Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Terrorism Trials (CNN 11/13-15)


CNN / Opinion research Corporation
11/13-15/09; 1,014 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)

National

Now here are some questions about Khalid Sheik Mohammed who may be responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks and who is now in custody at a U.S. military prison in another country: If you had to choose, would you rather see Khalid Sheik Mohammed brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system, or would you rather see him tried by a military court run by the U.S. armed forces?
34% Brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian justice system
64% Tried by a military court run by the U.S. armed forces

And regardless of which court system you think he should be tried in, if you had to choose, would you rather see Khalid Sheik Mohammed brought to the U.S. to stand trial or would you rather see him tried in a U.S. facility in another country?
60% Brought to the U.S. to stand trial
37% Tried in a U.S> facility in another country

If Khalid Sheik Mohammed is tried in a civilian court in the U.S., do you think he would get a fair trial, or don't you think so?
64% Yes, fair trial
34% No, don't think so

If Khalid Sheik Mohammed is found guilty of planning the 9/11 attacks, which of the following statements best describes your view:
59% You generally support the death penalty and believe he should be executed if he is found guilty
19% You generally oppose the death penalty, but believe he should be executed in this case if he is found guilty
19% You generally oppose the death penalty and believe he should not be executed if he is found guilty

 

Comments
jack:

How many of the respondents are aware of the fact that the military commissions have been a total failure?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I don't understand for the life of me why this is becoming such a political issue? These suspects are likely going to be found guilty in the city they committed their acts. Too many conservadems and Republicans are making this look like a politicial issue to win political points. Eric Holder isn't the most ruthless attorney general and does get portrayed as easy going. This is perfect fuel for the right wing. The reality though is the suspects were tortured by the military and I believe that the chances of a military tribunal could produce dangerous consequences. A civilian court will not by sympathetic to these suspects, especially the Mastermind. The world will view this as a fair trial. Tim Mcveigh was convicted by a civilian court and was executed swiftly. I believe that the familys of the victims in NY will find greater closure than they would in military court. Not that we can bring the dead back but would be more consistent of a democracy.

____________________

Xenobion:

Republicans want him in Gitmo so it won't close and score some cheap political points. Anyone that is actually afraid of a terrorist being tried in their own state is a fearmongering nitwit.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

A Clever Defense attorney in a military court could create an international investigation delaying a conviction or the suspects in a military court. The torturers would also get put on trial.

____________________

Stillow:

Wow 34, 64 in a CNN poll which means its probably closer to 29, 69. Obama lookin pretty lame on this one.

X - because it only takes one nutty liberal judge to make this whole case a joke....put the CIA on trial, put Bush on trail, etc...its a joke. Plus it puts our undercover guys i nthe field at risk.

How long can Obama keep pushing unpopular stances until it catches up to him....God help us if we get a wacked out liberal judge in this case.

____________________

Stillow:

The death penalty numbers are interesting too. 78 percent would favor the death penalty for KSM.....sadly there is actually 19 percent of you crazies who would like to have him sit in jail so we can feed and clothe him every day, provide medical care, etc....unbeleivable.

____________________

Xenobion:

Cause only a liberal judge can make a bad decision lol. If you don't like the American Legal system that we are bound to and our forefathers set up then I suggest you move to another country. This guy needs a day in court to either try or fry him. These people need to get off my dollar in Gitmo and either be free or dead. Now there's fiscal conservatisim for ya.

____________________

Stillow:

Yes X, lib judges are far mor ekooky than con judges. I can see a liberal judge tossing otu all the evidence against KSM including his confession because the CIA waterboarded him.........

If I were supreme dictator of the universe KSM would have been shot via firing squad many years ago.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'd blame who decided to waterboard him over the judge that found that he was tortured or not. It should be that persons responsibility to understand any action or protocol they take could backfire on them. People are not higher than the law. Make it legal to interrogate him with waterboarding but dont' just do it because you think you can. Poor lawyering IMO.

____________________

Stillow:

Well Congress didn't have any issue with waterboarding when they were breifed, including Pelosi. A little more than half the country including myself have no problem with waterboarding. It works...the CIA is on record waterboarding prevented another 9/11 style attack on LA....so I am fine with it.

Unfortunately simply asking please mr. terrorist tell us where you have the nuke hidden in New york city isn't going to work on trained al queda terrorists. Now maybe if you libs added a pretty pelase with sugar on top they might give you hte info, but we'll have to try it first I guess.

Fact is, huge majoirty in this country don't want this fiasco in our court system. Just antoher example the Obama administration thumbing its nose at the majoirty in this country.

____________________

Xenobion:

We could just be pragmatic about forgetting about the means to the end and just carpet nuke the middle east and not even have to think about waterboarding. Things are so much easier when you don't have to think of moral and legal questions when they just work!

____________________

Stillow:

Well I can see why you feelthe way you do since you view waterboarding as torture...I do not. Its what it is, a harsh method to extract information from someone who would kill billions if he could. Chinese prisons, old soviet prisons, vietnam prisons in the 70's....those were torture, repeted breaking of limbs, burning acid, cutting out of eyes, etc....that is torture.

Pouring water over someones head to "simulate" drowning is not torture. Many of our own speical forces guys get waterbaorded as part of there training, when I was i nthe service it was not part of mine, but I have buddies who had it done to them and they all said that yes, it was harsh and scared the hell out of them and its very difficult to resist giving up any info you have.

In the era of nuclear weapons and bioweapons the old style pretty please do not work and are not practical. Waterboarding is not used on rank and file terrorists, they are used on leadership like KSM who we know have information, possibly about toher attacks.

Does the comfort of a terrorist justfiy the successful detonation of a nuclear weapon? I say no. Does the temporary discomfot of a terrorist subjected to waterboarding as a means of getting critical info that could potentially save thousands of people justified? I say yes.

____________________

Xenobion:

I never said waterboarding is torture. I don't know if it is because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if there is an escape clause to the Geneva Convention Compact that would allow us to. You see you gotta have these things legally defined otherwise what's to stop anyone from waterboarding our own troops or say us to start cutting out people's eyelids on top of waterboarding?

I mean we can cut someone's eyelids out to justify saving thousands of potential victims! Think of the lives we'll save just to do this one act that might be questionable.

In essence there is no brightline if its not legally defined and it means we can pretty much do anything. I sadly cannot believe you can go with the greatest good for the greatest number of people in this scenario. If we justify using such acts there's no moral high ground on our enemies when they use them on us in the future.

____________________

Stillow:

There is moral highground, because waterboarding is simply not torture. Cutting eye lids off is torture and the USA would oppose that. Waterboarding is simply not torture to most people. To libs maybe it is, but making a guy sweat is torture to some liberals. This is not a case of the ends justify the means, its a case of simply using a method that works well. Like I said, we waterboard our own speical forces guys, we do not cut there eye lids off.

This one comes down simply to wheather you beleive waterboarding is torture or not, I do not...and so I have no issue using it. I would however as would 99.9 percent of people object to cutting off eye lids, etc. Big difference.

Just because soemthing doesn't feel good doesn't make it torture. Torture is a subjective term anyway....because you could argue being married is a form of torture (do not tell my wife I said that).

Please tell the big O the people do not want this fiasco in our courts and on tv everyday.

____________________

Xenobion:

Torture is not a belief or subjective. Torture is a legally defined action in domestic and military statutes. I don't care if the person down the street says I don't think X, Y, or Z is torture. We have laws, treaties, ect. that very clearly states what IS and ISN'T torture. You follow the rules or you break the law. I don't know if waterboarding or cutting out someone's eyelid is on that list because I don't pretend to be a lawyer in these matters.

____________________

Stillow:

Presidnetial lawyers to Bush said it was not torture....and I suspect Congressional attorneys said the same thing since Congress briefed on the use of waterboarding and no one brought up the illegality of it until recently when it became a political football.

____________________

Xenobion:

Well that's what court cases are all about. We prosecuted waterboarding use before Bush (penalty was about 10 years) so those lawyers will have to make light about how the laws have changed. A political question was raised and that's how judicial precedent is created.

Another question is if KSM will be tried under the information he gave under this sort of action. Which I think Bush made a deal with the devil with this one. You really can't use this information against him under normal intimidation/interrogation rules. Its gonna suck if he gets off on this, but I figure he probably said other things before this happened enough to get life in prison or the death penalty. Again I'd blame the person who authorized something like this rather than the judge who's just doing his/her job to interpret the law.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

You are correct. Once the Dims saw that they could win political points, it became a huge issue. If it was really a HUGE issue, wouldn't you expect Congress to ban the practice as torture 3 years ago? Its a joke like most of the Dims, er Dems.

____________________

saywhat90:

The United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past.In 1947, a Japanese soldier who used water boarding against a U.S. citizen during World War II was sentenced to 15 years in U.S. prison for committing a war crime.
Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War. In a nutshell to say that the US does or did not see wtaerboarding as torture is not true.

____________________

saywhat90:

Field Marshal:

This is for you.Both houses of the United States Congress approved a bill by February 2008 that would ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. As he promised, President Bush vetoed the legislation on March 8. His veto applied to the authorization for the entire intelligence budget for the 2008 fiscal year, but he cited the waterboarding ban as the reason for the veto.

____________________

saywhat90:

As far as KSM and his buddies are concerned they are dead men. No judge would even consider letting these guys go not matter how much they were tortured. If they did I would be the first to say remove them from their judicial post.

____________________

Stillow:

The bottom line is that the people by a large margin do not want this crap in our criminal court system...it does not belong there. You do not put illegal combattants who represent a terror group into our crimanl court system.

All it takes is one lame liberal judge to turn this into a fiasco......Holder is out there promising a conviction and a fair trial at the same time.......isn't that a contradiction?

Obama is doing this for a show, nothing more. He wants to slam the fbi, the cia and the Bush administration. If thsi backfires on him and some loser liberal judge lets these guys off the hook thru technicalities or waterboarding loopholes, it will cost the Dems the WH for the next 20 years.

Obama is not acting presidential on this. Turning this into a game like he is doing disgraces his office and this country.

____________________

platanoman:

Your argument is ridiculous, Stillow. Stop reading the Gop talking points. First of all, KSM has been custody for 6 years and still no conviction. Second, he wants to be a "martyr" the means he will be find guilty. And who are the liberal judges in New York? The same judges who have conviction percentage of 100 percent? Just face it, you have no argument to stand on.

____________________

saywhat90:

Like I said I seriously doubt any judge is going to tell KSM he is free to go. So what Holder said he is guilty and he ll get a fair trial. It only means he will be fairly judged for the crimes he comitted. And if I'm not mistaken aren't the 1993 bombers locked in super max prisons. Seems to be working well in there case why not this one. I haven't hears of any terrorist attacks on the area where these prisoners are. The civilian courts seemed to handle that well. In fact there were no more attacks on the homeland after that until 2001. So basically the Republicans have nothing to base the argument they are making on this case.

____________________

Xenobion:

Um hello NYC tried the UN bomber, you'd think most of these conservatives have selective memory to think of all the possible bad situations that could happen. Well they won't.

The guy needs his day in court, he's rotting in some random cell and justice needs to be served no matter how scared conservatives are to see him die a martyr. We have a justice system people and we just don't just execute people without a day in court no matter how much we think they don't deserve this. He's simply not just going to go away.

All I know is my tax dollars are going towards securing this guy, Gitmo, whatever and why are we continuing to delay justice? I say people who seriously think this guy is going to get off scott free are rabble rousers with no comprehension of the justice system.

And Stillow I must call you on this, but please don't poll America's pulse arbitrarily like Americans don't want this in the criminal court system. Please point me to a poll and make substantiated arguments rather than supposed popular opinion.

____________________

Stillow:

Terrorists don't get the priveledge of our criminal court system. They are not even citizens. You liberals want to spend millions of dollars turning this into a game and a show cus you think it's anohter opportunity to take a cheap shot at Bush and the CIA.

What if KSM decides to repreent himself? Think of the info he would be privvy to during discovery....the things he could release during trial. KSM just by virtue of defending himself which he would have the right to do could do real serious damage to our undercover guys and our intel gathering methods....

You libs are extremely dangerous to this country. Playing games like this is very poor taste, a huge majoirty of the people in this country agree and you should be ashamed of yourselves for going along with this stunt of obama's.

____________________

platanoman:

Just admit it, Stillow. You have no argument. WHo cares if he decides to represent himself? Tell me how did that help the terrorist during the Massoui trial? You are just talking out of your butt. Can't come up with any arguments of your own? Grow up

____________________

Pluoticus:

plantoman,
I guess 64% of AMERICA also has not argument! LOL!

This should not be handled by a civilian court. Period. My 10-year old daughter can see that. My party line, Bronx native Democrat mother in law can see that.

Give it up dude, Bush is no longer president.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR