Upcoming 9/11 Trial

[BeFree]

Why is there a push to keep it in military court and not let a regular court hear the cases?

DU thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7850718

[KDLarsen]

1. Because noone wants to host the trial?

The NY politicians have pretty much turned on a silver dime, after some local business owners in southern Manhattan expressed annoyance that they would lose business, due to the most likely heightened security surrounding the trials.

[BeFree]

2. It is obvious

Cheney does not want a fair and open trial. If there were a fair and open trial the torture program would be exposed and the secrets of 9/11 would be aired for all the world to see.

How could any supporter of the OCT could be in favor of an open trial?

[LARED]

3. Are all militiary trials closed?

Also what part of the torture program do you think remains hidden?

[SDuderstadt]

4. You mean like the Moussaoui (sp) trial?

That kind of open trial? According to you, I am an "OCT" supporter (whatever that means) and I support an open trial.

Kinda blows your little smear all to hell, dude.

[Ohio Joe]

20. Ummm, what?

So... President Obama wants a federal trial but no one wants to host it so cheney is behind that to keep the torture that everyone knows about secret and that would expose 9/11?

:wtf:

[BeFree]

5. Moussaoui trial: secrets exposed

In the Moussaoui trial, the secrets of how the CIA somehow "messed up" and
allowed the perps to go free, as found on this link by Duer rschop:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=280053&mesg_id=282162

So why would they want to open up another can of worms? Best for bushco keep it hidden?

[SDuderstadt]

6. So, are you accusing the Obama administration...

of being part of "Bushco", dude?

Does Eric Holder report to w?

[BeFree]

7. Liz Cheney

She is all over the news pushing to keep torture hidden and the trials from being a sign of American justice to the whole world.

Ya think Dick might be just a wee-bit worried that something may pop up and bite him on the ass?

[SDuderstadt]

8. Dude...

last I checked, Liz Cheney does not tell the Obama administration what to do, so you can hardly attribute the actions of either Obam or Eric Holder.

Serious question: do you understand how our government actually works?

[BeFree]

9. Why now? Why not drop it?

Who would care if the Obama administration just dropped it? Sure, the ACLU would be disappointed, but they are perpetually disappointed.

So why is Obama pushing this?

My theory is that he wants the truth about bushco to come forth. And this is his way of making it so. He knows the heat would come down on him: witness the Cheney attacks. So he might be taking the 'attack at the edges' tactic, instead of head on.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Serious question...

do you understand how our government actually works?

If the administration bows to local pressure and resorts to a military trial, didn't you earlier claim that would benefit Cheney?

[zappaman]

11. I don't know about anyone else

but I know how the government works.
See, it's all about sleight of hand or as some call it..."MAGIC".
BushCo(an evil cabal composed of Bush, Cheney, every one in the administration during, before and after their reign), the NYPD, the NYFD, the senate, the house of representatives, the air force, the navy, the coast guard, the survivors of the attacks, the "witnesses" to the attacks, every single news organization, every head of state of every country and, lastly...myself, covered up the single biggest attack on the United States by making gullible folks believe that somehow 19 trained Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airplanes and flew them into buildings.
I've been editing video for close to 25 years and let me tell you, it was not easy building these special effects, but with the cooperation of thousands...oops...make that MILLIONS of others, we have managed to pull it off.
The "truthers" are getting close and I, for one, am getting worried.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Just remember the location of the "safe house"....

I will PM the password to you later. Make sure to use encryption.

[zappaman]

13. No worries

BushCo has my back.

[SDuderstadt]

14. I know you're a bit of a prankster, but...

when the time to roll this black op up comes, make sure you don't wear that goofy "Richard Gage" mask as you approach the safe house or the sentry is likely to shoot your ass.

[noise]

15. No questions at all

The transparency on 9/11 has been outstanding?

[Ohio Joe]

21. What the fuck are you talking about

Seriously, I'm not even following you anymore.

[noise]

16. It's sad how peddlers of fear

are so selective when it comes to risk. For example, they never talk about the risks associated with indefinite detention. How such a policy serves to aid al Qaeda recruitment. How such a policy makes a mockery of "exporting democracy" rationales in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or the risks associated with unfair trials. How this too aids al Qaeda recruitment. Instead the fear peddlers tell us that upholding our values is too risky. Or we are told it is too expensive to hold civilian trials. As if billions of dollars haven't been wasted in obscene ways.

[Happy Friend]

17. I don't claim...

...to really understand anything about the weird stuff around 9/11 (WTC7, Massoui/Rowley/FBI stand-down, ISI $ to Atta, Sibel Edmonds story, PNAC, Cheney timeline confusion, etc.).

If nothing to hide, how come:

Ken Starr gets subpoena power and $40,000,000 for Whitewater + Blowjobgate

while

9/11 Commission get no subpoena power and 4 million (and it was originally to be headed by fugitive war criminal Henry Kissinger) ?

But al qaeda has a stated motive that is sort of logical: to get us into to stupid endless wars that will bankrupt America and force into isolationism.


However, if KSM does not get an open trial then I don't see how any informed objective person cannot be at least agnostic about it all.

Why not an open trial in Nebraska ?

[SDuderstadt]

18. You need to do some fact-checking, dude...

the 911 Commission not only had subpoena power, they exercised it.

Why are "truthers" so unbelievably ignorant of the actual facts?

[Happy Friend]

19. Power

They did not have the power to subpoena people and record testimony given under oath. Thus they did not have full subpoena power.

[SDuderstadt]

22. More of your bullshit...

They absolutely had the power to subpoena whatever they needed and used it. The only people whose testimony wasn't taken under oath were Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Gore. You might want to think about why that was. From the Public Law that created the Commission:

SEC. 605. <<NOTE: 6 USC 101 note.>> POWERS OF COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--
(1) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission or, on the
authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof,
may, for the purpose of carrying out this title--
(A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times
and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence,
administer such oaths; and
(B) subject to paragraph (2)(A), require, by
subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of
such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and
documents, as the Commission or such designated
subcommittee or designated member may determine
advisable.
(2) Subpoenas.--
(A) Issuance.--
(i) In general.--A subpoena may be issued
under this subsection only--
(I) by the agreement of the chairman
and the vice chairman; or
(II) by the affirmative vote of 6
members of the Commission.
(ii) Signature.--Subject to clause (i),
subpoenas issued under this subsection may be
issued under the signature of the chairman or any
member designated by a majority of the Commission,
and may be served by any person designated by the
chairman or by a member designated by a majority
of the Commission.
(B) Enforcement.--
(i) In general.--In the case of contumacy or
failure to obey a subpoena issued under subsection

<[Page 116 STAT. 2411>]

(a), the United States district court for the
judicial district in which the subpoenaed person
resides, is served, or may be found, or where the
subpoena is returnable, may issue an order
requiring such person to appear at any designated
place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of
the court may be punished by the court as a
contempt of that court.
(ii) Additional enforcement.--In the case of
any failure of any witness to comply with any
subpoena or to testify when summoned under
authority of this section, the Commission may, by
majority vote, certify a statement of fact
constituting such failure to the appropriate
United States attorney, who may bring the matter
before the grand jury for its action, under the
same statutory authority and procedures as if the
United States attorney had received a
certification under sections 102 through 104 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States (2
U.S.C. 192 through 194).

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/107-306.htm

I think I'll just sit back and watch you parade your ignorance around. No offense.

[Happy Friend]

23. ???

Is it your contention that the 9/11 Commission had subpoena Power equal to that of Ken Starr and his Penis Task Force?

[SDuderstadt]

24. Dude...

your position has gone from

1) The 9/11 Commission had no subpoena power

to

2) Well, they had subpoena power but it really didn't amount to anything

to

3) Well, they had subpoena power but not anything like Ken Starr did.

I provided you with the Public Law which established the Commission and pointed out the provisions granting it subpoena power.

Go play your games with someone else.

[Happy Friend]

26. Clarity

When I originally wrote "subpoena power" I was referring to the power to request the presence of any relevant party and record their sworn testimony.

By that measure, the Commission, did not have that power.

Of course they got to call their little witnesses and stuff; my point was that they did not have subpoena power like Starr did when he was investigating a much more trivial matter.

Does any of this pertain to actual heart of the issue ?

The Commission had way less money and way less authority than Deputy Starr's Penis Patrol and that is very problematic.

Would you like to address that issue or would you rather say, "Aha! Special Prosecutor Starr's investigative team was not called the Penis Patrol!"

Just playin dude. :)

But anyway, I hope that clears up this important matter.

[SDuderstadt]

28. And, as I pointed out earlier....

the only people they could not compel to testify under oath were Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Gore. Think about why that might be.

If the Commission did not have the powers I've described, how could they have considered charging certain Pentagon and FAA officials with perjury?

[BeFree]

25. Hello, Friend

It does appear that the commission did have subpoena power.

The question is, who squirreled out of being subpoenaed? IIRC, several evasions were accomplished because of disagreement of members on the requests.

Whereas the special prosecutor of Clinton made such decisions on his own.

So what we had was a sitting president (Clinton) forced to come to court and testify in open.

Bush, Cheney, et al, were able to squirrel out of regular justice because the 9/11 commission was 'set to fail.'

[Happy Friend]

27. Do you know

...off the top of your head, who, besides the two most important officials on the day in question, did not have to give sworn, recorded testimony ?

I seem to remember more, but can't recall.

What about Rummy?

The whole W. and Cheney part of it was inexcusable. An unsworn, unrecorded chat. Great job.

[SDuderstadt]

29. I've told you repeatedly that....

there were four...Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Gore...see a pattern there?

All other testimony or statements were sworn. Do you know this stuff or not? Seems to me you are just guessing, then turning to someone as equally uninformed as you for help. What a riot.

[BeFree]

31. No, I don't

But I do know that those two's recorded(?) testimony was never released.

And it took a long time and a lot of squirreling to get around to getting those two to agree to talk, and they didn't force Bush to talk by himself. So, in fact the subpoenas and subpoena power were useless in the end, per Bush and as compared to Clinton?

[SDuderstadt]

32. The same rules applied to Clinton and Gore...

there was a reason for that, dude. Why don't you scream about Clinton and Gore too? Instead, you try to make it sound nefarious by focusing only on Bush and Cheney. In the process, you reveal your ignorance of how our government actually works.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Dude...

I have told you repeatedly that neither Clinton nor Gore testified under oath to the 9/11 Commission either. You keep leaving that out. Why?

Is it because it sounds far more nefarious when you only include Bush and Cheney?

[Happy Friend]

33. But...

I do not even push a 9/11 conspiracy angle. Clinton and Gore should have testified. Do you know if they resisted or if were they never asked to?

I was honest about what I did and didn't know.

Regardless, they were not the guys in charge on that day, so their exclusion is not as troubling.

You don't have to think Bush piloted the planes into the WTC remotely using a Atari joystick to feel that W. and Cheney should have had to testify under oath and have it recorded if not live on television.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Jesus...

as I asked BeFree before, do you understand how our government works?

Why can't Congress just subpoena President Obama and compel him to testify under oath?