9/11 conspirators

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JimJimmyJames, Nov 25, 2009.


Judging the 9/11 conspirators

  1. Civilian Trial

    4 vote(s)
  2. Military Tribunal

    13 vote(s)
  1. JimJimmyJames

    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.
  2. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    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???
  3. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    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.
  4. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Thanks Upstate, that's exactly what I meant!
  5. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    The extreme secrecy of the federal courts

    Judges are not only permitted, but required, to conceal anything the government declares to be secret.
    Glenn Greenwald
    Nov. 23, 2009

    Once conservatives became embarrassed by their cowardly warnings that we would all be killed if we held a 9/11 trial in New York, they switched to a new argument: trials in a real court would lead to the disclosure of classified information that would help the Terrorists. In advancing this claim, they relied on the always-unhinged rantings of National Review's Andy McCarthy -- who has also suggested that Bill Ayers was the real author of Barack Obama's "Dreams from my Father"; attacked his own editors for pointing out the falsehoods of Sarah Palin's "death panel" claims, which McCarthy insisted were true; defended the Birther movement and dissented from NR's editorial rejection of it; and was excoriated by Rich Lowry for claiming that Obama "rather likes tyrants and dislikes America." This person -- someone who is often too fringe, hysterical and delusional even for National Review -- is the "legal expert" on which the Right is relying to claim that real trials will jeopardize classified information.

    To see how false this claim is, all anyone ever had to do was look at the Classified Information Procedures Act, a short and crystal clear 1980 law that not only permits, but requires, federal courts to undertake extreme measures to ensure the concealment of classified information, even including concealment from the defendant himself. Section 3 provides: "Upon motion of the United States, the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States." Section 9 required the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to consult with the Attorney General and Defense Secretary to develop rules to carry out the Act's requirements, and the resulting guidelines provide for draconian measures so extreme that it's hard to believe they can exist in a judicial system that it supposed to be open and transparent.

    To see how severe these secrecy measures are, consider what is currently being done in the criminal case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first accused Terrorists sent by the Obama administration to New York to stand trial after being interrogated and tortured for years in CIA black sites and at Guantanamo with no charges:

    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.
    The order covers all materials that might "reveal the foreign countries in which" Mr. Ghailani was held from 2004 to 2006 -- the period when he was in the secret jails -- and the names and even physical descriptions of any officer responsible for his detention or interrogation, the order says.
    It also covers information about "enhanced interrogation techniques that were applied" to Mr. Ghailani, "including descriptions of the techniques as applied, the duration, frequency, sequencing, and limitations of those techniques."
    The defense lawyers, who had to obtain security clearance, cannot disclose the information to Mr. Ghailani without permission of the court or the government. Any motions they write based on the material must be prepared in the special room, and nothing may be filed publicly until it is reviewed by the government.
    So, last Monday, when Mr. Ghailani’s lawyers filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges because of "the unnecessary delay in bringing the defendant to trial," they included only a few mostly blank cover sheets.
    The rest of the motion, which presumably offers rich details about Mr. Ghailani’s time in detention, remains secret, and a censored version will be made public only after it is cleared by the government.
    Does that sound like a judicial process incapable of concealing secrets, or does it sound more like a Star Chamber where the justice system operates in the dark, even to shield government torture and illegal prisons from disclosure? Many federal judges -- particularly in criminal cases -- are notorious for being highly sympathetic to the government. That's even more true in a case involving one of the most hated criminal defendants ever to be tried in an American court, sitting a very short distance from the site where he is alleged to have killed 3,000 people in a terrorist attack. And note that the law permits the judge no discretion: if the Government claims something is classified, then "the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information." With some exceptions, ever since the "War on Terror" began, nobody has safeguarded government secrets as dutifully and subserviently as federal judges -- even when those secrets involve allegations of war crimes and other serious felonies. That's what DOJ officials mean when they keep praising Southern District of New York judges for their supreme competence and expertise in handling terrorism cases. Federal courts in general love to keep what is supposed to be their open proceedings a secret, but that instinct is magnified exponentially in national security and terrorism cases.

    Even during the Bush years, numerous defendants accused of terrorist acts were tried and convicted in federal courts -- John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Ali al-Marri, Jose Padilla. Those spewing the latest right-wing scare tactic (Osama bin Laden will learn everything if we have trials!) cannot point to a single piece of classified information that was disclosed as a result of any of these trials. If that were a legitimate fear, wouldn't they be able to? Like most American institutions, our federal court system is empowered to shield from public disclosure anything the government claims is secret. Just look at the extreme measures invoked in the Ghailani case to see how true that is.

  6. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    "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?
  7. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Nope. Even the defense attorneys need a security clearance before they can view the info. KSM will not be getting a security clearance.
  8. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    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?)
  9. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    That's a fair question, but the point is that the fear of revealing classified information in a federal court is unfounded.
  10. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Jones--thanks--I was wondering how that would work, especially when dealing with classified information.
  11. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    The Feds have been doing this for a long time, they've got their bases pretty well covered. :wink2:
  12. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Ultimately, if we all seek the Death Penalty for these individuals that committed this horrible act on US Soil, than I see nothing wrong with our Civilian Justice System convicting the perps openly and transparently in front of a world audience and our enemy combatants. A trial conducted and ultimately judged by citizens of the United States instead of an all Military staff of a Tribunal will lessing the effects of our enemies crying foul, and fall on deaf ears...:hang:<-----Khalid Sheik Mohammed
  13. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll


    As per our conversation, I will keep this to the facts.

    It appears you want both an unfair and fair trial for these defendants.

    As you know, you cant have it both ways, and thats the problem with conservatives who dont fully understand this argument.

    On one hand, you dont want the trials in Federal courts because of the claim of sensitive information being disclosed (even though thats not the case in Article 3 federal trials)

    Article 3-section 2:
    Section 2.
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    You and others claim that sensitive information will be disclosed and that will harm national security even though thats just a pile of hogwash.

    However, if you dont want them to have this information, you then are making an argument of WITHOLDING EVIDENCE to protect national security. If these defendants are not allowed to see all evidence collected and the methods used to collect it, then obviously they cannot get a fair trial.

    On the other hand, you and the others want the trials to be held at gitmo in a military tribunal where evidence CAN be withheld, and the defendants, no matter what they are charged with, are doomed for a conviction by never having a chance to truly defend themselves.

    This is called a "kangaroo court".

    A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead court-martial, refers to a sham legal proceeding or court. The colloquial phrase "kangaroo court" is used to describe judicial proceedings that deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. The outcome of a trial by "kangaroo court" is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

    By placing them thru a kangaroo court, this gives the republicans some comfort by convicting these defendants and justifying BUSH's internment of these men for 7 years without trial.

    The republican's biggest fear is showing the world that these men were tortured and forced to confess to crimes they may not have committed.

    The "mastermind" of 911, was tortured for years before claiming ownership of the 911 plan.

    In a kangaroo court, this would be allowed, in a federal court, it may not stand the test of american jurisprudence.

    Your question in your post says: 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?

    But isnt that what you are promoting by saying the trial should be at Gitmo?

    In a federal trial, there is evidence protection, a level of secrecy and closed door sessions. NOT everything is for public consumption.

    There can be no "platform" if the trials arent televised and the public is NOT allowed in.

    For our country, we have a responsibility to the world to show we are better than the NAZI's, and that we dont just snatch up people around the world, hold them in secret prisons, torture them, place them in a holding center for years without a trial or attorney, and then place them in a kangaroo court where a conviction is assured, then the men executed.

    We have a responsibility as a nation to demonstrate to the world that we are NOT above international law, and a country that respects the judicial process.

    Merely having military tribunals without fairness only shows the world we were wrong................ Again.

    Of the hundreds of prisoners held at GITMO for years under bush, 85% were let go and returned to other countries WITHOUT a trial or conviction. ALL were beaten, tortured and denied due process.

    This is, and will always be, one of BUSH's biggest failures.
  14. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

  15. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    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.
  16. What juristiction would exist for a Military Hearing?
    If it's the "War on Terror" thing, I think that's just an expression.
    Believe me, I want to see them suffer as much as possible for what they did.
  17. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  18. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll


    Your position on this thread is one of the reasons the republicans are no longer in power.


    You were sold on this concept of "war on terror", even though it was merely a slogan with NO TEETH. Many of our youngest hard working americans have paid with their lives defending this slogan.

    It has all been in vain.

    You in particular, buy into the concept of snatching up people off the streets of foriegn countries and taking them to a secret prison in some country that ISNT a member of the Geneva Convention, beating and tortuing them for months, transferring them to GITMO when the heat starts to rise and then holding them without trials for YEARS, only to let them go seretly without ever being charged.

    This is a war against terror? Sounds more like we are pissing people off even moreso than before. Do you think these men who are held for years dont return to their host countries and join a group who hates america?

    BUSH and CHENEY have violated the Geneva Conventions and used the excuse that the prisoners captured were enemy combatants and that they were held in countries where the Geneva convention rules didnt apply.

    One thing you dont hear on FOX news, or hear on Rush Limbaugh, is the reality of what is happening to GITMO prisoners. How about this case where the convictions were overturned?? I am sure you dont have the first clue that this is happening in many cases regarding GITMO prisoners.

    The terror convictions of five former Guantánamo Bay detainees have been overturned in France after the high court ruled the evidence of their guilt was obtained in a manner that violated French rules of evidence and the terms of the Geneva Convention.
    Mourad Benchellali on Guantánamo Bay Interrogations

    "I can not describe in just a few lines the suffering and the torture."
    Mourad Benchellali, 26, former detainee
    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/world/europe/25france.html?_r=1&partner=rss

    Mourad Benchellali, 26; Brahim Yadel, 37; Nizar Sassi, 27; Khaled Ben Mustapha, 35; and Redouane Khalid, 39; were detained at the Guantánamo Bay after their individual captures in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002.

    While at the Guantánamo Bay facility the men claimed they were tortured until they offered confessions which were then used to convict them. The French court agreed that the interrogations of the men while at Guantánamo were not in accordance with international law.

    The confessions were the only evidence supporting the terror convictions. The French high court determined that without the shakey confessions there was no evidence of wrong doing by the defendants.

    Maybe TIEGUY, you should learn to set aside your party rhetoric, and actually learn what is happening at GITMO.

    How many soldiers lost their lives so we could detain these men for 8 years, torture them, convict them in our MILITARY TRIBUNAL Kangaroo Court, only to have the convictions overturned because we violated international law?

    Then again, you said you didnt care.

    If they were convicted in a federal court, given a fair trial and sentenced to either death or life, this would have never happened.

    The overturning of GITMO convictions is only growing each month and the OBAMA administrations position of bringing these trials to federal court is the ONLY way to justify, prosecute and convict GITMO prisoners and eliminate another country from overturning a CONVICTION.

    The BUSH detainee program is over, AMERICA can no longer violate international law and OBAMA will see to it.

    Party Rhetoric will never subsitute for american jurisprudence.

    One thing to remember TIE, the men at GITMO have not been charged with anything, they were simply snatched up somewhere in the middle east and eventually brought to GITMO and tortured for information.

    They were not captured while fighting in IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN, some were captured in yemen, somalia, pakistan, saudi arabia, egypt,jordan and algeria.

    Hardly the "field of battle" as claimed by the republicans. This is another exagerated term. The BUSH administration used the term and extended it to the whole middle east to justify the capture of most of the prisoners at GITMO. Just another wonder of the "war on terror".

    Do some research TIEGUY. Tell us how many prisoners at GITMO came from IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN? I wont hold my breath.

    GITMO is nothing more than another failed project by the BUSH administration left on the desk of president OBAMA to handle.

    The one thing President OBAMA has done for America, is to restore our credibility around the world. During BUSH, there wasnt ONE COUNTRY he could visit where he wasnt greeted by thousands of protesters and his image burned in effigy.

    Today, OBAMA is welcomed around the world. I suggest you embrace the redefining of our country to the world, and take your blinders off.


    p.s. TIEGUY, for 8 years, BUSH was the most hated leader in the world, his image burned in effigy and he was condemned by thousands of people around the world.

    Today, BUSH is gone, the world is thankful and our new president is once again a respected leader of the free world.

    However, the only place where OBAMA is mocked and protested is right here in rural USA by the republicans.

    I wonder who has it wrong?? The hundreds of millions of people around the world and the 52 million who voted for OBAMA or the 49 million republicans who believe BUSH was right??

    Do the math.
  19. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    T.O.S. = Totally Oblivious Stoner !!
  20. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    You're making the assumption that the democrats are saints or somehow holier then the republicans?

    Unlike soft willed americans like yourself I have no problem looking at war in realistic terms rather then pretending we are supposed to fight it out in the open on our white horses.

    Take your average suicide bomber. He goes into a market blows up and kills thirty or forty innocents , maims many more with no consequence and his family treated like heros. And he with the twisted logic displayed in those countries somehow believes God will reward him.

    what should happen is we take his family and make them clean up the blood and gore. Make them clean up the bed pans of those in the hospital. Take their property and use it as reperations for the victims.
    If they are inaccessible in some country we can't access then drop a laser guided bomb on top of their house. Bomb a couple of targets in their host country. I won't sell any T-shirts with my approach but I bet ya there will be many a moslem child out there who has mom and day talking them out of martydom.

    If you're going to fight a war then be prepared to fight it to win. If you're not prepared to win then stay out and practice the art of submission.