Klevius Law School for the babbling Mr X “president” & his Attorney General

Read Origin of islam to understand what's going on!

THE REAL MASTERMIND OF 9/11 & HIS PUPPET MR X "PRESIDENT"
You can see Mr X "president's" close islamic advisors at his ears. In the middle you have CAiR (Council of American islamic Relations, founded by bin Laden's close friend & ally) rewarding Hasan (founder of the "moderate" "inter-faith" islamic Bridget TV, supposed to deliver a better - i.e. false - picture of islam in the US) who then, in a purely Koranic/islamic style, decapitated his divorcing wife after having stabbed her some nine times.


Klevius Law School, extracted from Demand for Resources (1992:43-44): The only strictly scientific discipline, jurisprudence (narrowly defined), is characterized by an absolute truth, i.e. the intention of the legislator expressed (& blurred) in text form. A reality (or a game, if you like) that’s construed by the participants/players themselves. A possible violation is spotted by ticking off on a list of crimes (the law) in a test bench we call the judicial process. This is an experiment in which a ”case” is evaluated against the text in the law, which also regulates the judicial process itself. However, if it’s difficult or impossible to evaluate an alleged crime, this may be due to incomplete data or clumsiness in the process. Moreover, it’s also possible that complete/good enough evaluation cannot be reached due to special characteristics of a particular case. If this is the case then the defendant is acquitted (no matter how clear it is he did the deed) & may even be entitled to compensation for a “false allegation” (& maybe even a green card). A failed prosecution only needs to be judicially “false”, not false in the realm outside the judicial process. A court can never disprove an accusation , only fail to judicially prove it. An "appropriate decorum" wouldn't change this basic fact, but rather contribute to a picture of the US Justitia shooting herself in the foot.

A peculiar first consequence of the above is that the defendant has an absolute right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be treated as not guilty (although suspect) until the verdict. Intervening in this right of the suspect/defendant by someone involved in the judicial process may constitute a violation of the said process.

Mr X “president’s” babbling abt the 9/11 case may well constitute a tampering with the jurisdiction of the courts for the purpose of influencing a decision, thus violating judicial independence. A civilian trial for the 9/11 terrorists may harm the US (& world) security, place government officials and civilians at risk, and provide an islamic propaganda platform not unlike 9/11 itself. Remember how the islamic murdering of some 3000 people became used as a “liberation” flag for islam supporters!

Attorney General Eric Holder isn’t directly elected by the American people but indirectly by the illegitimate Mr X “president”, whose schizopheric decision to hold military tribunals for other detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (who planned the 2000 USS Cole bombing) while exempting the Islamic terrorists of 9/11, reflects the urge to de-militarize (& hence to make political) the war on islamic terror. Btw, what's the difference of bombing Cole or Pentagon?

Some examples of Mr X "president" & his Attorney General's babbling

Attorney General Eric Holder: "The defendants could have been tried in either military or civilian court, because the 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law. But at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court."

"Failure is not an option (Klevius comment: Well, it is! It's the very foundation of Western justice just as falsification is the basis for Western science). These are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."

According to Mr X "president" himself those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him".

He then partly realized his own stupidity & quickly added that he did not mean to prejudging the outcome of the trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom. That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."

Klevius comment: The main difference between military & civil cases is that the former threaten the nation (even if it's just a trifling matter of discipline) whereas the latter only try to "order" a society's relations with its individuals. A failure to do so doesn't necessarily threaten the society which can adapt (man made legislation) because it's not equally limited to a specified purpose.