PDA

View Full Version : NY Jury Convicts Enemy Combatant in Court



ljb5
02-04-2010, 09:49 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/03/siddiqui.trial/index.html?hpt=T2

Not quite sure what the excuse for this is going to be.

The shooting took place in 2008 (when Bush was in office.) She was extradited to the US (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/04/terror.arrest/index.html#cnnSTCText) a month later.

She was given legal representation and a civilian trial. And now she has been found guilty.

Previously, when I pointed out that terrorists like Richard Reid and Zacharias Moussaoui had been tried in civilian court during Bush's term, a few members here said that was done because the Military Tribunal System had not been set up yet. (Of course, that's not true). But this trial took place seven years after the tribunals were authorized.

So what's the deal? Why was this terrorist given a lawyer and civilian trial? Why can't we deal with other terrorists the same way?

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 10:00 AM
Why can't we deal with other terrorists the same way? Because then we won't be able to thump our chests and tell ourselves how tough we are and feel like characters in a Tom Clancy novel?

BrianW
02-04-2010, 10:03 AM
Was she an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist"? You used both terms to describe her.

Ian McColgin
02-04-2010, 10:17 AM
Read the stories. She was captured. The exact accusation is that she was being moved to interrogation when she (and perhaps some other prisoners) siezed the guards guns and started a ruckus. She was convicted of shooting at US personnel on the basis of witness (the soldiers) testimoney. The undisputed forensic evidence was that her fingerprints were on no weapons and that there was no powder residue on her hands.

She's also crazy. Literally.

I happen to disagree with the verdict but it's a distinction without a difference because no matter what she was destined for a secure facility where she will get mental health treatment. She was supportive of active terrorists and in the treatment of her psychosis may very well provide links and insights. You can bet there will be no shrink/patient confidentiality for her.

I hate to see it when a brilliant and potentially productive mind is destroyed. One of the many costs of terrorism.

ljb5
02-04-2010, 10:26 AM
Was she an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist"? You used both terms to describe her.

Do either of those terms have specific legal meanings? I'm not sure.

Whatever she is, (terrorist, enemy combatant or criminal defendant), the Bush administration gave her a lawyer and a criminal trial in New York.

And now we are told that Obama is wrong and evil for doing the same.

Osborne Russell
02-04-2010, 12:55 PM
Do either of those terms have specific legal meanings? I'm not sure.

Whatever she is, (terrorist, enemy combatant or criminal defendant), the Bush administration gave her a lawyer and a criminal trial in New York.

Exactly.

1. Whatever distinction exists didn't keep her from being brought to trial under existing law, therefore

2. The argument that new law, or un-law, is required to deal with terrorism, is disproved.

Canoeyawl
02-04-2010, 01:08 PM
Because then we won't be able to thump our chests and tell ourselves how tough we are and feel like characters in a Tom Clancy novel?
(Well - yeah, but we would have to read to feel that way)

nw_noob
02-04-2010, 03:19 PM
... She was supportive of active terrorists ....

I'm curious, Mr. McC., are you refering to 'support' as in "go team al-quaida"? Or have you heard of evidence beyond the bizare collection of paperwork she was allegedly walking freely around Afghanistan with? I ask because I haven't yet heard any evidence of 'material support to terrorists' in this case.

Just to add, nobody has mentioned that her friends in Pakistan believe she had been in U.S. custody for as long as 4-5 years prior to the incident in question. Thus explaining why she didn't even recognize her own son... she may have been seperated from him since he was an infant. Unfortunately when a woman claims to have not recognized her own child in front of a jury, said woman will likely appear crazy... I suppose a few years in secret prisons could have made her a bit crazy though.

Ian McColgin
02-04-2010, 03:27 PM
You are correct nw noob. I should have qualified it with "alleged" supporter. I have no evidence and frankly neither has my government.

I keep hoping that we have fair trials that result, if error is made, in the guilty going free, but we also have "fair" trials in which the innocent are condemned. Perhaps she will do better on appeal.

Regardless of the truth in her matter, her case is not one that supports the right wing hysteria that we should hide these people in Bulgaria, try them in secret or any of that other idiocy.

Tom Montgomery
02-04-2010, 08:38 PM
Why in the world would anyone want to dignify a murderous criminal member of a murderous organized crime group with the label "enemy combatant" (i.e. "a soldier")? This is simply insane and absurd. These are not POW's. They are murderers. Treat them as such.

perldog007
02-04-2010, 08:42 PM
Because if we deal with them that way, we can't deal with them this way:

http://michelledina.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/edward-adams_saigon-execution2.jpg

Didn't that guy have a restaurant in or near Herndon Virginia after the war?

Tom Montgomery
02-04-2010, 08:48 PM
Soldiers do not "murder." Soldiers kill.

Do you conservatives really want all these murdering, terrorist, criminals to be considered "enemy combatants" and POWs?

Unbelievable.

ljb5
02-04-2010, 08:57 PM
So because Bush was stupidly wrong, it is okay for Obama to be stupidly wrong?

To make that argument, you must be willing to admit Bush was wrong, which is something several members of this forum (and many influential Republicans in Congress) refuse to admit.

Personally, I think neither of them was wrong. We've got a pretty good criminal justice system. Not perfect, of course, but better than any alternative.

In this case, it secured a conviction against a woman who (we are told) is a dangerous terrorist. And there's no evidence that the trial turned into a "circus," as some people insist would happen.

Tom Montgomery
02-04-2010, 09:05 PM
I think neither of them was wrong. We've got a pretty good criminal justice system. Not perfect, of course, but better than any alternative.

But the right-wing idealogues in this country do not want to identify these people as murderous criminals! They want to label them as "enemy combatants" so they can be held without charge until the "war" is over (i.e. either indefinitely or forever, depending upon how optimistic one is).

ljb5
02-04-2010, 11:45 PM
Do NOT confuse me with other members of this forum, lj, or any influential rips ...

:)

I don't care enough about you to spend any time thinking about it.

I didn't even ask you to post on this thread.

I was actually thinking of Bob Smalser, not you, because he did express some strong feelings about this issue.

You told us how you think. Good for you. Don't expect me to care. And please don't berate me with three aggressive posts in a row.

(Please put me back on ignore.)

High C
02-05-2010, 12:27 AM
But the right-wing idealogues in this country do not want to identify these people as murderous criminals! They want to label them as "enemy combatants" so they can be held without charge until the "war" is over (i.e. either indefinitely or forever, depending upon how optimistic one is).

History proves you wrong. Over 500 detainees have been released from Gitmo.

Tom Montgomery
02-05-2010, 06:55 AM
500 detainees held for years without charge were released. Color me unimpressed.