against the military in Afghanistan? and even assuming ottoman is correct, what's the point of trying him for 9/11 if you're just going to continue to hold him, regardless of the outcome? is that not the very definition of a show trial? and what does ottoman, and obama, imagine KSM's defense will be? he only has one, that evil chimpymchitlerburton tortured him, and the trial will end up being about US foreign policy, not about KSM's guilt, and his lawyers, if they're any good, will use the evidentiary process to expose US secrets, while obama maintain's his studied remove from the damage he's doing to our ability to continue to fight and kill al-queda, since it will all be the judge's (or DOJ's) fault. what an embarrassing crock.
Thanks for your sincere reply, basso. What course of action do you advocate here? You previously mentioned military tribunal, but doesn't that present the same problems you claim are inherent in a criminal trial?
no, the military tribunals have different standards of evidence, and tighter controls on how classified evidence is both admitted and displayed in court.
As has been duly noted, if we can host the republican convention here in New York, surely we can host the trial of a washed up terrorist.
Because it isn't the trial of KSM that worries basso, it's the incompetence and criminality of the bush administration potentially on display for the world to see he's worried about.
my specific objection is that you are a r****d who doesn't know what he is talking about and should not be posting about criminal jurisdiction, since you don't know anything about it.
