Bin Laden's SIL pleads not guilty in federal court

[strickj]

Reuters) - A son-in-law of Osama bin Laden pleaded not guilty in a New York court on Friday to conspiring to kill Americans, becoming one of the highest-ranking al Qaeda figures to face trial in the United States for crimes connected to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Suleiman Abu Ghaith, a militant who has acted in videos as an al Qaeda spokesman, made his initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, only blocks from the site of the hijacked plane strikes on the World Trade Center.

The son-in-law of bin Laden, mastermind of the September 11 attacks who was killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan in 2011, was captured on February 28 and brought secretly into the United States on March 1, prosecutors said in court.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/us-usa-militant-idUSBRE9260ZS20130308

 

Meanwhile, republicans are still bitching about what the First Lady wore to her Oscar appearance. Not a peep about housing foreign terrorists in US prisons and giving them trials in federal courts.   :rolleyes:

Edited March 8, 2013 by strickj

[TrickyNicky]

Well this will probably show my ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt but what's the issue? Should he not have a trial? Should we instead hold him outside of US borders?

I do agree that there is a very successful smoke screen of distraction happening with the conservative movement but at this point it seems as though we are bringing it on ourselves. In fact in many cases it seems as though the other side doesn't have to even try, if we're that bent out of shape over the president flying into NY for a night at the opera it seems likely they could just do whatever they want as long as they do something trivial to rile us up first.

[TripleDigitRide]

He should have been taken to GTMO.

Edited March 8, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[Spook]

Now as a "civilian", not a combatant, he has the right to remain silent. And he will except to publicly condemn our system, (initally via his court appointed, tax payer provided attorney) be it legal, moral, etc., for propaganda purposes. At least in Gitmo we would have been able to try to persuade him to provide us some info related to possible threats. Wait till the circus that will be his trial starts.

 

On the other hand, guess he's lucky he didn't get a drone supplied missile up his a$$. Bet he's now laughing same a$$ off.... 

 

When it went from GWOT (Global War on Terror) to Overseas Contingency Operations we should have seen this coming.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, should have been sent to Gitmo and trial should have been by military tribunal. He'll walk.

[Smith]

Well this will probably show my ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt but what's the issue? Should he not have a trial? Should we instead hold him outside of US borders?

I do agree that there is a very successful smoke screen of distraction happening with the conservative movement but at this point it seems as though we are bringing it on ourselves. In fact in many cases it seems as though the other side doesn't have to even try, if we're that bent out of shape over the president flying into NY for a night at the opera it seems likely they could just do whatever they want as long as they do something trivial to rile us up first.

No. He is a foreign combatant and should have been tried in a military tribunal. In a civilian court he is being treated as an American citizen and given all the rights thereof.