Should the terrorists, be tried in NYC?

Why not?...  Trials for civilians should be in civilian courts....

How do we know they're terrorists before we even try them?
???

(Rudy Giulianis need not reply.)

Well, I guess we should say...  "alleged" terrorists.  simple enough....

The "allegeded" terrorists, should be tried in NYC, since the crimes, took place there.

Either in NYC, Geneva, or The Hauge.

Justice has to be served a-la mode.

Either in NYC, Geneva, or The Hauge.

Justice has to be served a-la mode.


With ice cream?

???

With ice cream?

???


That's what I meant.

Like what Jethro Tull said in 'Aqualung'..."Salvation a-la mode, a cup of tea".

That's what I meant.

Like what Jethro Tull said in 'Aqualung'..."Salvation a-la mode, a cup of tea".


Oh.

That's what I meant.

Like what Jethro Tull said in 'Aqualung'..."Salvation a-la mode, a cup of tea".


If anybody starts quoting Jethro Tull in that trial....be afraid, be very afraid!
:o

My biggest beef with the Bush II administration was their insistence on inventing extraconstitutional and extrajudicial procedures when there were perfectly good rules already in place.

If we'd followed the Geneva Convention rules to the letter, a drumhead trial on the battlefield would have been just as effective and legal.  Instead, we legalized torture.  We also built a permanent - and Obama's as on record as endorsing it as Bush II was - surveillance infrastructure, the likes of which Felix Dzerzhinsky would never have imagined possible.

There are no rules anymore; we're a nation of men, not a nation of laws.

But we can at least pretend to be a nation of laws. 

And so, in the spirit of oldthink, I say try him in NYC.  If he's found not guilty by reason of violation of his constitutional rights, then by the rules, he's a free man.  (He won't be - he's also confessed, and probably did so long before he may or may not have been tortured, and he'll probably confess again on the stand, which renders the issue moot.) 

But if by some legalistic twist, he's found not guilty, then the courts have done their job.  Release him the instant the judge's gavel falls, and let New Yorkers hanging around the front door of the courtroom take care of the rest.

I'm not advocating mob justice.  If some random individual New Yorkers should decide to commit crimes such as "assault" or "battery" on the man, any cops have the right to arrest those responsible (although, since we're playing by the rules here, I point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that police don't have the obligation to make those arrests, nor to prevent any such crimes from happening), and the DA's free to press charges against anyone so charged, assuming he thinks he can find a jury that'll convict.

I'm not advocating mob justice.

Sometimes....  mob justice is the best form available.

If the people don't want the trial in NYC, then where do they want the trial to be, instead?

If the people don't want the trial in NYC, then where do they want the trial to be, instead?


Texas, and make it quick!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif

Texas, and make it quick!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif


That's all we need, a trial in Texas.

Either in NYC, Geneva, or The Hauge.

Justice has to be served a-la mode.




With ice cream?

???



a la mode means in the current fashion.  except in the US where it means with ice cream on the side.  ::)

a la mode means in the current fashion.  except in the US where it means with ice cream on the side.  ::)


I think, not sure, the French for "with ice cream" would be:
"Avec la crème glacée," so the familiar American "apple pie a la mode" would be:
"Pâté en croûte de pomme avec la crème glacée,"
to which the question to the diner waitress would be:
"What the f**k is that?"
;)

But we're now officially off topic...I think I prefer pie and ice cream to terrorists, though!