There’s the giant hole that will be in the Gummint’s case. First question? Were they given their Miranda rights? Bet not. Then the judge throws out all conversations between the Sheik and Gummint. Then what??? Personally, I bet there is a high chance of acquittal based on actions of how the military works and civilian police. Hope the Gummint has tons of untainted evidence that would stand up in Federal Court versus the UCMJ.
Look at what our defense department did.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/...n-birth-
defects
The boot in the face is preferrable to Blu. Why don't you go live under a tyranny and let's see how awful you think the U.S. is then.
I think McCarthy’s label transnational Left is applicable to our president. President Obama’s behavior is that of one who stands outside of our nation and who wishes to lead us to behave in a way that comports with his vision of the good society.
According to our legal system, there should never be a defendant without a defense, unless the defendant himself wishes to dispense with one by pleading guilty as alleged. This is basic to our granting every defendant his day in court, with an attorney, supplied by the state if need be.
Regarding the Holder/Obama decision to try KSM in a NYC Court of Law, I am still pondering this one, yet unsure that this is a wise decision for a number of reasons.
Since he is not a US citizen, I believe he is not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Since he is alleged to have committed war crimes, and since 9/11 was an act of war, it would seem that a military tribunal is an alternative.
Instead of putting NYC through the turmoil and expense of a trial, and targeting them for the jihadists, I think it prudent to avoid such a situation.
Although I'm still not entirely convinced, I currently favor the military tribunal approach.
I would like to see Holder or Obama give more information on the reason for their decision.
Commenting by HaloScan
