Gitmo detainees want to stay there - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 11-19-2009, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

KSM to get a civil trial in NY. This should be good.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...LEFTTopStories

Yes. It will be one of the first "good" things we have done with our detainees.

Cali Coug · 11-19-2009, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

In the which case one is forced to ask: what is the difference between this and a show trial?

There is a 0% chance any Obama comment will taint a jury pool (particularly this one, where he said he didn't think people "would be offended" if KSM were executed and convicted. And yes, he can get a fair trial with an impartial jury. Or do you have that little faith in the US system?

MikeWaters · 11-19-2009, 04:59 AM

The interesting thing is 1) how will he attempt to defend himself (if it all)--he may try to create a Milosevic-style circus, 2) how will the Muslim world react to the trial.

If I may be optimistic for a moment, perhaps the depravity of this kind of Islamic ideology will be put on display for the entire world to see.

Cali Coug · 11-19-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The interesting thing is 1) how will he attempt to defend himself (if it all)--he may try to create a Milosevic-style circus, 2) how will the Muslim world react to the trial.

If I may be optimistic for a moment, perhaps the depravity of this kind of Islamic ideology will be put on display for the entire world to see.

Perhaps indeed.

As for Tex's silly premise, with his logic, we should have left Elizabeth Smart with her abductors. She didn't, after all, run away when she had the chance. She must have loved it.

Archaea · 11-19-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

There is a 0% chance any Obama comment will taint a jury pool (particularly this one, where he said he didn't think people "would be offended" if KSM were executed and convicted. And yes, he can get a fair trial with an impartial jury. Or do you have that little faith in the US system?

You don't work with the system.

In many cases, perhaps most cases, a citizen accused of a crime can receive a fair and reasonably impartial trial. But in this case, who doesn't know about 9/11?

He will receive as fair a trial as he would any where on the planet, but it won't devoid of bias or of information about the events surrounding 9/11. Our system is better than all others, but it is still bad.

Tex · 11-19-2009, 02:38 PM

It's such a farce. Does anyone think KSM will be permitted to plead guilty (as he reportedly wanted to do in a military tribunal)? Does anyone seriously believe that, perchance he is "acquitted," that he will be allowed to go free?

On what precedent do we try foreign enemy combatants caught on foreign soil in American civil courts? Apparently only a handful will actually get civil trials ... on what criteria does the administration make that determination? How come some get civil court trials, and others must still use a military tribunal? And why is a military tribunal insufficient in the first place?

Obama and Co. want to have it both ways. They claim to want the "fairness" of the American justice system, all the while pretending to guarantee the outcome. It's a mockery.

I only pray that if we end up catching bin Laden while Obama is president, the soldiers remember to Mirandize him.

Cali Coug · 11-19-2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

It's such a farce. Does anyone think KSM will be permitted to plead guilty (as he reportedly wanted to do in a military tribunal)? Does anyone seriously believe that, perchance he is "acquitted," that he will be allowed to go free?

On what precedent do we try foreign enemy combatants caught on foreign soil in American civil courts? Apparently only a handful will actually get civil trials ... on what criteria does the administration make that determination? How come some get civil court trials, and others must still use a military tribunal? And why is a military tribunal insufficient in the first place?

Obama and Co. want to have it both ways. They claim to want the "fairness" of the American justice system, all the while pretending to guarantee the outcome. It's a mockery.

I only pray that if we end up catching bin Laden while Obama is president, the soldiers remember to Mirandize him.

They aren't predetermining the outcome. If he is acquitted, that's that. The administration clearly feels that the odds of such an outcome approximate zero (not because the trial is "fixed," but because the evidence is that overwhelming). What are the odds the Elizabeth Smart kidnapper is acquitted? Close to zero. Could it happen? Sure, but the government would obviously feel very strongly that it is unlikely.

Obama isn't having anything both ways. He is simply assessing the strength of the government's case (very strong) and ensuring the process will be fair. The two aren't mutually exclusive. To have a fair trial, the defendant need not have a 50% chance of freedom. Are you under the impression to the contrary? He could have a 99.999% chance of conviction and still have a totally fair and reasonable trial. Are you this confused about how the court system operates? Are you under the impression literally every case which goes to trial is a coin toss?

And you also don't understand Miranda. No, bin Laden wouldn't need to be Mirandized. He could be, sure, but it wouldn't be necessary. Even assuming normal rules of evidence apply and he didn't receive Miranda warnings, there is plenty of evidence to convict him regardless of the exclusion of any statements made after arrest.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

MikeWaters · 11-19-2009, 07:58 PM

has Obama determined the legal status of the Gitmo detainees?

Or is he just picking and choosing which ones to try?

Cali Coug · 11-19-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

has Obama determined the legal status of the Gitmo detainees?

Or is he just picking and choosing which ones to try?

Somewhat. This is the process that has taken close to a year now. The Bush administration literally kept no files or paperwork related to many of the detainees, and Holder is having a very hard time understanding why many were detained at all and what the charges are or even could be. Undoubtedly, due to this fact, many will have to be released. Rather than deal with legal "stuff," Bush and his team decided it would be WAY easier to dispense with that nonsense and just hold people forever. Other detainees did have files and paperwork and the legal case is being evaluated. With some, particularly the high level detainees, there is lots of evidence. Those are the ones being prosecuted in New York. For others, they will be tried by military courts.

Tex · 11-19-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Somewhat. This is the process that has taken close to a year now. The Bush administration literally kept no files or paperwork related to many of the detainees, and Holder is having a very hard time understanding why many were detained at all and what the charges are or even could be. Undoubtedly, due to this fact, many will have to be released. Rather than deal with legal "stuff," Bush and his team decided it would be WAY easier to dispense with that nonsense and just hold people forever. Other detainees did have files and paperwork and the legal case is being evaluated. With some, particularly the high level detainees, there is lots of evidence. Those are the ones being prosecuted in New York. For others, they will be tried by military courts.

This is hogwash. The allegation that the Bush admin "literally" kept no files or paperwork on the detainees is so ridiculous as to be beyond belief.

11-19-2009, 02:38 PM	#16
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	It's such a farce. Does anyone think KSM will be permitted to plead guilty (as he reportedly wanted to do in a military tribunal)? Does anyone seriously believe that, perchance he is "acquitted," that he will be allowed to go free? On what precedent do we try foreign enemy combatants caught on foreign soil in American civil courts? Apparently only a handful will actually get civil trials ... on what criteria does the administration make that determination? How come some get civil court trials, and others must still use a military tribunal? And why is a military tribunal insufficient in the first place? Obama and Co. want to have it both ways. They claim to want the "fairness" of the American justice system, all the while pretending to guarantee the outcome. It's a mockery. I only pray that if we end up catching bin Laden while Obama is president, the soldiers remember to Mirandize him. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 11-19-2009 at 02:54 PM.

11-19-2009, 04:59 AM	#13
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	The interesting thing is 1) how will he attempt to defend himself (if it all)--he may try to create a Milosevic-style circus, 2) how will the Muslim world react to the trial. If I may be optimistic for a moment, perhaps the depravity of this kind of Islamic ideology will be put on display for the entire world to see.

11-19-2009, 07:58 PM	#18
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	has Obama determined the legal status of the Gitmo detainees? Or is he just picking and choosing which ones to try?