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.

 

Must See Video : Lindsey Graham - Eric Holder !

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Just a different perspective;

I think in this case what they want is an open trial, I suspect they wouldn't let it go public unless he was likely to spout crazed hatred in court and make himself look real bad. In the end it will be good for those on ATS who need more evidence, one way or another, as to 9/11.

You are a tough crowd, imagine they had stated that he will not be tried in the open, would you not be screaming cover-up?

As to Holder, he was caught off guard- this tells me that there is no spin machine behind the scenes.

The only thing I know for certain is that if the case is tried in civil courts... I would hate to be the lawyer representing the defendant. :-)




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Big deal.....so Eric holder is proven to be what we all knew he was or is;;;

a big wussi....... This guy couldn't prosecute his way out of a wet paper bag.

Another moron in an administration full of morons.....



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dwiggen
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed WANTS to be tried in a military court. He knows that if he is, he'll get the death penalty for sure, which is something else that he wants. He's already stated both of these wishes, and made it pretty clear he doesn't want to go to civilian court. So why is everyone here so willing to give this guy exactly what he wants?


So, we send him to a civilian court. That'll sure show him who's boss!
Ever think this guy might be running his own psy-ops and asking for the opposite of what he really wants?


I can completely understand why the AG wants to try them in civilian court! These people hurt the entirety of the American population, not just the military! So instead of giving them a fast and discreet trial in a military tribunal, drag them out in front of the entire public where all of their crimes will be laid out in front of them for all to see.


Then read this article in its entirety and let us know why you think a civilian trial is such a great thing:

article


Also, President Obama never "decided" anything in regards to the fate of Mohammed or his ilk, he was merely stating that he "believed" they would be found guilty and receive the death penalty. And why shouldn't he? I mean, the vast majoity of us believe the same thing, don't we? So why harp on a guy for saying what the rest of us are thinking?


Nice try. To many others, obama's "he'll be executed" and then no I didn't mean that, sound a lot like Kerry's infamous "I voted for the war before I voted against it" comment.

You see, the obama administration is already blowing the trial before it even gets started.

What will your reaction be when these guys get off on technicalities and the country implodes? Just "oops"?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Everybody chiming in saying "they'll go to court, be found guilty, and get the death penalty...." are forgetting a few things in my opinion.

1. Much, if not all, of what was said in the way of confessions, information, etc., will all be thrown out of court. No miranda rights, etc. is going to pose a huge problem.

2. What happened at GITMO did not follow US law. Trying them in a US court requires them to do so. There is going to be a huge gap to bridge in order to make this a legal trial.

3. Do you know how much money this is going to cost? Even if found guilty -- appeals, jail time, security....not to mention whatever special treatment they give to criminals deemed a threat by other inmates.

4. Let's pretend for a minute they are guilty. Do you really think, if capable of carrying out the charges being brought against them, that they can't escape from jail? We have a hard time containing gang members let alone international terrorists.


I'm beginning to wonder if these guys aren't going to be held here simply for the negotiations table. There seems to be a lot of negotiations for the release of prisoners from all around the world right now. Couple that with other countries willingness to pay ransoms to pirates....and I'm starting to wonder if the US is going to begin to partake in the "exchange of bodies" program.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Ouch!!!

Maybe Obama should have got Graham for AG.

He seemed to be more knowledgeable about the laws than Holder.


Graham had plenty of time with plenty of help before the hearing to prepare the series of questions that he posed to Holder.

Holder had to answer the questions on the spot without being allowed a moment to consider the questions. Graham repeatedly cut Holder off in mid-sentence. The way it was conducted makes an arse out Graham rather than Holder. Next time maybe Graham should STFU and allow the witness to answer the question that was asked. This was nothing more than Graham acting as the witness in the false guise of interrogator.

Graham wasn't interested in hearing anything Holder had to say. It was a series of rehorical questions designed as a lead up to Graham's final pronouncement. The faux question/answer session was no more than intermediate theater.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by jam321
Ouch!!!

Maybe Obama should have got Graham for AG.

He seemed to be more knowledgeable about the laws than Holder.


Graham had plenty of time with plenty of help before the hearing to prepare the series of questions that he posed to Holder.

Holder had to answer the questions on the spot without being allowed a moment to consider the questions. Graham repeatedly cut Holder off in mid-sentence. The way it was conducted makes an arse out Graham rather than Holder. Next time maybe Graham should STFU and allow the witness to answer the question that was asked. This was nothing more than Graham acting as the witness in the false guise of interrogator.


dubiosone.
That is so apropos.

You would defend Holder by trying to have us believe that Holder wasn't thoroughly briefed on this hearing? These things are choreographed like a dance show. If he or his staff got blind-sided, sucks to be them, and another example of why none of them should be part of the administration.


Graham wasn't interested in hearing anything Holder had to say. It was a series of rehorical questions designed as a lead up to Graham's final pronouncement. The faux question/answer session was no more than intermediate theater.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by dubiousone]


Has to be the first time you ever watched a hearing. They are all like this - including the witch hunts during the Bush administration.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Can't they just throw out any evidence that was gathered at GITMO? There should be enough evidence anyways to convict these guys right? I mean there is right? The FBI must have some solid connections between al qaeda and 911 right?

Whats gonna be even crazier is when they sue the military for torturing them and win a few million that they can wire to their buddies..LOL, I can totally see this happening.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
Can't they just throw out any evidence that was gathered at GITMO? There should be enough evidence anyways to convict these guys right? I mean there is right? The FBI must have some solid connections between al qaeda and 911 right?


These guys were never read their miranda rights when they were "arrested" on the battlefield. So, that should make most if not all evidence gathered against them inadmissible in court since we're now giving them the same legal rights as U.S. citizens (which has never been done before). See the problem the obama administration is creating? Oh, and change of venue to someplace these guys can get a fair trial (afghanistan) - that'll be another circus.


Whats gonna be even crazier is when they sue the military for torturing them and win a few million that they can wire to their buddies..LOL, I can totally see this happening.



Agreed, except I really don't think what happens after they get released will be considered very funny.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Yes. The Change of venue question.
Move the trial where???
San Francisco? Chicago?
If they moved it, would we save $75 Million that they want just
for security in New York?
BTW, how long is this trial going to last? 3 years?


[edit on 19-11-2009 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


no, it's the system itself thats funny, it's just so ridiculous when you think about it. On the other hand, maybe they shouldn't have been torturing these guys in the first place. If they get off, it would be through the US system. A system that prides it's self on being fair, and respectable. I mean fair is fair, if these guys end up getting like 6 months probation, then I guess thats fine. Maybe next time the military will learn to play by the rules and not just hold people indefinitely and torture them.

I dunno, I can see it either way...I guess all it really comes down to is what you think of the US justice system. If you think it works, then lets do, lets have some trials. If you think it sucks then it's...no way, leave em in gitmo til they die.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SourGrapes
 


I also think this a payback for the ones in the Obama administration that want to get the final jab at Bush#2. Does anyone really believe that any American gives a rats a__ about these terrorist. The terrorist are being used to put torture on the forfront, to show how barbaric the US is, and no other reason. Even joe six pack knows this.

I'm wondering if this charade is being used as a diversion for something else coming down the pike. I'm sure there will be enough security in New York to invade a small country while the trial goes on. This whole trial thing is ripe for speculation. We may not know the real motive till it's all over.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wanderingwaldo
 


True, they are "kangaroo courts"

Its sad that nowadays the fictional court room tv shows are more respectable than the actual circuses that take place in our tax payer funded court rooms

Damn, Waldo! Do you have any idea how long Ive been looking for you?!



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Not prepared? Not prepared for the questions? He is not a first year law intern. He is not a grocery bagger at a supermarket. He is not a assistant manager at McDonalds. He is the Attorney general of the US and he is making decisions that are putting us as a country at risk.

This is basic law 101. He could not answer a simple question that tells me not that he was not prepared but that he was told to shutup and go along with this plan.

What people do not realize is that these men have the ability to walk away from this. They do. If the US AG cannot be prepared for a simple hearing how in the hell is he going to make sure that we are prepared to prosecute terrorists for the worst attack on US soil that has ever occurred.

this is as bad as Obama saying he inherited the economy. No, you accepted the economy, told us you would fix it, ran for president and since in office the Unemployment rate has jumped to over 10% out of work country wide which I am sure is skewed based off of those who work part time because they cannot get full time jobs.

In a civil trial they will be able to move to suppress his confession because because torture was used and not a Miranda interview. Law 101 and NO one in this administration sees this or do they? that is the scariest part.

This would not occur in a military court. We are going to spend 100's of millions of dollars when people in the US are out of work and starving.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Holder is a politician in the Obama administration the same as every other attorney general who has ever served in the federal government. He is not going to be one of the trial attorneys.

Graham's questioning of Holder was just a stupid circus designed to make a political point.

And, yes, I realize that many and perhaps most, but not all, Congressional and Senate hearings are like that.

By the way, I was not defending Holder, I was criticising Graham's manner of questioning him. Graham was doing nothing more than making a speech. The way he conducted it demeans Graham just as much as it demeans Holder.

Try to differentiate between speechifying and probing for information. Graham did only the former.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 



Graham had plenty of time with plenty of help before the hearing to prepare the series of questions that he posed to Holder.

Holder had to answer the questions on the spot without being allowed a moment to consider the questions.


The one about OBL was pretty simple yes/no question.

If OBL is captured and is to be tried in court does he get Mirandarized and a lawyer?

Holder could only give an answer of "depends."


anyway

you might have missed this quote of mine in the same post you quoted


Anyway, meetings like this are always meant to make someone look like an arse.


In this case it was Holder. In other cases, it was the Bush administration. In the steroid meeting it was major league baseball players. In the oil meeting, it was the oil executives. Hell, "yes ma'am Boxer" even tried to embarrass a General during one these hearings.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by esdad71
 


By the way, I was not defending Holder, I was criticising Graham's manner of questioning him. Graham was doing nothing more than making a speech. The way he conducted it demeans Graham just as much as it demeans Holder.

Try to differentiate between speechifying and probing for information. Graham did only the former.


But aren't you attempting to shoot the messenger at the expense of understanding the issues in the message Graham was trying to get out for the rest of to hear and understand?

It really doesn't matter if you don't like the way Graham questioned Holder if the points Graham were making are totally valid - and I think they are.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by HotSauce
 


No problem. Thanks.

I heard tonight that New York wants $75 Million for security
for the KSM trial. It looks like about $100 Million total for this
circus!


Havent you heard...We are spending our way out of our economic position!



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



It really doesn't matter if you don't like the way Graham questioned Holder if the points Graham were making are totally valid - and I think they are.


I agree that the points were valid.

I also find it strange that Holder kept saying "depends"

I have always been led to believe that if somebody is to be charged with a crime in a US court, they have to be read their rights and are entitled to a lawyer.

Where does depend come into the picture?

star



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by HotSauce
 


No problem. Thanks.

I heard tonight that New York wants $75 Million for security
for the KSM trial. It looks like about $100 Million total for this
circus!


Havent you heard...We are spending our way out of our economic position!


Is it any wonder that Obama ran out of the country when
this wonderful KSM announcement was made?
The Bill O'Reilly video i put on Page 2 says it all.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
How many on this thread believe the official story of how 911 happened?
How many believe it didn't happen the way portrayed by the official story?
If the official stopry is just a cover for official treason, then how is it possible that these Guantanamo inmates are the true perps?

These guys who've been detained and abused in Guantanamo for eight years are being portrayed in the press throughout the United States as the guilty perps. Everyone refers to them as terrorists. No-one even wants them housed in a prison in their own state.

Do you think they have a snow ball's chance in hell of getting a fair trial? What juror will dare to vote their convictions if they believe these guys are not the real perps? They'd be followed home after the verdict by a mob with fiery torches, pitch forks, guns, knives, a rail, buckets of tar, and bags full of feathers.

According to official reports, KSM "confessed". But wasn't he under threat of being tortured to death by waterboarding and who knows what else including 180+ visits to the waterboard in a single month????? What would you "confess" to under those circumstances? Would eight years of that treatment not make you insane and prone to say just about anything your handlers told you?

Do you think the truth of what happened on 911 has any chance of seeing the light of day in a trial before a military tribunal?

Maybe a glimmer of truth will be seen in a trial in a real court.

I said "maybe", but I'm not holding my breath.

You're all so quick to criticize Congress on other issues. Why are you all so quick and eager to join this politician on his bandwagon?

[edit on 11/19/2009 by dubiousone]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join