It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Suspect to Face Trial in New York, Official Says

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

9/11 Suspect to Face Trial in New York, Official Says


www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.

The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.

The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.nbcnewyork.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Transcript: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11 role
Charge sheet against accused 911 "terrorists" mostly circumstantial
Bush admits to the use of explosives in 911




posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Ah a nice sham trial. Let's see how they explain this to the world, how do we propose to let POW's stand trial in a civilian court?

How can we do that? Doesn't the US have any responsibility to send these "War Criminals" to a tribunal?

The problems with this is that to me it violates international law. These are not US criminals, these are war criminals and because these are war criminals I think they need to be tried in a War Tribunal. Not our civilian court system.

This will take way too long, this will also take too much of our tax payer money to try these people in civilian courts.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You're right. The exact status of these people has never been legally determined. These trials could be a violation of the Geneva Accords. More importantly, our legal system isn't setup to handle this kind of trial. There is a distinct possibility that they could all walk.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Where would they walk to? That would remain the problem. Obviously we don't want them here, where would we let them go?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


This is a travesty. Shows how much special interests control Obama and his administration. The is a slap in the face to all the victims of 9/11 and the troops that have fought the subsequent wars.

I swear Obama is doing things now with the intent of trying to rile up and upset conservative and independents. This move is just baffling and disgraceful.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Obama responds to this...



These guys are going to be tried blocks away from ground zero.

More information...



[edit on 11/13/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 



I swear Obama is doing things now with the intent of trying to rile up and upset conservative and independents. This move is just baffling and disgraceful.


This is insane! Not only does it defy ALL logic, it defies what is the seriousness of the accusations against these people.

I am of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job. But to put these people on trial in a civilian court opens up too many possibilities of a mistrial. For one there is no way they can find an impartial jury. (come on, really? an impartial jury in New York?) For the other, these are military prisoners, they should be tried by military tribunal.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't you wonder why Obama's chief counsel quit this morning? Does he smell something coming down the line?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Several things: 1) This is a good thing as it means that we are going to show the world that we are not going to let people rot in jail without a trial of some kind. 2) As this is going to go to a Criminial trial, it means that there is a process of discovery, which means that the defense will have the right to explore the evidence set out by the government.
And it will be public. For too long the GITMO has been a sticking point in the US and if anything it is a step to closing it down, so the president is going to close down the GITMO penitentary. This will be interesting to watch non the less, and the evidence will make it out for the public to see and view.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

Could you imagine if a truther was sitting on that jury.
Plop down the 20 Unanswered Questions.

There are just to many variables to even guess what will happen.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
This is absolutely amazing. I cannot believe the ineptitude of this administration.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TrainDispatcher
 


Juries aren't able to show evidence. But what they would do is show in deliberation against conviction.

I am sure that the prosecution would dismiss any juror that had admitted to believing the truther side of the issue. I am sure they are already collecting questions for the proposed jury that would eliminate any possible truthers from being present.

The defense however, might use truther evidence during the trial.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
gitmo to ny
news.yahoo.com...

still top at yahoo
news.yahoo.com...

Some big URL:



NY State is closing down three Islamic buildings.

This will hopefully draw out more terrorist.
We will be ready this time.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Anywhere they want to. If they are aquitted they would have to be released.

By the way discovery is only for civil trials, which this won't be. I just wonder how much of the evidence against them will be admissable? I fully look for them to walk.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   


from
www.911blogger.com...

quote from the video on youtube


as a defense attorney i would successfully move to IMMEDIATELY have all charges dropped on the grounds that any and all evidence gathered by the united states is inadmissible based on the fact that the united states government itself broke it's own laws by detaining these men. therefore it is safe to say that the same government WOULD and COULD manufacture evidence to suit it's own purpose. then i would sue the government and WIN.

Not to mention the torture makes the information inamitionable in court


New York Times debates if federal court is the right place to hold the trial
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com...

[edit on 13-11-2009 by conar]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   


 


reply to post by JIMC5499
 



Anywhere they want to. If they are aquitted they would have to be released.


But where? The US isn't going to take them, most countries wouldn't want these people either, this is part of the problem with closing Gitmo. No one want's these people.
 


reply to post by conar
 


Yes the evidence is quite tainted, I doubt that much of it would be admissible at this point. The torture would also complicate the trial too.

As I said, it's going to be a sham trial. How are they going to find 12 impartial people in this matter in New York?



[edit on 11/13/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
What are the possibilities over putting a paid actor in the defendants seat?


What are the possibilities this trial is completely fictional as a public show?


We'll see, if he pleads guilty it will definitely throw flags in peoples minds.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Has the proof already been disclosed in the news.
I don't thing so.
All they have to say is they were in IRAN and know nothing
of 9/11.
How did we capture so many from a suicide first terrorism cell.
Perhaps they had no guns.
But every terrorist is armed to the teeth.
It just did not seem possible to capture so many top people.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Nobody will be happy no matter how this turns out. The Truthers will say it's a Sham. The OS people will say it should be a military tribunal not a criminal court case.


The Obama administration will end up with egg on it's face if this case gets drawn out

[You know it will].


Nobody will be happy.

Dog and Pony show.



[edit on 14-11-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Your avatar mentions you believe in the constitution, right on, so do I.

Not giving someone the right to a trial, chance to face their accusers and due process is very much against the constitution's spirit.

We are better than them, and should show it - lead by example.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by muggl3z]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
The public has been so brainwashed on the subject of 9/11 I keep hearing people say "I don't know why we are even giving these guys a day in court, they already admitted to the attacks".

Yes, but they admitted to it under torture. If I was waterboarded 300 + times I would have admitted to planning 9/11 too. What if KSM states he only admitted to it because he was tortured into doing so?

I think this is what the neocons and the true perpatraitors of 9/11 are afraid of. This will put more holes in the Swiss Cheese that is official story of 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join