I'd like to nominate this post by Jammonius from the "Free Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Campaign" thread on this very forum:
"Looking at the KSM trial from a 'truther' perspective, I foresee significant potential for effective defense strategy. However, the key word is "potential." It must be kept in mind that the defense side in the KSM trial is but a variation of the prosecution. The defense is appointed by the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel Military Commissions and the defense attorneys are military lawyers.
This means, of course, that the basic requirement of a criminal defense; namely, that such counsel see to it that the prosecution is actually forced to offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the defendant simply will NOT happen in the KSM or other co-defendants' trials; absent a groundswell of public objection, nationally and internationally.
It is understood by most of the world that the trials are in the nature of "show trials" not unlike those of the 1930s put on by Stalin in the then Soviet Union to get rid of the real socialists and Trotskyists who sought a real, rather than fake, socialist revolution. Convictions, then and now, are a foregone conclusion, absent real pressure.
For starters in terms of defense, it is clear that all confessions are inadmissible because they have been coerced and obtained through admitted, or easily provable torture -- provided, that is, that evidence of the torture is permitted. There's a real chance, of course, that evidence of torture will either not be allowed or will be conveniently overlooked by the bought and paid for (by the military) defense.
More importantly, the defense should require proof of what has only ever been presumed; namely, that 9/11 happened the way
the myth of 9/11 says it happened. Herein lies, of course, the opportunity of the 9/11 Truth movement. I think it has been asked in this thread, rhetorically, what, if anything, will the truth movement do in connection with these trials? Well, for one thing, the truth movement does, indeed, contain information that is relevant to the issue of what actually happened on 9/11. Any defense counsel worth her salt would start by demanding that the government turn over any and all exculpatory information it has, including, by way of example, any information that constitutes either gaps, inconsistencies and/or contradictions in and around the official myth of 9/11.
Indeed,
the actual evidence of what happened on 9/11, as produced by governmental sources, is quite thin and terribly unpersuasive. Note, for instance, the obvious contradictions between and among the various "oficial" reports: FEMA is contradicted by NIST and the latter is contradicted by itself, including its famous footnotes that seem to suggest that NIST did not even investigate what actually happened and, in any event, only came up with a "probable initiation of collapse" hypothesis.
The requirement in criminal cases is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." I here assert that the government has a lot of exculpatory information that must be turned over to the defense ASSUMING, a defense is what is intended in the upcoming trials.
Realistically speaking, however, KSM is not intended to have a fair trial. That is a matter for
the former Republic of the United States that was, but no longer is, governed by and in accordance with the US Constitution.
We willingly gave up our rights because we're 'scared o' terrists' and we want to "strike back at those who attacked us" because even though we're 'scared o terrists' we're still the land of the ....[nevermind] and the home of the [nevermind again]."
Source:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160606&page=3
(I could've picked on several of their nonsensical posts in that thread)
(Emboldening my own)
Jaw-droppingly stupid
