View Poll Results: How should the alleged 9/11 terrorists be tried?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • in a civil court under criminal/anti-terrorism law

    8 66.67%
  • in a military court under military law

    2 16.67%
  • in an international court under war crimes law

    2 16.67%
  • undecided

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,110

    Poll: How should 9/11 terrorists be tried?

    I want to start a poll but can't find instructions - Mod help requested [poll added - mod]

    The question is:

    Should those charged with complicity in the 9/11 attacks be tried -
    - in a civil court under criminal/anti-terrorism law
    - in a military court under military law
    - in an international court under war crimes law
    - undecided
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 20-11-2009 at 12:28 PM.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,202
    - trial by guillotine (survive it 3 times and you go free)
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    13,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    - trial by guillotine (survive it 3 times and you go free)
    hmmm I 'd be more generous here! Make it five?
    https://www.nswca.org.au/index.php
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

    From this day (13-11-20) onwards, I will only be posting, shouting and reading none other than chess related posts.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    - trial by guillotine (survive it 3 times and you go free)
    Reminds me a Russian joke (substitute whatever characters you want):
    - An Englishman, Frenchman and Russian captured by the tribe after the ship wreck. The chieftain told them are going to be executed, but have a choice:
    electric chair (very advanced tribe!!) or guillotine.
    Frenchman, being a patriot, chose a guillotine. However, it turned out to be jammed. Chieftain said:
    - According to our law, you can now walk out free.
    On exit he whispered to Englishman: "Guillotine does not work".
    Englishman chose guillotine and worked free as well. He also whispered to Russian: "Guillotine does not work".
    Russian then walks in front of the Chieftain who asked:
    - What exectuion do you choose?
    - What the hell you are talking about choice? Guillotine does not work!!
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    On a serious note War on terror reminds me war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.
    Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a dangerous weapon employed by the enemies.
    If terrorists are harboured by another state that either supports them or complacent in prosecuting them, it's a casus belli and we should be free to employ any means against them, including the war (as US did in Afghanistan and in Iraq).
    If terrorists are caught, our (or American in this case) legal system is sufficient to convict them. If police, various secret services and prosecutors can't prove their guilt, they are lazy incompetent bums (or went after wrong guys).
    IMO, the right for speedy and proper trial is a fundamental liberty and one of the main check against government tyranny.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    If terrorists are caught, our (or American in this case) legal system is sufficient to convict them. If police, various secret services and prosecutors can't prove their guilt, they are lazy incompetent bums (or went after wrong guys).
    IMO, the right for speedy and proper trial is a fundamental liberty and one of the main check against government tyranny.
    Absolutely. In fact 9/11 was clearly a crime committed on US soil and so a matter for the FBI and NYPD - the military had no jurisdiction.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,122
    The whole point of the Geneva convention was to protect uniformed soldiers who obeyed the rules of war. If soldiers would be protected regardless of their own conduct, then there is no point in abiding by the rules. This used to be clearly understood. E.g. during the Battle of the Bulge, Kraut soldiers infiltrated American lines wearing American uniforms. After being captured, they were put up against a wall and shot. Neither side regarded this as a war crime.

    Trying 11-9 terrorists would force prosecutors to reveal methods used to track and catch terrorists, thus aiding the enemy. These vermin committed an act of war against America, so should be tried by the military. This moronic decision actually encourages terrorists to attack civilians rather than military targets, and gives them more rights than US soldiers!

    It's crass anyway, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed has already pled guilty and asked to be executed. That race-baiting leftist Holder is grandstanding (and he was one who delayed justice by holding up military tribunals).

    Charles Krauthammer shows up how farcical this civil trial is:

    Khalid Sheik Mohammed ... has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

    So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

    Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

    Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

    Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

    That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."
    ...
    Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.
    ...
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 20-11-2009 at 05:39 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray
    Absolutely. In fact 9/11 was clearly a crime committed on US soil and so a matter for the FBI and NYPD - the military had no jurisdiction.
    Military did have the jurisdiction as Afghanistan refused to hand the suspects over to US, thus providing a reason for war.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Charles Krauthammer shows up how farcical this civil trial is:

    [INDENT]Khalid Sheik Mohammed ... has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.
    Should we be afraid of confronting terrorists propaganda head-on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

    Of course it's naive to assume that a politician like Holder has pure motives.
    But the legal system that cannot convict a mastermind of 9/11 with the abundance of evidences does not serve it's main role - to protect citizens from violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.
    Failure to convict means sheer incompetence of the vast (and, IMO, unjustifiably bloated) counter-terrorist network.
    Kangaroo court with predefined conviction is equally bad, as it precludes real justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.
    Farcical show trial is a disgrace. Keeping in custody without charge is also a disgrace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.
    Aren't there any provision in legislation in terms of sensitive information?
    Let's not forget that the process of "classifying" information is often used to cover up incompetence and, sometimes, even worse crimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."
    While it's unfortunate, I view as minor inconvenience. The main reason bin Laden was allowed a free reign is a timid and inconsistent US policy. Bending over backward, advocating tin-pot dictators and pretending Saudis and PLO are "allies in war on terror" is much worse then leakage of small amount of a tactical level intelligence.
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.
    ...
    The incentive part does not follow from the rest of the article, but I'll leave up to Krauthammer .
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Military did have the jurisdiction as Afghanistan refused to hand the suspects over to US, thus providing a reason for war.
    CIA and the military, by Presidential decree for a limited time, can act offshore but not within USA. The Bush administration's repeated efforts to cobble together military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held in Gitmo were inept, with a nebulous legal basis, and failed. Over a ten-year period, mind - they couldn't get it right because the legal flaws remained. So much for military courts.

    Khalid Sheik Mohammed and You
    by Andrew Cohen
    The Atlantic 16 November 2009

    ...as a direct result of the strength of our Constitution and the concomitant failure of its political and legal stewards, one of these dark, sinister men is coming to Manhattan, to a courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero, for a federal civilian trial. The tabloids already have turned this mortal man into a monster. The very same politicians whose failed compromises stalled the tribunals in Cuba for nearly a decade now suddenly are projecting their own failures upon the federal courts. Suddenly the so-called rule of law isn’t good enough; suddenly it’s the federal judiciary and federal prosecutors who are inept....

    What about a Mohammed trial here in the States makes you so angry? Do you think he shouldn’t get the same rights as you? Okay, that’s fair. But so what? The Gitmo tribunals were stalled, dead in the water, so aren’t you willing to sacrifice your feeling of indignation for the quicker conviction and sentence Mohammed’s civilian trial almost surely will bring? Aren’t you willing to set aside your rage at his treatment for the diplomatic and political benefits America will receive from giving the guy an open trial? Don’t you think that treating Mohammed and his colleagues like common criminals is precisely the right message to send to the world about terrorism and al-Qaeda? Don’t you think it hurts their cause to be considered murderers and not jihadist soldiers?

    Are you distrustful of the federal judiciary? Why, because you believe the dangerous lie about how judges are ruining the rest of the government’s war on terrorism? Have you taken the time to look at the track record that federal prosecutors have in successfully trying terror suspects in New York? Can you name a single case where the feds lost a major terror trial since September 11, 2001? Can you name one from before the terrible events that day? Is Tim McVeigh walking around Buffalo today? Is Terry Nichols walking around Kansas? Is Ramzi Youssef back in Brooklyn or Zacarias Moussaoui out on an airfield trying to fly planes in Minnesota? Have you heard from Jose Padilla or Richard Reid lately?...

  11. #11
    Account Shoutbox Banned antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,896
    What I have noticed sticking up through the cracks that the basis of terrorism recruiting is poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity - I don't doubt this at all. And what creates such a disparity etc is third world non socialist and exploitative conditions.

    Nothing to lose but their chains.

    Give them some hope in life and they will be constructive not destructive. I don't think that they should be subject to capital punishment - they have already been subjected to capitalism and exploitation.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    What I have noticed sticking up through the cracks that the basis of terrorism recruiting is poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity - I don't doubt this at all.
    No, the only basis of terrorism is it's effectiveness as weapon.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  13. #13
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,334
    The big problem I have with the trial (apart from the various prejudicial statements about how it won't fail) is that it is being held in the city where the attacks are committed, making the prospect of an even remotely detached jury impossible. Under such circumstances a military tribunal would be preferable since it would be no more unfair and would generate less stage-managed hoo-ha from the defendant.

    I think the option of a civil trial held somewhere else in the USA and preferably with jurors drawn from a range of states would be a good one but the present trial has all the makings of a trainwreck.

    As for "international law" it is a joke, always has been and probably always will be.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    As for "international law" it is a joke, always has been and probably always will be.
    Crime was committed in US, accused is currently in US. what does it have to do with international court anyway?
    your assessment is correct, but a bit light.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Crime was committed in US, accused is currently in US. what does it have to do with international court anyway?.
    Nothing at all at the moment, but I threw it in as a poll option as some might prefer to see the establishment of an international court, similar to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sheik al-Hilaly- poll
    By Garvinator in forum Politics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 03:53 AM
  2. Strip Chess On Tv Poll
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16-03-2005, 10:07 AM
  3. perverse sanity poll
    By chesslover in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •