jgoose71 0 #1 November 21, 2010 A shining example of terrorists being tried in civilian courts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111705663.html?sid=ST2010111706077 Quote"In the case of Mr. Ghailani, there was a guilty verdict, a minimum sentence of 20 years that incapacitated somebody that has committed a terrorist act and because of that incapacitation is not going to threaten American lives," Gibbs told reporters. 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. QuoteAnalysis of the verdict is likely to focus on U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's decision to exclude the testimony of a Tanzanian whom the prosecution had described as a potentially "giant witness." The man was expected to say that he sold Ghailani explosives used in the attack. But the judge ruled that the government learned of the witness only through the use of coercive interrogations at CIA prisons and that the participation of the witness would taint the process. "The court has not reached this conclusion lightly," Kaplan wrote, barring the testimony. "It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world we live in. But the constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction." The prosecution did not seek to introduce any statements Ghailani made to the CIA. So how much testimony will be thrown out when they put Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial?"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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doughboyshred 0 #2 November 21, 2010 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #3 November 21, 2010 QuoteA shining example of terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Maybe the jury of 12 US citizens know something that you don't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #4 November 21, 2010 QuoteA shining example of terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Isn't it a verdict delivered by a group of your (collectively - not specifically "your") peers? I thought that was a pillar of the US constitutional democracy, but I could be mistaken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #5 November 21, 2010 QuoteMore 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."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #6 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteA shining example of terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Maybe the jury of 12 US citizens know something that you don't. Or maybe I know something that they don't, like all the information that was thrown out by the judge. Or did you miss that part? All he was convicted of was conspiracy to commit terrorist acts."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firemedic 7 #7 November 21, 2010 QuoteMore 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #8 November 21, 2010 Quote Quote A shining example of terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Maybe the jury of 12 US citizens know something that you don't. 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.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #9 November 21, 2010 QuoteThey were caught on the battle field. He was arrested by Pakistani police.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #10 November 21, 2010 QuoteHonestly, 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 There's a reason that the law doesn't get made by emotional victims.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #11 November 21, 2010 QuoteI 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 What do you propose we do, turtle? Should we change our legal system? Would it be better if we could skip the whole middle part of the process and just chuck people into prison as soon as they are charged with an offense? Do you find that whole "burden of proof" thing a bit liberal?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #12 November 21, 2010 Quote Quote They were caught on the battle field. He was arrested by Pakistani police. Your right, that makes it all better. Lets give him a big fat wad of cash and let him go free."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #13 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteI 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 What do you propose we do, turtle? Should we change our legal system? Would it be better if we could skip the whole middle part of the process and just chuck people into prison as soon as they are charged with an offense? Do you find that whole "burden of proof" thing a bit liberal? He shouldn't have been tried in the military tribunals, like originally planned, and convicted there. KSM had already admitted to the tribunal that he was happy he killed all those Americans, and then Obama stopped the trial. How much of that is going to get thrown out?"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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #14 November 21, 2010 Quote Quote Quote They were caught on the battle field. He was arrested by Pakistani police. Your right, that makes it all better. Lets give him a big fat wad of cash and let him go free. Why on earth would you want to do that?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #15 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteI 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 What do you propose we do, turtle? Should we change our legal system? Would it be better if we could skip the whole middle part of the process and just chuck people into prison as soon as they are charged with an offense? Do you find that whole "burden of proof" thing a bit liberal? This was a war - there should have ben a military trial. This was war, just like in the past, slight differences, perhaps, but war nonetheless. All of them should be tried under the International Military Tribunal.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firemedic 7 #16 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteHonestly, 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 There's a reason that the law doesn't get made by emotional victims. OK, do you honestly believe that justice was served by this decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #17 November 21, 2010 QuoteThis was a war - there should have ben a military trial. Which war was the US fighting in East Africa in 98?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #18 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteThis 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.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #19 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis 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?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #20 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis 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.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #21 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis 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!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #22 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteThey were caught on the battle field. He was arrested by Pakistani police. Don't bother him with facts, his mind is made up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #23 November 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis 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.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #24 November 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis 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? Geography doesn't seem to be Turtle's strong suit. (In fact, I'm not sure he has a strong suit.)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #25 November 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis 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. There's 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?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
