KSM to (finally) have his day in court

Discussion in '9/11' started by Hannibal, Apr 19, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then I agree completely. If you're merely saying the prosecution puts forward something they class as evidence, then by all means you are right.

    I'm sorry to have misinterpreted you. I thought you meant there was actually conclusive evidence that means KSM is certain to be the mastermind.

    So for all you know they don't necessarily have any conclusive, solid evidence, or anything that PROVES no matter what KSM was behind it from a to z. Just what they think is evidence.

    Then you may be right.
     
  2. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I need to have some clarifications before we proceed. It is imperative to discover our level of disagreement, if any.

    The original statement was from Fangbeer, but you have chosen to take up the reigns, at any rate, I'll take the clarification from either of you and respond to that person for it.

    By saying the prisoner has "access" to these things, does that mean regular, on demand access, or does it mean that at one point or other, they had those things for a short period as authorized by their captors?

    Example... At one point during the original enemy combatant hearing, KSM and the co-accused were offered laptop computers to work on their defense planning. Also, as far as I remember, the red cross visited KSM towards the end of the 00's and even got his picture photographed.

    In other words, let's say that today, 20/4/12, KSM was feeling especially lonely, and decided he wanted to talk to the red cross. Is this a demand his captors must comply with? Or do the visits only occur when his captors approve it?

    In more other words, are these recourses readily available to prisoners when they want it,
    or only when their captors choose they can have it?

    Like if you took a tour through camp echo, would you see the solitary cells furnished with a bed bolted to the wall, a sink, a hole to take a dump in, a phone and a laptop computer with a web cam and full internet access? Or would it just be a bed and a hole in the floor?

    Hopefully you guys are aware of what I'm trying to ask here; if not I'll try to clarify more.
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe he was the architect, and I believe that because of his (per-capture) admission, and the letters he wrote to exonerate another man from certain charges.

    I can't declare it as fact. If evidence was shown that proved KSM was merely bragging, or coerced or misrepresented or flat out lied about ... My belief would change.

    I guess I'm with you: let's see what evidence comes out in trial.
     
  4. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That sounds reasonable, except for one part IRT the alleged pre trial admission. It's heresay, because there is no documentation of the interview, video audio or written, nor any confirmation of it after the fact by KSM.

    In fact, the prosecution in KSM's original hearing invoked the interview, but not the alleged 9/11 admission from it. Simply his alleged admission about being AQ military chief, a charge that KSM vehemently denied.

    It is simply taking Fouda's word for it even though Fouda provides no proof or documentation for the interview. Fouda already admitted openly that he told lies about the interview.
     
  5. gr8dane

    gr8dane New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The Red Cross can neither confirm nor deny their visits because if they did then it would violate their 'agreement' not to talk about their visits. I've already mentioned the internet name of the person claiming KSM had some Red Cross pictures taken and no one, including Jarret, can verify its authenticity. But if you really want to believe the Red Cross took a picture of KSM then we should make some sense of it.

    So why would the Red Cross be given numerous access to the high value detainees if their attorneys are not even allowed regular visitation?

    And why would the Red Cross be visiting and not the Red Crescent? These guys are Islamists so the Red Cross would be entirely inappropriate. Is it because Zawahiri worked for the Red Crescent once in Afghanistan? Would you think one hospitable group is more susceptible to clandestine activities than the other?
    Also, that was a very professional picture that you're claimimg the Red Cross took out of the stealth camp. The uncropped version shows KSM was holding prayer beads. Who's giving a Mcgyver-like mastermind prayer beads?

    Does the Red Cross still visit and take pictures or did they violate their visiting agreement with that first one? Shouldn't we have regular pictures with each visitation?

    Personally, I doubt the Red Cross is 'in on it' but I'm not writing this stuff.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the Red Cross is not having visits then there's no agreement. If there's no agreement then there's nothing to violate. If the U.S. is saying that the Red Cross is having visits, but the Red Cross is not visiting, it's in the Red Cross's best interest to let everyone know that the Red Cross did not visit. Has anyone at the Red Cross made this claim?

    Who said this?

    Who wrote that stuff? Was your post typed by a space based weapons system with your name signed to it?
     
  7. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow. It only took eleven years for them to get evidence? That's awesome!!!
     
  8. gr8dane

    gr8dane New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're getting confused. The Red Cross does not visit the high value detainees regularly. They've agreed to not talk about their regular visits to the non-high value prisoners in the regular concentration camps. I don't believe the Red Cross has been to camp seven. The only thing that places them in camp seven is a mysterious picture that someone claimed was taken by the Red cross - because maybe that person thought they had visitors at camp 7. They don't. Camp 7 doesn't get visitors.
    However, if the Red Cross did visit Camp 7 and take a picture of KSM then, yes, that would mean to me that they would be an intentional player and part of the propaganda apparatus. Again however, I don't think they supply our propaganda.

    Of course, it should have been the Red Crescent pretending to visit but still, I didn't write this storyboard.
     
  9. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just don't understand why they didn't just finish convicting him the first time around.

    There has to be a reason for this.. It could be because the hearings weren't going the way they wanted the first time, and so wanted a "do-over" (a blatant perversion of justice).

    Maybe they are stalling, trying to buy time until KSM dies and they no longer have to prove their case. (perhaps the same reason why the orders on OBL were kill no matter what despite how much intel they could get by capturing him).

    All I know is the explanation offered by Obama/Holder does not fly for multiple reasons.

    Firstly systems have always been in place to try and convict foreigners for violent crimes against the United States, and has been for decades if not centuries. There were no problems sentencing Ramsi Yousef, or Zacarious Moussaiu, etc. in federal court. Long before the military commissions act of 06 came out.

    Also, contrary to many people's beliefs, the legislation Obama claims is a roadblock doesn't prohibit trying KSM in New York, the bill simply lacks appropriation for transporting Gitmo detainees to the CONUS. If Obama/Holder were really that desperate, they could just spring for the plane ticket themselves.

    Additionally, the alleged roadblock bill came after Obama/Holder decided to try KSM in federal court. They could have done this BEFORE the bill was passed.

    Also, Obama himself signed the legislation himself! On the one hand he complains that his hands are being tied behind his back, yet despite this still manages to pick up a pen and sign the thing.. If he truly had conviction he'd send it back to congress and say try again. 2/3 veto overturning would be extremely unlikely.

    Obama may be stupid in some ways, he can't be THAT dumb. The story does not add up for many reasons.

    If this is an attempt at having a mulligan, when you combine that with all the torture the defendent received, and the potential blanket biasing of any and all potential jurors by public declarations by Obama and Holder about him being guilty (contradicting presumption of innocence) then this means that even if a conviction happens this time, it won't be a clean conviction. It could even open debates the likes of which was last seen at perhaps OJ Simpson trial or Lockerbie bomber trial. A dirty conviction indeed. (Still that's better than indefinate detention w/o trial.
     
  10. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You claim you're not a KSM cheerleader, but your posts clearly show you are. Most of the delays are political in nature, and, since you've clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of our judicial system, the justice system does not move quickly at all, especially when the cases are complicated and the world watching. Otherwise we get stupid people making all kinds of claims about the unfairness of it all. I am sure you will continue to whine about the unfairness of it all no matter what happens. :lol: Funny how some people defend those who are literally the scum of the earth no matter what. Is it a religious thing or is it just rooting for the bad guy?
     
  11. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So all you got left is insults?! I guess we're done here.
     
  12. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm going to go ahead and respond to this point; it's the only thing that even somewhat resembles any content.

    First of all, you'll have to be less vague and tell me specifically what the political nature of the delay, who does it involve and how.

    Also, I think you'll find the wheels of justice tend to turn much faster than this.

    You say this is a complicated case... it is not really, especially if the government has that good evidence.. The Lockerbie bomber case. Now THAT was a complicated case. Hell there wasn't just internal debate, but a full scale international dispute where two different countries fought over the jurisdiction to try him. Not to mention the fact that al-Megrahi was also in possession of a nuclear bomb but didn't use it, and they couldn't figure out why.

    And even that took way less time than this.

    Can you think of ANY occasion, in any government, in any era of history, anywhere in the world, in which the time of pretrial detention lasted this long?!?! Can you also name any times in which a trial was stopped halfway through and then restarted two years later fresh with a new judge/jury and even the arraignment being fresh? I think you'll find things a bit unprecedented here.

    But now you say it's a complicated case.. Great way to explain the delay I suppose.. And yet you ALSO argued that they managed to PROVE the entire 9/11 story was true, and even KSM was guilty, in the trial of Moussaiu. So it can't REALLY be that complicated now, can it?

    I notice you like to claim that truthers lack of consistency and continuity in their stories, and yet it appears you like to do the same.
     
  13. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For someone who is always (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about "insults", you sure throw a lot around. Ever hear of something called hypocricy? Then again, what would one expect from someone who so blatantly lied and then just ignores their dishonesty?

    No I don't. Do a little research for yourself. Just look up KSM trial delays. You'll find all kinds of political reasons why it has to be held here... no here..... wait here......

    Usually yes. Is it unheard of? No.

    Your opinion and as such basically worthless.

    :lol: al-Megrahi had a nuclear bomb? You care to back that up? I can't even find conspiratard sites that claim he had a nuclear bomb. You would think that would have made the news.

    He blew up one plane. KSM did far more than that even if you are trying so hard to prove his innocence.

    Sure. There were lots of people who were imprisoned for life with NO trial. You should have tried for something a little more narrow than human history. :lol:

    You've made numerous claims about KSM's trial being started and then stopped halfway through. I don't recall a trial being started, nor can I find any information on that. That is the second time this post you've made claims I can't even find evidence for. Care to back up when his first trial started?

    I said it was delayed primarily due to politics, but hey. We know you have to lie in order to try and make any points, so I understand. I never said they proved KSM was guilty in Moussaoui's trial. ANOTHER blatant lie by you you will ignore even though it destroys your reputation and credibility. I said they had to prove Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 to convict Moussaoui. Of course you were whining that they didn't have to prove that even though the entire case against Moussaoui hinged upon his involvement in a crime committed by Al Qaeda.

    The only way your statement is true is if one also buys into the blatant lies you had to tell about my position in the first place. When one ignores your lies and looks at the truth, there is plenty of consistency and continuity.

    Care to respond why you are STILL trying so hard to get the terrorists off the hook? I've seen people try and prove truly scummy people aren't all that bad, but man, you take the cake!
     
  14. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nonsense.. Quote even ONE personal attack I made.

    Me saying your post was lacking in content is true. I am insulting your (*)(*)(*)(*)ty post, not you.

    They settled the venue argument YEARS ago. They determined that Gitmo was the only possible venue YEARS ago. BOTH sides of that political debate have long since AGREED on the trials, with both congress blocking funding to transport KSM to the states, as well as Obama signing off on it. How do you explain the last two years delay?

    Great so let's here some examples.

    You left out the word "allegedly"..

    Great which example would you like to go with? Pick one.

    Sorry, I meant tribunal.

    Patriot911, you said, "One word. Politics" when I asked for an explanation about the delay. Of course that was a different thread.

    Here you say most delays..fair enough.. Your backtracking gives you a bit more leeway in argument I suppose. Okay.. So what caused the OTHER delays that politics didn't?

    You said it here:

    I asked for your most compelling evidence against the people behind the attacks. You said:

    "Really? You're going to feign ignorance now and pretend you've never been show evidence? Wow.

    OK, let's start with all the evidence the government used to convict Moussaoui. They first had to prove Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 before they could convict Moussaoui of any crime.

    Evidence used by government [link to docket from Moussaiu case]"

    This was the reply you gave when answering what your most compelling evidence against the primary plotters of the attack was. You didn't just cite the trial, it was exhibit A. This was page 4, in case you've forgotten.

    Okay so now let's say we accept your latest flip flop.. If you were meaning to leave KSM out of your statements about the MOussaiu trial, so that you never were talking about KSM, then this must mean you DON'T consider KSM among those who planned the attack. That's what I was asking for when you declared this trial as your answer.

    That's the problem.. You can't keep track of the arguments you make, and that is where you lose the cohesiveness. Same thing you accuse of truthers. Whether or not you want to include KSM in that quote, your argument is screwed.. Pick your poison.

    You've also made this claim:

    "Truthers are willing to support letting terrorists go free despite the overwhelming evidence they are guilty."

    Circular logic.

    Not at all. You're failing to address the point. You just said they proved it was AQ and that's how they tied Moussaiu to it? Why's it so hard to do the same thing for KSM?

    Also, I have quoted where you said what I said you said. Do you have any quotes of mine that you can cite to prove your claims about what I said? Show me saying KSM is innocent (other than his default legal status) and not behind the crime, that I want him off the hook, and released, all of which are allegations you claim about me.

    Put your money where your mouth is and show the quotes, like I did to prove I am not misrepresenting you. Show the quotes, and we can prove definatively who's misrepresenting whom. Also quote some of my alleged personal attacks.
     
  15. Man on Fire

    Man on Fire Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So is KSM being given a fair trial in a proper civilian court ? Or are they going to give him an unfair trial in a military court?
     
  16. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look at you chearleading for a scumbag terrorist! Why do you have to sypathize with terrorists? I personally don't see how you can sit there and defend that scumbag al-Magrahi. Is this a religious thing or do you just like rooting for the bad guy?

    By the way, did you also know that Mongolian warlord Genghis Khan is the one who assassinated JFK? Also Vlad the Impaler helped. He was the second shooter behind the grassy knoll.
     
  17. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If they ever get around to trying him finally, it will be in military court.
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    KSM isn't a citizen of the US, But regardless ... What is "unfair" about a trial in military court?
     
  19. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing. It's perfectly reasonable to use hearsay, unverifiable evidence, and info the defense can't see. It's awesome!! 11+ years later and they finally have something to use against him!! yahoo!!
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If they were going to do that, wouldn't they have done it earlier?

    So, are you saying that all military courts are unfair, or just this one? Will you lead protests in his defence?
     
  21. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another BLATANT lie by you. It was decided YEARS ago? Then how do you explain Eric Holder announcing a little over ONE year ago that it was decided AND that it was politicized as per my claim.

    Yeah, I figured that would (*)(*)(*)(*) off KSM's biggest fan.

    Easy. Example[/quote]

    OK, so show where the tribunal was started. He has been before a tribunal to determine his status as an enemy combatant, but not to determine his role in 9/11.

    Taking three words out of context and ignoring the rest is so typical of dishonest people. I've already explained the other delays.

    Thank you for proving my claim. I clearly stated they had to prove AL QAEDA was guilty of being behind 9/11. Nowhere did I state this proves KSM's role in 9/11. If you prove a group is responsible for something, that does not automatically convict everyone in that group, does it. Nope. They each have to have their own trial. Nice try, but you fell on your ass on that one.

    And? How does that justify your outrageous lie that I said KSM was proven guilty at Moussaoui's trial?

    No it is called proving a case in a court of law; something you've been denying and running from for a long time now.

    It won't be hard. The trial has been delayed due primarily to political maneuvering. The evidence against KSM has already been compiled and the case against him built. But hey. If you want to ignore what has already been said and stick by your proven lies, feel free.

    Not even close. You blatantly lied when you said I claimed KSM was proven guilty. Nowhere did I say anything of the sort and your pathetic attempts to cover your lie isn't going to fly with anyone.

    Do you deny claiming there is no evidence against him? If you claim there is no evidence against him, isn't it logical that you also believe he is innocent? Shouldn't the innocent be set free? The constant rooting for the terrorists in your posts by pretending there is no evidence against them and whining about their treatment tells me everything I need to know.

    I am asking you straight up. Did you or did you not claim there was no evidence against KSM?

    As for you proving you are not misrepresenting me..... :lol: You outright lied and your pathetic attempts at covering it up aren't going to fool anyone.
     
  22. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are they using court rules laid out by the UCMJ?
     
  23. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for proving you were lying about this as well. You've built up quite a list of lies in a short amount of time. Does that make you proud?
     
  24. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And of course, the trial will result in conviction, meaning KSM will have been proven beyond a reasonable doubtthat the Muslim hijackers were behind 9/11, not some secret phantom government conspiracy.

    Approximately 10 seconds thereafter, the same nutters on this forum and all over the world will immediately "know" that everyone involved in this trial, Gitmo, the Justice Department, witnesses, Judge, jury, and KSM himself are all "part of the conspiracy."
     
  25. Man on Fire

    Man on Fire Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everything is unfair about it. He is a civilian and should be tried in a civilian court under the legal system that American civilians adhere to.
     

Share This Page