What really happened in Abottabad

[Jimmy Higgins]

The WTC bombing, 9/11 were American based attacks. How would any of these make the US not applicable for a trial?

The US so-called justice system is the problem. The justice system that declared torture legal. The justice system that holds many prisoners in Guantanamo for, I guess eternity, without even the hope of a trial.

So the entire judicial system is hosed because of the Dept. of Justice during the W Admin?

People who actually care about justice and not just seeing the US victorious in kangaroo courts should demand these trials be held in neutral countries.

Well, there were a number of open trials. Feel free to point out how they were unconstitutional. Certain their lawyers would like to hear about it.

And of course bin Laden's crimes were in other places besides the US. It is only the US that thinks 911 is somehow special.

It was. 9/11 killed about 8 to 10x the number of people killed in all of his other attacks combined. 9/11 was a spectacular (as in scope and effect obviously) attack. Nothing before or after can compare to it, from a terrorism stand point.

Moussaoi, Reid, WTC bombing cell, the DC plane attempted bomber were in open trials. I don't remember offhand for KSM.

An open trial does not mean a fair trial. An open trial in a corrupt system is a corrupted trial.

But the records exist for you to go through. So please demonstrate the corruptness of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So lemme guess - you're one of those folks that thinks the Bin Laden tapes were faked, right? beams?

How could anyone believe that the fake tape of BinLaden that surfaced in 2001 was actually him.
The guy in the tape didn't even really look like BinLaden.

But somehow you believe that Bin laden just happened conveniently to make a video of himself confessing to being behind 911 and then leave the tape to be found.

Bwa hahahah hahaha hahaha hahaha ..

How could anyone swallow such obvious rubbish?

If it was fake he had plenty of time to rebut it.

 

[untermensche]

Trials are where actually evidence is required.

Any free person should want the claims of governments tested in trials.

Slaves just bow as the master tells them what is the truth.

Normally enemy soldiers are not given trials. The usual procedure is to shoot one when you see him. Complex missions are sometimes laid on to go after enemy commanders, still no trials.

Except this is a phoney war carried out under deceit and lies.

Enemy soldiers are most definitely given trials.

You may have heard of Nuremberg.

 

[untermensche]

The US so-called justice system is the problem. The justice system that declared torture legal. The justice system that holds many prisoners in Guantanamo for, I guess eternity, without even the hope of a trial.

So the entire judicial system is hosed because of the Dept. of Justice during the W Admin?

I didn't realize the prisoners in Guantanamo were only denied trials under the Bush administration.

I didn't realize that it was only in the Bush administration that US citizens were murdered without trial.

The system is corrupt and has no connection to the concept of justice when it comes to this monstrosity called "the war on terror".

Well, there were a number of open trials. Feel free to point out how they were unconstitutional. Certain their lawyers would like to hear about it.

The US Constitution is not a magic document. It can't turn a corrupted system into a system of justice.

And of course bin Laden's crimes were in other places besides the US. It is only the US that thinks 911 is somehow special.

It was. 9/11 killed about 8 to 10x the number of people killed in all of his other attacks combined. 9/11 was a spectacular (as in scope and effect obviously) attack. Nothing before or after can compare to it, from a terrorism stand point.

It pales in comparison to an act of terrorism like the invasion of Iraq.

It is nothing compared to that act of terrorism. Terrorism that lasted a decade, resulting in the death of about a million and the displacement of millions more.

So in the realm of terrorism it was nothing special. But Americans without eyes like to cry about it while they ignore far worse.

Moussaoi, Reid, WTC bombing cell, the DC plane attempted bomber were in open trials. I don't remember offhand for KSM.

An open trial does not mean a fair trial. An open trial in a corrupt system is a corrupted trial.

But the records exist for you to go through. So please demonstrate the corruptness of it.

People have and it is out there for anyone who actually cared.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think the more likely scenario, with regard to why OBL was killed rather than captured, is that the SEAL team was instructed to capture OBL if possible, or kill him if he resisted, and at least one person on the SEAL team decided that OBL was going to "die while resisting" no matter what went down.

- - - Updated - - -

But the records exist for you to go through. So please demonstrate the corruptness of it.

People have and it is out there for anyone who actually cared.

So, the take away here is that you don't actually care enough to attempt to demonstrate this yourself?

 

[Deepak]

So, the take away here is that you don't actually care enough to attempt to demonstrate this yourself?

This entire thread has been all hat no cattle.

 

[untermensche]

I think the more likely scenario, with regard to why OBL was killed rather than captured, is that the SEAL team was instructed to capture OBL if possible, or kill him if he resisted, and at least one person on the SEAL team decided that OBL was going to "die while resisting" no matter what went down.

- - - Updated - - -

People have and it is out there for anyone who actually cared.

So, the take away here is that you don't actually care enough to attempt to demonstrate this yourself?

I have read it.

For example; Moussaoi was charged with being part of 911 yet not one shred of evidence directly connecting him to 911 has ever been released by the US government.

Anybody who cared would know this.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think the more likely scenario, with regard to why OBL was killed rather than captured, is that the SEAL team was instructed to capture OBL if possible, or kill him if he resisted, and at least one person on the SEAL team decided that OBL was going to "die while resisting" no matter what went down.

- - - Updated - - -



So, the take away here is that you don't actually care enough to attempt to demonstrate this yourself?

I have read it.

For example; Moussaoi was charged with being part of 911 yet not one shred of evidence directly connecting him to 911 has ever been released by the US government.

That statement does not demonstrate anything about the presumed corruptness of the trial. Anyone with no knowledge of the trial at all could make the exact same statement, and be dismissed just as quickly.

Anybody who cared would know this.

And anyone who claims to care as much as you do would be able to actually demonstrate that their characterization of a trial as corrupt is correct. Making unsubstantiated statements and making no effort to back them up other then telling us what we should or shouldn't know does not quite hit the mark.

 

[Deepak]

I think the more likely scenario, with regard to why OBL was killed rather than captured, is that the SEAL team was instructed to capture OBL if possible, or kill him if he resisted, and at least one person on the SEAL team decided that OBL was going to "die while resisting" no matter what went down.

- - - Updated - - -



So, the take away here is that you don't actually care enough to attempt to demonstrate this yourself?

I have read it.

For example; Moussaoi was charged with being part of 911 yet not one shred of evidence directly connecting him to 911 has ever been released by the US government.

Anybody who cared would know this.

Of all the responses in this thread this is the most palpably absurd. You obviously didn't.

He entered a guilty plea and the court even suggested that he reconsider. After that they moved on to the sentencing portion, as any other trial would, and then his defense team motioned to rescind the guilty plea post-trial. His own statement of guilt establishes... well... his guilt.

More to the point, his own statements and KSM's statements indicated that he was planning to carry out a second wave attack.

For anyone actually interested in the facts http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/sheikhstmt.pdf and http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/withdrawguilty.pdf

 

[untermensche]

I have read it.

For example; Moussaoi was charged with being part of 911 yet not one shred of evidence directly connecting him to 911 has ever been released by the US government.

Anybody who cared would know this.

Of all the responses in this thread this is the most palpably absurd. You obviously didn't.

He entered a guilty plea and the court even suggested that he reconsider. After that they moved on to the sentencing portion, as any other trial would, and then his defense team motioned to rescind the guilty plea post-trial. His own statement of guilt establishes... well... his guilt.

More to the point, his own statements and KSM's statements indicated that he was planning to carry out a second wave attack.

For anyone actually interested in the facts http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/sheikhstmt.pdf and http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/withdrawguilty.pdf

You may think testimony obtained through torture is rock solid but it should have been inadmissible.

And Moussaoi told many stories. If the only evidence is his words then it is conflicting evidence of very little value.

What evidence besides testimony obtained through torture and conflicting testimony was presented?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the entire judicial system is hosed because of the Dept. of Justice during the W Admin?

I didn't realize the prisoners in Guantanamo were only denied trials under the Bush administration.

They can't be tried now. Their rights have been so violated, a trial would be impossible. So the Obama Admin has been trying to shift as many out of the nation as possible.

I didn't realize that it was only in the Bush administration that US citizens were murdered without trial.

The counter was referenced by me in the post you are quoting.

The system is corrupt and has no connection to the concept of justice when it comes to this monstrosity called "the war on terror".

The monstrosity was the Iraq invasion and crap occupation and Guantanamo, with respect to the impact of civilians and prisoners. This is ignoring the metadata crap.

Well, there were a number of open trials. Feel free to point out how they were unconstitutional. Certain their lawyers would like to hear about it.

The US Constitution is not a magic document. It can't turn a corrupted system into a system of justice.

The files are available, go find the unjustice.

And of course bin Laden's crimes were in other places besides the US. It is only the US that thinks 911 is somehow special.

It was. 9/11 killed about 8 to 10x the number of people killed in all of his other attacks combined. 9/11 was a spectacular (as in scope and effect obviously) attack. Nothing before or after can compare to it, from a terrorism stand point.

It pales in comparison to an act of terrorism like the invasion of Iraq.

You are changing the subject time and time again. Trying bin Laden in the US for the crime of 9/11 is an entirely different subject than the insanity that was the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

It is nothing compared to that act of terrorism. Terrorism that lasted a decade, resulting in the death of about a million and the displacement of millions more.

Most likely didn't kill a million, but certainly over 100,000. It was a crime which got whitewashed over by Obama. Certainly. That isn't the subject here.

So in the realm of terrorism it was nothing special. But Americans without eyes like to cry about it while they ignore far worse.

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

Moussaoi, Reid, WTC bombing cell, the DC plane attempted bomber were in open trials. I don't remember offhand for KSM.

An open trial does not mean a fair trial. An open trial in a corrupt system is a corrupted trial.

An open trial means you can look up the records and see where someone wasn't given a good opportunity at defending themselves.

But the records exist for you to go through. So please demonstrate the corruptness of it.

People have and it is out there for anyone who actually cared.

That isn't actually demonstrating a point, it is an unsanctioned claim.

 

[Axulus]

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

Every foreign action undertaken by the US is terrorism in his view. The US is a big evil empire that uses threats and terrorism to steal things and force evil capitalism on the rest of the world and squash any attempts to implement a different system. It tortures others at every opportunity, it has kangaroo courts, and no justice. It has a finger in every pie. Every brutal dictator that exists, the US is behind it and supports it.

This cartoonish version of the world is literally how he sees it.

 

[untermensche]

Most likely didn't kill a million, but certainly over 100,000. It was a crime which got whitewashed over by Obama. Certainly. That isn't the subject here.

It is only 100,000 if Nuremberg principles are ignored. All deaths are the responsibility of the invading nation who's invasion is an act of aggression.

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

You can call it whatever you want. It was unjustified aggression against innocents to achieve political aims. Most people define that as terrorism.

But the records exist for you to go through. So please demonstrate the corruptness of it.

It's been demonstrated. Look. I'm not doing a research project for you because you are too lazy.

I don't really care how many uninformed opinions you have.

 

[Axulus]

It is only 100,000 if Nuremberg principles are ignored. All deaths are the responsibility of the invading nation who's invasion is an act of aggression.

So the US is guilty of not being as brutal as Saddam in stopping sectarian violence, and is therefore guilty of every death that has resulted (which is still well under 1,000,000 as the iraq body count numbers reveal (Link)

Yes, we know how you view the world. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times, as if repeating it over and over somehow makes it more true.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is only 100,000 if Nuremberg principles are ignored. All deaths are the responsibility of the invading nation who's invasion is an act of aggression.

What? Most of the 100,000 to 200,000 killed were victims of the sectarian violence, not directly victims of the US Military. The 1,000,000 number is founded on very questionable methods.

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

You can call it whatever you want.

Well, I was trying to call it what it was... maybe I should have said red herring instead?

But the records exist for you to go through. So please demonstrate the corruptness of it.

It's been demonstrated. Look. I'm not doing a research project for you because you are too lazy.

So I'm lazy for asking you to demonstrate a point you claimed.

I don't really care how many uninformed opinions you have.

Just to be clear, we have reached the judgmental and contentless part of the thread right? So I can start lobbing insults too?

 

[Deepak]

Of all the responses in this thread this is the most palpably absurd. You obviously didn't.

He entered a guilty plea and the court even suggested that he reconsider. After that they moved on to the sentencing portion, as any other trial would, and then his defense team motioned to rescind the guilty plea post-trial. His own statement of guilt establishes... well... his guilt.

More to the point, his own statements and KSM's statements indicated that he was planning to carry out a second wave attack.

For anyone actually interested in the facts http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/sheikhstmt.pdf and http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/withdrawguilty.pdf

You may think testimony obtained through torture is rock solid but it should have been inadmissible.

And Moussaoi told many stories. If the only evidence is his words then it is conflicting evidence of very little value.

What evidence besides testimony obtained through torture and conflicting testimony was presented?

The rules of jurisprudence are the same through the civilized world in this regard. If someone enters a guilty plea (and again the court suggested that he not do this) then things proceed to the sentencing phase.

With that said, all of the prosecution's exhibits which were to make their case are available since the trial was in open court.

Mussaoui himself stated, in his request to rescind his guilty plea, that the trial was fair. You seem to stand alone in thinking that it wasn't.

I'd love to hear your legal analysis of the Qasab trial too, this has been gripping and enlightening so far. I can't wait for what's next.

 

[untermensche]

It is only 100,000 if Nuremberg principles are ignored. All deaths are the responsibility of the invading nation who's invasion is an act of aggression.

So the US is guilty of not being as brutal as Saddam in stopping sectarian violence, and is therefore guilty of every death that has resulted (which is still well under 1,000,000 as the iraq body count numbers reveal (Link)

Yes, we know how you view the world. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times, as if repeating it over and over somehow makes it more true.

First of all, the count according to your link is 138,607 – 157,215 civilian deaths. And it is only the number of deaths by violence. It does not include the number of deaths due to disease and the effects of starvation.

You are running from the Nuremberg principles as hard as you can.

One can only wonder why.

 

[Axulus]

So the US is guilty of not being as brutal as Saddam in stopping sectarian violence, and is therefore guilty of every death that has resulted (which is still well under 1,000,000 as the iraq body count numbers reveal (Link)

Yes, we know how you view the world. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times, as if repeating it over and over somehow makes it more true.

First of all, the count according to your link is 138,607 – 157,215 civilian deaths. And it is only the number of deaths by violence. It does not include the number of deaths due to disease and the effects of starvation.

You are running from the Nuremberg principles as hard as you can.

One can only wonder why.

What were the deaths due to disease and starvation before and after the invasion?

 

[untermensche]

What? Most of the 100,000 to 200,000 killed were victims of the sectarian violence, not directly victims of the US Military.

And according to Nuremberg principles the US is responsible for all those deaths.

Why do I get the feeling that when I talk about Nuremberg principles you don't have a clue what I'm talking about?

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

You can call it whatever you want.

Well, I was trying to call it what it was... maybe I should have said red herring instead?

No. You called it simply what the people who ordered it called it. That is the level of your analysis.

It's been demonstrated. Look. I'm not doing a research project for you because you are too lazy.

So I'm lazy for asking you to demonstrate a point you claimed.

It is your claim the trial was fair and mine it wasn't. You need to defend your position as well as I do.

But simply saying the trial took place in the open is not any kind of argument it was fair.

 

[untermensche]

First of all, the count according to your link is 138,607 – 157,215 civilian deaths. And it is only the number of deaths by violence. It does not include the number of deaths due to disease and the effects of starvation.

You are running from the Nuremberg principles as hard as you can.

One can only wonder why.

What were the deaths due to disease and starvation before and after the invasion?

Completely irrelevant as far as Nuremberg principles are concerned.

Invading nations have responsibilities to the people they invade. They can not ignore them as if they are ants.

And torturing them indiscriminately is not one of those responsibilities.