KSM Back to the Tribunal?
I'm a little sorry to hear this as the trial would give the Truthers fits, but I'll stick with my earlier expressed opinion, which is that I'm a results guy, not a process guy. As long as the result is either life or death for KSM, I'll be satisfied.
President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.
Labels: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
posted by Pat @ 6:19 AM
35 comments
35 Comments:
As long as the result is either life or death for KSM, I'll be satisfied.
And due process as well as KSM's actual guilt or innocence be damned, right, Pat?
Well, coming from a debunker this sort of disdain for factual accuracy is not surprising in the least. Thanks for being honest, though.
Let me get this straight...guilty, without trial, due to tortured confessions from a debunker? Why am I not surprised.
See slippery slope justice for this philosophy. Pat, your a great model for the resurgence of the Nazis.
Now be on your way and continue promoting the continued destruction of the constitution.
Well said Boris.
Heh silly Anonymous goose - point to me the provision in the Constitution that is implicated in whether or not KSM receives a civilian trial or a military tribunal.
I don't believe in relying too much on Founders' intent, but do you know how quickly Jefferson would have had this jihadist ass beheaded?
Yeah, and another photo from Boris supporting the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.
Boris, I realize you have to look at the mirror every day and see that ugliness, but do you really have to make other people feel that pain?
By the way, everyone, don't give Boris any personal information - he's a stalker.
Shocka! Pentagon shooter a truther:
http://gawker.com/5486333/in-video-audio-and-writing-pentagon-shooter-left-bizarre-internet-trail
My guess is Alex Jones is already saying the Pentagon shooter was a government agent of some sort....
"...And due process as well as KSM's actual guilt or innocence be damned, right, Pat?"
The evidence against KSM is overwhelming and was partially presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui:
Source: USDC Eastern District of Virginia: United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui--Criminal No. 01-455-A.
Boris, aren't you happy another truther tried to commit murder on behalf of your cause? How long before you try something similar?
Obviously the Pentagon shooter was a mind control victim being used to make truthers look crazy.
haha http://www.infowars.com/as-predicted-pentagon-shooting-blamed-on-911-truth/
Of course these psychopaths are already blaming the government and trying to avoid the obvious fact that truthers are fucking nuts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ConsDemo said...
Boris, aren't you happy another truther tried to commit murder on behalf of your cause? How long before you try something similar?
Not sure what you are talking about. 9/11 truth movement does not incite to violence as its aim is restoration of the lawful order, not perpetration of crimes.
And I am not a violent person so I am not planning on killing anybody. Hope this answers your question.
GuitarBill said...
The evidence against KSM is overwhelming and was partially presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui:
Without delving into those PDF's (and as I remember the whole Moussaoui trial was a bit of a shaky affair too): what in your opinion does the evidence against KSM amount to?
And due process as well as KSM's actual guilt or innocence be damned, right, Pat?
I'll bear that statement in mind next time NYC-CAN comes up.
Even a military tribunal is a fairer trial than what those clowns want.
"...what in your opinion does the evidence against KSM amount to?"
Have a look at the wire transfers, Mr. Epstein, and, by all means, feel free to come to your own conslusion.
%^)
9/11 truth movement does not incite to violence
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Of course not.
GuitarBill said...
Have a look at the wire transfers, Mr. Epstein, and, by all means, feel free to come to your own conslusion.
I have seen at least some of the data you are referring to and I have long come to my conclusions. Those conclusions are that KSM may have been involved in some capacity; however, a lot of what is being presented against him is just allegations and evidence obtained under duress.
I asked you for your opinion for one reason and one reason only: to hear what it is. That is pretty much the only reason I ever ask questions. Just FYI.
I am determined to see that justice is served in the death of Colonel James Sabow, as a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions and institutions such as the coup regime of 1963 that maintains itself in power through the global drug trade, financial corruption, and murder, among other crimes.
From the Pentagon shooters website. These guys are so unoriginal! At least there is one fewer and no innocents were killed.
"...I have seen at least some of the data you are referring to and I have long come to my conclusions. Those conclusions are that KSM may have been involved in some capacity; however, a lot of what is being presented against him is just allegations and evidence obtained under duress."
Wire transfers aren't "allegations", Mr. Epstein, they're hard evidence. Damning evidence.
GuitarBill said...
Wire transfers aren't "allegations", Mr. Epstein, they're hard evidence. Damning evidence.
Evidence of what, though? Do you know for a fact that transfers in question were sent and received by those the authorities claim? Given the ease with which one can assume a fake identity how do we know that?
Do we know that the sending and receiving party knew what the funds were for? What do we truly know?
It is just like in the Moussaoui trial - what we truly know is very little.
Jeffrey Dahmer would have loved to have Boris Epstein on the jury.
"How do I know that those were human remains? Do you know how easy it is to fake human remains? And why are we so sure that the defendant is actually Jeffrey Dahmer? Isn't it possible that the cops want to be perceived as having caught someone?"
Boris - why don't you go over to your Pal KSM's stomping grounds and dig up some character witnesses.
Don't forget to buy an extra return ticket so when they find your head six months after the rest of your corpse is found it can fly home instead of being mailed.
Another twoofer goes violent. A gunman opened fire right outside of the Pentagon yesterday trying to get the "truth" about 9/11.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35716821/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Patrick from Cincinnati said...
Jeffrey Dahmer would have loved to have Boris Epstein on the jury.
"How do I know that those were human remains? Do you know how easy it is to fake human remains? And why are we so sure that the defendant is actually Jeffrey Dahmer? Isn't it possible that the cops want to be perceived as having caught someone?"
Thanks for the laugh, Patrick!
I do expect communicating to you - or even trying to - to be a waste of time but I just can't help myself - I need to ask you how in your opinion one could "fake human remains"?
Boris,
Normal people understand my point.
How'd that Northeast Truth Conference end up? I heard it was 6 presenters and 5 audience members.
I love it when the "Misprision of Treason" gang all of a sudden start spouting "innocent until proven guilty." What a bunch of morons!
"Boris Epstein said...
As long as the result is either life or death for KSM, I'll be satisfied.
And due process as well as KSM's actual guilt or innocence be damned, right, Pat?"
Um, no, bore-ass, he is guilty, he's admitted his guilt.
You, on the other hand, are a retarded marmoset.
"Boris Epstein said...
GuitarBill said...
Wire transfers aren't "allegations", Mr. Epstein, they're hard evidence. Damning evidence.
Evidence of what, though?"
Howze about a conspiracy to commit mass murder?
....you retarded marmoset.
Oh.
As in a REAL conspiracy on the part of al Queda, not the usual twooooofer dribblings.
I love it when the "Misprision of Treason" gang all of a sudden start spouting "innocent until proven guilty."
What he said.
point to me the provision in the Constitution that is implicated in whether or not KSM receives a civilian trial or a military tribunal.
We all know there isn't one, and that's exactly the problem. Laws about "enemy combatants" and such are poorly suited to terror suspects.
The U.S. can't win on this Khalid Sheikh Mohamed trial issue. He's going to be found guilty, because he is guilty. But the verdict of any American court, be it military, tribunal, or Judge Judy, will be disregarded by much of the world as unfair. And the Obama administration's waffling on how to try KSM -- with the implication that the kind of trial he is entitled is based on their whims -- doesn't help America's credibility.
Congress -- and also the United Nations, since terrorism is multinational in nature -- needs to lay down the law on this. We need a definition of terrorism, a definition of involvement in a terrorist act (what is "masterminding" anyway?), and a delineation of what rights those accused of terrorism do and don't have. That would negate this whole controversy, at least for the future.
You'd think the Patriot Act and other post-9/11 legislation would have addressed this; apparently it did not.
Triterope said...
point to me the provision in the Constitution that is implicated in whether or not KSM receives a civilian trial or a military tribunal.
We all know there isn't one, and that's exactly the problem. Laws about "enemy combatants" and such are poorly suited to terror suspects.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You think you know a lot of things that have no basis in reality; this seems to be one of them.
You are right, to some degree, in saying that terrorism as a crime is poorly defined; however, murder, destruction of property, sabotage are defined fairly well. Those are charges KSM should face in the state court in NY or VA or PA or in federal court.
Boris Epstein, you have got to be the most exasperating person I have ever dealt with. Your ability to transform your own ignorance into condescension towards others is so powerful that someone ought to study it as an alternative fuel.
The reason your Constitutional argument is worthless, you raging buffoon, is that some do not believe foreign terror suspects are entitled to American Constitutional protections. That's pretty much one of the two positions in this entire argument. Which I acknowledged when I said "existing laws" were poorly suited to terror suspects. Existing laws includes the Constitution. I thought that phrase was sufficiently obvious to acknowledge the existence of this position; not to you, apparently. And by the way, Patrick from Cincinnati said the same damn thing in post 3. No wonder you don't have any hair; you've had a lifetime of things wooshing over your head.
Talking to you is like talking to a three-year-old. And you know what, Boris? It isn't fun anymore. I'm getting really tired of having to explain every fuckin' nuance of everything I ever say just because you don't understand it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Triterope said...
Boris Epstein, you have got to be the most exasperating person I have ever dealt with. Your ability to transform your own ignorance into condescension towards others is so powerful that someone ought to study it as an alternative fuel.
The reason your Constitutional argument is worthless, you raging buffoon, is that some do not believe foreign terror suspects are entitled to American Constitutional protections. That's pretty much one of the two positions in this entire argument. Which I acknowledged when I said "existing laws" were poorly suited to terror suspects. Existing laws includes the Constitution. I thought that phrase was sufficiently obvious to acknowledge the existence of this position; not to you, apparently. And by the way, Patrick from Cincinnati said the same damn thing in post 3. No wonder you don't have any hair; you've had a lifetime of things wooshing over your head.
Talking to you is like talking to a three-year-old. And you know what, Boris? It isn't fun anymore. I'm getting really tired of having to explain every fuckin' nuance of everything I ever say just because you don't understand it.
So "some do not believe foreign terror suspects are entitled to American Constitutional protections." And some people believe that the Earth is flat. Does the fact that some people hold a certain belief make that belief valid? I don't think so. If you want to prove me wrong here you will need to demonstrate where the US Constition delineates the rights of the US citizens (or regular criminal suspects) vs those of "foreign terror suspects" which in itself is a rather vaguely defined category.
It is also nice to see that you are using my appearance as an argument in a discussion of legalities. I take it that your arguments, thin as they usually are, have by now pretty much fizzled to nothing.
As for your not being amused with conversing with me - well, I honestly do not remember ever signing up to amuse you. Or to be pleasant to you. It is a free country, brother or sister. Feel free to stop communicating with me. Feel free to go away. Don't worry, your intellectual input and entertainment value is certainly something I can quite easily survive without.
If you want to prove me wrong here you will need to demonstrate where the US Constition blah blah blah
That's the ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT, Boris. There is no such place (which I've already said). The part you can't seem to comprehend is that others might interpret the imperfectly-written law differently than you do. Which shouldn't be surprising to me, since you seem to think the universe formed at your whim.
It is also nice to see that you are using my appearance as an argument in a discussion of legalities.
If you're going to come here and be both stupid AND ugly, I reserve the right to refer to both in the same comment.
I take it that your arguments, thin as they usually are, have by now pretty much fizzled to nothing.
*clicking stopwatch* Two paragraphs. Not bad. Get BP on the phone.
"...And due process as well as KSM's actual guilt or innocence be damned, right, Pat?"
Well seeing as he fucking well admitted his role well before his arrest, in an interview with an Al-Jazeera journo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/alqaida.terrorism
Post a Comment
<< Home