9/11 Suspects Will Be Tried in New York

US News • Views: 2,896

The big news of the morning is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorism suspects currently held at Guantanamo Bay will be tried in New York in civilian court.

“I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it. My administration will insist on it,” Obama said in Tokyo during a trip through Asia.

Civil rights advocates hailed the decision to move some of the cases to traditional U.S. criminal courts, but Republicans blasted the Obama administration for bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. soil, arguing it could spark new attacks.

I don’t think this increases the danger of terror attacks against New York; the city is already a target. It does increase the danger of circus trials, with grandstanding civil rights attorneys and constant outbursts and tirades from Mohammed.

One thing’s certain: it will be the biggest windfall for the media since the OJ Simpson extravaganza.

Jump to bottom

502 comments
1 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:11:01am

The Idiotarian Moment of the Year.

2 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:11:20am

We also get to look forward to leftist lawyers leaking intelligence to jihadis overseas.

3 Dreader1962  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:12:18am

OT: (sorry so soon)

Apparently the main conflict with Dobbs at CNN was the Birther flap.

Dobbs leaves CNN to cry in the wilderness…

4 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:12:54am

It may not increase the chances of an attack on New York, but it sure doesn’t reduce them.

5 Cato the Elder  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:13:10am

This should be fun.

6 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:13:57am

re: #5 Cato the Elder

This should be fun.

Yeah, like watching a building burn.

7 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:14:13am

does anyone besides me consider this Justice Dept maneuvering as radical?

8 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:14:38am

So does this mean that the case will only deal with the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, leaving the other events of the day to (an)other jurisdiction(S)?

9 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:15:15am

Are our soldiers now going to have to give captured taliban Miranda rights?

10 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:15:23am

But it won’t be televised.

11 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:15:29am

When was the last time New York actually executed a death penalty conviction?

12 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:16:11am
One thing’s certain: it will be the biggest windfall for the media since the OJ Simpson extravaganza.

And we all remember how that worked out.

13 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:16:21am

Excellent Towercam Clouds. Nature Break.

We are going to need nature breaks.

14 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:16:21am

re: #10 J.S.

But it won’t be televised.

Don’t count on it.

15 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:16:32am

re: #11 Killgore Trout

When was the last time New York actually executed a death penalty conviction?

Not sure why this is pertinent. The trial will be in Federal court, not New York State court.

16 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:16:40am

re: #9 Sharmuta

Are our soldiers now going to have to give captured taliban Miranda rights?

give a whole new meaning to ‘prosecuting the war’

17 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:16:57am

re: #14 filetandrelease

Cameras are not allowed into Federal Criminal Court cases.

18 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:17:26am

Sorry, but that’s not the biggest news of the morning. The biggest news is that only some of the Gitmo detainees are going to get the federal court treatment in NYC (less than a mile from Ground Zero). The rest are getting military tribunals.

I wouldn’t make as big deal out of this if all Gitmo detainees (and any of the detainees being held anywhere else for that matter) were going to get federal trial (in NYC or elsewhere); then at least the Admininstration was being consistent. The inconsistency being engaged in here in startling detail is staggering in its ramifications. We’re talking about potential lawsuits over the due process and why some detainees got tribunals while others didn’t. For AG Holder to state that the choice was based on presumed outcomes turns the whole process on its head.

It’s a dangerous precedent on that basis.

There would be a circus of attention on any of these trials - whether they were in federal court or in military tribunals; now we’re going to see a blizzard of suits from those detainees still in tribunals.

The Obama Administration just made an even bigger mess of matters than when they started; and it’s based on a presumption that they had to close Gitmo - a political consideration itself based on the misguided belief that its closure was necessary for some reason.

After all, where exactly are all these remaining detainees going to go; they aren’t going to be released. They will be convicted or remain in detention, if not in Gitmo then at some other facility in the US. They all weren’t going to be repatriated somewhere.

What a mess.

19 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:17:30am

re: #12 NJDhockeyfan

re: #10 J.S.

But it won’t be televised.

20 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:17:39am

re: #15 SixDegrees

Ah, ok.

21 Sheepdogess  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:17:43am

Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!
Step right up and see the greatest show on earth!

22 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:18:20am

re: #9 Sharmuta

Are our soldiers now going to have to give captured taliban Miranda rights?

We already are.

(CNSNews.com) – The Justice Department confirmed last week that FBI agents in Afghanistan are reading Miranda warnings to suspected terrorists captured there, a practice that Republican congressmen this week branded as “crazy” and “stupid.”

Miranda warnings were mandated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said domestic law enforcement agencies must inform criminal suspects arrested in the United States of their rights under the 5th Amendment.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,” says the typical Miranda warning. “You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?”

The Obama administration’s decision to make this statement to terror suspects captured on the battlefield in a foreign country has sparked outrage among several Republicans in Congress who spoke with CNSNews.com. It also contradicts what President Barack Obama said in March, when he indicated that Miranda rights did not apply to terror suspects captured overseas.

23 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:18:27am

re: #17 J.S.

Cameras are not allowed into Federal Criminal Court cases.

Did not know that, and you have conviction an exception will not be made? Please?

24 Cato the Elder  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:18:30am

What astonishes me is that it’s been eight years and no trials. Obama has been in charge for just under ten months.

So who is to blame that there were no trials for the previous seven years?

25 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:18:58am
Civil rights advocates hailed the decision to move some of the cases to traditional U.S. criminal courts, but Republicans blasted the Obama administration for bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. soil, arguing it could spark new attacks.

Ok, that’s a bunch of bullshit. This certainly sounds like ODS, trying to find something wrong with anything Obama does.

Sorry, even if this makes NYC a “bigger” target than it already is, we cannot keep cowering to these radical religionist.

Let’s start acting like this country has some balls.

26 Norm Chumpsky  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:19:06am

What a FUBAR decision. Can’t wait to see it portrayed on Law and order.

27 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:19:06am

re: #11 Killgore Trout

If they’re operating in federal court, the charges are federal in nature - so if the death penalty is among the sentencing options, it could be despite that NY hasn’t executed anyone in decades (since 1963).

28 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:19:33am
29 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:19:56am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

No blame for that if you ask me; the right approach is to just let the clock spin on the status quo.

30 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:20:32am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

The courts, which have repeatedly engaged in trying to determine exactly which rights these detainees are supposed to have in the first place.

Instead of leaving them as enemy combatants - ununiformed terrorists with no rights under the Geneva Conventions, they have instead found themselves under ever more Constitutional protections. That’s led to delay after delay in prosecution.

31 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:20:54am

re: #18 lawhawk

There would be a circus of attention on any of these trials - whether they were in federal court or in military tribunals; now we’re going to see a blizzard of suits from those detainees still in tribunals.

Would this potentially stop these federal cases if the courts say it has to be consistent? Is there any way to stop these trials from moving forward in federal courts?

32 vxbush  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:21:57am

re: #28 MandyManners

Isn’t the Cole bomber one of those getting a military tribunal?

Yes, I believe so.

33 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:23:19am

re: #31 Sharmuta

Well, that could - and it could force the remaining detainee cases scheduled for tribunals to be pushed into federal court (which might be the Administration’s ultimate goal). If the courts rule in that fashion, it would allow the Administration to claim that they were committed to the tribunals, but the courts wouldn’t let them.

34 badger1970  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:23:26am

Other than a repeat of Ms. Miller, are we the taxpayers, paying for the scum terrorists’ lawyers?

35 Cato the Elder  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:23:29am

re: #30 lawhawk

The courts, which have repeatedly engaged in trying to determine exactly which rights these detainees are supposed to have in the first place.

Instead of leaving them as enemy combatants - ununiformed terrorists with no rights under the Geneva Conventions, they have instead found themselves under ever more Constitutional protections. That’s led to delay after delay in prosecution.

Well, I guess the courts could not simply refuse to rule on questions of status when called upon to do so.

36 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:23:47am

How do they get a jury of their peers? Or an unbiased one?

37 Political Atheist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:24:08am

What if he is acquitted for a lack of evidence legally gathered? Or kicked loose on appeal. It’s possible.

38 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:25:04am

re: #36 carefulnow

How indeed.

39 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:25:09am

Watch every POW in the future ask for his Miranda Rights and demand his day in court. The military tribunals authorized by the Geneva convention were enacted for a reason.

40 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:25:27am

re: #30 lawhawk

That, combined with the apparent impression that the Administration prefers to move to a stronger 9/10 approach to the threats, do not bode well.

I am very fearful that this will become a circus, with a trial within a trial based around enhanced interogation steps. As much as the AG has declared these decisions to not be political - I am not convinced.

41 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:25:40am

re: #36 carefulnow

How do they get a jury of their peers? Or an unbiased one?

I’m sure they can find a jury of people who have no idea what is going on in the world.

42 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:26:04am

re: #41 NJDhockeyfan

shudder

43 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:26:07am

re: #36 carefulnow

How do they get a jury of their peers? Or an unbiased one?

Might be a bit difficult in New York to find people who haven’t heard or read anything about the 9/11 attacks.

44 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:26:24am

re: #36 carefulnow

How do they get a jury of their peers? Or an unbiased one?


How many Muslims will their lawyers require be on the jury?

45 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:26:26am

re: #34 badger1970

Other than a repeat of Ms. Miller, are we the taxpayers, paying for the scum terrorists’ lawyers?

Depends. There are, no doubt, groups willing to provide funding for their defense, as well as attorneys willing to provide their services pro bono. But if no such offers are made, then yes - defendants have an unassailable right to an attorney, and the state will provide one at the state’s expense if no alternative presents itself.

46 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:27:19am

re: #37 Rightwingconspirator

What if he is acquitted for a lack of evidence legally gathered? Or kicked loose on appeal. It’s possible.

Then you can pretty much kiss the 0bama Administration and a large chunk of the Democratic Party goodbye, among other outcomes.

47 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:28:35am

re: #43 Sharmuta

I only posed the question rhetorically, actually. I hope there is a strategy regarding the inconsistency that lawhawk has pointed out.

48 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:29:12am

re: #39 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Watch every POW in the future ask for his Miranda Rights and demand his day in court. The military tribunals authorized by the Geneva convention were enacted for a reason.

Why would a POW need a day in court? POWS are held by each part until the end of the conflict, or until they exchange prisoners.

There’s nothing illegal about being in your nation’s army.

49 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:07am

re: #46 SixDegrees

Then you can pretty much kiss the 0bama Administration and a large chunk of the Democratic Party goodbye, among other outcomes.

nah…enough people could care less, they will continue to vote into office political cut throats

50 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:08am

re: #47 carefulnow

I only posed the question rhetorically, actually. I hope there is a strategy regarding the inconsistency that lawhawk has pointed out.

I’m not so sure it’s really a rhetorical question. How will they find a jury? It’s a legitimate question.

51 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:10am

re: #39 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Agreed.

There are effectively 3 classes of persons defined within the Geneva Conventions - legal combatants (uniformed abiding the rules of war and assured of proper treatment), civilians / non-combatants, and illegal combatants (who follow no rules of law). The legal recourse for the latter is to be tried by legitimate military tribunals.

Even though these tribunals afford the terrorists with far more rights and protections they deserve - that is the proper way for all of the captured terrorists to be processed.

We are fighting once again the old debate around acts of terrorism being criminal acts or acts of war. Welcome to 9/10 once again - as the lack of communication and coordination between executive branch agencies in the Hasan case demonstrate.

52 badger1970  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:31am

re: #46 SixDegrees

Then why bother to put them on U.S. soil using the civilian court system (presumption of guilt)?

53 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:38am

re: #48 Obdicut

Why would a POW need a day in court? POWS are held by each part until the end of the conflict, or until they exchange prisoners.

There’s nothing illegal about being in your nation’s army.

And which “army” were these people in?

54 McSpiff  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:45am

re: #44 filetandrelease

I could fill a jury several times over with muslims looking for blood. Hell, most saudi’ I know support capital/corpal punishment for stealing. Believe me, you should want more muslims on the jury than democrats.

55 bagelman1  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:48am

While this is a federal court and there are different rules concerning death penalty, the jury pool still comes from Manhattan the Bronx, Westchester, and maybe a couple of other upstate counties. No way a jury of 12 from these areas agree to death. This move is just so offensive that I can’t even put it into words.

56 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:30:55am
57 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:31:01am

re: #41 NJDhockeyfan

I’m sure they can find a jury of people who have no idea what is going on in the world.

Or those willing to say whatever is needed to sit on the jury and enact their own agenda…

58 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:31:15am

Why bother with the perfectly legal and internationally acceptted military tribunals allowed under the Geneva Convention when we can show how generous and enlightened we are by allowing people who have absolutely no rights under our legal system to exploit it and make a mockery of it?

59 RogueOne  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:31:25am
I don’t think this increases the danger of terror attacks against New York; the city is already a target. It does increase the danger of circus trials, with grandstanding civil rights attorneys and constant outbursts and tirades from Mohammed.

One thing’s certain: it will be the biggest windfall for the media since the OJ Simpson extravaganza.

Right on the money +1

60 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:31:42am

re: #43 Sharmuta

Yeah, after all the courthouse is just blocks away from Ground Zero…

61 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:31:58am
62 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:32:09am

re: #50 Sharmuta

Well, if I were their lawyer, I would say I couldn’t get one in New York and I would ask to be moved to another jurisdiction. Say, in Michigan.
/

63 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:32:57am

re: #46 SixDegrees

Then you can pretty much kiss the 0bama Administration and a large chunk of the Democratic Party goodbye, among other outcomes.

Regardless of outcome. The independents are not going to like this one bit.

64 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:33:07am

re: #48 Obdicut

Why would a POW need a day in court? POWS are held by each part until the end of the conflict, or until they exchange prisoners.

There’s nothing illegal about being in your nation’s army.

Non-uniformed enemy combatants are illegal under the Geneva Convention. They may be tried under a military tribunal and executed. All these prisoners fit the bill.

65 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:33:14am
66 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:33:19am

re: #58 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just remember, the decision on this is not politically based…
/

67 badger1970  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:33:38am

re: #61 MandyManners

At that rate, there will would never be a trial. They already have 7 years under their belt, let them rot at Gitmo.

68 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:34:03am

Hysterical email I just got from Eric Erickson (yeah, I’m registered over there)

Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist
mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be
sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.

In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an
American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a
fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to
review all the evidence against him, potentially including
classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence
against him including, potentially, any confession obtained
through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American
Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime. At
worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified
material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet
again becomes a target for terrorists. We have already had
occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers
have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.

Call your Congressman and Senator right now. Tell them they
should use every tool at their disposal to block this. The
number to call is .

teh horrorz of fair triaz

69 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:34:09am

re: #58 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Why bother with the perfectly legal and internationally acceptted military tribunals allowed under the Geneva Convention when we can show how generous and enlightened we are by allowing people who have absolutely no rights under our legal system to exploit it and make a mockery of it?

BO should be called out to explain this bizarre move, and his ensuing mumbo jumbo played back to the citizens with proper interpretation…not gonna happen tho

70 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:34:36am

re: #62 carefulnow

Well, if I were their lawyer, I would say I couldn’t get one in New York and I would ask to be moved to another jurisdiction. Say, in Michigan.
/

I don’t know why you put a sarc tag on that. It’s exactly what I would do as their lawyer.

71 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:34:46am
72 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:34:55am
73 ROPMA  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:35:11am

re: #62 carefulnow

Well, if I were their lawyer, I would say I couldn’t get one in New York and I would ask to be moved to another jurisdiction. Say, in Michigan.Texas

FIFY
/

74 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:35:17am

re: #54 McSpiff

I could fill a jury several times over with muslims looking for blood. Hell, most saudi’ I know support capital/corpal punishment for stealing. Believe me, you should want more muslims on the jury than democrats.

One Jihadist = hung jury

75 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:35:21am

re: #70 Sharmuta

I’d be aiming for San Fran.

76 Mojo Jojo  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:36:09am

re: #62 carefulnow

Well, if I were their lawyer, I would say I couldn’t get one in New York and I would ask to be moved to another jurisdiction. Say, in Michigan.
/

Newark, NJ would be sufficient. Thousands of Arabs in Paterson & Jersey City for the jury pool.

77 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:36:11am

re: #70 Sharmuta

I don’t know why you put a sarc tag on that. It’s exactly what I would do as their lawyer.

Keep it bouncing around for a few months at least, then file an appeal with the UN and world court complaining the corrupt US system won’t allow them a fair trial.

78 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:36:14am

re: #61 MandyManners

Can you imagine trying to seat a jury that has never heard of 9-11? Even the sewer-rats have heard of it.

It will be a bunch of freaks for sure.

79 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:36:44am
80 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:36:55am

re: #18 lawhawk

Then there is the issue concerning possible claims that they could not get a fair trial in New York. Change of venue?

81 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:36:57am
“The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found ‘not guilty’ due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause. These men are part of a global terrorist network dedicated to attacking America and civilization itself, and on that awful day nine years ago, they succeeded in killing nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children.

These terrorists were already being tried by military commissions, which were specifically designed to prosecute such heinous acts. This decision is further evidence that the White House is reverting to a dangerous pre-9/11 mentality – treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and hoping for the best.”

House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner

Exactly.

82 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:37:10am

re: #48 Obdicut

Why would a POW need a day in court? POWS are held by each part until the end of the conflict, or until they exchange prisoners.

There’s nothing illegal about being in your nation’s army.

They have no prisoners, alive, and this conflict will go on for 500 years.

83 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:37:21am

re: #70 Sharmuta

Maybe I should have * instead of /. I’m still not fluent in this medium.

84 McSpiff  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:37:21am

re: #74 filetandrelease

One Jihadist = hung jury

Theres a few groups I could say the same thing about. Regardless I feel putting this before a jury is a horrible idea for a multitude of reasons, but the religious or ethnic make up of the jury is not one of them.

85 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:37:28am

Stupid question: Does the Bill of Rights say anywhere that those rights only apply to US citizens?

What’s so horrible and dangerous about treating people like they have basic civil rights?

86 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:37:40am
87 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:37:45am

re: #52 badger1970

Then why bother to put them on U.S. soil using the civilian court system (presumption of guilt)?

I’m baffled by the decision, frankly. It seems to be related to Craig’s firing yesterday and the desire to close Gitmo as quickly as possible, although certainly not by the January deadline originally imposed by the Administration.

88 kilroy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:38:19am

An ordinary defense attorney would move for a change in venue; others would prefer a televised show trial. We’ll see what happens.

89 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:38:25am

re: #84 McSpiff

Theres a few groups I could say the same thing about. Regardless I feel putting this before a jury is a horrible idea for a multitude of reasons, but the religious or ethnic make up of the jury is not one of them.

Now that I agree with completely.

90 HelloDare  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:38:37am

I know just the place for Gitmo detainees.
BREAKING NEWS: NASA reports significant amount of water discovered on moon

91 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:38:41am
92 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:39:05am
93 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:39:06am

re: #22 NJDhockeyfan

What won’t these putzes do to handcuff our armed forces fighting for freedom?

94 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:39:18am

re: #53 Walter L. Newton

And which “army” were these people in?

They weren’t. That’s why I was wondering why Kragar was wondering about the implications for POWs. There are none.

re: #64 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Non-uniformed enemy combatants are illegal under the Geneva Convention. They may be tried under a military tribunal and executed. All these prisoners fit the bill.

Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. I don’t see any reason to give these people the dignity and respect of pretending that they’re engaged in an armed conflict with us, that they represent a nation, that they represent anything other than their own hate.

I consider them criminals, and I think the US legal system is up to the job of dispensing with them.

95 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:39:20am

KSM already confessed, and he’s proud of himself. Why keep him from his raisins?

96 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:39:23am

re: #87 SixDegrees

I’m baffled by the decision, frankly. It seems to be related to Craig’s firing yesterday and the desire to close Gitmo as quickly as possible, although certainly not by the January deadline originally imposed by the Administration.

Of course it’s not a political decision (/sarc) - but they have sure changed the buzz with the news media away from Hasan and away from the economic challenges, health care, etc…

97 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:39:38am

hypotheticals are interesting, but I want an explanation from BO and Holder of the logic, and justification of this extremist departure from reality…is this even legal?

98 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:40:08am

re: #81 NJDhockeyfan

Lieberman has also made a statement opposed to these terrorist being tried in civilian courts.

100 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:40:23am

re: #80 StillAMarine

Then there is the issue concerning possible claims that they could not get a fair trial in New York. Change of venue?

The defendants could and most likely would attempt to change venue, but the court may rule against it because there is no other jurisdiction in the nation that hasn’t heard of it and with a sufficiently large jury pool you could find those who might at least pass voir dire and claim that they’re not prejudiced against the defendants.

I don’t see a venue change from NY working. SDNY has operated quite a few high profile terror trials, so it is a fitting jurisdiction. The problem is that they should never have gotten these trials in the first instance - the tribunals were more than sufficient to the task, and now that some are getting trials, we’ll get more suits to demand trials for their clients - pushing the whole matter into civilian courts.

101 kilroy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:40:37am

re: #92 MikeySDCA

Is an exception possible?

102 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:40:39am

re: #13 Ojoe

Excellent Towercam Clouds. Nature Break.

We are going to need nature breaks.

Did you know the fire is still burning in the area?

103 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:41:05am

re: #95 Sharmuta

KSM already confessed, and he’s proud of himself. Why keep him from his raisins?

seems like somebody wants to give him a break

104 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:41:19am

re: #84 McSpiff

I only asked the question earlier because someone had asked how do they expect to get a trial of their peers, or a fair trial. It seems an obvious ploy to try and stack the jury with Muslims. But as you point out, not necessarily.

105 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:41:39am

re: #85 kreyagg

Stupid question: Does the Bill of Rights say anywhere that those rights only apply to US citizens?

What’s so horrible and dangerous about treating people like they have basic civil rights?

You mean like the right to go to work without having a plane flying into your building?

And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cover the rights for US Citizens and government, not the rest of the world. The rules for dealing with these people were set in the Geneva Convention, which the US signed and now chooses to ignore.

106 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:42:20am

re: #61 MandyManners

Can you imagine trying to seat a jury that has never heard of 9-11? Even the sewer-rats have heard of it.

It isn’t a matter of finding jury members who’ve never heard of the attacks. It’s a matter of finding members who, despite their knowledge, are capable of making a decision based solely on the evidence presented during trial and not on external factors.

I’m pretty certain that all of OJ’s jurists had prior knowledge of the case in both of his trials, for example.

107 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:42:22am
108 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:42:24am

I got the jurisdiction! Simi Valley, California.

109 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:42:48am

re: #99 NJDhockeyfan

Holder made his controversial remarks about “outcomes” during the following question period. (in answer to a reporter’s question).

110 HelloDare  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:42:59am

re: #18 lawhawk

Obama is a genius. He must know what he’s doing./

111 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:43:11am

re: #105 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)


And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cover the rights for US Citizens and government, not the rest of the world.

Well, they don’t apply outside of the US, of course, but they definitely apply to all people in the US, whether citizens or not.

Except voting, of course.

112 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:43:21am

Well, if they’re looking for a change in venue, I’d suggest our little town here in Texas. Our juries are fair, but they don’t put up with b.s.

Oh, and if they’re looking for a jury of their peers, here’s one for ‘em:

“Morning Bob Lee. Anything new goin’ on?”
“Well sir, peers I’m gonna be on the jury for them terrorist bastards.”

113 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:44:05am

re: #94 Obdicut

Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. I don’t see any reason to give these people the dignity and respect of pretending that they’re engaged in an armed conflict with us, that they represent a nation, that they represent anything other than their own hate.

I consider them criminals, and I think the US legal system is up to the job of dispensing with them.

As noted before, the Geneva convention already cover them. They are guilty of being non-uniformed combatants. They should have been shot and dumped in Potter’s field years ago.

114 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:44:55am
115 kilroy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:45:03am

How will radicals view the jurors on this sort of trial. I wouldn’t be comfortable to be part of this jury.

116 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:45:19am

re: #85 kreyagg

Stupid question: Does the Bill of Rights say anywhere that those rights only apply to US citizens?

What’s so horrible and dangerous about treating people like they have basic civil rights?

You think we should have our soldiers reading Miranda rights to the taliban? What happens when some soldiers decided it would be easier to keep shooting than to capture people? Would we consider that a war crime and prosecute our own soldiers? What kind of national security concerns will come up at these trials? Why do we have a separate system for military justice? Do you think military courts are violating the Constitution? Do you think it’s right for the Attorney General to presume guilt in these cases?

I can think of a host of other questions as to why this decision is problematic.

117 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:45:21am

re: #104 filetandrelease

I only asked the question earlier because someone had asked how do they expect to get a trial of their peers, or a fair trial. It seems an obvious ploy to try and stack the jury with Muslims. But as you point out, not necessarily.

No, they aren’t going to stack the jury with Muslims but it’s going to be very easy to one or two jurors who think 9-11 was an inside job or hated Bush so much that they’ll never vote for a conviction.

118 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:45:36am

re: #94 Obdicut

Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. I don’t see any reason to give these people the dignity and respect of pretending that they’re engaged in an armed conflict with us, that they represent a nation, that they represent anything other than their own hate.

I consider them criminals, and I think the US legal system is up to the job of dispensing with them.

I can’t disagree more.

119 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:45:36am
120 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:45:37am

re: #85 kreyagg

Stupid question: Does the Bill of Rights say anywhere that those rights only apply to US citizens?

What’s so horrible and dangerous about treating people like they have basic civil rights?

Lets see

The Bill Of Rights

Was that written in England? France?? Pakistan ???


Sharia law is in effect in some countries. Should it apply here in the USA?

121 McSpiff  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:45:53am

re: #104 filetandrelease

I only asked the question earlier because someone had asked how do they expect to get a trial of their peers, or a fair trial. It seems an obvious ploy to try and stack the jury with Muslims. But as you point out, not necessarily.

O fully agreed, but I’d be much more likely to stack the jury with Quakers than muslims if I was the defence. If anything a muslim on the jury would be more likely to convict simply to avoid the type of accusations being levelled in this thread.

I was trying to think of precedent for this type of trial, anyone think Noriega might be an example? I’m a wee one of 21, so I don’t remember the whole Panama thing, but I do know he ended up being tried in the US, so on the surface it looks like it might be relevant.

122 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:46:12am

re: #115 kilroy

Most of the jihadis just tend ignore the authority of the whole proceeding.

123 webevintage  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:46:14am

Someone help me here, I thought the Military Commissions were held unconstitutional by the SC?
Are tribunals dif then commissions?

124 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:46:49am

re: #115 kilroy

How will radicals view the jurors on this sort of trial. I wouldn’t be comfortable to be part of this jury.

Yeah- I’d want to cover my face.

125 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:47:09am

re: #105 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You mean like the right to go to work without having a plane flying into your building?

And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cover the rights for US Citizens and government, not the rest of the world. The rules for dealing with these people were set in the Geneva Convention, which the US signed and now chooses to ignore.

So only US citizens have civil rights. Is that what you’re saying? Anyone else is fair game for however we want to treat them?

126 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:47:12am

re: #117 Killgore Trout

No, they aren’t going to stack the jury with Muslims but it’s going to be very easy to one or two jurors who think 9-11 was an inside job or hated Bush so much that they’ll never vote for a conviction.

Crap, a defence is beginning to form, just a seed of doubt, “if the glove doesnt’ fit, you can’t convict!”

127 BLBfootballs  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:47:28am

What utter, utter idiocy. This is completely outside of the Geneva Conventions. Is Obama trying to make Americans disdain him? This is like a caricature of Leftism… except now it is Leftism as practiced by a Leftist President.

(In addition to all that the security requirements are going to shut down half of Manhattan for God knows how long the trial lasts. And the judge and jurors will become the eternal targets of jihadist Muslims.)

128 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:47:37am
129 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:48:06am

re: #123 webevintage

Someone help me here, I thought the Military Commissions were held unconstitutional by the SC?
Are tribunals dif then commissions?

We were discussing that earlier. There were some rulings against the tribunals during the Bush years so they had to tweak the system. Obama put a halt to them after getting into office only to revive them sometime this summer.

130 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:48:16am

re: #113 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

As noted before, the Geneva convention already cover them. They are guilty of being non-uniformed combatants. They should have been shot and dumped in Potter’s field years ago.

Who are you talking about? Can you cite the part of the Geneva convention that says it’s okay to execute people on the basis of being non-uniformed combatants?

re: #118 filetandrelease

I can’t disagree more.

Why, though?

131 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:48:40am

re: #128 MandyManners

The attorneys will have their names and their addresses.

I would refuse to serve on this jury.

132 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:48:51am

Holders words…

Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors - including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated - that must be considered. In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee.

this does not seem to explain his decision to allow the full right of citizens bestowed to the jihadis…it’s the only part I could find even remotely pertinent…sounds somewhat convoluted

133 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:49:18am

re: #123 webevintage

IIRC, the original effort towards military commissions / tribunals were ruled unconstitutional because they were defined entirely within the executive branch and not authorized by the legislative branch in law. In 2006 Congress passed a bill that defined and authorized military tribunals and Bush signed it into law. That addressed the concern of the SCOTUS.

134 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:49:35am

re: #121 McSpiff

O fully agreed, but I’d be much more likely to stack the jury with Quakers than muslims if I was the defence. If anything a muslim on the jury would be more likely to convict simply to avoid the type of accusations being levelled in this thread.

I was trying to think of precedent for this type of trial, anyone think Noriega might be an example? I’m a wee one of 21, so I don’t remember the whole Panama thing, but I do know he ended up being tried in the US, so on the surface it looks like it might be relevant.

I think that the 9/11 truthers are the only big possibility of screwing this the fuck up. They’d have to perjure themselves to get on the jury, of course, but I doubt they’re above that.

135 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:49:40am
136 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:49:54am

re: #128 MandyManners

The attorneys will have their names and their addresses.

It was a joke, I think.

137 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:49:55am

re: #127 BLBfootballs

And the judge and jurors will become the eternal targets of jihadist Muslims.)

What a thought.

Bet Obama did not think it.

138 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:49:57am

re: #123 webevintage

Someone help me here, I thought the Military Commissions were held unconstitutional by the SC?
Are tribunals dif then commissions?

You get a gold star for stating the obvious.

139 HelloDare  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:49:59am

re: #124 Sharmuta

Yeah- I’d want to cover my face.

Ironic that the jurors will probably want to wear a burka.

140 BLBfootballs  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:50:03am

re: #125 kreyagg

So only US citizens have civil rights. Is that what you’re saying? Anyone else is fair game for however we want to treat them?

Nonsense — the Geneva Conventions explicitly place terrorists and irregular (e.g. non-uniformed) combatants outside the protections of international law. There is no American precedent for granting normative civil rights coverage to foreign soldiers — much less terrorists, spies and other foreign irregulars.

141 webevintage  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:50:18am

re: #133 Athos

IIRC, the original effort towards military commissions / tribunals were ruled unconstitutional because they were defined entirely within the executive branch and not authorized by the legislative branch in law. In 2006 Congress passed a bill that defined and authorized military tribunals and Bush signed it into law. That addressed the concern of the SCOTUS.

Thank you for the fast answer…

142 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:50:27am
143 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:50:42am

re: #140 BLBfootballs

Nonsense — the Geneva Conventions explicitly place terrorists and irregular (e.g. non-uniformed) combatants outside the protections of international law. There is no American precedent for granting normative civil rights coverage to foreign soldiers — much less terrorists, spies and other foreign irregulars.

When making a claim like this, it helps to cite the Geneva convention.

144 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:50:45am

re: #126 filetandrelease

Frankly, I really don’t see how the prosecution will be able to put forward any evidence…(imo, all these cases could be quickly dismissed due to “lack of evidence.”)..the “confessions” are obviously “not admissible”; you can’t put forward classified info from informants (you jeopardize their safety); and hearsay isn’t good enough either. So, where’s the evidence?

145 kilroy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:51:05am

There’s a reason war crimes aren’t tried in civilian courts. Especially when you are dealing with an obscure and undefeated enemy.

146 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:51:18am

re: #135 MandyManners

It’d be worth going to jail for contempt and paying a hefty fine. And, well, losing your job while you’re in jail. And, if you’re a single parent, your kids might wind up in state custody.

I’d quickly ask when I’d get to vote on executing them, and hope their lawyers dismiss me promptly.

147 exelwood  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:51:21am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

What astonishes me is that it’s been eight years and no trials. Obama has been in charge for just under ten months.

So who is to blame that there were no trials for the previous seven years?

It took a liberal administration to actually criminalize terror. Criminalizing terrorism is a winner for the left in that they can completely absolve themselves of the need to actually act on terror because it becomes a “police matter”. The most delicious part is then they can bit*h and moan and shake their heads along with every one else when it goes wrong in the courts. :)

If a bomb went off somewhere in America tomorrow and it was traced back to Iran can you really imagine this administration doing anything beyond puffed up outrage, flurries of committee activity in congress and massive FBI man hunts which would all duly be reported by a breathless MSM?

The way you win wars is to kill people until they stop trying to kill you.

148 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:51:22am

re: #133 Athos

IIRC, the original effort towards military commissions / tribunals were ruled unconstitutional because they were defined entirely within the executive branch and not authorized by the legislative branch in law. In 2006 Congress passed a bill that defined and authorized military tribunals and Bush signed it into law. That addressed the concern of the SCOTUS.

I think there were constitutional problems with those too. I’ll have to look it up.

149 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:51:26am

re: #125 kreyagg

So only US citizens have civil rights. Is that what you’re saying? Anyone else is fair game for however we want to treat them?

The terrorists have the right to a military tribunal under the Geneva Convention, nothing more. Our dealings with other people around the world are based on similar rules and precedence thru treaties and other diplomatic negotiations. Nothing entitles these people to a day in a U.S. Court.

150 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:51:36am

re: #100 lawhawk

As usual, Lawhawk hits the issue right on the point.

151 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:51:51am
152 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:52:12am

Oh damn. I’m late.

Apologies to anyone who I asked questions of; I won’t be around for the answers for a few hours. Mea culpa.

153 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:52:33am

re: #142 MandyManners

What I posted was no joke. And, I don’t think Sharmuta was joking, either.

I would do whatever I had to to get out of that jury pool. Thankfully, I’m not in NY, so I don’t have to worry about it.

154 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:53:31am

re: #116 Sharmuta

You think we should have our soldiers reading Miranda rights to the taliban? What happens when some soldiers decided it would be easier to keep shooting than to capture people? Would we consider that a war crime and prosecute our own soldiers? What kind of national security concerns will come up at these trials? Why do we have a separate system for military justice? Do you think military courts are violating the Constitution? Do you think it’s right for the Attorney General to presume guilt in these cases?

I can think of a host of other questions as to why this decision is problematic.

Combatants are one thing, but these are people (however horrible they may be) that we’ve had in our possession for nearly a decade.

155 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:53:34am

re: #125 kreyagg

So only US citizens have civil rights. Is that what you’re saying? Anyone else is fair game for however we want to treat them?

keep moving those goalposts

having “civil rights” and being covered by the USA Bill Of Rights are two entirely different arguments

Since captivity, we have given these people ‘civil rights’. They get their meals per their culture, they get their Korans per their culture, they get their prayer time per their culture.

156 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:54:00am

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee, said “it is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial.

157 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:54:20am

re: #130 Obdicut

Why, though?

Lawhawk has stated the case far better than I ever could. Sorry to cop out but it has been covered thoroughly up thread.

IMO, these animals do not deserve their day in an American court room. It disrespects the very institution. Tried and shot by a military tribunal is almost too good for them.

158 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:54:27am

re: #154 kreyagg

Combatants are one thing, but these are people (however horrible they may be) that we’ve had in our possession for nearly a decade.

You don’t see top al-qaeda leadership as combatants?

159 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:54:30am
160 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:54:38am

re: #142 MandyManners

Fair enough.

161 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:54:47am

Nothing to worry about at all. Why, it’s not as if prosecuting terrorists makes anyone a target. I recall we tried Omar abdel-Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”) for his role in the first attack on the WTC, and there were no repercussions from that at all.

Anyone know if Lynne Stewart’s available?

162 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:55:07am

re: #22 NJDhockeyfan

It also contradicts what President Barack Obama said in March, when he indicated that Miranda rights did not apply to terror suspects captured overseas.

I guess there’s a first time for everything.
/

163 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:55:24am

FWIW, wikipedia on gitmo military commissions:
en.wikipedia.org

164 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:55:26am
165 kilroy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:55:58am

re: #153 Sharmuta

I suspect that one would be excused if they said they couldn’t render a decision because of fear.But I don’t know.

166 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:56:12am

re: #164 MandyManners

Disbarred still.

Well, they could still use her as a consultant and courier.

167 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:56:20am

re: #154 kreyagg

Combatants are one thing, but these are people (however horrible they may be) that we’ve had in our possession for nearly a decade.

You DO know that they weren’t just out walking around the neighborhood and decided to knock off a conveneince store, don’t you?

168 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:56:44am

re: #144 J.S.

Frankly, I really don’t see how the prosecution will be able to put forward any evidence…(imo, all these cases could be quickly dismissed due to “lack of evidence.”)..the “confessions” are obviously “not admissible”; you can’t put forward classified info from informants (you jeopardize their safety); and hearsay isn’t good enough either. So, where’s the evidence?

Just plain scary. Or stupid.

169 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:56:45am

re: #131 Sharmuta

I would refuse to serve on this jury.

I wouldn’t but I would have to lie through my teeth to get past selection.

170 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:57:36am

re: #149 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The terrorists have the right to a military tribunal under the Geneva Convention, nothing more. Our dealings with other people around the world are based on similar rules and precedence thru treaties and other diplomatic negotiations. Nothing entitles these people to a day in a U.S. Court.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Just sayin’…

171 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:57:45am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

You haven’t been following this for the past 8 years have you? There have been on-going proceedings — but the defense attorneys for the Gitmo terrorists have stymied it, and dragged their feet in every way possible for their clients…including going to the Supreme Court, etc., etc. wiki article here.

172 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:58:03am

re: #154 kreyagg

Combatants are one thing, but these are people (however horrible they may be) that we’ve had in our possession for nearly a decade.

Really? People? Maybe, but they are far from human.

173 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:58:35am

re: #165 kilroy

I suspect that one would be excused if they said they couldn’t render a decision because of fear.But I don’t know.

I would be honest, and tell them I couldn’t be impartial. I think KSM is guilty and should be sent to his raisins, and his lawyers would likely object to a person like me on the jury.

174 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:59:00am
175 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:59:45am
176 HelloDare  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:00:21am

re: #90 HelloDare

I know just the place for Gitmo detainees.
BREAKING NEWS: NASA reports significant amount of water discovered on moon

Buckets of water:

Nasa’s experiment last month to find water on the Moon was a major success, agency scientists have announced.

The agency smashed a rocket and probe into a large crater at the lunar south pole, hoping to kick up ice.

Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water vapour.

One researcher described this as the equivalent of “a dozen two-gallon buckets” of water.

The 1.6km-high plume of debris was kicked up by the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) last month when it crashed into a crater near the Moon’s south pole.

The identification of water-ice in the impact plume is important for purely scientific reasons, but also because a supply of water on the Moon would be a vital resource for future human exploration.

177 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:00:24am

From the Geneva Convention;

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

The Geneva Convention explicity allows Military Tribunals to be used for the trials. Execution is a punishment allowed under the Geneva Convnetion.

178 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:00:41am

re: #174 MandyManners

The stupid is strong.

BO Enlightenment Syndrome…very strong

179 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:00:56am

re: #158 Sharmuta

You don’t see top al-qaeda leadership as combatants?

Are they holding guns and shooting at troops or are they hiding and planning criminal acts?
They sound like criminals that should be punished.

180 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:00:58am

re: #175 MandyManners

Maybe hurl some curse at him in Hebrew on the chance that he knows a bit.

I’d hurl something at them, but it would be a lot sharper than a Hebrew phrase!

181 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:01:09am

re: #173 Sharmuta

I would be honest, and tell them I couldn’t be impartial. I think KSM is guilty and should be sent to his raisins, and his lawyers would likely object to a person like me on the jury.

This is one time I might have to say something like, “Who? What did you say he did? From the Religion of Peace? NO WAY DUDE!”

182 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:01:10am

re: #163 Conservative Moonbat

FWIW, wikipedia on gitmo military commissions:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

I’m not a huge fan of wiki - but this article based on a memo from the DoD General Counsel in 2002 details it for me. John Yoo, former Deputy AG, also wrote a number of memos and interpretations around the classification of these as illegal combatants and the legality of classifying them as illegal combatants. (Of course, Mr. Yoo is also a major target of the anti-war left for these positions…)

183 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:01:20am

re: #12 NJDhockeyfan

And we all remember how that worked out.

At least William Kunstler isn’t around anymore.

184 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:01:36am
185 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:01:53am

Can we at least make sure they get a woman judge. That would be apropos.

186 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:01:53am
187 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:02:26am

Here’s an interesting paper on What is an Unlawful Combatant by Michael Dorf, law professor at Columbia University:

What is an Unlawful Combatant?

It does provide some background on how these decisions are made - specifically addressing Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

188 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:02:35am

re: #173 Sharmuta

I would be honest, and tell them I couldn’t be impartial. I think KSM is guilty and should be sent to his raisins, and his lawyers would likely object to a person like me on the jury.

I think that a juror would be a target for an jihadi…simple as that…there are untold numbers of people like Hasan roaming around, imo

189 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:03:16am

re: #170 kreyagg

And this applies to illegal combatants captured outside the US how?

Basic question - is an act of terrorism a crime or an act of war?

190 BLBfootballs  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:03:25am

re: #130 Obdicut

Who are you talking about? Can you cite the part of the Geneva convention that says it’s okay to execute people on the basis of being non-uniformed combatants?

Sure. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention outlines the particular categories of people who qualify for protected prisoner of war status. It explicitly omits spies and non-uniformed combatants. Under the treaty, the protections do not apply to such persons.

That was done intentionally — to disincentivize governments from using such persons and tactics in combat, and out of a recognition that formalistically extending “protection” to spies and terrorists would simply lead governments to regard the entire Conventions as a joke and disregard them in practice.

So yes, under the Conventions text there is no treaty barrier to summarily executing a non-uniformed combatant.

191 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:03:27am

re: #179 kreyagg

Are they holding guns and shooting at troops or are they hiding and planning criminal acts?
They sound like criminals that should be punished.

Isee . So by that logic because he didn’t actually shoot at any troops, Hitler (if captured) would have been taken to a civilian trial!
I did not know that!

192 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:03:40am

re: #183 The Sanity Inspector

At least William Kunstler isn’t around anymore.

His protoge Ron Kuby is likely in the wings…

193 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:03:53am
194 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:04:34am

re: #175 MandyManners

Yiddish or Ladino would also work. There are enough Spanish speakers out there who would probably understand Ladino.
My favorite curse that I say out loud and not under my breath to the occasional idiot I encounter, “Geh kak afen yam.”

195 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:04:37am

re: #179 kreyagg

Are they holding guns and shooting at troops or are they hiding and planning criminal acts?
They sound like criminals that should be punished.

Just like at Nuremberg. Try’em, hang’em.

196 HelloDare  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:05:02am

re: #185 Sharmuta

Can we at least make sure they get a woman judge. That would be apropos.

By all means. Anymore wise latinas out there because “with the richness of her experiences (she) would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

197 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:05:11am

re: #170 kreyagg

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Just sayin’…

To clarify, then., your position is that these people are entitled to constitutional protections under the fifth and sixth amendments? If you are unable to distinguish between Constitutional language that calls for regular trials and due process rights for CITIZENS of the United States from the very clear treaty obligations, customs and practice of civilized warfare, and the body of law and precedent that clearly classifies actions such as theirs as not CRIMINAL offenses but as unlawful acts of war carried out by uninformed combatants operating contrary to the laws of war, then you fail to make distinctions.

Just think of how effective it will be to do it this way. Why, I wonder why nations even go to war at all, when they can just go to court.

198 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:05:12am
199 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:05:12am

re: #170 kreyagg

unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Captured during a time of war.

By the US agreeing to the Geneva Convention, it established that it considered the Military Tribunal process constitues a fair trial under the Consitution.

Just saying.

200 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:05:43am
201 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:06:05am
202 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:06:12am

re: #179 kreyagg

Are they holding guns and shooting at troops or are they hiding and planning criminal acts?
They sound like criminals that should be punished.

Most of the men hanged at Nuremberg never drew a weapon on Allied forces.

Just sayin’.

203 McSpiff  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:06:15am

re: #195 solomonpanting

Just like at Nuremberg. Try’em, hang’em.

Which was, of course, an international military tribunal.

204 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:06:34am

re: #179 kreyagg

Are they holding guns and shooting at troops or are they hiding and planning criminal acts?
They sound like criminals that should be punished.

Told to sit in a corner? Hit on the knuckles with ruler? Dude, you are harsh!

205 Summer Seale  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:06:42am

I’m glad he’s facing justice in NYC, but it also annoys me.

The fact is that NYC doesn’t (as far as I know) have the death penalty. Usually, I am not in favor of the death penalty at all. But this guy committed mass murder. Civilian courts are not equipped to handle cases of such magnitudes, nor are the penalties they reserve for justice to be done.

The fact is that it was a declaration of war, it was a planned war crime on every level, and as much as I respect the liberal laws of justice in NYC, I do not think that they apply in this case.

He is a war criminal on many levels and we should treat him as such. Putting him on trial in NYC in a civilian court doesn’t do this case justice.

206 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:06:57am

re: #201 MandyManners

What’s that mean?

Drop a deuce in the sea.

207 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:07:04am

re: #203 McSpiff

Which was, of course, an international military tribunal.


Obviuously, the folks then were wrong.
//

208 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:07:07am

re: #159 MandyManners

How many?

BTW, the word is “custody”. We don’t own them.

We’ve certainly been behaving as if we do own them.

2.


Main Entry: pos·ses·sion
Pronunciation: -ˈze-shən also -ˈse-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : the act of having or taking into control

209 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:07:23am
210 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:07:32am

re: #203 McSpiff

Which was, of course, an international military tribunal.

THE HORROR!

///

211 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:07:47am

re: #203 McSpiff

Which was, of course, an international military tribunal.

So you support the tribunal system for these jokers, and agree that a civilian criminal trial in NYC is wholly inappropriate?

212 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:07:56am

re: #205 Summer

Please read up a bit more. The civilian trials are at a Federal — one more time — at a Federal level — OK? That means the death penalty is possible. (shall I repeat that?)

213 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:08:13am
214 Bagua  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:08:20am

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Let him face a tribunal made up of NYC Firefighters. They could borrow a helicopter to carry out the sentencing phase.

215 Summer Seale  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:08:42am

re: #212 J.S.

Please read up a bit more. The civilian trials are at a Federal — one more time — at a Federal level — OK? That means the death penalty is possible. (shall I repeat that?)

I didn’t read that but I still think it’s a mistake. I’m not really talking about the death penalty in particular, btw…I was referring to the entire notion of a civilian trial for a war crime.

216 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:08:49am

re: #210 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

It’s, It’s HYSTERICAL ! ! !

/

217 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:08:56am

re: #214 Bagua

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Let him face a tribunal made up of NYC Firefighters. They could borrow a helicopter to carry out the sentencing phase.

Cross examination with firehose and axes. Works for me.

218 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:09:33am
219 mdschomburg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:09:40am

Too bad Jack Ryan isn’t president. He knew how to handle terrorists.

220 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:10:48am

One of the purposes of defining lawful and unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions, IIRC, was to find ways to protect (as much as one can in war) non-combatants - or civilians. Without a distinctive marking or badge (e.g. uniforms), soldiers would have no way to determine who was, or was not, an enemy soldier or potential threat.

When a nation - or military leadership - uses tactics that unreasonably endanger their civilian populations - and creates a situation where enemy soldiers unknowingly engage non-combatants, that nation is in violation of the conventions.

It is particularly egregious when groups like Al Qaeda or the Taliban uses civilian areas for hiding fighters or weapons caches, or fires on soldiers from places like mosques or hospitals.

It’s hard to believe a thinking person could conclude that these people are protected by the conventions.

221 KenJen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:11:36am

Can’t wait for the artist renderings!

222 McSpiff  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:11:55am

re: #211 Guanxi88

I couldn’t agree more strongly. The precedent is there, we’ve seen the system work before and it lacks many of the legal ambiguities of what the administration has proposed.

223 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:12:04am

re: #34 badger1970

Other than a repeat of Ms. Miller, are we the taxpayers, paying for the scum terrorists’ lawyers?

Sure, but we probably were already.

224 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:12:40am

re: #200 MandyManners

Would KSM understand it? That would be the audience.

He probably would not understand. But it sure would feel nice to say it.
The sniggers coming from the Latino and Ashkenazi contingent in the courtroom would also ruffle his filthy feathers.

225 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:12:56am

re: #205 Summer

I think the pre-trial circus is going to last years.

226 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:13:29am

re: #208 kreyagg

We’ve certainly been behaving as if we do own them.

2.


Main Entry: pos·ses·sion
Pronunciation: -ˈze-shən also -ˈse-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : the act of having or taking into control

Good. So they are in our custody AND possession!


Thanks for the semantics lesson!Q

227 kilroy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:13:44am

re: #221 KenJen

If it can’t be televised; I bet we see live re enactment as the trial’s taking place.

228 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:14:01am

re: #222 McSpiff

I couldn’t agree more strongly. The precedent is there, we’ve seen the system work before and it lacks many of the legal ambiguities of what the administration has proposed.

One or the other, not both. We cannot fall into inconsistency on something this important. Loves ya. McSpiff, disagree though we do.

Might as well throw a group hug out there now:

We lizards squabble on many minor and major points, but, with the possible exception of myself, I’ve never found a Lizard with whom I don’t find substantial agreement on at least one important subject.

229 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:14:16am

re: #201 MandyManners

It means, “Go take your shit elsewhere” or literally, “Go take a crap in the sea.”

230 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:14:25am

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

-Adam Smith

231 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:14:39am

Perhaps an arrangement can be made to have a non-traditional trial judge, say Mariane Pearl.

232 HelloDare  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:14:50am

re: #225 Sharmuta

I think the pre-trial circus is going to last years.

I can’t wait for the KSM / Larry King interview.

233 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:15:17am
234 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:15:42am
235 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:16:11am

re: #112 subsailor68

Well, if they’re looking for a change in venue, I’d suggest our little town here in Texas. Our juries are fair, but they don’t put up with b.s.

Oh, and if they’re looking for a jury of their peers, here’s one for ‘em:

“Morning Bob Lee. Anything new goin’ on?”
“Well sir, peers I’m gonna be on the jury for them terrorist bastards.”

Honestly, I’m not super concerned that the good citizens of New York are gonna want to set ol’ KSM free. If they don’t vote for the death penalty, he’ll go to Supermax for life. I’m OK with that, actually. GTMO isn’t a very fun tour for our military folks. And stateside maximum security imprisonment will be cheaper over the long run too.

I’d be OK with moving all of the little sweethearts CONUS, to tell the truth.

236 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:16:40am

re: #233 MandyManners

What ground my gears and lead to my dropping that rope is that “possession” is not a legal term regarding people. Heck, nor is it a legal term regarding objects such as evidence.

As I stated above

Movable GoalPosts

Lets distract from the issue by engageing in word play/ semantics

237 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:16:51am

re: #230 Sharmuta

that saying/notion predates Adam Smith.

238 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:18:25am

re: #235 funky chicken

Honestly, I’m not super concerned that the good citizens of New York are gonna want to set ol’ KSM free. If they don’t vote for the death penalty, he’ll go to Supermax for life. I’m OK with that, actually. GTMO isn’t a very fun tour for our military folks. And stateside maximum security imprisonment will be cheaper over the long run too.

I’d be OK with moving all of the little sweethearts CONUS, to tell the truth.

Fine. Promise that you’ll do the following.As soon as they are moved to a CONUS Fed pen, YOU move to the closest residential neighborhood to it

239 carefulnow  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:18:30am

re: #218 MandyManners

JEEZ! Okay, so it’s posts like this that make me want Charles to have a little box that says where the link is taking me before I click on it.

240 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:19:15am

re: #208 kreyagg

We’ve certainly been behaving as if we do own them.

2.

Main Entry: pos·ses·sion
Pronunciation: -ˈze-shən also -ˈse-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : the act of having or taking into control

Perhaps we should just compensate these guys and turn them loose. This would certainly avoid damaging your sensitivities, and, by compensating them, we could at least undo some of the grave harm we’ve inflicted on these poor souls.

My blood boils when I think of it - there they were, firing on our troops, planning and coordinating attacks, or otherwise engaged in the dull, regular business of their peaceful lives, and we dared to interfere, dared to capture and detain them. After we’ve paid them off and made a suitably groveling and abject apology for the evils of our former leadership toward them, we need to go after the REAL wrong-doers here, the Bush administration, whose jack-booted thugs tortured innocent and peaceful folk the world over in pursuit of hegemonic control.

241 HelloDare  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:19:23am

re: #229 StillAMarine

It means, “Go take your shit elsewhere” or literally, “Go take a crap in the sea.”

What the expression for calling somebody whale shit from the bottom of the sea?

242 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:19:24am

re: #235 funky chicken

Honestly, I’m not super concerned that the good citizens of New York are gonna want to set ol’ KSM free. If they don’t vote for the death penalty, he’ll go to Supermax for life. I’m OK with that, actually. GTMO isn’t a very fun tour for our military folks. And stateside maximum security imprisonment will be cheaper over the long run too.

I’d be OK with moving all of the little sweethearts CONUS, to tell the truth.

And I guarantee standard prison food is not up to the standards our “guests” have enjoyed at GTMO.

Lock their asses down in Florence, CO or Moline, IL. Or build a special complex (sans air conditioning, preferably) near Valdosta, GA.

243 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:19:24am
244 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:19:36am

re: #235 funky chicken

re: #238 sattv4u2

Fine. Promise that you’ll do the following.As soon as they are moved to a CONUS Fed pen, YOU move to the closest residential neighborhood to it

NOT that I think they’ll escape, but their vistors may be ,,, umm,, interesting!

245 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:19:49am
246 KenJen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:20:21am

re: #227 kilroy

If it can’t be televised; I bet we see live re enactment as the trial’s taking place.

Sacha Baron Cohen would make a great KSM!

247 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:20:27am

re: #235 funky chicken

Honestly, I’m not super concerned that the good citizens of New York are gonna want to set ol’ KSM free. If they don’t vote for the death penalty, he’ll go to Supermax for life. I’m OK with that, actually. GTMO isn’t a very fun tour for our military folks. And stateside maximum security imprisonment will be cheaper over the long run too.

I’d be OK with moving all of the little sweethearts CONUS, to tell the truth.

Heh, no disparaging remarks about the folks in New York from me - particularly since I was born and raised in a little town outside of Rochester. Some of the farmers I grew up with are just as no-nonsense as our ranchers here in Texas! (But they were much better at making apple-jack in the Fall!)

248 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:20:32am

re: #234 MandyManners

Thank you. I think. Hey. I asked.

Yeah, thank you for asking. Truth be told, I am not Ashkenazic, but I heard enough Yiddish to learn some curses. In Ladino I can only say prayers.

249 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:21:00am

re: #205 Summer

I’m glad he’s facing justice in NYC, but it also annoys me.

The fact is that NYC doesn’t (as far as I know) have the death penalty. Usually, I am not in favor of the death penalty at all. But this guy committed mass murder. Civilian courts are not equipped to handle cases of such magnitudes, nor are the penalties they reserve for justice to be done.

The fact is that it was a declaration of war, it was a planned war crime on every level, and as much as I respect the liberal laws of justice in NYC, I do not think that they apply in this case.

He is a war criminal on many levels and we should treat him as such. Putting him on trial in NYC in a civilian court doesn’t do this case justice.

He’s being tried in Federal Court in New York. The laws of the State of New York are not in play. Federal law permits the death penalty.

250 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:21:06am

re: #242 funky chicken

And I guarantee standard prison food is not up to the standards our “guests” have enjoyed at GTMO.

Lock their asses down in Florence, CO or Moline, IL. Or build a special complex (sans air conditioning, preferably) near Valdosta, GA.

Do you live near ANY of those? I do! Please see my 238 and 244

251 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:21:30am

re: #247 subsailor68

Heh, no disparaging remarks about the folks in New York from me - particularly since I was born and raised in a little town outside of Rochester. Some of the farmers I grew up with are just as no-nonsense as our ranchers here in Texas! (But they were much better at making apple-jack in the Fall!)

Ahh, applejack! Enjoyed that quite a bit myself. Nothing like freeze-concentrated hard cider to make your world spin and your head ache.

252 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:21:47am

re: #218 MandyManners

Will his sister testify on his behalf?

He has more than one sister.

253 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:21:47am
254 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:22:05am

re: #235 funky chicken

I hope he becomes some fat, ugly prisoner’s bitch.

255 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:22:39am
256 wiffersnapper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:22:41am

It’s about time these guys were brought to trial.

257 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:22:43am

re: #238 sattv4u2

I’ve lived very close to Leavenworth in the past. I’ve lived relatively close to Supermax in Colorado before. I travelled and stayed in Moline, IL.

Nobody has ever escaped from Supermax. Build a new one somewhere inhospitable…Minot, ND comes to mind.

Try them in whatever court you like, and then fry ‘em.

I know juries can be a crapshoot, but do you really suspect that your fellow US citizens are going to vote 12-0 to let a guy like KSM walk free?

258 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:22:55am

re: #240 Guanxi88

Will that be next on Holder’s agenda? going after the real war criminals — ie, Bush and others. Would Holder be guaranteeing an outcome, a conviction, there too?

259 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:23:11am

re: #255 MandyManners

Now, that’s she’s twisted.

260 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:23:29am
261 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:23:57am

LGF dateline: Mon, Dec 8, 2008

Gitmo Terrorists Want to ‘Confess’

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is apparently planning to make a full confession in his Guantanamo tribunal in hopes of getting the death penalty.

The alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and four co-defendants told a military judge Monday they want to immediately confess at their war-crimes tribunal, setting up likely guilty pleas and their possible executions.

Why are we letting them go to NY?!

262 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:24:03am

re: #241 HelloDare

What the expression for calling somebody whale shit from the bottom of the sea?

I do not know “whale” in Yiddish.

263 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:24:17am

re: #258 J.S.

Will that be next on Holder’s agenda? going after the real war criminals — ie, Bush and others. Would Holder be guaranteeing an outcome, a conviction, there too?

Can you freakin’ imagine the circus that this is gonna turn into? All the material turned up in the trial used to build a dossier against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al? Would this trial serve any other purpose, when you get right down to it, than that?

264 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:25:20am

re: #250 sattv4u2

Do you live near ANY of those? I do! Please see my 238 and 244

How about in the middle of the desert? Or up in Alaska? :)

265 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:25:28am

re: #262 StillAMarine

I do not know “whale” in Yiddish.

Repost

266 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:25:28am
267 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:25:32am

re: #250 sattv4u2

Do you live near ANY of those? I do! Please see my 238 and 244

I have lived close to two of the above. My husband is military, so I’ll let you figure out which two.

Your concern about their visitors…hey, we’ll have excellent video evidence for the feds to use when they start screening new potential threats.

268 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:25:42am

re: #263 Guanxi88

You know, I don’t even want to think about it…(this could all so easily turn into a political farce…beyond belief.)

269 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:25:48am

re: #125 kreyagg

So only US citizens have civil rights. Is that what you’re saying? Anyone else is fair game for however we want to treat them?

You would be hard pressed to find anywhere, in anyone’s comments that say only US citizens have civil rights. He was pointing out that the documents in question apply to US Citizens and persons WITHIN our states and territories. There are international treaties that cover civil rights outside of that.

270 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:25:56am
271 BlackFedora  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:26:00am

Visions of Truthers in the streets making lots of noise are dancing in my head/ Oy vey, I may need a stronger med.

272 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:26:42am

re: #257 funky chicken

but do you really suspect that your fellow US citizens are going to vote 12-0 to let a guy like KSM walk free?

Not at all, but thats really not the argument, the genisis of which is does the USA Bill Of Rights pertain to non-citizens

273 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:26:45am

re: #261 Sharmuta

LGF dateline: Mon, Dec 8, 2008

Gitmo Terrorists Want to ‘Confess’

Why are we letting them go to NY?!

So it’s not the US military in charge of the executions?

274 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:26:47am

I think it’s time to address BOs extremism…this outrage even may justify questioning his sanity

275 McSpiff  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:26:52am

re: #228 Guanxi88

One or the other, not both. We cannot fall into inconsistency on something this important. Loves ya. McSpiff, disagree though we do.

Might as well throw a group hug out there now:

We lizards squabble on many minor and major points, but, with the possible exception of myself, I’ve never found a Lizard with whom I don’t find substantial agreement on at least one important subject.

Just to make sure my position is clear: I support Nuremberg style tribunals, including the executions. I do not support any form of civilian trial. I’d love to see them be international tribunals again, representing the nations fighting the war on terror, but sadly that would probably take the death penalty off the table. So American military tribunals would be my preference.

Thanks for the kind words Guanxi. Couldn’t agree more.

276 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:27:05am

re: #257 funky chicken

I’ve lived very close to Leavenworth in the past. I’ve lived relatively close to Supermax in Colorado before. I travelled and stayed in Moline, IL.

Nobody has ever escaped from Supermax. Build a new one somewhere inhospitable…Minot, ND comes to mind.

Try them in whatever court you like, and then fry ‘em.

I know juries can be a crapshoot, but do you really suspect that your fellow US citizens are going to vote 12-0 to let a guy like KSM walk free?

First, it only takes one juror to vote against he majority to pooch a sentence, not all twelve. A unanimous decision is required to pass sentence.

Second, one would certainly hope that the citizens chosen as jurors would not have their minds made up - either way - on how they were going to vote prior to trial, but only after having heard all the evidence presented.

277 KenJen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:27:27am

re: #261 Sharmuta

LGF dateline: Mon, Dec 8, 2008

Gitmo Terrorists Want to ‘Confess’


Why are we letting them go to NY?!

Forced confession. He was waterboarded remember?//

278 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:27:37am

If you’re going to be a juror in any of these 9/11 related cases, be expected to sit on the jury for several months, and then have additional time for deliberations after the evidence is presented.

A juror is going to have a significant commitment of time in this. That weighs heavily on who ends up being picked.

279 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:27:47am

re: #258 J.S.

Will that be next on Holder’s agenda? going after the real war criminals — ie, Bush and others. Would Holder be guaranteeing an outcome, a conviction, there too?

Holder won’t have to do it. Look to the ICC and the Hague for that crap, or to Senator Leahy, for that matter: legaltimes.typepad.com

280 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:27:50am
281 hanoch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:27:53am

It is hard to imagine that KSM’s terrorist brethren would not at least consider staging an “event” in NYC during this trial. Does anyone believe security measures in NYC will not be significantly stepped-up at that time? Why take the chance?

Furthermore, why should these beasts, who are not US citizens, be given all the procedural protections offered to defendants by the civilian judicial system? Why take the risk of requiring the government, in order to prove its case, to disclose sensitive intelligence matters in open court?

Day after day this administration continues to prove itself to be an utter disaster for this country.

282 Bagua  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:28:00am

So what’s next? Are the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan going to be issued tranquilizer darts and butterfly-nets so they can capture the terrorists attacking them without risk of injury for the terrorists?

After all, they may be psychotic and just need a bit of medication or counseling. Alternatively, who knows what may have “set them off”? Perhaps some hateful US Marine kicked their goat or keyed their car.

283 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:28:18am
284 webevintage  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:28:19am

re: #238 sattv4u2

Fine. Promise that you’ll do the following.As soon as they are moved to a CONUS Fed pen, YOU move to the closest residential neighborhood to it

You know there are actually towns who want these guys moved to their facillities because of the jobs they would provide.

285 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:28:28am

re: #258 J.S.

Will that be next on Holder’s agenda? going after the real war criminals — ie, Bush and others. Would Holder be guaranteeing an outcome, a conviction, there too?

Rubbish, trollish and wrong. The only thing Bush and Cheney would have to worry about is getting dinged by an European court similar to Pinochet. Similar to Iran Contra, the worst that will come of any trials would be someone having a fate similar to Oliver North.

286 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:28:38am

re: #272 sattv4u2

but do you really suspect that your fellow US citizens are going to vote 12-0 to let a guy like KSM walk free?

Not at all, but thats really not the argument, the genisis of which is does the USA Bill Of Rights pertain to non-citizens

I believe it applies to foriegn nationals on our territory. It does not apply to a crazed whack job terrorist picked up by the Pakistani security services in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

287 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:29:07am

re: #202 Guanxi88

Most of the men hanged at Nuremberg never drew a weapon on Allied forces.

Just sayin’.

Excellent point. There were trials at least, the outcomes were probably never in doubt but the prosecution was at least forced to present evidence and the accused were allowed to defend themselves.

288 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:29:18am

re: #260 MandyManners

I don’t. I hope he’s locked down 23/7/365 to prevent him from preaching jihad.

Even better. Lock him down to prevent him from preaching jihad AND to protect him from the other prisoners. He would not last very long in the general population unless he quickly assembled a bunch of prisoner jihadists to protect him.

289 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:29:22am

re: #105 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You mean like the right to go to work without having a plane flying into your building?

And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cover the rights for US Citizens and government, not the rest of the world. The rules for dealing with these people were set in the Geneva Convention, which the US signed and now chooses to ignore.


The defendants at Nuremberg had done far worse things, but it was necessary to give them fair trials, in public, with all the rights commonly given to defendants in what western democracies consider fair trials.

Not because we were being soft, but because it was important both the show the world our view of justice, and to create a historical record. To be able to prove, long after all the witnesses and jurors have died, that there was a solid basis for declaring “this is what happened, this is who did it, here is the detailed accounting of how we know for sure that this is who did it.”

It’s not enough that the guys who did it end up dead. Process is also important.

290 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:29:22am

re: #269 CommonCents

I think you’re missing one central point in your arguement. Said poster is a putz.

291 albusteve  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:29:27am

re: #281 hanoch

It is hard to imagine that KSM’s terrorist brethren would not at least consider staging an “event” in NYC during this trial. Does anyone believe security measures in NYC will not be significantly stepped-up at that time? Why take the chance?

Furthermore, why should these beasts, who are not US citizens, be given all the procedural protections offered to defendants by the civilian judicial system? Why take the risk of requiring the government, in order to prove its case, to disclose sensitive intelligence matters in open court?

Day after day this administration continues to prove itself to be an utter disaster for this country.

of course…this insanity put citizens at risk…BO and Holder, once again, don’t seem to give a shit about that…

292 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:29:39am

re: #68 Conservative Moonbat

Hysterical email I just got from Eric Erickson (yeah, I’m registered over there)

teh horrorz of fair triaz

Classified information came out in the trial of the 1993 WTC bombers. That leakage is credited with helping Osama bin Laden go deeper into hiding.

293 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:29:49am
294 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:30:25am

re: #287 kreyagg

Excellent point. There were trials at least, the outcomes were probably never in doubt but the prosecution was at least forced to present evidence and the accused were allowed to defend themselves.

They weren’t trials in a civilian court. They were military tribunals. Same with the Japanese officers charged with prisoner abuse.

295 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:30:27am

Eh, gotta go study. I guess having my husband in Afghanistan makes me sanguine about having KSM in Supermax. The dude ain’t gonna escape.

Really, keeping GTMO running is hugely expensive and a logistical problem.

see yez.

296 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:30:44am
297 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:30:53am

re: #289 sagehen

The defendants at Nuremberg had done far worse things, but it was necessary to give them fair trials, in public, with all the rights commonly given to defendants in what western democracies consider fair trials.

Not because we were being soft, but because it was important both the show the world our view of justice, and to create a historical record. To be able to prove, long after all the witnesses and jurors have died, that there was a solid basis for declaring “this is what happened, this is who did it, here is the detailed accounting of how we know for sure that this is who did it.”

It’s not enough that the guys who did it end up dead. Process is also important.

Such as the Military Tribunal process explicity allowed by the Geneva Convention.

298 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:31:03am

re: #265 solomonpanting

Now THAT is cruel and unusual punishment!

299 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:31:10am

Lest we forget

New Terror Transcripts from Gitmo

Wed, Mar 14, 2007

Newly released transcripts of hearings at Guantanamo Bay show that Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to a stunning range of terrorist plots, including September 11 and plans to assassinate former presidents Clinton and Carter

300 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:31:48am

re: #284 webevintage

You know there are actually towns who want these guys moved to their facillities because of the jobs they would provide.

How does housing a handful of new prisoners in an existing Fed pen translate into ‘jobs”

we’re not talking about HUNDREDS of detainees that would require the construction of a new wing (short term ‘jobs”) and hiring more guards (long term)

301 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:32:01am

re: #279 Guanxi88

Let the Political Show Trials Begin! (ah yes, and I fear that convictions would be far more probable with George Bush and company — not so much with the foreign terrorists.)

302 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:32:03am

re: #282 Bagua

So what’s next? Are the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan going to be issued tranquilizer darts and butterfly-nets so they can capture the terrorists attacking them without risk of injury for the terrorists?

After all, they may be psychotic and just need a bit of medication or counseling. Alternatively, who knows what may have “set them off”? Perhaps some hateful US Marine kicked their goat or keyed their car.

They all suffer from PTSD and STSD and it’s our militaries fault and we deserve what we get.

This is actually what I have heard, said with conviction and full belief by people this past week in regards to Major Hasan.

So, we better get going and fix our problem.

///

303 tokyobk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:32:34am

I think Obama failed the Hiroshima Test given to every president since the end of the war.

More than just being tactful, which is important, I think he was evasive and certainly came no where near reaffirming the historical fact that America dropped the bombs to end the war and end the brutal domination of Asia by Imperial Japan.

304 webevintage  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:32:57am

re: #300 sattv4u2

How does housing a handful of new prisoners in an existing Fed pen translate into ‘jobs”

we’re not talking about HUNDREDS of detainees that would require the construction of a new wing (short term ‘jobs”) and hiring more guards (long term)

Hardin, Montana is one of them…
cnn.com

305 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:33:04am

New transcripts released by the Pentagon show that the man considered to be the chief mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has admitted he is responsible for the terrorist attacks from “a to z”.

Mohammed has also acknowledged being responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as other attempted terrorist attacks around the world in the years since.

The confessions come from a transcript of a hearing held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Saturday in which the Al Qaeda terrorist also acknowledged a plot to assassinate Bill Clinton while the former president was visiting the Philippines in 1994. The transcripts also show Mohammed admitted to plotting the October 2002 terrorist attack in Bali, Indonesia.

littlegreenfootballs.com

306 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:33:42am

re: #287 kreyagg

Excellent point. There were trials at least, the outcomes were probably never in doubt but the prosecution was at least forced to present evidence and the accused were allowed to defend themselves.

So, it’s tribunals, then? Fine. Would you please encourage Holder to stop this madness?

Also - the folk at Nuremberg were part of a government, their orders were carried out by uniformed troops, and so they were easily susceptible to being tried for violations of the laws of war, whose treaties their nations were all signatories to.

The ones we have now, though, would have been executed in the field, and rightly so, as many irregular forces were.

307 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:34:17am

re: #299 Sharmuta

Lest we forget

New Terror Transcripts from Gitmo

Wed, Mar 14, 2007

Now, you know that this is just sales puff on KSM’s part. What self-respecting terrorist, after all, would ever try to assassinate Jimmy Carter?

308 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:34:28am

re: #305 Sharmuta

And, obviously, if any of that was obtained under “duress” — it won’t be admissible. It will be thrown out of court.

309 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:34:38am

re: #219 mdschomburg

Too bad Jack Ryan isn’t president. He knew how to handle terrorists.

I’d vote Democrat if David Palmer was on the ticket. He actually listened to his advisers…didn’t think he was “all that”

310 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:35:57am

re: #304 webevintage

Hardin, Montana is one of them…
[Link: www.cnn.com…]

Doesn’t answer my question, but nice try

Swingandamiss

No Balls, One Strike

311 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:37:19am

re: #307 SixDegrees

Now, you know that this is just sales puff on KSM’s part. What self-respecting terrorist, after all, would ever try to assassinate Jimmy Carter?

I have no idea what went on in private meetings between the US and the Sheik, but I wonder how much they were able to collaborate his statements to other facts so they know he really had so much to do with all this.

This guy seems like he’s trying to take the blame for every Islamic outrage since Mo.

312 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:37:23am

re: #293 MandyManners

Get to hang out with Marines all over the world?

I CONFESS! I’M GUILTY! TAKE ME AWAY!

;)

America is very forgiving and downright supportive of it’s people who break laws for the good of the country. I’m OK with that (similar to jury nullification) because you have to accept that in rare circumstances, following the law isn’t in the best interest of the country.

313 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:37:25am

re: #304 webevintage

Hardin, Montana is one of them…
[Link: www.cnn.com…]

Hmmm,, guess EVERYONE in Hardin ain’t on board!!

Despite their confidence in the security of the prison, they worry about the community and their three children. “I don’t agree with it because it is five blocks from city hall,” says Glyn Perkins.

His wife chimes in, “Yeah, and 11 blocks from the school, and to me that is just a little scary.”

314 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:37:46am
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, announcing the decision to move the September 11 suspects, expressed confidence that the cases against them were strong.

Holder: “Foreign terrorists? OMG! I thought you said they were foreign tourists!”

315 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:37:57am

re: #309 Curt

I’d vote Democrat if David Palmer was on the ticket. He actually listened to his advisers…didn’t think he was “all that”

That’s what you get when conservative writers of a story create a Democrat president character. A conservative Democrat.

316 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:38:24am
317 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:38:44am

re: #296 MandyManners

Have you looked at the list of prisoners at Supermax in Florence, CO?

No, I have not, Mandy. I need to get off to work now, so cannot look that up. What am I missing, and thanks for the insight. All I know about prisons is from the movies, so you can only imagine my ignorance on the subject. And no, I am NOT by any means impugning that you know more from any experience.

318 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:38:57am

re: #308 J.S.

And, obviously, if any of that was obtained under “duress” — it won’t be admissible. It will be thrown out of court.

Looks like these were transcripts from military court proceedings and not interrogations. Could be an important distinction.

(FYI- In that old thread, many of us wanted him to rot in a cell rather than get his martyrdom wish.)

319 Liberally Conservative  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:38:59am

I have to wonder, what kind of sensitive information can KSM have, when he was captured 6 years ago? I understand that logic when it applies to someone we caught last week, but I strongly doubt that there is a terrorist cell waiting for KSM’s “OK”, smuggled through court-approved lawyers sympathetic enough to Al Qaeda that they would be accessories to terrorist acts.

I agree that tribunals are the way to go on this, for reasons outlined earlier in the thread, specifically that they are what the Geneva Convention prescribes for ununiformed combatants, but I doubt that KSM will be any worse than Zacharias Moussaui when it comes to public trials.

320 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:39:05am

re: #304 webevintage

But Greg Smith thinks the prison would generate business for gas stations, restaurants, and other local enterprises, giving the entire region an economic boost. And, he says, it would benefit the country.

Mr Smith. mind telling me HOW? Are the prisoners let out for lunch? Weekly shopping sprees? Provided cars???

321 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:39:09am

Well, lower Manhattan is not hard enough to get around in.

Bomb checks on cars, M16 totin’ soldiers, increased tunnel security, press hanging out 24/7, protesters (for and agin’)…

What’s not to love about this idea?

Lizards who live in NYC… deepest sympathies. Gonna suck long hard and deep and not in a good way.

322 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:39:20am
323 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:39:23am

re: #269 CommonCents

You would be hard pressed to find anywhere, in anyone’s comments that say only US citizens have civil rights. He was pointing out that the documents in question apply to US Citizens and persons WITHIN our states and territories. There are international treaties that cover civil rights outside of that.

What if the the US were somehow involved in a treaty that nullified part of the Constitution or its amendments? How many people would start claiming that the Constitution takes precedence?

324 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:39:27am

OT, but I find it a bit disturbing:

Top Republican says White House hiding info on Fort Hood

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) said administration officials delayed briefing members of Congress about the alleged gunman, raising “red flags” about what the White House was hiding.

But, at the end of the (short) article is this:

Obama has ordered a review of all intelligence on Hasan.

I’m not sure what Rep. Hoekstra means by “delayed”. And, does a delay actually mean someone is hiding something? I’m no fan of this administration (to put it mildly), but this seems (unless I’ve missed something) a bit unreasonable. Let the DoD finish its investigation, review the results, and then come to a conclusion as to whether things have been properly addressed.

This seems political to me, and not particularly wise.

325 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:40:48am

re: #311 Walter L. Newton

I have no idea what went on in private meetings between the US and the Sheik, but I wonder how much they were able to collaborate his statements to other facts so they know he really had so much to do with all this.

This guy seems like he’s trying to take the blame for every Islamic outrage since Mo.

I agree. The breadth of his statements is far too wide, from where I sit.

326 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:41:02am

re: #323 kreyagg

What if the the US were somehow involved in a treaty that nullified part of the Constitution or its amendments? How many people would start claiming that the Constitution takes precedence?

That’s why treaties have to be ratified by Congress. They can and do override the Constitution when they are in disagreement. And our body of constitutional law says that a treaty can override the constitution, on constitutional grounds.

327 solomonpanting  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:41:33am

re: #323 kreyagg

What if the the US were somehow involved in a treaty that nullified part of the Constitution or its amendments?

That’s a lot of Dem voters.

328 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:41:44am

re: #316 MandyManners

When do I start on my world tour of Marine bases?

When do you want to start? I’d love to join you but I’m afraid I’d be left heartbroken somewhere in Asia after we have a giant argument over FISA. :)

329 webevintage  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:41:58am

re: #320 sattv4u2

But Greg Smith thinks the prison would generate business for gas stations, restaurants, and other local enterprises, giving the entire region an economic boost. And, he says, it would benefit the country.

Mr Smith. mind telling me HOW? Are the prisoners let out for lunch? Weekly shopping sprees? Provided cars???

The prison is not being used even though it is state of the art.
If it had prisoners in it people would be employed to run it.
That means jobs in a very small town, jobs that give people money to spend which creates more jobs.

330 acwgusa  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:42:55am

re: #326 Guanxi88

That’s why treaties have to be ratified by Congress. They can and do override the Constitution when they are in disagreement. And our body of constitutional law says that a treaty can override the constitution, on constitutional grounds.

That’s not what I was taught. I was taught that the Constitution is supreme, that treaties were made under the Constitution.

331 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:43:02am
332 BLBfootballs  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:43:10am

re: #318 Sharmuta

Looks like these were transcripts from military court proceedings and not interrogations. Could be an important distinction.

(FYI- In that old thread, many of us wanted him to rot in a cell rather than get his martyrdom wish.)

Then he becomes a motivator for hostage-taking or terrorist attacks seeking to free him. (In addition to the obvious justice element.)

333 stormy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:43:17am

re: #144 J.S.

Frankly, I really don’t see how the prosecution will be able to put forward any evidence…(imo, all these cases could be quickly dismissed due to “lack of evidence.”)..the “confessions” are obviously “not admissible”; you can’t put forward classified info from informants (you jeopardize their safety); and hearsay isn’t good enough either. So, where’s the evidence?

Are you serious? Are you familiar with the discovery phase of a trial?

Frankly, this is the likely reason for the whole trial. The judge will force the government to give up information on interrogation, want to haul in soldiers/CIA that detained this guy, get classified documents on what Bush & Cheney had to say about this guy, etc… Now the administration can say, “Hey - we didn’t want to give out this info, but the court demands it of us!”

Now follow me here… regardless of the outcome of the trial, radical-left lawyers will have the red meat from this discovery to go to the international courts. They will find a friendly court at some point that will be happy to start a show trial against soldiers, CIA, maybe they’ll even be so bold to attempt to go after Bush/Cheney. It’s not going to be pretty.

I don’t care how you feel about the last administration, this is a bad precedent period. It could end up biting this administration in the behind down the road…

334 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:43:19am

re: #318 Sharmuta

The defense attorneys will be all over this sort of “evidence” — and they will obviously assert that it was obtained under torture. I’ve noticed a gradual erosion here. (I haven’t looked at the comments of years past — seems like a decade ago — but there has been a kind of creep or growing softness? and now it’s full blown into civilian trials — something almost unimaginable for most people, just a short while ago..)

335 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:43:21am

The German Werwolf of WW2 are a better example than those tried at Nuremburg. Their actions are closer to those of the jihadis. When discovered, the actions taken to stop them, were a quick military tribunal followed by execution. In some cases, Allied forces would evacuate, then destroy whole towns suspected of supporting them.

336 BLBfootballs  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:44:09am

re: #326 Guanxi88

That’s why treaties have to be ratified by Congress. They can and do override the Constitution when they are in disagreement. And our body of constitutional law says that a treaty can override the constitution, on constitutional grounds.

I think that’s impossible. How on earth could the US, legally, agree to something that is against the US Constitution?

337 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:44:23am

re: #331 MandyManners

Supermax in Florence.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

(Thanks, Walter!)

Just helping out a fellow inmate :)
///

338 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:44:51am
339 lostlakehiker  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:44:57am
One thing’s certain: it will be the biggest windfall for the media since the OJ Simpson extravaganza.


With an all-Muslim jury, after everyone else has been thrown off the panel for being biased, even if that took a nakedly obvious forgery and a pliant judge who accepted it at face value, to get the last non-Muslim off the jury?

And then, what would one expect for a verdict?

That would make it a perfect parallel to the O.J. trial.

340 Clemente  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:45:40am

re: #300 sattv4u2

How does housing a handful of new prisoners in an existing Fed pen translate into ‘jobs”

we’re not talking about HUNDREDS of detainees that would require the construction of a new wing (short term ‘jobs”) and hiring more guards (long term)

Feeding, housing, and chauffeuring the media circus could “save or create” dozens of jobs.

Or thousands, depending on who’s doing the arithmetic.

341 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:45:58am

re: #333 stormy

You haven’t read my previous posts, have you? (they actually began in the previous thread).

342 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:46:25am

re: #324 subsailor68

OT, but I find it a bit disturbing:

Top Republican says White House hiding info on Fort Hood

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) said administration officials delayed briefing members of Congress about the alleged gunman, raising “red flags” about what the White House was hiding.

But, at the end of the (short) article is this:

Obama has ordered a review of all intelligence on Hasan.

I’m not sure what Rep. Hoekstra means by “delayed”. And, does a delay actually mean someone is hiding something? I’m no fan of this administration (to put it mildly), but this seems (unless I’ve missed something) a bit unreasonable. Let the DoD finish its investigation, review the results, and then come to a conclusion as to whether things have been properly addressed.

This seems political to me, and not particularly wise.

It reminds me of the democrat overreaction to Abu Ghraib. The military was well into its investigation, the bad actors were going to be nailed, but democrats acted like nothing was being done.

now I’m off…

343 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:47:04am

re: #332 BLBfootballs

Then he becomes a motivator for hostage-taking or terrorist attacks seeking to free him. (In addition to the obvious justice element.)

Right now I’m more concerned we keep him out of federal courts than what we do with him in the end. It was enough we were giving them military trials. This goes too far.

344 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:48:19am

re: #330 acwgusa

That’s not what I was taught. I was taught that the Constitution is supreme, that treaties were made under the Constitution.

re: #330 acwgusa

That’s not what I was taught. I was taught that the Constitution is supreme, that treaties were made under the Constitution.

re: #336 BLBfootballs

I think that’s impossible. How on earth could the US, legally, agree to something that is against the US Constitution?

That’s why it has to go through Congressional ratification. In principle, though, constitutional supremacy is still established and affirmed even in the case of these treaties. There was a proposal some years back to amend the Constitution to clarify the matter, but there was some SC case that set a precedent that more or less did the same thing.

but on paper, a treaty has the power, following ratification, to override some portion of the constitution. It’s just that it wouldn’t survive ratification or review if it did.

345 lostlakehiker  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:48:32am

re: #336 BLBfootballs

I think that’s impossible. How on earth could the US, legally, agree to something that is against the US Constitution?

If we lost a war and faced occupation or destruction, we’d have to. Like it or not.

If our elected government decided it didn’t like the Constitution, they could sign such a treaty, no defeat needed, and circumvent the need to amend the Constitution. Just overthrow its provisions one by one by agreeing to treaties that have contrary provisions. With a sufficiently friendly supreme court, that would do the job.

346 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:48:33am

re: #331 MandyManners

Thank you, Mandy. By the numbers I think the rightwing nutjobs outnumber the jihadist nutjobs there in Florence. It would make for a most interesting brawl.

347 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:49:25am

re: #323 kreyagg

What if the the US were somehow involved in a treaty that nullified part of the Constitution or its amendments? How many people would start claiming that the Constitution takes precedence?

As it applies to whom? US Citizens? You could start here with one.

348 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:50:10am

re: #333 stormy

I don’t care how you feel about the last administration, this is a bad precedent period. It could end up biting this administration in the behind down the road…

I totally agree. This is very short sighted on the part of the administration.

349 bosforus  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:50:25am

Just popping my head in to see what’s going on…
9/11 Suspects Will Be Tried in New York
Yuck. Disgusting news. Work isn’t looking all that bad compared to this.

350 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:50:42am

Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured? On the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq?
If so then he’s a combatant.

Captured in Karachi or Rawalpindi, Pakistan by the ISI or CIA? What would that make him?

351 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:51:14am

re: #350 kreyagg

Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured? On the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq?
If so then he’s a combatant.

Captured in Karachi or Rawalpindi, Pakistan by the ISI or CIA? What would that make him?

It makes him al-qaeda leadership.

352 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:51:50am

As a native New Yorker, hearing all the “controversy” and “outrage” over the decision to try the 9/11 suspects in Federal Court here, has me scratching my head. The city has been the location of big trials before, one more isn’t going to change things very much. The need to do something with the suspects is acute, (as Gitmo has proved to be more trouble for the USA than its worth), so I’m happy that these cretins will have their day of judgement, whether here or someplace else.

Frankly, this will be a little bit like the Nazi trials at Neurenberg, as the guilt of many of the participants was never in question there either. Rather, it was a chance to show the world that evil acts would not be tolerated by civilization, and the perpetrators would get a fair justice they never extended to their victims. While these dudes and acts don’t quite rise to the enormity of Nazi horror, the USA still needs to show the world that we are better than the holders of primitive ideology by not descending to their level of arbitrariness and totalitarianism.

353 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:51:56am

re: #350 kreyagg

Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured? On the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq?
If so then he’s a combatant.

Captured in Karachi or Rawalpindi, Pakistan by the ISI or CIA? What would that make him?

A combatant. This isn’t tag or touch football - there’s no out of bounds.

354 [deleted]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:52:17am
355 KenJen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:52:47am

Hope Obama doesn’t decide to do an unannounced Air Force One photo-op over NYC during these trials.

356 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:53:27am

re: #352 Surabaya Stew

USA still needs to show the world that we are better than the holders of primitive ideology by not descending to their level of arbitrariness and totalitarianism.

We still could do that with a military trial. It was already an accommodating thing for us to do.

357 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:53:41am

re: #350 kreyagg

Captured in Karachi or Rawalpindi, Pakistan by the ISI or CIA? What would that make him?

An illegal combatant under the Geneva Conventions. It is based on his actions - not where he was captured or who captured him…unless you believe that acts of terrorism are nothing more than criminal actions.

I will ask you once again - are acts of terrorism crimes or acts of war?

358 BigRedGulp  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:54:26am

What are the odds that those who captured and questioned KSM will be the ones actually going on trial here? This smells of a backdoor way to prosecute the “torturers” of the previous administration — right up to Bush and Cheney.
Just as the police and DA took the rap for O.J., the CIA and intelligence community will get hung out to dry in this case.

359 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:55:16am

re: #22 NJDhockeyfan

We already are.

(CNSNews.com) – The Justice Department confirmed last week that FBI agents in Afghanistan are reading Miranda warnings to suspected terrorists captured there, a practice that Republican congressmen this week branded as “crazy” and “stupid.”

Miranda warnings were mandated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said domestic law enforcement agencies must inform criminal suspects arrested in the United States of their rights under the 5th Amendment.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,” says the typical Miranda warning. “You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?”

The Obama administration’s decision to make this statement to terror suspects captured on the battlefield in a foreign country has sparked outrage among several Republicans in Congress who spoke with CNSNews.com. It also contradicts what President Barack Obama said in March, when he indicated that Miranda rights did not apply to terror suspects captured overseas.

Oh Outrage. Thy warmth is like a tonic to the soul.

This is a policy disagreement. Not something to get outraged about.

360 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:55:27am

re: #350 kreyagg

Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured? On the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq?
If so then he’s a combatant.

Captured in Karachi or Rawalpindi, Pakistan by the ISI or CIA? What would that make him?

Are you KSM posting from your Blackberry?

361 RightOnTheLeftCoast  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:55:31am

re: #309 Curt

I’d vote Democrat if David Palmer was on the ticket. He actually listened to his advisers…didn’t think he was “all that”

He also had advisers who were actually worth a $#!t and gave him sound advice. Given the bunch of schmucks Emperor Barack has surrounded himself with, I doubt that Palmer, Ryan, Truman, or Geo. Washington would have proper counsel to guide him.

362 Gearhead  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:56:13am

re: #352 Surabaya Stew

Rather, it was a chance to show the world that evil acts would not be tolerated by civilization, and the perpetrators would get a fair justice they never extended to their victims.

If that actually comes to pass in this trial, I’ll be surprised. I think the bulk of of media attention will go to his treatment at Gitmo. That was the tone of the coverage I saw this morning. The fact that he is still alive while so many died as the result of his plans and actions will be a mere afterthought.

363 StillAMarine  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:56:22am

I really need to go. Thank you all for a most interesting and enlightening conversation.

364 stormy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:57:04am

re: #341 J.S.

No, didn’t read the overnight. I’ll take a peek :)

365 coscolo  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:57:54am

re: #18 lawhawk

AMEN! I haven’t seen Holder’s announcement, but there’s some b.s. that the decision to try KSM and friends in federal court instead of military tribunals is because the 9/11 targets were “civilian.” Puhleeze! As to why 8 years and no trials, doesn’t it seem like some civil libertarian was running to court to block the process every step of the way? I can think of at least two visits to the Supremes.

366 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:59:57am

re: #356 Sharmuta

We still could do that with a military trial. It was already an accommodating thing for us to do.

This is true. I imagine this is something President McCain would have done instead of Federal trials. However, this is not the way that President Obama wanted to do it, and frankly, I don’t see the negative implications that others “see” in bringing justice to the 9/11 creeps this way

367 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:01:39am

re: #362 Gearhead

If that actually comes to pass in this trial, I’ll be surprised. I think the bulk of of media attention will go to his treatment at Gitmo. That was the tone of the coverage I saw this morning. The fact that he is still alive while so many died as the result of his plans and actions will be a mere afterthought.

The gaping hole of Ground Zero nearby will quench any sympathy for these sub-humans.

368 Gearhead  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:02:51am

re: #367 Surabaya Stew

The gaping hole of Ground Zero nearby will quench any sympathy for these sub-humans.

One can only hope.

369 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:04:04am

re: #357 Athos

An illegal combatant under the Geneva Conventions. It is based on his actions - not where he was captured or who captured him…unless you believe that acts of terrorism are nothing more than criminal actions.

I will ask you once again - are acts of terrorism crimes or acts of war?

If terrorism is an act of war, then shouldn’t we have invaded Saudi Arabia after 14 of its citizens did what they did on 9-11?

What nation or what government attacked the US? Arguably Afghanistan, the government provided safe haven for the people who planned it. Maybe Germany, some of the planning took place there.

I stated before, I think that Terrorism is a crime.

370 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:04:15am

And, to not put too fine a point on it, does anyone here really think that the Obama Administration is going to let KSM walk if a trial results in a hung jury, or worse, and acquittal?

Is what the Administration is now proposing a show trial? After all, the administration has mentioned that they would be open to post-trial detainment even if found not guilty in a court.

And what about the 9/11 report, which doesn’t presuppose KSM or any of the other AQ terrorists’ innocence, but rather categorically finds them complicit in the attack.

[deleted]

371 Noah's Arrrgh  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:05:16am

re: #333 stormy

Are you serious? Are you familiar with the discovery phase of a trial?

This is the biggest reason why trying a enemy combatant in civil courts is a bad idea. The result will be either to expose and force an unwelcome change in the tactics of the military or to change the rules on discovery, which could have an unforeseen deleterious effect in normal civil trials.

What a nightmare - presumably brought upon us by a president anxious to placate his left-wing base.

372 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:06:15am

re: #368 Gearhead

One can only hope.

Relax dude; these guys won’t have another day of freedom in their life.

373 charlz  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:06:36am

re: #365 coscolo

doesn’t it seem like some civil libertarian was running to court to block the process every step of the way? I can think of at least two visits to the Supremes.

And what was the result of those visits?

The nerve of that pesky Supreme Court upholding those dratted civil libertarians!

374 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:06:38am

re: #359 dugmartsch

Oh Outrage. Thy warmth is like a tonic to the soul.

This is a policy disagreement. Not something to get outraged about.

Mirandizing terrorists captured alive in Afghanistan is outrageous. We are treating them, procedurally, as if they were shop-lifters at a Walmart.

375 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:06:59am

re: #370 lawhawk

Eric Holder on show trials: “When asked what the disposition of Muhammad or any of the other defendants would be were they to be acquitted, Holder said, “I would not have authorized the prosecution of these cases unless I was confident that our outcome would be a successful one.”

376 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:07:27am

re: #369 kreyagg

If a group of terrorists engages in jihad - war, then it is that group that we must be going after, regardless of their nationality. That 14 of 19 of the hijackers happened to be from KSA doesn’t mean invading Saudi Arabia (and the repercussions of doing so would immediately put the more than 1 billion Muslims into a raging conflict since the “infidel” (that would be the US) was invading sacred soil, even if Muslims had no problems butchering each other for more than a thousand years (and started doing so from within years of Mohammad’s death).

You strike at those who were harboring the terrorists - and those who were supporting them - if they didn’t offer cooperation etc.

It is no mere law enforcement matter, but war by other means. After all, these terrorists don’t consider themselves criminals either - they are fighting the jihad.

377 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:08:03am

re: #350 kreyagg

Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured? On the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq?
If so then he’s a combatant.

Captured in Karachi or Rawalpindi, Pakistan by the ISI or CIA? What would that make him?

…hopefully SOL…, but I would say he’s a combatant in the war on terror who happened to be a captured in a neighboring country. If Hitler were captured in Switzerland…what would he be?…Swiss?

378 lostlakehiker  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:09:25am

re: #359 dugmartsch

Oh Outrage. Thy warmth is like a tonic to the soul.

This is a policy disagreement. Not something to get outraged about.

Let’s carry this excellent new policy over into the realm of combat.

A policy of restricting our side to sniper rifles alone, no artillery, predators, machine guns, grenades, or magazine-equipped weapons, so as to avoid any indiscriminate action, would be a nice parallel. But before firing, you’d have to get a signed hit warrant from a federal judge. Hope that the target remains in view while the request for a warrant is being reviewed.

379 charlz  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:10:43am

re: #375 J.S.

Oh fer goodness sakes! He’s expressing confidence in his case, like a good prosecutor. For it to be a “show trial” everyone involved would have to be complicit, including the judge.

Geeze, the outrage over the _proper_ workings of the legal system…

380 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:10:43am

re: #378 lostlakehiker

I think an even better idea would be to use ACLU lawyers as shields for US troops overseas…They could waive their legal papers in the air and politely ask the enemy to surrender.

381 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:10:54am

re: #147 exelwood

It took a liberal administration to actually criminalize terror. Criminalizing terrorism is a winner for the left in that they can completely absolve themselves of the need to actually act on terror because it becomes a “police matter”. The most delicious part is then they can bit*h and moan and shake their heads along with every one else when it goes wrong in the courts. :)

If a bomb went off somewhere in America tomorrow and it was traced back to Iran can you really imagine this administration doing anything beyond puffed up outrage, flurries of committee activity in congress and massive FBI man hunts which would all duly be reported by a breathless MSM?

The way you win wars is to kill people until they stop trying to kill you.

Terror is a tactic. Long term it cannot be fought directly. The only way to fight terror in the long term is to change your enemy’s mind, unless you’re advocating some kind of final solution, solution.

If you think bombs and guns are the only way to change a person’s mind, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

382 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:11:37am

re: #379 charlz

He’s giving an insurance of the outcome of the case, prior to the case being held.

383 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:12:30am

re: #369 kreyagg

If terrorism is an act of war, then shouldn’t we have invaded Saudi Arabia after 14 of its citizens did what they did on 9-11?

An unlawful combatant is one who is not complying with the laws of war. Consequently, there’s no reason to go after the Saudi government, which had no role in this attack. The place of origin of the unlawful combatant does not, on its own, create culpability in any national government.

What nation or what government attacked the US? Arguably Afghanistan, the government provided safe haven for the people who planned it. Maybe Germany, some of the planning took place there.

Again, unlawful combatants don’t have national backing, although Afghanistan certainly hosted them. If you’re proposing that we should do something about that, we have. In Germany, what they were doing was illegal, and therefore the German government has no culpability.

I stated before, I think that Terrorism is a crime.

A crime? Indeed, it is, but, whereas domestic terror attacks (those from groups based in the United States, with citizens as their members, and whose actions are intended to effect a change in domestic policies or conduct of the US) can legitimately be tried in federal courts, trans-national terrorism (carried out by foreign nationals, whether on US soil, or striking elsewhere against US interests, and whose actions are intended to effect a change primarily in the international policies or conduct of the United States) are quantitatively different.

384 SteveC  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:12:44am
And this city don’t know what the city is getting
The creme de la creme of the chess legal world in a
show with everything but Yul Brynner
385 jbolty  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:12:57am

I have no faith that Holder, Obama or anyone else has thought this through. KSM confessed while being waterboarded? Confession inadmissible; case dismissed. Why can that not happen?

At least Jimmy Carter is happy to be solidly moved down to second worst president ever.

Maybe Jay Leno will get to bring back the Dancing Ito’s.

386 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:15:06am

re: #384 SteveC

Get Thai’ed!
You’re talking to a tourist
Whose every move is among the purest.

Whaddaya mean there’s only one?

Youtube Video
387 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:16:53am

re: #360 CommonCents

Are you KSM posting from your Blackberry?

Just vain I guess. My original question has been bouncing around in my head for a while and I wanted to see how people answer. Now I have to figure out how to apply the “Internet Tough Guy” filter to the replies.

388 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:17:07am

re: #369 kreyagg

If terrorism is an act of war, then shouldn’t we have invaded Saudi Arabia after 14 of its citizens did what they did on 9-11?

No, because they were not agents of the state, but the agents of a stateless organization, which was receiving direct support of a state that we did invade, and had declared war on the US in 1996. They considered the attacks an act of war. They considered themselves soldiers (of Allah) and their actions directly fit the classifications in the Geneva Conventions as illegal combatants.

What nation or what government attacked the US? Arguably Afghanistan, the government provided safe haven for the people who planned it. Maybe Germany, some of the planning took place there.

Answered above. You seem to be under the impression (naive and mistaken in my point of view) that only nation states can declare and enact war. Stateless organizations, it appears, hold the same standing as organized crime organizations regardless of their own actions and declarations that they have declared war and wage warfare against the US.

I stated before, I think that Terrorism is a crime.

This is the fundamental mistake in your position. Terrorism are acts undertaken via force using illegal combatants (as defined by international treaties which stipulate the rules of war) to effect political change. States and Stateless organizations can and do declare war - and they can and do act upon those declarations. If KSM and other AQ members prefer treatment as warriors, then they need to subscribe to and follow the rules of war as legal combatants. If they did this, even if they are not signatories of the treaties, they are subject to that level of treatment as the US is a signatory.

Considering terrorism as a crime is a flawed position that denies the actions and intent of the enemy. Acts of war are acts of war regardless if they are performed by states or stateless organizations. Equivocating terrorism - the intent of mass murder - to a mere crime is morally bankrupt. Furthermore, at the very least, regardless of your viewpoint, the fact that the organization of AQ declared war on the US in 1996 negates any definition of their acts as a crime.

389 charlz  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:18:46am

re: #382 J.S.

He’s giving an insurance of the outcome of the case, prior to the case being held.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say there. He can’t give “assurance” of the outcome of the cases because he can’t guarantee anything about the outcome of the cases. What he does seem to be saying is that he brought the cases and will be seeking the death penalty because he’s confident of the outcome based on evidence.

Unless you’re asserting that he’s really really stupid.

390 Political Atheist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:19:26am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

If you buy into the argument they are enemy combatants, there is no crime, no need for trial. Just detention pending an agreement of the end of hostilities. Its not a crime to engage in combat!

391 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:21:43am

re: #352 Surabaya Stew

As a native New Yorker, hearing all the “controversy” and “outrage” over the decision to try the 9/11 suspects in Federal Court here, has me scratching my head. The city has been the location of big trials before, one more isn’t going to change things very much. The need to do something with the suspects is acute, (as Gitmo has proved to be more trouble for the USA than its worth), so I’m happy that these cretins will have their day of judgement, whether here or someplace else.

Frankly, this will be a little bit like the Nazi trials at Neurenberg, as the guilt of many of the participants was never in question there either. Rather, it was a chance to show the world that evil acts would not be tolerated by civilization, and the perpetrators would get a fair justice they never extended to their victims. While these dudes and acts don’t quite rise to the enormity of Nazi horror, the USA still needs to show the world that we are better than the holders of primitive ideology by not descending to their level of arbitrariness and totalitarianism.

Exactly. These were crimes against humanity, crimes against the USA, and crimes against NYC. All three parties need to be satisfied. So that the world, and Americans, and New Yorkers, can come to terms with the enormous breech of the human social compact that these crimes wrought.

It’s not about show trials, or the media, or outrageous outrages of the day or any of it.

It’s a chance for Americans to stand together with one another and collectively and publicly demonstrate our moral superiority to our enemies. And a chance for us to continue to earn our stature as leaders of the free world.

392 SteveC  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:21:57am

re: #386 Guanxi88

Get Thai’ed!
You’re talking to a tourist
Whose every move is among the purest.

Whaddaya mean there’s only one?


[Video]

I get my kicks *above* the waistline, sunshine! :)

393 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:22:20am

re: #390 Rightwingconspirator

If you buy into the argument they are enemy combatants, there is no crime, no need for trial. Just detention pending an agreement of the end of hostilities. Its not a crime to engage in combat!

Unlawful combatants, though. They do not adhere to the laws and customs of warfare, and are fair game under our treaties.

394 enoughalready  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:22:50am

re: #390 Rightwingconspirator

If you buy into the argument they are enemy combatants, there is no crime, no need for trial. Just detention pending an agreement of the end of hostilities. Its not a crime to engage in combat!

Oh what an unholy can of worms that argument would open up.

395 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:24:33am

re: #315 CommonCents

That’s what you get when conservative writers of a story create a Democrat president character. A conservative Democrat.

And when liberal writers create a Republican presidential candidate, you get Arnie Vinick. A liberal Republican.

396 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:25:20am

re: #381 dugmartsch

Terror is a tactic being used by a group that is religiously and ideologically bound to attack the West. They cannot be bargained with or negotiated with precisely because any change on their part would make them apostate to their already stated beliefs. Moreover, trusting such groups, who have among their religious ideals the notion of lying and obfuscation to further their religious aims, makes negotiations with such groups perilous at best.

397 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:28:00am

re: #396 lawhawk

exactly…either they surrender or we do…the best we can hope for is they will fade away.

398 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:28:03am

re: #391 dugmartsch

The notion of these federal trials in and of themselves isn’t the troubling part - it’s how the Administration has chosen which to proceed under tribunals and which ones go to federal court. It’s an arbitrary process. It opens the door for more lawsuits, and it makes me wonder why tribunals weren’t appropriate for all involved seeing how the court concerns over tribunal process was worked out. Justice could still be served in either venue - but the option of having it both ways is an injustice that will be exploited by those remaining detainees and opens up the possibility of acquittals of terrorists and the government being forced to continue detaining them indefinitely - or even renditioning them to third countries indefinitely.

399 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:28:50am

re: #396 lawhawk

Barbaric standards should apply to barbaric groups.

It is folly to apply civilized standards to them.

400 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:30:29am

re: #389 charlz

You’d have to find the question and answer section during Holder’s Press Conference. In answering a question about the possibility of an acquittal, Holder ruled out that possibility. As if an acquittal simply isn’t in the cards. Later, in discussing why some were going to a civilian trial, and while others would be tried in military courts, Holder based his decision by referring to the outcomes…

401 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:31:24am

re: #399 Ojoe

Barbaric standards should apply to barbaric groups.

It is folly to apply civilized standards to them.

you mean that if they get life in prison, we will take away their cable TV?

402 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:32:14am

re: #401 Charpete67

If I were in charge their heads would be prominently displayed on pikes.

403 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:32:31am

re: #400 J.S.

I wondered the same thing…didn’t he open up a whole new can of appellate worms?

404 enoughalready  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:33:15am

re: #396 lawhawk

I think you may be misunderstanding. There are more ways of changing the opponents mind than negotiations. Destroy his abilities to recruit, disrupt his cash-flow, disturb his supply lines.

The problem is actually that regular warfare has the added risk of increasing the recruitment base for something like AQ. The cash-flow is hard to disrupt unless you really put the thumb screws on some of the best friends of the US in the region and the supply lines… well… in much the same way that certain countries were interested in supporting afghan rebels in their war against the USSR I have a strong feeling that there are players (not necessarily nation states but who knows) who support AQ for opportunistic reasons. Hell, if I was someone with an interest in making sure that the focus of the US was kept elsewhere then I would certainly think very hard about how I could make their life miserable as long as the risk was reasonable.

405 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:33:28am

re: #402 Ojoe

If I were in charge their heads would be prominently displayed on pikes.

you can’t do that…we have to have a trial to see if they’re guilty first…then we hang ‘em.

406 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:34:18am

re: #398 lawhawk

I can just imagine how all the attorneys defending Omar Khadr will be pouncing on Holder’s remarks, and asking why Omar Khadr will be going to a military court…(and not a civilian one).

407 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:35:01am

re: #405 Charpete67

After hanging their heads would be available.

This would slow or stop recruitment, making the enemy appear the weak horse.

I’ll stop here.

408 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:38:37am

No need to worry about acquittal…it will be just like the OJ case. We could get a second bite at the apple by suing him for wrongful death damages in a civil court. Then KSM can move to Florida where your house and 401K are protected against civil judgments. Then we can look forward to his new book called “If I planned it” and photo ops of KSM on the golf course.

409 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:39:51am

“Everybody stand - Judge Goldstone presiding…”
/sarc

410 kreyagg  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:41:33am

re: #388 Athos

This is the fundamental mistake in your position. Terrorism are acts undertaken via force using illegal combatants (as defined by international treaties which stipulate the rules of war) to effect political change. States and Stateless organizations can and do declare war - and they can and do act upon those declarations. If KSM and other AQ members prefer treatment as warriors, then they need to subscribe to and follow the rules of war as legal combatants. If they did this, even if they are not signatories of the treaties, they are subject to that level of treatment as the US is a signatory.

I get it, The P.L.O., I.R.A., and Tamil Tigers use/used terrorism as a tactic in a war to reclaim what they believe is their land. That’s inspired by a form of nationalism.

What is AQ trying to take back? Or are they striking out in some religious driven fury. I don’t see a point to what they’re doing other than scaring as many people as possible. Why isn’t it more like Organized crime. I know it’s a weak analogy but didn’t the Mafia terrorize many civilians? Where they at war with the US or just indulging in criminal acts to suit their own ends?

411 Political Atheist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:42:06am

re: #394 enoughalready

Would? Some time ago I went through the UN regulations, and their latter day modifications. This is exactly what GWB understood and Obama has to learn.

This is 100% campaign political. KSH was water-boarded dozens if not hundreds of times. If I were water-boarded by the LAPD, I could walk away from any capitol crime. Obama needs a show trial. Mostly due to the fact that Osama is still at large. So much for the lefty wingnut argument we could have gotten him anytime but did not for (insert stupid theories here) reasons.

412 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:43:16am

re: #315 CommonCents

That’s what you get when conservative writers of a story create a Democrat president character. A conservative Democrat.

I know…it’s Hollywood, but with a story line I can believe in!

413 Political Atheist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:44:11am

re: #393 Guanxi88

True, but even that is not a crime(s) for US courts to deal with. Not US law at all. It is not our courts jurisdiction to find guilt or not for international law.

414 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:46:41am

re: #410 kreyagg

What is AQ trying to take back? Or are they striking out in some religious driven fury. I don’t see a point to what they’re doing other than scaring as many people as possible. Why isn’t it more like Organized crime. I know it’s a weak analogy but didn’t the Mafia terrorize many civilians? Where they at war with the US or just indulging in criminal acts to suit their own ends?

I’m pretty sure they have already declared war on us.

As for what they want, you could start with sharia law in every middle east country including Israel…then you could pick out just about any Western country.

415 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:46:48am

re: #410 kreyagg

AQ wants the infidels out of the lands of the Ummah, and seek the establishment of a global caliphate. The Mafia wants money.

416 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:46:58am

re: #375 J.S.

Eric Holder on show trials: “When asked what the disposition of Muhammad or any of the other defendants would be were they to be acquitted, Holder said, “I would not have authorized the prosecution of these cases unless I was confident that our outcome would be a successful one.”

With all the moxie of the OJ prosecutor’s staff…nope, nothing to see here, the Govt has never been overconfident in figuring they had it all in the bag…

417 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:51:23am

re: #416 Curt

yeah. just wait till the judge throws the case out due to lack of evidence…(I wonder who the prosecutors will be..)

418 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:58:15am

I am not an expert on our legal system, but if the following is true, what is the point of a trial?

In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay — confessed to masterminding the September 11, 2001, attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.

On December 8, 2008, Mohammed and four co-defendants sent a note to the military judge expressing their desire to confess and plead guilty.

419 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:58:28am

re: #398 lawhawk

The notion of these federal trials in and of themselves isn’t the troubling part - it’s how the Administration has chosen which to proceed under tribunals and which ones go to federal court. It’s an arbitrary process. It opens the door for more lawsuits, and it makes me wonder why tribunals weren’t appropriate for all involved seeing how the court concerns over tribunal process was worked out. Justice could still be served in either venue - but the option of having it both ways is an injustice that will be exploited by those remaining detainees and opens up the possibility of acquittals of terrorists and the government being forced to continue detaining them indefinitely - or even renditioning them to third countries indefinitely.

How do you judge it as arbitrary? Were you a part of the deliberations?

Eric Holder is a competent man cleaning up the mess of the very incompetent Alberto Gonzales. I will give him the benefit of the doubt as I tend to do with competent people. I’m just tired of listening to people who treat every policy disagreement they have with someone as an outrage to get outraged about. It wears thin quick.

420 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:00:36pm

re: #408 Charpete67

No need to worry about acquittal…it will be just like the OJ case. We could get a second bite at the apple by suing him for wrongful death damages in a civil court. Then KSM can move to Florida where your house and 401K are protected against civil judgments. Then we can look forward to his new book called “If I planned it” and photo ops of KSM on the golf course.

You’re seriously worried about a bunch of new yorkers acquitting a man who’s publicly confessed to his crimes? Are you from Texas?

421 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:04:06pm

re: #143 Obdicut

When making a claim like this, it helps to cite the Geneva convention.

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

…
These guys ain’t POW’s. They’re not lawful combatants at all. As unlawful combatants, they can stand before military tribunals.

422 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:04:49pm

re: #420 dugmartsch

You’re seriously worried about a bunch of new yorkers acquitting a man who’s publicly confessed to his crimes? Are you from Texas?

Do you have to be a Texan to hold an insane view, or is that some sort of short-hand for idiot?

423 RightOnTheLeftCoast  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:07:57pm

re: #420 dugmartsch

You’re seriously worried about a bunch of new yorkers acquitting a man who’s publicly confessed to his crimes? Are you from Texas?

Perhaps not outright aquittal, but all it would take is for one jihadi sympathizer, one 9/11 troofer, or other nutbag to slip through the jury selection process to get a hung jury and a mistrial. Who knows how many rounds that could potentially take before a verdict is actually rendered, in either direction? I think the bigger risk is the possibility of dismissal of charges based on insufficient admissable evidence, since the confessions and probably anything gleaned from him in interrogations may well be thrown out because they were gotten under duress and interrogation procedures that don’t meet the criteria required for civilian courts, some evidence may not be able to be used because it would compromise intelligence sources and cause them to dry up or get people killed for being those sources. If enough evidence is thrown out, or not presented for security reasons, I could easily see a good defense lawyer (and you know they will have well-paid and competent lawyers) making motions for dismissal, if if enough evidence has been discarded, the judge may have no choice but to dismiss.

424 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:08:36pm

re: #419 dugmartsch

How do you judge it as arbitrary? Were you a part of the deliberations?

Eric Holder is a competent man cleaning up the mess of the very incompetent Alberto Gonzales. I will give him the benefit of the doubt as I tend to do with competent people. I’m just tired of listening to people who treat every policy disagreement they have with someone as an outrage to get outraged about. It wears thin quick.

What also wears thin very quickly is the constant chorus of this administration cleaning up others’ messes. Sick to friggin death of hearing about it.

425 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:11:02pm

re: #417 J.S.

yeah. just wait till the judge throws the case out due to lack of evidence…(I wonder who the prosecutors will be..)

Yep. Soldiers and CIA agents had all the CSI training in the world and managed to secure the battlefields and use pencils to collect AK-47 casings, and the weapons with fingerprints for testing of who fired the weapon…

We’re screwed legally, but I count it as lawyers looking at it all and figuring they are the highest form of intelligence in the discussion.

426 doubter4444  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:11:27pm

I just want to say, as someone who was there on the day, and close enough to see people jumping out the windows, that I am glad the trial is going to take place in NYC.
I don’t k ow the legal side of of civilian vs military trials, and I’m not arguing that aspect of it, but really
Fuck them, they can’t ever win, and can’t ever bring us down.
The fact that the city is there, bustling and stronger than ever is a great thing, IMO.
We should not cower, and the gutless remark from the Republicans pissing about the trials making NY more of a target is insulting.

427 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:11:59pm

re: #420 dugmartsch

You’re seriously worried about a bunch of new yorkers acquitting a man who’s publicly confessed to his crimes? Are you from Texas?

no, I’m seriously joking.

reading through the thread, the issue that has been raised that I agree with is all of the issues that would be raised by not only trying him here, but also by not treating them all the same. I see this as political and not something I agree with. If he is an enemy combatant, then let him rot in the POW camp until his side surrenders. If he is a war criminal, let the military deal with him. I just can’t see why we should extending him any rights given to US citizens.

I’m also worried about discovery issues with regards to methods and sources of our intelligence agencies.

I’m also worried about it becoming a circus and making us look weak to our adversaries.

I just haven’t seen a good argument for bringing him here.

428 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:12:51pm

re: #420 dugmartsch

Successful prosecution depends on what evidence is admissible. If the 9/11 report is inadmissible as prejudicial, if the admission of guilty by KSM is inadmissible, then it is left to other sources to try and pin guilt on him beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a very high bar to match, and if some amount of evidence is disallowed or can’t be presented because of the national security means used to obtain the information, it could make the prosecutor’s task even more difficult.

As to whether I think Holder is competent or not, I think he is incompetent, based on the fact that some detainees are getting a trial while others aren’t. If the tribunals are sufficient for some of the detainees, it would be sufficient for all.

429 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:13:45pm

re: #419 dugmartsch

How do you judge it as arbitrary? Were you a part of the deliberations?

Eric Holder is a competent man cleaning up the mess of the very incompetent Alberto Gonzales. I will give him the benefit of the doubt as I tend to do with competent people. I’m just tired of listening to people who treat every policy disagreement they have with someone as an outrage to get outraged about. It wears thin quick.

Let’s hold that “competent” evaluation until the end of these trials. I think you’ll find out who did it better, when the terrorists, in the neighborhood where they killed thousands, walk out free with big grins on their faces.

430 Athos  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:13:53pm

re: #410 kreyagg

I get it, The P.L.O., I.R.A., and Tamil Tigers use/used terrorism as a tactic in a war to reclaim what they believe is their land. That’s inspired by a form of nationalism.

It’s immaterial under international law what they believe…it is their actions and how those actions fit into international law that define them as illegal combatants. If the PLO, IRA, Tamil Tigers wished to be efined and treated as legal combatants on an international basis, then they needed to follow the rules of war / actions to qualify themselves as legal combatants in order to gain those protections. They did not. That is why those were classified as terrorist organizations and are only granted the rights and protections that those who fight / capture them decide to give them. In the case of the PLO and IRA - in the majority of cases they were granted protections beyond what they deserved…while many Tamil Tigers had very few protections accorded them by the government of Sri Lanka.

Just so that it is clear - it is immaterial as to their goals and intent. It is their actions which define their status. If they intend to regain / reclaim / seize land and power they believe is theirs and so so by following the international rules of war then they would be entitled to the protections as legal combatants.

What is AQ trying to take back? Or are they striking out in some religious driven fury. I don’t see a point to what they’re doing other than scaring as many people as possible. Why isn’t it more like Organized crime. I know it’s a weak analogy but didn’t the Mafia terrorize many civilians? Where they at war with the US or just indulging in criminal acts to suit their own ends?

AQ was quite clear in their formal declaration of war against the US in 1996 as to what their goals and intent are - including the establishment of a global islamic caliphate. I would suggest since you don’t see a point to what they are doing or what their aims are, that you read the declaration as well as The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright which details the creation and motives of Al Qaeda.

I agree that comparisons of the Mafia to Al Qaeda as both being criminal organizations intending on terrorizing or using force to further their gains is a weak analogy. The Mafia did not directly practice open terrorism or acts of violence against anonymous / innocent civilians in order to achieve a political end. Their acts of violence were to achieve a financial end. AQ’s motives are entirely geopolitical and their actions / tactics differ significantly from even the worse violence undertaken by the Mafia in this country.

431 samsgran1948  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:14:20pm

re: #119 MandyManners

Oh, my stars! I hadn’t thought about that.

Every Jihadi alive will be convening on NYC with the intent of intimidating the US government into releasing KSM. We’ll have splodeydopes at every possible entry point into the US blowing themselves up there if they can’t get through to the US proper.

432 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:14:27pm

re: #11 Killgore Trout

When was the last time New York actually executed a death penalty conviction?

Well, Israel hasn’t carried one out since Eichmann. Sometimes you just gotta make an exception.

433 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:16:10pm

re: #431 samsgran1948

Every Jihadi alive will be convening on NYC with the intent of intimidating the US government into releasing KSM. We’ll have splodeydopes at every possible entry point into the US blowing themselves up there if they can’t get through to the US proper.

dude…AQ would never dare attack us on our soil…

434 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:16:20pm

Can’t wait for the demand of a change of venue.

After all, won’t it be hard to find an impartial jury at ground zero?

And won’t evidence challenges be nice : “Your honor, this evidence was collected without a search warrant.”

The morass of trying terrorists as civilians with full Constitutional protections has been set in motion.

435 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:17:25pm

re: #434 karmic_inquisitor

really is staggering when you think about it…(never ever did I think I’d see this…)

436 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:19:14pm

re: #426 doubter4444


I don’t k ow the legal side of of civilian vs military trials,

You just may want to read up on that a little to see why this is a bad idea. And if you haven’t figured out that these terrorists, here, and in England and in Europe, aren’t working the system, then I guess you may have missed how these people do employ people wearing explosives laced with metal fragments and ball bearings, or cars full of propane/gasoline cans and walk/drive into the middle of a crowd, knowing they will not walk out, to deal some death

437 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:19:19pm

re: #426 doubter4444

I too was there on 9/11 - wondering if friends and family were in or around the Towers when they were hit and then later collapsed. Thankfully, no one I knew personally was killed.

I stated way above that my problem with all this is that they’re pursuing tribunals for some, and trials for others. If that’s the case, why not tribunals for all since they believe them to be soundly based on legal principle (that they’re considering them at all is prima facie evidence of same).

Trying them in NY is an appropriate venue, but it isn’t just GOPers opposed to the trials, so too is Sen. Lieberman (I-CT).

Moreover, the trial of enemy combatants such as these could be handled completely outside the legal system via the military tribunals under existing law; the Administration’s choice is a curiously political one.

438 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:22:05pm

re: #434 karmic_inquisitor

Can’t wait for the demand of a change of venue.

After all, won’t it be hard to find an impartial jury at ground zero?

And won’t evidence challenges be nice : “Your honor, this evidence was collected without a search warrant.”

The morass of trying terrorists as civilians with full Constitutional protections has been set in motion.

They’ll hold the motion on evidence until they have all of it in their hands to study…after they have extracted as much as they can in the time allowed, then they’ll toss that motion on the table.

Go figure…these people have been anything but stupid at the top levels of their organization. Now they’ve shown them selfs smarter than a bunch of smarty pants lawyers, who think there are non smarter.

439 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:22:14pm

re: #437 lawhawk


Moreover, the trial of enemy combatants such as these could be handled completely outside the legal system via the military tribunals under existing law; the Administration’s choice is a curiously political one.

Nothing curious about it - these SOB’s are laying the groundwork for others in the legal and “justice” community to go after interrogators and others, with a view to going after the previous administration for its “crimes.” In the political context, not that extraordinary at all, and certainly not unheard of.

440 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:23:26pm

there’s another aspect to all of this which I find troubling…hugely troubling…and that is, X is alleged to have thought out (or considered) a Crime Against the United States, while living in a foreign country…then X is alleged to have gotten Y,Z and Alpha to commit crimes against the United States. U.S. authorities then go out and apprehend X in a foreign country, put him into detention, then say he’s done violated U.S. laws and will be tried as a U.S. citizen…tell me that there’s not something a little crazy going on here (?) Isn’t’ this extraterritoriality gone rampant? Isn’t this extending U.S. legal “jurisdiction” world-wide? (Yah! Team America! comes to mind…)

441 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:24:14pm

re: #439 Guanxi88

Nothing curious about it - these SOB’s are laying the groundwork for others in the legal and “justice” community to go after interrogators and others, with a view to going after the previous administration for its “crimes.” In the political context, not that extraordinary at all, and certainly not unheard of.

Yeah…wait until the counter suits for civil damages come the way of the US Taxpayers, thanks to this move.

And you thought the bill from ObamaCare was too much? Wait until we have to rebuild their homelands out of our pockets.

442 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:24:24pm

re: #439 Guanxi88

Nothing curious about it - these SOB’s are laying the groundwork for others in the legal and “justice” community to go after interrogators and others, with a view to going after the previous administration for its “crimes.” In the political context, not that extraordinary at all, and certainly not unheard of.

but, still not politically favorable regardless of the underlying reasons. This will make Obama look like he has a 9/10 mentality.

443 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:24:58pm

re: #434 karmic_inquisitor

Can’t wait for the demand of a change of venue.

After all, won’t it be hard to find an impartial jury at ground zero?

And won’t evidence challenges be nice : “Your honor, this evidence was collected without a search warrant.”

The morass of trying terrorists as civilians with full Constitutional protections has been set in motion.

Oh - and there is no going back without a Constitutional amendment. Taking the next terror suspect and saying “We didn’t like the results from trying the last batch as civilians so we are going back to the ‘old way’ of military tribunals” will earn a slap from any judge (not just ‘liberal’ ones) as being highly prejudicial.

444 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:25:13pm

re: #442 Charpete67

but, still not politically favorable regardless of the underlying reasons. This will make Obama look like he has a 9/10 mentality.

Not at all. None of this will redound to damage him. He will benefit from it, though.

445 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:25:14pm

re: #404 enoughalready

By all means do all of the above (go after the money, recruitment, etc.) , but if you read early Islamic history, you’d find that even a few followers left are sufficient to restart the movement. The Wahabi movement can be traced back to the followers of Ibn Wahb who clashed with the Caliph Ali. The ensuing battle nearly wiped out the fundamentalists, but there were enough survivors to last - and the dead fundamentalists were treated as martyrs for the cause; a tradition that lasts until today.

No, you need to take out those members who are still left to plot further attacks and it is our very existence that is a raison d’etre for al Qaeda’s continued existence. That not everyone has submitted to Islam is a justification. That we are not beholden to the Islamists is a reason.

446 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:25:52pm

re: #75 Athos

I’d be aiming for San Fran.

Another coastal city, a frequent target of terrorist threats, and the intended destination of Flight 93. Yes, we’re a GREAT venue.

//WHeee!

447 borgcube  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:26:40pm

18 months from the end of WWII is all it took to both hold trials and carry out sentencing.

Why in the hell am I still even sharing the air with the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Our entire system, top to bottom, is bloated, inefficient, and broken. Nothing works right anymore it seems. Or maybe I’m just now a certified old fart.

448 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:27:20pm

re: #446 SanFranciscoZionist

Another coastal city, a frequent target of terrorist threats, and the intended destination of Flight 93. Yes, we’re a GREAT venue.

//WHeee!

Come on…can’t you take one for The WON?

You not a team player of something?

/sarc

449 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:28:08pm

re: #106 SixDegrees

It isn’t a matter of finding jury members who’ve never heard of the attacks. It’s a matter of finding members who, despite their knowledge, are capable of making a decision based solely on the evidence presented during trial and not on external factors.

I’m pretty certain that all of OJ’s jurists had prior knowledge of the case in both of his trials, for example.

I would have been a great OJ juror. I had never heard of the man prior to the case developing.

450 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:28:58pm

We ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW…

451 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:29:48pm

whether you like it or not…Lol

452 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:30:26pm

re: #444 Guanxi88

Not at all. None of this will redound to damage him. He will benefit from it, though.

I disagree…this trial will drag out with stories about evidence being thrown out and various other challenges. Even with a conviction, the “wins” and “losses” along the way will hurt politically. I can’t imagine a trial that will be more analyzed on a daily basis than this.

453 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:31:16pm

re: #450 J.S.

We ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW…

would KSM qualify for the public option?

454 samsgran1948  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:31:37pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC these individuals have no rights under the Geneva Conventions any way. Neither al Qaeda or the Taliban or the coming universal Califate are signatories to any of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions only come into play when both parties are signatories.

And if we are granting them Geneva Convention signatory stature, the vast majority of these individuals should have been shot out of hand on the battlefield for not wearing a uniform.

455 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:36:02pm

re: #449 SanFranciscoZionist

I would have been a great OJ juror. I had never heard of the man prior to the case developing.

…but did you watch the Bronco chase?

456 Bagua  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:38:08pm

re: #450 J.S.

We ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW…


That is the implication, enter the country illegally, commit crimes, serve time in prison, you get all the benefits of a citizen and eventually get to vote.

Attack America masterminding an horrendous terrorist attack, you get the full protection of the legal system, just like a citizen.

457 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:39:49pm

re: #456 Bagua

But K. Sheik Mo never, ever entered the country — never set foot in the United States (as much as I’m aware).

458 Bagua  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:45:33pm

re: #457 J.S.

I was illustrated two different examples, one how terrorists are treated and two how illegal aliens are treated, both commit crimes and yet enjoy the benefits given an American citizen.

Were does this lead?

459 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:49:07pm

re: #458 Bagua

Actually, according to a wiki article, KSM did spend time in the U.S. (but were the crimes he’s alleged to have committed done during his time in the U.S? I think not. And, as for the 4 others implicated in the 9/11 attacks, I don’t know if they were ever in the U.S.) Obviously, if you’re a resident of the United States (regardless of your citizenship) and you commit a crime while residing inthe U.S. you’ll be subject to prosecution under U.S. laws. That’s not the question I’m asking…which deals with crimes committed by individuals who don’t live or reside in the United States.

460 doubter4444  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:51:16pm

re: #437 lawhawk

I too was there on 9/11 - wondering if friends and family were in or around the Towers when they were hit and then later collapsed. Thankfully, no one I knew personally was killed.

I stated way above that my problem with all this is that they’re pursuing tribunals for some, and trials for others. If that’s the case, why not tribunals for all since they believe them to be soundly based on legal principle (that they’re considering them at all is prima facie evidence of same).

Trying them in NY is an appropriate venue, but it isn’t just GOPers opposed to the trials, so too is Sen. Lieberman (I-CT).

Moreover, the trial of enemy combatants such as these could be handled completely outside the legal system via the military tribunals under existing law; the Administration’s choice is a curiously political one.

I read your earlier post, that’s why I said I can’t get into the weeds of the decision, I’m not a lawyer and I respect your opinion on the matter.
I am surprised by the fact that not all of the suspects are being tried, as you mention.
I don’t know or understand why that’s the case, again, it’s not my field, so I don’t like to jump to conclusions, even though it’s a marquee sport in the blogging Olympics.
As for Lieberman, I read his statement and it focused on his displeasure that the suspects were to get rights that he did not think they should get, not on “It’ll make us less safe”.
What really disgusts me is the same people piously worried about the possibility of an additional threat on NYC could give a rats ass if it were attacked again, and frankly are secretly (and some pretty openly) rooting for it, as it’ll prove a political point.
I hate chickenhawks.

461 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:31pm

re: #452 Charpete67

I disagree…this trial will drag out with stories about evidence being thrown out and various other challenges. Even with a conviction, the “wins” and “losses” along the way will hurt politically. I can’t imagine a trial that will be more analyzed on a daily basis than this.

So long as the MSM is in the tank, he’ll still look good, for the editors will craft the headliners (I suspect the only part most readers read), will portray it as a winning move for The WON…like they have done for a few years now.

462 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:03:19pm

re: #460 doubter4444


What really disgusts me is the same people piously worried about the possibility of an additional threat on NYC could give a rats ass if it were attacked again, and frankly are secretly (and some pretty openly) rooting for it, as it’ll prove a political point.
I hate chickenhawks.

You know, some people actually consider the unintended consequences of actions, in advance (of a far ahead as they are able). Others like the guy standing on a ladder, in the bed of a truck, above the “Don’t stand above here” label, with a running chain saw in his hand, cutting a 300 lbs oak limb thinks nothing will happen and gives the guy nearby saying: “Dude, you might get hurt!” a really dirty look.

The chain saw guy thinks the observer is a “chicken hawk,” no?

We’re not dealing with a single low level defendant here. He’s the admitted ring leader and confessed to it all and more. Sure, he’s go no “assistance” out there. It’s the same guy who tried it in 1993. He did it in 2000 and 2001. So…go ahead, don’t be thoughtful and think people are just rying to scare you.

It really matters not if a explosion takes him out. I believe he already voiced his opinion in GTMO to go out as a martyr. If he’s handcuffed and shackled, he’ll need help, and they’ll want a few crispy infidels on the casualty list to appease their god.

I pray it doesn’t happen, I just know for at least 8 years, they have done it over, and over and over, and lately…some tried to take out your subway system. Thankfully the Feds caught that attack on NY, huh?l

463 doubter4444  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:03:51pm

re: #436 Curt

You just may want to read up on that a little to see why this is a bad idea. And if you haven’t figured out that these terrorists, here, and in England and in Europe, aren’t working the system, then I guess you may have missed how these people do employ people wearing explosives laced with metal fragments and ball bearings, or cars full of propane/gasoline cans and walk/drive into the middle of a crowd, knowing they will not walk out, to deal some death

They can do that in any city, at any time, that’s why it’s called terrorism.
And I don’t a lesson in the obvious, thanks much.
As far as “working the system”, I’ll agree, they could try to do something in the legal system with tools for lawyers, and they’ll try I’m sure.
There will always be a person who will sell out his/her country for the money, fame or whatever.
But as the mayor stated, there have been terror trials in NYC before, and I don’t think these guys are omnipotent.
As for the Civilian vs Military tribunals, I don’t have the background to evaluate the decision, I’ll leave it the others, but I do know the whole thing is fucked up, and that the ground work for the mess was laid poorly, and never fixed.
Since you seem to know a lot about it, I’d look at some links from real sources (ie independent agencies, reputable law blogs, and the like) if you have them. No snark intended. (well, a little maybe, but I will read through them, and it is a subject I think important.

464 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:14:48pm

re: #457 J.S.

But K. Sheik Mo never, ever entered the country — never set foot in the United States (as much as I’m aware).

Noriega never came here voluntarily either, and his crimes were not committed on American soil. Yet we tried him in Federal Court, and convicted him.

465 Curt  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:24:09pm

re: #463 doubter4444

Run back through Lawhawk’s comments.

Yes, I do know a little about it, having done some research, as well as having a career where I was living under the Geneva conventions. On top of that, I’ve done some reading along the way to supplement it, as well as a a degree in international relations.

Part of the issue for the attack is the probability for a radical “convergence.” Look what happened when someone said (as it turned out not to be true) that US troops had desecrated Korans? Look at the large number of suicide bombings around the world, and almost always in “soft” (read a bunch of unarmed civilians) targets. even if it’s one person who decides to “enlist” in their “army,” we just saw the results of that last week. Part of decentralized command and control is stuff like that can go off the strategic plan and mess things up…but still do some killing.

The other part is we jump from a regime of international law regarding the law of armed combat, to US Constitutional law, which was never designed to handle combatant type issues, across one’s national boundaries.

And once you go there, then you have the ever dangerous establishment of “precedent,” which drives law, in and out of those arenas.

If once you decide to put them into the criminal system, having been “illegal combatants” under the Geneva Conventions (which…AQ never signed, so the fact we play by them is a bonus, since we only are required to reciprocate), then every single person we face in a combat role, for what ever reason, has standing to ask for their Constitutional Rights, which, as written,. are for US Citizens. The precedent of applying them to those who commit real crimes (not war) with our nation, has been because we are compassionate. So, the lawyers who think war is a one big crime, need to play it by the conventions nations have for hundreds of years, not decide our laws trump international treaties and agreements. Sounds damn arrogant of the administration, doesn’t it?

Complicated issue…and this complicates it for those reasons even more. Study..learn…it worth your time and the nation’s gain of anther well read voter.

466 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:32:34pm

re: #422 Guanxi88

Do you have to be a Texan to hold an insane view, or is that some sort of short-hand for idiot?

No. It’s a question as to whether you might not understand that people in new york are pissed, and the last thing that KSM is going to get is a walk.

467 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:40:32pm

re: #464 sagehen

but that, again, was based on an actual invasion of Panama by U.S. forces.

468 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:48:39pm

re: #428 lawhawk

Successful prosecution depends on what evidence is admissible. If the 9/11 report is inadmissible as prejudicial, if the admission of guilty by KSM is inadmissible, then it is left to other sources to try and pin guilt on him beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a very high bar to match, and if some amount of evidence is disallowed or can’t be presented because of the national security means used to obtain the information, it could make the prosecutor’s task even more difficult.

As to whether I think Holder is competent or not, I think he is incompetent, based on the fact that some detainees are getting a trial while others aren’t. If the tribunals are sufficient for some of the detainees, it would be sufficient for all.

How can you possibly say that? Have you studied the case files of each of the individual detainees? That’s a thin reed to put so much weight on. Even if the decision were wrong, wouldn’t you want some more evidence before you decided someone was incompetent? I mean i realize he’s just some democrat so, no worries right? Incompetent until proven competent beyond a reasonable doubt. He’s a smart guy in a tough spot. Cleaning up the messes other people leave behing is never easy or fun, and this is like cleaning up Chernobyl while everyone thinks you’re working at disneyland.

He’s trying the people still alive and in US custody most directly responsible for 9/11 in NYC. They killed targeted and killed only civilians. They are being tried in a court comprised of those they targeted. Good. I want their deeds laid bare. Their confessions are public and un-recanted. They will be put to death for their crimes, if they make it to trial. Federal Marshalls will have their work cut out for them.

469 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:55:17pm

re: #467 J.S.

Yes, an invasion whose primary purpose was to arrest Noriega and bring him to the US for trial.

Don’t you remember, before we invaded Afghanistan, Bush stood up in public and said to the Taliban, “give us Bin Laden or else we’re coming in.” They said no, so we went in. The original declared reason for that invasion was to go get the people who’d conspired to commit mass murder on our soil, to bring them back here.

Noriega is an excellent parallel.

470 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:56:23pm

there are five to be tried in NY City in civilian courts ..Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Waleed bin Attash, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ramzi Binalshibh.
Here’s the wiki article for the first one (never set foot in the U.S.)

471 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:59:36pm

re: #469 sagehen

Omar Khadr was captured in Afghanistan…on the battlefield…(he’s alleged to have killed a U.S. medic, etc.). He’s to be tried in a military court. Meanwhile, an Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali is to be tried in a civilian court in the U.S. Why?

472 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:43:09pm

re: #471 J.S.

I don’t know the details of the cases, I’m only really familiar with the ones who’ve received the most media attention. But I’m sure there’s some reason to do with what specifically they’re charged with doing. The 9/11 and embassy bombing charges are less military than the charges about stuff done to soldiers in an active war zone.

473 coscolo  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:56:35pm

re: #373 charlz

And what was the result of those visits?

The nerve of that pesky Supreme Court upholding those dratted civil libertarians!

IIRC, it was over how to conduct the military tribunals. First time around, Supreme Court said procedure wasn’t satisfactory. Administration and Congress tweaked the procedure, not a quick process, and satisfied the SC’s requirements. The whole thing seems like the defendant whose defense uses every delaying tactic available, then asks for dismissal of the charges for lack of a “speedy trial.” It’s bogus for anyone who supported the appeals to wonder why the trials are just getting started.
(I know, I know, dead thread, but Charlz asked.)

474 Frogmarch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:37:39pm

This civilian trial will be an lefty lawyer field day.


Let’s take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs’ execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can’t help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s case against America. Since that will be their “defense,” the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America’s defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

corner.nationalreview.com

475 exelwood  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:43:49pm

re: #381 dugmartsch

Terror is a tactic. Long term it cannot be fought directly. The only way to fight terror in the long term is to change your enemy’s mind, unless you’re advocating some kind of final solution, solution.

If you think bombs and guns are the only way to change a person’s mind, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Of course it can be fought directly, we did it in Iraq for years. We refined a program of on the ground intelligence and pinpoint bomb hits that took out dozens of al quaida leaders. We begin to win when the leadership begins to fear their personal safety is at risk. That’s when minds begin to change.

Terrorists have to know in their cowardly souls that we are working every day to kill them in ways they can’t even comprehend. Do you think any terrorist are feeling that way lately?

476 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:04:15pm

Reaction to Holder’s decision seems to be running distinctly on the negative side from all quarters.

477 Cato the Elder  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:15:01pm

re: #147 exelwood

The way you win wars is to kill people until they stop trying to kill you.

Apparently the concept of asymmetrical warfare totally escapes your grasp.

478 FrogMarch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:22:09pm

re: #476 SixDegrees

Reaction to Holder’s decision seems to be running distinctly on the negative side from all quarters.

The media are playing cover-up. Rudy Giulliani has come out strongly against Obama/Holder civilian trial in NY. However, in a deceptive move, I just heard the media say that Rudy said that NY city is a safe place to have a trial. *duh* The media just left out Rudy’s disagreement of the issue and focused only on the one thing that they could use. Typical.

479 Right Brain  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:28:13pm

This is an utter and absolute disgrace, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a war criminal who was caught on the field of battle in a foreign land. The US Attorney’s office has no jurisdiction to presume him innocent and “try” him in Federal court for domestic charges.

What will they do if he is found innocent or gets a hung jury? Turn him loose? Allow him to introduce specious evidence of his interrogation? Don’t forget this is a city that acquitted Larry Davis after he shot at nine police officers and wounded seven of them.

en.wikipedia.org

This is dopey Obama at his worst, he does not understand that the Western world is at war with fundamental Islam and believes it to be a criminal justice problem, like Clinton did.

Can one imagine President Truman bringing Josef Mengele to NYC for a trial and presuming him to innocent until the evidence shall refute his presumption of innocence?

An utter and absolute disgrace.

480 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:38:50pm

re: #479 Right BrainCan one imagine President Truman bringing Josef Mengele to NYC for a trial and presuming him to innocent until the evidence shall refute his presumption of innocence?

Mengele’s trial was in the same country where his crimes took place. Where the victims, witnesses and physical evidence were all located.

I sure as hell can’t imagine President Truman saying “no need for a trial.”

481 Bagua  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 5:03:01pm

re: #459 J.S.

Actually, according to a wiki article, KSM did spend time in the U.S. (but were the crimes he’s alleged to have committed done during his time in the U.S? I think not. And, as for the 4 others implicated in the 9/11 attacks, I don’t know if they were ever in the U.S.) Obviously, if you’re a resident of the United States (regardless of your citizenship) and you commit a crime while residing inthe U.S. you’ll be subject to prosecution under U.S. laws. That’s not the question I’m asking…which deals with crimes committed by individuals who don’t live or reside in the United States.

You miss my point, I saying that one doesn’t even need to set foot in the US, or even be a citizen to now enjoy the full protections and rights afforded to US citizens. Thus…

Everyone is an American now in terms of rights and protections, even foreign terrorists who attack America.

Of course US Special Forces will now have to read their rights to illegal combatants captured in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and provide them with a free lawyer if they can not afford one.

482 exelwood  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 6:16:01pm

re: #477 Cato the Elder

Apparently the concept of asymmetrical warfare totally escapes your grasp.

LOL, actually it’s the result of asymmetrical warfare. :)

483 mph  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:13:05pm

I guess the War on Terrorism is over.

484 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 7:56:39am

Which is why “killing people until they stop trying to kill you” doesn’t work here. It’s not the German army and nation we’re fighting, but an underground network, decentralized, scattered, incognito, invisible. Bombing the shit out of some town or other, or a whole series of towns in succession, will not stop al Qaeda.

485 exelwood  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 8:21:05am

re: #484 Cato the Elder

Which is why “killing people until they stop trying to kill you” doesn’t work here. It’s not the German army and nation we’re fighting, but an underground network, decentralized, scattered, incognito, invisible. Bombing the shit out of some town or other, or a whole series of towns in succession, will not stop al Qaeda.

Of course it works (see 475). Why do you so fear a rag tag bunch of 7th century retards? Terrorism is a cowardly act perpetrated by bullies. Bullies are cowards who only bully when they feel safe to do so. As in Iraq, when the the leaders no longer feel safe they quit trying to kill us.

Are you suggesting we throw our hands up and cower under our beds until Achmed shows up to relieve us of our heads? You’re quick to say what won’t work, what will? More of Obama prostrating himself before the world?

486 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 8:58:33am

re: #485 exelwood

Of course it works (see 475). Why do you so fear a rag tag bunch of 7th century retards? Terrorism is a cowardly act perpetrated by bullies. Bullies are cowards who only bully when they feel safe to do so. As in Iraq, when the the leaders no longer feel safe they quit trying to kill us.

Are you suggesting we throw our hands up and cower under our beds until Achmed shows up to relieve us of our heads? You’re quick to say what won’t work, what will? More of Obama prostrating himself before the world?

I’m suggesting that killing terrorists actually is a police action more than a war, whether the “police” are Special Forces, Navy SEALs, or CIA hit squads. I’m stating as fact the fact that sticking around in Afghanistan hoping that al Qaeda will come out with hands held high and white flag waving is a deadly illusion and a waste of lives and treasure.

I don’t fear al Qaeda. I hate and detest the inept “War on Terror” (how do you make war upon a noun?) the way it’s been fought up till now. Our successes, and there have been many, have been local and precise, not global and full of shock and awe. We have driven al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Pakistan (insofar as they are localized at all, which is to a very small extent) and now hang around wondering what to do with an unconquerable territory full of people who hate us just for being foreigners in their land. A “surge” like the one in Iraq will accomplish precisely nothing except to prolong the agony. And we can’t march into Pakistan for reasons that should be obvious.

Therefore, I’m for criminalization of terrorism and police action as opposed to endless, futile, conventional warfare. This is not a war in any standard sense of the term.

As for Obama “prostrating himself before the world” - words fail me. You, sir, are an ass.

487 exelwood  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 10:14:17am

re: #486 Cato the Elder

I’m suggesting that killing terrorists actually is a police action more than a war, whether the “police” are Special Forces, Navy SEALs, or CIA hit squads. I’m stating as fact the fact that sticking around in Afghanistan hoping that al Qaeda will come out with hands held high and white flag waving is a deadly illusion and a waste of lives and treasure.

I don’t fear al Qaeda. I hate and detest the inept “War on Terror” (how do you make war upon a noun?) the way it’s been fought up till now. Our successes, and there have been many, have been local and precise, not global and full of shock and awe. We have driven al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Pakistan (insofar as they are localized at all, which is to a very small extent) and now hang around wondering what to do with an unconquerable territory full of people who hate us just for being foreigners in their land. A “surge” like the one in Iraq will accomplish precisely nothing except to prolong the agony. And we can’t march into Pakistan for reasons that should be obvious.

Therefore, I’m for criminalization of terrorism and police action as opposed to endless, futile, conventional warfare. This is not a war in any standard sense of the term.

As for Obama “prostrating himself before the world” - words fail me. You, sir, are an ass.

LOL, I commend you for restraining yourself until the third exchange to begin the personal attacks. I’ve found most of your brethren to be far less reticent. :)

On to substance, basically you want to fight the war with semantics. For the left, calling it a police action allows an entire new set of rules to be put in place. The biggest advantage for the left is it removes the responsibility of having to respond to terror. It becomes the responsibility of the “police” whoever that might be. The governing left can no longer be held responsible for the death, carnage and destruction because the “police” are handling it.

The most delicious part (for the left) is by making the courts and police responsible they are then able to join everyone else in the clucking and head shaking when it goes terribly wrong. The left will be shocked! Shocked! :)

Throughout your posts there is that peculiarly leftist concept that terrorists are a formidable foe who are shadowy and unbeatable and almost mystical in their strength when in reality they are for the most part uneducated thugs who thrive on your fear and retreat from things that kill them.

This whole thing isn’t nearly as complicated as you would like to believe. :)

488 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:11:32am

I don’t know who you conceive to be my “brethren”, but I assure you my thoughts on this and every other matter are the result of my own poor brain working on the evidence and not the talking-points of some party line or other. As for my being a leftist, you’ll be happy to know that all the leftists in my circle of friends would vehemently disavow me as such. I’ll leave it to you to classify me as you see fit.

No, I do not want to fight the war with semantics, but rather with intelligence (in the two most obvious senses of the word). I’m perfectly fine with drones and bombardments and ground engagements and secret raids. Because, you see, the foe is shadowy. Not unbeatable, nor of mythical strength. But al Qaeda has long since gone virtual, and their bases are all belong to them. Wherever they are. If we haven’t been able to eradicate them from their hidey-holes in Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) in eight years of war, do you really see conventional warfare accomplishing that tomorrow? We could carpet-bomb the Northwest Provinces of Pakistan and still not get ‘em.

By “police action” I don’t mean any silly notion of sending in Fearless Fosdick and Dudley Dooright. I mean targeted military action based on intelligence, which we have woefully neglected while tossing trillions out the window for Iraq. We still don’t have enough trained linguists to deal with the intercepts picked up moment-by-moment at NSA. Heck, we can’t even be moved to nip a psycho army doctor terrorist in the bud, not when he was right under our noses.

I agree that the best way to fight terrorists (not the concept of “terror”, but the perpetrators of it) is to kill them. To do that you have to find them. Wandering around the Afghan countryside hoping to stumble on one is not the way.

As to Iraq, I’m glad we went in for one reason and one reason only: realpolitik. It gives us a nifty forward base for any future operations in the region. Whatever the timetable for the “drawdown”, our bases will be there forever, just like in Germany and Japan. Any notion that we did it to bring democracy to the suffering people of that nation is mere eyewash; we gave not a green fig for their suffering while we were happily in bed with Saddam for all those years before he went rogue in Kuwait, and we only pretended to care between the end of Desert Storm and the shock-and-awe of 2003. We’re there for good reason, and we’ll stay forever, but let’s not pretend it was out of the goodness of our hearts.

It might benefit the discussion if you would actually answer one or two of my points, rather than repeating empty slogans. Your call.

489 exelwood  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:26:47am

re: #488 Cato the Elder

I don’t know who you conceive to be my “brethren”, but I assure you my thoughts on this and every other matter are the result of my own poor brain working on the evidence and not the talking-points of some party line or other. As for my being a leftist, you’ll be happy to know that all the leftists in my circle of friends would vehemently disavow me as such. I’ll leave it to you to classify me as you see fit.

No, I do not want to fight the war with semantics, but rather with intelligence (in the two most obvious senses of the word). I’m perfectly fine with drones and bombardments and ground engagements and secret raids. Because, you see, the foe is shadowy. Not unbeatable, nor of mythical strength. But al Qaeda has long since gone virtual, and their bases are all belong to them. Wherever they are. If we haven’t been able to eradicate them from their hidey-holes in Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) in eight years of war, do you really see conventional warfare accomplishing that tomorrow? We could carpet-bomb the Northwest Provinces of Pakistan and still not get ‘em.

By “police action” I don’t mean any silly notion of sending in Fearless Fosdick and Dudley Dooright. I mean targeted military action based on intelligence, which we have woefully neglected while tossing trillions out the window for Iraq. We still don’t have enough trained linguists to deal with the intercepts picked up moment-by-moment at NSA. Heck, we can’t even be moved to nip a psycho army doctor terrorist in the bud, not when he was right under our noses.

I agree that the best way to fight terrorists (not the concept of “terror”, but the perpetrators of it) is to kill them. To do that you have to find them. Wandering around the Afghan countryside hoping to stumble on one is not the way.

As to Iraq, I’m glad we went in for one reason and one reason only: realpolitik. It gives us a nifty forward base for any future operations in the region. Whatever the timetable for the “drawdown”, our bases will be there forever, just like in Germany and Japan. Any notion that we did it to bring democracy to the suffering people of that nation is mere eyewash; we gave not a green fig for their suffering while we were happily in bed with Saddam for all those years before he went rogue in Kuwait, and we only pretended to care between the end of Desert Storm and the shock-and-awe of 2003. We’re there for good reason, and we’ll stay forever, but let’s not pretend it was out of the goodness of our hearts.

It might benefit the discussion if you would actually answer one or two of my points, rather than repeating empty slogans. Your call.

I thought I had covered your liberal talking points quite well…

Iraq war bad…check

Criminalize terror good…check

Terrorist bad scary…check

Talk good, action bad…check

What leftwing natterings did I not touch on? :)

490 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 11:39:25am

re: #488 Cato the Elder

while tossing trillions out the window for Iraq.

I have seen figures for both Iraq and Afghanistan in the one trillion neighborhood.

491 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:13:22pm

re: #489 exelwood

I thought I had covered your liberal talking points quite well…

Iraq war bad…check

Criminalize terror good…check

Terrorist bad scary…check

Talk good, action bad…check

What leftwing natterings did I not touch on? :)

Iraq war bad…check [except I didn’t say that]

Criminalize terror good…check [what, you think it should be legal?]

Terrorist bad scary…check [they’re not?]

Talk good, action bad…check [except I most certainly didn’t say that either]

Since your reading comprehension level is obviously not up to the mark, let’s consider this discussion closed, shall we?

492 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:14:19pm

re: #490 solomonpanting

I have seen figures for both Iraq and Afghanistan in the one trillion neighborhood.

And counting. It will certainly be in the plural soon enough.

493 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:19:16pm

re: #492 Cato the Elder

And counting. It will certainly be in the plural soon enough.

As will many things, but that’s in the future.

494 Cato the Elder  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:27:15pm

re: #493 solomonpanting

As will many things, but that’s in the future.

OK, I stand corrected. Anything to add to the debate between me and whatsizname?

495 solomonpanting  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 12:28:16pm

re: #494 Cato the Elder


Not at the moment. Perhaps in the future.

496 exelwood  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:33:26pm

re: #491 Cato the Elder

Iraq war bad…check [except I didn’t say that]

Criminalize terror good…check [what, you think it should be legal?]

Terrorist bad scary…check [they’re not?]

Talk good, action bad…check [except I most certainly didn’t say that either]

Since your reading comprehension level is obviously not up to the mark, let’s consider this discussion closed, shall we?

Ah, running out of steam eh? Although, I can certainly understand your desire to end the conversation as would anyone reading this exchange. :)

497 former_secret_agent  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 3:11:16pm

This will not end well. Just my prediction.

498 grandma  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 8:10:18pm

So we’re gonna have a circus. Great….bring it on. Those of us who were so close to NYC on 9/11 can hardly wait. Let’s bring all the accused to Lower Manhattan the same way we bring all the other accused to Rikers Island. Put them on a bus with ordinary security. No expensive NYC security, no US Marshals. Put them in the general population; let them figure out how to get their prayer rugs the same way the other accused that can’t make bail get their drugs. Allow them the American freedom to eat prison food, wear orange jumpsuits and deal with their new friends. Regardless of the outcome, I hope American justice will be served. If they are proven guilty, “hang ‘em high”. If not, let them walk unattended, outside of the CourtHouse in Lower Manhattan and see what happens. Maybe, just maybe, the rest of our “compassionate” human rights lovers will learn that there are some folks among us that should not be protected by the same laws of fairness that they would never extend to the rest of us.

499 jayzee  Sun, Nov 15, 2009 5:49:58pm

May we assume that this administration would have also been against the Nuremberg trials, favoring instead trying the Nazis in Federal court in NY?

Sorry but this is a fucking abomination (no pun intended-sincerely). Why are we giving constitutional rights to these pieces of shit and giving them a soap box?

500 jayzee  Sun, Nov 15, 2009 5:54:26pm

re: #426 doubter4444

I just want to say, as someone who was there on the day, and close enough to see people jumping out the windows, that I am glad the trial is going to take place in NYC.
I don’t k ow the legal side of of civilian vs military trials, and I’m not arguing that aspect of it, but really
Fuck them, they can’t ever win, and can’t ever bring us down.
The fact that the city is there, bustling and stronger than ever is a great thing, IMO.
We should not cower, and the gutless remark from the Republicans pissing about the trials making NY more of a target is insulting.

Downtown will be on lock down while the circus is in town which can be many years. I am a Republican, I saw what you did, and am offended, quite frankly by your snarky anti republican statements. NY is a target, this will have little to do with it, BUT the fact these fucking swine don’t have constitutional rights, that they committed a crime against humanity, and an act of war, precludes them being tried in fed court. Try them in gitmo. Keep our top secret stuff top secret and be done with it.

501 ed_gibbon  Mon, Nov 16, 2009 11:42:23am

re: #11 Killgore Trout

I believe the answer is ZERO (‘76 - now). But, that is the state of New York, while this is the Federal Government. I think the last execution by the feds was Mcveigh June 11, 2001.

502 MPH  Mon, Nov 16, 2009 6:30:43pm

re: #483 mph

I guess the War on Terrorism is over.

John Yoo agrees:
online.wsj.com

Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the “blind Sheikh”), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 119 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 280 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1