Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
alab32

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Was this the right decision?  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Was this the right decision?

    • Yes
      8
    • No
      32
    • I dont know
      3


Recommended Posts

Soooo... what do you guys think of Sheikh Mohammad being tried in NYC instead of Gitmo with a military tribunal?

I think its a pile of poop personally! How is it that someone that is NOT a US citizen and IS a war criminal going to be tried in a court used to rule for CONSTITUTIONAL court cases... The Constitution doesnt apply to this piece of crap... One more reason for me to LOVE this wonderful character we have in office right now :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/khalid.sheikh.mohammed/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/self-proclaimed-sept-mastermind-face-trial-ny/

There are also a bunch of newer articles with polls and what not about this whole snafu. Craziness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the definition of 'war criminal'? Is there a formal declaration of war? What's the difference between him and say...someone who crosses the border illegally and kills 10 people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the definition of 'war criminal'? Is there a formal declaration of war? What's the difference between him and say...someone who crosses the border illegally and kills 10 people?

Intent. One intends to kill 10 people. The other intends to declare war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is intent the only thing needed to get a military trial? If someone crosses the border and professes their hate for American's and kills as many people as possible...is that good enough?

I'm asking genuine questions because I haven't looked into what the law is regarding this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we're really asking is what is the definition of "Act of War". It's for the people, our people, US citizens, through our representatives in Congress, to decide what an act of war is defined as. We haven't actually done that lately, redefine what an act of war truly can be. We tend to take it on a case by case basis. By responding to a possible act of war with a "Declaration of War" in return, the question is bypassed. Tradition is that "we will recognize it when we see it". This becomes difficult when a "non-state" commits the act.

What is disturbing, is that by switching from a military tribunal, to a public trial, either the citizens and/or the representatives have declared "It is not a War".

War can be defined as a brutal act of aggression on an international or internally civil level. In all wars, all confirmed acts of violence outside bounds of propriety, as defined by rational humans, are tried by tribunal, found guilty, and executed. That applies to both sides that are fighting. We can and do execute our own troops as necessary.

By refusing a military tribunal in favor of a civil trial, the USA has basically said that it was not a act of violence outside the bounds of propriety committed as an international act of aggression.

The exception shall be, if the civil trial decides that is should be defined that way, and returns the accused to the military tribunal.

Traditions have their place in society. To break tradition and do something different, has consequences for the future. It is not meant to be a case by case basis, it's meant to apply forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the modern age of Weapons of Mass Destruction, a single person with a single weapon, can declare war and win. All our definitions and traditions of the past, apparently do not apply. Confused yet?

It's like the villain in a comic book. They don't really exist in real life, or do they?

The world will probably have to recognize the fact, that a rogue agent (individual), without a state (country), can commit war acts. A proper venue is probably the United Nations. Which has rules for non-state actors. It's called Maritime Law. It's for use against rogue pirates on the high seas. As well as who can do what, outside of international boundaries. But it can apply to any actor outside of international boundaries. It's probably what we would use if attacked by aliens from space.

But this act of aggression on 9/11, was not on the "high seas", it was within the boundaries of our own country, and the United Nations apparently has nothing to say about it. It would be similar in tradition, of a pirate ship firing cannons at a city along the coastline. Traditionally the response is for the country attacked, to hunt them down, on the high seas, and kill them. (Or capture and execute them.)

An interesting fact in Maritime Law, is that hiring mercenaries (or another country or even other pirates) to track down and kill the pirates, is an appropriate and legal response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By refusing a military tribunal in favor of a civil trial, the USA has basically said that it was not a act of violence outside the bounds of propriety committed as an international act of aggression.

.

That is it exatly. But I guess it's fair he should be protected by the Constitution seeing ass illegal aliens can get education benefits and all that good stuff. If we are going to be wrong, we might as well be wrong fairly, across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soooo... what do you guys think of Sheikh Mohammad being tried in NYC instead of Gitmo with a military tribunal?

I think its a pile of poop personally! How is it that someone that is NOT a US citizen and IS a war criminal going to be tried in a court used to rule for CONSTITUTIONAL court cases... The Constitution doesnt apply to this piece of crap... One more reason for me to LOVE this wonderful character we have in office right now :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/khalid.sheikh.mohammed/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/self-proclaimed-sept-mastermind-face-trial-ny/

There are also a bunch of newer articles with polls and what not about this whole snafu. Craziness!

I agree with you! :plus1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me and a buddy were talking about this.... these worthless pieces of shit deserve the firing squad, period. All the legal bullshit that the low life lawyers can come up with to make it look like it was our fault that they attacked us. That along with the bastich that killed 13 at the military base........ we thought, whats the worse thing you could do without maken a marter outta em. How about putting them in jail for life with a bunch a gays? just a thought..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
me and a buddy were talking about this.... these worthless pieces of shit deserve the firing squad, period. All the legal bullshit that the low life lawyers can come up with to make it look like it was our fault that they attacked us. That along with the bastich that killed 13 at the military base........ we thought, whats the worse thing you could do without maken a marter outta em. How about putting them in jail for life with a bunch a gays? just a thought..............

I'd rather save the bullets and just make them base jump without a chute. And If we put the guy from FT. Hood in jail, that just wastes our tax dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are only as good as how we apply the standards that we expect for ourselves.

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea is that we would rather not turn this into another recruitment poster for the other side. If they see us railroad him into a military tribunal and swift execution, it might make us feel better, but it gives our enemies someone they can point to and say, "See? Look what America did! No fair trial, they just killed him because they wanna kill all of us!" Then, they gain a useful tool for recruiting and promoting their agenda.

If, on the other hand, we settle for a fair, open, legitimate trial, we remove their ability to use it in that way. Part of winning this kind of fight is going out of your way to be seen as the 'good guys', even if it means being more fair than our enemies would. If we become what we're fighting, what was the point of fighting? While we certainly can't change some people's minds, we can definitely present ourselves in such a way that they'll have a harder time convincing people that we're all evil. If one angry teenager over there sees us behaving honorably and decides he doesn't really need to attack us or our troops, it's a step in the right direction.

And anyway, let's be real-- it's not like he's going to be acquitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the idea is that we would rather not turn this into another recruitment poster for the other side. If they see us railroad him into a military tribunal and swift execution, it might make us feel better, but it gives our enemies someone they can point to and say, "See? Look what America did! No fair trial, they just killed him because they wanna kill all of us!" Then, they gain a useful tool for recruiting and promoting their agenda.

If, on the other hand, we settle for a fair, open, legitimate trial, we remove their ability to use it in that way. Part of winning this kind of fight is going out of your way to be seen as the 'good guys', even if it means being more fair than our enemies would. If we become what we're fighting, what was the point of fighting? While we certainly can't change some people's minds, we can definitely present ourselves in such a way that they'll have a harder time convincing people that we're all evil. If one angry teenager over there sees us behaving honorably and decides he doesn't really need to attack us or our troops, it's a step in the right direction.

And anyway, let's be real-- it's not like he's going to be acquitted.

Umm, they really don't give a shit about being "fair" . And if they want a fair trial, go rob a bank, don't commit an act of war against us. It's not that hard to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, they really don't give a shit about being "fair" . And if they want a fair trial, go rob a bank, don't commit an act of war against us. It's not that hard to figure out.

:plus1: (thousand)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And something else, we have always been the ones to be fair and honorable. Maybe thats why other countries/groups take advantage of us. Mabye if we dragged the dead body of a terrorist through the streets and stuck his head on a pike, they'd think twice about messing with us. But we don't do that. We don't stoop to the level of Somolia, Iraq.....And not being aquitted isn't the point. The ends don't justify the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long court process and details can bring up lots of overlooked info and names which still may be a threat.......a quick trial and execution will not help that.....he will get it anyway......but are you guys worried that he is physically in NYC........come on fear mongers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we have always been the ones to be fair and honorable. Maybe thats why other countries/groups take advantage of us. Mabye if we dragged the dead body of a terrorist through the streets and stuck his head on a pike, they'd think twice about messing with us. But we don't do that. We don't stoop to the level of Somolia, Iraq.....And not being aquitted isn't the point. The ends don't justify the means.

Really ?????

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqtortures.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A long court process and details can bring up lots of overlooked info and names which still may be a threat.......a quick trial and execution will not help that.....he will get it anyway......but are you guys worried that he is physically in NYC........come on fear mongers

I never said I thought he was in NY. And if they have tried to get info out of him,which I'm sure they have, do you think by making him swear on a bible will yield more info?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mabye if we dragged the dead body of a terrorist through the streets and stuck his head on a pike, they'd think twice about messing with us.

Oh, yes, I'm sure that would solve the problem right there. :rolleyes:

You can't combat an idea by reinforcing it in the minds of the people likely to believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×