The House passes the Senate's healthcare reform bill 219-212.
Click to Print
Include Comments
More Americans want military tribunal for KSM
A new Gallup poll is out today.
By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced two weeks ago that KSM would be tried by federal court in New York City.
Topic: Newsworthy, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top25 Comments to “More Americans want military tribunal for KSM”
Do polls matter any more?
Report comment to moderator
We’re turning into a nation of cowards with no respect for the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
The American people have rewarded the Democrats big time for crassly and constantly politicizing all things related to this war on terrorists, but now it seems like a few of them are waking up to their mistake.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, have no doubt that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the actual mastermind and ringleader of the 9/11 mass murders.
An interviewer from NBC News asked Obama; “Can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of an American citizen?”
The President replied; “I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”
Huh?
This reply revealed that the President’s position on this matter was to assure us of the verdict first and have the trial later.
In other interviews, Obama said that experienced prosecutors in the case who specialize in terrorism have offered assurances that “we’ll convict this person with the evidence they’ve got, going through our system.”
So, these terrorists will be treated as if they are innocent— key to a fair trial — even though our President has assured us of the outcome.
Report comment to moderator
Also, Obama and Holder are longtime opponents of the death penalty but will seek it for KSM nevertheless. After all, it is a political necessity.
And their rabidly anti-death-penalty far-left supporters will just put their tails between their legs and their convicition in the tank and tolerate this hypocrticial decision for the sake of politics.
Report comment to moderator
This will be an unnecessary and endless and extremely expensive circus, giving terrorist a format for voicing their views to all the world, including fellow potential terrorists here and abroad.
Report comment to moderator
What does the death penalty really mean?
In California it means a personal (now larger) cell with lots of amenities.
Report comment to moderator
“giving terrorist a format for voicing their views to all the world, including fellow potential terrorists here and abroad.”
No cameras in Federal criminal court.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, I never mentioned cameras. But I believe their trail will be covered widely and as I stated, it will give terrorists a format for conveying their views to the world, including fellow potential terrorists. Do you disagree? I believe it will be a circus and it will cost the American people a lot of unnecessary money and time.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock – do you really believe that there won’t be cameras right outside the courtroom for the supporters to use to voice their views? Supporters like one of KSM’s lawyers who, when interviewed by Bill O’Reilly this past week, wouldn’t even admit that the people killed on 9/11 were murdered? O’Reilly didn’t ask him if his client had murdered them, only if they had been murdered. The sleezeball even dismissed the number of people killed – he insisted “it wasn’t 3000,” as if it isn’t normal to round up numbers [Wikipedia puts the 2,976].
The attacks of 9/11 were not crimes, they were acts of war.
Report comment to moderator
s/b [Wikipedia puts the number at 2,976]
Report comment to moderator
“We’re turning into a nation of cowards with no respect for the constitution.”
This would be the same constitution that makes the president commander in chief and charges his office with the national defense? Because if you think that terrorists committing acts of war on the US, especially from outside the US, are entitled to the same constitutional protections gauranteed citizens of our country accused of crimes within our bordrs you seriously have no understanding of the issues.
Report comment to moderator
What will this do to American law? Eric Holder could not answer this basic question.
Holder explains that regardless of the outcome of the trial, KSM will never be freed. Obama says he will be executed. So then KSM is pronounced guilty even before his trail. What kind of trial is this? It sounds like a political circus to put America and Bush on trial.
KSM was not Mirandized. He was not given a speedy trial. He was interrogated in a manner that was recently reclassified as torture. Will his confession be admissible? Can he plead the fifth? Will prosecutors be forced to disclose secret intelligence?
Holder explains that enemy combatants who kill Americans in other countries will be tried in military court. But terrorists who kill Americans on American soil will be given the full rights of an American citizen. This provides an incentive to kill more Americans in America.
Since Holder cannot answer simple questions about American law he is obviously unqualified to be Attorney General.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Joel, Obama does not oppose the death penalty. He says he supports it in cases of terrorism and crimes against children.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, thank you. I stand corrected, although I never really know where he stand just by what he “says” on any given occasion.
Report comment to moderator
It really doesn’t matter what the American public thinks anymore, after all this is the administration of “we won”, so the majority of Americans have no say at all. I can’t wait for one of the defendants to take the stand and define what jihad means. Maybe then this administration will realize that the real criminal acts are not doing everything we can to make sure that war criminals do not get a day in one of our civilized courts.
Someone really hit the nail on the head above when they said that under American court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. Well if our president believes these men are innocent just how fair a trial can they receive under our law? Or is that another “change” we should believe in? Is there a “change” coming that will make our law more like Soviet law where you are guilty unless you just happen to get lucky enough to prove you are innocent?
AAAHHHHHH……CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
14.
You mean like abortion of unborn children, or letting a child die in the broom closet?
Oh, that’s right, you are only considered a child when they take you home.
Sucking a newborn’s brains out SHOULD be a crime. No, it’s a burden and therefore, would be a mental hardship on the mother.
Anyone who carries a baby long enough for it to be viable outside the womb, and THEN desides they want to abort, should have their own brains sucked out, or that person should be watched closely for being mentally unstable.
Report comment to moderator
It would be unconsitutional to have a military trial, so please stop that nonsense. NY was chosen for political reasons, and everyone knows it — especially the White House. They want GWB on trial and they can’t get that, so this is the next big show. No, there are no cameras, but there are reporters. We have open trials.
All it takes is one juror who also wants to make political hay.
Report comment to moderator
It is difficult constantly proclaiming yourself as the freest, most noble country, with the greatest system of justice and government…and then other people expect you to live up to the advertising.
Report comment to moderator
#17
Sometimes people say in Whirled Views please don’t gay the thread. The reason, I suspect, is that many people here are embarrassed by the homohysteria that many other people embrace so fervently.
I am not for abortion, and have never performed one or asked for one to be performed. However, the emotional valence about abortion compared to other crimes against humanity is quite out of proportion to common sense, so perhaps I should start asking people not to “abort” the thread when irrelevant comments such as this pop up.
Report comment to moderator
#19: Oh, do we advertise that we’ll bend, break, and reinterpret our laws and freedoms for political points and power now?
#20: Too confusing to be catchy. Aborting a thread would mean cutting it off, i.e. no more comments.
Report comment to moderator
During the Manson trial, Nixon stated that he felt Charles Manson was guilty. It was even in the newspaper headlines. Manson’s attorneys argued persuasively that the President’s statemt and the publicity surrounding it meant a fair trial would be difficult.
The same I fear now holds true for KSM after what BHO said.
And yes, just as with the Chicago 7 in the 60s, this trial will be a platform. Defendant remarks will be printed and publicized and have at least the potential to recruit another wacko or two.
Its naive to think otherwise.
It will also as some argue/hope FORCE the govt to reveal what it knows and how it knows it. In other words, it will potentially harm overseas intelligence sources. I’m skeptical of that claim to be honest.
The enemies already know about the cell phone interception program thanks to the NYTimes. In terms of spies infiltrated into Alqaeda who might now be identified as snitches? Despite the easy success of John Walker Lindh in doing so, I dont believe we’ve had much luck getting anyone to infiltrate AlQaeda.
Report comment to moderator
#18 NJL “It would be unconstitutional to have a military trial, so please stop that nonsense. “
I don’t know what you mean. Can you explain? Also, I was hoping you would offer your legal opinion on #13. What will this trial do to American law, since it no enemy picked up on the battle field has ever been tried in a US court? Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Fewer than half of all Americans can name the three branches of the federal government. I’m thinking “what a majority of polled Americans want” should pretty much have zero relevance to the decision on how to try KSM.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass,
Not to mention the shockingly high number of Americans, ever since September 11th, 2001, who have thought/continue to think that “Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the [9/11] terrorist attacks.”
They let Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lie ‘em into supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Why should what they think about the terrorist trials have any weight?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!