Comments on: Obama: Professed 9/11 mastermind will be convicted

By: rockman

rockman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:55:49 +0000

Obama’s foreign policy in a nutshell: ” Cry Uncle, and let slip the poodles of appeasement”.

By: Bloviating Zeppelin

Bloviating Zeppelin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:08:06 +0000

This is an extremely high risk / high gain action. You may state your confidence in a conviction but that in and of itself may be larger grounds in terms of prejudice for a civilian mistrial. Very can be absolutely certain in a jury trial.

One very blatant and obvious problem will be the seating of even the jury. I could make an excellent argument that, for example, KSM will NEVER find a “jury of his peers” in America. If he were to, one could be assured of an acquittal.

With this in mind, and with an easier and more appropriate route of trial, that is to say, a military venue, what would be the purpose of holding 9/11 terrorist and KSM to civilian thresholds?

THAT is the question that needs to be answered all around.

Or is it, as is currently alleged by the DEM/MSM, that AG Holder himself made the decision to try in a civilian venue, taking it out of the hands of Mr Obama? And did Mr Obama acquiesce because he is obtuse or because there must be a Final Fall Guy should the trail explode in faces?

By: Vigilante

Vigilante — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:26:01 +0000

There may be enough evidence to impeach him NOW and there’s not enough control in the house/senate, but if there was, would any of the pussiefied girlymen have the balls to proceed with it? I think not. It would put a damper on their country club attendance and working on their re election campaigns.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:23:08 +0000

Conservamom, there may be enough evidence to impeach this guy right now but we don’t have control of the House or Senate… Therein lies the problem…

By: Conservamom

Conservamom — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:44:23 +0000

I’m bothered by this.. “Even if a terror trial suspect were acquitted, Holder said, he would not be released in the United States.” – WHAT? Acquitted for a war crime he ADMITS to??

I found myself asking ‘Why would he be doing this?” a lot over the past day or so, especially since several have pled guilty and ask to sentenced. And I can find no answer.. I do believe he is diabolical and very smart, but I do believe there are many in his posse plotting right alongside him. There is an ulterior motive.

So, the POTUS decides that we don’t need to rush investigation in the Fort Hoof terrorist act, but lets hurry up and bring these guys here and give them a ‘fair’ trial where he says they will be found guilty and sentenced to death?? (What is he God and KNOWS how the jury will decide after a farce of a trial??)

Also, they will need to be judged by a jury of their peers?? WTH?? And where are we going to find 12 terrorists (for each trial) that will be willing to admit they are terrorists to sit on a jury? Just sayin..

When are the powers that be going to realize that there is enough evidence to impeach this guy right now?

By: Always On Watch

Always On Watch — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:53:21 +0000

Linked! Also cross-posted HERE, a busier site than my primary site.

By: ablur

ablur — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:34:56 +0000

Our Judicial system is based on our constitution and the rule of law. Its key purpose is to serve those who are citizens and subjects to the constitution and the laws that have come forth.

These people were not in the jurisdiction of this court be it state or Federal, at the time they committed these acts. These were acts of war, to which our civil court system has no guidelines or jurisdiction. The obvious answer to who has jurisdiction is our military court system.

We have a person from another nation, doing an action orchestrated from another nation, following guidelines and laws in place in the nation of action. Our only jurisdiction is through military intervention reacting to a declaration of war against us and so making war. Once again outside the jurisdiction of our legal system.

It won’t take a very impressive attorney to move for dismissal from a court with no jurisdiction over the case and no charges that apply to such acts as described above. The judges only recourse is to toss the case.

It just makes me sick.

By: BobF

BobF — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:34:29 +0000

Silver Fox, what’s interesting is that article was written long before Obama announced his candidacy for the White House. He didn’t anounce his candidacy until a year after the article was written. Judi McLeod had quite an insight into what was happening in the Democrat party and the danger facing America with an Obama presidency.

By: Silver Fox

Silver Fox — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:10:50 +0000

Bob F, I checked out your link and the information was informative. I wasn’t aware of the histroy of Occidental College. And you are right about the ACLU attorneys being lined up each one hoping for the assignment to defend the terrorist and bash America.
I have a picture of me sitting in the jury pool in that federal court house only a few blocks from ground zero and the defense attorney asking: Mr. Russell have you formed an opinions regarding the guilt or innocents of the defendants, My reply: hand be the rope! Defense attorney: Your honor I ask that this juror be excused for cause. Reply for Judge Roy Bean: Take you seat on the panel Mr Russell! Oh! for the good ole days of the tall oak and a short rope!

By: BobF

BobF — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:22:04 +0000

It’s called Pious Fraud: The practice of a Muslim pretending not to be Muslim to further the cause of Islam or “defend the faith”. Here’s a Canadian Free Press article concerning Obama and Pious Fraud written in March 2006.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover031006.htm

You can bet the ACLU’s top lawyers are fighting amongst themselves to take up the defense of these terrorists. They’ll use every legal maneuver and technicality the know in order to get them acquitted.