9/11 terrorists on trial Are They Responsible or Is America

reply to post by homervb

If they had to waterboard him for a confession then surely there was a lack of evidence connecting him to the attacks to begin with. It sounds like they needed a confession to finally charge him with anything. I'm not saying he had no connection to any of these, but if you're torturing someone 183 times, then obviously you're not going to stop until you hear what you want to hear.

You are watching too much tv.
They didn't need a confession. They wanted information about other operatives and plans. And it sounds like they got it.

If I had my way I would waterboard him 3000 times info or not.

reply to post by homervb

Am I the only one that thinks this trial is seriously lacking as far it being about charging individuals with the most disastrous/heinous crime in US history? OJ kills a woman and his # blows up every media outlet in America. Five men are on trial for playing a part in the death of 3,000 Americans on our own soil and all we get is minor details and victim's families watching on a television? I'm not saying I know the truth or what I'm saying is indeed the truth, I'm just really surprised not more people are questioning it.

On Jan 7 the president transfered the case back to the militay commision. So we are not going to see video.

OJ's case was not federal as far as I remember so they had the option to broadcast the proceedings.

reply to post by samkent


You won't see any video because the the head of Counterterrorism Jose Rodriguez destroyed them. I suspect this is because he realises that KSM's treatment was barbaric.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by homervb

 

If they had to waterboard him for a confession then surely there was a lack of evidence connecting him to the attacks to begin with. It sounds like they needed a confession to finally charge him with anything. I'm not saying he had no connection to any of these, but if you're torturing someone 183 times, then obviously you're not going to stop until you hear what you want to hear.

You are watching too much tv.
They didn't need a confession. They wanted information about other operatives and plans. And it sounds like they got it.

If I had my way I would waterboard him 3000 times info or not.

You guys are right. I guess the US just managed to fail again in providing any type of justice for 9/11

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Mountains of evidence? You mean a laptop full of circumstantial evidence? I'd love to know where you get your info.

Most "evidence" outside of that and his confession is redacted. So either you're

1. Misinformed
2. Bluffing
3. Telling of something no one else knows, due to security clearance of yourself or family member?? Please, blow the whistle in that case...

ETA: or there is something recently declassified that I've missed?

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Mountains of evidence? You mean a laptop full of circumstantial evidence? I'd love to know where you get your info.

Most "evidence" outside of that and his confession is redacted. So either you're

1. Misinformed
2. Bluffing
3. Telling of something no one else knows, due to security clearance of yourself or family member?? Please, blow the whistle in that case...

ETA: or there is something recently declassified that I've missed?

edit on 9-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)

lol don't even bother bro. These people aren't even taking into consideration that the evidence in the case was all obtained through torture.

reply to post by jlm912


Fair enough - mountains might be a strong word and I perhaps formulated the sentence incorrectly. There is mountains of evidence for KSM's involvement in terrorism against American targets and there is considerable evidence for his involvement in 9/11. Not only has he admitted it (not under duress), but his record speaks for itself. I also think the laptop evidence is pretty compelling. But fair point.

Originally posted by homervb


lol don't even bother bro. These people aren't even taking into consideration that the evidence in the case was all obtained through torture.

Well you're just showing your lack of research now. "All" the evidence was by no means obtained under torture. You should have the honesty to admit your ignorance before laying into people.

Yeah not all evidence was gathered through through torture. Mainly confessions and supporting details for the info on the laptop. Any evidence they have to charge him as an enemy combatant is classified along with the specifics of what's in the computer and the main bodies of evidence: e-mails, plans, and such... I mean, it seems apparent that they don't have anything too damning when they've been through numerous hearings with no conviction. KSM's screwed, though, whether they get him for 9/11 or not, which only makes me think he's likely scapegoating on a lot of the confessions or just trying to incriminate himself to get the trial/torture over with.

I see the disinfo trainees are doing a lot of overtime lately. Ask yourself this, why is this not on trial in a normal court. Of course these people are not guilty.

Originally posted by jlm912
Yeah not all evidence was gathered through through torture. Mainly confessions and supporting details for the info on the laptop. Any evidence they have to charge him as an enemy combatant is classified along with the specifics of what's in the computer and the main bodies of evidence: e-mails, plans, and such... I mean, it seems apparent that they don't have anything too damning when they've been through numerous hearings with no conviction. KSM's screwed, though, whether they get him for 9/11 or not, which only makes me think he's likely scapegoating on a lot of the confessions or just trying to incriminate himself to get the trial/torture over with.

edit on 10-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)

"Mainly" but not entirely confessions. It's important to remember that he confessed to 9/11 before they tortured him. He has never changed that story. You might not find that damning but I think it's pretty unlikely he's lying. I also, as I said, think the circumstantial evidence is pretty conclusive.

As for numerous hearings - he hasn't got to the point where they could convict him! It's not like they've had several efforts and reached not guilty verdicts.

Originally posted by 4hero
I see the disinfo trainees are doing a lot of overtime lately. Ask yourself this, why is this not on trial in a normal court. Of course these people are not guilty.

He's not on trial in a "normal" court because the nutty right wingers who seem to have a monopoly on discourse in the US don't want him to be. The presidential administration did want him in a normal court.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


lolwut?

He was in captivity for 4 years before he confessed. How do you conclude he wasn't tortured at all during that time?

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

lolwut?

He was in captivity for 4 years before he confessed. How do you conclude he wasn't tortured at all during that time?

Before his full confession. He had admitted his involvement before he was even caught!

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


This would be new knowledge for me. Have any verifiable sources?