JimJimmyJames
Big Time Feeder Driver
With the Obama administration trying the 9/11 conspirators in civilian court, I was wondering how everyone felt about this decision.
Military Court.
I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND why Obama wants to play into their hands like this. They get the exact venue that they want. Who is pulling the strings here?
Also, I think (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), if these defendants act as their own attorney, won't they be privy to all the sensitive information that the government has???
The term you are describing is disclosure. The defense is entitled to full disclosure--anything less can be grounds for mistrial--but do we really want all of that sensitive information disclosed to these people? What would happen if we did provide full disclosure and the case still ended up in a mistrial or, even worse, they are acquitted? Do we then ask them not to reveal any of this information in the interest of national security?
This case should be tried in a military court.
Nope. Even the defense attorneys need a security clearance before they can view the info. KSM will not be getting a security clearance."To ensure that secrets do not leak, Judge Kaplan has imposed a protective order on all classified information, which may be reviewed by the defense lawyers only in a special "secure area," a room whose location has not been disclosed."
Would this not mean that a defendant acting as his own attorney would be able to review the classified information?
Nope. Even the defense attorneys need a security clearance before they can view the info. KSM will not be getting a security clearance.
That's a fair question, but the point is that the fear of revealing classified information in a federal court is unfounded.Then doesn't that suggest that he can't have a fair trial? (if he is prevented from having the information he requires to defend himself?)
The Feds have been doing this for a long time, they've got their bases pretty well covered.Jones--thanks--I was wondering how that would work, especially when dealing with classified information.
The term you are describing is disclosure. The defense is entitled to full disclosure--anything less can be grounds for mistrial--but do we really want all of that sensitive information disclosed to these people? What would happen if we did provide full disclosure and the case still ended up in a mistrial or, even worse, they are acquitted? Do we then ask them not to reveal any of this information in the interest of national security?
This case should be tried in a military court.
Thanks Upstate, that's exactly what I meant!
Then doesn't that suggest that he can't have a fair trial? (if he is prevented from having the information he requires to defend himself?)
The Other Side;641373 We have a responsibility as a nation to demonstrate to the world that we are NOT above international law said:This statement is the exact reason these men should not be tried in federal court in NYC.
The problem is that we are not fighting a war at all. It's simple semantics. "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", blah, blah, blah. Those constitutionalists out there, know when the last time the U.S. declared war? No, not an "authorization to use force". What we have, regardless of rhetoric, is another police action. And what's wrong with a "law enforcement" footing anyway? I believe Britain and Germany have done well with that approach in the last couple years.Fair or unfair trial who cares. The folks in the twin towers did not have a choice.
The problem with our war against terrorist has not been that we violate the rules our problem has been that we don't fight them on their level.
If these terrorist want to die we should accomadate them. Eviscerate them and stuff their bodies with the pork they despise.
Violate them in every way until they decide they wish to comply with the geneva convention.
Fair or unfair trial who cares. The folks in the twin towers did not have a choice.
The problem with our war against terrorist has not been that we violate the rules our problem has been that we don't fight them on their level.
If these terrorist want to die we should accomadate them. Eviscerate them and stuff their bodies with the pork they despise.
Violate them in every way until they decide they wish to comply with the geneva convention.
TIEGUY,
Your position on this thread is one of the reasons the republicans are no longer in power.
You JUST DONT GET IT.