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.
Every defence lawyer in the US is going into a feeding frenzy just thinking about the publicity they'd get, defending these chumps. It's insane to try these monsters in public.
"CanadianJeff" said Let them try their case. This is North America. If they are innocent let them prove it.
*Cough* Technically they are innocent until proven guilty. And thus why many people see this as a political decision to try these individuals here, and not as a legal one. Unlike other terrorists who were tried within the United States (McVeigh, or the World Trade Center bombings) many of these individuals were captured in Afghanistan, and soldiers do not have CSI/CSU teams scrounging battlefields for evidence.
These individuals can spew as much garbage as they want, because whatever evidence there might be against them will probably be tossed out under civilian legal code.
"commanderkai" said Let them try their case. This is North America. If they are innocent let them prove it.
*Cough* Technically they are innocent until proven guilty. And thus why many people see this as a political decision to try these individuals here, and not as a legal one. Unlike other terrorists who were tried within the United States (McVeigh, or the World Trade Center bombings) many of these individuals were captured in Afghanistan, and soldiers do not have CSI/CSU teams scrounging battlefields for evidence.
These individuals can spew as much garbage as they want, because whatever evidence there might be against them will probably be tossed out under civilian legal code.
Yes, but the crimes were committed on American soil against American citizens.
It's also safe to assume that the Dept. of justice has considered that any evidence obtained through torture will be inadmissable and that they have other, legally obtained evidence. In the case of KSM, he had told interrogatorss a good deal before he was tortured.
"xerxes" said Yes, but the crimes were committed on American soil against American citizens.
It's also safe to assume that the Dept. of justice has considered that any evidence obtained through torture will be inadmissable and that they have other, legally obtained evidence. In the case of KSM, he had told interrogatorss a good deal before he was tortured.
Maybe, but any defense attorney, I'm sure, will argue that because he wasn't told nor granted his Miranda rights, that any information can be tossed out quickly, even if they were obtained without any torture at all.
Now, they're being given a soapbox to tell the world anything, and everything. This was a political decision, and it will probably be one that will bite the Obama administration in the ass as the trial begins.
And what will they tell? That they were tortured? That's on the public record already. All that's left after that is raving about the evils of America and about global jihad. Again, it's nothing anyone hasn't heard before and it won't do the defendants any favours.
What do we stand to gain? Are the terrorists and their palls going to change their minds because we gave them a fair trial? Definately now. In their minds, it's just a show of weekeness.
If these terrorists suddenly vanish without another word, will anyone shed a tear or cry out for justice? I doubt it and if they do, their hardly the folks who people put much credability in. There is simply no win here.
"ridenrain" said What do we stand to gain? Are the terrorists and their palls going to change their minds because we gave them a fair trial? Definately now. In their minds, it's just a show of weekeness.
If these terrorists suddenly vanish without another word, will anyone shed a tear or cry out for justice? I doubt it and if they do, their hardly the folks who people put much credability in. There is simply no win here.
The freedoms you wish to remove from undesirables and or criminals are the freedoms that were fought for by Canadians past and present.
A little service to support freedom might lessen your will to remove it so quickly.
"xerxes" said And what will they tell? That they were tortured? That's on the public record already.
Sure, but that will, once again, toss every ounce of evidence the United States government has against them. A military trial would keep the evidence and keep away the media circus that's being created.
All that's left after that is raving about the evils of America and about global jihad. Again, it's nothing anyone hasn't heard before and it won't do the defendants any favours.
Not in the United States, but who knows what this might cause within the Muslim world. Obama will be making OJ Simpsons out of these terrorists, because if they plead not guilty, there is no way any evidence the United States has won't be tainted with the "torture" label, and you'll be granting these bozos a soapbox to claim who knows what. I expect the words CIA, Zionist, and Mossad will be common out of their mouths.
This nonsense is just more ideological anti-Obama sleaze from the right-wingers who take their talking points direct from FOX news. In otherword it's the usual lies, distortions, and total bullshit the rest of us unfortunately have had to become accustomed with. For anyone interested in the actual , here's an article and list of major terrorist figures, both pre- and post-9/11, who were successfully prosecuted and imprisoned to lengthy or life-long terms in US federal prison:
�Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted, 1996, U.S. District Court (before then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey*) -- plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S. (currently: U.S. prison, Butler, North Carolina);
�Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted, 2006, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Richard Reid, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- attempting to blow up U.S.-bound jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Jose Padilla, convicted, 2007, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Iyman Faris a/k/a/ Mohammad Rauf, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support and resources to Al-Qaeda, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts on behalf of Al Qaeda (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Ali Saleh al-Marri, accused Al Qaeda operative -- not yet tried, held as "unlawful enemy combatant" (currently: U.S. Naval Brig, Hanahan, South Carolina);
�Masoud Khan, convicted, 2004, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism as part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Islamic jihad (currently: U.S. prison, Terre Haute, Indiana);
�John Walker Lindh, convicted, 2002, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support to the Taliban (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado).
*Mukaskey is currently one off the twits running around on outlets like FOX claiming that the federal trials in New York are now somehow the wrong thing to do.
Nice try at getting the actual reality tossed down the memory hole, Beckheads, but it didn't work this time. Given your pathetic batting average every time you guys try this type juvenile and silly political stunt, your next attempts at deliberate distortion of truth will assuredly end up failing just as miserably.
When the scrape the flest off the road to bury then with pig grease that will prohibit tem from the 72 virgins and rives of honey.
if not then you'll forgive me if I cheer as this means they will get a harder sentence most likely then pleading guilty in the first place.
Let them try their case. This is North America. If they are innocent let them prove it.
*Cough* Technically they are innocent until proven guilty. And thus why many people see this as a political decision to try these individuals here, and not as a legal one. Unlike other terrorists who were tried within the United States (McVeigh, or the World Trade Center bombings) many of these individuals were captured in Afghanistan, and soldiers do not have CSI/CSU teams scrounging battlefields for evidence.
These individuals can spew as much garbage as they want, because whatever evidence there might be against them will probably be tossed out under civilian legal code.
Let them try their case. This is North America. If they are innocent let them prove it.
*Cough* Technically they are innocent until proven guilty. And thus why many people see this as a political decision to try these individuals here, and not as a legal one. Unlike other terrorists who were tried within the United States (McVeigh, or the World Trade Center bombings) many of these individuals were captured in Afghanistan, and soldiers do not have CSI/CSU teams scrounging battlefields for evidence.
These individuals can spew as much garbage as they want, because whatever evidence there might be against them will probably be tossed out under civilian legal code.
Yes, but the crimes were committed on American soil against American citizens.
It's also safe to assume that the Dept. of justice has considered that any evidence obtained through torture will be inadmissable and that they have other, legally obtained evidence. In the case of KSM, he had told interrogatorss a good deal before he was tortured.
Yes, but the crimes were committed on American soil against American citizens.
It's also safe to assume that the Dept. of justice has considered that any evidence obtained through torture will be inadmissable and that they have other, legally obtained evidence. In the case of KSM, he had told interrogatorss a good deal before he was tortured.
Maybe, but any defense attorney, I'm sure, will argue that because he wasn't told nor granted his Miranda rights, that any information can be tossed out quickly, even if they were obtained without any torture at all.
Now, they're being given a soapbox to tell the world anything, and everything. This was a political decision, and it will probably be one that will bite the Obama administration in the ass as the trial begins.
Are the terrorists and their palls going to change their minds because we gave them a fair trial? Definately now. In their minds, it's just a show of weekeness.
If these terrorists suddenly vanish without another word, will anyone shed a tear or cry out for justice? I doubt it and if they do, their hardly the folks who people put much credability in.
There is simply no win here.
What do we stand to gain?
Are the terrorists and their palls going to change their minds because we gave them a fair trial? Definately now. In their minds, it's just a show of weekeness.
If these terrorists suddenly vanish without another word, will anyone shed a tear or cry out for justice? I doubt it and if they do, their hardly the folks who people put much credability in.
There is simply no win here.
The freedoms you wish to remove from undesirables and or criminals are the freedoms that were fought for by Canadians past and present.
A little service to support freedom might lessen your will to remove it so quickly.
And what will they tell? That they were tortured? That's on the public record already.
Sure, but that will, once again, toss every ounce of evidence the United States government has against them. A military trial would keep the evidence and keep away the media circus that's being created.
Not in the United States, but who knows what this might cause within the Muslim world. Obama will be making OJ Simpsons out of these terrorists, because if they plead not guilty, there is no way any evidence the United States has won't be tainted with the "torture" label, and you'll be granting these bozos a soapbox to claim who knows what. I expect the words CIA, Zionist, and Mossad will be common out of their mouths.
�Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted, 1996, U.S. District Court (before then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey*) -- plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S. (currently: U.S. prison, Butler, North Carolina);
�Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted, 2006, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Richard Reid, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- attempting to blow up U.S.-bound jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Jose Padilla, convicted, 2007, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Iyman Faris a/k/a/ Mohammad Rauf, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support and resources to Al-Qaeda, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts on behalf of Al Qaeda (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
�Ali Saleh al-Marri, accused Al Qaeda operative -- not yet tried, held as "unlawful enemy combatant" (currently: U.S. Naval Brig, Hanahan, South Carolina);
�Masoud Khan, convicted, 2004, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism as part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Islamic jihad (currently: U.S. prison, Terre Haute, Indiana);
�John Walker Lindh, convicted, 2002, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support to the Taliban (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado).
*Mukaskey is currently one off the twits running around on outlets like FOX claiming that the federal trials in New York are now somehow the wrong thing to do.
Nice try at getting the actual reality tossed down the memory hole, Beckheads, but it didn't work this time. Given your pathetic batting average every time you guys try this type juvenile and silly political stunt, your next attempts at deliberate distortion of truth will assuredly end up failing just as miserably.