9/11 mastermind/Guantanamo detainee trials to begin

[Brainache]

I just want to rule out the "aliens" as being the agents of doing the bad things.

I guess you listen to your heart when your brain is aching.

And the "sheeple" inside needs a lot of tender.

I have students and grandchildren. WWII and the concentration camps. When will we ever learn?

Brainache, I don´t think there are any outside jobs. We have to do it from the inside anyhow.



Truth,

It's posts like this that make my poor brain ache.

"And the "sheeple" inside needs a lot of tender."

Tender what? Resignation?

By "aliens" do you mean people from other countries, or little green men?

So every job starts on the inside, no matter who it's by or how they do it?

My achey breaky brain be boggled.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I didn't have time to read the thread, but has anyone told Lastchild that KSM confessed before he was even caught?

 

[LastChild]

I didn't have time to read the thread, but has anyone told Lastchild that KSM confessed before he was even caught?

Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.

You know like when some people claim to be debunkers without actually bothering to take the time to read what it is they claim to be debunking.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.

Now why would anyone want to do that?

 

[D'rok]

Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.

Let me see if I have this straight:

Coerced confession = false
Un-coerced confession = false

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if it was Bush confessing to having orchestrated 9/11, your position would be:

Coerced confession = true
Un-coerced confession = true

Two questions:

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?
2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

 

[LastChild]

Now why would anyone want to do that?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_pearl.html

Exclusive: Pearl Family Doubts KSM Confession
March 16, 2007 7:04 PM
The father of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl says he doesn't believe al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the man who beheaded his son, despite Mohammed's confession to a U.S. military tribunal.

"He wants to take credit for doing it, and he wants to exonerate al Qaeda, blame Pakistan and whatever," said Judea Pearl, Danny's father. "When a person confesses and he has nothing to lose, you have to take it with a spice of doubt."

 

[LastChild]

Let me see if I have this straight:

Coerced confession = false
Un-coerced confession = false

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if it was Bush confessing to having orchestrated 9/11, your position would be:

Coerced confession = true
Un-coerced confession = true

Two questions:

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?
2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

Let me see if I have this straight:

Un-coerced confession = More then enough proof he did it

So after the fact we tortured a coerced confession out of him ... why?

 

[Alt+F4]

Perhaps KSM did make a false confession. Then again he compared OBL to George Washington and thinks 40 million people died in World War I....so who knows?

 

[D'rok]

Let me see if I have this straight:

Un-coerced confession = More then enough proof he did it

Nope. Un-coerced confession + mountains of corrobarating circumstantial evidence = more than enough proof that he did it.

So after the fact we tortured a coerced confession out of him ... why?

Revenge? Regardless, your treatment of him has no bearing on his guilt or innocence of the crime of orchestrating 9/11. You can decry torture without excusing terrorists.

There. I answered your questions. Your turn.

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?
2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

 

[Pardalis]

I keep imagining the Truther Court that would judge the 9/11 conspirators, how completely fascist, irrational and gratuitous it would be.

If a truther had his way, "due process" would go out the window in a second.

 

[Par]

So after the fact we tortured a coerced confession out of him ... why?

Revenge?

Heheh.

That shark is an endangered species. What would be the scientific purpose of killing it?

Revenge.

 

[D'rok]

Heheh.

Loved that movie!

 

[Viper Daimao]

KSM wasn't interrogated to get him to admit to being behind 9/11, he already said he was. He was interrogated and water boarded to get information about the al qaeda network and other possibly immanent attacks. Then the information he gave us turned out to be correct, and more al qaeda were caught. Interrogators are smart men, they know how unreliable confessions and information can be. That's why you verify it with hard evidence .

 

[stateofgrace]

Bump

US charges six suspects over 9/11

The Pentagon has announced charges against six Guantanamo Bay prisoners over their alleged involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.
Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the six, who include alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

 

[dudalb]

I just want to rule out the "aliens" as being the agents of doing the bad things.

I guess you listen to your heart when your brain is aching.

And the "sheeple" inside needs a lot of tender.

I have students and grandchildren. WWII and the concentration camps. When will we ever learn?

Brainache, I don´t think there are any outside jobs. We have to do it from the inside anyhow.



Truth,

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatever?

 

[Sabrina]

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatever?

No, you aren't the only one.

 

[gumboot]

I am glad they're finally doing this. In my opinion they should have done this some time ago. This is like the Nuremberg Trials - these people are captured enemy combatants who have committed war crimes, and it is appropriate they they are tried by military tribunal.

I can't see the waterboarding to be a major issue as there is almost certainly ample evidence to convict these people without requiring forced statements from other prisoners.

I find the list of charges laid quite telling - they're all war crime charges, and very different to the charges laid in civil courts against those involved in the attacks. I think it's good that the USA has finally adjusted its mindset. Terrorism is a civil criminal act, yes. But Al Qaeda are not just a terrorist organisation. They are a military enemy of the USA that employs terrorist tactics. As such they must be treated very differently.

 

[Viper Daimao]

I am glad they're finally doing this. In my opinion they should have done this some time ago. This is like the Nuremberg Trials - these people are captured enemy combatants who have committed war crimes, and it is appropriate they they are tried by military tribunal.

I think the difference was (an correct me if I'm wrong) that the nuremberg trials were conducted after the war was over. This is a different kind of war, more akin to the cold war in time length. So they were kept until their intelligence value was used up with them being out of the loop for long enough. Then I imagine federal and legal bureaucracy took over. With disagreements over how to actually treat them and what could be admissible and what jurisdictions they would be under.

 

[Drudgewire]

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatever?

Good gracious no!

 

[LastChild]

Nope. Un-coerced confession + mountains of corrobarating circumstantial evidence = more than enough proof that he did it.

You need a coerced confession when you already have an un-coerced confession and mountains of evidence? Are you sure it's not more of a mole hill? You're making more and more sense all the time. Keep talking.

Revenge?

They still need to rule on whether or not the coerced confessions will be admissible or not and it was all just for revenge?

Regardless, your treatment of him has no bearing on his guilt or innocence of the crime of orchestrating 9/11. You can decry torture without excusing terrorists.

It does if that treatment is what got most of the so-called evidence.

There. I answered your questions. Your turn.

Lame excuses do not equate an answer to my questions.

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?

Depends on the circumstances and right now the circumstances are torture.

2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

Not if he was tortured. I don't believe most of what he claims anyway regardless of what it is. And not so-much because he's a liar but because he's a dumbass and he's just generally wrong. That being said why the hell would a stooge have to fully be in on anything?