9/11 Trials in NYC

[greenteaallday]

Eric Holder announced today, that the 9/11 highjackers will be tried in Manhattan in a criminal trial instead of Military tribunals. How do you guys feel about this? It might not be huge news now but this will probably rival the biggest news event in history when it goes down.

[DCD08]

i think as long as they're tried it doesn't really matter. i mean i think with military tribunals they're more likely to get the death sentence right? but either way they're gonna get a harsh punishment.

[Machu505]

I can't wait for the GOP to come out in opposition to the justice system.

[Villanova1L]

One huge issue is what evidence will be allowed to come in. A lot of the evidence against al Qaeda will be classified military information and intelligence sources will be asked to testify. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Another is how jury selection will happen and how a juror won't be biased against these people, assuming its a jury trial. I'm assuming the attorney's for the al Qaeda members will request a trial by a judge, but even then there is likely inherent bias.

Overall a very interesting decision.

[theguilt engine]

"The transfer of these cases is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America's international standing," said Anthony D. Romer

[Mitch]

I understand how it may make people uncomfortable (this is one of those situations where the GOP can successfully use fear-mongering tactics), but I feel it is the right decision.

[erccentea]

We house some of the worst criminals in the world, including Timothy McVeigh who committed an act of domestic terrorism. I have no idea why someone would object to these trials being held in NYC. What do you think is gonna happen? He's gonna slip out of the court room, run outside, macgyver up a nuclear weapon and set it off??

[greenteaallday]

Another is how jury selection will happen and how a juror won't be biased against these people, assuming its a jury trial. I'm assuming the attorney's for the al Qaeda members will request a trial by a judge, but even then there is likely inherent bias.


This is what I'm intrested in, there is no way in hell there is going to be a jury of their "peers" (not like these guys deserve it) but it is probably more fair than the Military court. I'm just curious to see what the rest of the world especially the arab world is going to have to say.

[Villanova1L]

We house some of the worst criminals in the world, including Timothy McVeigh who committed an act of domestic terrorism. I have no idea why someone would object to these trials being held in NYC. What do you think is gonna happen? He's gonna slip out of the court room, run outside, macgyver up a nuclear weapon and set it off??

McVeigh didn't exactly have followers who would commit acts of violence to stop his trial or during the trial to make a point.

Now I don't think putting the al Qaeda members on trial raises a substantial security risk, but I can see why others do.

[konvalbr]

We house some of the worst criminals in the world, including Timothy McVeigh who committed an act of domestic terrorism. I have no idea why someone would object to these trials being held in NYC. What do you think is gonna happen? He's gonna slip out of the court room, run outside, macgyver up a nuclear weapon and set it off??

No, they're worried that the trials being held in NYC could ignite an uprising from radical muslims who could attempt to bomb the courthouse or something. Plus the lives of the possible jury members and judge could be at risk from radicals if they are sentenced to death; which they will be. McVeigh didn't have a real following of people to worry about. Will anything probably happen? No. But if something does there's going to be a ton of people saying "I told you so." Really it's not the best idea but whatever, they'll do what they want.

[crackedthesky]

Eric Holder announced today, that the 9/11 highjackers will be tried in Manhattan in a criminal trial instead of Military tribunals. How do you guys feel about this? It might not be huge news now but this will probably rival the biggest news event in history when it goes down.

I highly doubt this. Most likely, those opposed will make a big stink, all involved in the crimes will get the death sentence, and in a year, we won't even remember it.

Contrary to what neysayers would have you believe, this isn't even close to the first time terror suspects are being tried in civilian courts, nor will it be the first time terror suspects are imprisoned in the American Heartland.

[greenteaallday]

Contrary to what neysayers would have you believe, this isn't even close to the first time terror suspects are being tried in civilian courts, nor will it be the first time terror suspects are imprisoned in the American Heartland.

When has this ever happened before?

[caveBEAR]

When has this ever happened before?

Timothy McViegh...

[wesgemm08]

When has this ever happened before?

More than 100 terrorists, such as the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman (http://www.newsday.com/topics/Omar_Abdel_Rahman) and the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid (http://www.newsday.com/topics/Richard_Reid), have been convicted in federal courts and are behind bars.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/editorial-9-11-trial-in-new-york-is-the-american-way-1.1587905

[greenteaallday]

You cannot compare any of those to the 9/11 hijackers. They did not do a fraction of the damage that these hijackers did. 9/11 changed the world as we knew it.

I don't even consider McViegh a terrorist.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm curious how it is possible for them to get a fair day in court in NYC or in the US for that matter.

[Josh Weinstein]

You cannot compare any of those to the 9/11 hijackers. They did not do a fraction of the damage that these hijackers did. 9/11 changed the world as we knew it.

I don't even consider McViegh a terrorist.

McViegh was a terrorist. He committed the bombing of a federal building in response to how the F.B.I handled the Ruby Ridge incident and how the ATF handled the Waco Siege at the Branch Davidian compound. He was extremely anti-government and believed he needed to instil fear by committing this act. Terrorism and the concept of a "terrorist" is a very broad term. Even recently, a local man was charged by police with terrorist activity because he made threatening statements online to people who witnessed a stabbing (the man himself had no connection with the stabbing whatsoever).

[FueledByFrodo]

I'm curious how it is possible for them to get a fair day in court in NYC or in the US for that matter.
My thoughts exactly.

[greenteaallday]

McViegh was a terrorist. He committed the bombing of a federal building in response to how the F.B.I handled the Ruby Ridge incident and how the ATF handled the Waco Siege at the Branch Davidian compound. He was extremely anti-government and believed he needed to instil fear by committing this act. Terrorism and the concept of a "terrorist" is a very broad term. Even recently, a local man was charged by police with terrorist activity because he made threatening statements online to people who witnessed a stabbing (the man himself had no connection with the stabbing whatsoever).

Yeah I agree with you on the broadness of a term, my definition for terrorist may differ from those of others. If a bank robber goes in and takes hostages and kills 5 of them is he a terrorist? It's questions like that, that make me believe you have to meet certain qualifications to be considered a terrorist.

I just can't consider domestic acts such as McViegh on the same level of "terrorism" as 9/11.

[crackedthesky]

Yeah I agree with you on the broadness of a term, my definition for terrorist may differ from those of others. If a bank robber goes in and takes hostages and kills 5 of them is he a terrorist? It's questions like that, that make me believe you have to meet certain qualifications to be considered a terrorist.

I just can't consider domestic acts such as McViegh on the same level of "terrorism" as 9/11.

The fact that you don't consider them terrorists is irrelevant. Your inability to accept reality doesn't change the fact that we HAVE tried TERRORISTS here before, and held them here before. I don't care if you want to call them pancakes. They're still terrorists, and you're still wrong.

[greenteaallday]

The fact that you don't consider them terrorists is irrelevant. Your inability to accept reality doesn't change the fact that we HAVE tried TERRORISTS here before, and held them here before. I don't care if you want to call them pancakes. They're still terrorists, and you're still wrong.

To compare any "terrorists" that have been tried, to the 9/11 ones is ignorant. Nothing compares to it.

[GeeBee]

The fact that you don't consider them terrorists is irrelevant. Your inability to accept reality doesn't change the fact that we HAVE tried TERRORISTS here before, and held them here before. I don't care if you want to call them pancakes. They're still terrorists, and you're still wrong.

We finally agree on one thing.

I think the fact that people are shitting their pants in fear of this guy is the terrorists "winning" in some regard. People have become so frightened of anything that involves "terror", they almost deify the perpetrators.

[GeeBee]

To compare any "terrorists" that have been tried, to the 9/11 ones is ignorant. Nothing compares to it.

The gravity of their crimes doesn't make them any more powerful in handcuffs or behind bars. It's irrelevant.

[greenteaallday]

The gravity of their crimes doesn't make them any more powerful in handcuffs or behind bars. It's irrelevant.

When did I say anything about being more powerful in handcuffs?

[GeeBee]

When did I say anything about being more powerful in handcuffs?

You seemed to be implying that the gravity of their crimes made it "ignorant" to compare them to other so-called "terrorists".

[greenteaallday]

You seemed to be implying that the gravity of their crimes made it "ignorant" to compare them to other so-called "terrorists".

When you kill 3,000 people and start wars, the gravity of the crimes matter.

[GeeBee]

When you kill 3,000 people and start wars, the gravity of the crimes matter.

Hence they will be tried and likely convicted in a court of law. Still don't get your point.

[greenteaallday]

Hence they will be tried and likely convicted in a court of law. Still don't get your point.

My point is this will be a big news event and case, I don't know what you think I am trying to prove. Someone said before they doubt it will be a big news event terrorists have been tried before, and I am saying this is kinda different circumstances so it will be.

[GeeBee]

My point is this will be a big news event and case, I don't know what you think I am trying to prove. Someone said before they doubt it will be a big news event terrorists have been tried before, and I am saying this is kinda different circumstances so it will be.

I see. Fair enough. But I'll bet you ten dollars that the coverage of KSM's trial will be smaller in scope than that of OJ Simpson's.

[greenteaallday]

I see. Fair enough. But I'll bet you ten dollars that the coverage of KSM's trial will be smaller in scope than that of OJ Simpson's.

Oh yeah I'd agree with you on that. We are that dumb.

[saysmydoctor]

Why can't this be done before an international court?

[GeeBee]

Why can't this be done before an international court?

Because the actual crime occurred on our soil. It wasn't a war-crime, hence it wouldn't be handled at the Hague. The only other option would be a military tribunal...but again, it would seem out of place.

[saysmydoctor]

See, this is why the US should have signed on to the ICJ.

Fucking Bush.

[GeeBee]

See, this is why the US should have signed on to the ICJ.

Fucking Bush.

I concur.

[crackedthesky]

To compare any "terrorists" that have been tried, to the 9/11 ones is ignorant. Nothing compares to it.

Why? Because they aren't Muslim?
Are youa ware that the guy who tried to blow up the towers in 1993 was tried in a civilian court in New York? Because that pretty much blows any argument you may have had out the window.
And anyway, we aren't comparing terrorists by their level of terror. Again, your refusal to accept the term as defined doesn't make you any less wrong.

We finally agree on one thing.

I think the fact that people are shitting their pants in fear of this guy is the terrorists "winning" in some regard. People have become so frightened of anything that involves "terror", they almost deify the perpetrators.

Exactly. There are these arguments going around the right that Mohammad wants to be tried in military court. This, to me, is a piss-poor argument. He wants to be tried in military court, therefore we should? Why the fuck should we do what he wants? He's a terrorist. One of the worst debates I've ever seen.

On a side note, I may come off as particularly rude or viscious in some of my responses to you. For this I apologize; I tend to let debates get too heated and too personal.

[GeeBee]

Exactly. There are these arguments going around the right that Mohammad wants to be tried in military court. This, to me, is a piss-poor argument. He wants to be tried in military court, therefore we should? Why the fuck should we do what he wants? He's a terrorist. One of the worst debates I've ever seen.

On a side note, I may come off as particularly rude or viscious in some of my responses to you. For this I apologize; I tend to let debates get too heated and too personal.

I feel that.

No worries. I do the same thing. S'all good.

[greenteaallday]

Why? Because they aren't Muslim?
Are youa ware that the guy who tried to blow up the towers in 1993 was tried in a civilian court in New York? Because that pretty much blows any argument you may have had out the window.
And anyway, we aren't comparing terrorists by their level of terror. Again, your refusal to accept the term as defined doesn't make you any less wrong.


You said to me that this wont be a big trial because terrorists have been tried before. I know terrorists have been tried here, and am not disagreeing with you. But never before has a terrorist of this level ever been tried. 9/11 impacts are still being felt today. The 93 WTC bombings trials wont be able to compare to the magnitude of this one.

[GeeBee]

You said to me that this wont be a big trial because terrorists have been tried before. I know terrorists have been tried here, and am not disagreeing with you. But never before has a terrorist of this level ever been tried. 9/11 impacts are still being felt today. The 93 WTC bombings trials wont be able to compare to the magnitude of this one.

I still don't get what the point is. Yeah, 9/11 was a huge terrorist act. The publicity will be large. And?...

[greenteaallday]

I still don't get what the point is. Yeah, 9/11 was a huge terrorist act. The publicity will be large. And?...

.... Like i said before, I am trying to prove this wrong:

"I highly doubt this. Most likely, those opposed will make a big stink, all involved in the crimes will get the death sentence, and in a year, we won't even remember it."

[DeadCityScars]

the highjackers? I thought they were all....dead

[crackedthesky]

You said to me that this wont be a big trial because terrorists have been tried before. I know terrorists have been tried here, and am not disagreeing with you. But never before has a terrorist of this level ever been tried. 9/11 impacts are still being felt today. The 93 WTC bombings trials wont be able to compare to the magnitude of this one.

Okay, and after the trial is over, what are you thinking everybody will be talking about?

.... Like i said before, I am trying to prove this wrong:

"I highly doubt this. Most likely, those opposed will make a big stink, all involved in the crimes will get the death sentence, and in a year, we won't even remember it."

First off, you didn't say that. Second, I was exaggerating. Third, what I'm referring to is how people act like this has never happened before, which it has. You're building a straw man argument here. What you're rebutting doesn't have anything to do with my post you keep quoting.

[greenteaallday]

First off, you didn't say that. Second, I was exaggerating. Third, what I'm referring to is how people act like this has never happened before, which it has. You're building a straw man argument here. What you're rebutting doesn't have anything to do with my post you keep quoting.

Look at the first post on this thread, where I say this will be a big news event, which you disagreed with, which I have been disputing the whole time on this thread.....

[willvc]

Should I say it....

[Tead42]

Should I say it....
Do it.

[crackedthesky]

Look at the first post on this thread, where I say this will be a big news event, which you disagreed with, which I have been disputing the whole time on this thread.....

I siad it isn't going to be the biggest news event in history because it has happened before. Then you argued that it has never happened before. Then everybody else proved you wrong, and you started attempting to change the definition of words to make yourself right, failed, and then said that I was off topic because it had strayed from your original post, which you changed when you said terrorists aren't terrorists unless they were involved in 9/11.

[greenteaallday]

I siad it isn't going to be the biggest news event in history because it has happened before. Then you argued that it has never happened before. Then everybody else proved you wrong, and you started attempting to change the definition of words to make yourself right, failed, and then said that I was off topic because it had strayed from your original post, which you changed when you said terrorists aren't terrorists unless they were involved in 9/11.

When did I ever say "terrorists aren't terrorists unless they were involved in 9/11". Obviously terrorism is not only restricted to this. I said the statement on Mcviegh

When I asked when has this ever happened before, it was meant to mean the magnitude of the crime prosecuted, which I thought was made clear by my other posts in this thread. But you're more interested in telling me I'm "wrong" and "failed".

Bottom line: I think it is going to be a big deal and simply by saying its not, because it has happened before. I know it has. But not a terrorism act of this magnitude. But go ahead tell me what I meant one more time.

[crackedthesky]

When did I ever say "terrorists aren't terrorists unless they were involved in 9/11". Obviously terrorism is not only restricted to this. I said the statement on Mcviegh

When I asked when has this ever happened before, it was meant to mean the magnitude of the crime prosecuted, which I thought was made clear by my other posts in this thread. But you're more interested in telling me I'm "wrong" and "failed".

Bottom line: I think it is going to be a big deal and simply by saying its not, because it has happened before. I know it has. But not a terrorism act of this magnitude. But go ahead tell me what I meant one more time.

Oh really? So you never said these:

When has this ever happened before?

You cannot compare any of those to the 9/11 hijackers. They did not do a fraction of the damage that these hijackers did. 9/11 changed the world as we knew it.

I don't even consider McViegh a terrorist.

Yeah I agree with you on the broadness of a term, my definition for terrorist may differ from those of others. If a bank robber goes in and takes hostages and kills 5 of them is he a terrorist? It's questions like that, that make me believe you have to meet certain qualifications to be considered a terrorist.

I just can't consider domestic acts such as McViegh on the same level of "terrorism" as 9/11.

To compare any "terrorists" that have been tried, to the 9/11 ones is ignorant. Nothing compares to it.

Then?

But I guess I was just supposed to read your fucking mind and know that the words you were saying didn't mean what they were, and meant something else entirely. My fucking bad.
And to suggest that the trials are going to be bigger news than the act of terrorism itself is just stupid, by the way.

[greenteaallday]

But I guess I was just supposed to read your fucking mind and know that the words you were saying didn't mean what they were, and meant something else entirely. My fucking bad.
And to suggest that the trials are going to be bigger news than the act of terrorism itself is just stupid, by the way.

The whole fucking time I've been in here I've been comparing the magnitude of the crimes which you all just posted....so thanks for proving my point.

Obviously it is not going to be bigger than 9/11 quote where I said that. I was saying it is going to be bigger than what you were implying...

[crackedthesky]

The whole fucking time I've been in here I've been comparing the magnitude of the crimes which you all just posted....so thanks for proving my point.

Obviously it is not going to be bigger than 9/11 quote where I said that. I was saying it is going to be bigger than what you were implying...

Yeah, you have. You've also said on many occasions that they don't compare because the other people involved weren't terrorists, so thanks for proving my point that you're an idiot who likes to change his "point" when he's proven wrong.

Also, I'd like you to address my other questions, rather than trying to defend a point everyone in the thread already has proven you wrong about. How is it that this trial is going to be bigger than the act of terrorism itself, and what exactly will people be "talking about" once the trials have passed?

[greenteaallday]

Yeah, you have. You've also said on many occasions that they don't compare because the other people involved weren't terrorists, so thanks for proving my point that you're an idiot who likes to change his "point" when he's proven wrong.

Also, I'd like you to address my other questions, rather than trying to defend a point everyone in the thread already has proven you wrong about. How is it that this trial is going to be bigger than the act of terrorism itself, and what exactly will people be "talking about" once the trials have passed?

I said Timothy McVeigh isn't a terrorist to me which is my opinion, could be wrong in your opinion, but than again it is my opnion were talking about. Richard Reed and 93 WTC are in my opinion along with countless others. So yeah your making it out to seem like I'm saying 9/11 planners are the only terrorists in the history of the world, which is idiotic and I never said that. So me saying McVeigh not a terrorist means me saying everyone else isn't one either...no but you can keep trying to imply that. Once again like I've said before to you and throughout this whole thread, my point was when has a trial happened before with the magnitude of these crimes. But you are an idiot who wants to not read what I post and have been saying the whole time and just claim I changed my arguement, when I haven't since was talking about the magnitude of the crimes being prosecuted the whole time. You are making me feel like a broken fucking record, I've said the same thing to you the past 3 or 4 posts but yet you don't get it.

I never said, this would be bigger than the act of 9/11. Where on earth are you getting this from? Like I said before quote me where I said this. People may be talking about if this sets the precedent for trying terrorists, where we would jail these terrorists along with the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, how this affects the Taliban as a whole as well as the World opinion of America.

[crackedthesky]

I said Timothy McVeigh isn't a terrorist to me which is my opinion, could be wrong in your opinion, but than again it is my opnion were talking about. Richard Reed and 93 WTC are in my opinion along with countless others. So yeah your making it out to seem like I'm saying 9/11 planners are the only terrorists in the history of the world, which is idiotic and I never said that. So me saying McVeigh not a terrorist means me saying everyone else isn't one either...no but you can keep trying to imply that. Once again like I've said before to you and throughout this whole thread, my point was when has a trial happened before with the magnitude of these crimes. But you are an idiot who wants to not read what I post and have been saying the whole time and just claim I changed my arguement, when I haven't since was talking about the magnitude of the crimes being prosecuted the whole time. You are making me feel like a broken fucking record, I've said the same thing to you the past 3 or 4 posts but yet you don't get it.

I never said, this would be bigger than the act of 9/11. Where on earth are you getting this from? Like I said before quote me where I said this. People may be talking about if this sets the precedent for trying terrorists, where we would jail these terrorists along with the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, how this affects the Taliban as a whole as well as the World opinion of America.

1. You posted a thread on a public forum, but you don't want to talk to people who don't share your opinion? You really are stupid.
2. I'm very well aware that you said many many times that nothing this magnitude has happened. But you also said other things, which I thought were bullshit, and labeled them as so, such as when you DID say that this has never happened before, which you later changed to mean "to this scale" so I'm sorry you can't get your shit together before making one of the most ridiculously stupid claims anyone has ever made, but anyone who reads back can see you suggest that a terrorist has never been tried on US soil before, and subsequently proven to be wrong. You tried to say you weren't wrong for a few posts, too, before changing your point. That doesn't make me stupid, it makes you inconsistent, and a liar.
3. You said this will be the biggest event in news history. That would probably mean it was bigger than, you know, EVERY event in news history, which most would include 9/11 as part of, but hey, you'll probably change your point and claim to never have said that upon reading this sentence. You want me to quote it? Here you go:

Eric Holder announced today, that the 9/11 highjackers will be tried in Manhattan in a criminal trial instead of Military tribunals. How do you guys feel about this? It might not be huge news now but this will probably rival the biggest news event in history when it goes down.

But let me guess: You didn't mean it, and I'm stupid because I don't know what your words mean because you use them to mean things that they actually don't.

And you've still ignored my other question: Why are people going to keep talking about it after it's over? What will they be talking about? "Remember that time that terrorist got the death penalty for being a terrorist?"

In two hundred years, if there are history books on the USA, they'll all mention 9/11. The trial of the people involved might be a footnote at best.

The only way it'll go otherwise, is if something ridiculous happens, like the guys get let off the hook, which they aren't going to.

[greenteaallday]

1. You posted a thread on a public forum, but you don't want to talk to people who don't share your opinion? You really are stupid.
2. I'm very well aware that you said many many times that nothing this magnitude has happened. But you also said other things, which I thought were bullshit, and labeled them as so, such as when you DID say that this has never happened before, which you later changed to mean "to this scale" so I'm sorry you can't get your shit together before making one of the most ridiculously stupid claims anyone has ever made, but anyone who reads back can see you suggest that a terrorist has never been tried on US soil before, and subsequently proven to be wrong. You tried to say you weren't wrong for a few posts, too, before changing your point. That doesn't make me stupid, it makes you inconsistent, and a liar.
3. You said this will be the biggest event in news history. That would probably mean it was bigger than, you know, EVERY event in news history, which most would include 9/11 as part of, but hey, you'll probably change your point and claim to never have said that upon reading this sentence.

1. Obviously I expect opinions you dumbass, learn to read. The case in point was my opinion on McVeigh and than you generalized it to include everybody except the 9/11 hijackers, which was wrong. So I said its my opinion which we are talking about.

2. You still claim for me to make one of the stupidest claims when the whole time I've been explaining to you what was meant by the post, but whatever you don't want to hear it. My point hasn't changed, I cleared myself up earlier in the thread but it isn't good enough for you.

3. Rival it, saying it is could be a big news event in history not the which again is my opinion, not be bigger than 9/11, you quoted it yourself.


I am not gonna continue to argue with you, I've repeated my points over and over again and I can argue my point till I'm blue in the face but it isn't gonna have any effect on you.

Check my last post for your question on what people may be talking about after.

[saysmydoctor]

Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist--it's beyond a matter of opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

Shows a bunch of terrorists we currently house in one of the federal government's supermax prisons.

[crackedthesky]

1. Obviously I expect opinions you dumbass, learn to read. The case in point was my opinion on McVeigh and than you generalized it to include everybody except the 9/11 hijackers, which was wrong. So I said its my opinion which we are talking about.

2. You still claim for me to make one of the stupidest claims when the whole time I've been explaining to you what was meant by the post, but whatever you don't want to hear it. My point hasn't changed, I cleared myself up earlier in the thread but it isn't good enough for you.

3. Rival it, saying it is could be a big news event in history not the which again is my opinion, not be bigger than 9/11, you quoted it yourself.


I am not gonna continue to argue with you, I've repeated my points over and over again and I can argue my point till I'm blue in the face but it isn't gonna have any effect on you.

Check my last post for your question on what people may be talking about after.

1. Then why did you say no one else's "opinion" on what a terrorist is doesn't matter? Learn to speak, dumbass.
2. You're fucking dumb. Just plain retarded. I've quoted over and over and over the post where YOU FUCKING SAID IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. I'm fucking sorry that you're fucking stupid, but you still fucking said it, so shut your fucking mouth. Your skull must bemade of iron, so here:

When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?
When has this ever happened before?

Get it now, fucktard? Tell me how that means "nobody has ever performed a terrorist attack to the magnitude of 9/11 and therefore people will be talking about this trial more than anything else that has happened thispast century including 9/11 except only just as much as 9/11."

3. Fine then, answer this question: How is their trial going to rival the act itself? Really think people will remember some stupid trial more thanthe terrorist attack?

[greenteaallday]

1. Then why did you say no one else's "opinion" on what a terrorist is doesn't matter? Learn to speak, dumbass.
2. You're fucking dumb. Just plain retarded. I've quoted over and over and over the post where YOU FUCKING SAID IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. I'm fucking sorry that you're fucking stupid, but you still fucking said it, so shut your fucking mouth. Your skull must bemade of iron.

Get it now, fucktard? Tell me how that means "nobody has ever performed a terrorist attack to the magnitude of 9/11 and therefore people will be talking about this trial more than anything else that has happened thispast century including 9/11 except only just as much as 9/11."

3. Fine then, answer this question: How is their trial going to rival the act itself? Really think people will remember some stupid trial more thanthe terrorist attack?

1. Your skull must be made of iron because I know it has happened before like I explained before I was comparing the magnitude of the crimes being tried. But again, you'll just ignore this like all the other posts.

2. Second of all calm the fuck down, being a tough guy on the internet doesn't help your opinion, just makes you seem like an idiot.

3. When people talk about the event the trial will be brought up, and I'm saying it could change policy for trying terrorists and how the US and Taliban goes from there. I think it will be pretty interesting to see what the hijackers have to say maybe get inside their reasoning, to dismiss it as something that will be forgotten just seems unreasonable.

[crackedthesky]

1. Your skull must be made of iron because I know it has happened before like I explained before I was comparing the magnitude of the crimes being tried. But again, you'll just ignore this like all the other posts.

2. Second of all calm the fuck down, being a tough guy on the internet doesn't help your opinion, just makes you seem like an idiot.

3. When people talk about the event the trial will be brought up, and I'm saying it could change policy for trying terrorists and how the US and Taliban goes from there. I think it will be pretty interesting to see what the hijackers have to say maybe get inside their reasoning, to dismiss it as something that will be forgotten just seems unreasonable.

1.Changing your story =/= explaining yourself. When told that this HAS happened before, you went on for several posts explaining that it has not, makingthe direct claim that the people brought up were not terrorists. It was only after I pointed out that your "opinion" doesn't change the term (which you went on to argue that it does) that you brought up the magnitude of the crimes. If that was your intent the whole time, why didn't you say it on page 1 instead of page 4? Most people don't spend three pages defending a claim they supposedly didn't make.

2. I'm not being tough, but you're being fucking dumb. I hate it when facts I point out to them get ignored, and I hate it more when I get insulted over it.

3. FINALLY. A point that actually MAKES SENSE. It seems like you're saying that this could change laws; which I would agree with. As I said several pages ago, if something like the terrorists being found not guilty, being set free, or a law changing were to happen, then yeah, people will be talking about this for years. But the trial itself happening is nothing. It won'tbe forgotten, nor did I ever say it would. But presuming they get tried and put to death, nobody will really care. Again, it'll be a footnote in the history books. They'll have pages on the act itself, and maybe two sentences saying "the men behind it were tried and put to death." But if nothing more happens, that's all this will ever be or ever need to be. Unless the people get off, nobody will care. People referred to the Michael Jackson trial as "the biggest news event of the century," and nobody even cares, now. The same thing happened with the Anna Nicole Smith trials. Hell, I'll bet 75% of the country doesn't even remember who was involved or what the outcome of those trials was. But people remember the O.J. Simpson trial and still talk about it; ONLY because he was found not guilty. If such a thing were to happen here, then yeah, people would be talking about it for a long time. But if the trial goes as planned and as likely, I don't think it'll be a very big deal at all. Most of the people in our country can't even SPELL Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, much less talk about his trial for years to come.