Commentator sees alarming corruption of our courts in 9-11 trial

by smkovalinsky | November 24, 2009 at 11:19 am

206 views | 6 Recommendations | 10 comments

Political analyst and commentator Paul Craig Roberts warns that the corruption of our court system begun - Hitler and Stalin style - under Bush-Cheney may be completed by Obama in the course of the Manhattan 9-11 trial.

If this should occur, says Roberts, "no one will be safe".

"Every American should be concerned that the Obama administration has decided to use Mohammed’s trial to complete the corruption of the American court system. When Mohammed’s trial is over, an American Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler will be able to convict America’s Founding Fathers on charges of treason and terrorism. No one will be safe." ~ Paul Craig Roberts

Unfortunately, there will be no such sensible outcome. David Feige has told us what the outcome will be (Slate, Nov. 19). The prosecution doesn’t need any evidence, because no judge and no jury is going to let the demonized “mastermind of 9/11” off. No judge or juror wants to be forever damned by the brainwashed American public or assassinated by right-wing crazies. Keep in mind that the kid, John Walker Lindh, termed “the American Taliban” by an ignorant and propagandistic US media, was guilty of nothing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Despite the complete trampling of his every right, he got 20 years on a coerced plea bargain.
The price that Mohammed will pay will be small compared to the price we Americans will pay. The outcome of Mohammed’s trial will complete the transformation of the US legal system from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of the state. Feige writes that Mohammed’s statements obtained by torture will not be suppressed, that witnesses against him will not be produced (“national security”), that documents that compromise the prosecution will be redacted. At each stage of Mohammed’s appeals process, higher courts will enshrine into legal precedents the denial of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, thus enshrining indefinite detention, the denial of the right against damning pretrial publicity, thus allowing demonization prior to trial, and the denial of the right to have witnesses and documents produced, thus eviscerating a defendant’s rights to exculpatory evidence and to confront adverse witnesses, The twisted logic necessary to disentangle Mohammed’s torture from his confession will also be upheld and will “provide a blueprint for the government, giving them the prize they’ve been after all this time--a legal way both to torture and to prosecute.”

It took Hitler a while to corrupt the German courts. Hitler first had to create new courts, like President George W. Bush’s military tribunals, that did not require evidence, using in place of evidence hearsay, secret charges, and self-incrimination obtained by torture.

Every American should be concerned that the Obama administration has decided to use Mohammed’s trial to complete the corruption of the American court system. When Mohammed’s trial is over, an American Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler will be able to convict America’s Founding Fathers on charges of treason and terrorism. No one will be safe.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

smkovalinsky

at 11:40 on November 24th, 2009

Perhaps. . . .

smkovalinsky

at 12:19 on November 24th, 2009

Oh, nooooo, is Paul Craig Roberts crazy then??? oh, boo hoooooo :(

smkovalinsky

at 12:47 on November 24th, 2009

:(.........................:(.........................>: >[

Roy C

at 12:57 on November 24th, 2009

These are not civilians. These men committed an atrocity as an act of war. We didn't have to hunt them down like organized crime figures and arrest them. We were allowed to shoot at them on sight, even endangering civilians.

That is the difference between war and civilian acts.

Trying them as civilians is wrong. They should be tried the way FDR tried Nazi saboteurs in WWII: in military tribunals.

There was no "precedent" in "W". Only the need to set up the courts again. If there was a problem, it was that "W' and the congress never officially declared war on Al Qada. If we had, then we could hold all the POWs as POWs until the end of the conflict, and that would be, until Al Qada ceased to exist or surrendered.

"W" and his moronic advisers did this to us and "O" and his moronic advisers are going to finish the screwing our ourselves as evidence gets thrown out that was obtained from torture.

Even if we convict, count on a higher court to throw out the conviction when the court rules that without the essential evidence, there can be no conviction.

Yes, this is Air Force One flying over New York, not the omen, but the reality of having anti-Americans in charge of the country whose sentiments about the US are not that far off from the jihadists.

aurealeus

at 18:37 on November 24th, 2009

"These are not civilians. These men committed an atrocity as an act of war. We didn't have to hunt them down like organized crime figures and arrest them. We were allowed to shoot at them on sight, even endangering civilians."

"That is the difference between war and civilian acts."

"Trying them as civilians is wrong. They should be tried the way FDR tried Nazi saboteurs in WWII: in military tribunals."

I agree... ...this is war... ...and prisoners of war should be treated as such.

A military tribunal is in order and should be conducted, not in an American civilian court reserved for "civilian" business or unilateraly by the United States but through a shared cooperative military tribunal of all international coalition's participants.

But noooo... once again America has to flex muscle and take full responsibility no matter the outcome to Our Nation's civil liberties and Constitutional Rights that should be N/A to those alien.

aurealeus

at 19:02 on November 24th, 2009

"There was no "precedent" in "W". Only the need to set up the courts again. If there was a problem, it was that "W' and the congress never officially declared war on Al Qada. If we had, then we could hold all the POWs as POWs until the end of the conflict, and that would be, until Al Qada ceased to exist or surrendered."

A true and astute observaton. What puzzles me, is how everyone including congress and the rest of the world call it a war but "officialy" it is not?

Oh, forgot.... must have somethng to do with PC.

Roy C

at 14:46 on November 24th, 2009

Amazing to care about the opinion of psychopaths, which all members of Al Qada are, or, if they are not, they are the stooges of psychopaths, just as well equipped to carry out acts of evil.

Roy C

at 15:07 on November 24th, 2009

Do you know any Muslims? Do you really? I have a long history of working with Muslims and being on teams with them for sports.

Most break all the rules of Islam (drinking, sex, even eating pork) and don't care. The others who take their religion seriously are of two types, same as the Quakers I knew: one is pious and really good, while the second suffers from some type of neurosis and is an "activist" who always finds fault everywhere all the time with the world around him.

The second type becomes the Jihadist and is dangerous. They don't care about trials. They are like the Muslim general who burnt down the library at Alexandria on his way to conquering Egypt.

He was told about the immense knowledge within, and he said, "If this knowledge is not in the Koran, then we don't need it" or words to that effect.

The people who think like that are not "persuaded".

The libs feel guilty and look to find someone to pin the guilt on. Really this is all a way to convince the libs themselves that they are "good". LOL.

Roy C

at 09:35 on November 25th, 2009

When did you live in a Muslim country?

I even worked with them in Italy.

Thomas Nunn (not verified)

at 08:04 on December 14th, 2009

RNG: When the courts sit a "presidence" by a decision, it open the door for that "presidence" to continue as law, This is why former court decisions are quoted as "justification" to continues the presidence. When the government doesn't have to disclose how evidence was obtained, then all your rights as a "private citizen" are gone, regardless if the evidence is by wiretapping or torture. Maybe you would be happy if Obama signed the Copenhaugen treaty and allowed a "Foreign government" to "TAX" the American people, a government which they will never elect by voting, in effect destroying this "Government "OF" the people and "BY" the people". Evidently, you don't understand "LAW", but you better start learning.