Think of Jihadis' WRONGS not their civil rights

[Kulindahr]

The military lawyers on the prosecution commented something to the effect of "This isn't even worth responding to".

One of his lawyers, a female, has only ever appeared in a hijab with her clients, and said she thinks its disrespectful for women not to. Their argument for forcing the females in the court to dress modestly is that its somehow offensive to their clients, and that seeing the women dressed in non-Islamic clothes would distract them from the case.

The 'distracting' and 'sin inducing' clothing? Knee length skirts on three female members of the prosecution team.

Somehow I don't see this request ending well for the defense...

Shorten the skirts and tighten the blouses.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no excuse for taking ten years to bring a criminal case to trial. How is that consistent with the presumption of innocence?

Therein we see a problem: when it's useful for them to have a trial, they're criminals; when it isn't, they;re military prisoners with important information. Those two different statuses are not compatible.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not a fair criticism.

Definitely not fair. Being "from there" isn't necessary.

I guy I used to debate with, who graduated high school with my older brother, was walking toward the building with the first plane hit. He stood unbelieving, watching, until the second plane went in. A guy I graduated from junior college with worked in the building so many people say counted have come down from the attack; it was a government conspiracy.

This is why claiming that foreigners can't understand is ludicrous: there were foreigners in those buildings, foreigners who were in the city, just as there were people from other states, people others knew. To pretend it's a sort of clan thing, that unless you were part of the "New York City" clan at the time, it isn't your disaster, you can't understand, is rubbish.

I know people who only ever saw it on TV, who didn't even know anyone there, whose lives changed. One can't get the image of an American flag on the top of one of the towers vanishing into smoke and plunging to the ground out of his mind -- I can't find any video showing that, but it's what stuck with him.

This was a world event. Claiming that someone from somewhere else can't possibly understand is just a cheap and shallow attack.

 

[bankside]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when he was arrested .....

KSM today ....

Looks clean, well fed to me.

Today at his trial the defense demanded that all women dress in islamic garb so that they would not offend the KSM. I wanted to go down there myself and chop his head off with the bacon greased sword.

His chest hair has now grown so far out of control it has almost enveloped his face.

And if he is allowed to wear his ridiculous outfit, I'd let any women in the court wear bikini bottoms and nipple clamps.

Actually I wouldn't; I'd just note that any attire suitable for appearing at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly would probably be acceptable in the court.

 

[chance1]

Chance, no one is disregarding the magnitude of the horror the defendants are accused of perpetrating or the pain and destruction it caused to the victims.

However, when it comes time for a trial of the accused in this, or any crime, it is about seeing that justice is done and that the guilty are punished. For better or worse, we have set up a process in this country, guaranteed by the US Constitution, that provides every accused with due process of the law. It's an adversarial system, with rules of procedure and evidence that seek to eliminate emotion. For example, there is a rule of evidence that permits the judge to exclude relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . .." A judge is not permitted to make rulings based on his perception that the defendants are horrible people accused of a heinous crime. Justice cannot be done if the weight of the evidence is tainted by efforts of prosecutors or defense attorneys to introduce evidence that inflames the jury against the accused or a witness against the accused. Keep in mind, sometimes the prosecution relies on some pretty unsavory characters to prove a case. Evidence of a witness' sliminess may be minimally relevant, but it may not proper to admit it at trial in order to prejudice a jury weighing his testimony.

The protections in our system guarantee that every person accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. This isn't something 20th Century liberals thought up. It's origins go back to the Roman Empire, is something virtually every democracy has incorporated into their law, and which is understood to be enshrined in our own constitution through the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

So, the first responder whose article you cited is justifiably angry about what he and his fellow victims suffered on 9/11. Witnessing any trial can be an unpleasant, and at times enraging, experience. But anger and emotion is no basis to operate a system of justice. I'm no different than anyone else. If I read about a horrible crime in the newspaper or see it reported on the news, my initial impulse is that I'd like to take a baseball bat to the people who committed the crime. I myself have been the victim of a violent crime. It was the first time in my life I thought I might die and the first time I realized that I had the capacity to kill someone, so visceral was my rage at the people who perpetrated the crime against me. Despite my personal experience with being a crime victim, and having friends who had also been victims of violent crime, I still strongly support the protections of our system that are supposed to guarantee the due process of law.

you're not disregarding it ......... never thought you were ........... and u don't mention it as an afterthought

probably in part to you knowing firsthand just how heinous and personal it was

and this is an excellent balanced post that reflects the victims rights first and foremost but with a vigilant protection of our way of life - which i agree with and respect

sadly your POV and style is not shared by many

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

sadly your POV and style is not shared by many

Granted, he has a superior style and eloquence that many of us cannot even aspire to, but his POV is pretty much the same as everyone else on this thread arguing that due process must be enforced, regardless of emotion.

I don't get you sometimes

 

[chance1]

Granted, he has a superior style and eloquence that many of us cannot even aspire to, but his POV is pretty much the same as everyone else on this thread arguing that due process must be enforced, regardless of emotion.

I don't get you sometimes

you're right

about his superior style and eloquence

but sadly not the rest

you and others LEAD with the defendant's rights - some more than others

and we don't need to get each other

we'll always have christian collins plowing luke allen

 

[Kulindahr]

Granted, he has a superior style and eloquence that many of us cannot even aspire to, but his POV is pretty much the same as everyone else on this thread who has been arguing that due process must be enforced.

I don't get you sometimes

Chance tends to subscribe to the school of thought that maintains that if you don't agree with him, you must be defending the position he despises. He also leans toward "the first impression I have of someone's position is the correct one". In his favor (sort of), those are common patterns to the young in this country, and IMO it's due to two things primarily: political campaigns, which thrive on such "reasoning", and advertising, which employs it quite subtly.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

you and others LEAD with the defendant's rights

Better look again. Except for a one line disclaimer, so does he.

In terms of due process, that is how it should be.

That's why, prior to a conviction, the defendant is labeled "defendant" and not "dirty criminal."

 

[Rolyo85]

Chance, are you going to answer my question, or should I just take it that my assumption of "7" was the correct one?

 

[Ninja108]

Let me state this clearly for you...
just because some of us don't favor ripping up the BIll of Rights even when it comes to scum like this,that doesn't make us terrorist supporters or mean we don't care about the victims. It means we want due process done.
As far his punishment goes,once he's found guilty,I really don't have a problem with him meeting his maker via execution.

 

[Benvolio]

A speedy trial is part of due process. As usual, BOs Justice Department is dithering.

 

[opinterph]

A speedy trial is part of due process.

So was habeas corpus, until 2006.

 

[Benvolio]

So was habeas corpus, until 2006.

Yes, but article 8 provides that habeas corpus shall not be suspended "unless when in Cases of Rebellion Or Invasion the public Safety may require it." It has never been an absolute right.

 

[opinterph]

... It has never been an absolute right.

Boumediene Et Al. V. Bush, President Of The United States, Et Al.​

 

[Kulindahr]

Let me state this clearly for you...
just because some of us don't favor ripping up the BIll of Rights even when it comes to scum like this,that doesn't make us terrorist supporters or mean we don't care about the victims. It means we want due process done.

And trials are not about the victims.

As far his punishment goes,once he's found guilty,I really don't have a problem with him meeting his maker via execution.

I wouldn't have a problem with him being dropped into a boiling tub of bacon fat, considering he had no trouble with dropping some of us into an inferno of jet fuel.

 

[Kulindahr]

Boumediene Et Al. V. Bush, President Of The United States, Et Al.​

That's a long read.

 

[palemale]

Chance tends to subscribe to the school of thought that maintains that if you don't agree with him, you must be defending the position he despises. He also leans toward "the first impression I have of someone's position is the correct one". In his favor (sort of), those are common patterns to the young in this country, and IMO it's due to two things primarily: political campaigns, which thrive on such "reasoning", and advertising, which employs it quite subtly.

I try (not always successfully) to refrain from immediately attacking and see if there are points in a post, with which I otherwise disagree, where I can find potential for agreement. The unfortunate truth in our current political discourse is that we find it difficult to be civil to those with whom we disagree. I, far too often, fall victim to that impulse. But it's still important that we make an effort.