Trying KSM in Federal Court...

[redrocket190]

[thestuz]

werent the nuremburge crimes tried in a civilian court? ww2 nazis etc?
i think terrrorism charges need to be heard in a civilian court cos the terrorism laws are very wide spread and in breach of the constitution. you couldn expect a military court to dish out justice.you yourself could be locked up tomorrow,no rights to a lawyer, taken away to egypt and tortured under these laws.....
would you wanna try your luck in a military court without constitutional rights?

[MICK]

No. The Nuremberg trials were not a civilian court case. But rather a series of military tribunals.

Fundemental difference here:
By civilian law, you're innocent until proven guilty.
In a military court, you're guilty as fuck and this is what we're going to do to you.

Such as with Martin Bormann, Hans Frank, Hermann Goring etc. We weren't concerned with if they had actually done anything wrong. WE KNEW THEY HAD. It wasn't a two way conversation. You Mr. Goring are one sick puppy, how long can your neck stretch?

So by military law, we don't put a terrorist on trial per'se. We publicly condemn them in court, their told why they're being punished or killed, have a chance to speak briefly on their behalf and it's over. No bullshit.

All terrorist or otherwise criminal acts of war should be executed in this manner. You forfeit your rights as an American when you commit acts like these...or you weren't an American to begin with so go eat a bag of hot dicks. No lawyer, no innocent anything crap. You fucked up, now it's time to ponny up and ride the lightning biatch!

[thestuz]

No. The Nuremberg trials were not a civilian court case. But rather a series of military tribunals.

Fundemental difference here:
By civilian law, you're innocent until proven guilty.
In a military court, you're guilty as fuck and this is what we're going to do to you.

Such as with Martin Bormann, Hans Frank, Hermann Goring etc. We weren't concerned with if they had actually done anything wrong. WE KNEW THEY HAD. It wasn't a two way conversation. You Mr. Goring are one sick puppy, how long can your neck stretch?

So by military law, we don't put a terrorist on trial per'se. We publicly condemn them in court, their told why they're being punished or killed, have a chance to speak briefly on their behalf and it's over. No bullshit.

All terrorist or otherwise criminal acts of war should be executed in this manner. You forfeight your rights as an American when you commit acts like these...or you weren't an American to begin with so go eat a bag of hot dicks. No lawyer, no innocent anything crap. You fucked up, now it's time to ponny up and ride the lightning biatch!

yeah. but isnt a court to decide if hes guilty or not? i mean, these terrorist laws are so fucking open, anyone technically can be a terrorist for owning a gun and making remarks about shooting a president.

technically, under terrorism laws, half the people on this site are terrorists(by definition) for what has been said on these obama forums.
does that mean you agree with alisobob and others facing a military court where your fate as a scape goat is to be awaited?

or would you then say he should be tried by a civilian court where he can defend himself propperly, the truth can come out and hes protected by civil rights?

my point is "these laws are so vague and biased that people charged of them should have the right to civil courts,lawyers and basic civil rights".

if there guilty,there guilty.

[Exnav]

All terrorist or otherwise criminal acts of war should be executed in this manner. You forfeight your rights as an American when you commit acts like these...or you weren't an American to begin with so go eat a bag of hot dicks. No lawyer, no innocent anything crap. You fucked up, now it's time to ponny up and ride the lightning biatch!

Fuckin' A Mick....

[AlisoBob]

[MICK]

yeah. but isnt a court to decide if hes guilty or not?

Fuck NO!

I understand what you're getting at...I think. So let me break down the military system, or way of thinking here:
- an alleged criminal deserves every right to a fair, unbiased trial and should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He should also be judged by a group of his or her own peers. The loose definition of the term "terrorist" you use would fall into this justice system.
- now a military court or tribunal is a professional punishment and or corrective proceeding. The accused isn't "allegedly" shit...he's guilty as fuck, Period. Example: Maj Nidal Malik Hasan, no lawyers, no lengthy legal process neccessary. Any one of us is fully qualified to be judge, jury and god in this case. If tried in a military court room, he'll have his fate read to him, have a chance to justify himself to the court and his country, then walked out back and hung.

Nobody is going to be taken advantage of by a military court. If you're standing infront of the man in that court room you fucked up real bad...like you didn't call Osama a piece of shit. Oh no, you deserved this one.

[redrocket190]

Timothy McVeigh commits an individual act of terrorism and as an American citizen gets a trial in civilian court. KSM et al. commit coordinated acts of terrorism (war?) and as foreign nationals and combatants get "tried" in a military tribunal. I am not a legal expert but would hope those who leave the country and conspire with foreign nationals against their country would lose their rights to a civilian trial as a citizen.

[thestuz]

like i said before, some people on here say things that could be seen and fit under the categorry of terrorist. not that i agree but by law, it is seen as that.now i dont think anyone should go through any trial without full and propper representation. i do understand what your saying about this dude but if they can throw him in a military court then they can do it to anyone under a similar charge(even if they are not guilty).

while it works well in that guys case, it sets a bad precedent for those on a lesser offence that maay be totally innocent.just iom.

maybe it could work this way

guilty plea = military court
innocent plea = civilian court

[redrocket190]

You have confused two fundamentally different issues. The first relates to the rights of American citizens, as enshrined in the Constitution, and potentially eroded by the introduction of (IMHO) unconstitutional laws post-911. The second relates to how foreign nationals, conspiring outside America, as enemy combatants should be tried and/or detained. The only time these two intersect is when the combatant also happens to be an American citizen - which does not apply in this case.