Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses

[Loss Leader]

Guantanamo can not be shutdown and not all the suspects can be given a trial. Moussaoui's trial is an example of this. To put all the suspects on trial would have each trial lasting a few years. Look how long it took for Moussaoui to recieve his sentence.

Considering that they've been held for five years without a trial, I'm not sure why there would be an objection because trials take too long.

I firmly believe that the confinement without trial of all suspects held by the US here and abroad is immoral and unconstitutional.

Busherie still has no idea what he's talking about, though.

 

[The Demon's Head]

Not all of the suspects held at Gauntanamo can be given lawyers and a trial. However, there are a few who really wish that those be given a fair trail. It just won't happen though.

As I said in my earlier post in this thread, KSM's confession sort of debunks the inside job theory. If USG officials/agents were invovled in the planning and executing of the attacks, KSM surely would have exposed those invovled. What would KSM have to gain or lose if he did expose or didn't expose those invovled? Nothing to gain or lose. KSM was the mastermind of the entire operation, so he would certainly know who was invovled.

 

[stateofgrace]

I do seek the truth. And let me tell you that debating on this forum has always been interesting. Actually, I've changed my mind on a lot of points: F77, WTC 1 and 2 (not 7 yet) etc.. On other points, like WTC7 and especially Mineta, I stand firm. The truth is not known yet.

On KSM, the fact that he is a mass murderer does not deprive him of his human rights. This is where we do not agree. That is what makes democracy stronger than other regimes, and morally superior.

I agree with you that human rights are sacred but this guy is not up for avoiding paying a speeding fine. He is accused and has confessed to the most horrendous crime imaginable. He planned the mass murder of innocent men, women and children. He did so of his own free will; nobody forced him to do such think. He is not a victim; he is a perpetrator, a perpetrator of a dreadful callous act.

He choose to deny the victims of these dreadful actions the very thing that you believe he is entitled to. His human rights. Yet he denied 3000 people this very right, he denied them the right to the one thing we are all entitled to, life itself.

The line I talked about earlier is directed towards individuals like this, there has to be a deterrent to future such acts. So if this person is made an example of, is slung in jail for the rest of his miserable life, so be it. This is not about taking the moral high ground nor the fact that just because we are a democracy we cannot fight back against international terrorism. We as a democracy are strong because we allow a free press, we allow freedom of speech and we up hold the principles of human rights. Our greatest strengths can sometimes become our greatest weaknesses. These perceived weaknesses can be exploited by those who wish to attack us and kill us.

Any perception there maybe that his human rights have been abused are IMO moot because he has chosen this path, he is responsible for his own actions. He as confessed to mass murder.

This is not to say he should not be treated with some level civility because this is what we are,a civilised society. We try to treat those who disagree with us with some level of respect and allow them to voice there objections. But a line must be drawn between an individual’s right to act how he pleases and the security of the rest.

My sympathies lie with those who he choose to execute; those who lost there loved ones. Not him.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

My sympathies lie with those who he choose to execute; those who lost there loved ones. Not him.

Stateofgrace, you are quite verbose. But doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply even to suspected terrorists? What is "weak" about respecting an accused person's human rights?

If or when they are found guilty, then they will be punished. In the meantime, they cannot hurt anyone while they are imprisoned. It sounds to me like you're out for revenge, not justice.

 

[rwguinn]

..... He is not a victim; he is a perpetrator, a perpetrator of a dreadful callous act.
....

Any perception there maybe that his human rights have been abused are IMO moot because he has chosen this path, he is responsible for his own actions. He as confessed to mass murder.

.

To carry this
He has, by his actions, stated as loudly and clearly as it is possible to state, that "The rules of civilization do not apply to me".
HE has withdrawn from society and civilization. He does not want, nor does he deserve, the protections the rest of us strive for.
Only those who cannot understand the reasons behind those protections, such as some who post here, think that a "Fair trial" will in any way mitigate the guilt of this thing.

 

[rwguinn]

Stateofgrace, you are quite verbose. But doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply even to suspected terrorists? What is "weak" about respecting an accused person's human rights?

If or when they are found guilty, then they will be punished. In the meantime, they cannot hurt anyone while they are imprisoned. It sounds to me like you're out for revenge, not justice.

HE has admitted guilt-uncoerced, freely--even bragged about it.
Trials are used to establish guilt or confirm innocence. (and BTW, "Not Guilty" is not the same as "innocnet")
The reason for a trial of someone "caught in the act" is to determine any mitigating factors, to help determine appropriate punishment

 

[GlennB]

Any perception there maybe that his human rights have been abused are IMO moot because he has chosen this path, he is responsible for his own actions. He as confessed to mass murder.

On this point my guts agree with you, but my head cannot.

He has confessed now. He might not have. Where would his rights to due process of law be then? Still in the gutter that is Guantanamo Bay, presumably.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Trials are used to establish guilt or confirm innocence. (and BTW, "Not Guilty" is not the same as "innocnet")
The reason for a trial of someone "caught in the act" is to determine any mitigating factors, to help determine appropriate punishment

Yup! And it is the COURT that should decide the punishment, at the time of conviction, not some random soldier who wants to get their rocks off by torturing a terrorist.

That's how civilized people do things, anyway. Through evidence, in a lawful, and orderly manner.

 

[rwguinn]

Yup! And it is the COURT that should decide the punishment, at the time of conviction, not some random soldier who wants to get their rocks off by torturing a terrorist.

That's how civilized people do things, anyway. Through evidence, in a lawful, and orderly manner.

So, every gun-toting dude/dudette that our soldiers run across out there must be captured and held for trial? Even if he's shooting at our people?

No wonder we aren't winning the war on terror--our bleeding hearts value the lives of the enemy more than they do our soldiers.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No. We value the principles we were founded on - and if he's held in a miltary brig fine. He should still be treated under the Geneva Convention - and a fair trial in the civilian courts.

When we say "make the world safe for democracy" we mean that. And a fundamental feature of our democracy is "innocent until proven guility." and
"Liberty, justice and equality for all."

Even for murderers, we hold them to the law - the basis of a civilized society.

 

[WildCat]

Let see after six years of torture and brain washing, we are to believe he did almost every terrorist act in the 2000's.

Wow, 6 years of torture huh? So we were torturing him 6 months before 9/11, and 2 years before he was captured!

Such inattention to basic details, and you wonder why we make fun of troofers.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, every gun-toting dude/dudette that our soldiers run across out there must be captured and held for trial? Even if he's shooting at our people?

No wonder we aren't winning the war on terror--our bleeding hearts value the lives of the enemy more than they do our soldiers.

Considering the fact that this is NOT the policy of the current US administration, it can't possibly play any part in why we aren't winning the war on terror.

However, you have created a strawman argument here in any case. No one argued that soldiers shouldn't defend themselves with lethal force when being shot at. The argument was that people who have already been captured on suspicion of terrorism should be afforded some due process rights.

 

[firecoins]

proof of Al Qeida's involvment
http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=77005&page=3

 

[WildCat]

No. We value the principles we were founded on - and if he's held in a miltary brig fine. He should still be treated under the Geneva Convention - and a fair trial in the civilian courts.

Uh, no. There are standards the Geneva Conventions set for protected persons. If those standards are met, then he is a POW (this is a legal term for enemies captured in a war who are protected persons). If not, then he is an unlawful combatant and can be subjected to a military tribunal.

There is no precedent whatsoever for unlawful combatants to be tried in civilian courts.

What the transcript is from is a hearing to determine his status, not a trial.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

... Yes, I am aware that as a 'unlawful combatant' he has no rights under the Geneva Convention.

That's why I said.. should. If nothing else, it's symbolic.

 

[stateofgrace]

Stateofgrace, you are quite verbose. But doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply even to suspected terrorists? What is "weak" about respecting an accused person's human rights?

If or when they are found guilty, then they will be punished. In the meantime, they cannot hurt anyone while they are imprisoned. It sounds to me like you're out for revenge, not justice.

I wouldn't call it revenge although yes I would be the first to admit that individuals like this annoy me. It annoys me that anybody can take it upon themselves to plan and execute actions to further their own believes and causes that involve the deaths of innocent people. I suppose if I was to qualify my feeling on this matter it would be one of wishing for closure upon it all. To simply see this dreadful episode laid to rest and for people to move on from it. This will not happen so long as individuals like this are not punished.

I fully support the notion of innocent until proven guilty. This guy has confessed his guilt, he has not even denied his guilt, and if the evening news in the UK this evening is to be believed he is actually proud of his guilt. Had this been an individual that had been dragged off the street shouting and screaming his innocence then yes I would not be so quick to condemn but this appears not to be the case.

It would be better all round if he was brought before a Civilian court and tried correctly and I actually hope he is. I hope all the sordid horrible details of this mans involvement are dragged out and exposed before the world.

I would like to think and hope that this guy will be given due process but any process from here on in will simply be to decide his fate, whether that be the death sentence or life. Pretty similar to Moussaoui who confessed his involvement before hand I should imagine.

 

[Babbylonian]

So, every gun-toting dude/dudette that our soldiers run across out there must be captured and held for trial? Even if he's shooting at our people?

No wonder we aren't winning the war on terror--our bleeding hearts value the lives of the enemy more than they do our soldiers.

Okay, I'm not one to typically jump in on the side of terrorists ("duh"), but you're attempting to draw a connection between how we should deal with combatants in the field and how we should deal with combatants who are already prisoners. Such a connection is inappropriate and inflammatory.

If you can't agree that prisoners of the US military shouldn't be mistreated, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Don't, however, mistake a person's desire that we treat prisoners decently for being soft on the crimes they commit, or for desiring that they be treated decently while they're committing those crimes.

 

[332nd]

So, what are he odds that a story will "leak" that he fingerd Bush and Co. and every CTer will believe it?

 

[Without Rights]

I thought Bin Laden did it.

That's when they wanted to attack Afganistan. Saddam had a hand in it to, when we wanted to attack Iraq.

Maybe they will find a connection with [SIZE=-1]Ahmadinejad when it is Iran's turn.

Then we can start killing Venezuelians because they must be involved also.

You know what I would like to see, is the evidence that got this guy arrested in the first place. If it was nothing then we have a real reason to believe that his confessions were brought on by 5 torture filled years.

But of course the "skeptics" in here won't believe that our loving and righteous government would torture anybody. right?
[/SIZE]

 

[Pardalis]

Your simplistic worldview of a 5 year old is really depressing, Without rights.