Good news!

[Trabitha]

I'm all FOR a military trial...I'm crossing my fingers that's what happens.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sept11_trial

Administration may abandon civilian 9/11 trial

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder is leaving open the possibility of trying professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military commission instead of the civilian trial originally planned for New York City.
"At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it's done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules," Holder told The Washington Post in an interview published in Friday's editions. "If we do that, I'm not sure the location or even the forum is as important as what the world sees in that proceeding."
Opposition from New York officials has forced the Obama administration to reconsider plans to put Mohammed on trial in federal court in lower Manhattan, near where the World Trade Center was felled.
City and state officials and many congressional Republicans argue that the high-security trial would put New Yorkers at risk of further attacks, cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in security expenses and take a staggering toll on nearby businesses.
Holder still maintains that a civilian trial would be the best option for the case and "best for our overall fight against al-Qaida."
President Barack Obama said in a CBS interview that he hasn't ruled out holding the trial in New York federal court but was taking into account the objections of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city's police.

[crashdive123]

That would be good news if it happens.

[Pal334]

Good news. Executions are "relatively" easier in a tribunal. I of course would insist on a fair trail before they were executed ,, just saying ,,,, :)

[glockcop]

I'm all in for a tribunal. Fry the b*stard!

[Trabitha]

Oh, I hear ya, Pal. I just don't want the trial of a terrorist to be in a civilian court with OUR rights. You know...The right to remain silent, confronting witnesses, right to an attorney, or double jeopardy. No one that tried to or admitted to blowing up an American target in a terror attack deserves these rights. IMO. Add in military targets like the Pentagon and it's an open and shut case.
Will the military be harder on them? Yep! But they will be fair.

[welderguy]

Isnt this the P.O.S. that openly admitted to being a terrorist and was proud of his actions. My 2cents, skip a trial just shoot the BA@@@rd .

[Rick]

Either take him out in a field far away from everything else and let him have his wish.

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/image/explosion.jpg

Or....sentence him to life in prison and give him one copy of ....

http://z.about.com/d/top40/1/0/1/A/manilowlive.jpg

[BENESSE]

A tribunal for him and his ilk, no question about it.
It's an outrage the underwear bomber slithered through that one.
NO ONE in NYC wanted the trial here. That would have made as much sense as having it at the Pentagon or in the field in PA.

[Trabitha]

Isnt this the P.O.S. that openly admitted to being a terrorist and was proud of his actions. My 2cents, skip a trial just shoot the BA@@@rd .

Yep and yep! Couldn't agree more.

[Batch]

The right to remain silent, confronting witnesses, right to an attorney, or double jeopardy.

I can't see why these are bad things. I do not know if these are rights afforded persons tried under a military tribunal or not.

The right to remain silent. How do you deny this? By torture. Torture has been time and time again shown to be unreliable. If you seek a confession and you use torture you will get your confession. See the inquisition.

False confessions involving false attacks will result in a watering down of our ability to pursue leads that are more tangible.

Same thing with the right to confront your accusers. What can be the benefit of denying this right? Only to create an opportunity for great abuse of power.

I believe that even under a military tribunal you have the right to legal council to understand the gravity of the situation and the consequences of your decisions. I could be wrong.

I also believe the reason for not allowing endless prosecution of cases over and over again is a good check and balance.

I don't want to open the door to the kinds of abuses that can occur once we weather away these fundamental human rights.

[Trabitha]

I can't see why these are bad things. I do not know if these are rights afforded persons tried under a military tribunal or not.

The right to remain silent. How do you deny this? By torture. Torture has been time and time again shown to be unreliable. If you seek a confession and you use torture you will get your confession. See the inquisition.

False confessions involving false attacks will result in a watering down of our ability to pursue leads that are more tangible.

Same thing with the right to confront your accusers. What can be the benefit of denying this right? Only to create an opportunity for great abuse of power.

I believe that even under a military tribunal you have the right to legal council to understand the gravity of the situation and the consequences of your decisions. I could be wrong.

I also believe the reason for not allowing endless prosecution of cases over and over again is a good check and balance.

I don't want to open the door to the kinds of abuses that can occur once we weather away these fundamental human rights.


Those are four of our rights under the bill of rights, afforded to a US citizen. Under a military trial they are allowed to have representation assigned by the tribunal. There is no cross examination by the defense attorney in a military tribunal, and in reference to the remaining silent if you don't speak, it simply doesn't help your case. You don't stand before a military tribunal unless you're going to be convicted. It's a formality that essentially reviews the evidence against you and explains to you and all the observers why you are being convicted for war crimes. It's not a court hearing. If you're there, you've already been found to be an enemy combatant guilty of crimes. You have no option to use our laws or our rights to get off scott free. *cough- OJ- cough*
There is no "not guilty" in a military tribunal. You go in there guilty and it's just a matter of what your sentence is going to be. In minor offenses, the guilty party is "repatriated" to his home country and denied reentry into the US.

This man will die. He's admitted to this crime of organizing a war crime against non-combatants AND military targets. He won't walk out of a tribunal with a slap on the wrist. He will walk out with a menu for his last meal...and I'm good with that.