What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

ObamaRama 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: ObamaRama 8

Sure, but given the extraordinary amount of pre-trial publicity, even I can't see a federal judge kicking this case because of it.

Some of you may recall during histrial for murdering Sharon Tate and the others, Charlie Manson produced an LA Times, on the front page of which was a headline that Nixon had declared him guilty. Judge ruled Charlie didn't get to sabotage his own trial, didn't get to profit from Nixon's "mistake."

I remember this happening to a prez - but couldn't remember which one.

ah c'mon - Bush was too smart to get caught like that! ;) :)
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Sure, but given the extraordinary amount of pre-trial publicity, even I can't see a federal judge kicking this case because of it.

Some of you may recall ......

'some'??

i made a comment a little while ago how on my amex it reads "member since 88" and got some, "i wasn't even out of diapers yet" remarks :p
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Someone like Dr Hasan, DC sniper (who was executed last week after 7 years), Mcveigh (who was executed after he didn't appeal) and others charged with mass murder, got their dessert in the end.
Interesting (to me) tidbit: the word you're looking for here is "desert," from the same origin as "deserve." Something you deserve is called a desert - it has nothing to do with what you eat at the end of a meal.

Now back to your regular discussion...
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

found the Nixon event. his AG immediately reacted and a retraction his the press ASAP. so is the jury pool tainted by Holder/Obama's statements? a lawyer perhaps could answer this? and OMG! can you image the political flak if Obama had to retract!!
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Lindsay Graham basically made Holder look like a fool in this video. You would think Holder would have been prepared for this line of questioning given his decision about where to try KSM. It's hard to have much faith in Holder as AG when he's stumped this bad.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ttorney-general-holder-stumped-lindsey-graham

Thanks for posting that clip, I hadn't seen it. And Graham did reduce our esteemed A.G. to stuttering irrelevance. Can't you just see future G.I.'s being outfitted for overseas duty chasing down terrorists: here's your M-16, here's your kevlar helmet and here's your little laminated Miranda warning card. Spare me.

I believe the goal of the decision to try KSM and the others in NYC is to produce enough "evidence" of the "evil" activities of the Bush administration to induce the World Court or some European government to bring an indictment against Bush/Cheney. That's what these hard lefties dream about: seeing Bush/Cheney in a courtroom someplace defending themselves.
So the Obama administration is willing to risk security leaks, the increased liklihood of another attack on NYC and a diminishing of our ability to find and convict terrorists to give the hard left what it wants--George W. Bush's scalp.

There is no question of the guilt of the defendants. And no question of the JD lawyers in NYC to get the conviction. In fact, Holder's statements that
the lawyers CAN get the conviction is a strawman. The questions is at what cost.

As I posted earlier, just this week the communist lawyer for the blind sheikh
who masterminded the first attack on the world trade center, was cleared to begin her sentence in federal prison. What did she do? She deliberately muled messages from Rahman out of the federal lockup for his supporters in Egypt. Anybody think that can't happen this time around?

This decision is purely partisan, left wing partisan, politics.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

You two have a strange take on reality. If the Obama admin was seeking to generate positive headlines, they'd stage a public execution by claming that Presidents have unlimited power to preserve order in a time of war (don't laugh, that argument has been made before).

The problem in all of this is how these idiots were treated initially. Was the thought process to just keep them locked up for 50 years with no trial? Even after there was no actionable intelligence to be gained anymore. :confused: There's no good options here, but they're no longer on a battle field, they're in US custody. That means they have to be treated by the laws of the country, and that means a trial. Even the worst, most dispicable mass murders had to face the US justice system. Other terrorists have had to face it. Personally, I feel better trusting the wisdom of the Founding Fathers when they set up our rule of laws than a bunch of right wing ideologues any day of the week unless you people suddenly know more than Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, etc. :rolleyes:

BTW - if any lawyer is caught breaking the law while serving as their defense, put them on trial too. If we stopped the justice system over that, we'd need 1000 Gitmo's around the country to hold all the inmates who have sleazeball lawyers.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Why are we even bothering to go through the time and expense to have a trial for this scumbag when he has already admitted his guilt and asked for the death penalty? :confused:
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

You two have a strange take on reality. If the Obama admin was seeking to generate positive headlines, they'd stage a public execution by claming that Presidents have unlimited power to preserve order in a time of war (don't laugh, that argument has been made before).

The problem in all of this is how these idiots were treated initially. Was the thought process to just keep them locked up for 50 years with no trial? Even after there was no actionable intelligence to be gained anymore. :confused: There's no good options here, but they're no longer on a battle field, they're in US custody. That means they have to be treated by the laws of the country, and that means a trial. Even the worst, most dispicable mass murders had to face the US justice system. Other terrorists have had to face it. Personally, I feel better trusting the wisdom of the Founding Fathers when they set up our rule of laws than a bunch of right wing ideologues any day of the week unless you people suddenly know more than Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, etc. :rolleyes:

BTW - if any lawyer is caught breaking the law while serving as their defense, put them on trial too. If we stopped the justice system over that, we'd need 1000 Gitmo's around the country to hold all the inmates who have sleazeball lawyers.

You really should reread your high school civics book. These people are "enemy combatants," a designation Eric Holder agreed with before the Senate. That means, among other things, they are NOT entitled to trials in civilian courts. They aren't citizens and they were captured on foreign battlefields by our military. If military tribunals are an unacceptable way of providing justice for these people, I believe your phrase was "bunch of right wing ideologues," then please tell me why they're okay for some terrorists but not others. And the "right wing ideologues" to whom you refer must include several supreme courts of the United States, all of which have upheld the consitutionality of military tribunals over the years. And Holder told the Senate yesterday that even if they're acquitted, they'll be returned to custody because THEY'RE ENEMY COMBATANTS.

I shouldn't have to point it out, but nevertheless will, that John Wayne Gacy was a U.S. citizen. Thus his status and that of every other native born mass murderer in our history is irrelevant to this discussion. Other terrorists faced civilian trials prior to 9/11 and Moussaoui (sp) after, he was captured on US soil.

The president and attorney general AREN'T interested in positive headlines, IMO, just the opposite. I assume that despite all the evidentiary problems
trying these people in civilian courts, that we'll get them convicted, eventually, and executed long after I'm dead.

But the ACLU ultra lefty lawyers defending them will put the government on trial. Not just any government. The government of George W. Bush. And the headlines will be about waterboarding, renditions, and all the rest. And will be the basis, these lawyers hope, for some sort of indictment against Bush/Cheney, probably in Spain or before the World Court. The ACLU plans to spend millions of dollars defending these killers, and their hope of getting Bush/Cheney indicted isn't paranoia, it is what they've publicly advocated.

It would certainly be appropriate to prosecute any communist lawyer like Lynne Stewart who would mule messages from KSM to his jihadi buddies, I'd prefer not to wait 'till that horse out of the corral. You evidently think that's a trivial matter, I disagree, and so does the judge who put that communist cow behind bars for her treachery.

KSM has confessed and has asked to plead guilty before a military tribunal after which he would be sentenced to death. Is there some possible better outcome from a civilian trial that I'm missing? And please don't feed me that horse collar about "setting an example" and that military tribunals will help jihadi recruitment. See my previous argument, if that were true then we shouldn't try any of 'em in front of tribunals. So the argument is "if only we had announced a civilian trial for KSM earlier, then "Dr." Hasan wouldn't have murdered 14 people at Fort Hood?" Strikes me as a bit naive.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

two words for this : OJ Simpson

As I said before, nope. But thanks for playing.

While it's true you never know what you'll get in a jury, it's also true that once you're charged in Federal Court, you're generally ****ed. The Feds don't screw around, and if it makes it to the point where you're charged under Federal law, you're pretty much assured of going to jail. The only question is going to be for how long.

We're not talking an overworked, bustling county courthouse with state judges. This won't be the 2nd coming of the OJ trial.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

As I said before, nope. But thanks for playing.

The question of the talent, determination, expertise and dedication of the federal lawyers involved in this prosecution is a strawman. No serious person I'm aware of has suggested they lack the talent and the will to win these cases. That's not an issue.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

You really should reread your high school civics book. These people are "enemy combatants," a designation Eric Holder agreed with before the Senate. That means, among other things, they are NOT entitled to trials in civilian courts. They aren't citizens and they were captured on foreign battlefields by our military. If military tribunals are an unacceptable way of providing justice for these people, I believe your phrase was "bunch of right wing ideologues," then please tell me why they're okay for some terrorists but not others. And the "right wing ideologues" to whom you refer must include several supreme courts of the United States, all of which have upheld the consitutionality of military tribunals over the years. And Holder told the Senate yesterday that even if they're acquitted, they'll be returned to custody because THEY'RE ENEMY COMBATANTS.

I shouldn't have to point it out, but nevertheless will, that John Wayne Gacy was a U.S. citizen. Thus his status and that of every other native born mass murderer in our history is irrelevant to this discussion. Other terrorists faced civilian trials prior to 9/11 and Moussaoui (sp) after, he was captured on US soil.

The president and attorney general AREN'T interested in positive headlines, IMO, just the opposite. I assume that despite all the evidentiary problems
trying these people in civilian courts, that we'll get them convicted, eventually, and executed long after I'm dead.

But the ACLU ultra lefty lawyers defending them will put the government on trial. Not just any government. The government of George W. Bush. And the headlines will be about waterboarding, renditions, and all the rest. And will be the basis, these lawyers hope, for some sort of indictment against Bush/Cheney, probably in Spain or before the World Court. The ACLU plans to spend millions of dollars defending these killers, and their hope of getting Bush/Cheney indicted isn't paranoia, it is what they've publicly advocated.

It would certainly be appropriate to prosecute any communist lawyer like Lynne Stewart who would mule messages from KSM to his jihadi buddies, I'd prefer not to wait 'till that horse out of the corral. You evidently think that's a trivial matter, I disagree, and so does the judge who put that communist cow behind bars for her treachery.

KSM has confessed and has asked to plead guilty before a military tribunal after which he would be sentenced to death. Is there some possible better outcome from a civilian trial that I'm missing? And please don't feed me that horse collar about "setting an example" and that military tribunals will help jihadi recruitment. See my previous argument, if that were true then we shouldn't try any of 'em in front of tribunals. So the argument is "if only we had announced a civilian trial for KSM earlier, then "Dr." Hasan wouldn't have murdered 14 people at Fort Hood?" Strikes me as a bit naive.

VERY Well said. Thank you!
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

You really should reread your high school civics book. These people are "enemy combatants," a designation Eric Holder agreed with before the Senate. That means, among other things, they are NOT entitled to trials in civilian courts. They aren't citizens and they were captured on foreign battlefields by our military. If military tribunals are an unacceptable way of providing justice for these people, I believe your phrase was "bunch of right wing ideologues," then please tell me why they're okay for some terrorists but not others. And the "right wing ideologues" to whom you refer must include several supreme courts of the United States, all of which have upheld the consitutionality of military tribunals over the years. And Holder told the Senate yesterday that even if they're acquitted, they'll be returned to custody because THEY'RE ENEMY COMBATANTS.

I shouldn't have to point it out, but nevertheless will, that John Wayne Gacy was a U.S. citizen. Thus his status and that of every other native born mass murderer in our history is irrelevant to this discussion. Other terrorists faced civilian trials prior to 9/11 and Moussaoui (sp) after, he was captured on US soil.

The president and attorney general AREN'T interested in positive headlines, IMO, just the opposite. I assume that despite all the evidentiary problems
trying these people in civilian courts, that we'll get them convicted, eventually, and executed long after I'm dead.

But the ACLU ultra lefty lawyers defending them will put the government on trial. Not just any government. The government of George W. Bush. And the headlines will be about waterboarding, renditions, and all the rest. And will be the basis, these lawyers hope, for some sort of indictment against Bush/Cheney, probably in Spain or before the World Court. The ACLU plans to spend millions of dollars defending these killers, and their hope of getting Bush/Cheney indicted isn't paranoia, it is what they've publicly advocated.

It would certainly be appropriate to prosecute any communist lawyer like Lynne Stewart who would mule messages from KSM to his jihadi buddies, I'd prefer not to wait 'till that horse out of the corral. You evidently think that's a trivial matter, I disagree, and so does the judge who put that communist cow behind bars for her treachery.

KSM has confessed and has asked to plead guilty before a military tribunal after which he would be sentenced to death. Is there some possible better outcome from a civilian trial that I'm missing? And please don't feed me that horse collar about "setting an example" and that military tribunals will help jihadi recruitment. See my previous argument, if that were true then we shouldn't try any of 'em in front of tribunals. So the argument is "if only we had announced a civilian trial for KSM earlier, then "Dr." Hasan wouldn't have murdered 14 people at Fort Hood?" Strikes me as a bit naive.

All of this rant is based on irrelevant BS and your own warped opinion.

Lets take a few points:

1) Who cares what KSM has asked for? He's subject to the US justice system's whims, not his own. Since when do we let the criminal dictate the trial. :rolleyes:

2) What does a civilian trial have to do with the Fort Hood situation? Desparate attempt at a strawman argument there.

3) Who says lawyers muling for a terrorist is a trivial matter? Lawyers have to interract with all kinds of insavory defendents and if any of them break the law there's a system in place to deal with them.

4) Your ACLU fixation is stupid. So is your own muling for the Bush administration. A fair trial is the cornerstone of our legal system, and I'll say again it was put in place by people far smarter than yourself. Where does your arrogance come from that you know more about how the legal system in this country should work than the Founding Fathers? I'm going to need a little more convincing on this one. :rolleyes:

5) Lastly, this has nothing to do with KSM's rights. What it has to do is what the United States stands for. A kangaroo trial at Gitmo isn't what this country is about. Putting people in court, regardless of how obviously guilty they may be, is how the system works, a system that's withstood far more serious crisis than this one. That's something the righties have never been able to figure out, and something a conservative court has repeatedly rebuked them on (you can't just hold people indefinitely forever at the President's whim). Much like how this country doesn't sanction torture. Its not out of sympathy for the criminal, its because that's not what the country was founded on. The problem is that due to actions taken previously, and subsequent court rulings, these idiots are now in limbo. The best solution is to send them through the legal system like previous terrorist prosecutions before them and close Gitmo because its doing far more harm than good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top