3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-son-law-faces-nyc-trial-18689023 Why is this pos going to trial in NYC rather than getting a bed in Gitmo and a military trial? If they had spotted him in a vehicle they would have droned him, but now they're going to let him create a spectacle and not be able to get any intelligence from him. Disgraceful.
Koko78 Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Not surprising. Obama's wanted his show trial for years, and has found someone tangentially relevant enough to make it happen. Now he can prove how wonderful he is... unless his JustUs Dept. puts a few inept prosecutors in charge of the case like with Blago's first trial.
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2013 Author Posted March 9, 2013 Not surprising. Obama's wanted his show trial for years, and has found someone tangentially relevant enough to make it happen. Now he can prove how wonderful he is... unless his JustUs Dept. puts a few inept prosecutors in charge of the case like with Blago's first trial. I wonder how many years of WH tours could be funded with what this sham is going to cost?
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 http://abcnews.go.co...-trial-18689023 Why is this pos going to trial in NYC rather than getting a bed in Gitmo and a military trial? If they had spotted him in a vehicle they would have droned him, but now they're going to let him create a spectacle and not be able to get any intelligence from him. Disgraceful. Because he was arrested by a foreign country and extradited, not captured on a battlefield.
B-Man Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Because he was arrested by a foreign country and extradited, not captured on a battlefield. Many, many Gitmo prisoners were sent there, just that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Six
Nanker Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) What are the charges against him? He was spokesperson for Al Qaida. Should we go after Baghdad Bob too? "Justice Department officials described him as a propagandist. They said they believed that he had not had an operational role in Al Qaeda for years and that he did not participate in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. But one law enforcement official said Mr. Abu Ghaith, 47, was the most senior Qaeda figure to face criminal trial in New York. He was married to Bin Laden’s daughter Fatima, and the indictment alleges a working relationship with Bin Laden, who was killed in Pakistan by United States forces in 2011. “Among other things, Abu Ghaith urged others to swear allegiance to Bin Laden, spoke on behalf of and in support of Al Qaeda’s mission, and warned that attacks similar to those of Sept. 11, 2001, would continue,” the indictment said." NY Times article. He probably said something bad about BO too, and that's probably what landed him in jail. Everybody get their popcorn ready. The show trial of the century is about to begin. Edited March 9, 2013 by Nanker
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Many, many Gitmo prisoners were sent there, just that way. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Algerian_Six Except for the fact that that's entirely different, you're right.
....lybob Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 There is no rule of law, simply who has power and who is favored and who is disfavored - it's been that way for most of civilization's history with some relatively brief remissions
Cinga Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Isn't this ironic??? Our government now deems it ok to bomb Americans overseas, but bring a foreign terrorist to NYC for trial??
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2013 Author Posted March 10, 2013 It's still a war on terror and those that cooperate and assist the enemy should be tried in a military tribunal.
Keukasmallies Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Just another manipulation a la sequestration-esque exaggerated impacts.
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 It's still a war on terror and those that cooperate and assist the enemy should be tried in a military tribunal. We still have a constitution, and those that are apprehended under the conditions in which constitutional protections apply should be granted them.
3rdnlng Posted March 11, 2013 Author Posted March 11, 2013 We still have a constitution, and those that are apprehended under the conditions in which constitutional protections apply should be granted them. So, he's not our enemy until that's proven without a doubt? He doesn't aid Al Quaeda, and therefore isn't against us but is for us? It's either a war against terrorism with drone attacks being legal and all, or it's not. How can you justify killing purported terrorists and anyone who might be near them while at the same time offering someone that is a proclaimed terrorist and spokesman for Al Quaeda a forum for his views, an avenue for publicising our intelligence methods while at the same time costing millions of dollars and causing the frugal Obama administration to shut down tours of the WH?
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 So, he's not our enemy until that's proven without a doubt? He doesn't aid Al Quaeda, and therefore isn't against us but is for us? It's either a war against terrorism with drone attacks being legal and all, or it's not. How can you justify killing purported terrorists and anyone who might be near them while at the same time offering someone that is a proclaimed terrorist and spokesman for Al Quaeda a forum for his views, an avenue for publicising our intelligence methods while at the same time costing millions of dollars and causing the frugal Obama administration to shut down tours of the WH? No, he was arrested, as a criminal, and extradited, which grants him certain protections under the law. It's not difficult.
....lybob Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 No, he was arrested, as a criminal, and extradited, which grants him certain protections under the law. It's not difficult. who do you think you're talking to
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 who do you think you're talking to Shut the !@#$ up. If you understand it too, it's only by accident.
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2013 Author Posted March 12, 2013 who do you think you're talking to lyrbob, you're just a little weasel that thinks he/she is being clever. You'll never have an ounce of credibility with me until you put forth your credentials in the mortgage and real estate industries. Remember when you were pontificating about the industries? Remember I challenged you on your expertice and you crawled back under your rock and hid? How many times have I given you a similiar challenge as this? 15, 20 times? What makes you such a coward?
Nanker Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 Would King George III have put Thomas Paine on trial in London?
Recommended Posts