5 Reasons Not To Hold Terror Trials In New York City

[bascule]

This has gotten far too ridiculous. I certainly enjoy Republicans in Texas telling New Yorkers what they think should be done about trials for those who committed terrorists acts in New York City.

 

 

Honestly, aren't these people supposed to have balls? Aren't they alwyas making fun of liberals as being "limp-wristed"? They're all afraid... afraid of the American justice system, afraid of shackled terrorists... afraid of what's happening in a state that ACTUALLY knows what it's like to be a victim of a terrorist attack.

 

Republicans: afraid of the government... unless someone like Dubya is in charge. That makes everything better.

[ydoaPs]

I'm calling Poe. That cartoon is too ridiculous.

[john5746]

New York City? Get a Rope!

 

Too bad we haven't finished Afghanistan, otherwise we could hold the trials there.

[jackson33]

Yeah, those darn old Texans are so out of touch, with Americans.

 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51 percent opposed the decision, with just 29 percent favoring not to try the suspects in a military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are currently imprisoned. [/Quote]

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/poll_slim_majority_oppose_fed_decision_8WcD6AHgSrIrpWSEWSk6hL

 

The American Judicial System of today is not set up for 'War Crimes' or International Terrorism, it has been built up to give Citizens and folks committing crimes on it's soil, every opportunity to prove their innocences. This INCLUDES mitigating circumstances. I'm not going to go through the list of already reasons, those going on trial, if Americans, could never have been tried or that a Grand Jury would have indited in the first place. The Military has made the accusations, under the Military Code of Justice, the laws of the International Community, including the US and is responsible for their fair 'Court Marshall' and if found guilty, punishment. IT'S OUR SYSTEM. If you honestly believe, these people should be tried under US Law, for crimes and the premise for those crimes or that the reasons for doing so are correct, there is no excuse for ANY COURT MARSHALL, of any American Military Person and I'd be very concerned about the precedence set. These crimes are NOT criminal crimes, nor were the attacks on foreign soil by any American Military Force, the reverse can most certainly happen.

 

Your setting up the best possible scenario, for every two bit hater of anything American, around the World or those in the US, to demonstrate their approval of the actions of 5 individuals combatants. War is not a political GAME, it's the survival of a distinct society against another. Making it political, which IS the goal, demeans the American System, enhances the enemies cause and gives authenticity to the goals and aspirations of those enemies.

[Sisyphus]

jackson, I don't understand what you're talking about. Foreign nationals, not acting as agents of any government, commited crimes on American soil. What does that have to do with courts martial?

[jackson33]

jackson, I don't understand what you're talking about. Foreign nationals, not acting as agents of any government, committed crimes on American soil. What does that have to do with courts martial?[/Quote]

 

Sisyphus; If you accept the idea, civil/domestic crimes were committed, opposed to war crimes or International Terrorism, then every action taken in every effort by any member of any terrorist group, any place on this planet, against American Interest, would be entitled to a American Trail, under her laws. Those five, classified combatants (reason for being imprisoned) were based on 'War Crimes', agents of the enemy. When and while those actions were committed, there was no declared war going on, it was to beginning of one. If the actual original 19 perpetrators had lived, yet caused death they could have been tried in our courts, opposed to being classified combatants. The US Government, had every intention of doing just that, in requesting the Afghan Government to Capture and extradite OBL and a few associates to the US. When refused or not done, under our agreement with NATO, war was declared, rules of War were imposed and the process went international...

[Sisyphus]

Not any place on the planet. On American soil. So yes, of course they're entitled to a trial, for the exact same reasons everyone else is. There is no "unless they obviously hate America" exception.

 

If it's a war crime, who have we declared war on, exactly?

[bascule]

Yeah, those darn old Texans are so out of touch, with Americans.

 

New York is not afraid.

 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51 percent opposed the decision, with just 29 percent favoring not to try the suspects in a military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are currently imprisoned.

 

Whether or not he should be tried by a civilian court or a military tribunal was not the subject of this thread. Instead it was about the doomsaying about how holding the trial in New York will cause all sorts of calamities. It will invite another terrorist attack! He'll get off on a technicality and be released onto the streets of New York! etc

 

I do support the administration's decision to try them in civilian court for one very important reason: the still nebulous definition of terrorism involves actions by civilians, not foreign militaries. The actions are not sanctioned by a foreign government. That's what makes them terrorism, not war.

[npts2020]

If the whole justification for not following the Geneva Conventions for these detainees has been "they are non-state actors and therefore not entitled to any of those protections", how can trying them in a military court be justified? IMO they are criminals, pure and simple, and ought to be tried in a court just like any other murderer, extortionist, thief, money launderer, etc. If there isn't enough evidence to convict them, what makes anyone so sure they are the "worst of the worst" anyway?

[jackson33]

If it's a war crime, who have we declared war on, exactly?[/Quote]

 

Sisyphus; Additionally, Congress in providing funding for the War efforts has endorsed these actions...

 

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty was invoked. NATO is central to the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. [/Quote]

 

http://www.asil.org/rio/nato.html

 

Whether or not he should be tried by a civilian court or a military tribunal was not the subject of this thread. Instead it was about the doomsaying about how holding the trial in New York will cause all sorts of calamities. It will invite another terrorist attack! etc [/Quote]

 

Sorry, I thought I read "Reasons Not To Hold Terror Trials In New York City", which included reason #4 in your cartoon?

 

It's not so much NYC, but Americans, American Interest and American Policy, that will be the headlines, here and abroad, THAT I worry about. I do believe it's a political move, one that has already backfired and will further divide Americans.

 

I'd bet, there will be many demonstration around the world in support of the defendants going on trail, over a long period of time, in all parts of the world. They are Muslims, regardless what we call them and Muslims don't wish any Western Culture (especially the US) to be intruding into their religious understanding of CIVIL matters. Making these actions other than 'War Crimes', can only add to that fuel.

 

What your REALLY wanting is Chaney, Rumsfeld and a few hundred advisor's to be held responsible for some perceived crime, you feel has occurred. Justification for a political move, while at war, along with any vindication/justification of the actions of those five combatants, will serve no purpose to your desired goal. It may make your Country look bad, it has made us look weak and indecisive, but Chaney is as strong as ever, politically speaking. You best concentrate on his daughter, who is becoming something in her own right.

 

He'll get off on a technicality and be released onto the streets of New York! [/Quote]

 

Your missing the point here. If they can't be released, even for deportation, what's the purpose in hold in Criminal Trail. Isn't the Jury supposed to decide this, not the President, who has already declared all guilty, which is a violation of I don't know how many laws.

[Sisyphus]

Sorry, how is that an answer to my question?

[bob000555]

Jackson:

The sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states

“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 where in 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.”

There is no exception for when public opinion says they should be tried elsewhere, no exception for when the accused are “really really bad”, there isn’t even an exception if they are “non-state combatants” committing war crimes. The rule of law is the most important thing here, if we panic and let the terrorists change our society, rip apart our constitution, they have won.

 

Btw did you ever admit how fantastically wrong you were in this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36760&page=2?

Edited November 25, 2009 by bob000555

[John Cuthber]

Re

"If there isn't enough evidence to convict them, what makes anyone so sure they are the "worst of the worst" anyway?"

IIRC the answer is that the commander in chief of the millitary (who will be running) the "trial" said so.

It's easy for the army lawyers because their boss already pronounced these men guilty. Finding them not guilty might be judged as insubordination and they are not going to risk that.

[jackson33]

Bob; Sorry for the delay...but you really need a response.

 

The 6th Amendment to the Constitution, along with the 7th and 8th, were written to give States the right over Federal Government on Civil/Criminal matters, perpetrated with in their State. The Federal Government, controls all matters of War and over rides the States. There is no connection and they are being tried in Federal Court, additionally they could have been tried in Washington DC or any other Federal Court in the Country.

 

There is no exception for when public opinion says they should be tried elsewhere, no exception for when the accused are “really really bad”, there isn’t even an exception if they are “non-state combatants” committing war crimes. [/Quote]

 

Public opinion does NOT dictate law enforcement, military actions, the degree of any offense or who is or is not a combatant or what is a war. The Judicial System can, then can the Executive Branch, with the cooperation of the Legislature.

 

The rule of law is the most important thing here, if we panic and let the terrorists change our society, rip apart our constitution, they have won.[/Quote]

 

Exactly and the problem. Since the Federal Courts are held to the sames standards as States courts, under those three amendments and other laws designed to PROTECT the accused, where the Military is not, we are potentially facing some serious problems.

 

We can't abide by our laws and convict these people and the World knows this. If any person in America is placed into confinement (Federal/State) there are procedures, of which any number of them make that confinement illegal, disqualifying the accusation. I assume, there is a process being used, based on the Military version of a Grand Jury and the Federal System or no Grand Jury has made a decision of indictment. All other terrorist tried in the US were indicted by a Grand Jury. Even the Federal cannot hold a person, past a certain time length for any crime (military can to the wars end, then if warranted, formally charge). That is all persons under all US law, must be notified directly or through an attorney the exact charges being held for, in a reason time, Habeas Corpus. Every person, once charged must be morandized, establishing all rights that person has from that point on. The military is limited under International Law to what can be done, asked or treated, but not to those or other rights afforded under National Law. For any of these laws and probably a dozen more, those being tried would under normal circumstances would never get to trial.

 

Bob, I deal mostly in controversial or ambiguous topics, political, legal, history and subjects with built in opposition. Yes, I was wrong on Mr. Coleman and he was not seated. I could make a case that the Minnesota Legal System, while investigating ACORN for fraudulent voter registration, could impact the validity of my decision, but those results will come, years from now. I'm sure there are many comments above, that are to legal minds, incorrect, misrepresentations or could interpret differently. That's the nature of these topics. However it was interesting, dropping down to what was an error, how many other comment are still on target, in those post.

[bascule]

Since the Federal Courts are held to the sames standards as States courts, under those three amendments and other laws designed to PROTECT the accused, where the Military is not, we are potentially facing some serious problems.

 

The fact the previous administration carried out a number of unconstitutional acts will be unchanged by whether we try these individuals in civil or military court.

 

Is your argument that trying them in military court provides a more convenient way to sweep these unconstitutional acts under the rug?

[jackson33]

bascule quotes;

The fact the previous administration carried out a number of unconstitutional acts will be unchanged by whether we try these individuals in civil or military court.[/Quote]

 

Believe me, Obama and most his administration, is not interested in Constitutional adherence to governing. They are very interested in maintaining full Congressional control at least to 2012. The problem is, the Administration, their party, the Country itself is on the block, if these actions create International Problems, or the defendants are not treated as any American would be, which is simply not going to happen.

 

It's your Country also, I assume. Does the display of an American System of law, for Americans and Combatants, even under the heading 'Criminal' are treated differently. At least under Military Tribunal's, it allowed this distinction. Are the American's charged under the Military Code of justice, now eligible for Civil Trial in their home State, or maybe in the Country they allegedly committed a crime, if not, why not? What a about peer's on the jury, are their going to be Muslims, who by faith can't possibly convict a Muslim under infidel or American Culture justice? I could write the articles, that will be all over the Muslim World, generating all kinds of problems, for generations to come. If one, two or all five walk for any reason, Obama will be the hero of the Muslim World, but oh my, the conseguences...It's your Country too.

 

Is your argument that trying them in military court provides a more convenient way to sweep these unconstitutional acts. [/Quote]

 

No, not all all. No person in the Bush 43 Administration is ever going to appear in a US Court, for actions or advise given during his terms. No Administration in the History of this Country, has NOT in some manner circumvented the Constitution or US law in some way, today most common through 'Executive Orders', historically blatant disregard.

[swansont]

What a about peer's on the jury, are their going to be Muslims, who by faith can't possibly convict a Muslim under infidel or American Culture justice?

 

Is there any precedent for a trial of a Muslim, where they were able to exclude all other faiths from the jury? If not, is this anything but a red herring?

[bascule]

Believe me, Obama and most his administration, is not interested in Constitutional adherence to governing.

 

Oookay, well unlike the previous administration they haven't done anything patently unconstitutional, other than continuing a policy which I believe is unconstitutional (warrantless spying) but which now at least has Congressional approval, which it received under Bush.

 

Compare to the Bush administration, who created the program in direct violation of not only the Constitution but FISA. The only way that program stayed running was through repeated executive orders.

 

Other than that, honestly, what has the Obama administration done which is unconstitutional?

 

Does the display of an American System of law, for Americans and Combatants, even under the heading 'Criminal' are treated differently. At least under Military Tribunal's, it allowed this distinction.

 

Why is this a military matter? If it were a military matter, wouldn't it mean we're at war? Doesn't the very definition of terrorism make it inherently a civilian affair?

 

If not, what is the distinction between terrorism and an act of war?

 

No, not all all. No person in the Bush 43 Administration is ever going to appear in a US Court, for actions or advise given during his terms. No Administration in the History of this Country, has NOT in some manner circumvented the Constitution or US law in some way, today most common through 'Executive Orders', historically blatant disregard.

 

You just called out Obama for disregarding the Constitution, even though he hasn't done anything blatantly unconstitutional yet, and yet you're willing to sweep the previous administration under the rug, even though they committed acts which were blatantly unconstitutional.

 

Zuh? I'm not sure I can carry out rational discourse with you, jackson33.

[jackson33]

Is there any precedent for a trial of a Muslim, where they were able to exclude all other faiths from the jury? If not, is this anything but a red herring? [/Quote]

 

swansont; A fare question, so I'll assume your not acting in your capacity of a moderator.

 

I am not real sure on how the Federal Courts, choose members, a Grand Jury, Civil/Criminal Courts or Appellate Courts if required. Will assume it's not unlike State Courts. Most qualified Muslims (citizen) whether moderate or not, will be excused for religious conscience or where this is not the practice, either the Prosecution or Defense team has the right to excuse (not accept) without grounds. When a Muslim, is the defendant, car theft to mercy killing (that is anything criminal) each member of the jury pool will be asked directly, their religion which is still legal, think in all States and Federal.

 

I am sure, there are examples of a Muslim, getting on a Jury, influencing a decision, but this is no doubt true of Christan's, Hindu or any other religious influence, which in itself is not illegal. In Capital Murder Cases, where the Death Penalty is used (many States & Federal) religious conscience is ALWAYS a factor and the issue explored by the Attorney's and usually the Judge. To convict a person of Murder, with the death penalty a possible sentence, all jurors must vote guilty, if even one does not the verdict is acquittal or not guilty. This is why so many cases with death penalty involved are dropped to lessor charges (2nd Degree or Manslaughter). So you don't misunderstand, a hung jury is when 1, 2 or more simply can't declare a verdict, but allows for a retrial. Another point I should make, is I don't know the entire list of charges, for each of these five defendants.

 

On the case in point, I'll offer another person viewpoint since laid out much better than I could.

 

While it is widely assumed that any jury in New York would find the 9/11 terrorists guilty, especially given their previous confessions, it’s within the realm of probability that a Muslim juror would vote to acquit based upon his/her loyalty to (or fear of) Islam.

The prosecution and the defense each will have also a limited number of peremptory challenges (usually three, unless multiple parties are involved), which eliminate a potential juror without having to assign a reason for the challenge. One might assume, therefore, that the prosecution would exercise its peremptory challenges to exclude all Muslims from the jury.

A study by Columbia University estimates that about 600,000 Muslims live in New York City. A certain percentage of them are U.S. citizens, and are therefore eligible to serve on juries. It is probable that a few Muslims will find their way into the jury pool and one or two might make it onto the jury.

The standard for a conviction in a murder trial is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a unanimous jury vote is required to convict. It would take only one juror to vote not guilty in order for these admitted terrorists to go free. [/Quote]

 

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2009/11/17/muslim-jurors-for-911-islamic-terrorists/

 

My point, was not all Jurors, but one. Peer's do not need be of like Religious Faith, or would any known Radical be seated. Then to the Muslim World, where many understand our system, not having one Muslim on the Jury, will take on additional meaning. Personally, I doubt there will be any KNOWN Muslims seated or on standby, but under Muslim Theology, a Muslim can lie to anyone other than a Muslim and is duty bound to protect those accused by non-Muslims. I assure you, there will be several Muslim Attorneys for the defendants and I do hope there are a couple on the prosecution team.

 

Zuh? I'm not sure I can carry out rational discourse with you, jackson33. [/Quote]

 

bascule; I agree, it takes two rational people to rationally discuss or both can appear irrational.

 

You just called out Obama for disregarding the Constitution, even though he hasn't done anything blatantly unconstitutional yet, and yet you're willing to sweep the previous administration under the rug, even though they committed acts which were blatantly unconstitutional. [/Quote]

 

This as good of an example, possible. Your basing this on what...Under War, exactly what was done, that is not still going on, was blatantly unconstitutional, at the time the actions were taken. While your at it, give me the Constitutional or Legal Language, behind buying GM, bailing out the Unions Trust Funds, Cap and Trade, Czars, Cap and Trade, National Health Care, Forcing States to Extend Welfare and Unemployment, categorized Income distribution (going around State Authority) and maybe 20 more issues.

 

THEN; To participate on this forums 'Politics' Section, I and every other person must address you, if they wish. Think 26 of the last 50 threads were started by you, all of which can be found on 'Move On' or other self professed 'Liberal Democrat' advocates. If that's not the meaning of trolling, duplicate posting or some rule, I don't understand what could be....But then I enjoy the challenge, when I'm in the mood.

[Dudde]

THEN; To participate on this forums 'Politics' Section,

~~~

....But then I enjoy the challenge, when I'm in the mood.

 

Personal problems with someone else are incredibly detrimental to the debate at hand, please take care of those via PM, or somewhere else

 

I am sure, there are examples of a Muslim, getting on a Jury, influencing a decision, but this is no doubt true of Christan's, Hindu or any other religious influence, which in itself is not illegal.

 

Are you just throwing a blanket statement on this? I'm sure it's true too, but there's not much relevence if you're not citing a specific example, there are probably examples of pretty much everything in the world. They don't relate to us, however, unless we provide the connection. As was stated earlier, if we can't prove that they're the ones behind what they're being tried for, then why circumvent the system and hang them up for it anyway? Kind of sounds like why the system was put in place for to begin with.

 

This as good of an example, possible. Your basing this on what...Under War, exactly what was done, that is not still going on, was blatantly unconstitutional, at the time the actions were taken. While your at it, give me the Constitutional or Legal Language, behind buying GM, bailing out the Unions Trust Funds, Cap and Trade, Czars, Cap and Trade, National Health Care, Forcing States to Extend Welfare and Unemployment, categorized Income distribution (going around State Authority) and maybe 20 more issues.

 

care to provide those 20 issues? I may have become lost in your statement here, but I'm not as familiar as you with the financial part of our legal system it seems, which parts of the constitution did they violate under buying GM and trying to save companies from falling under? And where does the constitution prohibit hiring advisors and calling them Czars? ..and how is reforming healthcare unconstitutional? If anything, the system we have in place now is the violation we should be concentrating on. I don't have time to go back to check out what they did with forcing states to do anything, I'll check it out after work, but are you sure they just didn't offer incentives or place part of some relief money in an article saying "extend welfare and unemployment and you get this stuff"?

[bascule]

This as good of an example, possible. Your basing this on what...Under War, exactly what was done, that is not still going on, was blatantly unconstitutional, at the time the actions were taken. While your at it, give me the Constitutional or Legal Language, behind buying GM, bailing out the Unions Trust Funds, Cap and Trade, Czars, Cap and Trade, National Health Care, Forcing States to Extend Welfare and Unemployment, categorized Income distribution (going around State Authority) and maybe 20 more issues.

 

THEN; To participate on this forums 'Politics' Section, I and every other person must address you, if they wish. Think 26 of the last 50 threads were started by you, all of which can be found on 'Move On' or other self professed 'Liberal Democrat' advocates. If that's not the meaning of trolling, duplicate posting or some rule, I don't understand what could be....But then I enjoy the challenge, when I'm in the mood.

 

 

It appears my original conclusion was correct.

[swansont]

swansont; A fare question, so I'll assume your not acting in your capacity of a moderator.

 

I am not real sure on how the Federal Courts, choose members, a Grand Jury, Civil/Criminal Courts or Appellate Courts if required. Will assume it's not unlike State Courts. Most qualified Muslims (citizen) whether moderate or not, will be excused for religious conscience or where this is not the practice, either the Prosecution or Defense team has the right to excuse (not accept) without grounds. When a Muslim, is the defendant, car theft to mercy killing (that is anything criminal) each member of the jury pool will be asked directly, their religion which is still legal, think in all States and Federal.

 

I am sure, there are examples of a Muslim, getting on a Jury, influencing a decision, but this is no doubt true of Christan's, Hindu or any other religious influence, which in itself is not illegal. In Capital Murder Cases, where the Death Penalty is used (many States & Federal) religious conscience is ALWAYS a factor and the issue explored by the Attorney's and usually the Judge. To convict a person of Murder, with the death penalty a possible sentence, all jurors must vote guilty, if even one does not the verdict is acquittal or not guilty. This is why so many cases with death penalty involved are dropped to lessor charges (2nd Degree or Manslaughter). So you don't misunderstand, a hung jury is when 1, 2 or more simply can't declare a verdict, but allows for a retrial. Another point I should make, is I don't know the entire list of charges, for each of these five defendants.

 

On the case in point, I'll offer another person viewpoint since laid out much better than I could.

 

John Allen Muhammad, a domestic terrorist and a Muslim, was found guilty in two separate trials, and has been executed. Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted. So much for that.

 

I suspect that any juror who says that he/she would not vote for the death penalty in a death-penalty case would be excused by the prosecution.

[padren]

While your at it, give me the Constitutional or Legal Language, behind buying GM, bailing out the Unions Trust Funds, Cap and Trade, Czars, Cap and Trade, National Health Care, Forcing States to Extend Welfare and Unemployment, categorized Income distribution (going around State Authority) and maybe 20 more issues.

If you are unsure about whether these acts are Constitutional, why not start threads about them and open a discussion? Where did you find them to be unconstitutional?

We've had Czars and Wallstreet bailouts since Reagan.

 

I really don't understand why you'd consider any of these items to be unconstitutional, but if you do feel they are, feel free to start threads on them.

 

THEN; To participate on this forums 'Politics' Section, I and every other person must address you, if they wish. Think 26 of the last 50 threads were started by you, all of which can be found on 'Move On' or other self professed 'Liberal Democrat' advocates. If that's not the meaning of trolling, duplicate posting or some rule, I don't understand what could be....But then I enjoy the challenge, when I'm in the mood.

 

How exactly is that trolling? It does really matter where the information comes from as long as it's discussed and debated on it's merits? I personally like these threads. I like most threads in the politics section regardless of whether they highlight a left or right focus.

[swansont]

THEN; To participate on this forums 'Politics' Section, I and every other person must address you, if they wish. Think 26 of the last 50 threads were started by you, all of which can be found on 'Move On' or other self professed 'Liberal Democrat' advocates. If that's not the meaning of trolling, duplicate posting or some rule, I don't understand what could be....But then I enjoy the challenge, when I'm in the mood.

 

You seem to be faulting bascule for being active in the politics forum. I don't see how that's a problem, in and of itself.

 

Further, I am personally not fond of "you're being a troll" accusations. They are distractions to any discussion, and it encourage others to add to the distraction and the accused to defend themselves, and the exchange spirals out of control. If there is a particular thread or post in which you think someone is trolling, you should report it using the triangular "report post" button and let the staff deal with it.

 

[jackson33]

John Allen Muhammad, a domestic terrorist and a Muslim, was found guilty in two separate trials, and has been executed. Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted. So much for that.[/Quote]

 

swansont; John Allen Muhammad, was tried and convicted of murder (Dean Meyers), domestic terrorism (Virginia's, anti terrorism statute -extortion), conspiracy to commit murder (premeditated) and the illegal use of a firearm. These were all under Virginia Law and their Courts. The fact he was Muslim, was not material.

 

Zacarias Moussaoui, (Good Example). He was indited by a FEDERAL GRAND JURY AND TRIED IN FEDERAL COURTS, for conspiracy (with Osama bin Laden and some of the original 19 hijackers, for the murders of thousands (Gitmo, not in operation then). Under US Law, this WAS a death penalty case, Minnesota law not material (where picked up). For multiple reasons, including the evidence presented was from German Sources, which were used, was on the premise no DEATH penalty could be imposed, he was sentenced to life, without the possibility of parole. The verdict has since been challenged, by both Moussaoui and attorneys, will likely be challenged many more times, always with the POSSIBILITY of a new trail being ordered.

 

"So much for that"? Neither case, is equal to the 5 which are likely to be tried in NYC. These people, were NOT picked up in the US, where law enforcement (including the Federal) applied proper procedures. Under International Law, when combatants and/or their leaders are picked up (CAPTURED), they can be held to the completion of the war, if any charges are deemed necessary, charges can then be applied or they are released to their original Country of origin, where they simply go free or are charged and tried by that Nation.

 

I suspect that any juror who says that he/she would not vote for the death penalty in a death-penalty case would be excused by the prosecution.[/Quote]

 

No, that direct question would be seem as jury tampering, however there are many other questions, which could lead to that conclusion allowing the challenges/recusal or excused potential juror. To ask that question would be presumptuous to a verdict, for a proceeding that has not occurred.

 

Here is the problem; Generally twelve citizens are chose and 2-5 alternates, to hear a Capital Case. The attorneys and judge, go through their arguments, giving their final arguments. The judge will then give the jurors instruction for their deliberations, which for the first time, if applicable, the mentioning of sentence may be presented. All twelve of the final jury, must independently reach a CONCLUSION of quilt or not quilt, sentencing not included. If one (ONE) person, has a reasonable doubt to him/herself, that person should either vote not guilty, which will result in a jury verdict of NOT guilty, or declare they cannot reach a conclusion, resulting in the hung jury. A hung jury, by one jurist or five or more, can be retried, but the Not Guilty verdict is acquittal.

 

Since most States, sentencing is after this verdict (opposed to simultaneously), a separate deliberation, if jury sentencing is used (not the judge) to determine what that sentence will be. Keep in mind after the jury verdict, what's call 'mitigating circumstance' or items not permissible during the trail, things could have persuaded a verdict, can be addressed. Often, victims or relatives of victims are allowed to testify to the jury, justification from the now quilt person and so on...In most States, here again it takes 12 death penalty votes. It's really quite rare, and unlike Military Tribunals, have a series of applicable appeals, that can go on for twenty or more years.

 

Another minor point, if a State or the Federal Government, declares the Death Penalty, cruel or unusual, during this period, all sentenced to death will be automatically reduced to Life w/o parole. It must be retroactive.

 

You seem to be faulting bascule for being active in the politics forum. I don't see how that's a problem, in and of itself. [/Quote]

 

Absolutely NOT, I rather enjoy his comments and often make comments on them. In fact, I have read most all of his threads, keeping track of what's important to the liberal mindset, of the day. I do the same on the 'Huffington Post' and 'Move On'. If it's the desire of this Forum and you to encourage such activity, that's perfectly fine with me. As for trolling, or the idea of making several post about the same subjects, with different angles, I've seen many banned here and elsewhere, IF the ideology is NOT consistent with that of the forums moderators. I would disagree with many of these bannings, several here specifically called trolling. I would never report (judge)a post, for any reason. On three or four forums, they ban maybe two or three posters per year, for other than spamming. Those that are ignored, generally won't return after the first or second attempt.

 

If you are unsure about whether these acts are Constitutional, why not start threads about them and open a discussion? Where did you find them to be unconstitutional?

We've had Czars and Wallstreet bailouts since Reagan. [/Quote]

 

padren; That comment was a direct response on the 'Unconstitutionality' of the Bush Administration. Actually advisor's have been used since Washington, but not as Public Spokespersons on Policy. The administration, has however allowed Congress to 'Confirm' these appointees and vetting them, if only internally. Several in the past, under an FBI Security Check, would NOT have been cleared nor would they have been allowed the near the President of the US.

 

I really don't have time, especially through the week, to follow up after offering a thread. I have tried, here and elsewhere a few times, but by the time I get back to it, it's either gone off track or every jackson ideology hater has distorted the intent.

 

Trolling, as earlier explained to swansont, is my understanding of making a primary issue in multiple post, with different angles. In my first response, THIS thread, I suggested this to bascule, he ignored, only to come back later with the exact same arguments on the Bush Administration, that is common on many of his threads. AGAIN, however it's not my argument this is wrong, but if it's wrong for some, it should be wrong for all. Personally I prefer to call it conviction and passion, NOT trolling in all cases. My opinions...Thanks for the polite reply.