Terrorist aquitted of 284 of 285 charges.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

This was a war - there should have ben a military trial.

Which war was the US fighting in East Africa in 98?

Just because Clinton was to much of a pussy to do anything about it doesn't mean that they weren't at war with us.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This was a war - there should have ben a military trial.

Which war was the US fighting in East Africa in 98?

The one not relative to this discussion.

But nice straw man.

Huh? The guy is tried for charges relative to the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and it's not relative? WTF?

I am glad that you agree with the verdict and that he will be able to be released in 10 years or so.

But terrorism is terrorism, he should have been tried by a military tribunal.

And you're the one who called a straw man?! BAWAAAAAHAAAA!

I noticed that you didn't argue against my assumtion of your agreeing with the verdict.

They're nothing to argue about. You obviously do not know even the vaguest details of this case, like, you know, that it was relative to the bombings in TZ and KN in 98. Why should I bother debating it with you?

OK - so break it down - then -

Simple questions -

1) Are you relieved that only one charge stuck?
2) Do you support the verdict and sentance?
3) Do you appreciate that the guy may be eligible for paarole in 10 years?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Remster 30]

Quote

Simple questions -

From some one who didnt even know what the trial was about. I'll pass.

Remster

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Simple questions -

From some one who didnt even know what the trial was about. I'll pass.

So - in otherwords you lack the courage to answer.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Simple questions -

From some one who didnt even know what the trial was about. I'll pass.

So - in otherwords you lack the courage to answer.

The more you insult me, the more it shines on who you are. Carry on.


PS: if someone who knows more about this than Clint wants to have an honest discussion, post here and let me know you posted via PM, and I'll answer here. But really, Clint, before you attack someone, at least read up on the issue. I'm done with Clint's attempts at trolling.

Remster

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Simple questions -

From some one who didnt even know what the trial was about. I'll pass.

Let me apply the liberal translator:

"A direct question? Sorry i can't answer that. I only reply to spelling, punctuation, and semantics."

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Simple questions -

From some one who didnt even know what the trial was about. I'll pass.

I suppose the bigger picture is lost. It's not about his trial. It's done. What are future trials going to look like for some of the more dangerous combatants caught on the battle field?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[labrys 0]

Quote

He shouldn't have been tried in the military tribunals, like originally planned, and convicted there.

You are clearly confused. He wasn't tried by a military tribunal.

Owned by Remi #?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

He shouldn't have been tried in the military tribunals, like originally planned, and convicted there.

You are clearly confused. He wasn't tried by a military tribunal.

Exactly, that is my point. He should have. Then maybe he would have convicted of more than just one charge.

Edited to add:

I had fat finger syndrome on the key board.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,118]

>What are future trials going to look like for some of the more
>dangerous combatants caught on the battle field?

Perhaps they will involve less torture. It may make even the most sadistic guard think twice about suffocating or beating someone if they know that that could lose them the resulting court case.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>What are future trials going to look like for some of the more
>dangerous combatants caught on the battle field?

Perhaps they will involve less torture. It may make even the most sadistic guard think twice about suffocating or beating someone if they know that that could lose them the resulting court case.

Great, now what is going to happen to KSM?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,118]

>Great, now what is going to happen to KSM?

Hopefully he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

More like a shining example of why torture "coercive interrogations" should never be used.

Funny how the same people that spout off about defending the constitution will gladly throw it away if they hear the word terrorist.

Honestly, would you be happy about that decision if it were one of you family memers who was blown to bits in one of the bombings

Of course not, but my anger would be directed towards the people that caused the information to be thrown out, by using torture.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

More like a shining example of why torture "coercive interrogations" should never be used.

Funny how the same people that spout off about defending the constitution will gladly throw it away if they hear the word terrorist.

They were caught on the battle field. Things go on on a battle field that most people usually don't have to deal with.

Can you show me the constitutionally approved way to bash someones head in with the butt of a rifle?

Or how about the politically correct way to bayonet someone to death?

They were not caught in the U.S. with by law enforcement personnel.

Torture is a violation of international law, military law, and civilian law. It doesn't matter where he was apprehended, what matters is that the information obtained about his actions was obtained through torture.

[aphid 0]

Quote

But terrorism is terrorism, he should have been tried by a military tribunal.

I understand and sympathize with your anger.

But terrorism by it's nature is civilian oriented. The terrorists are civilians, and usually the targets are civilians. For example, McVeigh, the UniBomber, Baader-Meinhof... in my recollection, none were tried by military tribunal.

And it's just my personal opinion, but I trust a jury of my peers with representation by counsel more than a military tribunal.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And it's just my personal opinion, but I trust a jury of my peers with representation by counsel more than a military tribunal.

fascinating generalization especially when it's phrased "jury of my peers" (acknowledging a jury is composed of people) vs "Tribunal" (some faceless blob that just does stuff - it may be formed of people, or perhaps just robots...hard to tell)

explore the bias more..."Representation by counsel" is automatic with the jury bias - but tribunals apparently don't follow any process at all, the blob just passes down a decree, maybe from a random number generator

i love how people portray their stereotypes in what is, seemingly to them, pretty simple/harmless opinions

Sorry, aphid, everyone here does it, your's was just really ripe for dissection (in other words, it was the bottom post to reply to). That's why I don't trust any skydiver with a mustache.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

There are 2 camps of those arguing in this thread: those thinking with their cerebrums, and those thinking with their adrenal glands. The Cerebrums' arguments have said it just fine. At this hour of the evening, I've got too much issue exhaustion from these types of threads repeating themselves to have the patience to expound further.

[aphid 0]

Fair enough. (I try to keep my posts short and concise, perhaps not elaborating sufficiently in the interest of bandwidth) There is representation by counsel in a military tribunal, and yes, there is a jury of military personnel in that court, and they adjudicate military law, which, while differing from civilian law, still must fall within the constraints of the Constitution. I think.

But, again, what I don't understand is, why should a civilian be tried by a military court? Not just in your country, but in any first-world democracy.

Seriously, I'm not here to start a fight. I just thought that most Americans (incidentally, I'm married to one for going-on 33 years), are raised fervently believing in the Constitution and a country of Law, and would support trial of this person in a civilian court.

If you don't, no problem, I stand corrected.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

More like a shining example of why torture "coercive interrogations" should never be used.

Funny how the same people that spout off about defending the constitution will gladly throw it away if they hear the word terrorist.

does the constitution apply outside of the borders of the US?

Were the crimes these men are being tried for committed in the US?

Were they arrested in the US?

Until they were brought to the US, I don't see how the constitution applied.

Would there be the same human rights outrage if they were captured by the military abroad and (without being transferred to US soil) put into a local military trial?

--
Rob

[aphid 0]

I look forward to replies to your questions. I will learn something. (I should elaborate. That is NOT sarcasm. I really do look forward to learning)

Quote

does the constitution apply outside of the borders of the US?

If I might add, does it apply to agents of the US abroad? (military, government, intelligence services, contractors, etc)

Quote

Were the crimes these men are being tried for committed in the US?

Were they arrested in the US?

Until they were brought to the US, I don't see how the constitution applied.

Are foreign bases considered part of the country? Again, I only can speak from what I see in the media and my limited education, but isn't Guantanamo legitimately US territory?

Quote

Would there be the same human rights outrage if they were captured by the military abroad and (without being transferred to US soil) put into a local military trial?

To me it is just a question of law; international, military, civil or Constitutional and the order of precedence. Unless some are the same?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Perhaps they will involve less torture. It may make even the most sadistic guard think twice about suffocating or beating someone if they know that that could lose them the resulting court case.

Watever happened to the days when real men lined up shoulder to shoulder and just blasted eachother till the other side was dead?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I just wonder how happy you, and all those that defend this decision, will be when the guy gets out and blows up some more people.

Wow - just wow - So would you like to see sentences based upon Possible Future Acts too? --

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Fair enough. (I try to keep my posts short and concise, perhaps not elaborating sufficiently in the interest of bandwidth) There is representation by counsel in a military tribunal, and yes, there is a jury of military personnel in that court, and they adjudicate military law, which, while differing from civilian law, still must fall within the constraints of the Constitution. I think.

But, again, what I don't understand is, why should a civilian be tried by a military court? Not just in your country, but in any first-world democracy.

Seriously, I'm not here to start a fight. I just thought that most Americans (incidentally, I'm married to one for going-on 33 years), are raised fervently believing in the Constitution and a country of Law, and would support trial of this person in a civilian court.

If you don't, no problem, I stand corrected.

You have a lot of your own answers right in your own post. Yes a military tribunal is an actual court that must fall in the constraints of the constitution. A man that goes through a military tribunal gets all the due process of someone tried in a civilian court.

The man being tried is not a "civilian" though. He has taken up arms against the U.S. Even worse, he is not uniformed, backed by an official country, and targets civilians. He should be charged with serious war crimes under the Geneva convention to boot.

He was not captured by U.S. law enforcement personnel. For a man to be properly convicted in a U.S. court, he really needs to be caught by U.S. law enforcement. This way he is getting all the pre-requisites required by the U.S. court system. Miranda rights, limited incarceration, speedy trial, etc... This man was caught by the Pakistani Police and turned over to the CIA through the state department. None of these people probably Mirandized him. It's not what they do.

A military tribunal is still a trial. He still gets a jury, a judge, a lawyer, and due process. The only difference is it's more conducive to how he was captured. I believe in this case, it would be more just and he would actually be held accountable for his crimes.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[piisfish 140]

Quote

With a 20 year sentence he could be eligible for parole in 10 for good behavior. Not bad for killing 224 people, including 12 Americans.

are americans "worth" more than others ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Would there be the same human rights outrage if they were captured by the military abroad and (without being transferred to US soil) put into a local military trial?

When you claim to be better than other people, part of backing that claim up involves holding yourself to a higher standard of behaviour.

Would there be much outcry if Pakistan tried him in a kangaroo court using information gained through torture? Probably not, business as usual doesn't raise too much comment. But I had heard tell that the USA might have slightly stronger defences against procedural abuses than a country which only 10 years ago suffered regime change from a military coup.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?