• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 9/11 Mastermind, Unlikely to Have Trial, Post Says

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama fails again. The administrarion screwed up and does not know how to have a trial. Should have stayed with Military Tribunal.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 9/11 Mastermind, Unlikely to Have Trial, Post Says - Bloomberg


The accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, may remain behind bars without trial indefinitely because of disagreement over his trial location, according to the Washington Post.

The Obama administration has concluded it can’t go ahead with its original plan to have the trial in federal court in New York because of opposition from lawmakers and local officials, the Post said. There is little support for reviving an effort to hold a military trial at Guantanamo Bay, according to the Post.
 
Last edited:

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
First the plans for the show trial in NYC that was one giant political miscalculation. And now this. Detainees at Gitmo will still be here in 2012 as well.

Besides being a President with horribly misguided goals, Obama is about as inept at politics as one could possibly be. Its like a new political stumble every week with the assclown.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
1) Good for Obama.
2) Can't wait to see Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann POOP THEMSELVES WITH RAGE.
3) Also can't wait to see some other people offer explanations for why Bush was a war criminal when he did this, but now that Obama's doing it, it's no biggie.

Edit: Oh, it's here, and it's delightful:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/14/trials/index.html

If it were true -- as most Obama defenders argued -- that giving civilian trials to accused Terrorists is not merely a good option, but required by the Constitution, the rule of law, and our values, then isn't it logically and necessarily true that Obama's refusal to grant such trials constitutes a violation of our Constitution, our rule of law and our values? And if so, doesn't this require rather severe condemnation from the same people who defended civilian trials as necessary under our system of government? After all, if the President is violating our Constitution, the rule of law, and our values, isn't that cause for some rather serious protest and denunciation, no matter his motives?

It's true that this Post article relies on anonymous administration officials and notes that a final decision has not yet been made, but at some point, keeping Mohammed in a cage without a trial for a long enough time constitutes lawless, indefinite imprisonment whether the President formally announces it or not. We're clearly at that point. And, of course, it's long been reported that the President has decided to hold at least 50 other detainees at Guantanamo indefinitely without a trial or even a military commission. Imprisoning people without trials or even military tribunals is clearly the policy of this President.

...

[M]ore important, the mandates of the Constitution and the rule of law aren't supposed to be waived for political expediency. That premise was the centerpiece of the Obama campaign -- remember? As Sargent wrote:

One of Obama’s most powerfully stated principles has been his rejection of the Cheney world view -- his insistence that the choice between upholding American legal traditions and the rule of law and maintaining our national security is a false one. If Obama does decide to try Mohammed in a military tribunal, won't the implicit message to the public be that there just may be something to what the Cheneyites have been arguing all along?

But now, it appears Obama isn't even merely putting Mohammed "in a military tribunal," but far worse, simply imprisoning him indefinitely with no process at all, based on the same "war" theories that Bush and Cheney used to defend the same policy, to such great controversy and outrage.
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,228
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Speaking of KSM behind bars...

It's been a year now since the public announcement, but Congress has not yet allocated the requisite funds to purchase and upgrade the empty Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. This is the supermax facility where Gitmo detainees were supposed to be incarcerated in the United States. Nothing has happened. Gitmo has not been closed, and Thomson has not been acquired.

article-1228785-074193E0000005DC-567_634x308.jpg
 

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Speaking of KSM behind bars...

It's been a year now since the public announcement, but Congress has not yet allocated the requisite funds to purchase and upgrade the empty Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. This is the supermax facility where Gitmo detainees were supposed to be incarcerated in the United States. Nothing has happened. Gitmo has not been closed, and Thomson has not been acquired.

article-1228785-074193E0000005DC-567_634x308.jpg

I think that whole idea fell on its political face as well. It would have been a drop in the bucket to acquire it with Stimulus money, and if I remember correctly, one of the original selling points was how it would create jobs in that area. But Durbin and other pols from that region soon dropped it like a hot potato.

And so we keep Gitmo. And trials seemingly on eternal hold. And not a Dem out there is making a peep about it, while it was a major club against Bush not too long ago.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,855
Reaction score
33,911
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why does a supermax prison need upgrades to hold suspected terrorists? KSM isn't Lex Luthor. These guys are in custody, why are we still afraid of them? Remember how people reacted to the idea of holding the trials in NYC? OMG CHAOS! Endangering the people of New York! KSM might go Incredible Hulk and break out of his shackles and EAT THE JUDGE! Our bullets will be useless!

Apparently, officials in New York refusing to hold the trial there is somehow Obama's personal screwup. Love it. Obama Derangement Syndrome is all the rage these days.

**** it. Hold the trial in my apartment. See if I care. I'll serve popcorn. We can't just hold these people indefinitely without trial, because this is America and we don't work that way.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Apparently, officials in New York refusing to hold the trial there is somehow Obama's personal screwup. Love it. Obama Derangement Syndrome is all the rage these days.

It is his personal fault. He is the Commander-in-Chief, is he not? It was his choice to hold civilian trials, instead of military tribunal, was it not?

He... ****ed... up.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
25,432
Reaction score
9,527
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why does a supermax prison need upgrades to hold suspected terrorists? KSM isn't Lex Luthor. These guys are in custody, why are we still afraid of them? Remember how people reacted to the idea of holding the trials in NYC? OMG CHAOS! Endangering the people of New York! KSM might go Incredible Hulk and break out of his shackles and EAT THE JUDGE! Our bullets will be useless!

Apparently, officials in New York refusing to hold the trial there is somehow Obama's personal screwup. Love it. Obama Derangement Syndrome is all the rage these days.

**** it. Hold the trial in my apartment. See if I care. I'll serve popcorn. We can't just hold these people indefinitely without trial, because this is America and we don't work that way.

Of course ksm is not capable of going "Hulk". The issue I see is what will his followers do? If it was held in your apartment (or court house), how to you ensure some nut doesn't blow the building up or do damage to the public (shooting, etc). Military court is fine with me.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,228
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why does a supermax prison need upgrades to hold suspected terrorists?
The facility has been dormant for years. The federal government estimated a six month period would be required after purchase to test out all of the security systems and hire/train the prison staff. I imagine the upgrades would feature greater redundancy... more video-cams, motion sensors, etc.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why does a supermax prison need upgrades to hold suspected terrorists? KSM isn't Lex Luthor. These guys are in custody, why are we still afraid of them? Remember how people reacted to the idea of holding the trials in NYC? OMG CHAOS! Endangering the people of New York! KSM might go Incredible Hulk and break out of his shackles and EAT THE JUDGE! Our bullets will be useless!

Apparently, officials in New York refusing to hold the trial there is somehow Obama's personal screwup. Love it. Obama Derangement Syndrome is all the rage these days.

**** it. Hold the trial in my apartment. See if I care. I'll serve popcorn. We can't just hold these people indefinitely without trial, because this is America and we don't work that way.

The screw up is saying things without a plan or a backup. We see this with both Gitmo and these trials. Shows how not qualified these people are for their jobs.
 

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Apparently, officials in New York refusing to hold the trial there is somehow Obama's personal screwup. Love it. Obama Derangement Syndrome is all the rage these days.

**** it. Hold the trial in my apartment. See if I care. I'll serve popcorn. We can't just hold these people indefinitely without trial, because this is America and we don't work that way.

Let's help you out here. KSM was to be tried in FEDERAL COURT. The plan was announced by his AG Eric Holder. At first, most NY pols were mum about it, although Bloomberg supported it in the beginning, but now a year later, gov elect Cuomo, Sen's Shumer and Gillibrand are also against it.

Now here is the toughie for you. NY did not "refuse" to have the trial there, as you state, as it is Federal Court. Do you think that the Obama Administration might have wanted to sound this out a bit better politically, as that seems to be their motivation now to not go ahead with this ? In any case, it is not as you state. It is Obama's screw-up. Do you understand now ?
 
Last edited:

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Big show after Obama was inaugurated, then the epic fail with the NY trials. Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Drone attacks... where are the protesters?!

When will we hear libs make that clarion call... Obama lied, people died?

.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
16,129
Reaction score
6,303
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Obama administration has concluded it can’t go ahead with its original plan to have the trial in federal court in New York because of opposition from lawmakers and local officials, the Post said. There is little support for reviving an effort to hold a military trial at Guantanamo Bay, according to the Post.
Message to Michael Moore: here's an example where Obama "took off the pink tutu." Guess what? It didn't make the decision more popular with voters, or with those in his own party. They don't have a problem with Obama being soft when it comes to implementing a policy, they have a problem with the policy itself.

Now instead of a compromise (trial at Guantanamo), it sounds like there will be no trial at all and he'll simply be held indefinitely. How's that for justice? Although the Pentagon dropped all military charges against Mohammed back in January, they did so "without prejudice" - so in theory they could still go forward with the Bush plan for a military tribunal.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,855
Reaction score
33,911
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's help you out here. KSM was to be tried in FEDERAL COURT. The plan was announced by his AG Eric Holder. At first, most NY pols were mum about it, although Bloomberg supported it in the beginning, but now a year later, gov elect Cuomo, Sen's Shumer and Gillibrand are also against it.

Now here is the toughie for you. NY did not "refuse" to have the trial there, as you state, as it is Federal Court. Do you think that the Obama Administration might have wanted to sound this out a bit better politically, as that seems to be their motivation now to not go ahead with this ? In any case, it is not as you state. It is Obama's screw-up. Do you understand now ?

If they'd had the trial in New York, you'd be calling that a screwup too.
 

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If they'd had the trial in New York, you'd be calling that a screwup too.

Maybe you could just get the facts straight when you post ;)
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Apparently, officials in New York refusing to hold the trial there is somehow Obama's personal screwup. Love it. Obama Derangement Syndrome is all the rage these days.

This is exactly the type of response that Greenwald is talking about:

It's also true that there is substantial political opposition to giving civilian trials to the 9/11 Defendants -- even Andrew Cuomo, safely elected as New York's Governor, has now joined other leading Democrats by announcing his opposition to trials in New York -- but the Federal Government doesn't need the permission of local authorities to use its own courthouses, and more important, the mandates of the Constitution and the rule of law aren't supposed to be waived for political expediency. That premise was the centerpiece of the Obama campaign -- remember?

If we're using pithy names, it sounds more like Obama Defender Syndrome to me.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,855
Reaction score
33,911
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is exactly the type of response that Greenwald is talking about:



If we're using pithy names, it sounds more like Obama Defender Syndrome to me.

Ok, so Obama talked about holding the trial in NYC. People freaked out. Obama said "Ok, we wont do it in NYC because you all freaked out."

Now people are freaking out about that.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Ok, so Obama talked about holding the trial in NYC. People freaked out. Obama said "Ok, we wont do it in NYC because you all freaked out."

Now people are freaking out about that.

It's the fact that people aren't freaking out that is so disingenuous:

If it were true -- as most Obama defenders argued -- that giving civilian trials to accused Terrorists is not merely a good option, but required by the Constitution, the rule of law, and our values, then isn't it logically and necessarily true that Obama's refusal to grant such trials constitutes a violation of our Constitution, our rule of law and our values? And if so, doesn't this require rather severe condemnation from the same people who defended civilian trials as necessary under our system of government? After all, if the President is violating our Constitution, the rule of law, and our values, isn't that cause for some rather serious protest and denunciation, no matter his motives?

...


[M]ore important, the mandates of the Constitution and the rule of law aren't supposed to be waived for political expediency. That premise was the centerpiece of the Obama campaign -- remember?

The point is that when Bush did it, those on the left accused him of serious human rights violations and claimed that he was violating the Constitution. That outrage helped elect Obama, who promised to end those atrocities. Now he's continuing them.

The people who freaked out about Bush should be freaking out about Obama. If they're not, then I guess they didn't really give a **** in the first place and they should just be written off as hypocrites.
 
Last edited:

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ok, so Obama talked about holding the trial in NYC. People freaked out. Obama said "Ok, we wont do it in NYC because you all freaked out."

Now people are freaking out about that.

Does this make you feel that Obama knows what he is doing ?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,855
Reaction score
33,911
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does this make you feel that Obama knows what he is doing ?

After public outcry, politician changes his mind. Isn't that sometimes called listening to the people?

It's bad when Obama does it, it's bad when he doesn't do it. So typical.
 

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
After public outcry, politician changes his mind. Isn't that sometimes called listening to the people?

It's bad when Obama does it, it's bad when he doesn't do it. So typical.

But its not just the notion of a KSM trial in NYC. Its about Gitmo, and any trial. Its all the high claims and promises of the campaign, now shown, like so much else, to be rubbish. Its not just one isolated instance of ineptness by Obama and his AG, but now a whole catalogue of it. Its not just a little bit of hypocrisy, but a whole boatload.
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
original.jpg

Hussein is the one on the right.
Obama has me confused he wants to put on trail people who create "Human caused Tragedies." would Obama put William Shakespeare or trial? After all he did write Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth, and these are some of the greatest the greatest "Human caused Tragedies," in history.

Because of Obama an Janet Napolitano do we need to rename Hurricane Katrina caused by Mother Nature and from now on call it "a man caused disaster?" Because after all we everyone knows that from Obama down to the lowest level Left Wing Liberal wacko Katrina was President George W. Bush's fault.

I think Obama is doing what ever he can to keep this Muslim Cult Member from trail as long as he can. He ignored the people when it came to forcing his Socialist/Marxist agenda of destruction through Congress, why does he suddenly care over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This is all about these murderers never facing the justice they deserve.

I believe if Barack Huessein Obama had his way he's dismiss all charges and let the Cult leader go free and, give him a free ride to the caves of Afghanistan.

He let the Black Panthers go, and fired as I.G. for investigating a criminal who just happens to be the black mayor of Sacramento.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
According to US law, you are tried for a criminal offense in the jurisdiction where the offense took place. This should never have been a political issue in the first place. Those who made a stink and tried to keep the trial out of NYC were using fearmongering to BREAK THE LAW. If we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies and try them according to laws which we deem appropriate for people to live by, then we are no better than they. Take the stupid bastard to New York, try him for his crimes, and then throw him in a hole somewhere. It's a done deal.

It should never have been a political issue in the first place. But who made it a political issue? Oh right, the right did. And they advocated not requiring Americans to follow American laws.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's the fact that people aren't freaking out that is so disingenuous:



The point is that when Bush did it, those on the left accused him of serious human rights violations and claimed that he was violating the Constitution. That outrage helped elect Obama, who promised to end those atrocities. Now he's continuing them.

The people who freaked out about Bush should be freaking out about Obama. If they're not, then I guess they didn't really give a **** in the first place and they should just be written off as hypocrites.

Specifically I remember all the protest marches and screams about suspension of habius corpus, yadda yadda yadda. Where's all the protesters? Where's all the calls for hearings and investigations? And you're right - there's almost no freaking out - no outrage... wonder why? :mrgreen:
 

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
According to US law, you are tried for a criminal offense in the jurisdiction where the offense took place. This should never have been a political issue in the first place. Those who made a stink and tried to keep the trial out of NYC were using fearmongering to BREAK THE LAW. If we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies and try them according to laws which we deem appropriate for people to live by, then we are no better than they. Take the stupid bastard to New York, try him for his crimes, and then throw him in a hole somewhere. It's a done deal.

It should never have been a political issue in the first place. But who made it a political issue? Oh right, the right did. And they advocated not requiring Americans to follow American laws.

No, the right was always content with both Gitmo and tribunals. It was the left, Obama certainly included, that made it a political issue. They were exceedingly vocal about it for an extended period of time. There is no denial of rights by keeping them confined as combatants and giving them a tribunal trial, so no law was either usurped or violated, as you claim. In fact, our entire tribunal process was tweaked after the 2006 SCOTUS decision with regard to the Gitmo detainees, specifically one Salim Ahmed Hamdan

As pointed out at least once in this thread, trying them in NY is opposed by Gov Elect Cuomo, and Sen's Shumer and Hillenbrand. All have said they will do all that they can to keep the trial from taking place in NYC. They are NY politicians. The top NY politicians. None of them are "the right".

Perhaps you would like to try again to support your now debunked assertions ?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom