9/11 Mastermind to be tried in New York, In Civilian Court

[Panama]

Originally Posted by Denny347

Then we did something wrong and the Feds should have done a better job. If they cannot even prove guilt in a proper court of law to a jury that hates the defendants guts then what are they doing in custody in the first place?

That is my exact point, I think the Feds (actually the entire government) did a lot wrong.
I don't know how we can administer justice, by affording them some Constitutional rights, but not all of our Constitutional rights?

Talk about your slippery slope!

Like in my previous post, if you or I get "arrested", we are gruanranteed "all" the Constitutional rights I mentioned above and then some, starting with being mirandized and so on.

So what I am "asking" is will we give them just a few of our Constitutional rights, or do we guarantee them ALL?
If we grant them all, we have already violated nearly every one of those Constitutional rights?

So now what do we do?

[Denny347]

Originally Posted by Hotdoger

LOL!!!!!

Since when does "guilt" have anything to do with our present judicial system?

Our courts have been turned into a total FARCE!

Maybe, so your solution is what?

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by Panama

That is my exact point, I think the Feds (actually the entire government) did a lot wrong.
I don't know how we can administer justice, by affording them some Constitutional rights, but not all of our Constitutional rights?

Talk about your slippery slope!

Like in my previous post, if you or I get "arrested", we are gruanranteed "all" the Constitutional rights I mentioned above and then some, starting with being mirandized and so on.

So what I am "asking" is will we give them just a few of our Constitutional rights, or do we guarantee them ALL?
If we grant them all, we have already violated nearly every one of those Constitutional rights?

So now what do we do?

If they were not given the Miranda warning and they made statements in response to questioning, then those statements would be thrown out, unable to be admitted into evidence. However, if they made statements freely, without questions being asked, those would probably be OK. Also, if there is evidence that was obtained without cooperation of the defendant, such as, oh, I don't know, a few buildings being damaged or destroyed.. I think those would probably be admitted into evidence as well.

The problem is that they are not uniformed combatants fighting for their nation, and IIRC, that excludes them from the Geneva Convention, however, they were not merely non-combatants haplessly captured in a war zone.

In Revolutionary times, an enemy would likely be tried and taken to the wall to be shot, however a spy was hanged and I do believe that this sentence was carried out without trial. I do know that a British officer had the power and indeed, the duty to execute those suspected of treason, and the normal method was by hanging from the nearest tree, without appeal. These are not warriors who live by a code of honor, but honorless rats deserving of nothing more than a quick death.
Personally, I would not legitimize them by treating them as soldiers, but treat them as common criminals and punish their crimes. (though these days, that's pretty frightening, as common criminals do get the revolving door justice system. I trust that New Yorkers, however, given notice that these scum were exiting the courthouse, I think would ensure they walked no farther than a few steps, and nobody saw nuthin'.

Either way, they've lit their last fuse and made their last Semtex vests.

Blessings,
Bill

[Denny347]

Originally Posted by Panama

That is my exact point, I think the Feds (actually the entire government) did a lot wrong.
I don't know how we can administer justice, by affording them some Constitutional rights, but not all of our Constitutional rights?

Talk about your slippery slope!

Like in my previous post, if you or I get "arrested", we are gruanranteed "all" the Constitutional rights I mentioned above and then some, starting with being mirandized and so on.

So what I am "asking" is will we give them just a few of our Constitutional rights, or do we guarantee them ALL?
If we grant them all, we have already violated nearly every one of those Constitutional rights?

So now what do we do?

Which rights do they not need or we do not want to give them? He is NOT the first foreign criminal (terrorist) to be caught oversees and brought back to the US to stand trial. Ramzi Yousef was behind the first WTC bombing. He was caught in Pakastan and transported by the FBI to the US to stand trial. He was tried and convicted in Federal Court. I believe there were 4 other terrorists that were all caught outside the US and brought back to stand trial in Federal Court. There were no troubles that time, why is it different now? Our constitutional rights are rights that we were born with. Many refer to them as "God given rights". Do we not apply them to other humans that we take into custody? Or does God only give these things to US citizens? The only slippery slope I see is not applying our laws to everyone. Our system is flawed , I won't argue against that for sure, but I challenge you to find an existing legal system that is better. Practice what we preach.

[Panama]

Originally Posted by Denny347

Which rights do they not need or we do not want to give them? He is NOT the first foreign criminal (terrorist) to be caught oversees and brought back to the US to stand trial. Ramzi Yousef was behind the first WTC bombing. He was caught in Pakastan and transported by the FBI to the US to stand trial. He was tried and convicted in Federal Court. I believe there were 4 other terrorists that were all caught outside the US and brought back to stand trial in Federal Court. There were no troubles that time, why is it different now? Our constitutional rights are rights that we were born with. Many refer to them as "God given rights". Do we not apply them to other humans that we take into custody? Or does God only give these things to US citizens? The only slippery slope I see is not applying our laws to everyone. Our system is flawed , I won't argue against that for sure, but I challenge you to find an existing legal system that is better. Practice what we preach.

I think you are missing my point, what I am saying is.
When we caught/captured them we did not treat them as criminal suspects.
They were picked up as "enemy combatants" and at the time of their capture, we did not afford them any Constitutional rights, that would have been afforded in any normal criminal case.

Hell we even admittedly water boarded them, (again not saying we should or should not, but that's different topic) but I believe that is gonna be a HUGE problem under our Constitution in a criminal court, and we can't change that.

But what we have done, is create a hybrid of criminal judicial/military justice and I don't have a clue how we can or even if we can give them full Constitutional rights now, after the fact, some 5 or 6 years later?
How is that going to work.

I seriously think a good lawyer could argue the case be thrown out before it ever gets in front of a jury, because we did not read them their rights, they were not granted a speedy trial, they were coerced to confess and so on and so on.

I am not trying to suggest what they should or should not have done to them. We all have our opinions on that as well. I am merely trying to point out you can't all of a sudden grant anyone rights that were denied at the time of their capture.

My main point is and has been from the get go, this is a colossal frigin' mess and I see it only getting worse as it goes forward toward a criminal prosecution.

God, on this one, I hope I am wrong!
Because I know we ALL agree, these BASTARDS should be brought to "complete" justice for this, and the sooner the better!

[Denny347]

Originally Posted by Panama

I think you are missing my point, what I am saying is.
When we caught/captured them we did not treat them as criminal suspects.
They were picked up as "enemy combatants" and at the time of their capture, we did not afford them any Constitutional rights, that would have been afforded in any normal criminal case.

Hell we even admittedly water boarded them, (again not saying we should or should not, but that's different topic) but I believe that is gonna be a HUGE problem under our Constitution in a criminal court, and we can't change that.

But what we have done, is create a hybrid of criminal judicial/military justice and I don't have a clue how we can or even if we can give them full Constitutional rights now, after the fact, some 5 or 6 years later?
How is that going to work.

I seriously think a good lawyer could argue the case be thrown out before it ever gets in front of a jury, because we did not read them their rights, they were not granted a speedy trial, they were coerced to confess and so on and so on.

I am not trying to suggest what they should or should not have done to them. We all have our opinions on that as well. I am merely trying to point out you can't all of a sudden grant anyone rights that were denied at the time of their capture.

My main point is and has been from the get go, this is a colossal frigin' mess and I see it only getting worse as it goes forward toward a criminal prosecution.

God, on this one, I hope I am wrong!
Because I know we ALL agree, these BASTARDS should be brought to "complete" justice for this, and the sooner the better!

Ah, I see what you are saying. You do make a good point. We may have to pay for our past wrongs, or maybe we will not. Only time will tell I if the Feds did a good enough job to survive scrutiny. We (the government) did a diservice by starting down this dark road, now we have to decide when enough is enough.