Why is it I see no posts on what I think is single

[doc03]

stupidest decision of the Obama Administration. That is the terrorist being put on trial in NYC.

[bbinacan]

1. Because there's way too

much kool-aid drinking going on here.

[anonymous171]

2. What's wrong with that? nt

[tekisui]

3. Where do you think he should be tried?

[doc03]

10. In a military tribunal. I am not a lawyer but I can

see these guys can't possibly be found guilty. The entire Constitution of the US was violated in their treatment. I doubt they were read their rights, they sat in jail for years without even being charged, at least one was water boarded and both the AG and the President said they will be found guilty. How in the hell can the President of the USA declare someone guilty before a trial, what ever happened to being presumed innocent before being tried in a court? Isn't that way the news media has to be careful to always refer to the accused as the alleged perpetrator. All this is doing is giving these guys a platform to spread their hate and encourage more terrorists.

[dhpgetsit]

12. If they are freed on the streets of NYC they won't last a minute.

[FSogol]

17. They don't have to be read their rights until they are charged in a civilian court.

I'm sure they rights were read to them when they were transferred out of military control and into civilian control.

[dysfunctional press]

22. if 'they can't possibly be found guilty', thern perhaps we should have treated them better...

while they were in our custody...?

if they are found not guilty- they'll be free to go, and we'll have learned a valuable national lesson about how to conduct ourselves according to our own constitution in the future.

what's wrong with justice being served?

[teach1st]

4. A search...

...reveals posts. For examples:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=1909

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=892

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=12213

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=496833

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4145269

[dhpgetsit]

5. I don't understand your objection to people like KSM being tried in court.

He was taken into custody by FBI agents, not captured on the battlefield bu the military. He's not a POW. He's a criminal. It's what we do to criminals.

[Dreamer Tatum]

What would you do? nt

[FSogol]

6. Check out our Constitution sometime. Putting them on trial in NYC is the proper thing to do.

Why did the US wait 8 years to do it?

[doc03]

13. How in the hell can you violate the every right given

the accused by the Constitution and then think a jury will find them guilty. If they follow the law won't they have to release them. The dumbest lawyer in the US could get these guys off. When you have the President and AG publicly declaring a suspect guilty before they even face trial there is no way you could find a impartial jury.

[rurallib]

14. Why not just shoot him?

[doc03]

15. Why not n/t

[FSogol]

16. Day one of the trial, the accussed lawyers will ask for all illegally gained

evidence to be thrown out. The evidence obtained through torture will be thrown out.

Everyone knows this, but the Justice department still went ahead with this case in lieu of a military tribunal.

That means they (Eric Holder and the Justice Department) are:

A) either massively incompetent
or
B) they have some other evidence that wasn't illegally gained that will convict the accused

I say it is the B.

(PS. Your gripes and complaints seem to match the RW gripes and complaints. You should have that checked. I think the accused will get a fair trial.)

[doc03]

18. If the accused do get a "fair" trial they will get

off. If one of these guys gets off on a technicality the Democratic party and Obama are toast, I think this is going to be a total disaster.

[FSogol]

19. A fair trial doesn't mean they will win. But at any rate, we pretend to

be a Nation of Laws. Let's start following them again.

[pitohui]

7. the crime was committed in new york, where do you think he should go on trial?

his attorneys can (prob. will) request a change of venue, but the crimes were committed in nyc and to my mind after a passage of so many years, then i don't think it unfair to start there

the people of nyc have a right to a public trial if this man masterminded these murders

if a court of law determines that the emotions are still too high in nyc, they can change of venue...same as any other murder case

it just isn't such a biggie, what is there to discuss? if ksm had been captured and put on trial right away, when blood was still high, sure, i would say, put the trial elsewhere but you know...it has been 8 yrs...it isn't necessarily all that unreasonable to start in nyc

[HipChick]

8. Chess...hoping that Bush and Cheney closets come tumbling out

[timeforpeace]

21. Of course. And find out America is down with what they did to these guys.

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. You aren't looking very hard. But none from me - because I think it is the right thing to do.

[annabanana]

11. As a NYer, I think it's an insult to think that NY can't handle it.

Where else should they be tried... (Well, maybe DC becasue of the Pentagon)

[HughMoran]

20. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Almost as stupid as this post are the people who agree with you. This was discussed quite a bit - WAKE UP!!

[PopSixSquish]

23. Let Me Explain - No There is Too Much - Let Me Sum Up

Military tribunals are for military combatents who are captured and charged with violating the rules of war. The US Congress never formally declared war on Afghanistan. In fact, we could not declare war on Afghanistan because we are not fighting a sovereign country with a standing military such as Japan or Germany in WWII.

We are/were figthing a group operating within the borders of this country who had committed a crime against US citizens. The captured terrorists should be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder in our Federal Courts just as those who committed the WTC bombing in 1993 were.

The Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago that military tribunals could not be used when civilian courts were functioning. The Bush administration broke the law with the tribunals. Why do you think there was such a hue and cry when they were set up?

Attorney General Holder is restoring the rule of law and the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts which W and company threw away in the past eight years...