Whitehouse: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sure KSM didn't lie about masterminding the 9/11 attacks.

I'm sure the Detroit underwear bomber was the actual guy who tried to blow that plane up. Pretty sure it's hard to mistake the guy you tackled to the floor as someone else seconds after his pants lit on fire when a bomb failed to detonate.

So for those 2 there is enough evidence they are guilty. How can they be declared innocent?

They can't be declared innocent, as no such declaration exists. Innocent is not the same as not guilty.

However, you're missing the point. A guilty man is determined to be guilty in the course of a trial. The law views them to be not guilty, until proven otherwise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Actually the President, Vice President et al stating that there's no way they are going free, is an excellent method for appeal when convicted, but everyone please continue their discussion.

Of course, being granted an appeal is not tacit to having a conviction overturned.

Frazzled wrote:
Fateweaver, you might mind the IGNORE function. It really does wonders.

You tend to ignore what's written even when not making use of that function.

**Fateweaver**

ONLY if there wasn't bias first. 12 people going into the courtroom with their minds made up someone is guilty are most likely not going to be convinced otherwise. If all 12 remain biased and find him guilty the courts failed as it was a lose/lose to begin with. If 10 or 11 or 6 change their minds and end up that after several "deliberations" cannot all go one way or the other the verdict is deadlocked, IE mistrial meaning that the court system would have to find OTHER things to try him for if they want him behind bars.

Not guilty of murder means innocent of committing said murder. Not guilty of murder of course doesn't mean innocent in committing manslaughter or assault or anything related but not directly charged in relation with.

**Crimson Devil**

Fateweaver wrote:Oh I know "ignore", I've used it a few times. If it gets too heated I'll use it as I don't really want a 10 day vacation from here (how will I ever keep up on P&M threads and N&R).

It's funny that PresO declares they will in no way go free and THEN declares they are to be tried in a civilian court. Almost as if he wants them to go free. Ah well, Muslim helping Muslim.

How would you sell "We need to live up to our principles" when so many Americans seem to lack the guts to be the "Home of the Brave"?

**dogma**

Fateweaver wrote:ONLY if there wasn't bias first. 12 people going into the courtroom with their minds made up someone is guilty are most likely not going to be convinced otherwise. If all 12 remain biased and find him guilty the courts failed as it was a lose/lose to begin with.

That bias has to demonstrated by the jurors in question, otherwise we have no way of knowing if they actually are biased to an extent which can cause a mistrial. We can assume they are, but assumption is not knowledge. That's why we have jury selection.

Fateweaver wrote:
If 10 or 11 or 6 change their minds and end up that after several "deliberations" cannot all go one way or the other the verdict is deadlocked, IE mistrial meaning that the court system would have to find OTHER things to try him for if they want him behind bars.

Mistrial most often leads to a retrial, not the cessation of prosecution. Mistrial terminates prosecution when it is caused by anything other than "manifest necessity".

Fateweaver wrote:
Not guilty of murder means innocent of committing said murder. Not guilty of murder of course doesn't mean innocent in committing manslaughter or assault or anything related but not directly charged in relation with.

Not guilty of murder means not guilty of murder. Being innocent is a positive statement, which implies that the accused could not have committed the murder. Not guilty is a negative statement which implies only that the court could not prove that the accused committed the murder.

**ShumaGorath**

'm more American than you will ever think of being. I am a realist and don't see the world through rose colored glasses.

This statement beyond most others would likely push me to physical violence were we to ever be near one another.

Akmed holding up a liquor store I have no problem with going through the court system because it is possible to find 12 unbiased jurors who may or may not find him guilty. With high profile criminals like KSM and the other 4 going to trial in civilian court and our own overlord and others declaring that they will remain locked up forever, also not taking into consideration that as far as 90% of the US is concerned these men are guilty it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a fair and unbiased trial for these 5 men. Everyone defending the legal system in that manner is at the same time taking a gak on it because any lawyer or judge will tell you that if an impartial jury cannot be found then their cannot be a trial and I'm willing to bet no matter where the trial is located at ON U.S soil you will not find 12 impartial jury members. Someone would have to have been living under a rock for the past 8 years and 6 months to not know about Sept. 11th.

Then it would certainly be a quick trial wouldn't it? They hold trials for people who have confessed as well, and those that plead guilty still do so in a court. You're resistance here is based entirely on the fact that you base all of your views on what someone tells you to believe, probably your local conservative talk mouthpiece, though it could well be fraz also. None of it makes any fething sense and largely speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of a court, which is to both determine guilt AND DETERMINE PUNISHMENT. A man caught on 15 cameras, with 200 eye witnesses, who confessed, who has DNA linking him to the crime, and who bit the bailif still spends his time in court because thats where you send people so a judge can determine what to do with them.

I'm sure KSM didn't lie about masterminding the 9/11 attacks.

I'm sure the Detroit underwear bomber was the actual guy who tried to blow that plane up. Pretty sure it's hard to mistake the guy you tackled to the floor as someone else seconds after his pants lit on fire when a bomb failed to detonate.

So for those 2 there is enough evidence they are guilty. How can they be declared innocent?

Planewide conspiracy? Masterful bait and switch? Clones? How is that relevant in the slightest?

Actually the President, Vice President et al stating that there's no way they are going free, is an excellent method for appeal when convicted, but everyone please continue their discussion.

Torture also renders quite a bit of evidence as invalid.

It's funny that PresO declares they will in no way go free and THEN declares they are to be tried in a civilian court. Almost as if he wants them to go free. Ah well, Muslim helping Muslim.

Scratch that, that would be the thing to get me to hit you with a pool cue. Were this in a bar of course. Is it against forum rules to state that someone is being insulting to the point that it would insight anger and possible repercussions in person? I can delete this part, its one of those gray areas that I'm not sure about.

**Wrexasaur**

Shuma wrote:This statement beyond most others would likely push me to physical violence were we to ever be near one another.

Dude, accusing people of wearing rose colored glasses, is basically Fate's catch phrase. I can't imagine why you would be so infuriated by such a standard comment from him.

Note:
Apparently you need to be wearing blinders to be a Real 'Mericun.

**ShumaGorath**

Wrexasaur wrote:
Shuma wrote:This statement beyond most others would likely push me to physical violence were we to ever be near one another.

Dude, accusing people of wearing rose colored glasses, is basically Fate's catch phrase. I can't imagine why you would be so infuriated by such a standard comment from him.

In person I greatly dislike comments that state a form of inherent superiority, especially nationalistic, and especially over another citizen. It's really compounded quite a bit by the mind boggling ignorance that goes hand in hand with the comment though. As I said, thats an in-person thing. I can handle it no problem on a forum.

**Fateweaver**

It's Shuma. I think his own existence infuriates him. Even Dakka's biggest cynic, HBMC, can laugh things off on occasion.

**Orkeosaurus**

Shuma, you're so funny. You can't hit Fateweaver with a pool cue, you don't even arms, and if you tried to bite him he'd probably just pass his invul.

**ShumaGorath**

Fateweaver wrote:It's Shuma. I think his own existence infuriates him. Even Dakka's biggest cynic, HBMC, can laugh things off on occasion.

He told me I made this forum unfun for him and that he wished I would just leave at one point. All I did was argue with him whenever he talked about how GW overpowers new models to sell more of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Shuma, you're so funny. You can't hit Fateweaver with a pool cue, you don't even arms, and if you tried to bite him he'd probably just pass his invul.

Clearly you haven't seen how kirby deals with problems.

**Fateweaver**

Tis a shame Shuma is like 17 I think.

No bar in my neck of the woods would even allow him to set foot inside.

Not to mention yuppies aren't welcome in any bar around my location.

**Orkeosaurus**

ShumaGorath wrote:Clearly you haven't seen how kirby deals with problems.

By hitting a home run for the Minnesota Twins?

**Fateweaver**

I think he means Tom Kirby.

**sebster**

I think he means Kier Kirby, the singer from Deee-Lite.

Meanwhile, this thread is ridiculous. I asked Fateweaver what rights he thinks a US citizen is entitled to if arrested overseas, and he responded with some gibberish about being held to the law of the land - and didn't even address the idea of a fair trial being part of that law. It's pretty obvious he's not trying to debate this honestly. His argument now consists of claiming that taking someone to civilian court when their guilt is clear must be unjust because you're going to find them guilty. His alternative hasn't really been explained all that well, but appears to be some combination of military courts (where the overwhelming weight of evidence somehow isn't a problem) and summary execution.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

**Crimson Devil**

Excellent Point.

**reds8n**

Recently, many talking heads have been speculating on the future of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 attacks). Those on the left are fond of arguing that a trial of Mohammed in America’s federal court system will prove to the rest of the world that our system of “justice” is the best in the world and that it works. Those on the right complain that trying Mohammed and others like him in the court system deprives us of valuable information that might otherwise be obtained and that trying Mohammed in America puts our safety at risk. But the argument from the right that interests me the most is the notion that the trial is not fair because President Obama, Attorney General Holder and the rest of the administration have already determined and proclaimed Mohammed’s guilt. To be sure those in the administration believe a guilty verdict or plea is extremely likely or they never would have considered trying Mohammed in the courts of America.
Given that the president is the de facto chief prosecutor and that Attorney General Holder runs the Justice Department is it really surprising that they are confident in their case? If they were bringing cases against high-profile defendants that they were not willing to stand behind in front of the cameras that would be a more serious problem than their apparent confidence in their ability to get a jury to find Mohammed guilty.

Whenever those on the right develop a new set of talking points it is instructive to examine them for credibility. In this case, there is no way Mohammed would ever be found not guilty by an American jury. The only way a defendant can be exonerated is by a unanimous vote. Does anyone really believe that’s possible given the mountain of evidence that exists—including his own statements—against Mohammed? If by some miracle Mohammed’s lawyers were able to convince one or more jurors to ignore their clients own statements and find him not guilty the trial would result in a hung jury. In that case, the administration would be free to try Mohammed again and to detain him until the completion of the next trial. The only way the prospect of Mohammed winning his freedom could even approach the discussion stage would be if 12 Americans all voted to find him not guilty. And, of course, the possibility exists that a military tribunal could render a not guilty verdict as well. So, unless you actually believe that a panel of 12 Americans would find a man who has repeatedly confessed to developing the 9/11 plot in several interviews a plausible outcome then you are free to go right on ahead continuing to buy into Republican scare tactics.

To those who believe a trial whose outcome has already been largely determined in the court of public opinion is a sham I have two things to say. First, some people really are overwhelmingly guilty. Some people really do commit crimes. The beauty of our system is that we, at least, offer them the opportunity to demonstrate that the evidence against them is not what it appears to be. If you oppose a continuation of that system you oppose the foundation of the legal system that has helped keep us from becoming a dictatorship. Second, a guilty verdict may be more likely in a military tribunal—where standards of evidence are different. So, what is the difference between holding a public trial where the outcome has been largely predetermined when compared to a military trial that has also been largely predetermined?

A little consistency from those on the right would be nice—especially when we are discussing issues as important as national security and the safety of America.

**Frazzled**

OK I think this thread has run its course now that we're threatening internet bar fights. bar fights are for wussies. internet MAC-10 Drive Bys, thats the new black.