Yes, read any of your posts in this thread. They appear to be written by somebody who is not very smart in the underlying legal topics, but is desperately trying to seem so. Your theory of criminal jurisdiction ("based in yemen") exposes this pretty clearly.
A show trial? If it was a show trial, then why would it be fraught with risks....unless it was a REAL trial! Imagine that???? Basso, while you don't have faith in our justice system, which is understandable, what you are supporting here is very dangerous. You are saying that for a certain group of people, there's no need for due process. And I understand why in this case we want to make sure there is a conviction. We all want this guy to be prosecuted and found guilty. Nearly everyone who lives in NYC was hurt by 9/11 in some form or fashion and 10's of millions more across the country. But to allow the gov't to circumvent the justice system is dangerous - and you know why. Do you think the founding fathers would want anything less than due process for this man? Ask yourself that question. Ask yourself this - why does the NRA oppose a ban on assault weapons, why does Pro-Choices oppose ANY kind of restriction, and why does nearly every group fighting for any cause oppose any kind of compromise??? Because there's a legitimate fear and reality of the slippery slope. If you take away one man's right to a fair trial, what man will be next? The more you circumvent the justice system, the more circumventable it becomes. Do you really want to open the door...even a crack...to a state where the gov't can prosecute someone without due process on charges of terrorism or treason? Put aside your hate for Obama for just a second - sometimes there are things that should transcend partisan politics...and you know that. You know better. Would you really advocate tossing our whole national framework under the bus to get a cheap shot at a president you despise? That's sad man. Really very sad.
Yes, he walks free, just like OJ. guess what, that's due process. The burden is on the prosecution and if they screw it up, you get to walk free. That's the American way. What's wrong with military tribunals? Nothing if you live in Saudi Arabia. Since when has American become Saudi Arabia? Next thing we know we'll be covering people up for showing too much skin around the ankle. Yes, he gets to walk free. Because you know what, there are bigger things than just one man, even a 9/11 terrorist. The world, and I mean the world, judges us by what we preach. If we can't give this man a trial, one where he has a chance of going free, then everything that we go on all over the place and thump our chests about is just a load of crock to the world, and I'd have to say they have a point.
basso has thing for the unintelligent and those lacking intellectual curiosity. Does he support Palin? yes. She is remarkable in her lack of intelligence. Did he support Bush? yes. He is a person who may be smart but lacked the normal curiosity of the majority of people who've attended community college let alone the ivy league. He had to work hard to remain as ignorant as he was. What is the fascination basso has with politicians who use or have very little intellect?
You seem to be arguing two different points that negate each other. The first point is what if KSM goes free because he is able to mount a spectacular legal defense. The second is that this will be a show trial. If the latter is true then you have no need to fear former. To take on the first point. That is in the realm of possibility and you can point to the OJ trial as a situation where someone with a preponderance of guilt still won but I doubt that Johnnie Cochran is going to defend KSM (especially since he's dead) while I trust the US federal attorneys aren't going to be Marcia Clark. At the same time there are likely a host of other charges awaiting him including trying him for the UA93 hijacking and the Pentagon attack. Also KSM is very likely not going to mount a defense personally. He is likely going to use his court time for speechifying to hasten his path to martyrdom. As a Mujahadeen it doesn't advance his cause to be found innocent either. In regard if it is a show trial then there is nothing to worry about from the standpoint of KSM going free. This whole exercise will merely be for symbolic value. Something though that will be important for trying to get closure for the victims. Consider the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials at the end of WWII or Truth and Reconciliation panels in South Africa. My own feeling is that this will likely be closer to a show trial. I have a hard time seeing how an impartial jury could be found, total availability of evidence for the defense, and KSM himself will problably try to make a mockery of things. That said this will be a statement about what we are. That we don't just dissapear people even if they are our enemies.
my point about yemen had nothing to do with jurisdiction. go back and reread the post, using the actual words i wrote, and perhaps this time you'll grasp the (none-too) subtle point i was making.
Thanks for the initial rep and positive feedback, i never know how to respond to these things. It's very nice.
can i get an "Amen" brotha? <embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRga%2BJbQI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
probably so, since under our education system fails so miserably at both reading comprehension, and basic geography.
Again, I don't really care about the thread topic either way, but There is a lot of evidence that those Brits first were attacked and then a couple of them fired on the combatants. That is different from a terrorist attack.
Please elaborate then - I'm very interested to hear your "based in Yemen" legal theory and why it's relevant. I bet it's really quite good!
it took a trial to present that evidence. that's due process. in both cases, it was extremely unpopular to try the guys...and authorities had to beg John Adams to defend them. if we are really concerned with preserving the idea of America, it begins and ends with preserving concepts like due process, which are often uncomfortable, unpopular and cumbersome in actual practice.
So Obama was wrong in 2006 or playing politics. I really don't care. This isn't about Obama. This is about where you stand on this issue. Are you supporting military tribunals and the gov't circumventing the legal system? For get Republicans or Dems if you are capable of it. Can you take a stand independent of what Obama does? Is everything just about him to you? Are you that obsessed that you'd throw whatever under the bus just to be in the opposition? This is why the tea-baggers, like yourself, are such phonies. PHONY. Complete and unbashed phonies. You can say that health care reform is like a gov't take over - it's like fascism and communism, it's totalitarianism - and invoke the American Revolution. But then you support military tribunals and are basically undermining everything the American Revolution was about!!! You are advocating giving gov't more power, more control, and saying they should decide, not the people. You are saying give the power of the judicial system - the power of the people, and hand it to the military. Wow, just wow. Do you realize what you just advocated here in this thread? Conservative you are not my friend. Every founding father of this country would be disgusted with you right now.
