It's not really up to me anyway. I've not got the dungeon keys. Nevertheless it's immaterial.. The fact remains presumption of innocence means he's legally innocent until convicted, and Patriot911 has the onus to prove guilt not the other way around.
Who said he was an American citizen? And no he's not awaiting trial.. He's doing life w/o conviction and I anticipate Osama Bin Laden rising from the dead and converting to Judaism before I expect any trial to happen.
I guess we'll wait and see. Some of the discussion makes it sound as if he were. Are there advocacy groups demanding he be released or tried?
You're done playing your silly games.. Good to know.. Your "point" must not have been very relevant. I thought about baked beans today.. lol.
You're going to have to elaborate on that, because nowhere in this thread was citizenship ever mentioned until you brought it up. Certainly not.. Most people probably think he's the guilty 9/11 mastermind because their government and their president said so.. This of course blanket biases any and all potential jurors as well, at least potentially. And please may I say, GOOD POINT!!!! This is a real problem.. The U.S. has taken a giant step backwards in contravention to the common law democratic principles from which it was founded. It's like the witch hunt days, as long as the label is bad enough, trials can be either unfair kangaroo courts or no trial at all, just automatic punishment. Then if you say, "don't you need a trial to be fair and prove it?" they can just respond that the label trumps that.. "You want terrorists to have rights? Why? They are evil terrorists! You're a terrorist sympathizer! You support killing innocents!" That's the mentality on this board... The point is you PROVE they are terrorists! The accusation being so bad shouldn't preclude that. In fact, I think it makes it ALL the more important to prove it. If someone gets a parking ticket, they might very well be up in arms that the dispute/appeal period is only 14 days, while at the same time they couldn't care less about their country going around the world, abducting people from all corners, not on a battlefield, whipping out the trusty rhetorical branding iron and locking them up as long as they want without proving any wrongdoing at all and no physical way to appeal. So to answer your question, none that I'm aware of. The whole point of these rights is to SAFEGAURD, that is not so much about not letting guilty people go free, but to prevent non guilty people being punished arbitrarily (which hunt). Although that was the colonial era, lessons were still learned (and recently forgotten) from that pitiful embarrassment. I would like to see more people concerned about protecting their democratic ideals.. First it was witches, they did the same for communists, now it's the terrorists.. They need to be concerned.. It's a slippery slope.. Soon it won't just be terrorists who shouldn't have a trial, but murderers, then rapists... Eventually nobody.. Hell 20 years down the road what if your child gets locked up being accused of being a witch doctor, or revolutionary or libertarian or whatever the new evil group is.. Would you say, I know my child wasn't involved in that, but lock him up anyway, he doesn't need a trial because he's been branded a witch doctor. Slippery slope indeed. Instead what I see is the official story people don't need proof or trials and that because their government told them they are guilty so that's good enough thanks to confirmation bias (no need for outside confirmation).. And then you get the "truthers" who are clueless about the real issue at hand here, that is the reformatting of U.S. democratic principles and the REAL underlying and paramount aspect of any murder mystery, that is the "whodunnit".. And also dereliction of duty when their own military leaders sit there with zero concern about their countrymen falling out of burning buildings. Finding the bad guy and proving it and holding leaders accountible, this stuff is important.. Rather instead it's just arguing about grainy pictures of planes and whether or not lizard men shot lazer beams at flight 93 and such and other such stupid tripe that simply muddys the waters. Thanks for bringing that up, I meant to get that off my chest actually, sorry if this rant wound up a bit long.
You don't need "dungeon keys" to prove someone's innocence either. Try again. It's quite material because you said it couldn't be done. I only pointed it out because the "you can't prove a negative" argument is special pleading fallacy. You can prove a negative. For example, "Gadsby does not contain the letter E." This is a provable negative. What you can't do is prove a universal negative. "Dragons have never existed" would be an example. Patriot911 has the dungeon keys?
Patriot911 insisted there was overwhelming hard evidence against KSM.. It's up to him to show it.. Make sense? I understand you can prove innocence.. Okay.. But in any and all cases? Can you prove Bush was innocent of any involvement in 9/11? Incidentally I'm not saying KSM is innocent anyway.. Contrary to Patriot911's lies, I never insisted on his innocence, in regards to whether he ACTUALLY did the crime (although I did in regards to his legal status)... He very well could have.. It's possible. I don't deny that. Patriot911's silly request for me to prove innocence really spawned from his own straw man that I say he's innocent and want him released, when I clearly said I wanted a trial to know for sure and to make sure the right people are being punished. All I was saying is that the narrative as told by the 9/11 commission about KSM and "the planes operation" was undersubstantiated, speculative, theoretical.. Not definatily untrue or impossible. But undersupported.. Based ENTIRELY on interrogation reports of tortured detainees furnished by the CIA, a source that is problematic on its own for reasons already mentioned. Regarding the possiblity of proving a negative in general, you are right, it is possible in some cases.. I admit to the fallacy and well done pointing it out to me so I can learn for next time.
No not in all cases. You can't prove innocence in cases where the person is guilty, as an example. Involved? That's quite an unqualified question. He was the president of the United states at the time the U.S. was attacked. Of course he was involved. If by involved you mean responsible for the attacks, yes, he can be proven innocent. This is accomplished by proving someone else responsible for the attacks. A. Not entirely based on interrogation reports. The unclassified summary of evidence is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/CSRT_Summary_of_Evidence_memo_for_Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed B. What standard of evidence do you require? Non citizens cannot be held to the same standard of evidence collection that citizens are held to. Miranda is not required on the battlefield for example. if CIA interrogation doesn't count, what would?
You having trouble reading? I'm done playing YOUR games......baked beans,That explains the smell from your posts..
I'm not playing any games. I simply pointed out that ALL you said was that you thought of some guy.. Nothing about what prompted that or how that has anything to do with anything I said. I asked you to rephrase your point and you refused. I thought you said you were done here? Obviously not! lol
No trouble reading.. You also said you were done HERE. Since you're the one playing games, if you are done here, then no more of YOUR games. If I've not got your point, and ask you to rephrase it, you rephrasing it so we can discuss your point would be proper debate and the normal way to have civil discussion. If you INSTEAD elect to insist it's my fault for not getting your point and want to just go on and on about me on a personal level in leue of just rephrasing your point, then you are playing games.
And some cases where they're not guilty as well, right? More than one person can be guilty for the same crime.. Especially such an elaborate conspiracy as the 9/11 attacks which required many people. So how can anyone else be ruled out? That's stuff about other crimes besides 9/11.. I'm referring to 9/11 specifically. The only thing on there is the computer, but you have to prove the computer belongs to KSM first.. It was seized from another guy's house. KSM said he is NOT the AQ military cheif and also that it is NOT his computer. Is he lying?
For starters, a single piece of conclusive evidence would be nice.. Something non circumstantial...Behind 9/11 from a to z, the biggest criminal investigation ever should have found something in this category.. Compare it to let's say Mohammed Atta.. Although trial in such case is obviously irrelevant, you can know he's guilty because there is a MASSIVE plethora of unequivocal evidence that can only possibly mean ONE thing and that is his guilt. So far I've heard two things.. One his confession/testimony where he professes his guilt in the crime and masterminding of the attack.. The second is the computer. But you only get one or the other.. Because he admitted the attack but denied the computer. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you had both, it means he's lying when he says it's not his computer.. But if he's lying then he has no credibility and his confession can't prove something on its own merit because the guy's a liar. If the guy is trustworthy and his confession means something, then it can't be his computer, after all he said it's not and he's a trustworthy, credible terrorist suspect. So after we do the maths we are left with at most a single piece of circumstantial evidence. I think it's fair to say, and all of us justice loving freedom advocates should agree, and I'm sure you should agree as well, that nobody should be assumed guilty on a single piece of circumstantial evidence. CIA interrogations of tortured and sleep deprived detainees, for reasons I exhaustively spelled out before, is the LAST thing that should count. ESPECIALLY when the narrative told by the detainee doesn't check out with outside verifying evidence. If you've sleep deprived someone for ten days straight to the point they are inundated by delusions, you are probably best to take their stories with a truckload of salt. Pouring water into your lungs will also compell you to say anything you think your interrogators want to hear to make it stop. I heard it's unpleasant that. Don't forget also that some of the stories told by these tortured detainees have been PROVEN false. Therefore, CIA interrogations of tortured detainees are the LAST source in the world anyone ought to use to prove a case. Says who? Says who? It's immaterial here anyway.. I was referring to the right to a fair and speedy trial, and not to be deprived of liberty w/o due process of law. As the constitution clearly states these apply to persons, and such protections are not among the few cases of citizen's only stuff, like the right to vote or become president, found therein.
The referring document is not just about other crimes - it lays out why KSM is being held as an enemy combatant, instead of as a criminal. Looking into it further. Can you go back and answer whether there are any international advocacy groups calling for KSM's release? Apologies if you've addressed it, I haven't seen an answer.
I certainly noticed that.. I was talking about evidence about involvement in 9/11 specifically. Honestly, I see enough proof that the guy's a terrorist, hostile towards the United States, and a very evil scumbag.. This I don't dispute... The list lays out why he should be an enemy combatant, however much of it is simply allegations, not evidence.. The guy who showed me that link was responding about evidence relevant to 9/11, specifically.. On that list the only thing that can be classed as evidence is the computer. But this means two things.. One you can prove the computer belongs to KSM.. Nowhere does the United States assert this.. Strictly the computer seized during the raid that KSM was captured.. Since KSM was the guest in another guy's house, that is inconclusive. Also the other thing is that you acknowledge KSM is a liar, as he denies it's his computer, therefore invalidating his testimony as evidence in and of itself due to lack of credibility. The same applies to his denial of being AQ military boss. The rest of the link, not relevant to the true discussion. Although incidentally, to make a point about it nonetheless, I think enemy combatant should refer to those caught on the battlefield... KSM wasn't.. He was captured in a residential raid in a non belligerent country. This should classify him as a criminal suspect. Committing a crime, even as bad as terrorism, isn't the same thing as what is considered "armed conflict" as clearly defined by international treaties like Geneva and Hague. No worries.. I addressed it straight away because I APPRECIATE you bringing that up.. I'll repost it. To amend one thing in rereading my post, I shouldn't have been as definitive as "certainly not" because maybe there is and I couldn't find it (although I've looked) I should say none that I found. If anybody knows of any, please share with me as I really would love to know about it as the dangerous judicial precedents being set in this new century is going to possibly wind up being a real threat down the road, to our children or grandchildren.
Agreed. It's also important to focus on proven criminal actions and supporting evidence as opposed to the perpetrators supposed belief system. Timothy McViegh was Christian. It's less about religion than fanaticism.
Disagreed. The U.S. government have ALWAYS been liars. They simply have no credibility.. ANY claims made by the United States need to be independently verified before they are believed.. THAT is being "objective". Believing what they say without seeing any evidence yourself for it, just because it's what you want to believe or just because it's your government and you love them, is not.
Thanks for proving my point. Who said that was the case? Dismissing EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE obtained or "controlled" by the "government" just because they ARE the government is not being objective. Assuming that everyone who disagrees with the truthers is a shill, Bush dupe, government "disinfo agent", in denial, or has blind faith in the government is not being objective.
Do you disagree on either the count that the U.S. has a history of telling lies, or the count that one ought to independently verify statements that they make before assuming them true? No offense but this is kind of a non response here. Well yes.. I don't go that far and you're right in this case.. As far as requiring verification for claims made by the government however, that is indeed being objective. Assuming them true w/o evidence just because it's the government and you trust them, that is not. If the government tells you that x is true, and they show you evidence for x that is satisfactory, indeed believe in x and to dismiss x just because the government told you it is not objective. Now if the government tells you x is true, and show no evidence for it, or claim they have evidence but you can't see it for "national security" reasons, then tell them to take their claim and stick it.
That's not what you originally wrote. You said . . . Which seemed to imply an objectivity clouding attitude of distrust of ALL things US government. Your quote as restated is good advice to be taken in regards to most governments. None taken.
That's an extremely extreme statement. And needs only on example to disprove. I'm confident most of what published on this government website is true and factual: www.census.gov/ See above about extreme claims, etc...Part of your problem is you wrote "U.S. government" without qualification. It shows you didn't put much thought into your post. It would be if there were reasonable suspicions for the need of an outside accounting. Reasonable suspicion is based on facts not adding up, not on an active imagination. This sounds a little like reverse projection. Broad statements and extreme assertions are more often a sign of being so emotionally attached to an outcome that your objectivity has been compromised.
