Quantcast

Rick: Why would Gov't Demand Public Trial of 9/11 perps?

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
I mean, if there's this grand conspiracy and cover-up and all of that, you'd think they'd stick with those military tribunals where the judge can just decide to throw out whatever evidence he wants, and seal all court records, disallow media and all that stuff. Instead, they're going to try them in public courts for all the world to see... and give them legitimate lawyers to defend themselves and all of that.

Also, I guess the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks doesnt buy into the conspiracy theories either, since he's already admitted guilt and wants to be put to death.



Im guessing you guys have already conjured up an alternative though? Can I hear it?
Also, did you ever read that Carl Sagan book I recommended you?
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,241
20,024
Sleazattle
If the government could stage the assassination of a president, a moon landing and a terrorist attack a trial would be sooooo eeeasy.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
I think they would have a public trial, because it is actually the right thing to do, as EVERYONE deserves the protections of the constitution. Not sure why they decided to do the right thing now... from what I remember reading this was mostly the decision of the attorney general.

I have no doubt that planes crashed into 3 buildings on 9/11, and that another crashed into a field (I don't know how the last one ended up crashed, but alas, I digress...). KSM may have even ordered the attack, I don't know. As far as admitting guilt, I heard that the US has his children in custody, and since John Yoo had stated that the president could order the crushing of a child's testicles as a legitimate interrogation technique, KSM may be willing to confess to anything to protect his family.

What I don't know is how the buildings collapsed (especially one that wasn't hit by a plane), why there is evidence of nanothermite dust in NY, and why the finest military on earth failed to do anything to stop the attacks. I also don't know why Norman Mineta reported that they were tracking a plane en route to the Pentagon, and why the 9-11 commission was lied to. I don't imagine any of these issues will be brought up at the trial.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,573
24,193
media blackout
My question is, why isn't this guy being charged with war crimes? With the exception of the Pentagon, the other targets were non-military.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_protected_by_the_constitution


When they produce US birth certificates/citizenship documentation, then they deserve something.
You might want to take a minute to actually read the constitution, specifically Article III which seems to have some bits (that I bolded for easy reading) relevant to the matter at hand.
Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Rick, you might want to read the sixth amendment.

Your judicious bolding only highlights the fact that the US does in fact have judicial jurisdiction in this matter, it does not mean that the terror suspects "deserve" a trail in this country or not, either. I was referring to your broad statement that they "deserved" protection under the US Constitution
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Rick, you might want to read the sixth amendment.

Your judicious bolding only highlights the fact that the US does in fact have judicial jurisdiction in this matter, it does not mean that the terror suspects "deserve" a trail in this country or not, either. I was referring to your broad statement that they "deserved" protection under the US Constitution
Yes, they do deserve a trial in this country, and in New York, in fact, as that is where the "crime" occurred. This is what is stated in Article III, and in the Sixth Amendment.


Amendment VI

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 defense.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
Holy crap, Rick, wtf are you talking about?? (Re: your post #12, not #17 which popped up as I was typing mine)

I just deleted a long an insulting post I wrote, for my own mental health.

Let's just say simply and nicely that the jurisdiction the US affords itself in the Constitution is a separate and distinct issue than who gets Constitutional protections and where. This is despite your conflation of the two, which I know you'll insist is correct.
 
Last edited:

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
If the US has jurisdiction, as claimed in the constitution, then it must exercise its authority as prescribed in the constitution. Anything else would be unconstitutional. If you don't believe me, then ask Attorney General Eric Holder, as this appears to be his interpretation.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
What Eric Holder would agree is that whether or not an individual has Constitutional protections is not the same thing as where the US claims jurisdiction.

I told you you'd conflate the issues. They're distinct. The fact that you don't understand the definitions is your problem, not mine.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
Christ, why do I do it???

OK, here: an individual can commit a crime over which the US claims jurisdiction. (Say, plotting a terrorist attack against America or an American target such as its citizens or embassies abroad.)

This individual, if not a US citizen and not on US soil, is not entitled to Constitutional protections.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
OK, here: an individual can commit a crime over which the US claims jurisdiction. (Say, plotting a terrorist attack against America or an American target such as its citizens or embassies abroad.)

This individual, if not a US citizen and not on US soil, is not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Would you agree that if the US has jurisdiction, that it must exercise its authority as specified in the document that claims said jurisdiction?
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
I think it was Ohio who said something to the effect of "arguing with Rick is as useful as arguing with a 4-year old who says he's going to grow up to be a penguin."

Ed: Actually, it was a giraffe, now that I think about it.
 
Last edited:

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Wow. Just wow. I don't have much else to say here, so please allow me to summarize.

It seems pretty clear to me that constitution says what it does. It's also pretty clear to me that the government has decided that it is appropriate to try KSM in Manhattan, as that is what is happening.

Perhaps I am confused on the reasoning, and this decision is the whim, and not the other way around. Please don't provide evidence one way or the other, as it doesn't really matter, and I probably wouldn't understand it anyhow. :eek:

Regardless of the reasons, I believe that KSM deserves a fair and speedy public trial by jury, and I am glad he will get one. The end.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Regardless of the reasons, I believe that KSM deserves a fair and speedy public trial by jury, and I am glad he will get one. The end.
See, there you go. YOU can believe it all you want and are indeed entitled and afforded that protected right under the Constitution (if you are a citizen). Big, big difference than your previous statement that KSM and others "deserve" protection under the Constitution, and that said Constitution specifies that.

You see, they have no "rights" per se, but the Constitution does specify that the accused shall be afforded a fair and speedy trail. However, this ain't gonna be speedy and various appeals to the Supreme Court has still yet to define what is "reasonable speed"
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
You see, they have no "rights" per se, but the Constitution does specify that the accused shall be afforded a fair and speedy trail. However, this ain't gonna be speedy and various appeals to the Supreme Court has still yet to define what is "reasonable speed"
Are you saying the constitution ain't perfect?


That'll git yer ass killed in Kansas.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
Anyone physically present within the borders of the United States is protected by the Constitution, regardless of nationality or other legal status.