Terrorist freed, terrorist victim's widow deported

[gturner]

Just compare how many convictions civilian courts have gotten to how many military tribunals have. The facts show quite clearly that it is in the civilian courts that convictions are actually more likely. They read the underwear bomber his rights and he told us everything. When the Bush administration tortured their prisoners those prisoners quit giving useful information.

Last I checked, civil courts had only convicted fourteen terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda, including Zacharias Moussaoui, shoe-bomber Richard Reid, Brooklyn Bridge bomber Iyman Faris, six Yeminis in upstate New York, Masoud Khan (who sought to fight US forces with the Taliban) and Johnny Jihad Lindh.

Almost fifty either had the charges dropped, were acquitted, were deported, or were given probation. Given the nearly 400 terrorism-related cases handled in civilian courts, the average sentence was only 11 months.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I posted them together to highlight the different standards we're using for militant Islamist terrorists versus Jewish widows who have eight American kids.

Of course we're using different standards. One's a domestic terrorism case with all of the legal issues that entails and the other is a visa issue about a mother wanting to see her kids more often. They're completely different situations handled by completely different agencies and have absolutely nothing to do with each other apart from both involving the word terrorism.

I see no reason why you'd question this ironic juxtaposition unless it made you very uncomfortable about the leadership of your country.

Yeah, I appreciate your humor more than some, but it's not working here.

 

[Davros]

Just compare how many convictions civilian courts have gotten to how many military tribunals have. The facts show quite clearly that it is in the civilian courts that convictions are actually more likely. They read the underwear bomber his rights and he told us everything. When the Bush administration tortured their prisoners those prisoners quit giving useful information.

Last I checked, civil courts had only convicted fourteen terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda, including Zacharias Moussaoui, shoe-bomber Richard Reid, Brooklyn Bridge bomber Iyman Faris, six Yeminis in upstate New York, Masoud Khan (who sought to fight US forces with the Taliban) and Johnny Jihad Lindh.

Almost fifty either had the charges dropped, were acquitted, were deported, or were given probation. Given the nearly 400 terrorism-related cases handled in civilian courts, the average sentence was only 11 months.

Civilian courts have gotten hundereds of convictions and military tribunals have had one out of three trials and the two they let go went on to help organize the underwear bomber attack. So far they have a far better record than the military does. Also the fact that the people up for trial are not members of any military and commited a crimminal offense further indicates that civilian courts is where their cases belong.

 

[gturner]

No, if you expand the definition of terrorism cases to get hundreds of convictions, the convictins aren't for anything related to terrorism. For example, one of the convictions in the larger tally is for pushing the "stewardess call" button too often on a flight. That's why the average sentence for all those hundreds of convictions is just eleven months.

And the people in Gitmo were captured overseas. Our civilian courts don't have jurisdiction, which any good defense lawyer is going to point out and which any good judge will have to recognize. For most Gitmo defendents our civil courts don't have jurisdiction in locum over the place where the crime occured (overseas) and where the crime would've been carried out (overseas). They don't have jurisdiction in subjectam materiam, since they don't handle foreign battlefield cases.

So we're good act convicting random people of passport violations, but when presented with the person who actually recruited Mohammad Atta, the defendant's case was thrown out. As far as civilian courts, he's good to go.

But thankfully the Administration has said they'll probably keep him locked up anyway.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

What was the circumstances of admitting it? Was it a voluntary admission? If there's as much evidence as you say, he wouldn't have been released.

I'm going to quote myself for an answer. Did he make voluntary admissions?

 

[gturner]

It doesn't matter, since he wasn't read his Miranda warning. That alone would've rendered anything he said inadmissable.

Nor could any suspect receive a fair trial since much of the evidence against them will come from overseas communications intercepts, which are probably inadmissible, nor can they call witnesses on their behalf (all of whom are having a little conflict with the United States military).

So one 9/11 plotter dragged into court. One 9/11 plotter's case thrown out by the judge.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, no. It doesn't "not matter." Anyway, were they voluntary? Do you know when he said these statements under what context? You're the one who said he admitted to these acts. I'm just trying to find out how we know this and why you're so sure.

 

[gturner]

Because they're in his public testimony. There are some things he wouldn't discuss, but he freely admits receiving training and being an Al Qaeda member.

link