November 19, 2009


So, I'm trying to understand this, really. The prison at Guantanamo is illegal and illegitimate, but Obama and Holder saying we'll try these men in NYC and, duh, of course they'll be convicted and will never be released...that's somehow more legitimate?

I heard someone on TV say, and I'm sorry I don't know who, that we all kinda thought OJ Simpson would be convicted too. Heh.

The whole point of a fair trial is that the person has a chance of being acquitted. If there is no chance of being acquitted, if the game is rigged from the outset, then there is no point in having a trial. So if you're going to guarantee that KSM will be convicted, you can't have a trial. It's simple. You cannot guarantee the outcome of a trial. If you do, it's a farce.  And if we're setting all this up to be a farce, just leave them at Gitmo.

That's my major problem with this idea. But Lindsey Graham also brings up another facet of the issue that's just as troubling.

(And I agree with Goldberg that, "For those of us frustrated with Graham, this makes up for a lot."  Heh.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Does it disturb anyone else that the AG is wholly unprepared to discuss this topic with any depth or clarity?  And, this is the man we're trusting to craft the arguments that are going to 'guarantee' a conviction of KSM.  I mean, KSM already has a nickname...that's bad.

Also bad?  Providing him with Constitutional rights equal to our own.

Even more bad?  Creating a situation where IF he were acquitted or so much evidence is suppressed b/c the threshold in military court for evidence is different than civilian court, he should, technically, walk.  Holder seems to suggest he wouldn't walk.  Well, if that's the case, then why even have the trial?  If he could walk, where is he walking? Holder seems to suggest it wouldn't be in the USA, but that it would be somewhere.  Sorry, but "failure is not an option" is not an answer to what do we do if the jury sets him loose?  Even a brand new trial attorney knows that strange crap happens when a jury is involved.  Have evidence problems and it gets even trickier.

It seems like someone wants to put the past on display, air our secrets and do further damage to our ability to prosecute this war.

NOT happy with this decision.  But, what else is new?

Posted by: Guard Wife at November 19, 2009 07:44 PM (I6LTM)

2 Schwing!  Thank so much for sharing that...I feel so much smarter now.

Posted by: Kate at November 19, 2009 07:45 PM (J1l7A)

3 Um, my question was, where are they going to find a jury of his peers? And just by having the trial in the US, doesn't that almost automatically give them grounds for appeal, because it would be unfair...not to mention NY, near Ground Zero. Are they now going to decide that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not going to be tried by a military tribunal (because he might claim that he is a military combattant or something)? And so let's say that the White House is going to strong arm the courts in NY to make sure a convinction happens, because failure isn't an option. It almost sounds like they aren't going to afford KSM due process, which nobody really cares about for that particular accused, but it perverts our legal system and creates a precedent for US citizens losing their rights as the accused. There is so much unbelievably wrong about this, that I hope they realize their mistake before it's too late. It is such a farce. 

Posted by: Calivalleygirl at November 19, 2009 09:12 PM (irIko)

4 Day by Day showed us today where the jury of peers could be found, I thought that was a good idea, Chicago, of course.
I almost came up with some respect for Graham over this, but still he has a LOT make up for.

Posted by: Ruth H at November 19, 2009 11:31 PM (WPw5a)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
45kb generated in CPU 0.0139, elapsed 0.1375 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.1289 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.