Criminal Trials for Terrorists

[Hermit]

I guess that is my other issue. It keeps being said that we are chaning our policy by holding a tribunal when in fact we are just following protocol when we do. It is the act of giving this non citizen a citizen's trial that is changing anything. I also understand about paranoia an reacting to it. But there is a difference between acting on paranoia and acting on the fact that it will happen again. Besides, any process that threatens to release any confidential information is nonsense. At what point do we protect the lives of Americans over the lives of foreigners.

I can definitely understand that angle. (btw didn't that Massousi-whatsit guy get a trial in Virginia a few years ago? I can't remember... anyways...)

Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota.

[gnossos]

Thank you for the spelling correction!

You're right, but according to Wikipedia he was tried in Virginia

"On December 11, 2001, Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_M ... sentencing

Not that it really matters, I'm just pleased that I got it right

I do think that this is relevant however:

"Moussaoui made requests for access to confidential documents and the right to call captive al-Qaeda members as witnesses, notably Binalshibh, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. Both requests were claimed by prosecutors to be potential threats to national security. Brinkema denied the motion to access confidential documents, although Moussaoui was permitted to use several al-Qaeda prisoners as witnesses."

Basically if the US is denying citizens and news agencies the rights to documents based on national security, they aren't about to grant them to known terrorists to grandstand them. Like I said, it might not be the best (I really don't know what would be) but I don't think we have a ton to lose from this process. Remember the last major terrorist to get released on a technicality?

Exactly.

[Hermit]

Basically if the US is denying citizens and news agencies the rights to documents based on national security, they aren't about to grant them to known terrorists to grandstand them. Like I said, it might not be the best (I really don't know what would be) but I don't think we have a ton to lose from this process. Remember the last major terrorist to get released on a technicality?

Exactly.

Mebbie so, but whatdayawannabet they call Bush and Cheney as witnesses?
Which is a big motivation for this fiasco; put the Bush Administration on trial.

[gnossos]

also interesting is that we all kind of want them to die, but that's exactly what they want. The extremists believe the more suffering they take and death by an enemy hand will grant them a better afterlife. It won't (I'm not religious actually, we all go to the same place in my head), but it sort of irks me to give them what they want. I kind of just want to let them chill in a max security prison with access to the really pissed off general population. The Islamic Brotherhood behind bars wouldn't be able to stop the rest if KSM was in there. Dude would get traded around for spare cigarettes, and the pissed off New York guards meant to stop it? Yeah, they're totally going to do that. This leads in to a different debate a bit, in my eyes, but let's be honest in this case. The guards would be granting dudes a blind eye if the did horrible things to KSM, hell, they would probably pay them in cigarettes and protection and possibly suggest it themselves. I hope he isn't executed and has to go to a max prison.

[gnossos]

Basically if the US is denying citizens and news agencies the rights to documents based on national security, they aren't about to grant them to known terrorists to grandstand them. Like I said, it might not be the best (I really don't know what would be) but I don't think we have a ton to lose from this process. Remember the last major terrorist to get released on a technicality?

Exactly.

Mebbie so, but whatdayawannabet they call Bush and Cheney as witnesses?
Which is a big motivation for this fiasco; put the Bush Administration on trial.

Cheney has already ignored subpoenas from US institutions. Much less terrorists.

I think that if this is a trial for the Bush admin it is trial by proxy. We may reject torture and extraordinary rendition, but this is a method of doing it without dragging Bush and Cheney before a grand jury. It's stamping out an ideology rather than imprisoning those responsible for - well, I think crimes, but you may not. I think that within our system, even as a bit of an outsider (I don't really love the Left either, I just like them better) this is a potent way of saying to the world that we reject those practices without actually having to be arsed to bring the people responsible into courtrooms. Cheney and Bush are going to live the rest of their lives in peace and in wealth. Unless Cheney keeps on getting on th' tee vee spouting fear. I really think he would do well to pull a Bush and just stay quiet and get forgotten real quick. No one will remember and it isn't like we're about to put a president or vice-president in an actual jail. That simply isn't going to happen. I will eat my hat if that happens. And I want it to happen, so that should give you an idea.

It may be a trial of Bush year policies, but I will probably immediately foul my drawers if they become directly involved.

[DerikC]

They care not for our civilized ways, only that they want to destroy them. SO yes, lets try to make a nice gesture for peace, and then they will gladly bomb us again. What a joke.
As far as our image to the world, whatever. We will never have a good image until we bend to their standards. But why should we bend to their standard, we are our own country and we were the ones attacked, not them.

We aren't that civilized. Case in point: When they attacked us, we invaded two sovereign nations. We didn't attack Al-Qaeda, we attacked Afghanistan, and when that got too hard we attacked Iraq.

Another point I don't understand, is why people are so against the detainees in Gitmo being released into the US prison system. It's not like our prisons are plots of land with a white picket fence and a Nerf gun armed guard. They're not going to escape or get away, and like Gnossos said they'll probably be ripped apart.

[jms]

They care not for our civilized ways, only that they want to destroy them. SO yes, lets try to make a nice gesture for peace, and then they will gladly bomb us again. What a joke.
As far as our image to the world, whatever. We will never have a good image until we bend to their standards. But why should we bend to their standard, we are our own country and we were the ones attacked, not them.

We aren't that civilized. Case in point: When they attacked us, we invaded two sovereign nations. We didn't attack Al-Qaeda, we attacked Afghanistan, and when that got too hard we attacked Iraq.

Another point I don't understand, is why people are so against the detainees in Gitmo being released into the US prison system. It's not like our prisons are plots of land with a white picket fence and a Nerf gun armed guard. They're not going to escape or get away, and like Gnossos said they'll probably be ripped apart.

And I suppose we should pay to support his family while our tax dollars are assuring him 3 squares a day. Maybe the extra funds the 9/11 victims families got can help with the extra cost.

[ewlewis]

"Why can't we put them in general polulation?" I don't know, maybe because there they could recruit more members, who woul have a realease date and be citizens of our own country. THen they would be able to have more Fort Hood attacks, that would be great right?

[gnossos]

welllll

we are already paying with our tax dollars to detain and feed them. I would be concerned about recruitment efforts as the Islamic Brotherhood does hold some influence in there, but I don't know what kind of extremism is there, I get the impression that a lot of people who convert to Islam in prison do it as like a meditative / peaceful thing. And yeah I think every other group in there would be gunning for anyone giving protection

Actually now that I think of it a month or so ago a story broke about Blackwater / Xe being put in charge of a prison out west and they were acting as the town's police force. I wonder if the plan is to simply house them in the country but keep them isolated as a distinct group. I wouldn't be overly shocked.

[ewlewis]

must apologize, my last comment was a little insulting and shoudl have been worded differently

[gnossos]

I for one have thicker skin than that, no worries

[Carlos]

They are trying to bring them to Illinois and put them in a prison that is almost empty. Could mean a bunch of jobs for fellow Illinoisans.

Right or wrong, we got them. Now it's like the Tar Baby. We cannot get rid of them. I have said elsewhere that the easy solution is to fly them back to Afghanistan. Oops! Not enough money for fuel to fly all the way. Boot them out over the Sargasso sea and let them swim the rest of the way.

[gnossos]

lol I like this idea, but let's be humane and not dump them over the sea, OK? We could strap C-4 to them and turn them into crazy Kamikaze paratroopers! They get their wish for dying in holy war, we get our wish of Blowing Shit Up (tm)!

[Hermit]

MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: A NATIONWIDE SHAMING
"So, Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for one of the accused terrorists behind 9/11, has announced that the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
So basically, it's not going to be a trial, but an "Inside the Actor's Studio" for terrorists. Just yards from where thousands of innocent Americans perished, we'll all get to understand the motivations that drove these men to do what they did. I mean, since we know they're not going to deny their guilt– it's no longer about justice. It's just about "why, why, why." We'll learn exciting things about their childhood, their dreams of martyrdom, and how evil America is. It will be a show trial, without the "trial" part.
God, if only someone could have seen this coming.
Oh, wait...we all saw this coming. The only people who didn't? Those who let it happen.
There are three reasons for that:
-One, those people are stupid.
-Two. There's a belief shared by the "why do they hate us" faction of America that we are equally responsible for the terror attack. If we were just better people - nicer, less successful and less "American" - no one would try to kill us! Replacing Bush with Obama was supposed to help with all that. It didn't.
-Three, we've elected people consumed by the idea of root causes – a pseudo-intellectual exercise that prevents a real understanding of evil actions. Every culprit can tell a story, but by listening to that story, you insult each and every one of his victims. But to abort any argument based on root causes, simply say, "there are plenty of unhappy people who don't fly planes into buildings." Of course that's just too sensible for the best and the brightest.
My solution for this upcoming trial? A nationwide "shaming." Don't report, don't decide. If we all agree to act as if the trial does not exist, then we can at least corral the poison that these people wish to spread. Our government may have given them the soapbox, but we can kick it out from under them."

[ewlewis]

Amen

[gnossos]

I don't really think anyone will be overly sympathetic that their mommies and daddies beat them and we're the great evil oil seekers. I mean you can feel that we do things wrong in the name of getting oil and understand that motivation but nothing justifies such an act.

Frankly if they're pleading guilty I don't really know why this is going on, I don't really know normal procedure for pleading guilty, does any sort of case need to be made, or shouldn't this just go to sentencing? I suppose the story is meant to influence sentencing but arsed if it's gonna.

[Hermit]

They aren't pleading guilty.
America on trial. Here we go...



Lawyer: 9/11 Defendants Will Tell Jury 'Why They Did It'
Monday, November 23, 2009
AP

NEW YORK — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

[DerikC]

Two things. One, I hate Fox News. Two, their program "Redeye" is perhaps their most intellectually devoid piece of garbage aired.

-One, those people are stupid.
-Two. There's a belief shared by the "why do they hate us" faction of America that we are equally responsible for the terror attack. If we were just better people - nicer, less successful and less "American" - no one would try to kill us! Replacing Bush with Obama was supposed to help with all that. It didn't.
-Three, we've elected people consumed by the idea of root causes – a pseudo-intellectual exercise that prevents a real understanding of evil actions. Every culprit can tell a story, but by listening to that story, you insult each and every one of his victims. But to abort any argument based on root causes, simply say, "there are plenty of unhappy people who don't fly planes into buildings." Of course that's just too sensible for the best and the brightest.

One, people wanting to give someone a fair trial are not stupid. Guilty people are guilty, so a fair trial lets them defend themselves appropriately before they're locked away for a very, very long time.

Two, the faction isn't "why". We know why they hate us. The roots go back to the '70s with the cluster$%#& of coups on our part, oil, dictators in our pocket etc. Plus there's the whole "We're invading two of their countries in the region" thing that is kept quiet. They don't hate us because we're successful, they don't hate us for our democracy or our McDonald's. They hate us because we're killing them, and we're doing it because a couple of nut jobs with no connections to the state hatched an evil plot.

"Replacing Bush with Obama was supposed to help with all that. It didn't." That makes no sense. Obama has drastically improved our world image in one year. Iran immediately showed progress toward letting UN inspectors do their job. And to revive a right wing argument; no terror attacks have occurred on American soil since Obama's presidency began.

Three, again, we're not going to let them go no matter what their reasons were. All we're doing is keeping our dealings with them open and public so the world can see we're not torturing them before we send them off to rot. Which they will.

[ewlewis]

Oh Derik how off I feel you are.
First they do hate us for many things, and some of them that you list are true, but the idea that we invaded their country and killed their fellow citizens is a stretch. Remember they attacked first. Their hate for us is older than anyone alive. If you use the Old Testament as your measure you will see that Abraham had two sons, one a bastard son and the one a legitimate. Their names were Ishmael and Isaac. There was some rivalry that occurred and Isaac ended up with the birth right which ticked off Ishmael. It ws then said that the decendents of thee two men would fight for all time. Today the Muslim religion draws its heritage back to Ishmael, and Judeo Christian draws back to Isaac. Why many may not believe in the Bible believe in this history because we continue to see it played out tody. Why do think that Obam a went on his Apology Tour and told the world America is not a Christian nation, he understands the fuel in the Muslim fire.
Then you went on to say that Obama has improved our image, you may want to slow down that train. What may seem to be approval from other nations may just be a slow play for weakness. We would be ignorant if they have not already figured out that our nations is falling apart and Obama is now some to blame. For goodness sakes even the people over at SNL have figured this out with their recent skit of Obama and Jintao. Not to mention that Obama's lack of leadership in Afganistan can only be seen as wekaness.
To the issue of no terroist attacks since Obama, let me correct you. There is something that jsut happened that is known as Fort Hood.
Truth be told, Obama is no better than anyother president we have ever had and with his out of control spending he is in some ways worse. But to the topic of these trial, I feel that we need to stop worrying about what the world thinks about us and make sure that we do what is right for America.

[gnossos]

They didn't attack first depending upon the definition of "attack". 9-11 wasn't the start of our involvement in the Middle East, Derick is right. We've been screwing them, hard, for a long time. This gives me no sympathy for their actions but it might be a bit of a heads up that propping up dictators isn't always the best idea.

Obama is announcing his plan on Dec 1. Also I don't really know how you can decry out of control spending if you supported bush in any way shape or form. Or government expansion, government expanded more in 8 years than it had in the previous 30.

I don't think anyone is going to be sympathetic to their case. More likely people like me and Derick will understand where they're coming from but still feel no sympathy, most will end up thinking they're even crazier evil conspiracy nuts than they think supposed.