Reply With QuoteGeez seems like everyone knew this going in. So they are gonna be held in the G Bay that was evil and needed to be closed? Remember the one that was supposed to close. What a waste of time and money.
| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
You insisted on trials in New York City, and the city has spent close to 100 million dollars prepping for trials there.
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-ne...r-trial-costs/
Now you say they will be held at Guantanimo.........
I believe YOU ARE A FOOL........
Later,
geo
Last edited by GeoFisher; 04-04-2011 at 08:29 PM.
Senior Member
Geez seems like everyone knew this going in. So they are gonna be held in the G Bay that was evil and needed to be closed? Remember the one that was supposed to close. What a waste of time and money.
Senior Member
Where are you getting that they spent $200 million? What the article says is: "By early 2010, city officials had estimated it would cost $216 million for the first year after Mohammed and four others were brought to Manhattan from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and $200 million annually every year as long as they remained." Since that never happened, the money wasn't spent. Or do you have some other information?
I find it interesting that you're calling him a fool for doing exactly what the Republicans (and yes, some Democrats as well) have wanted all along. Or more accurately, finally making official the decision that Congress made last year when they passed a law prohibiting any spending to move the prisoners from Gitmo to NYC.
Personally, I agree with the NY Times view. I think punting the trial down to Gitmo is an act of cowardice, and what it shows to the world is that we really ARE afraid of all those terrorists that we label as cowards, and that we lack faith in our own judicial system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05tue1.html
Senior Member
We're NOT afraid of them. They are enemy combatants, and should NOT be tried in civil courts.
Senior Member
.
Last edited by RoadToad; 04-11-2011 at 06:25 PM. Reason: posted twice by mistake
Senior Member
Seems to me calling them "enemy combatants" legitimizes terrorism as a means of conducting warfare. I disagree, they are lowlife CRIMINALS and belong in federal prison. We have plenty of other terrorists there already, why should we treat this particular group differently? And they wouldn't be tried in "civil" courts, it would still be criminal courts, just civilian as opposed to military. In other words, they would be tried by the peers of those they attacked.
Senior Member
NO, they are not American Citizens and for those that are, they should have their citizenship stripped, since they have HELPED enemy combatants.Originally Posted by RoadToad
They should NOT have our system of justice. They should NOT be afforded a jury of their peers. Our FEDERAL system should not house these folks.
How about try them, and for the ones found guilty EXECUTE them by firing squad. Be done with it.
The biggest problem I see with trying these folks in our system is that it only takes one FOOL with an agenda to let these guys walk. Imagine that......MOST of the reason Holder made his decision is political. The fallout and blame for letting these animals free in America would be HUGE, and no party that was partial to allowing this to happen would get elected for a very long time.
I have even a better idea..........How about we take them to Gitmo, leave the doors open and shoot those trying to escape in the BACK........probably cheaper anyways.
Those that have been let go from Gitmo are back on the battlefield anyways, KILLING AMERICANS.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct21.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...d_to_terrorism
http://www.defense.gov/news/returnto...factsheet2.pdf
Later,
Last edited by GeoFisher; 04-11-2011 at 06:41 PM.
Senior Member
True, they're not American citizens. Any that were naturalized citizens, if convicted would lose their citizenship. Not sure why you mention this, but it's true. So what? They've committed capital crimes on American soil.
Why? Again, we've tried, convicted, and are currently housing lots of terrorist in federal prisons. I say let them live out the rest of their (hopefully short) lives there, or:
Works for me.
You're not saying HE politicized this process are you? Seriously?
Wrong. One fool is not going convince 11 others to vote to acquit. At most they'll cause a mistrial, when they'll select 12 other people. Besides, that can be said about ANY trial, ANYWHERE in America. This perverse logic proves my point about lack of faith in our judicial system.
Very true. Even if any those detained there DID happen to be innocent before they got picked up (and I'm not saying any of them were, or how many), they'd most likely go back as fully indoctrinated Al Quaeda members. So what are you suggesting? No matter which place they're tried, if any of them do somehow get acquitted, they've gotta be released, don't they?
I just wish they would slip in the shower and die of the insuing concussion.
Very good dialogue here and some real things to consider.
1/2 me says try them where they did the crime, but that means exposing NY to another attack I think and real possibility of mistrial.
I think G-moe is a second best choice that steers threat that way.
Hey, with the budget cut, lets pay the Chinese some of our debt back if they have the trials there.
Got it, taken them to the Bronks, dress them in bright pink suits, with the words "I help the tower get hit" on the back, then walk them into a bar at 2 AM in the morning, on the way to catch their plane at 10 am headed for G-moe. Problem solved, and we provide a real source of entertainment to a limited crowd of folks.
Posting Permissions