Legal experts say the terrorists will be acquitted due to lack of evidence. Do you think this will happen?

Question

When the terrorists were captured, nobody imagined they would be tried in criminal court.

So none of the evidence was collected using the rules and procedures for collecting evidence for a criminal trial.

So all evidence will be excluded due to being improperly collected.

And all the suspected terrorists will be acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Do you think a HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR doesn't know this?

Is this another intentional maneuver by Obama to destroy the USA and set terrorists free on U.S. soil?

Answer 1

Sure.....We cant risk alienating the rest of the muslim world (sarcasm)



They are our ""friends"", Obama said so



Obama Speech In Cairo 06- 4-09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html

"...America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings........



And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.



...I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."



So, as you can see, if we convict them it would be a ""negative stereotypes of Islam" & it is Obama ""responsibility as President of the United States to fight against"" that.



Independent

A:~)

Answer 2

Yes, in court they have the full rights and privileges of American citizens now. It must seem like a miracle from allah. I'm sure they have attorneys working on their civil actions as well.

Answer 3

I doubt the attorney general would have pushed this action unless he felt they had a strong case in the court room. If these terrorists are not convicted, it would be a huge problem politically for the Democrats and Obama.

Answer 4

It seems that it is a pre-requisite for an American court to let terrorists go, look at all the IRA murderers that the American courts freed so that they could return to the UK and kill and maim countless others, congratulations, what goes around comes around.

Answer 5

All they need is for a judge to rule that any evidence is inadmissible, and they walk and enjoy the right to sue in civil court.

Answer 6

No I do not. 9/11 was such a huge thing and many lives were lost that I don't think that they will get off Scott free. Terroists are held under such a microscope by the United States and it's citizens that we will protect ourselves at all costs. Which is what we should have done in the first place before we knew this was going to happen on 9/11.

Now come on people we all know in the back of our mind that we would take out a terroist if we knew what they had planned. Lets not beat around the bush about this. They have no regard for human life and I don't think they should be given the invitation to take other lives along with them. Take them out and be done with it.

Enough said.

Answer 7

Something tells me there is a body of evidence that was gathered exclusive of interviews and water boarding.



If the prosecution doesn't enter any evidence obtained after the 'arrest', the defense can not discuss it. They can only deal with what the prosecution opens the door to.



If the prosecution does open the door, we must assume that their intent is to indict history and put the previous administration on trial.

That would open the door to prosecuting them too someday. Considering that this administration is violating the constitution at several turns, they could find themselves in court for decades if they set this precedent.

Answer 8

Not a chance they will walk free. Not with a jury in the state of new york.

Answer 9

They need to prosecute them in the military court system because they were taken by the military.



Not only were they they not taken in to custody on US soil. They were not issued arrest warrants. The arraignment could go on for years, and then easily thrown out for inadmissible evidence.

On top of that, in a civilian court, these terrorists will have access to tons and tons of classified documents and techniques,exposing and endangering the lives of many more.



This is not the American Way



This the way of a Traitor.....a Terrorist.....Obama



WHAT, what do you mean why did Bush not try them. He did, this was in the process, and it was STOPPED and changed to this. seems like we have a clueless future.

Answer 10

Not sure. You only exclude info gotten under torture or tainted by it. If they had 'enough' to convict themselves prior to that but only 'tortured' to get info on other acts not necessary for conviction, they MIGHT be convicted. I think they needed a trial, but not in the US, since our deportation laws don't let us deport to countries that allow torture -- which their home countries do. (Since we allowed it, does that make us unsuitable and able to expel them under compassionate grounds?)



HOWEVER, prohibiting evidence was merely the way a court came up with to enforce due process rules, it could come up with another. It is not for the benefit of the accused but for the benefit of the innocents whose abuses of process never even come to trial because they are innocent. The court, in my mind, could devise a DIFFERENT way of enforcing due process, were they convinced of the guilt, but only leery of how the evidence was obtained. That would require thought on the part of the court, of course.

Answer 11

sigh. This is going to be another OJ Simpson scenario isn't it?



From the perspective of law, letting them go due to questionable evidence may be a valid decision. Maybe Obama thinks: "They will learn the merits of our "justice", i.e. our judicial system."



From the perspective of practical safety, letting them go on on the count of improper evidence-collection is nothing more than a practical failure. No one will learn any lessons here, especially not those released from the tribunal with not so much as a slap on the wrist.

Answer 12

Stanleys, so you hope the terrorists walk just to prove a point? Nice.



Legal experts do not have any knowledge of all the evidence available. That's one thing. Second of all the issue wouldn't be a lack of evidence but the fact that some of the available evidence could be ruled to be "fruit of the poisoned tree" because it was obtained through torture. Thirdly, Eric Holder addressed that and said explicitly that they have evidence that has not been made public that makes him sure of a conviction.

Answer 13

Yes I think it could happen, and should happen when any government just starts rounding people up for little or no reason and trying to torture confessions out of them. We have rules and laws regarding arrest and incarceration for a reason. No confession given under torture will stand up in a court of law and you can't just lock people away, not even terrorists, forever without someone eventually wondering why they're there.



2. What would be Obama's "intentional maneuver"? ...obeying the rule of law? If "terrorists" end up wandering the streets it will be because bonehead Bush and his pals thought they could keep everyone frightened enough that they wouldn't care about the rights or identities of the detainees.

Answer 14

Better they should walk to prove that America is a just nation than they should be prosecuted falsely.



But as countless analysts have said, one after the other, the DOJ wouldn't have chosen this route if they weren't sure of gaining a conviction. There is more than enough evidence that did not come from "enhanced interrogation" proving their guilt. In fact, as I understand it, torture was used more to obtain information about future attacks than past ones.

Answer 15

When they "arrested" them, if they had ethical intentions, they should have known there would be a trial and followed proper procedure, for military court at least, if there was any solid evidence whatsoever.



Trials are an inherent part of our system. You can go back and forth on whether they have those rights since they aren't citizens, but in the U.S., people have a right to face their accuser. If there's no evidence, that sounds to me like they just grabbed people they thought "might" be a problem, without just cause. How would you like that? To be arrested and held for years with no actual evidence against you?



If you let the government do that to other people, they'll end up doing the same thing to you one day. They deserve a trial, and the Bush administration should have prepared for this. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there is no evidence, simply because there was never any real evidence. The whole thing was handled horribly.

Answer 16

Those legal experts would be wrong. I have to believe that at least some of the evidence will stand up thanks to technicalities that can be used against the terrorists, namely that the Constitution doesn't apply to those with no legal status. Because of that, any evidence can be used against the terrorists.



Furthermore, whoever prevents a verdict of GUILTY will probably be made a quite literal sacrifical lamb (be it defense lawyers, judge, or jury). In addition, this court has only one liberal activist judge, Jack Weinstein, who is not expected to get the case; it appears as though the Chief Judge of the court, Raymond Dearie, will get it.



Posters below claim that the attorneys will be "graymailing"; considering that most of the judges are Republicans, there is virtually no chance that any graymailing motions (that is, demands to release classified documents) will be granted.



What is interesting is that Holder may be sitting on some charges, and if these charges are dismissed, the terrorists would then be re-arrested on other charges, and so on and so forth.



Sidenote: I live in New York City.

Answer 17

Will it happen ? No one knows what will happen.



Could it happen ? Yes. But is this likely ? I don't think so.



Is there admissible evidence against them ? Yes, according to what I hear, there is evidence that has been gathered according to the rules.





Is this another intentional maneuver, etc. ? Get over your anti-Obama animus. It's making you think things that just are not so.



buckeye

Answer 18

If Trayvon Martin was your kid, you would not support GZ. But people who support GZ either don't have kids or still have their kids, and will never know the feeling of losing their child to senseless gun violence. Too above comments ^^ Racism only proves how ignorant you are.

Answer 19

There are so many reasons K.S. Mohamed won't be convicted in a civil court that for all intents and purposes Mr. Obama has given the 9/11 mastermind a Presidential Pardon.

Answer 20

They should have been "questioned" in the back of a C130 at 3000ft and then shoved out the back door. Yes I'm serious.

Answer 21

We just dont know. For 8 years Bush assured us that these people were terrorists, yet some have flimsy evidence against them and some have none. Some werent even "captured" as you said, but sold to the US for a bounty from some unscrupulous person trying to make a buck and settle a score

Answer 22

As for an maneuver to destroy america, i think you're paranoid....but as far as them being acquitted, yeah, it kinda scares me only because there was torture involved in getting their confessions, and on that point, can't they use that to their advantage.....????? And of course, the emotional side of me says let them be tried in military court, so it's fast, no appeals and the death penalty fast....but then the rational side of me say, no, they are definitely not soldiers, so treat them like the criminals they are, and try them in regular court.........or better yet, why don't we let the 9/11 families decide where they should be tried?

Answer 23

I think Obama has stepped on his crank.



Edit: FUTURE: Bush started military trials. Democrats opposed them and Obama stopped them.



You get an "F" for faliure to pay attention.

Answer 24

Not lack of evidence but evidence thrown out over technicalities.



The only thing a person can hope for is, if this scumbag is acquitted, the good people of New York will rush the court house and have a public hanging or maybe just tear him limb form limb in the streets. And I hope every bit of it is broadcast on TV.

Answer 25

They will never be acquitted. Obama said they will be dealt with firmly, and that my friend, you can take as they'll be prosecuted. One way or another.

Answer 26

No, it just shows how ridiculously c*ap the US has been, in dealing with these terrorists. When did NOT gathering evidence become acceptable?

Answer 27

Why are you ranting? Secondly, if he is aquitted 95% of the people in this country will be furious.

Answer 28

The HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR KNOWS IT but DOES NOT CARE! HE IS MUSLIM and goes around the world kissing butt...then coming home and going on TV and insulting AMERICANS by calling them anti government tea baggers and the military by calling them terrorists and selfish.



He has said in his book the muslims have a friend in the white house and he will stand with them and if you want the quote I can put it down...I have posted it for two weeks straight!



If this idiot had any common sense and had a heart at all he would know how this is going to affect those in NY to begin with. He should know how his PHOTO OP FLY OVER (without warning) sent people screaming into the street when they thought another attack was coming. BUT NO..he is clueless to what AMERICANS WANT and NEED!



The village idiot is blind and has an AGENDA and that is all he cares about. WHAT HE WANTS IS ALL THAT MATTERS...he is the most selfish , inconsiderate, heartless, worthless, irresponsible person that ever walked the halls of the white house.



Not only will evidence be excluded that should be...but BOZO will make sure some of it gets lost and call the investigators incompetent! He has done that in many cases...such as GATES....etc.



NOt only will they be acquitted..but bozo will invite them to the white house for a beer summit and apologize for their being inconvenienced by us STUPID AMERICANS that can't see kissing their butts is more important than justice!



There should be something else than a regular court that deals with this.



It is SAD that war criminals will be treated with OUR LAWS and AFFORDED RIGHTS OF AMERICANS !



Bush was smart to not try them because he knew the AMERICANS in his terms would acquit them out of hatred for him. He wasn't dumb.



This is going to be the end of it for BOZO..when they walk free and the potus continues to show his true colors....maybe the LEFT WILL WAKE UP and realize that we have an idiot and a sympathizer in the white house.!



I find it totally laughable that people say justice will prevail and those that are guilty will be found guilty !



You obviously know nothing of our judicial setting. You obviously know nothing of OJ , MJ, BLAKE and others that got away with murder and other horrible crimes because of money and technicalities.



You obviously underestimate the lack common sense of people (look who answered here ).... and think and help the find some reason why they should go free !



You have a MUSLIM PRESIDENT THAT SAID THEY HAVE A FRIEND IN THE WHITE HOUSE! THAT IS THE BIGGEST REASON THEY WILL GO FREE!!!!! HE WILL CONTINUE TO KISS BUTT and DO NOTHING WITH THE MILITARY UNTIL WE ARE ALL at their FEET!



Obama said in his book 'Audacity of Hope', “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction what better place for the Muslins to control our country, than in the office of the President of USA.”



Pair that with all the butt kissing and apologizing for US...and you get WALKING FREE! When you have the village idiot in office..there is no justice...the bleeding hearts will find some way to let them go in the name of justice while the victims and those that NEED JUSTICE will be denied. AGAIN AMERICA will be ON TRIAL while they are vindicated. AGAIN AMERICA will be the bad guy and there will be some reason that they weren't read the miranda rights (even if they aren't american's) and some stupid reason that someone stepped on their foot accidentally and it was TORTURE..and GOD FORBID in time of war ...they weren't given ICE to put on that damn toe! (exaggeration yes...but it HAPPENS ALL THE TIME).



AMERICA WILL LET THEM GO..because BOZO SAID SO.....HE WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS!



SINCE WHEN DID POW'S GET AMERICAN RIGHTS! SINCE WHEN DID POW'S GET TRIALS IN AMERICA?



ALL COUNTRIES TAKE POW'S...BUT THE FACT IS ...MIDDLE EAST BEHEADS THEM WITHOUT A TRIAL...and we KISS THEIR BUTTS AND GIVE THEM AMERICAN RIGHTS! I AM SICK OF IT!

Answer 29

There's that college name popping up again! HARVARD!!!! Is this a college where they teach Assassination of America?? Why have we keeping these guys in prison so long? Why didn't they just send them back to their own countries, and let them be tried by their own people!? As for this water boarding thing - why didn't they just use truth serum!?? Pity they hadn't spent more money of security and secrecy instead of using physical force!!! Somebody let the cat out of the bag, now, it IS possible these guys will walk!

Answer 30

They should be tried according to Islamic fundamentalist law: Beheaded with a long, dull sword and viewed on international media coverage. I am sure al Jazzeera would have a scoop on their hands: ANOTHER ONE DIES BY THE SWORD.

Answer 31

The U.S. government, in part, paid Afghani tribal warlords to name terrorist suspects, anywhere from $3,000 to $25,000 dollars per person.



In some cases, the tribal warlords named their enemies, whether or not those enemies had anything to do with terrorism. They named them, just to remove their enemies.



Some of the men put in Gitmo were thirteen year old children.



If there are innocent people who were captured by mistake, do you believe they should be executed, just for the crime of being born in Afghanistan?



I find your concept of justice odd. Those who are guilty should pay. Those who are innocent should not.

Answer 32

The ring leaders will be found guilty.

Answer 33

YES, They will walk among us.

Obama has already said they will get the best defense possible. All at taxpayers cost.

Welcome your next door neighbors.

Answer 34

This is why you shoot terrorists when you find them. Certainly don't bring them to US courts, allowing lawyer tricks to get them off without any charges and then roam completely free on US soil.

Answer 35

No legal experts have said this... you're a moron. period. They're going to get the death penalty if we try them.

Answer 36

That would be Barack Hussein Obama's Wet Dream, following the Fort Hood shooting.



He is not Innocent of That, you know.

Answer 37

No,,

this is just more trash spewed by the right wing to create division between us.

In eight years ,The BUsh idiots got 3 convictions doing it their way.

you tell me,,,,,,

,,is 3 out of two hundred a good record?

Answer 38

There is not one Judge or prosecutor in this country who would let any of these terrorist walk in the USA . It is just ignorant to think other wise .

Answer 39

Yeah they will join the libs because that is who wants them to have the same rights as me. Good luck finding 7 virgins in THAT crowd.

Answer 40

They're going to be acquitted, and Obama is going to blame it on Bush. They should have been tried in military court, executed, and forgotten.

Answer 41

makes me wonder if being inexperience will kill us in the end.The terrorist walk then Obama will never get elected again.But maybe he just plans being a 1 term.

Answer 42

More a lack of a crime. We can not charge them for violating American law when they were captured abroad and never been to America.

Answer 43

They'll get a couple of Muslims on the jury, then it will be a hung jury. Hope you libs are happy with your Messiah.

Answer 44

Gosh I hope the Terrorist Walk...



To elevate Terrorist to the level of AMERICAN CITIZENS is stupid. It's time that the idiots in the ACLU figure some of this "second grade level" stuff out.

Answer 45

O.J.Simpson.

Answer 46

Then why didn't Bush try them in a MILITARY court these last 7 years? What's why we have this problem now.

You can't keep guys in jail for 7 years without ever charging them with anything! And "enemy combatent" is just a word he and Rummie made up to avoid having to treat them by the Geneva Convention and OUR OWN LAWS!!!!

Just one more damned mess Obama inherited from Republicans.

Answer 47

no

Answer 48

Seems to me that is pretty obvious.



Then again Obama isn't all that bright.