Author Topic: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?  (Read 18149 times)

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2009, 04:40:30 PM »
Quote
Yes, in a military court/tribunal.  Unlawful combatants have no business being tried in civil courts.

Again, I ask.

Do you think a confession drawn out by the extreme pain and distress caused by waterboarding is believable/valid?

Why do you think  waterboarding is not allowed as a means of eliciting confession in civilian courts?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2009, 05:18:30 PM »
Do you think a confession drawn out by the extreme pain and distress caused by waterboarding is believable/valid?

Depends.

If it is the only bit of evidence, or has weak supporting evidence, I (as a member of a military tribunal) would be loath to convict.  (Thereby granting it little validity.)

If it is of a part with other evidence and has been corroborated by other evidence, it would be helpful in determining guilt and possible punishment afterwards.

[The purpose of WB is not a confession, but gathering of intel.  Anything developed out of the intel gathering process may be used later in a tribunal, but if the confession developed no intel or nothing else ever corroborated it, I would doubt the confession's validity...just as I would doubt its intel value.]

Why do you think  waterboarding is not allowed as a means of eliciting confession in civilian courts?

Thee are many reasons, first and foremost being the purpose and circumstances are entirely different from a military tribunal.

1. Purpose: civil vs military

2. Circumstances: civil vs military

3. Tradition

4. Constitutional limits of gov't power over citizenry

I could go on..




FTR:
In a civil case, a confession in and of itself, given under NO duress, would likely not be enough for me to convict, if any other supporting evidence was not presented.  I would need the state to provide something more, at minimum, to show evidence that it was possible for the accused to be able to commit the crime (opportunity, physically capable, etc.).  In a civil court, the state must prove its case and one witness is awfully thin.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,860
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2009, 06:18:06 PM »
Again, I ask.

Do you think a confession drawn out by the extreme pain and distress caused by waterboarding is believable/valid?

Why do you think  waterboarding is not allowed as a means of eliciting confession in civilian courts?
Did they use the waterboarding to get confessions?  Or to get additional information about Al Queda?  I thought it was the latter.

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,860
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2009, 06:20:16 PM »
I believe I also saw the Eric Holder was a partner in or worked for the law firm that is representing a lot of the Gitmo guys. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2009, 09:41:14 PM »
Mak, others, there is a major problem with this argument about military inquiries:  You don't need to actually be a member of Al Qaeda to end up accused of terrorism.  All that needs to happen is for someone in the executive branch to label you a terrorist.

So all those extraordinary measures used to capture these guys would be just as much a threat to you and I under a military commission or a civilian trial; either way, letting those methods go un-challenged means that you can be tossed in a hole for the rest of your life simply because someone accused you of terrorism.

There is a half-decent argument for putting these people through military courts, but of course, Bush refused to allow that.  That's why Gitmo exists in the first place; to create a legal fiction that avoided both civilian and military justice.

Military courts are subject to constitutional standards of criminal procedure as well as civilian courts.  They have to give people a chance to challenge accusers, present a defense, and go before a neutral fact-finder.  At the end of the day, there will be very little real-world difference in these trials whether they go through the military or the civilian systems.

The problem so far is that the Government has denied both.  If your fears are about criminal protections, you need to recognise that a court martial will not strip defendants of those protections, and the same matters will come out. 

The issue here is whether or not there is a genuine trial of any kind, not whether it should be military or civilian.  Once you've accepted that there should be a trial, there is no basis for claiming that civilian trials will destroy the military but courts martial won't.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2009, 09:55:53 PM »
I'd accept denying rights to those who A. are not American citizens & B. are in an active warzone.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2009, 09:58:06 PM »
I'd accept denying rights to those who A. are not American citizens & B. are in an active warzone.

Neither of those features is necessary to declare someone an "enemy combatant" under the Bush policy.  People who were American citizens and not in an active warzone could be (and actually were) detained and subjected to "enhanced interrogation" without any sort of judicial inquiry, military or civilian.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,860
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2009, 10:01:32 PM »
Who?  And what do you define as "enhanced" interrogation? 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2009, 10:05:25 PM »
Neither of those features is necessary to declare someone an "enemy combatant" under the Bush policy.  People who were American citizens and not in an active warzone could be (and actually were) detained and subjected to "enhanced interrogation" without any sort of judicial inquiry, military or civilian.

I've been saying the Patriot Act would be used against domestic dissenters since it was first passed. That I oppose vehemently. But if it were only foreign nationals captured in warzones, I'd have no problem with no trial. Torture is still out though.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2009, 01:37:21 AM »
Who?  And what do you define as "enhanced" interrogation? 

I would say sleep deprivation, audio blasting, sensory deprivation, threats to kill family members, and waterboarding fall under that category.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2009, 01:38:16 AM »
I've been saying the Patriot Act would be used against domestic dissenters since it was first passed. That I oppose vehemently. But if it were only foreign nationals captured in warzones, I'd have no problem with no trial. Torture is still out though.

Here's the issue: the purpose of a trial is to ensure that the facts which support punishment are straight.  It's the same injustice to punish someone who did nothing wrong whether or not that person is a citizen.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2009, 01:41:43 AM »
Here's the issue: the purpose of a trial is to ensure that the facts which support punishment are straight.  It's the same injustice to punish someone who did nothing wrong whether or not that person is a citizen.

For the record, I support the same standard for citizens captured on the battlefield. If you're captured while fighting against the armed forces you forfeit the right to a trial imho. Obviously not the same as people taken who were not on the battlefield, so don't bring that up as it's not what I'm speaking about.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2009, 01:47:34 AM »
For the record, I support the same standard for citizens captured on the battlefield. If you're captured while fighting against the armed forces you forfeit the right to a trial imho. Obviously not the same as people taken who were not on the battlefield, so don't bring that up as it's not what I'm speaking about.

Well, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example, wasn't captured on the battle field.  Most of the 9/11 suspects wouldn't have been.

I'm not sure why it is you think people on the battlefield shouldn't have any rights either.  It's possible that innocent people are out there in war zones having nothing to do with the war.  Why wouldn't you want those people to have an opportunity to prove they've done nothing wrong?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2009, 09:24:21 AM »
Again with the false dichotomy of either criminal trials or no justice at all.  Why?  For more than 2 centuries in our country the correct alternative for a situation like this has been to use a military trial.

KSM was captured on the battlefield during a Pakistani military raid.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 09:30:16 AM by Headless Thompson Gunner »

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2009, 10:22:34 AM »
Again with the false dichotomy of either criminal trials or no justice at all.  Why?  For more than 2 centuries in our country the correct alternative for a situation like this has been to use a military trial.

KSM was captured on the battlefield during a Pakistani military raid.



Military trials prohibit torture and have all the same basic protections that are purported to be the problem here, so that's not really the issue.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured on the battlefield, what isn't a battlefield?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2009, 10:41:34 AM »
Since Holder decision brings the whole concept of war on terror (questionable premise) into the US civilian legal system, does this mean an Al Qaeda goon in one of the 'Stans can file for an injunction in US federal court to stop the US military from "assassinating" AQ poobahs using predator strikes?   

My opinion (for whatever it is worth) is Holder's decision is a dagger into the heart of the US intelligence system.  It will be far more effective in neutralizing intelligence gathering than the Church Commission ever was.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,237
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2009, 11:00:27 AM »
Thomas Sowell has some interesting thoughts on the subject:

--------------
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/17/bowing_to_world_opinion__99181.html

November 17, 2009
Bowing to "World Opinion"
By Thomas Sowell

In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it.


But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents. The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense-- information that told the Al Qaeda international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime-- something for which people have been executed, as they should have been. Secrecy in warfare is a matter of life and death. Lives were risked and lost during World War II to prevent Nazi Germany from discovering that Britain had broken its supposedly unbreakable Enigma code and could read their military plans that were being radioed in that code.

"Loose lips sink ships" was the World War II motto in the United States. But loose lips are mandated under the rules of criminal prosecutions.

Tragically, this administration seems hell-bent to avoid seeing acts of terrorism against the United States as acts of war. The very phrase "war on terrorism" is avoided, as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.

The mindset of the left behind such thinking was spelled out in an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, which said that "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, will be tried the right way-- the American way, in a federal courtroom where the world will see both his guilt and the nation's adherence to the rule of law."

This is not the rule of law but the application of laws to situations for which they were not designed.

How many Americans may pay with their lives for the intelligence secrets and methods that can forced to be disclosed to Al Qaeda was not mentioned. Nor was there mention of how many foreign nations and individuals whose cooperation with us in the war on terror have been involved in countering Al Qaeda-- nor how many foreign nations and individuals will have to think twice now, before cooperating with us again, when their role can be revealed in court to our enemies, who can exact revenge on them.

Behind this decision and others is the notion that we have to demonstrate our good faith to other nations, sometimes called "world opinion." Just who are these saintly nations whose favor we must curry, at the risk of American lives and the national security of the United States?

Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations. Yet this is the gallery to which Barack Obama has been playing, both before and after becoming President of the United States.

In the wake of the obscenity of a trial of terrorists in federal court for an act of war-- and the worldwide propaganda platform it will give them-- it may seem to be a small thing that President Obama has been photographed yet again bowing deeply to a foreign ruler. But how large or small an act is depends on its actual consequences, not on whether the politically correct intelligentsia think it is no big deal.

As a private citizen, Barack Obama has a right to make as big a jackass of himself as he wants to. But, as President of the United States, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are-- which in turn raises questions about whether those nations will consider themselves better off to make the best deal they can with our enemies.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #42 on: November 18, 2009, 12:50:46 PM »
Quote
Criminal Defense 101:  When you have no defense, you put the prosecution on trial.

The United States of America is going to be on trial here, not the terrorists.  This is going to be a case against the CIA, against the military, against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice, and against national sovereignty.  

This is exactly what Obama wants.  He gets to stomp all over America and his political adversaries, and he gets to present himself as if he's doing something noble and just in the process.  

Ya gotta admit, it's a brilliant move on Obama's part.  It's evil in its intentions, but brilliant in execution.

Obama wouldn't be the first would-be tyrant to be "brilliant;" trouble is, this kind of brilliance doesn't last. He may shine with his crowd but he will continue to alienate and infuriate a growing mass of Americans with these destructive antics.  You can't govern a country with half or more of the people despising you, not unless you plan on erecting a massive police state and have the will and the means to enforce it.

Me, I think Obama and his bunch outsmarted themselves on this one.  Hubris will do that to ya.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2009, 12:57:27 PM »
Military trials prohibit torture and have all the same basic protections that are purported to be the problem here, so that's not really the issue.

If it isn't an issue, if it doesn't matter, then why not keep them in military courts where they belong?  Why this farce of pretending that they're criminals who need a civilian trial, endangering and undermining the United States in the process? 

If it's no issue, why do you persist in your fallacy of claiming that it must be criminal courts or no justice at all?

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,860
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2009, 01:12:15 PM »
Rush just played an Obama sound bite where Obama said the 911 guy would be convicted and given the death penalty.  He had to backtrack when asked to clarify though.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2009, 01:15:35 PM »
One thing this trial will do is call attention to the checkered history of Eric Holder and his former law firm.  That won't help Pres. Obama one jot.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2009, 02:13:40 PM »
At first glance what Obama & Holder are doing makes no sense politically.  Far more to lose than to gain.

But...consider it a swing for the fences, an attempt to scramble legal process and destroy the intelligence establishment if it succeeds.  The Left wants to permanently and peremptorily neutralize our war-waging capacity by ensnaring it within a legal briarpatch.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #48 on: November 18, 2009, 06:20:20 PM »
A few more factoids just surfaced which adds texture to Holder's decision.

==Gov. Patterson of Noo Yark knew 6 months ago the trials would be moved to the city.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574541833250894194.html

==Holder is a partner in the law firm Covington & Burling whose fame is partially based in legal representation of 17 Gitmo inmates.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/23/pay-attention-to-eric-holders-law-firm-and-gitmo-detainees/



"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

brimic

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,270
Re: Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?
« Reply #49 on: November 18, 2009, 06:39:41 PM »
If he isn't there already, this has the potential of making Obama the biggest fool of a President since Carter._______?
"now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" -Dark Helmet

"AK47's belong in the hands of soldiers mexican drug cartels"-
Barack Obama