Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 8101956. Show 8101956's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    The testimony by the key witness would have been banned in a military court as it was in a civilian court because the key witness was identified from information obtained from the result of torture that was okayed by Dubya and Cheney. It is pretty hard to trim off any fat from that Constition. Now as you were saying, who caused this fiasco ?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Ghailani was not tortured by the CIA – in fact, he wasn’t even water-boarded.
    American liberals mindlessly abuse the term torture whenever it suits their purposes of assuming mass murdering terrorists are innocent farmers, and the the US is evil.
    Ghailani was questioned without lawyers and in an aggressive way , that would have made his confession inadmissible in a civilian court. That does not mean he was tortured!  When hundreds of people were murdered in Africa in this embassy bombing, they needed information.
    Even if you think the CIA’s tactics (whatever they were) went too far, Ghailani was later interviewed by the FBI and repeated the same information, under gentler questioning.
    He was guilty of this mass murder, and almost was found innocent of all charges in a civilian court. What would happen if the mastermind of 9/11, KSM, is put on trial in a civilian court, the exclusionary rule prevents any evidence from being presented, and he is found innocent?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : Damian, I don't blame the lawyers although there is vested interest.. $$ The US offers the greatest protections to defendants anywhere in the world at any time in history.


    1) So you don't like the legal system the founders established?  You would rather we assume guilt?

    2) Would you please prove your statement that we offer the greatest protection to defendants anywhere in the world at any time in history

    3) You do realizer the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, right? 1 in 100 adults in the US are in prison.

    These sacred protections were meant to Americans.


    Consititutional rights were given to everyone. They are based on universal principles of human rights.



     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders


    They get no warning, much less an opportunity to have a lawyer challenge the evidence against them. But the administration stands ready to provide the full suite of constitutional and procedural protections to KSM, the man who orchestrated the act of war that killed 3,000 people. It adds up to an illogical and destructive mess."
    Posted by BobinVa


    Police officers sometimes get in shootouts with suspsects. Therefore, we should torture all persons suspected of crime. Q.E.D.  Brilliant.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : The only Constitutional issue that got in the way here is the one that gives the Executive branch the responsibility for conducting war. The Executive Branch in this case is one that, like you, WhatisitNow and DamainAllen, have some weird affinity for terrorist scumballs. So they decided to have the trial in civilian court where the rules are different and are for domestic criminals. Military tribunals are constitutional. Why couldn't they use a military tribunal? Because Holder and Obama are idiots that's why.
    Posted by Newtster


    LOL.  Yes of course.  The reason that you are not confident in our ability to convict them  is not that you have some secret doubt about whether we're actually right that everyone we admit we nabbed is a terrorist - it's that there is a "socialist" conspiracy to protect terrorists.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
     "intense, prolonged and abusive interrogation that amounted to torture." Your position is clearly that no one captured after commiting a terrorist act anywhere in the world can or should gave up any information; they must be immediately Mirandized and lawyered up, otherwise it's per se "torture".
    Posted by BobinVa


    You are in no position to talk for me.  Obviously you cannot have the full panoply of rights in an overseas terrorist situation.  But this case clearly breaks the law on abusive interrogation: the prosecution did not even try to introduce the man's confession because they knew it was illegally obtained.  When the defense, prosecution and judge believe a man's rights were taken away, who are you to suggest otherwise?  You seem to be advocating basic lawlessness.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RevWright. Show RevWright's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Forum,

    1) So you don't like the legal system the founders established?  You would rather we assume guilt? I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth please. The line that was crossed was giving AMERICAN protections to war criminals. Where will this lead.. OR .. is it subjective and at the whim of the president?

    2) Would you please prove your statement that we offer the greatest protection to defendants anywhere in the world at any time in history Name another please.

    3) You do realizer the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, right? 1 in 100 adults in the US are in prison. Speaks well of law enforcement huh?  

    These sacred protections were meant to Americans.


    Consititutional rights were given to everyone. They are based on universal principles of human rights.

    EVERYONE?... in the world?? How very generous.
    and I always was taught that these protections were granted by our country for Americans.. NOT WAR CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS.


    Sorry my friend.. Obama has dictated this course to soften his approach to the Muslims (or should I say Arab enemy combatants?). It only for his ego to present himself as a world leader. He has no balls and is missing any concept of war.
    Just my humble opinion.

    Regards, Da Rev.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    Why should a terrorist be treated differently from any other criminal? I can see how some people would support torture, wire tapping, kidnapping suspected terrorists and whisking them away. But this is a guy that had already committed the act.  After they've committed the act, why should they be treated differently for any other criminal. A guy tries to blow up a plane.  Should the guy be treated differently because he was in Al Qaeda than if he was just some loser?  And I'm not suggesting that terrorists shouldbe treated with leniency.  But if a jury trial was OK for Tim McVie then why isn't it OK for this loser?  Tim McVie killed more people than this guy was accused of killing.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover

    Ahhh... McVeigh was an American citizen so he has rights in the US.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : When did we suddenly become able to torture prisoners of war to obtain information from them?  When did you lose any sense of humanity?  Can you put on the rubber apron and do the duty work necessary?  I bet not.  You would probably lose your cookies.
    Posted by Reubenhop

    They are not POW's, they are enemy combatants. Very different status in the UN and Geneva Convention.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : Whether it was "torture" or not, the defendant's rights under the fourth amendment were violated by the government.  It's not me saying so, it is a federal judge.  And it is 2010, not 1960 (although you probably wish it was 1660).
    Posted by Reubenhop

    He had no 4th amendment right until brought to Manhattan. That is the point.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : It wasn't about Miranda and it wasn't about lawyers it was about intense, prolonged and abusive interrogation that amounted to torture.  He was held for years in secret locations.  When was that allowed in a battlefield situation?   And just so you know, military commissions don't allow coerced confessions either.  Your position is illegal and inhumane.  To you, the end justifies the means: the end is execution and the means is a sham legal proceeding.  Join the human race some time soon.
    Posted by Reubenhop

    It has always been allowed under the rules of war to hold an enemy combatant or spy without any rights to due process or notification to their country. Heck the US killed many German and Japanese spies during WW II without a word to their native country or the Red Cross. The Geneva Convention even allowed on the spot killing if an enemy was found out of uniform (ie. a spy).
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from RevWright. Show RevWright's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    ..and please explain just WHY American taxpayers have to pay for both the prosecution and defense of these criminals?
    With the precedent being set.. has anyone realized that there may well be tens of thousands of these cases spanning generations? Unless one believes that the terrorists will simple go away.. OR be swayed by the Big Os charm into being passive or reasonable?.. NOT!
    Why oh why does this fool kiss their azzes?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    Forum, 1) So you don't like the legal system the founders established?  You would rather we assume guilt? I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth please. The line that was crossed was giving AMERICAN protections to war criminals. Where will this lead.. OR .. is it subjective and at the whim of the president?



    You seemed to be saying we should treat one category of crime differently than others when it comes to prosecutions. If someone is picked up on a battlefield somewhere in Iraq, like I said, treat them as a POW. But if they are picked up on US soil committing a terrorist act, they should be treated as criminals.

    Name another please.



    I am not familiar with most other legal systems. However your conclusion appears to be based on an assumption, not on factual data about our legal system and others. If you want to make this sort of claim, you need to prove it.I wasn't making a statement one way or the other, so I don't need to prove anything.

    Speaks well of law enforcement huh? 


    I don't think so. Our incarceration rates are high because of our laws. I think it is very troubling that 1 in 100 adults are in jail in the us, and that our incarceration rate is higher than countries like china.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Our incarceration rates are high because of our laws. I think it is very troubling that 1 in 100 adults are in jail in the us, and that our incarceration rate is higher than countries like china

    So it's the fault of our laws and not the fault of those breaking the laws?

    Which laws should we get rid of?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from RevWright. Show RevWright's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    You broaden the subject.
    You place the burden of proof on me yet offer none.

    This is simply wrong for too many reasons.
    Find another venue to defend the Messiah.. there are so many.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    You broaden the subject. You place the burden of proof on me yet offer none.



    Because the burden of proof is always on the person making the statement. You can't just say the US justice is system is softer on defendants than any other justice system in the world without proving it. I didn't make a statement one way or the other, because I honestly have never looked for data on that. But I am not going to swallow such a claim without evidence.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : He had no 4th amendment right until brought to Manhattan. That is the point.
    Posted by brat13


    The ultimate point is that some of us are not comfortable with having our government capture and secretly torture foreigners

    That system also allows for people to be held on no evidence more than that some other guy, who was getting tortured, yelled out their name to make the torture stop. 

    The people that defend this set-up seem so confident that the people we're holding are actually all real bad guys.  If you're so confident, why are you not comfortable with civilian trials?

    Might as well fess up:  It is a lot easier to convict in a military tribunal  People outraged about normal trials because they are not so confident we actually have all the right guys.  That's the only reason anyone is clamoring for them to be tried that way.   
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    You can't just say the US justice is system is softer on defendants than any other justice system in the world without proving it --------------------------- In fact, many countries have, and do claim the opposite, since the Fed still has the death penalty. But then again, so does the military
    Posted by GreginMeffa



    And I support the death penalty. I just think it is knee jerk, "america is the best at everything" reaction to assume a country that incarcerates 1 in 100 of its population has the softest treatment of defendants in the world. I happen to like our justive system. But I do think our laws need tweaking so we aren't jailing so many people.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : It has always been allowed under the rules of war to hold an enemy combatant or spy without any rights to due process or notification to their country. Heck the US killed many German and Japanese spies during WW II without a word to their native country or the Red Cross. The Geneva Convention even allowed on the spot killing if an enemy was found out of uniform (ie. a spy).
    Posted by brat13


    The key difference is there is no reason to think this war will ever end, at least where it being over depends on us saying it is over, and then, never again getting attacked.

    Some of us are not comfortable authorizating our government to hold foreigners for the rest of their natural life, on little more evidence than that someone yelled their name out in order to make torture stop.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : The key difference is there is no reason to think this war will ever end, at least where it being over depends on us saying it is over, and then, never again getting attacked. Some of us are not comfortable authorizating our government to hold foreigners for the rest of their natural life, on little more evidence than that someone yelled their name out in order to make torture stop.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow

    What does length of combat have to do with anything? If it is wrong in a 6 day war it is wrong in a 6 decade long war and visa versa. The fact is at the beginning of WW II we didn't know it's length but we rounded up German and Japanese spies and executed them with little fanfare nor trials in many cases.

    I agree that if we can't charge them for something concrete they should be sent home. The issues are, many countries don't want them back and many detainees don't want to go back to their home lands...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : What does length of combat have to do with anything? If it is wrong in a 6 day war it is wrong in a 6 decade long war and visa versa. The fact is at the beginning of WW II we didn't know it's length but we rounded up German and Japanese spies and executed them with little fanfare nor trials in many cases.
    Posted by brat13


    A.  Really?  We executed spies in WWII with little trials, therefore we should do what we like with people we call "enemy combatants"?   How is that even an argument?

    Well, hey, we used to burn witches.  So we might as well beat robbery convicts to death with baseball bats.

    Maybe "we did X bad thing in the past, therefore anything not quite as bad as it is OK for all time" is a non-argument.


    b. The length of detention doesn't matter if you don't particularly care about who is being detained, I'll grant you that.

    I'm saying you should care.  I'm not comfortable with authorizing our government to round up whoever it pleases and hold them in a secret prison for up to their natural life, with or without trial - as it pleases the government. 




    I agree that if we can't charge them for something concrete they should be sent home.
    Posted by brat13


    Where does that get us?  Hoping that maybe government will be nice and send people home as to whom they do not have evidence to convict is not a system I'm comfortable with.

    They are far more likely to simply hold the person forever, or secretly execute them, to avoid having to admit down the line that, oops, we've held this innocent person without any legal protections for thirty years because we were scared.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    "BUT NOW, the system is broken? "  
    Posted by BobinVa


    The system is broken because Bush & Cheney unilaterally broke it and made a bad situation worse by sanctioning illegal torture in the pretense of the unitary executive - the "ability of the president to crush a child's testicles if he sees fit".

    They and their despicable lackeys are directly responsible for recruiting hundreds - if not thousands - of 'enemy combatants' and put american troops at further risk than was otherwise necessary.  They've probably - though indirectly - killed more troops than al qaeda has.

    One day the whole truth (and not just the atrocities we already know about) will come out, and they'll be exposed as the hideous, incompetent cowards they are...and you'll be exposed as complicit in your denial of the most basic facts and absence of even rudimentary humanity.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RevWright. Show RevWright's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Some must believe that some "innocent" people are at Gitmo. That our armed forces randomly pick bearded people to keep in jail.

    I'm not one of them.

    Who wants to carry the risk that they will be freed only to kill again. Not me.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    Some must believe that some "innocent" people are at Gitmo. That our armed forces randomly pick bearded people to keep in jail. I'm not one of them. Who wants to carry the risk that they will be freed only to kill again. Not me.
    Posted by RevWright


    Then, you might be the only person on the planet who doesn't understand that humans do indeed make mistakes...

    ...or that the Bush Admin. released far more detainees into circulation (with gi-normous chips on their shoulders about the u.s. - some after being tortured) than they ever tried or convicted...

    ...but by all means, keep denying hundreds of years of legal precedent, tradition of rule of law, and the very letter of the constitution as if they don't exist....
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    Some must believe that some "innocent" people are at Gitmo. That our armed forces randomly pick bearded people to keep in jail. I'm not one of them. Who wants to carry the risk that they will be freed only to kill again. Not me.
    Posted by RevWright


    Then you are divorced from reality because it is a verified FACT that an incredible number of detainees had done nothing wrong and had no justifiecation for being held.  Of the nearly 800 detainees that were sent to GITMO over 500 were released by Bush including children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, detained because Afgani's turned them in to collect reward monies from the coalition fraudulently.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share