- This topic has 5 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
Only questions I have is where are they going to find a jury of his peers and don't they usually hold trials, especially one that is going to get this much media coverage, out of the the city where the crime was committed? (crime-act of war…I guess there is no difference here with our AG and president)Didn't they have to move the OJ trial to another jurisdiction because of these reasons?And why do I fear that it's not the terrorist who's going to be on trial, it will be the United States?
Only questions I have is where are they going to find a jury of his peers...
This should mean a jury of people of basically the average standing; a jury of average citizens.
and don't they usually hold trials, especially one that is going to get this much media coverage, out of the the city where the crime was committed? (crime-act of war...I guess there is no difference here with our AG and president). Didn't they have to move the OJ trial to another jurisdiction because of these reasons?
OJ trial wasn't moved... perhaps it should have been, but trials, according to the Const., should take place in the jurisdiction where committed unless it will compromise the process. Not sure what you mean about the AG / Pres. comment?
And why do I fear that it's not the terrorist who's going to be on trial, it will be the United States?
Because that is the likely outcome. All the comments made about showing the world how well out system works are bunk... the rest of the world doesn't care a rat's hat for our system; the ones we are most trying to impress with our system would give a kangaroo process and a beheading in this case.While I agree, the case perhaps should be in civil court, we should do something like the Nuremberg Trials under military conditions (due process still) as these cases result for a declaration of war against the US.
Not sure what you mean about the AG / Pres. comment?
9-11 was an act of war. That shouldn't even be a question (unless you are the current President and AG of the US).KSM should not be tried in a civil court because it was not a civil crime. We're not talking bank robbery here nor are we talking domestic terrorism. KSM is not an American citizen.
Not sure what you mean about the AG / Pres. comment?
9-11 was an act of war. That shouldn't even be a question (unless you are the current President and AG of the US).KSM should not be tried in a civil court because it was not a civil crime. We're not talking bank robbery here nor are we talking domestic terrorism. KSM is not an American citizen.
Okay... I see it now (after my coffee); agreed all counts.
What makes anybody think that ::) justice ::) is the main object in bringing these guys to the US for trial. The powers that be are more worried about appearances than justice.
I don't often agree with Pat Buchanan but he hits a home run with this week's column: Is America at war, or not?. He asks some very relevant questions about the way in which we should treat those who are self-declared enemies of the US. I will look into my crystal ball and foretell that any trial of KSM on US soil will turn into a media circus and a mockery of the deaths of thousands on 9/11/2001. To what depths have we as a nation sunk? 🙁
The way I see it is that under Bush there was little attempt to make a show pleasing to the international community, and under Obama it's kind of the opposite – primary concern is appeasing the international community even if it means ignoring governing principles. If I had my choice between the two, of course I would choose the option of following one's principles first, appearances later. One area where Bush could have improved is in the PR department; although I don't think that it's either possible or necessary to placate everyone, on the diplomatic level (and in domestic communications) I think that it's important to be able to “sell” one's message in a rather convincing way. Thinking in other terms, the worst thing that can happen using Bush's approach is that the international community and the voting public are angered, they don't cooperate with U.S. initiatives, and the leaders in control are voted out of office (we saw some of each of these recently). Under Obama's approach, the worst thing that could happen is that the rule of domestic law starts to crumble, sovereignty is essentially given away, and foreign enemies take advantage of "Mr. Niceguy Policies" to wreak havoc in their regions of the world.Which of the two would I choose? Do I even need to answer?
The way I see it is that under Bush there was little attempt to make a show pleasing to the international community, and under Obama it's kind of the opposite - primary concern is appeasing the international community even if it means ignoring governing principles. If I had my choice between the two, of course I would choose the option of following one's principles first, appearances later. One area where Bush could have improved is in the PR department; although I don't think that it's either possible or necessary to placate everyone, on the diplomatic level (and in domestic communications) I think that it's important to be able to "sell" one's message in a rather convincing way. Thinking in other terms, the worst thing that can happen using Bush's approach is that the international community and the voting public are angered, they don't cooperate with U.S. initiatives, and the leaders in control are voted out of office (we saw some of each of these recently). Under Obama's approach, the worst thing that could happen is that the rule of domestic law starts to crumble, sovereignty is essentially given away, and foreign enemies take advantage of "Mr. Niceguy Policies" to wreak havoc in their regions of the world.Which of the two would I choose? Do I even need to answer?
Agreed
I remember that blog in this forum about Augustus as the greatest Roman emperor, I don't compare Obama to Augustus but he's also struggling to rule in unfavourable conditions, it's not the Ides of March yet, but he's the first black president, a democrat and heir of the worst financial crisis since 1929. G.W. Bush got 2 presidencies (8 years !) to show his abilities...
But at least Augustus had proved he more than empty suit before his elevation. Obama has not done that, if anything his previous history proves that he is an empty suit. I am not convinced that he is his own man, and I have seen nothing since he was in office to prove otherwise. He strikes me as a typical politician trying to pay off his marks that got him elected. He is definitely not a statesman.The move to prosecute KSM in New York is not based on logic or reality but is purely political, it will satisfy some of his base. Because you know that meany George Bush was denying him his rights. He should have been shot out of hand on the battlefield, but we needed the intelligence he provided, and now he will probably get off on a technicality because of it. Hopefully, he will be shot the next time he is encountered on the battlefield regardless of any potential intelligence value he has. He is a perfect example of a person that deserves killing, and if he is convicted he will not get the death penalty, instead the taxpayers will end up supporting him for the rest of his miserable existence.
The only thing I have seen Obama do since he has been in office is push the far left agenda. That is not the agenda he was elected on either BTW. I making my judgment mostly on his history before he came into office though he has not impressed me as president either. Mostly, I see him and his party chipping away at our freedoms to push their agenda. They know what is best for me because I am too stupid/lazy/indolent to do it myself is what I hear coming out of the left. I am constantly reminded of the words of Jefferson” From time ti time it is necessary for the tree of freedom to be refreshed by the blood of patriots”. I was not a huge fan of Bush either, the Patriot Act sends chills up my spine with number of Civil Liberties that were trashed in that one piece of legislation.
