... is being afforded the same rights and privileges as any U.S. Citizen, and I for one agree with the way that the Obama administration is handling his case.
Whereas affording Khalid Mohammed the right of habeus corpus in accordance to the U.S. Constitution may be subject to interpretation, I prefer that if he is found guilty, he be found guilty after the manner of any U.S. citizen.
Why, you might ask, would I want that? The answer is simple: there can be no argument that our system of justice is at least as fair as any in the world, if not more fair, and if Mohammed is found guilty under our system, who can question the veracity of the process and outcome?
__________________
__________________ Proud to be your Humble Atheist
"And God said, you are responsible for the fish of the sea,
and the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Does he, after acceptance of his guilty plea, receive the same sentence as an American citizen?
If so, odds are strong that he will be facing life imprisonment, perhaps without parole, but does he come under overcrowding rules? Would he be isolated for his safety? Would isolation constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
I just don't see an execution in his future.
__________________ Memento mori - I Corinthians 15:54
I think he will be acquitted and be back on the streets by this time next year. Great job Obama Idiot.
__________________
"When Christ came into the world, learning greatly prevailed; and yet wickedness never prevailed more than then ... So now, learning is at a great height in the world, far beyond what it was in the age when Christ appeared; and now the world, by learning and wisdom, do not know God ... Learned men ... scorn to submit their reason to divine revelation, to believe any thing is above their comprehension; and so being wise in their own eyes they became fools." -- Jonathan Edwards
... is being afforded the same rights and privileges as any U.S. Citizen, and I for one agree with the way that the Obama administration is handling his case.
Whereas affording Khalid Mohammed the right of habeus corpus in accordance to the U.S. Constitution may be subject to interpretation, I prefer that if he is found guilty, he be found guilty after the manner of any U.S. citizen.
Why, you might ask, would I want that? The answer is simple: there can be no argument that our system of justice is at least as fair as any in the world, if not more fair, and if Mohammed is found guilty under our system, who can question the veracity of the process and outcome?
__________________
you are very naive and your thinking is dangerous. It's the same naivete that led to the tragic events of 9/11.
If can't see the difference between an enemy combatant at war with this country and a legal US citizen then you are pretty stupid.
__________________ WARNING: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily the views of my family, my church or my pastor.
you are very naive and your thinking is dangerous. It's the same naivete that led to the tragic events of 9/11.
If can't see the difference between an enemy combatant at war with this country and a legal US citizen then you are pretty stupid.
This country was founded on the belief that people are created equal were born with certain unalienable rights. If this man is accused of a crime, he deserves a trial just like everyone else. If he is found guilty, he will be punished. If he is found not guilty, we can always make an appeal. It is not naivete which leads us to put this man on trial, it's us giving him an opportunity to defend himself before we pass judgment and shows that we're a country of equal standards, not just for ourselves, but for others as well.
As for the "naivete" that led to 9/11, instead of pointing the finger at R70, why don't you point the finger at religious extremists who, under the brainwashing influence of religious indoctrination, were convinced that it was a good idea to hijack four airplanes and kamikaze them into several iconic American buildings. Stephen, I've allowed you to say some fairly stupid things on this forum, but I will not allow you to point the finger of blame at anyone here for the greatest national tragedy of my generation. You have no idea what "dangerous thinking" is, and have a deluded concept of what "justice" is, if you can't understand the message we send when we subject our enemies to the same due process that our citizenry is subject to when we're accused of a crime.
I think he will be acquitted and be back on the streets by this time next year. Great job Obama Idiot.
This post right here is as ggood an illustration as there is on how completely ignorant the rightwing extremists are. For someone to suggest that KSM will be back on the streets in one year requires that person to fit into one of two categories:
1. Ignorance: he does not understand how the justice system works. For one thing, the trial itslef is still probably two years away. Due to the enormity of the charges, the pre-trial motions alone will occupy at least 18 months. In addition, the choosing of a jury is likely to take several months.
2. Idiocy: he is incapable of understanding much of anything anyway.
__________________ Proud to be your Humble Atheist
"And God said, you are responsible for the fish of the sea,
and the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
This post right here is as ggood an illustration as there is on how completely ignorant the rightwing extremists are. For someone to suggest that KSM will be back on the streets in three years requires that person to fit into one of two categories:
1. Ignorance: he does not understand how the justice system works. For one thing, the trial itslef is still probably two years away. Due to the enormity of the charges, the pre-trial motions alone will occupy at least 18 months. In addition, the choosing of a jury is likely to take several months.
2. Idiocy: he is incapable of understanding much of anything anyway.
I am sorry. Please educate me. In an American criminal Constitutional Court, if the defendant was not read his miranda rights or if he was "tortured", don't you think any lawyer worth anything at all would be able to get their defendant off? Edited to add: Although, I will concede that it probably won't happen in one year because of all the pre-trial motions, I do believe he will get off.
__________________
"When Christ came into the world, learning greatly prevailed; and yet wickedness never prevailed more than then ... So now, learning is at a great height in the world, far beyond what it was in the age when Christ appeared; and now the world, by learning and wisdom, do not know God ... Learned men ... scorn to submit their reason to divine revelation, to believe any thing is above their comprehension; and so being wise in their own eyes they became fools." -- Jonathan Edwards
This country was founded on the belief that people are created equal were born with certain unalienable rights. If this man is accused of a crime, he deserves a trial just like everyone else. If he is found guilty, he will be punished. If he is found not guilty, we can always make an appeal. It is not naivete which leads us to put this man on trial, it's us giving him an opportunity to defend himself before we pass judgment and shows that we're a country of equal standards, not just for ourselves, but for others as well.
As for the "naivete" that led to 9/11, instead of pointing the finger at R70, why don't you point the finger at religious extremists who, under the brainwashing influence of religious indoctrination, were convinced that it was a good idea to hijack four airplanes and kamikaze them into several iconic American buildings. Stephen, I've allowed you to say some fairly stupid things on this forum, but I will not allow you to point the finger of blame at anyone here for the greatest national tragedy of my generation. You have no idea what "dangerous thinking" is, and have a deluded concept of what "justice" is, if you can't understand the message we send when we subject our enemies to the same due process that our citizenry is subject to when we're accused of a crime.
So there is no difference between an enemy combatant at war against the united states and a legal U.S. citizen? both should be treated the same?
__________________ WARNING: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily the views of my family, my church or my pastor.
So there is no difference between an enemy combatant at war against the united states and a legal U.S. citizen? both should be treated the same?
An enemy combatant on the field of battle should be dealt with in accordance with the terms of war (shoot him, then move on.) A prisoner of war is in the custody of the United States, and is therefore presented with the same criminal rights that its citizenry is entitled to.
Of course there's a difference between the two, but the process for convicting them of a crime is the same. After all, how would we appear on the world stage as a country which is founded on the belief that everyone is entitled to certain unalienable rights, but then treat our POW's as anything less than human? This is why the scandal at Abu Ghraib caused such an uproar.
Let me ask you, had this man been a U.S. citizen, would you demand that he be treated any differently?
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ...
Linear Mode
