Like Tree0Likes

Terrorist Trial

Reply
Old 07-19-2002, 09:27 AM
  #1
INCOGNITO
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Angry Terrorist Trial

HAS ANYBODY BEEN WATCHING THE NEWS ON THIS TRIAL--IT IS UNBELEIVABLE THAT THIS F*#@% GUY WANTS TO PLEAD GUILTY//ADMITS TO BEING LOYAL TO OSAMA BIN LADIN TO MENTION JUST A FEW THINGS-TALKING ALL KINDS OF TRASH TO THE JUDGE AND THIS FREAKIN LADY JUDGE WANTS HIM TO RECONSIDER HIS PLEA WANTS TO GIVE HIM A WEEK TO THINK IT OVER...W.T.F. IS WRONG WITH HER ..SHE WANTED TO PUT IN A NOT GUILTY PLEA FOR THE GUY..IS IT ME OR IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE..
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 09:37 AM
  #2
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,215
Default

The judge is probably just trying to protect her a$$ against accusations of an unfair trial by giving the fu#ker some time to change his mind. My .02
THRILLSEEKER is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 10:00 AM
  #3
cashmoney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thats right thrillseeker , she is no judge Ito , She is being very careful , nobody wants this thrown out. A crazy guy can't plead guilty , and he has been looking pretty crazy after they called him sane

The biggest drag is that he is the only guy charged in the 9-11 attacks , how can we take over the whole country and only find one guy to charge in the attack..? Only to have him come to our courts to outsmart our system. Nobody wants to see this guy slap our President around like he is.Clinton is no favorite of mine but at least he caught the WTC bombers and thwarted the millinium attacks.
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 10:13 AM
  #4
Charter Member #319
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pennsville NJ.
Posts: 3,974
Default

By Pleading Guilty He can't get the Death Penalty. I Say Just Shoot The Prick.
bajabob38 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 10:19 AM
  #5
cashmoney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bajabob , I thought that the Government wanted to put this guy down ..A guilty plea means death for this guy. Thats why she will give him a week , and he will probably change his mind , after all , that is his plan...to look crazy
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 10:20 AM
  #6
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
Steve 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
My Boats: Slippery when wet!
Posts: 10,833
Default

They are making a big mistake using the Civilian court system for the people who chose to leave the Human Race.

Should of let the Military Tribunals Deal with the Animals, They are much better suited for doing just that!

Best Regards
Steve 1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 11:06 AM
  #7
Registered
 
X-Rated30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Monroe, LA
My Boats: 1997/2010 Spectre Catamaran w/ twin 250XS Sports
Posts: 3,882
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve 1


Should of let the Military Tribunals Deal with the Animals, They are much better suited for doing just that!

Best Regards

I hate the terrorists, too, but if you start trying these guys in military courts, who is next? The CEO of Worldcom? That guy that lives next door to you who worked at Arthur Anderson? (Certain Congressmen already want to apply laws aimed at drug kingpins to corporate criminals.)

What is the rationale? They threatened our national security? Enron and corporate criminals can do more to hurt this country than a handful of insane religious nuts.

Maybe it is that they are accused of killing people. If that is your rationale, every murder case should go to a secret court somewhere.

Some people say we can't let them have a public forum to spout their poisonous propaganda from. America can never be destroyed by freedom of speech. It can be destroyed, however, by its elimination.

If we let them undermine our system of justice, and create exceptions to the rules we put in place to make the system fair, THEY WIN.

I don't expect some of the people on this board are going to like this point of view, and I promise I am done preaching for the rest of the day. I just think more people need to think about the ramifications of what we do.

I'm going to have fun now.
X-Rated30 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 12:35 PM
  #8
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
ClassCig38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
My Boats: 1985 38ft flatdeck Cigarette
Posts: 255
Default

I agree with Steve - civilian courts should not be dealing with militant fanatical terrorists. That lower than waste product is representing himself....wasting our courts time and money with 80 motions to date, hand written, with misspellings and poor content.......it would be very dangerous and likely that his blanking case could be tossed.........

THEY HATE AMERICANS.....are evil...and will stop at nothing. Prime Minister Blair said "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have nmurdered not 7,000, but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?"
ClassCig38 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 12:53 PM
  #9
Registered
 
dockrocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deeee-troit!
Posts: 3,356
Default

FWIW, foreign nationals do not have the same rights under the US Constitution as American citizens do. Plus, these al Queda wankers are "combatants" and therefore subject to military law, rather than civilian authority. Lots of precedence on this issue, up to and including the Supreme Court.

Personally, I think they ought to replay the 9/11 footage at least once a month - remind people just what kind of parasites we're dealing with here. Maybe some of these bleeding hearts need to see people jumping out of skyscraper windows, or watch a little girl wondering where her daddy is, then they'll get a f***ing clue. But that's probably me just being optimistic - sometimes you really can't teach an old dog new tricks.
dockrocker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 01:15 PM
  #10
Registered
 
X-Rated30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Monroe, LA
My Boats: 1997/2010 Spectre Catamaran w/ twin 250XS Sports
Posts: 3,882
Default

A. I can't think of anywhere in the constitution that says "this only applies to U.S. citizens".

B. What precedent?

C. I don't think I qualify as a "bleeding heart" as I consider carpet bombing and tactical nuclear weapons legitimate responses to large groups of people trying to kill American citizens. All I am saying is don't destroy our justice system in an effort to punish these nut cases. (Registered Republican since age of 18)
X-Rated30 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Consintracy
General Boating Discussion
10
07-25-2002 04:21 PM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 AM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.