More Obamateur Hour whiny butthurt sniveling from the delicate little petunias at NRO.

That's our Obama! (cue theme music)

I'm almost certain it would be impossible for Obama to taint the jury pool more than the footage of the towers falling on constant repeat eight years ago has already done.

Stupid thing to say? Yeah. Tainting the jury pool in New York? Hardly.

What a bunch of pansy assed snivelers.

Lionel Mandrake: More Obamateur Hour whiny butthurt sniveling from the delicate little petunias at NRO.

I think this is a stopped clock moment for them, actually. If that's what he actually said. From the article:

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" ... and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case.

That could easily be taken out of context and turned completely on it's head, which wouldn't be completely shocking coming from NRO. Given the fact that the second comment came after a NBC reporter asked a follow up, I don't think it is, but I'd still like a full quote.

That being said, find me someone in America that could be a properly impartial jury member on this case. I know I'd have a hell of a time. There's no way he isn't convicted.

GAT_00: That being said, find me someone in America that could be a properly impartial jury member on this case. I know I'd have a hell of a time. There's no way he isn't convicted.

I'd volunteer for the jury if for nothing else than to see the evidence against him that was obtained through legal channels and not through enhanced interrogation of either him or others.

GAT_00: which wouldn't be completely shocking coming from NRO

I've got some shocking news for you.

To be fair, most people don't have law degrees and don't consider the consequences of such things before publicly commenting on a pending criminal prosecution.

Hender: I'd volunteer for the jury if for nothing else than to see the evidence against him that was obtained through legal channels and not through enhanced interrogation of either him or others.

From what I know of the legal evidence of his crimes, I'm not sure I could give a guilty verdict.

Nabb1: To be fair, most people don't have law degrees and don't consider the consequences of such things before publicly commenting on a pending criminal prosecution.

Obama has a law degree and--oh, I see what you did there.

GAT_00: Hender: I'd volunteer for the jury if for nothing else than to see the evidence against him that was obtained through legal channels and not through enhanced interrogation of either him or others.

From what I know of the legal evidence of his crimes, I'm not sure I could give a guilty verdict.

If this results in an acquittal, you can bet that Obama is a one-termer. In fact, the hue and cry would probably put Democrats on the hot seat next year in the mid-term elections. And he knows this, so I'm fairly certain they know what they are doing.

How can you taint a jury that doesn't existGAT_00: Lionel Mandrake: More Obamateur Hour whiny butthurt sniveling from the delicate little petunias at NRO.

I think this is a stopped clock moment for them, actually. If that's what he actually said. From the article:

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" ... and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case.

That could easily be taken out of context and turned completely on it's head, which wouldn't be completely shocking coming from NRO. Given the fact that the second comment came after a NBC reporter asked a follow up, I don't think it is, but I'd still like a full quote.

I agree that the NRO seems right in this case. But what's more disturbing is that now NRO, and indeed the entire neo-con establishment, wants a 9/11 terrorist to go free in order to hurt Obama. Expect a bunch more pretend-lawyers covering all the technicalities that should dismiss the case for years to come.

Nabb1: And he knows this, so I'm fairly certain they know what they are doing.

Obviously. They've gone through all the evidence thoroughly, and the people at Gitmo they know they can convict in a criminal court get criminal trials, and the people who have evidence issues get military tribunals.

/still was probably not the best choice of words for him
//but when you complain about literally everything he does people stop taking you seriously, even if you're right every once in a while

Nabb1: GAT_00: Hender: I'd volunteer for the jury if for nothing else than to see the evidence against him that was obtained through legal channels and not through enhanced interrogation of either him or others.

From what I know of the legal evidence of his crimes, I'm not sure I could give a guilty verdict.

If this results in an acquittal, you can bet that Obama is a one-termer. In fact, the hue and cry would probably put Democrats on the hot seat next year in the mid-term elections. And he knows this, so I'm fairly certain they know what they are doing.

That's my opinion, too. The full weight of the United States Department of Justice will be brought to bear on making sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed to secure a conviction. Am I mistaken in remembering that in military tribunals the burden is more on the defense rather than the prosecution as it in in civilian courts? I'm thinking they've got this covered if they're moving it to a federal court instead of a tribunal.

Racht: /still was probably not the best choice of words for him

I understand the point he was making, but he probably should've used "if" instead of "when". And, he probably should've avoided making the point in that way from the beginning.

Like the special olympics comment, he said something that many people would joke about in private and...as the President...it will get airplay every where.

Hender: That's my opinion, too. The full weight of the United States Department of Justice will be brought to bear on making sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed to secure a conviction. Am I mistaken in remembering that in military tribunals the burden is more on the defense rather than the prosecution as it in in civilian courts? I'm thinking they've got this covered if they're moving it to a federal court instead of a tribunal.

I really hope so. I mean, I disagree with a lot of his political stances, but if they didn't cherry-pick the iron-clad cases for civilian trials, it will be just about the biggest screw-up in the history of federal prosecutions. For my part, I cannot imagine that interrogations for intelligence purposes and interrogations for criminal prosecutions are even remotely similar, and I'd hate to think you'd try and build a criminal prosecution on top of evidence that was gathered outside the bounds of accepted legal criminal procedure. Nobody is dumb enough to do that just to make a political point.

GAT_00: That being said, find me someone in America that could be a properly impartial jury member on this case. I know I'd have a hell of a time. There's no way he isn't convicted.

There are a lot of dumb people; I guarantee the majority of Americans would not know who KSM is if they were asked right now. I'm pretty sure there's a significant proportion of people in the country who don't know what date 9/11 occurred on.

GAT_00: That could easily be taken out of context

Is this enough context?

"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him"

And then he tried parsing his way out. Maybe he realized very quickly that he had said something very stupid, and in a way that would set him above most others.

bulldg4life: Racht: /still was probably not the best choice of words for him

I understand the point he was making, but he probably should've used "if" instead of "when". And, he probably should've avoided making the point in that way from the beginning.

Like the special olympics comment, he said something that many people would joke about in private and...as the President...it will get airplay every where.

"It was a stupid thing to say." That's all you had to type. It doesn't make him a bad person or a stupid person, but it was a stupid thing to say.

Gulper Eel: Maybe he realized very quickly that he had said something very stupid, and in a way that would set him above most others.

Of course, had he said "if" he's convicted, people like yourself would be showing just as much outrage that Obama is seriously considering the possibility of the 9/11 mastermind not being punished for his act of mass murder. Because criticizing Obama is all you can do.

Dammit Obama... you aren't helping!

Anyway, it is totally hilarious to see NRO whining about Obama's possible tainting of the justice system, when they spent the last 7 years campaigning for its complete and total disrespect and disregard.

Nabb1: "It was a stupid thing to say." That's all you had to type. It doesn't make him a bad person or a stupid person, but it was a stupid thing to say.

Hey, thanks for giving me options. I'll think about what I want to say and then check with you in the future.

Hender: I'm almost certain it would be impossible for Obama to taint the jury pool more than the footage of the towers falling on constant repeat eight years ago has already done.

Stupid thing to say? Yeah. Tainting the jury pool in New York? Hardly.

this
the idea that anyone involved in 9/11 could find a jury on the planet which didnt see the towers come down??
never going to happen

good luck on finding an unbiased jury.
hell they would be better off with a bench trial

did somebody send out for new underwear? 'cuz the republicans are shiatting their pants as we speak!

sweetmelissa31: I guarantee the majority of Americans would not know who KSM is if they were asked right now.

Sadly, I agree. I have polled the American people, and here are their responses.

74% Who?
13% But we never caught Osama...
12% But we killed Saddam...
5% I didn't vote.
4% What?
2% Didn't we elect that guy?
1% ACORNZOMGOLIGARHY!

Biden's going to be pissed when he finds out Obama horned in on his racket here.

Cagey B: Biden's going to be pissed when he finds out Obama horned in on his racket here.

Biden has a new racket. Three automobile accidents with his motorcade in a week. Now, that's impressive.

MorrisBird: Biden has a new racket. Three automobile accidents with his motorcade in a week. Now, that's impressive.

FDR never had this problem on national TV. Or something.

/Taint.

See, this is something to rightly criticize Obama over. He got excited about making a slam-dunk statement and looking tough, and ended up being a dumbass. From the exchange, looks like he figured it out pretty quick, too. But when you spend all day screaming "WOLF" over dijon mustard and such, I have a hard time giving a shiat.

I also agree with Nabb and stuff, there's no way the Justice Department/Administration would have gone forward with this if they didn't think it'd be a forgone conclusion.

Oh, and George Bush had 4-6 years to deal with these sacks of shiat, and purposefully chose not to. Same as with any other number of problems the country is facing, they had plenty of chance to deal with it, and the public support to do it, and totally farked the goat on getting it done.

Probably a very stupid question, because I don't have much understanding of the court system...

Someone said in another Fark thread that KSM is expected to plead guilty. If this does turn out to be the case, does it even go to a jury trial?

/like I said, I'm clueless, and would appreciate some education on these matters

Nabb1: To be fair, most people don't have law degrees and don't consider the consequences of such things before publicly commenting on a pending criminal prosecution.

Heh.

Racht: Gulper Eel: Maybe he realized very quickly that he had said something very stupid, and in a way that would set him above most others.

Of course, had he said "if" he's convicted, people like yourself would be showing just as much outrage that Obama is seriously considering the possibility of the 9/11 mastermind not being punished for his act of mass murder. Because criticizing Obama is all you can do.

I didn't put those words in his mouth, however you might wish to put somebody else's words in mine.

I thought this whole legal process was supposed to be about showing the world that all our i's were dotted and t's crossed and so forth, and not even a sumbiatch like KSM could throw us off our game. I can accept that.

Then Obama goes and starts talking smack like...well, Bush.

Gulper Eel: Is this enough context?

For GAT? You're kidding right?

A few legal questions.

How is juror exclusion due to prior knowledge of the case or jury bias handled in something this high profile? Aside from recently revived coma sufferers, where would you find these people?

Also, in this particular case would one be excluded from jury duty for being against the death penalty?

Dumb thing for him to say.

brap: How is juror exclusion due to prior knowledge of the case or jury bias handled in something this high profile? Aside from recently revived coma sufferers, where would you find these people?

We'll start with the Knicks' front office.

Nabb1: cherry-pick the iron-clad cases for civilian trials

Is it that they are cherry-picking the ones they can win, or simply the ones they can prosecute here? A US court has jurisdiction over criminal acts committed in the US, but most of the Gitmo prisoners didn't commit a crime in US jurisdiction, but in the middle east, and there's no federal district court for Kandahar.

He should make himself absolutely clear when he says stuff like that.

Lumpmoose:
I agree that the NRO seems right in this case. But what's more disturbing is that now NRO, and indeed the entire neo-con establishment, wants a 9/11 terrorist to go free in order to hurt Obama. Expect a bunch more pretend-lawyers covering all the technicalities that should dismiss the case for years to come.

Pointing out a (rather significant) thing that he did wrong doesn't mean NRO wants the terrorist to go free. That's the exact same logic used the last 8 years that you're letting the "terrorists win" because of X. The biggest differences politically seems to just be the sides switched on who says what stupid crap.

Anyway, this sorta defeats the "message" Obama was trying to show (or at least I assume he was trying to show) of a 100% "fair" trial. He should have just had a war crime trial and shut the hell up, instead of acting like he has all these rights, and then blatantly violating them.



brap: A few legal questions.

How is juror exclusion due to prior knowledge of the case or jury bias handled in something this high profile? Aside from recently revived coma sufferers, where would you find these people?

Also, in this particular case would one be excluded from jury duty for being against the death penalty?

There's all kinds of risks here in the jury, which is why it should be a war crime trial (number one being that he committed a war crime), all it would take is one guy to deadlock the jury saying no evidence obtained by torture is admissible, so we should let him go. (not all evidence in the case was, but at least some was for certain)

pandabear: but most of the Gitmo prisoners didn't commit a crime in US jurisdiction, but in the middle east, and there's no federal district court for Kandahar.

I wonder what would happen if federal courts convicted terrorists of crimes that didn't happen in US jurisdiction and then sent them to ADX Florence.

So the NRO is upset that we're not just executing these guys on the spot. . . and that they won't get a fair trial.

Got it.

It seems to me that Uncle Rupert and his puppets at Fox "News" have been doing a pretty good job of that.

bulldg4life: I wonder what would happen if federal courts convicted terrorists of crimes

I think even a guy who is still waiting for the ink to dry on his admission to the bar could get any court in the US to say "nope, you're right, we don't have the jurisdiction to try a guy for anything that happened in Afghanistan or Iraq."

Those guys should have been detained where they were.

See, this is exactly why the "Obama tied his shoes wrong!" wharrgarble is dangerous. It detracts from actual dumb stuff he says like this. The outrage meter is already off scale high, so there's no where for it to go.

pandabear: I think even a guy who is still waiting for the ink to dry on his admission to the bar could get any court in the US to say "nope, you're right, we don't have the jurisdiction to try a guy for anything that happened in Afghanistan or Iraq."

That wasn't the comment you made, though.

Federal courts have convicted terrorists (non-US citizens) of crimes that did not occur in the jurisdiction of the US and they currently reside in ADX Florence.

Now, trying people who may or may not be considered prisoners of war for actions that happened in a "war zone" of some kind is completely different.

50mm: See, this is exactly why the "Obama tied his shoes wrong!" wharrgarble is dangerous. It detracts from actual dumb stuff he says like this. The outrage meter is already off scale high, so there's no where for it to go.

Well, here's the thing--just when you think they've hit bottom, someone tosses them another shovel.

bulldg4life: Federal courts have convicted terrorists (non-US citizens) of crimes that did not occur in the jurisdiction of the US and they currently reside in ADX Florence.

And who, exactly, would that be? I know that at least one of the people implicated in the bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya is there, but technically, the embassy is US soil and he was extradited to the US.

so his remarks would hurt the case against KSM? But the 180+ waterboardings wouldn't?

bullshiat. this guy is gonna burn. I'll give good odds on it.
If anything would hurt the case against him it would be the torture claims. and they're not going to either.