Scott Fenstermaker attorney for the 9/11 terrorists on O'reilly

[Adam-12]

ETA BTW: The right to due process is not inalienable

Damn straight. As scumbags like American citizen José Padilla found out the hard way. There's nothing more disgusting than a terrorist scumbag thinking that he's got due process coming to him just because he's an American citizen. I hope that's a lesson to any other jerkoffs who think they can hide behind their American citizenship.

[ehidle]

Damn straight. As scumbags like American citizen José Padilla found out the hard way. There's nothing more disgusting than a terrorist scumbag thinking that he's got due process coming to him just because he's an American citizen. I hope that's a lesson to any other jerkoffs who think they can hide behind their American citizenship.

OK, now I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Someone is perfectly allowed to waive their right to due process. However, they must still waive it in order for it to be denied. A scumbag terrorist who is apprehended by our military on the field of battle should be tried in a military court under military due process rules (maybe one of our local heroes can enlighten us as to exactly what those are?). If they do not waive their right to due process, then they need to be given whatever rights are afforded them within the context of their capture.

As far as I know, however, the military does not automatically deny one's due process. Speedy trial, maybe, and in that sense, those we captured should have been given their military hearings as soon as possible.

In retrospect, the military really screwed up by holding them w/o moving the process forward because it just gave this administration the opportunity to let them go. Had they been allowed to be tried expeditiously in the military system, they'd already be rotting in a military prison as opposed to putting on a media circus show before their ultimate acquittals.

[Adam-12]

A scumbag terrorist who is apprehended by our military on the field of battle should be tried in a military court under military due process rules...

José Padilla was not apprehended by the military, and he was not on any field of battle. But thank God, that didn't stop the Bush Justice Department from doing the right thing, and holding him incommunicado for a couple years and interrogating him with sleep deprivation, loud noises, bright lights and extreme cold. I'm sure they got valuable intel out of the sick terrorist SOB before his mind broke, and they didn't hesitate to do what needed doing just because he was an American citizen, or hadn't actually been convicted of anything, or some sissy shit like that.

If American citizens think they're safe from being held incommunicado without charges and maybe a little enhanced interrogation, they should realize that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. No frickin' bill of frickin' rights is going to stop our Government from doing what needs to be done. Besides, what the hell good are all those "civil rights" if we're dead from a dirty bomb? My right not to be killed by some terrorist scumbag is way more important than his right to a fair trial.

[mjf]

José Padilla was not apprehended by the military, and he was not on any field of battle. But thank God, that didn't stop the Bush Justice Department from doing the right thing, and holding him incommunicado for a couple years and interrogating him with sleep deprivation, loud noises, bright lights and extreme cold. I'm sure they got valuable intel out of the sick terrorist SOB before his mind broke, and they didn't hesitate to do what needed doing just because he was an American citizen, or hadn't actually been convicted of anything, or some sissy shit like that.

If American citizens think they're safe from being held incommunicado without charges and maybe a little enhanced interrogation, they should realize that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. No frickin' bill of frickin' rights is going to stop our Government from doing what needs to be done. Besides, what the hell good are all those "civil rights" if we're dead from a dirty bomb? My right not to be killed by some terrorist scumbag is way more important than his right to a fair trial.

I'm going to have to agree here. If you were in his shoes would you really want to be tried in a military court? I mean, hold on, Padilla's a US citizen... Last time I checked your citizenship status should not be able to be 'revoked' by the president by a mere executive order declaring you an "illegal enemy combatant."

The whole idea of US citizens being whisked away and detained indefinitely, at the whim of a president's order frightens me. That's what's going on here though...

I'm not saying Padilla is innocent, but I really don't trust military trials--whatsoever. The guy was already detained since 2002 in secret facilities where who knows what was done to him.... The very least this man deserves is a fair trial.

Here's a photo of him chilling out, by the way....



I'm glad they gave him hearing protection and cool safety goggles.

[adymond]

The Padilla issue is seperate from the asshats who are now being tried in NY. I wish we could stick to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the actions taken against Jose Padilla start another thread.

[mjf]

The Padilla issue is seperate from the asshats who are now being tried in NY. I wish we could stick to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the actions taken against Jose Padilla start another thread.

Very well. So, I wonder if the other terrorists, who will be tried in NY, will also get the cool headphones and the nifty virtual reality glasses.

[ehidle]

José Padilla was not apprehended by the military, and he was not on any field of battle.

Jose Padilla is not on trial in a civilian court in New York right now.

I'm not saying Padilla is innocent, but I really don't trust military trials--whatsoever. The guy was already detained since 2002 in secret facilities where who knows what was done to him.... The very least this man deserves is a fair trial.

That's good, because he got a fair trial, where he was found guilty in a civilian court in 2007.

[DoubleStack]

they should give them a sandwich board saying what they did and turn them lose in ny handcuffed i dont know how many people here know what a sandwich board is so ill explain its a sighn you wear one board covers your back the other covers your front like bruce willis in die hard the one with samuel l jackson

[Adam-12]

A scumbag terrorist who is apprehended by our military on the field of battle should be tried in a military court under military due process rules...

You're taking a weak-kneed liberal stance here. What if they weren't apprehended by our military, and they weren't on the field of battle? The scumbags getting fair trials they don't deserve weren't caught by our military, and they weren't caught on the field of battle:

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers
• Ammar al Baluchi - Arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, by Pakistani authorities
• Walid bin Attash - Arrested in Karachi along with al Baluchi by Pakistani authorities
• Ahmed Ghailani - Arrested by by Pakistani authorities
• Ramzi Binalshibh - Arrested by Pakistani intelligence
• Mustafa al-Hawsawi - Arrested by Pakistani authorities

I hope you won't advocate fair trials for them just because they were arrested by the Pakistani authorities far away from any field of battle? Murdering foreign scum aren't entitled to any of our American justice, and the fact that they managed not to be caught by American soldiers shouldn't change that.

[adymond]

Very well. So, I wonder if the other terrorists, who will be tried in NY, will also get the cool headphones and the nifty virtual reality glasses.

More importantly, how will evidence be introduced? What evidence will be admissable and how will that effect future trials in criminal court of "domestic terrorists" who find themselves in the same situation/

The terror suspects were not Mirandized. If evidence they provided is admissable does that mean a US citizen facing similar charges may have evidence presented that was gained prior to hearing their Miranda Rights? How about when a CIA opperative provided evidence, but is not made available for cross examination as they are currently active?

I would like those clamoring for a fair trial to think about the implications of this trial should evidence that exists, but does not meet evidentiary standards for our criminal courts be admitted.