Holder Defends 9/11 Trial Decision

US NewsNovember 2009 • Views: 2,972

At a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder defended his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 suspects in civilian court in New York.

Holder said he knows “we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. … Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.”

Dozens of family members of 9/11 victims recently signed a letter to Holder and President Obama opposing a civilian trial for the alleged plotters.

They said it would give the men a well-publicized platform to espouse their views, in a trial to be held just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers crumbled when the hijacked planes crashed into them.

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions,” Holder said Wednesday.

“Before (his military) commissions last year, he declared the proceedings an ‘inquisition,’ condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media, yet few complained at the time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy,” Holder said.

Holder said he was confident his decision “will withstand the judgment of history.”

Jump to bottom

855 comments

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 9:57:07am

he didn't decide alone...

Sergeant Major Wed, Nov 18, 2009 9:57:47am

Terrible decision period

Vicious Babushka Wed, Nov 18, 2009 9:59:31am

This is going to be the show trial of the century. Khalid will probably try to make a jackass of himself, like Bobby Seale did during the Chicago riots trial, and they will have to wheel him into the courtroom in full Hannibal Lechter apparatus.

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:00:33am

Good!

reminder: 145 successful federal prosecutions of terrorists have taken place.

Here is Rudy on the trials for the 93 bombing:

-– “‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he [Giuliani] said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-– “[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. … Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-– “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead,” said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:00:47am

re: #3 Alouette

This is going to be the show trial of the century. Khalid will probably try to make a jackass of himself, like Bobby Seale did during the Chicago riots trial, and they will have to wheel him into the courtroom in full Hannibal Lechter apparatus.

it's how he exits the courtroom that worries me.

Haole Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:00:49am

This admin. is at war with strawmen.

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:01:51am

re: #6 Haole

This admin. is at war with strawmen.

And getting its ass whipped.

Killgore Trout Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:01:57am

Holder said he was confident his decision “will withstand the judgment of history.”

I wish him luck.

brent Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:02:03am

He made a very disturbing comment to the effect of "well, we're only putting the cases we will win in court". It was basically an admission of the obvious, that these trials are for show.
At some point they'll lose one, and then they'll have to show the truth - they are obligated to re-arrest these guys on the spot and try again. It's going to be a farce, one in which we'll look weak and stupid.

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:02:46am

re: #7 Guanxi88

And getting its ass whipped.

our ass whipped...

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:02:56am

It was a political decision pure and simple. And Holder's law firm played a role in delaying the operation military tribunals and have represented a bunch of the Gitmo detainees. Some of those lawyers at Covington and Burling are now at the DOJ advising on these very matters.

Andy McCarthy dissects Holder's testimony, and shows the Administration's efforts to hold a trial are dubious and worrisome.

So, if we're at war with these terrorists and a military tribunal was set up by Congress with the President's approval, why take these detainees out of military hands to put them into civilian courts? The military courts are better prepared to deal with national security matters, and in civilian courts, the detainees can act as their own attorneys and demand and gain access to sensitive information, which includes lists of unindicted coconspirators and others who might later become targets or result in shifting of assets with the assistance of others (such as the case of Lynne Stewart aiding and abetting Abdel Rahman contact his minions overseas in violation of federal law and agreements with prosecutors).

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:03:03am

I don't see where he explains his decision, that's what I'm interested in...I want to know why he chooses NYC rather than Gitmo

Baier Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:03:05am

re: #6 Haole

This admin. is at war with strawmen.

When the Republicans aren't obliging enough to stand in, which is far too often.

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:03:11am

From a discussion last night concerning discovery, Jaunte and Gus 802 found these relevant points:

Demands for production

Expert witnesses

Information Not Subject to Disclosure

More on witnesses

§ 3500. Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses

(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, no statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) shall be the subject of subpena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.

(b) After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. If the entire contents of any such statement relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.

NJDhockeyfan Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:03:14am

This is the man who is going to prosecute the terrorists...

Justice Delayed

Holder’s friends in the al-Qaeda bar caused the trial delays he now criticizes.

Of all the infuriating aspects of the decision to transfer five 9/11 war criminals to civilian federal court, the one that grates most is the contention that the Obama administration is finally moving forward after “eight years of delay” — as Attorney General Eric Holder put it at his Friday press conference — during which the Bush administration managed to complete only three military-commission trials.

This is chutzpah writ large. The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.)

Yes, Holder's law firm volunteered to defend 18 terrorists against America.

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:03:15am

re: #3 Alouette

This is going to be the show trial of the century. Khalid will probably try to make a jackass of himself, like Bobby Seale did during the Chicago riots trial, and they will have to wheel him into the courtroom in full Hannibal Lechter apparatus.

Now, I'd pay good money to see that.

Baier Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:03:47am

re: #12 albusteve

I don't see where he explains his decision, that's what I'm interested in...I want to know why he chooses NYC rather than Gitmo

Why NY over any other city with a federal court for that matter?

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:04:31am

re: #11 lawhawk

It was a political decision pure and simple. And Holder's law firm played a role in delaying the operation military tribunals and have represented a bunch of the Gitmo detainees. Some of those lawyers at Covington and Burling are now at the DOJ advising on these very matters.

Andy McCarthy dissects Holder's testimony, and shows the Administration's efforts to hold a trial are dubious and worrisome.

So, if we're at war with these terrorists and a military tribunal was set up by Congress with the President's approval, why take these detainees out of military hands to put them into civilian courts? The military courts are better prepared to deal with national security matters, and in civilian courts, the detainees can act as their own attorneys and demand and gain access to sensitive information, which includes lists of unindicted coconspirators and others who might later become targets or result in shifting of assets with the assistance of others (such as the case of Lynne Stewart aiding and abetting Abdel Rahman contact his minions overseas in violation of federal law and agreements with prosecutors).

Don't forget Robert Bauer's firm, Perkins Coie and their reprsentation of Bin Laden's bodyguard/limo driver.

Only The Lurker Knows Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:04:32am

re: #3 Alouette

Doubt that. If he starts to get out of hand, they will probably put him in another room with a A/V feed so that they can cut him off when/if he starts to spout out.

Do agree with you that it is going to be a show trial though.

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:04:50am

re: #4 iceweasel

And as I pointed out on the dead thread, the 1994 convictions were the result of arrests made here in the US, and glosses over the serious problems with those prosecutions, not the least of which was the release of lists of unindicted coconspirators that allowed al Qaeda to get a good look into our national security apparatus and avoid mistakes that led to the arrest and capture of the 1993 terrorists.

Arrests by law enforcement is different than terrorists captured overseas by our military and held in military custody.

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:05:03am

why put the citizens of NYC at risk?...just because NYC is equipped to deal with it?...what if they don't

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:05:26am

re: #9 brent

He made a very disturbing comment to the effect of "well, we're only putting the cases we will win in court". It was basically an admission of the obvious, that these trials are for show.
At some point they'll lose one

No, they're instituting the tiered system for that very reason-- we're only having criminal trials in those cases where the evidence is strong enough to allow it. In others we're having military tribunals, and up to 75 people are going to be held indefinitely without trial or charge because it's impossible to convict them even under the different standards of a military tribunal.
Huge clusterfuck, basically. We won't lose any of the criminal trials, but that is hardly a good thing.

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:06:45am

re: #22 iceweasel

We won't lose any of the criminal trials, but that is hardly a good thing.

By which I mean the reason is hardly a good thing.

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:06:56am

re: #17 Baier

Of all the jurisdictions in the US, the SDNY is the best venue because it has dealt with the most terror prosecutions. The SDNY has the most institutional experience with the trials and the issues involved when dealing with domestic terror law enforcement operations.

That said, dealing with KSM and other terrorists captured overseas is a different creature altogether and the Administration has already admitted that military tribunals are acceptable for some detainees; it should be the proper venue for all.

brent Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:07:05am

How many of the previous terrorism trials did not involve the FBI and normal law enforcement procedures? I want to know what happens when people like KSM, caught abroad and interrogated outside our borders start hitting the court system.
I don't believe that's happened yet - any good examples where it has?

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:07:08am

re: #17 Baier

Why NY over any other city with a federal court for that matter?

A good question. Symbolism aside, (which as a New Yorker, I fully support BTW) is there in fact a particular necessity in choosing the Southern District of New York for the KSM+4 trials?

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:07:22am

re: #4 iceweasel

Good!

reminder: 145 successful federal prosecutions of terrorists have taken place.

Here is Rudy on the trials for the 93 bombing:

You have a good point... so does Rudy... it's a real conflicted situation, isn't it? Up ding for your clever point... but Rudy's statement doesn't change what is really happening, does it?

Obama is sucking up to the far left world community. He cares nothing of our personal battle, it has everything to do with his global image.

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:07:42am

re: #20 lawhawk

I disagree with you on this, obviously. Have to go to the shops and do domestic things, but look forward to discussing it later--

Baier Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:08:21am

re: #21 albusteve

why put the citizens of NYC at risk?...just because NYC is equipped to deal with it?...what if they don't

I'm one of those people blocks from ground zero. I posted on here yesterday the FDNY paid our office building a visit to tell us what to do in case of biological attacks, bombings, etc. The fireman explicitly said that because of the trial we need to be extra careful. We were told to bring a bag with clothes, water, food, etc to work in case we are quarantined or otherwise locked in for an extended period of time. great.

McSpiff Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:09:04am

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

Check out the daily show from last night if you want to see how conflicted Rudy has become over the years.

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:09:06am

re: #26 Surabaya Stew

SDNY is also the location where the largest of the terror attacks occurred; Ground Zero, so it would have jurisdiction on that ground alone. Since KSM and the others are being tried in connection with the terror attacks, SDNY would be a proper venue.

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:09:40am

re: #26 Surabaya Stew

A good question. Symbolism aside, (which as a New Yorker, I fully support BTW) is there in fact a particular necessity in choosing the Southern District of New York for the KSM+4 trials?

Neither Holder or BO have explained why these trials will be held in NYC...lots of dodging and blather about other stuff, but no explanation...I want to hear it from them...the citizens of NYC are at risk of violence...explain that

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:10:31am

re: #31 lawhawk

SDNY is also the location where the largest of the terror attacks occurred; Ground Zero, so it would have jurisdiction on that ground alone. Since KSM and the others are being tried in connection with the terror attacks, SDNY would be a proper venue.

Thanks, Lawhawk!

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:10:49am

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

You have a good point... so does Rudy... it's a real conflicted situation, isn't it? Up ding for your clever point... but Rudy's statement doesn't change what is really happening, does it?

Obama is sucking up to the far left world community. He cares nothing of our personal battle, it has everything to do with his global image.

exactly...all that is irrelevant now...more leftist blather, no straight talk

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11:09am

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

Obama is sucking up to the far left world community. He cares nothing of our personal battle, it has everything to do with his global image.

Bollocks. You can hardly say he is sucking up to the far left even domestically, when the civil libertarians are disgusted with the tiered justice system and will go apeshit over the 75 or so being moved and held indefintely, creating a neo-Gitmo at Bagram or somewhere-- and where do you get the idea that he 'cares nothing of our personal battle'? That doesn't sound like you.

BBL, sorry-- shopping!

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11:22am

re: #29 Baier

I'm one of those people blocks from ground zero. I posted on here yesterday the FDNY paid our office building a visit to tell us what to do in case of biological attacks, bombings, etc. The fireman explicitly said that because of the trial we need to be extra careful. We were told to bring a bag with clothes, water, food, etc to work in case we are quarantined or otherwise locked in for an extended period of time. great.

I wonder how long the jury if they can seat one will be quarantined?

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11:36am

re: #20 lawhawk

And as I pointed out on the dead thread, the 1994 convictions were the result of arrests made here in the US, and glosses over the serious problems with those prosecutions, not the least of which was the release of lists of unindicted coconspirators that allowed al Qaeda to get a good look into our national security apparatus and avoid mistakes that led to the arrest and capture of the 1993 terrorists.

Arrests by law enforcement is different than terrorists captured overseas by our military and held in military custody.

Exactly right, lawhawk, and as Gus and Jaunte discovered last night, al-qaeda would again get a look into the intelligence apparatus. This is going to to have consequences that the Obama administration doesn't seem to be considering.

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11:43am

re: #3 Alouette

hmm...Consider the audience...who will be the most attentive audience? Will it be Americans? heh, I think not. The most attentive will be those living elsewhere. These will be the most eager consumers of this farce. And, what will they be most eagerly listening to? I don't think it will be the wacko-ramblings of a semi-lunatic such as a KSM...Oh no...They will be listening to the defense attorneys...these will be the people who will be listened to...as they (i suspect) conduct a political war against the United States, and advance the "cause" of the Jihadi terrorists. (this will be what al-Jazeerah, BBC, etc., will be reporting on...And, they and their fellow travelers, will advance "the cause.")

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11:43am

AS A CANDIDATE for president in 2004, Senator John Kerry described international terrorism as “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation,’’ and urged voters to think of deadly jihadist violence as merely “a nuisance’’ that we need “to reduce’’ - akin, he said, to gambling or prostitution.

Kerry lost that election, and the Bush administration’s very different approach - treating terrorist attacks as acts of war, not criminal violations - continued for four more years. Pre-empting terror in advance, not prosecuting it after the fact, remained the overriding priority. Counterterrorism efforts under George W. Bush were aggressive and they drew much criticism. But whatever else might be said about them, there was no repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, catastrophe on American soil during Bush’s presidency.

It was always clear that the Obama administration tends to see global terrorism the way Kerry did, as a criminal issue to be handled through the criminal-justice system. In a speech last May, President Obama announced that “wherever feasible,’’ Guantanamo Bay detainees would be tried in regular federal courts. “Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists,’’ he said. “They are wrong.’’

But Obama also said that “detainees who violate the laws of war’’ would be “tried through military commissions,’’ the time-honored venue for prosecuting wartime enemies. And come what may, the president vowed, he would not release the most dangerous detainees of all - those who “expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans . . . people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.’’

If that description fits anyone, it is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the unrepentant mastermind of the 9/11 slaughter and an avowed enemy of the United States.

SNIP

As defendants in federal court, the Al Qaeda prisoners will be entitled to the full panoply of due-process rights, including the right to discovery of all of the government’s information about them, where that information came from, and the methods by which it was obtained.

SNIP

McCarthy should know. He was the prosecutor of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheikh’’ put on trial after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Though Rahman was eventually convicted and is serving a life sentence, the government was required to supply defense lawyers with sensitive intelligence details, including a list of 200 potential co-conspirators - people the government knew about, but didn’t have enough evidence to charge. Within days, those names had found their way to Sudan and were in the possession of bin Laden, an intelligence windfall that immeasurably aided his jihad against the United States.

SNIP

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11:55am

re: #29 Baier

I too work just yards from Ground Zero (can see it from my window) and we've gotten direction from the FDNY and building management on what to do in case of emergencies such as you describe (maintaining a go-bag and/or remaining in the building for safety purposes, etc.).

I have great faith in the rank and file of the NYPD and FDNY to do all they can to keep me safe, but the terrorists only need to be lucky once again to rack up a body count.

Sergeant Major Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:12:00am

I can't wait till they try and find a "jury" of their "peers".

Baier Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:12:13am

re: #31 lawhawk

SDNY is also the location where the largest of the terror attacks occurred; Ground Zero, so it would have jurisdiction on that ground alone. Since KSM and the others are being tried in connection with the terror attacks, SDNY would be a proper venue.

There were attacks in Penn, and DC as well.

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:12:45am

re: #32 albusteve

Neither Holder or BO have explained why these trials will be held in NYC...lots of dodging and blather about other stuff, but no explanation...I want to hear it from them...the citizens of NYC are at risk of violence...explain that

See Lawhawk's #31 for the legal reasoning. As for New Yorkers being at risk for violence...in the (paraphrased) words of GWB:

"Bring 'em on!"

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:12:49am

re: #35 iceweasel

Bollocks. You can hardly say he is sucking up to the far left even domestically, when the civil libertarians are disgusted with the tiered justice system and will go apeshit over the 75 or so being moved and held indefintely, creating a neo-Gitmo at Bagram or somewhere-- and where do you get the idea that he 'cares nothing of our personal battle'? That doesn't sound like you.

BBL, sorry-- shopping!

Then you haven't been listening to me... paying to much attention to my butt :)

lrsshadow Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:13:05am

OJ trial part two. This is just what the media needs some good old fashion wall to wall circus spectacle trial where everyone with half a brain knows this guy is guilty.

Why don't we just give him his own talk show? I am talking about the prosecutor, oh wait I am talking about the terrorists, no the defense attorneys, or the judge.

Oh but this is America we can give them all their own show at the same time, can you say great reality programing? With this many people laid off they have to watch something during the day.

This is like some crazy thing you would see on bad tv.

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:13:24am

re: #40 lawhawk

I too work just yards from Ground Zero (can see it from my window) and we've gotten direction from the FDNY and building management on what to do in case of emergencies such as you describe (maintaining a go-bag and/or remaining in the building for safety purposes, etc.).

I have great faith in the rank and file of the NYPD and FDNY to do all they can to keep me safe, but the terrorists only need to be lucky once again to rack up a body count.

(((Lawhawk)))

Baier Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:15:11am

re: #40 lawhawk

I too work just yards from Ground Zero (can see it from my window) and we've gotten direction from the FDNY and building management on what to do in case of emergencies such as you describe (maintaining a go-bag and/or remaining in the building for safety purposes, etc.).

I have great faith in the rank and file of the NYPD and FDNY to do all they can to keep me safe, but the terrorists only need to be lucky once again to rack up a body count.

Exactly. I used to work in WTC 7, and mostly, I felt safe. But, still there is only so much the NYPD and FDNY can do, heroes though they may be.

Diane Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:15:21am

This could be a maddening nightmare for everyone, a interminable show for the media and a giant ego booster for Khalid and his peers.

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:15:49am

re: #37 Sharmuta

Exactly right, lawhawk, and as Gus and Jaunte discovered last night, al-qaeda would again get a look into the intelligence apparatus. This is going to to have consequences that the Obama administration doesn't seem to be considering.

you might conclude that BO sympathizes with jihadis...is there another conclusion?...WHY do they prefer NYC over Gitmo...just spit it out

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:16:02am

re: #42 Baier

Shanksville PA would fall into the Western District of PA (3d Circuit).

The DC attacks could be held in the DC federal district court.

While the DC federal court has had some experience with terror trials, the WDPA hasn't, and the better venue would be SDNY. That said, KSM and his fellow minions might make a motion for a change in venue because of the prejudicial NY Post cover and other statements that affect the jury pool; it might result in shifting them to those other jurisdictions.

I don't think the motion would succeed, but it would further delay the trial.

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:16:43am

re: #42 Baier

There were attacks in Penn, and DC as well.

True, but the Pennsylvania "attack" was the heros of Flight 93 overthrowing their hijackers. Aside from the passengers, nobody else was a victim. (The 4 hijackers obviously don't count.) As for the Pentagon attack (which was actually in Virginia), that's a military facility with all military casulties, so wouldn't military law come under that prosecution? (I don't recall that any non-military personnel well killed by that attack, but I could be wrong.)

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:16:59am

re: #47 Baier

Exactly. I used to work in WTC 7, and mostly, I felt safe. But, still there is only so much the NYPD and FDNY can do, heroes though they may be.

that's not the point

William Barnett-Lewis Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:17:45am

re: #4 iceweasel

Agreed wholeheartedly.

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:17:52am

The Defense of the Terrorists will be a combination effort of 1) virulent condemnation of the horrors of the Bush Administration (the Bush administration will be the ones actually put on trial), and 2) along with a long--winded defense of the Jihadists -- "winning the hearts and minds" (ie, a propaganda forum for the benefit of the jury).

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:19:04am

re: #53 wlewisiii

Agreed wholeheartedly.

big whoop...the military tribunals are part of the legal system as well...that statement means nothing

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:19:09am

re: #51 Surabaya Stew

re: Pentagon attack
You're forgetting the civilians on board the plane that struck the Pentagon.

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:19:16am

re: #51 Surabaya Stew

True, but the Pennsylvania "attack" was the heros of Flight 93 overthrowing their hijackers. Aside from the passengers, nobody else was a victim. (The 4 hijackers obviously don't count.) As for the Pentagon attack (which was actually in Virginia), that's a military facility with all military casulties, so wouldn't military law come under that prosecution? (I don't recall that any non-military personnel well killed by that attack, but I could be wrong.)

the passengers & crew were non-military...

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:20:05am

re: #50 lawhawk

Shanksville PA would fall into the Western District of PA (3d Circuit).

The DC attacks could be held in the DC federal district court.

While the DC federal court has had some experience with terror trials, the WDPA hasn't, and the better venue would be SDNY. That said, KSM and his fellow minions might make a motion for a change in venue because of the prejudicial NY Post cover and other statements that affect the jury pool; it might result in shifting them to those other jurisdictions.

I don't think the motion would succeed, but it would further delay the trial.

Move them to my district. We'll give 'em a fair trial before we hang them.

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:20:14am

Letting lawyers for al-qaeda leadership have discovery...

What could possibly go wrong?!

NJDhockeyfan Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:20:42am

re: #47 Baier

Exactly. I used to work in WTC 7, and mostly, I felt safe. But, still there is only so much the NYPD and FDNY can do, heroes though they may be.

THE building 7? Did you happen to see sekrit government officials planting bombs in the building?

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:22:07am

re: #60 NJDhockeyfan

(lol...imagine if they manage to get the conspiracy allegations brought in...hilarious...)

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:22:48am

Defending the indefensible.

It bothers me that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and murdered those innocent civilians are being provided the rights and privileges of American citizens.

It bothers me that they are still alive so long after their capture and confessions, so long after confirmation of their roles by our experts, so long after we have drawn all actionable intelligence from them.

It would be small comfort to know they were at hard labour, or otherwise under constant and extreme duress making every day of their remaining lives a living hell.

I have zero concern for their alleged rights or any other weasel words.

William Barnett-Lewis Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:23:12am

re: #15 NJDhockeyfan

John Adams defended Captain John Preston, commander of troops that opened fire on a mob in Boston. That was just about as popular then, too.

William

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:24:09am

re: #56 lawhawk

re: Pentagon attack
You're forgetting the civilians on board the plane that struck the Pentagon.

Correct; but the attacks in New York (which I was there for) claimed the majority of the victims, so isn't there a case for New York holding the trial based on the fact that the lion's share of the violence happened there?

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:24:28am

re: #62 Bagua

Defending the indefensible.

It bothers me that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and murdered those innocent civilians are being provided the rights and privileges of American citizens.

It bothers me that they are still alive so long after their capture and confessions, so long after confirmation of their roles by our experts, so long after we have drawn all actionable intelligence from them.

It would be small comfort to know they were at hard labour, or otherwise under constant and extreme duress making every day of their remaining lives a living hell.

I have zero concern for their alleged rights or any other weasel words.

The whole thing sucks.

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:24:43am

Is there something wrong with military tribunals?

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:25:41am

So, New York has the death penalty but also has a moratorium on carrying out the punishment (since 1976 or such?) -- how does this mesh with statements (from President Obama? or was it Holder?) that they will tried with the death penalty a consequence of their conviction?

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:26:22am

That is his latest defense of his decision?

Well I still haven't heard why Al Nashiri will get a Military Commission trial after it was previously dropped.

I thought the reasons progressives gave us for dropping the commissions was to "demonstrate that our criminal system can deal with the worst of the worst". The defense that "The USS Cole attack was military in nature" doesn't hold water after the left has been obsessed with stating that Military Commissions violate human rights and deny due process outright.

So it is OK to give one set of guys due process and another not? Or are military commissions now OK? If they are, why can't KSMs resume - the one in which (as Holder himself points out) KSM admitted his guilt in 9/11 as well as a host of other terror activities such as the decapitation of Danny Pearl? We took a procedure which the Obama Administration now recognizes as lawful and meeting due process requirements and simply aborted it so that a more public display can happen at the scene of the crime?

OK leftist moralists - tell me how that isn't itself a violation of Geneva Conventions AND the US Constitution where we abort a speedy trial (which wasn't in the first place, but another year's delay is justified how?) and then hold a public spectacleblocks away for Ground Zero? Is that not parading the captured enemy? Certainly my moral superiors from the left can split these hairs ever so much more finely in a cogent response.

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:26:37am

re: #66 Sharmuta

Is there something wrong with military tribunals?

Holder won't say...at the very least New Yorkers deserve an explanation, not a comparison, or some wordy defense..."why do you prefer NYC rather than Gitmo?...simple enough

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:26:40am

re: #12 albusteve

I don't see where he explains his decision, that's what I'm interested in...I want to know why he chooses NYC rather than Gitmo

He said he went with the venue that offered the best chance at conviction but he never really explained why that was in a civilian court in the states and not a military trial at Gitmo.

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:27:15am

re: #69 albusteve

Holder won't say...at the very least New Yorkers deserve an explanation, not a comparison, or some wordy defense..."why do you prefer NYC rather than Gitmo?...simple enough

It takes a lot of rationazlization to defend the indefensible.

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:27:23am

re: #66 Sharmuta

Well, yah...I mean c'mon. With military tribunals you don't have to have a unanimous decision; and, and you don't get access to the top-secret stuff!
Here's CNN's Tony Harris who summarized the differences between Federal courts vs Military Courts:

HARRIS: OK. We want to show you exactly how military tribunals are different from federal court trials.

Military tribunals are often closed to the public, while federal trials are usually opened. The tribunal can be held in a different country, in a U.S. territory, or even on a U.S. naval ship. Unlike in federal court, a person tried by a military tribunal does not have the right to a trial by jury. The tribunal is comprised of members of the military. A tribunal's decision of guilty or not guilty does not have to be unanimous, and a death penalty can be immediately imposed.

NJDhockeyfan Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:27:46am

re: #66 Sharmuta

Is there something wrong with military tribunals?

Nope.

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:28:08am

re: #62 Bagua

Defending the indefensible.

The constitution, let me show it to you.

I have zero concern for their alleged rights or any other weasel words.

I am very happy we don't get to make judicial decisions by popular emotional vote.

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:28:37am

re: #66 Sharmuta

Is there something wrong with military tribunals?

Nothing is wrong with them. It's just a fact that Obama and Holder decided on the Civilian route. No big deal really, both ways would have ended up with KSM and his motley crew either rotting in Supermax or with a needle in their arms.

PS-President McCain would likely have gone with tribunals, but elections have consequences...

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:28:52am

Suspected 9/11 bomber should face military trial: poll

Almost two-thirds of Americans disagree with the decision by President Barack Obama's administration to try the suspected 9/11 mastermind in a civilian court, a poll showed Monday.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, while only 34 percent agreed with Obama that the civilian judicial system was the best way forward, the CNN poll said.

Ericus58 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:29:06am

Just a couple of thoughts...

"Where is Osama and why haven't we taken him?"

"Where will Osama be tried if captured?"

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:29:06am

re: #62 Bagua

Jury selection will be just ridiculous. How can any American be objective? Lets see would the falling man photo be prejudicial? This in an obvious problem, and just one of many. Hey I just got my jury duty notice. Can I got for that trial? Love top be in that jury! heheheheh

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:30:02am

re: #74 keithgabryelski

I am very happy we don't get to make judicial decisions by popular emotional vote.

So am I, but this was an act of war & and should be treated like one.

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:30:03am

re: #66 Sharmuta

Is there something wrong with military tribunals?

As I understand it, KSM is on trial for the crimes of murder and attempted murder -- not associated with war time acts.

So military tribunals do not come in to play.

I'd certainly like to understand all the lines for these things, though.

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:30:12am

re: #78 Rightwingconspirator

Jury selection will be just ridiculous. How can any American be objective? Lets see would the falling man photo be prejudicial? This in an obvious problem, and just one of many. Hey I just got my jury duty notice. Can I got for that trial? Love top be in that jury! heheheheh

Do you want KSM to have your name and address?

gulfloafer Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:30:21am

re: #70 RogueOne
Best chance at conviction; civilian court or military tribunal. Really?

tokyobk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:30:43am

My gut is against this but we have to see how it plays out. I hope it ends up as the right decision.

I know one of the guys who is going to be on the prosecution team and he is a stellar American, no chump by any stretch.

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:32:00am

re: #80 keithgabryelski

I don't believe KSM has been formally charged yet (at least I haven't read that anywhere.. in part that is what everyone's waiting for...what will he be charged with?)

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:32:08am

re: #4 iceweasel

Good!

reminder: 145 successful federal prosecutions of terrorists have taken place.

Here is Rudy on the trials for the 93 bombing:

Now, granted, I was but a sophomore in highschool, but weren't the '93 bombings looked upon at the outset as a 'criminal' act, not an 'act of war'...so Rudy applied his words in that context. No way was Mr. President Clinton going to apply 'act of war' to that.

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:32:36am

re: #75 Surabaya Stew

No big deal? No big deal?! You think allowing al-qaeda leadership discovery is "no big deal"?! You think allowing the show trial of the century is "no big deal"? You think telling American citizens their rights are now on par with terrorist masterminds is "no big deal"? I feel sick.

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:33:12am

re: #79 brookly red

So am I, but this was an act of war & and should be treated like one.

I have to admit I don't understand the actual rules for these things -- it seems like one could argue it was an act of mass murder -- and reasonably handled by civilian courts.

To say it was an act of war, would that not make these war prisoners and afford them different rights?

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:33:25am

re: #74 keithgabryelski

The constitution, let me show it to you.

I am very happy we don't get to make judicial decisions by popular emotional vote.

Read my post before making an ignorant response.

I said I was not interested in Weasel Words.

Fuck you for mentioning the constitution when speaking of terrorist enemy scum.

Only The Lurker Knows Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:33:37am

re: #67 keithgabryelski

They are facing Federal, not State charges, so I do believe Federal sentencing takes precedence over any moratorium NY may have concerning the death penalty.

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:33:37am

re: #81 MandyManners

How would that happen?

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:33:40am

re: #76 Sharmuta

Suspected 9/11 bomber should face military trial: poll

Well, he's our leader and intelligent and his aura is so grand and that is why we rubes and luddites need him...

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:34:59am

re: #89 Bubblehead II

They are facing Federal, not State charges, so I do believe Federal sentencing takes precedence over any moratorium NY may have concerning the death penalty.

Ahhh, a point I missed -- good, then.

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:35:02am

re: #90 Rightwingconspirator

How would that happen?

A defendant has the right to know who is sittingin judgment of him.

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:35:05am

How many CIA operatives will be endangered by this trial because of discovery?

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:35:35am

re: #94 Sharmuta

How many CIA operatives will be endangered by this trial because of discovery?

And, their families. And, their networks.

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:35:38am

re: #66 Sharmuta

Is there something wrong with military tribunals?

Military tribunals are now "OK" because Al Nashiri is getting one. See how that works? You condemn a process as a violation of our due process clause and a violation of human rights to boot, then you co opt that process discreetly when it suits you. Meanwhile you will parade the enemy in an armed convoy through Manhattan and have a trial at the scene of the crime where the prospect of empaneling a neutral jury is hard to imagine.

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:35:44am

How many soldiers are going to put in jeopardy because they have to read Miranda rights?

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:35:49am

This is a travesty.

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:35:58am

re: #87 keithgabryelski

I have to admit I don't understand the actual rules for these things -- it seems like one could argue it was an act of mass murder -- and reasonably handled by civilian courts.

To say it was an act of war, would that not make these war prisoners and afford them different rights?

yup, and they could be held without trial till the end of conflict... at the very least.

100

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:36:12am

re: #87 keithgabryelski

(there was an excellent blog article at Huffington Post the other day -- written by some prof -- he briefly summarized the major, historical points of the Gitmo detainees -- but he did so by highlighting the differences between Presidents...very interesting article..)

101

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:36:17am

the men and women in the military risk their lives to get these assholes to Gitmo...now they have the same treasured rights as any American...it's a monumental insult that pretty much implies that BO and his people have no inherent respect for our troops, it's conjured for photo ops and political manipulation...these people are utterly despicable...I have zero respect for the whole fucking lot of them

102

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:36:23am

re: #82 gulfloafer

Best chance at conviction; civilian court or military tribunal. Really?

That's what he said. I'm not sure of his reasoning.

103

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:36:48am

re: #88 Bagua

Fuck you for mentioning the constitution when speaking of terrorist enemy scum.

It's the most important point to bring up when talking about judicial system.

104

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:37:07am

re: #95 MandyManners

And, their families. And, their networks.

Their contacts.

105

borgcube Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:37:14am

May 8th, 1945. VE Day.

Oct 16th. 1946, 18 months later:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

It has taken five times longer to even get to this point with KSM, let alone a trial and outcome. What a nation of wussies we've become.

106

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:37:39am

re: #93 MandyManners

I'm not terribly familiar with federal law. But I never heard of a jurors address being part of discovery. But in any case-YES. I would accept that risk. if our guys and girls can go and serve in the Marines, I'm not ducking jury duty for that case!

Not yelling at you Mandy, just feeling very strongly about that one.

107

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:37:54am

How many people will be endangered in Pakistan's intelligence community because of this farce?

108

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:38:07am

re: #100 J.S.

(there was an excellent blog article at Huffington Post the other day -- written by some prof -- he briefly summarized the major, historical points of the Gitmo detainees -- but he did so by highlighting the differences between Presidents...very interesting article..)

a link?

109

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:38:08am

re: #96 karmic_inquisitor

And, And, don't forget the Best Part -- This is all being done to Highlight The American Judicial System! Yeah! Meanwhile the President asserts that a death penalty is a done deal...

110

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:38:16am

re: #103 keithgabryelski

It's the most important point to bring up when talking about judicial system.

In reference to American citizens... I would agree, yet these aren't American Citizens...

111

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:39:11am

re: #109 J.S.

And, And, don't forget the Best Part -- This is all being done to Highlight The American Judicial System! Yeah! Meanwhile the President asserts that a death penalty is a done deal...

Isn't that prejudicial?

Gasp.

112

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:39:26am

re: #110 Oh no...Sand People!

Our system is not just for citizens. Think of a foreign guy here an a visa who robs a bank. He has all the same rights.

113

NJDhockeyfan Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:40:13am

re: #110 Oh no...Sand People!

In reference to American citizens... I would agree, yet these aren't American Citizens...

Also they weren't caught on US soil, and they don't wear a uniform. They are terrorists that have no Constitutional rights unless they step foot on our soil.

114

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:40:16am

re: #67 keithgabryelski

They'd be tried under federal laws, Title 18 of the USC, which does allow for the death penalty. Indeed, Moussaoui was tried under federal law and but for one juror, would have been sentenced to death. That's how they can be tried in NY, which hasn't imposed a death sentence since 1963, and still ask for (and potentially get) a death sentence.

115

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:40:20am

re: #107 Sharmuta

How many people will be endangered in Pakistan's intelligence community because of this farce?

all of them, everywhere world wide

116

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:40:40am

re: #112 Rightwingconspirator

Our system is not just for citizens. Think of a foreign guy here an a visa who robs a bank. He has all the same rights.

He's also here on a visa, that is, with explicit permission from our government. People we take as prisoners of war are not guests of our government, and they should not be afforded the rights of such.

117

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:40:43am

re: #108 keithgabryelski

but, but, but it's a Huffin' post...(is that like competition or something? the article name was "Civilian Trails for Terrorists Highlight Differences Between Presidents' by Brian Levin.)

118

Killgore Trout Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:40:52am

Oath keepers Featured on CNN Guardians of The Republic

Youtube Video

119

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:41:13am

How much intelligence will be lost because our troops won't want to read Miranda rights? How many lives might be lost because we didn't get intel to stop these people's plots because it's easier to shoot than play cops and robbers wit the taliban?

120

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:41:23am

re: #110 Oh no...Sand People!

In reference to American citizens... I would agree, yet these aren't American Citizens...

Show me where in the constitution it says "American Citizen".

The supreme court has ruled that non-citizens are afforded constitutional rights (I don't recall what differences there are to citizens, I seem to recall there are a few).

121

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:41:28am

re: #109 J.S.

And, And, don't forget the Best Part -- This is all being done to Highlight The American Judicial System! Yeah! Meanwhile the President asserts that a death penalty is a done deal...

he's a bonified crackpot

122

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:41:42am

re: #112 Rightwingconspirator

Our system is not just for citizens. Think of a foreign guy here an a visa who robs a bank. He has all the same rights.

But they didn't rob a bank, they murdered civilians in an act of war.

123

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:41:54am

re: #120 keithgabryelski

Show me where in the constitution it says "American Citizen".

The supreme court has ruled that non-citizens are afforded constitutional rights (I don't recall what differences there are to citizens, I seem to recall there are a few).

Ahem. And I quote: We, the People of the United States...

124

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:42:15am

re: #108 keithgabryelski

a link?

Is your Google broken?

125

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:42:35am

re: #86 Sharmuta

No big deal? No big deal?! You think allowing al-qaeda leadership discovery is "no big deal"?! You think allowing the show trial of the century is "no big deal"? You think telling American citizens their rights are now on par with terrorist masterminds is "no big deal"? I feel sick.

Why feel sick? It's my city. I don't feel sick that KSM will be coming to town. And it's only a big deal it you make it one. Seriously dude, relax. KSM is not going free, neither will our secrets be compromised. The President (any President, really) knows much more about the particulars of the situation then we do.

126

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:42:50am

OT: Apologizer in Chief

OBAMA:

"It's very important for the United States not to assume that what is good for us is automatically good for somebody else. We have to have some modesty about our attitudes towards other countries. We think it's important nevertheless to be true to our ideals and our values. And we... When we do so, though, we will always do so with the humility and understanding that we are not perfect and that we still have much progress to make. Uh, if you talk to women in America, they will tell you that there are still men who have a lot of old-fashioned ideas about the role of women in society."

*Facepalm*

127

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:43:22am

re: #84 J.S.

I don't believe KSM has been formally charged yet (at least I haven't read that anywhere.. in part that is what everyone's waiting for...what will he be charged with?)

Excellent questions, and I suspect that the feds will reserve some charges just in case the trial goes against the prosecutors and KSM gets acquitted or there's a hung jury, which would send matters to the tribunals (if they're still around at that time which isn't a sure thing given the challenges to their legality that are sure to ensue as some detainees get trial and others tribunals).

128

FrogMarch Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:43:26am

re: #4 iceweasel

-– “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead,” said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

1994.

hmmm - He has a different take now. Of course 9/11 was more an act of war than any other act of terrorism we have ever encountered.

129

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:43:45am

re: #125 Surabaya Stew

Why feel sick? It's my city. I don't feel sick that KSM will be coming to town. And it's only a big deal it you make it one. Seriously dude, relax. KSM is not going free, neither will our secrets be compromised. The President (any President, really) knows much more about the particulars of the situation then we do.

it's all gone over your head

130

StillAMarine Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:44:14am

KSM and his henchmen should be treated the same way out of uniform agents like him were treated during the Second World War. Out-of-uniform "fighters" did not, and still do not, fall under the Geneva Convention, much less the United States Constitution. They were summarily questioned and executed.
Holder is full of bat pucky.

131

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:44:35am

re: #116 thedopefishlives

Well POW's are enemy combatants and not subject to trial for attacking us to begin with. For war crimes (if any) they would be tried by a military tribunal, or simply detained until the end of hostilities or as per some prisoner swap. POW's may not be tried in civilian court as that violates Geneva/ Hague agreements. Military court is what is called for by those agreements.

132

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:44:56am

re: #125 Surabaya Stew

First- I'm not a dude. Really thought the avatar would help.

Second- I feel sick because I'm no better than KSM in the eyes of the administration.

Third- you're naive if you think our intelligence won't be compromised.

133

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:45:00am

re: #129 albusteve

it's all gone over your head

No, it's gone over the heads of people who have no faith in the competency of our government.

134

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:45:18am

re: #128 FrogMarch

It appears we need a clearer definition of act of war.

135

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:45:56am

re: #119 Sharmuta

How much intelligence will be lost because our troops won't want to read Miranda rights?

Our troops do not need to read miranda rights -- that is not how it works.

136

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:46:53am

re: #133 Surabaya Stew

I have full faith in the military tribunals which are also a part of the government. Why is it others have no faith in the military tribunals? Is our government not competent enough to hold one?

137

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:47:04am

re: #120 keithgabryelski

You are aware of the nazis who landed in the U.S. and were summarily executed by military tribunal? here's a link...

138

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:47:07am

re: #103 keithgabryelski

It's the most important point to bring up when talking about judicial system.

Again,

I am not interested in weasel words.

Fuck you for mentioning the "judicial system" when talking about alien terrorist murderers.

I saw people jumping from the burning towers with my own eyes. I trust our military to do their jobs.

You sympathize with and give comfort to the enemy. I don't give a toss about your "opinions".

139

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:47:15am

re: #67 keithgabryelski

So, New York has the death penalty but also has a moratorium on carrying out the punishment (since 1976 or such?) -- how does this mesh with statements (from President Obama? or was it Holder?) that they will tried with the death penalty a consequence of their conviction?

Federal court.
NY state law has nothing to do with this.

140

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:47:20am

re: #131 Rightwingconspirator

Which is the most I think should be done for them. I fall into the camp of "they're non-uniformed enemy combatants and shouldn't even be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention". These guys have openly declared jihad - holy war - and even though they're members of extra-state organizations, they still have some state support and sponsorship and could (I think should) be afforded as non-uniformed combatants of said states.

141

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:47:40am

re: #135 keithgabryelski

Our troops do not need to read miranda rights -- that is not how it works.

Pretty sure Miranda Rights and the lack of them is going to bite us in the ass here.

142

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:48:01am

re: #122 brookly red

But they didn't rob a bank, they murdered civilians in an act of war.

Were we at war at the time?
Was it an act of war or a terrorist attack and is there a difference?

143

lrsshadow Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:48:49am

re: #67 keithgabryelski

So, New York has the death penalty but also has a moratorium on carrying out the punishment (since 1976 or such?) -- how does this mesh with statements (from President Obama? or was it Holder?) that they will tried with the death penalty a consequence of their conviction?

I think it is federal court they will be tried in and not the state court.

144

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:48:55am

re: #132 Sharmuta

First- I'm not a dude. Really thought the avatar would help.

Second- I feel sick because I'm no better than KSM in the eyes of the administration.

Third- you're naive if you think our intelligence won't be compromised.

First- I meant "dude" in the generic, not literal sense. Thanks for catching me though; I promise not to do that again.

Second- What part about "all are equal under the eyes of the law" doesn't make sense?

Third- We shall have to respectfully agree to disagree if you think that our government is incompetent in all manners. I think that if we can expect it to wage and win wars, we can certainly expect it to prosecute a few dumb bastards.

145

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:49:02am

re: #133 Surabaya Stew

No, it's gone over the heads of people who have no faith in the competency of our government.

10.2% unemployment and rising... yeah, the government is genius. Brilliant in fact.
/

146

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:49:16am

We are at WAR!

This has no business in a criminal court.

Period.

147

borgcube Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:49:26am

If KSM is found not guilty, does he then get temporary residency in NYC, complete with HUD housing, food stamps, etc? After all, it would be unconscionable for us to send him back to Pakistan, knowing that his civil rights would be violated if sent back.

148

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:49:34am

re: #123 thedopefishlives

Ahem. And I quote: We, the People of the United States...

that is the pre-amble, which describes why.

Let's try one of the amendments:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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 offense 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.

149

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:49:38am

re: #142 webevintage

Were we at war at the time?
Was it an act of war or a terrorist attack and is there a difference?

they were at war, some of us still are not.

150

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:49:59am

re: #136 Sharmuta

I have full faith in the military tribunals which are also a part of the government. Why is it others have no faith in the military tribunals? Is our government not competent enough to hold one?

I also have faith in military tribunals. However, I also have faith in the Department of Justice.

151

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:50:06am

re: #140 thedopefishlives

I happen to agree but international law was changed to include non uniformed combatants. Too bad but we must live within the rules we agree to.

152

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:50:16am

re: #133 Surabaya Stew

No, it's gone over the heads of people who have no faith in the competency of our government.

how so?...we that are opposed to this fiasco have given more than enough explantion as to why, and damned good stuff...not me but the others here...you on the other hand offer nothing but empty rhetoric and fancy on sentence weasel shit...those opposed do all the work while you sit on your ass

153

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:50:32am

re: #128 FrogMarch

-– “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead,” said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

1994.

hmmm - He has a different take now. Of course 9/11 was more an act of war than any other act of terrorism we have ever encountered.

I have no idea why something from the past is relevant now, or at least I've been told that it's not suppose to impact the here and now by the very person using it as a justification toady. I guess that's just when the standard helps the person making the claim that would should think that. Pretty hypocritical.

154

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:50:41am

re: #135 keithgabryelski

The FBI, with detainees held in Afghanistan, read the suspected terrorists their Miranda rights.

155

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:50:42am

re: #145 Oh no...Sand People!

10.2% unemployment and rising... yeah, the government is genius. Brilliant in fact.
/

I thought the private sector was the party most responsible for lots of people getting laid off.

156

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:50:45am

re: #150 Surabaya Stew

I also have faith in military tribunals. However, I also have faith in the Department of Justice.

So does OJ.

157

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:51:04am

BTW - the extremely weak defense that we have had over 100 civilian trials for terrorism charges simply is not remotely applicable.

1) When someone is caught on US soil committing a crime one is entitled to a criminal trial under the US Constitution.

2) The oft cited exception of the Nazi Saboteur Trial was upheld on the basis that the saboteurs were members of an enemy military service at a time of war.

3) KSM never set foot on US soil while plotting the attacks of 9/11 for which he is charged.

4) We were at war with Al Qaeda at the time he was captured and we are still at war with them

Symmetries between these facts and those of "100+" terror trials are completely and utterly lacking. Prior to 9/11 we were not at war with Al Qaeda. And even so, the one guy that we caught on US soil who was the "missing hijacker" got a civilian trial and preceded by a domestic detention precisely because of jurisdiction - he was on US soil when taken into custody.

158

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:51:44am

re: #148 keithgabryelski

You moved the goalposts. You asked where in the Constitution it said American Citizen. I showed you. The Constitution is, fundamentally and foremost, a document preserving the rights of the American Citizen from its government. To apply those rights universally would be an affront to those who work so hard to become citizens every year, just to earn that priceless protection.

159

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:51:53am

re: #141 Sharmuta

Pretty sure Miranda Rights and the lack of them is going to bite us in the ass here.

Rules of evidence are also going to come into play.

160

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:52:06am

re: #144 Surabaya Stew

Third- We shall have to respectfully agree to disagree if you think that our government is incompetent in all manners. I think that if we can expect it to wage and win wars, we can certainly expect it to prosecute a few dumb bastards.

I have full faith the government can conduct a military tribunal for these people, yet it is the left who has no faith in the competency of the government to do so. Why?

161

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:52:25am

The REAL GUANTANAMO BAY!!

Youtube Video

162

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:52:29am

re: #152 albusteve

how so?...we that are opposed to this fiasco have given more than enough explantion as to why, and damned good stuff...not me but the others here...you on the other hand offer nothing but empty rhetoric and fancy on sentence weasel shit...those opposed do all the work while you sit on your ass

You are calling it a "fiasco" before it has even begun? Have you that little faith in the process?

163

Charles Johnson Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:52:35am

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

164

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:52:45am

re: #147 borgcube

If KSM is found not guilty, does he then get temporary residency in NYC, complete with HUD housing, food stamps, etc? After all, it would be unconscionable for us to send him back to Pakistan, knowing that his civil rights would be violated if sent back.

Actually he will be arrested at the courtroom on other charges.

Then it will really look like kangaroo justice.

165

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:52:55am

re: #148 keithgabryelski

Since you like quoting;

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;

166

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:08am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

I'm ready for some blood pressure pills.

167

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:14am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

All aboard the fail train!

168

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:18am

re: #157 karmic_inquisitor

The same with that Blind Sheikh who plotted the first WTC bombing in 1993 -- he was living in the United States and fanning the flames of Jihad, etc.

169

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:31am

re: #155 Surabaya Stew

I thought the private sector was the party most responsible for lots of people getting laid off.

...

170

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:36am

re: #135 keithgabryelski

Our troops do not need to read miranda rights -- that is not how it works.

Not if they're gonna' face a tribunal. If they're gonna' face a civilian court, they do.

171

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:52am

re: #167 thedopefishlives

Correction to the link, for people with eyes like mine: Fail Train

172

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:56am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

I just puked a little bit.

173

StillAMarine Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:53:58am

The biggest problem we have here is that not only is KSM going to make the court a media circus that will make OJ's tedious trial look anemic by comparison, but it will not be KSM that is being tried. It is President Bush and his cabinet that will be on trial. Bush is not my favorite president, but he kept us safe for seven years, and deserves credit for doing so.

174

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:54:08am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

Sure, it will be a laugh riot.

175

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:54:13am

re: #142 webevintage

Were we at war at the time?
Was it an act of war or a terrorist attack and is there a difference?

A terrorist attack is a tactic - not an end of itself. The terror attacks were in furtherance of the war (jihad) against the US that had been declared by al Qaeda in 1998 (and included attacks on the USS Cole, embassy bombings, and other failed/thwarted attacks). That the US only responded to this war in kind several months after 9/11 actually highlights the fact that we were in a state of war with these jihadis when many were picked up - including KSM.

176

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:54:23am

re: #166 Sharmuta

Not to worry, I predict it will not happen. But we'll see. Even Sarah deferred in this quote really.

177

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:54:34am

re: #162 Surabaya Stew

You are calling it a "fiasco" before it has even begun? Have you that little faith in the process?

tribunals are part of the process...you question is ridiculous

178

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:54:55am

re: #173 StillAMarine

The biggest problem we have here is that not only is KSM going to make the court a media circus that will make OJ's tedious trial look anemic by comparison, but it will not be KSM that is being tried. It is President Bush and his cabinet that will be on trial. Bush is not my favorite president, but he kept us safe for seven years, and deserves credit for doing so.

Well said.

179

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:55:16am

re: #156 Racer X

So does OJ.

OJ isn't quite the proper comparison, as he was never tried in federal court.

180

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:55:37am

re: #4 iceweasel

Good!

reminder: 145 successful federal prosecutions of terrorists have taken place.

Absolutely - and ps: since when are we scared of bringing people to New York? I mean really, he though he was going to bring the US down, let's bring him right down to lower Manhattan and show him that after all the physical destruction, Manhattan endures. That he took his best shot and failed.

I love that the same people who call out Obama for bowing to a foreign leader are cowering in front of one two-bit terrorist and the idea of him being put on trial. We're so much stronger than any man's rhetoric, let him talk, then convict him and he'll never be seen again. That shows everyone that we win in the end.

181

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:56:19am

re: #137 J.S.

You are aware of the nazis who landed in the U.S. and were summarily executed by military tribunal? here's a link...

yeah, that is all about the "Quirin Case" -- which was about a declared war where the prisoners were afforded prisoner of war status, right?

The Bush Administration decided to say these guys were not "Prisoners of War" and thus shall not be afforded that status, -- and so we are stuck with that decision -- the Supreme Court said "That ain't right" and so we are here.

182

FrogMarch Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:56:54am

re: #153 Sharmuta

I have no idea why something from the past is relevant now, or at least I've been told that it's not suppose to impact the here and now by the very person using it as a justification toady. I guess that's just when the standard helps the person making the claim that would should think that. Pretty hypocritical.

Yep. & Rudy's quote from 1994 doesn't give Holder any cover.

183

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:57:00am

re: #160 Sharmuta

I have full faith the government can conduct a military tribunal for these people, yet it is the left who has no faith in the competency of the government to do so. Why?

I'm not the left, so can't say why. All I was saying was either a tribunal or civilian train would have been effective in putting KSM away.

184

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:57:15am

re: #180 Cineaste

Absolutely - and ps: since when are we scared of bringing people to New York? I mean really, he though he was going to bring the US down, let's bring him right down to lower Manhattan and show him that after all the physical destruction, Manhattan endures. That he took his best shot and failed.

I love that the same people who call out Obama for bowing to a foreign leader are cowering in front of one two-bit terrorist and the idea of him being put on trial. We're so much stronger than any man's rhetoric, let him talk, then convict him and he'll never be seen again. That shows everyone that we win in the end.

Nobody is COWERING. It the idea of us being made to look like complete fools via leftist self haters that are going to turn this into the blame America first game.

185

lrsshadow Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:57:33am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

Oh come on now that is just ridiculous you know it is going to be Palin-Bachmann ;)

186

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:57:49am

re: #177 albusteve

tribunals are part of the process...you question is ridiculous

I was referring to the civilian part of the proceedings which have yet to begin.

187

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:57:49am

Why did the previous administration not go ahead with a military tribunal?
(Honest question, not a "bush sucked" question)
Was it because of the SC ruling?

188

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:57:58am

re: #173 StillAMarine

It is President Bush and his cabinet that will be on trial. Bush is not my favorite president, but he kept us safe for seven years, and deserves credit for doing so.

Why on earth would that happen? Our federal judges are very good at their jobs and generally won't stand for that shit. This isn't Lance Ito, a regular criminal court judge from LA County, this is the big leagues and they've done this a lot of times without a circus.

189

Vicious Babushka Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:58:23am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

They're selling tickets for a comedy tour?

190

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:58:36am

re: #180 Cineaste

Absolutely - and ps: since when are we scared of bringing people to New York? I mean really, he though he was going to bring the US down, let's bring him right down to lower Manhattan and show him that after all the physical destruction, Manhattan endures. That he took his best shot and failed.

I love that the same people who call out Obama for bowing to a foreign leader are cowering in front of one two-bit terrorist and the idea of him being put on trial. We're so much stronger than any man's rhetoric, let him talk, then convict him and he'll never be seen again. That shows everyone that we win in the end.

fairy tales and unicorns...well said

191

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:58:46am

An easy defense for KSM is how many times he has been "tortured" water-boarded. Already subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" many times over. Let's ask Holder about that little wrinkle.

192

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:58:49am

re: #185 lrsshadow

Oh come on now that is just ridiculous you know it is going to be Palin-Bachmann ;)

ohplease..phplease...ohplease...ohplease...

193

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:58:55am

re: #183 Surabaya Stew

I'm not the left, so can't say why. All I was saying was either a tribunal or civilian train would have been effective in putting KSM away.

And it's because of the issues raised up thread and on other threads that most Americans (nearly 2/3) think this belongs in a tribunal. We already had a tribunal for KSM, and he confessed! Why on God's green earth did we reject that?!

194

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:00am

re: #180 Cineaste

Absolutely - and ps: since when are we scared of bringing people to New York? I mean really, he though he was going to bring the US down, let's bring him right down to lower Manhattan and show him that after all the physical destruction, Manhattan endures. That he took his best shot and failed.

I love that the same people who call out Obama for bowing to a foreign leader are cowering in front of one two-bit terrorist and the idea of him being put on trial. We're so much stronger than any man's rhetoric, let him talk, then convict him and he'll never be seen again. That shows everyone that we win in the end.

how do we win by convicting an enemy who wants to be martyred?

195

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:09am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

I would say no, they are both idiots, clowns.

Yet, considering this decision to give terrorists the rights of American citizens, I would prefer President Palin and Vice President Beck in place of the bozo's now inhabiting the white house.

196

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:13am

re: #187 webevintage

Why did the previous administration not go ahead with a military tribunal?
(Honest question, not a "bush sucked" question)
Was it because of the SC ruling?

Uh- THEY DID! HE CONFESSED!

197

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:21am

re: #141 Sharmuta

Pretty sure Miranda Rights and the lack of them is going to bite us in the ass here.

I think Attorney General Holder has probably considered these issues.

What I do know is that lack of miranda rights does not prevent using evidence that was obtained outside of confession an interrogation (interrogation after the tainted time of "I want a lawyer").

198

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:26am

Hey Afternoon Lizards!

Is it just me, but does this whole "trying the civilian in civilian court" sound like an alias for "kangaroo court"?

How are you-all?

199

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:35am

re: #184 Oh no...Sand People!

Nobody is COWERING. It the idea of us being made to look like complete fools via leftist self haters that are going to turn this into the blame America first game.

Why are you afraid of the competence of our judicial system. Show me where this has happened before? You're cowering at the idea of letting this schmuck prattle on. For me, doesn't scare me at all...

200

StillAMarine Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:44am

re: #163 Charles

Are you ready for a Palin-Beck Ticket?

Oh, please. Not in my worst nightmares. Beck-Palin would be extremely helpful to the loony left "progressives."

201

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:59:48am

re: #180 Cineaste

Absolutely - and ps: since when are we scared of bringing people to New York? I mean really, he though he was going to bring the US down, let's bring him right down to lower Manhattan and show him that after all the physical destruction, Manhattan endures. That he took his best shot and failed.

I love that the same people who call out Obama for bowing to a foreign leader are cowering in front of one two-bit terrorist and the idea of him being put on trial. We're so much stronger than any man's rhetoric, let him talk, then convict him and he'll never be seen again. That shows everyone that we win in the end.

It's also important to show that we don't fear schmucks like this.

202

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:00:04am

re: #181 keithgabryelski

Did you read the Huffin' Post article? (It explains why and how Yoo arrived at certain interpretations)

203

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:00:08am

re: #188 Cineaste

Why on earth would that happen? Our federal judges are very good at their jobs and generally won't stand for that shit. This isn't Lance Ito, a regular criminal court judge from LA County, this is the big leagues and they've done this a lot of times without a circus.

tell us why you support putting NYC at risk rather have this case tried by tribunal...that's what I'm interested in, if you'd care to explain

204

Rexatosis Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:00:32am

This policy has a host of potential negatives:
1. Any terrorist attack on NYC (no matter how limited) will get maximum worldwide press coverage to the benefit of AlQ.
2. The trial itself gives the terrorists a platform from which to spread their message of jihad.
3. American intelligence methods and procedures may be released due to discovery (it is important to remember the '93 WTC trial gave AlQ a better understanding of how to bring WTC 1 and 2 down by showing them exactly why the '93 attack failed).
4. It will highlight the U.S. military's use of waterboarding (Pres. Bush is no longer C in C, Pres. Obama is) and the negative world press coverage and propaganda based on bringing this issue up may hamper American policy.
5. If a strict reading of the SCOTUS' opinion on Miranda is held much (if not all) of the evidence gathered overseas may be thrown out putting convictions in peril.
6. If a loose interpretation of the SCOTUS' opinion on Miranda is held allowing evidence normally excluded from a criminal trial then the trials may be viewed internationally as "show trials" damaging America's standing and policies regarding "international law" (see current policies regarding Piracy for example)
And so on...

There is almost no upside to this policy. The argument that it will restore American credibility after the "excesses of Bush 43" is specious at best. "You can't defuse a bomb after it's gone off."

205

borgcube Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:01:18am

re: #164 karmic_inquisitor

That's what I don't get. On one hand, Holder is trying to appease the left and make it seem like we're above all of it, and then Obama guarantees that not only he'll be found guilty, but that he'll hang. If the latter is going to hold true, then just deal with it in the military court and be done with it. The risks here of bringing this trial to federal court simply outweigh the benefits so many times over. It's not even close. And now with Obama basically affirming a death sentence, well, what's the point now?

I hate to agree with Pat Buchanan, but this could end up being a bigger mess for Obama than everything else combined. It could trump all other issues.

206

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:01:50am

re: #196 Sharmuta

Uh- THEY DID! HE CONFESSED!

of course it may not be admissible, he can (now)claim it was coerced.

207

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:02:01am

re: #196 Sharmuta

Uh- THEY DID! HE CONFESSED!

Then why is he still alive?

208

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:02:02am

re: #180 Cineaste

There are plenty of people who oppose the KSM Civilian Trial Circus who don't buy into the idea that it makes NYC any more of a target. I am one of them. Yet every time I engage a progressive on the issue they want to steer me there.

So - how is it that we are being high minded in giving KSM a criminal trial why denying Al Nashiri one?

209

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:02:19am

re: #165 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Since you like quoting;

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;

Yes, those have very specific connotations that the supreme court has ruled upon -- as I understand it, they require written acts to differentiate them from normal days.

210

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:02:34am

re: #199 Cineaste

Why are you afraid of the competence of our judicial system. Show me where this has happened before? You're cowering at the idea of letting this schmuck prattle on. For me, doesn't scare me at all...

Not his prattling...it's how the media is going to spin it. Just you watch, every lefist hater is going to pile onto how shitty we as a country are. "Torture" / "Oppressors"...insert self loathing leftist code word of choice (HERE). It will embolden the enemy to realize how weak we are as a nation when the self hate crowd commandeers the microphones.

211

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:02:36am

re: #205 borgcube

That's what I don't get. On one hand, Holder is trying to appease the left and make it seem like we're above all of it, and then Obama guarantees that not only he'll be found guilty, but that he'll hang. If the latter is going to hold true, then just deal with it in the military court and be done with it. The risks here of bringing this trial to federal court simply outweigh the benefits so many times over. It's not even close. And now with Obama basically affirming a death sentence, well, what's the point now?

I hate to agree with Pat Buchanan, but this could end up being a bigger mess for Obama than everything else combined. It could trump all other issues.

BHO and Holder playing Good Cop/Bad Cop.

212

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:02:53am

re: #187 webevintage

Actually, there were a whole host of Supreme Court cases, and each had to work their way through the appeals process before any tribunal could proceed. Holder's firm was among those representing detainees in the process. The MTA was first deemed unconstitutional, and Congress with the President working together, reworked the tribunal system to make it operate in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Now, we've got Obama pushing a bifurcation in trial and tribunals depending on the amount of evidence, rather than trying everyone in tribunals. It's a tacit recognition that tribunals are acceptable venues for dealing with the detainees, and therefore all should have been treated as such.

The problem is that the tribunals were excoriated and denounced roundly by the Left so Obama is pushing ahead with the trials, and some will get tribunals that may end up with still more lawsuits that affect their operation - up to and including invalidating the tribunals altogether because of the disparate treatment of some detainees.

Oh, and Obama and Holder admit that some detainees will never see the inside of a courtroom under either tribunal or trial because of evidenciary issues and that regardless of outcome, some will never be released (including KSM).

213

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:02:55am

re: #207 webevintage

Then why is he still alive?

*face-palm*

214

Killgore Trout Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:03:00am

re: #187 webevintage

Why did the previous administration not go ahead with a military tribunal?
(Honest question, not a "bush sucked" question)
Was it because of the SC ruling?

They had to make some changes after the court ruling but Bush continued with the process. Obama briefly stopped the tribunals but activated them again. The tribunals are still active but for some reason there's not any progress.

215

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:03:03am

re: #194 brookly red

how do we win by convicting an enemy who wants to be martyred?

we will never convince him. we will convict him. We will show ourselves, and everyone else out there that in the end we win - we get our man, we put him away and New York goes on. I live a few blocks from there (and from Ground Zero) and I'll be happy to walk by each day and laugh knowing that he's stuck in chains and that I can go for a nice walk on the Westway in the fresh air and sun.

216

Ojoe Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:03:04am

Why give KSM any platform at all ?

Father time will take him out in Gitmo if we just leave him there in obscurity.

It takes a moron to put the country through what is coming with these proceedings in NY.

Thanks, morons.
/

217

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:03:26am

re: #193 Sharmuta

And it's because of the issues raised up thread and on other threads that most Americans (nearly 2/3) think this belongs in a tribunal. We already had a tribunal for KSM, and he confessed! Why on God's green earth did we reject that?!

Don't know why. Perhaps this is a duplication of efforts here that will be a waste of time. Since Bush was never going to try KSM in any venue, the 2008 election was our referendum as to how he would be brought to justice. Can anybody honestly say they were surprised that Obama and Holder chose this route?

218

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:03:34am

What would FDR do?

How terrorists were dealt with by FDR

219

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:03:37am

New Terror Transcripts from Gitmo

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

220

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:03:50am

re: #207 webevintage

Then why is he still alive?

Ask Holder.

221

StillAMarine Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:04:02am

re: #188 Cineaste

Why on earth would that happen? Our federal judges are very good at their jobs and generally won't stand for that shit. This isn't Lance Ito, a regular criminal court judge from LA County, this is the big leagues and they've done this a lot of times without a circus.

I most heartily hope you are correct. You may (note may) be wrong, but I hope I am the one that is wrong here.

222

AZDave Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:04:25am

re: #31 lawhawk

SDNY is also the location where the largest of the terror attacks occurred; Ground Zero, so it would have jurisdiction on that ground alone. Since KSM and the others are being tried in connection with the terror attacks, SDNY would be a proper venue.

Where is the government going to find a jury of their (terrorists) peers? Is the government going to import some Taliban jurors? Maybe some Saudis, too.

223

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:04:26am

re: #204 Rexatosis

This policy has a host of potential negatives:
1. Any terrorist attack on NYC (no matter how limited) will get maximum worldwide press coverage to the benefit of AlQ.
2. The trial itself gives the terrorists a platform from which to spread their message of jihad.
3. American intelligence methods and procedures may be released due to discovery (it is important to remember the '93 WTC trial gave AlQ a better understanding of how to bring WTC 1 and 2 down by showing them exactly why the '93 attack failed).
4. It will highlight the U.S. military's use of waterboarding (Pres. Bush is no longer C in C, Pres. Obama is) and the negative world press coverage and propaganda based on bringing this issue up may hamper American policy.
5. If a strict reading of the SCOTUS' opinion on Miranda is held much (if not all) of the evidence gathered overseas may be thrown out putting convictions in peril.
6. If a loose interpretation of the SCOTUS' opinion on Miranda is held allowing evidence normally excluded from a criminal trial then the trials may be viewed internationally as "show trials" damaging America's standing and policies regarding "international law" (see current policies regarding Piracy for example)
And so on...

There is almost no upside to this policy. The argument that it will restore American credibility after the "excesses of Bush 43" is specious at best. "You can't defuse a bomb after it's gone off."

I have a bad feeling this will also lead in as even more justification for Holder to prosecute the CIA and to attempt to bring in Cheney and Pres. Bush under war crimes...(Tinfoil hat shining from the roof)...

224

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:05:18am

re: #203 albusteve

tell us why you support putting NYC at risk rather have this case tried by tribunal...that's what I'm interested in, if you'd care to explain

What increased risk? Terrorists wouldn't want to bomb the trial if he's spewing his BS - they'll want him to keep talking. And either way, it's New York, we're always at risk. We're the only place in the 50 states that has been hit repeatedly by foreign terrorists (DC got hit once by a terrorist and once by a Puerto Rican separatist, I acknowledge) and it's not going to stop until we kill or capture them all.

225

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:05:32am

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.

Why was this stopped?!

226

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:05:51am

As for the issue of security in NYC, it's not like NYC isn't already the top target in Al Qaeda's scope. We've been hit twice hard, and several other attempts have been thwarted.

It's a matter of time before they try again.

227

AZDave Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:05:51am

re: #37 Sharmuta

Exactly right, lawhawk, and as Gus and Jaunte discovered last night, al-qaeda would again get a look into the intelligence apparatus. This is going to to have consequences that the Obama administration doesn't seem to be considering.

Or want to completely ignore.

228

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:06:11am

re: #224 Cineaste

What increased risk? Terrorists wouldn't want to bomb the trial if he's spewing his BS - they'll want him to keep talking. And either way, it's New York, we're always at risk. We're the only place in the 50 states that has been hit repeatedly by foreign terrorists (DC got hit once by a terrorist and once by a Puerto Rican separatist, I acknowledge) and it's not going to stop until we kill or capture them all.

You reallly don't know dick about terrorism, do you?

229

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:06:30am

re: #215 Cineaste

we will never convince him. we will convict him. We will show ourselves, and everyone else out there that in the end we win - we get our man, we put him away and New York goes on. I live a few blocks from there (and from Ground Zero) and I'll be happy to walk by each day and laugh knowing that he's stuck in chains and that I can go for a nice walk on the Westway in the fresh air and sun.

I would perfer that "everyone else" was scared shitless of even thinking about doing something like that again, but that's just me.

230

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:06:47am

Ya got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em...

231

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:06:50am

re: #215 Cineaste

we will never convince him. we will convict him. We will show ourselves, and everyone else out there that in the end we win - we get our man, we put him away and New York goes on. I live a few blocks from there (and from Ground Zero) and I'll be happy to walk by each day and laugh knowing that he's stuck in chains and that I can go for a nice walk on the Westway in the fresh air and sun.

your bluster is so Hollywood...why don't you answer my question?...#203

232

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:07:10am

re: #225 Sharmuta

They would muddy the waters with overlapping claims. Bragging to have done far more than they actually could have. Then all the confessions are suspect.

233

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:07:18am

I HOPE EVERYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE HE WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IS FUCKING HAPPY NOW!

234

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:07:38am

re: #118 Killgore Trout

Oath keepers Featured on CNN Guardians of The Republic

[Video]

Very even handed report, surprising for a cable news show. I'd like to point out a small mistake. At the 1:45 mark they show an oath keepers tag on what they call a "military uniform". What they were showing was not a military uniform. It was miltary style but besides the oath keepers tag it also had a 3 percent tag and some flag symbolism I don't recognize.

I'd also like to point out that their oath mentions refusing to disarm the citizenry which the reporters made out to be about gun control laws (roughly the 4 min mark) and completely forgetting, or ignoring, what happened to the citizens of New Orleans during Katrina. You would have thought something that recent that ended in a major lawsuit would not have been forgotten so quickly.

235

Ojoe Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:07:40am

re: #225 Sharmuta

No good to let them confess & get martyrdom.

It is the 40 year incremental rotting that would be a true defeat for them.

They need that, every day by boring day.

236

lrsshadow Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:07:44am

re: #181 keithgabryelski

Ahh actually our governance of prisoners is anchored in the Geneva Conventions. Under the Geneva Conventions a person who was captured committing attacks with out uniform and being part of a well regulated militia, were considered as spies and have no rights of protection what so ever. It is completly acceptable under the Geneva Conventions to kill, torture, and do what every you want to them.

However, President Bush afforded the prisoners prisoner of war status to the detainees even though we were not legally obligated to do so.

Although we still did bad things to some of them like; Seven of those approved techniques are not included in U.S. military doctrine, and are listed as: "change of scenery up; change of scenery down; dietary manipulation; environmental manipulation; sleep adjustment (reversal) ; isolation for 30 days"; and a technique known as "false flag," or deceiving a detainee into believing he is being interrogated by someone from another country.

The other 17 techniques are approved in standard military doctrine and carry these names: direct questioning; incentive/removal of incentive; emotional love/hate; fear up/harsh; fear up/mild; reduced fear; pride and ego up and down; futility; "we know all"; establish your identity; repetition; file and dossier; good cop/bad cop; rapid fire; and silence.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

237

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:08:01am

re: #210 Oh no...Sand People!

Not his prattling...it's how the media is going to spin it. Just you watch, every lefist hater is going to pile onto how shitty we as a country are. "Torture" / "Oppressors"...insert self loathing leftist code word of choice (HERE). It will embolden the enemy to realize how weak we are as a nation when the self hate crowd commandeers the microphones.

That's just it - we're not weak. We're really f-ing strong. Stop tuning in to Glenn Beck crying every day about how the great America we once had is gone. It's not, he just wants it to be gone. We are a great country founded on a great promise and great ideals and if we can't put one person on trial and survive it then we truly have gone to the dogs. The left will saying nothing that is worse than what's already been said over the last 6 years:

Torture - already public
Detentions - already public
Renditions - already public
Dumb War - already public
Misinformation - already public

wtf? Stop being scared people.

238

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:08:01am

re: #233 MandyManners

Thank You Mandy!

239

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:08:20am

re: #212 lawhawk

Actually, there were a whole host of Supreme Court cases, and each had to work their way through the appeals process before any tribunal could proceed. Holder's firm was among those representing detainees in the process. The MTA was first deemed unconstitutional, and Congress with the President working together, reworked the tribunal system to make it operate in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks.
And thanks everyone for the discussion.
Very interesting...

240

StillAMarine Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:08:47am

re: #223 Oh no...Sand People!

I have a bad feeling this will also lead in as even more justification for Holder to prosecute the CIA and to attempt to bring in Cheney and Pres. Bush under war crimes...(Tinfoil hat shining from the roof)...

I totally agree.

241

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:09:20am

re: #224 Cineaste

What increased risk? Terrorists wouldn't want to bomb the trial if he's spewing his BS - they'll want him to keep talking. And either way, it's New York, we're always at risk. We're the only place in the 50 states that has been hit repeatedly by foreign terrorists (DC got hit once by a terrorist and once by a Puerto Rican separatist, I acknowledge) and it's not going to stop until we kill or capture them all.

you say there is no increased security risk...you are living in some fairytale...good luck with that...you may see yourself as a NY bigshot tough guy, I think it's dark humor...you are nobody

242

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:09:44am

re: #158 thedopefishlives

You moved the goalposts. You asked where in the Constitution it said American Citizen. I showed you. The Constitution is, fundamentally and foremost, a document preserving the rights of the American Citizen from its government. To apply those rights universally would be an affront to those who work so hard to become citizens every year, just to earn that priceless protection.

This was not "moving the goalposts" -- you chose to ignore common english language colloquialism. To the point: you have committed a strawman fallacy.

I would have hoped you would have understood the question as posed, which was:

"Show me where in the constitution is states the rights of the people are only given to citizens".

I showed you amendments where it says "The people" instead of citizens.

I can also show you where, in the constitution, it says citizen (to describe the who can vote, or be eligible for a seat in congress) -- so there is some evidence the writers understood the difference.

Lastly, the lines associated with "We the people" defines the people enacting the legislation, not the people whom the legislation is targeted.

Really lastly: Let's not play word games -- let's actually try to have an honest discussion.

243

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:10:03am

re: #228 MandyManners

You reallly don't know dick about terrorism, do you?

Actually I'm pretty well versed, thank you very much.

244

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:10:08am

re: #233 MandyManners

I HOPE EVERYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE HE WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IS FUCKING HAPPY NOW!

I refused to vote for McCain because Sarah Palin could have become president.

245

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:10:24am

re: #237 Cineaste

That's just it - we're not weak. We're really f-ing strong. Stop tuning in to Glenn Beck crying every day about how the great America we once had is gone. It's not, he just wants it to be gone. We are a great country founded on a great promise and great ideals and if we can't put one person on trial and survive it then we truly have gone to the dogs. The left will saying nothing that is worse than what's already been said over the last 6 years:

Torture - already public
Detentions - already public
Renditions - already public
Dumb War - already public
Misinformation - already public

wtf? Stop being scared people.

Again...it's not 'fear' / 'scared'. It is we are our worst obstacle at the moment...and for what...WHAT? To appease the statists and self haters.

246

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:10:45am

re: #225 Sharmuta

Gitmo Terrorists Want to 'Confess'

Why was this stopped?!

BO has some explaining to do...this is starting to really smell foul

247

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:11:04am

re: #219 Sharmuta

New Terror Transcripts from Gitmo

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

but wasn't that during a period of time where KSM was offering to plead guilty if the U.S. would give him the death sentence? If that's the case then I can see a deft attorney getting all of that tossed before the trial starts.

248

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:11:07am

re: #235 Ojoe

No good to let them confess & get martyrdom.

It is the 40 year incremental rotting that would be a true defeat for them.

They need that, every day by boring day.

I don't care if they're happy they get their martyrdom. I don't care if we let them rot in a brig.

I don't want a show trial that will end up helping al-qaeda, period.

249

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:11:52am

re: #247 RogueOne

but wasn't that during a period of time where KSM was offering to plead guilty if the U.S. would give him the death sentence? If that's the case then I can see a deft attorney getting all of that tossed before the trial starts.

WTF?! We're going for the death penalty NOW! What is the fucking difference?!

250

Ojoe Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:12:29am

re: #248 Sharmuta

I agree. No show trial.

The thought of overhearing Amy Goodman going on about it, on someone else's radio, makes me shudder.

251

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:12:39am

re: #244 Cato the Elder

I refused to vote for McCain because Sarah Palin could have become president.

That scares you more than Biden? I just saw the replay from his interview with John Stewart, if that man were any dumber he'd need a helmet.

252

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:12:51am

I know: Let's just summarily execute anyone taken on the field of battle. Problem solved.

Except for, oh wait...we're better than that?

Nah. Kill everyone and let God sort 'em out.

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

253

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:12:53am

re: #243 Cineaste

Actually I'm pretty well versed, thank you very much.

/I question the wisdom of you master grasshopper...

254

Ojoe Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:13:12am

BBL

255

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:13:16am

re: #234 RogueOne

I'd also like to point out that their oath mentions refusing to disarm the citizenry which the reporters made out to be about gun control laws (roughly the 4 min mark) and completely forgetting, or ignoring, what happened to the citizens of New Orleans during Katrina. You would have thought something that recent that ended in a major lawsuit would not have been forgotten so quickly.

A major lawsuit that got little if ANY attention by the MSM. Most American's don't even know about it.

256

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:13:48am

re: #252 Cato the Elder

I know: Let's just summarily execute anyone taken on the field of battle. Problem solved.

Except for, oh wait...we're better than that?

Nah. Kill everyone and let God sort 'em out.

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

You're finally coming around...
//

257

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:13:50am

re: #226 lawhawk

As for the issue of security in NYC, it's not like NYC isn't already the top target in Al Qaeda's scope. We've been hit twice hard, and several other attempts have been thwarted.

It's a matter of time before they try again.

For the second time on this thread, thank you! KSM's trial can't make us a bigger security threat than we already are.

258

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:14:09am

re: #251 RogueOne

That scares you more than Biden? I just saw the replay from his interview with John Stewart, if that man were any dumber he'd need a helmet.

His hair plugs are made from a substance designed by NASA to absorb impacts and is heat resistant up to 1000 degrees Celsius.

259

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:14:14am

re: #191 Rightwingconspirator

An easy defense for KSM is how many times he has been "tortured" water-boarded. Already subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" many times over. Let's ask Holder about that little wrinkle.

Any and all evidence (including all gathered from the resulting "cascade" is tainted and inadmissible. Furthermore, if the defense can demonstrate that the prosecution used such tainted evidence to "know where to look" for "clean" evidence then that evidence is subject to being thrown out too.

Bush assembled "clean teams" after the due process rulings and tried to get clean evidence after mirandizing KSM et al - that will be the evidence that Holder will be presenting. Massive irony in all of that, IMO.

260

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:14:16am

re: #212 lawhawk

Actually, there were a whole host of Supreme Court cases, and each had to work their way through the appeals process before any tribunal could proceed. Holder's firm was among those representing detainees in the process. The MTA was first deemed unconstitutional, and Congress with the President working together, reworked the tribunal system to make it operate in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

So by the time the tribunal system was reworked it was too late for the previous administration to actually pass sentence or begin trials and that left it up to the next AG to make those decisions.
Correct?

261

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:14:48am

re: #219 Sharmuta

New Terror Transcripts from Gitmo

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

All prejudicial now.

262

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:15:06am

re: #243 Cineaste

Actually I'm pretty well versed, thank you very much.

Then you would know that the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, not to persuade.

263

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:15:24am

re: #249 Sharmuta

WTF?! We're going for the death penalty NOW! What is the fucking difference?!

I'm just saying it would be an awful easy argument for a defendant to make that he just couldn't take the "torture" anymore and was willing to admit to whatever he had to in order to get it all to stop. Not saying it would be a truthful argument, just an easy one.

264

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:15:52am

re: #257 Surabaya Stew

For the second time on this thread, thank you! KSM's trial can't make us a bigger security threat than we already are.

Why are we a threat to our security?

265

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:15:54am

re: #252 Cato the Elder

I know: Let's just summarily execute anyone taken on the field of battle. Problem solved.

Except for, oh wait...we're better than that?

Nah. Kill everyone and let God sort 'em out.

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

Nice reductionism there CATO. If you oppose running around an mirandizing the enemy captured then you must be a genocidal war criminal. I get it.

266

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:16:09am

re: #242 keithgabryelski

This was not "moving the goalposts" -- you chose to ignore common english language colloquialism. To the point: you have committed a strawman fallacy.

I would have hoped you would have understood the question as posed, which was:

"Show me where in the constitution is states the rights of the people are only given to citizens".

I showed you amendments where it says "The people" instead of citizens.

I can also show you where, in the constitution, it says citizen (to describe the who can vote, or be eligible for a seat in congress) -- so there is some evidence the writers understood the difference.

Lastly, the lines associated with "We the people" defines the people enacting the legislation, not the people whom the legislation is targeted.

Really lastly: Let's not play word games -- let's actually try to have an honest discussion.

fallacy or not, I agree with dopefish. "We" the people means American Citizens. Perhaps it can be stretched to "US Persons", after that the sovereignty of nations is sacred.

267

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:16:17am

re: #231 albusteve

your bluster is so Hollywood...why don't you answer my question?...#203

Because there are real problems with the MCA and the strike-down in Boudienne but frankly I don't care which group tries him. I want him convicted and put away and if we do it in Civilian courts in lower Manhattan as we've done 145 times before then so be it. I'm just not afraid of that and I'm not afraid of what he has to say or of what the looney left has to say. we're better than that.

268

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:16:25am

re: #264 Walter L. Newton

Why are we a threat to our security?

*chuckles*

269

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:16:57am

re: #252 Cato the Elder

I know: Let's just summarily execute anyone taken on the field of battle. Problem solved.

Except for, oh wait...we're better than that?

Nah. Kill everyone and let God sort 'em out.

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

If we did that, we could miss information about future attacks against our troops and possibly attacks against civilians in other parts of the world.

270

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:17:03am

re: #264 Walter L. Newton

Why are we a threat to our security?

/something about an election, it's complicated...

271

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:17:28am

re: #268 Oh no...Sand People!

*chuckles*

I wasn't really trying to be humorous. I don't understand Stew's point at all?

272

AZDave Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:17:38am

re: #67 keithgabryelski

So, New York has the death penalty but also has a moratorium on carrying out the punishment (since 1976 or such?) -- how does this mesh with statements (from President Obama? or was it Holder?) that they will tried with the death penalty a consequence of their conviction?

So, if they are convicted they will sit in jail until some hostage situation comes along and they will be traded for them.

273

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:18:54am

So I have yet to hear how a military commission for Al Nashiri meets both moral and due process standards whereas a military commission for KSM did not.

Nor have I heard how parading KSM through New York (the target of a genocidal crime) after aborting his prior trial is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

274

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:18:58am

re: #272 AZDave

So, if they are convicted they will sit in jail until some hostage situation comes along and they will be traded for them.

No this is federal court, not state court, so NY laws have nothing to do with this.

275

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:19:05am

Holder is a dissebling jack-ass tool, who insults the readers' intelligence with a lame statement like that..

276

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:19:06am

re: #271 Walter L. Newton

I wasn't really trying to be humorous. I don't understand Stew's point at all?

Fair enough. I will retract my *chuckle*.

277

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:19:18am

re: #264 Walter L. Newton

Why are we a threat to our security?

Elections have consequences.

278

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:19:36am

re: #267 Cineaste

Because there are real problems with the MCA and the strike-down in Boudienne but frankly I don't care which group tries him. I want him convicted and put away and if we do it in Civilian courts in lower Manhattan as we've done 145 times before then so be it. I'm just not afraid of that and I'm not afraid of what he has to say or of what the looney left has to say. we're better than that.

I think you may have some kind of complex...I'm a NYer. we'er better than that, we'll survive...blah blah...you see no heightened security risk, bring it on...all the while blowing off tribunals as an alternative...you are pretty selfish

279

charlz Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:20:25am

re: #212 lawhawk

It's a tacit recognition that tribunals are acceptable venues for dealing with the detainees, and therefore all should have been treated as such.

You keep making that assertion, but it doesn't follow logically. About half of the cases will be trials and half tribunals. The military and Justice department engaged in extended negotiations to determine which defendant was tried where. I have every confidence that justice will prevail in either case.

280

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:20:58am

re: #272 AZDave

So, if they are convicted they will sit in jail until some hostage situation comes along and they will be traded for them.

That's one scenario.

281

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:21:15am

re: #279 charlz

Why the double standard? And you do realize this double standard will create more lawsuits, right?

282

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:21:16am

re: #273 karmic_inquisitor

So I have yet to hear how a military commission for Al Nashiri meets both moral and due process standards whereas a military commission for KSM did not.

Nor have I heard how parading KSM through New York (the target of a genocidal crime) after aborting his prior trial is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

nor will you...it's a done deal, these guys are down a dead end road

283

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:21:37am

re: #262 MandyManners

Then you would know that the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, not to persuade.

Well in this case, their ultimate goal is not terror but, rather, to bait us (and everyone else) into the end-times war between civilization that they need for their wahabi dream, but terror is a step on that path.

Let me state for the record, when we had Osama and friends cornered in Tora Bora I was completely in favor of a tactical nuke and removing everyone's access rights to that area for the next 10,000 years or so.

284

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:21:42am

re: #271 Walter L. Newton

I wasn't really trying to be humorous. I don't understand Stew's point at all?

I was referring to the fact the New York is already at a high risk of a terrorist attack, and that having KSM's trial here won't make us more unsafe. The "we" was referring to us New Yorkers, not us Americans as a whole.
:-)

285

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:21:44am

re: #280 MandyManners

That's one scenario.

and a lovely senario it is . . .

286

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:21:54am

re: #251 RogueOne

That scares you more than Biden? I just saw the replay from his interview with John Stewart, if that man were any dumber he'd need a helmet.

Yes. Sarah Palin in any position to tell anyone what to do = disaster.

287

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:21:58am

re: #277 Guanxi88

Elections have consequences.

Damn right brother!

288

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:22:01am

re: #257 Surabaya Stew

For the second time on this thread, thank you! KSM's trial can't make us a bigger security threat than we already are.

I'm still waiting for an answer. How are we a threat to our security?

289

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:22:13am

re: #205 borgcube

That's what I don't get. On one hand, Holder is trying to appease the left and make it seem like we're above all of it, and then Obama guarantees that not only he'll be found guilty, but that he'll hang. If the latter is going to hold true, then just deal with it in the military court and be done with it. The risks here of bringing this trial to federal court simply outweigh the benefits so many times over. It's not even close. And now with Obama basically affirming a death sentence, well, what's the point now?

290

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:22:26am

re: #272 AZDave

So, if they are convicted they will sit in jail until some hostage situation comes along and they will be traded for them.

If they are convicted... that's what bothers me.

291

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:22:36am

re: #272 AZDave

So, if they are convicted they will sit in jail until some hostage situation comes along and they will be traded for them.

When has the US ever traded civilian prisoners for hostages?

292

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:22:44am

Geneva Convention should never have been invoked.

293

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:23:09am

re: #292 ggt

Why?

294

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:23:19am

re: #279 charlz

You keep making that assertion, but it doesn't follow logically. About half of the cases will be trials and half tribunals. The military and Justice department engaged in extended negotiations to determine which defendant was tried where. I have every confidence that justice will prevail in either case.

can you link to an explanation for the difference in venues?

295

Liberal Classic Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:23:38am

Nidal Malik Hasan deserves a trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed does not.

296

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:23:45am

re: #292 ggt

Geneva Convention should never have been invoked.

How do they apply to this enemy?

297

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:23:47am

re: #283 Cineaste

Well in this case, their ultimate goal is not terror but, rather, to bait us (and everyone else) into the end-times war between civilization that they need for their wahabi dream, but terror is a step on that path.

Let me state for the record, when we had Osama and friends cornered in Tora Bora I was completely in favor of a tactical nuke and removing everyone's access rights to that area for the next 10,000 years or so.

Play your false bravado for someone else. I'm dropping the rope.

298

jaunte Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:24:28am

Does anyone have any links to the rationale/legal explanation for dividing captured terrorists into the three groups of:
- Try in Federal court
- Try by Military Tribunal
- Incarcerate indefinitely
???

299

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:24:30am

re: #280 MandyManners

That's one scenario.

[Link: archives.cnn.com...]
From the Lynne Stewart indictment:
[Link: archives.cnn.com...]
Indictment describes terrorist acts

The indictment describes a handful of terrorist attacks carried out by militants demanding Rahman's release from prison. The worst occurred in a November 1997 attack at the Luxor, Egypt, archeological site that killed 58 foreign tourists and four Egyptians, the document says.

"Scattered on the bodies of those who died in Luxor were the pamphlets saying, 'Release the Sheik,'" Ashcroft said.

300

zelnaga Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:24:54am

re: #11 lawhawk

So, if we're at war with these terrorists and a military tribunal was set up by Congress with the President's approval, why take these detainees out of military hands to put them into civilian courts? The military courts are better prepared to deal with national security matters, and in civilian courts, the detainees can act as their own attorneys and demand and gain access to sensitive information, which includes lists of unindicted coconspirators and others who might later become targets or result in shifting of assets with the assistance of others (such as the case of Lynne Stewart aiding and abetting Abdel Rahman contact his minions overseas in violation of federal law and agreements with prosecutors).

We tried Manuel Noriega, dictator of Panama, in a civilian court, after invading Panama to get him. Saddam Hussein was tried in a civilian court, as well, after we captured him. How is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company any different?

301

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:25:33am

re: #288 Walter L. Newton

I'm still waiting for an answer. How are we a threat to our security?

Heh..just realized how my #257 could be misconstrued the completely wrong way! Seriously, was referring to New York being at risk already, and not to America causing that threat.

302

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:25:34am

re: #284 Surabaya Stew

I was referring to the fact the New York is already at a high risk of a terrorist attack, and that having KSM's trial here won't make us more unsafe. The "we" was referring to us New Yorkers, not us Americans as a whole.
:-)

That doesn't make an ounce of sense. Sure, NYC is always a target, but having this circus in the city couldn't do anything but make it even MORE attractive.

Or are you trying to say that the threat level would be the same on any day, with or without the trial there?

303

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:25:37am

re: #278 albusteve

I think you may have some kind of complex...I'm a NYer. we'er better than that, we'll survive...blah blah...you see no heightened security risk, bring it on...all the while blowing off tribunals as an alternative...you are pretty selfish

Read what I said. I don't care if he's in a civilian court or a tribunal. That being said, the MCA was a badly written piece of legislation (no surprise, given the authors) and it has posed a host of legal problems ever since. I'm just not afraid of him being tried in public. We're better than that. I don't see why you think we can't handle it as a society?

Please explain to me the "heightened" security risk we'll face if that man is tried here, as opposed to all the other terrorists and drug king-pins we've tried here? (frankly, many of the drug king-pins are tried south of here but you know what I'm saying)

304

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:25:40am

re: #300 zelnaga

We tried Manuel Noriega, dictator of Panama, in a civilian court, after invading Panama to get him. Saddam Hussein was tried in a civilian court, as well, after we captured him. How is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company any different?

Saddam was tried in an American Federal court?!

305

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:25:56am

re: #292 ggt

Geneva Convention should never have been invoked.

Actually, it should have been adhered to more strictly. Its been second guessing and attempting to heap other arguements on top of it that has lead us down this path. Nonuniformed combatants = unlawful combatants = Military tribunals.

306

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:26:15am

re: #296 ggt

How do they apply to this enemy?

they don't and everybody knows it...this is just continued BDS...I've said all along it's the most powerful force I've ever seen in the political and social landscape...first we got BO, and now it's bearing even more fruits

307

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:26:35am

re: #300 zelnaga

We tried Manuel Noriega, dictator of Panama, in a civilian court, after invading Panama to get him. Saddam Hussein was tried in a civilian court, as well, after we captured him. How is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company any different?

Huh?

308

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:27:18am

re: #269 MandyManners

If we did that, we could miss information about future attacks against our troops and possibly attacks against civilians in other parts of the world.

I would be in favour of a brief, extremely vigorous interrogation, followed immediately by death by firing squad.
Yes I would.

309

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:27:29am

re: #279 charlz

You keep making that assertion, but it doesn't follow logically. About half of the cases will be trials and half tribunals. The military and Justice department engaged in extended negotiations to determine which defendant was tried where. I have every confidence that justice will prevail in either case.

So the rights that the accused are entitled to are to be determined negotiations between two parties, neither of which are the accused?

That is due process?

That meets the high moral standard of jurisprudence that will redeem the US in the eyes of the world?

310

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:27:30am

re: #283 Cineaste

Well in this case, their ultimate goal is not terror but, rather, to bait us (and everyone else) into the end-times war between civilization that they need for their wahabi dream, but terror is a step on that path.

Let me state for the record, when we had Osama and friends cornered in Tora Bora I was completely in favor of a tactical nuke and removing everyone's access rights to that area for the next 10,000 years or so.

well that pretty much sums it up...nuke em

311

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:27:31am

re: #298 jaunte

Does anyone have any links to the rationale/legal explanation for dividing captured terrorists into the three groups of:
- Try in Federal court
- Try by Military Tribunal
- Incarcerate indefinitely
???

politics

312

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:27:50am

re: #303 Cineaste

I don't see why you think we can't handle it as a society?

GOOD GRAVY! I don't think anyone is saying we "can't handle it as a society". What we are saying is there are very real and legitimate concerns surrounding this decision and we therefore think this is a bad idea. If you're not sure what those concerns are, I'd start at the top of the thread and read down.

313

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:28:03am

re: #305 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Actually, it should have been adhered to more strictly. Its been second guessing and attempting to heap other arguements on top of it that has lead us down this path. Nonuniformed combatants = unlawful combatants = Military tribunals.

Our enemy is not a signatory nation.

314

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:28:59am

re: #303 Cineaste

Read what I said. I don't care if he's in a civilian court or a tribunal. That being said, the MCA was a badly written piece of legislation (no surprise, given the authors) and it has posed a host of legal problems ever since. I'm just not afraid of him being tried in public. We're better than that. I don't see why you think we can't handle it as a society?

Please explain to me the "heightened" security risk we'll face if that man is tried here, as opposed to all the other terrorists and drug king-pins we've tried here? (frankly, many of the drug king-pins are tried south of here but you know what I'm saying)

So, you are saying that the day to day risk that exists in NYC will be the same as when they are in town and a trial going on.

Same threat, any day, doesn't matter, no difference. Right?

315

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:29:35am

Had we not tortured these men, a civilian trial - and giving them the platform to speak would be a good thing. These are Jihadis. Let them publicly spew their bile and remind people what we are fighting against. The Islamists provide the best propaganda for us when we let them show their true colors.

However, since we did violate any number of principles that we are supposed to stand for, they have a ready made propaganda piece against us. None the less, we have Kahlid videotaped himself decapitating an American before he was captured. It would be hard to keep that out of the public eye when he goes to trial. The most important thing that the U.S. can do is show who these people are in a just way that follows the rule of law and is subject to as little question as possible.

The only way to do that is with a public trial.

We have to be the good guys in our own eyes even more than the rest of the world. The entire point of the Left is to say that nothing matters in terms of right and wrong. We have to clearly show wrong for what it is. The far right on the other hand is simply ok with breaking the law if it punishes enemies. That of course, is exactly how the Jihadis think.

316

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:30:03am

I don't know all the ramifications of the two courts, but as I understand it, lots of terrorists (over 200 as I undersatnd it) have been tried in American civilian courts and are now serving time in SuperMax, including Richard Reid and the blind sheik.

As I also understand it, Mohammed has already plead guilty to his crimes so there is a VERY strong possibility there will be no jury trial, he will not pass go, he will not collect $200 and instead go directly to jail. And thereby not be given the chance to espouse his views.

317

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:30:28am

re: #298 jaunte

Holder was before a Senate Judiciary Committee -- and it was to answer that very question -- "Why move the terrorists to NY and have them tried in federal court?" (imo, he reiterated that that was the best place to gain a conviction. A senator then asked him, not quoting verbatim here " Well, if KSM has already confessed to specific crimes, admitted his guilt, why isn't the Military Tribunal venue good enough? - - ie, what could possibly be better than that?" Holder didn't really answer the question...

318

Varek Raith Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:30:34am

re: #300 zelnaga

We tried Manuel Noriega, dictator of Panama, in a civilian court, after invading Panama to get him. Saddam Hussein was tried in a civilian court, as well, after we captured him. How is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company any different?

Uh...how are they different, you ask? Really? Further, Saddam was tried in an Iraqi court. Seems like apples and oranges to me.
/still a bad idea to try KSM in this fashion.

319

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:30:41am

re: #279 charlz

That's just it; if the tribunals were okay for some but not others, a lawyer representing a detainee who is forced into tribunals will claim that some right of theirs was violated because they didn't get a trial. That issue will have to work its way through the courts until it is decided by the Supreme Court, and thereafter the court/tribunal procedure will be adjusted accordingly.

Don't think that the defense teams aren't already working on just that scenario.

Just because the military and DOJ engaged in negotiation doesn't mean that the detainee has to sit back and accept a tribunal when they're seeing other detainees go into civil court. They too will claim access to the courts.

It reinforces my point; the tribunals should have been the only venue for the detainees, but this Administration sought to bring some them into federal court.

320

Oh no...Sand People! Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:30:57am

I gotta get off this thread...

321

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:31:01am

Let's just pull out of Afghanistan now, eh? Leave it law enforcement just like the Clinton administration did. Because hey- that worked wonders.

322

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:31:33am

As it stands now progressive moralists are endorsing a process that they previously condemned as grotesquely wrong simply because Obama is now OK with it (and is willing to pronounce the outcome prior to the trials being held too).

I will regard the them with less contempt when they replace their "Free Mumia" t-shirts with "Free Al Nashiri" ones. At least then they won't be the hypocrites that they now so plainly are.

323

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:31:35am

re: #295 Liberal Classic

Nidal Malik Hasan deserves a trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed does not.

And Hasan will get a trial - in a military court martial, which is the proper venue under US law (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

324

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:31:55am

re: #314 Walter L. Newton

So, you are saying that the day to day risk that exists in NYC will be the same as when they are in town and a trial going on.

Same threat, any day, doesn't matter, no difference. Right?

Are you saying the threat would be any worse than every fall when we have all every leader of every major nation in the world here for a week and a half? Jeeze, we are constantly at risk - some days it's more, some days it's less and if you think there isn't a cave full of guys somewhere planning something horrendous to do to New York then you're wrong. Whether they try during the trial or the next year, does it matter? The key here is that it's not like the trial will create a special vulnerability that is unique.

325

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:15am

re: #316 marjoriemoon

As I also understand it, Mohammed has already plead guilty to his crimes so there is a VERY strong possibility there will be no jury trial, he will not pass go, he will not collect $200 and instead go directly to jail. And thereby not be given the chance to espouse his views.

What makes you think he'll plead guilty now that he has a platform to spew his propaganda? What makes you think his confession will stand?

326

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:24am

re: #313 ggt

Our enemy is not a signatory nation.

Doesn't matter, we did sign it. The GC states the following.

Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[2]

They clearly have engaged in attacks, so they rate as POW and can therefore be tried under military tribunals for war crimes.

327

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:36am

re: #308 Spare O'Lake

I would be in favour of a brief, extremely vigorous interrogation, followed immediately by death by firing squad.
Yes I would.

I don't know if all information could be gathered that way.

328

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:36am

re: #302 Walter L. Newton

That doesn't make an ounce of sense. Sure, NYC is always a target, but having this circus in the city couldn't do anything but make it even MORE attractive.

Or are you trying to say that the threat level would be the same on any day, with or without the trial there?

The second one. This trail will be done in 12 months from now, and from knowledge of Al-Q, it's not likely that an entirely new terrorist plot will be hatched, plotted, and executed in that time frame. An existing terrorist plot? That's a whole different matter; one could conceive of Terrorists moving up the date of an attack to coincide with an event, ala the 2005 bombings in London. However, that would just be a matter of when, and it wouldn't change the reality that (like you said) NYC would be a target without KSM. It's a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

329

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:44am

re: #300 zelnaga

Noriega was a civilian crime-Drug dealing. Saddam was tried in his own country for crimes against humanity, among other things. Would you suggest we try KSM in Afghanistan?

330

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:45am

It's the end of the Republic! We cannot survive trials in open court!

Obama is selling us out!

Run! Hide!

331

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:48am

re: #303 Cineaste

Please explain to me the "heightened" security risk we'll face if that man is tried here, as opposed to all the other terrorists and drug king-pins we've tried here?

Lets set aside the security probelms just for a moment (although I don't recall what 100+ story office towers a Pablo Escobar or a John Gotti flew commercial airliners into)

Lets talk legalese
For KSM, please define "jury of his peers"?
Once all the people and procedures are in place, please tell me how soon before his lawyers ask for change of venue?
Once a CIA, FBI, DOD soldier in the chain of command starting with Gitmo Guards and working his way up, where do you envision the defense attorney stopping?

332

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:32:58am

re: #304 Sharmuta

Saddam was tried in an American Federal court?!

Not American, but civilian, I think is the intent.

333

charlz Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:33:03am

re: #281 Sharmuta

Why the double standard? And you do realize this double standard will create more lawsuits, right?

What double standard???

334

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:33:18am

re: #313 ggt

Our enemy is not a signatory nation.

Our enemy is not even a nation!

335

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:33:31am

re: #324 Cineaste

Are you saying the threat would be any worse than every fall when we have all every leader of every major nation in the world here for a week and a half? Jeeze, we are constantly at risk - some days it's more, some days it's less and if you think there isn't a cave full of guys somewhere planning something horrendous to do to New York then you're wrong. Whether they try during the trial or the next year, does it matter? The key here is that it's not like the trial will create a special vulnerability that is unique.

I asked you, answer.

The risk is no different, any day, week to week, month to month, whether they are in town or not, whether there is a trial or not, it's the same... yes or no... I asked you.

336

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:33:44am

re: #326 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They clearly have engaged in attacks, so they rate as POW and can therefore be tried under military tribunals for war crimes.

Yet it is not followed. Better never to have deemed the Geneva Convention applicable and march boldly into unchartered territory.

337

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:33:47am

re: #315 LudwigVanQuixote

To continue, we have a mess that needs to get cleaned up. We need to re-establish that we are a nation of laws and a republic that stands by its own ideals. The only way to re-establish that is to follow those ideals even when it is painful.

This would be about the fourth or fifth thing on my list for why we should never have tortured. However, it is too late to do anything about that. We are either proud Americans with the courage to satnd for our own system or we are not.

The sub-context here about not giving them a trial is the belief that our own law is so unworkable and so broken that it does not apply. If that is true, then why bother fighting for it?

338

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:33:54am

re: #333 charlz

Are you not reading lawhawk's comments?

339

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:33:58am

re: #317 J.S.

Holder was before a Senate Judiciary Committee -- and it was to answer that very question -- "Why move the terrorists to NY and have them tried in federal court?" (imo, he reiterated that that was the best place to gain a conviction. A senator then asked him, not quoting verbatim here " Well, if KSM has already confessed to specific crimes, admitted his guilt, why isn't the Military Tribunal venue good enough? - - ie, what could possibly be better than that?" Holder didn't really answer the question...

[Link: www.c-span.org...]
The morning and afternoon sessions for our viewing.
I love C-Span.

340

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:34:05am

re: #324 Cineaste

Are you saying the threat would be any worse than every fall when we have all every leader of every major nation in the world here for a week and a half? Jeeze, we are constantly at risk - some days it's more, some days it's less and if you think there isn't a cave full of guys somewhere planning something horrendous to do to New York then you're wrong. Whether they try during the trial or the next year, does it matter? The key here is that it's not like the trial will create a special vulnerability that is unique.

The cops seem to feel differently...

341

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:34:19am

re: #322 karmic_inquisitor

As it stands now progressive moralists are endorsing a process that they previously condemned as grotesquely wrong simply because Obama is now OK with it (and is willing to pronounce the outcome prior to the trials being held too).

I will regard the them with less contempt when they replace their "Free Mumia" t-shirts with "Free Al Nashiri" ones. At least then they won't be the hypocrites that they now so plainly are.

my contempt has skyrocketed over this issue...there is some real nasty shit going down here, stuff is not adding up...now I have the teenage twit syndrome I guess

342

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:34:27am

KSM should be put up at the Waldorf too.

343

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:34:29am

re: #330 Cato the Elder

It's the end of the Republic! We cannot survive trials in open court!

Obama is selling us out!

Run! Hide!

et tu Brute?

344

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:34:40am

re: #328 Surabaya Stew

The second one. This trail will be done in 12 months from now, and from knowledge of Al-Q, it's not likely that an entirely new terrorist plot will be hatched, plotted, and executed in that time frame. An existing terrorist plot? That's a whole different matter; one could conceive of Terrorists moving up the date of an attack to coincide with an event, ala the 2005 bombings in London. However, that would just be a matter of when, and it wouldn't change the reality that (like you said) NYC would be a target without KSM. It's a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

How do you know that there is not a terrorist plot almost ready to go RIGHT now and they are just waiting for a good reason?

345

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:35:04am

re: #334 MandyManners

Shall we let Hezbollah off on the same distinction? I would think not. re:

#331 sattv4u2
Change of venue? Pennsylvania, of course.

346

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:35:17am

re: #315 LudwigVanQuixote

Had we not tortured these men, a civilian trial - and giving them the platform to speak would be a good thing. [...]

We did not "tortured these men" a couple of these terrorist scum were waterboarded which gave us actionable intelligence that save the lives of innocent American civilians.

To be clear, it bothers me that the "mastermind" of the 911 attacks was not tortured. I would far prefer to be discussing his severe, real torture leading to his execution when the interrogators were satisfied he had no more information to give.

347

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:35:23am

If we are nice to al-qaeda, they will be nice to us!

348

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:35:29am

re: #342 Sharmuta

KSM should be put up at the Waldorf too.

All meals at Tavern At The Green

349

Bloodnok Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:35:36am

re: #337 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #315 LudwigVanQuixote

To continue, we have a mess that needs to get cleaned up. We need to re-establish that we are a nation of laws and a republic that stands by its own ideals. The only way to re-establish that is to follow those ideals even when it is painful.

This would be about the fourth or fifth thing on my list for why we should never have tortured. However, it is too late to do anything about that. We are either proud Americans with the courage to satnd for our own system or we are not.
The sub-context here about not giving them a trial is the belief that our own law is so unworkable and so broken that it does not apply. If that is true, then why bother fighting for it?

Tribunals are a part of that very system, Ludwig.

350

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:35:41am

re: #345 Rightwingconspirator

Shall we let Hezbollah off on the same distinction? I would think not. re:

#331 sattv4u2
Change of venue? Pennsylvania, of course.

I think Pennsylvania AVE.

351

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:35:54am

re: #330 Cato the Elder

It's the end of the Republic! We cannot survive trials in open court!

Obama is selling us out!

Run! Hide!

wish I had more updings for that one... ;)

352

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:15am

re: #336 ggt

Yet it is not followed. Better never to have deemed the Geneva Convention applicable and march boldly into unchartered territory.

We already have deemed the GC non applicable and we're heading to Federal Court instead.

353

Varek Raith Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:17am

re: #347 Sharmuta

If we are nice to al-qaeda, they will be nice to us!

If by nice you mean a 2000lb bomb in their laps, then yes. ;)

354

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:19am

re: #325 Sharmuta

What makes you think he'll plead guilty now that he has a platform to spew his propaganda? What makes you think his confession will stand?

Actually I don't. Since we tortured him and held him indefinitely, I think he is smart enough to play the "forced confession" card as strong as he can. That is why the video of him murdering an American will be so important.

OK, we violated our own principles. Because we did, we handed him the opportunity to be more difficult than it would have been otherwise.

355

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:19am

re: #316 marjoriemoon

Obviously KSM's lawyers are going to be arguing that his so-called 'confessions" were made under duress. And guess what happens to his "confessions" of guilt? They will be thrown out -- as they must be...(unless, of course, you think it's acceptable to torture people in the U.S. and then proceed to use their statements against them in a court of law...)

356

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:19am

re: #315 LudwigVanQuixote

Had we not tortured these men, a civilian trial - and giving them the platform to speak would be a good thing. These are Jihadis. Let them publicly spew their bile and remind people what we are fighting against. The Islamists provide the best propaganda for us when we let them show their true colors.

However, since we did violate any number of principles that we are supposed to stand for, they have a ready made propaganda piece against us. None the less, we have Kahlid videotaped himself decapitating an American before he was captured. It would be hard to keep that out of the public eye when he goes to trial. The most important thing that the U.S. can do is show who these people are in a just way that follows the rule of law and is subject to as little question as possible.

The only way to do that is with a public trial.

We have to be the good guys in our own eyes even more than the rest of the world. The entire point of the Left is to say that nothing matters in terms of right and wrong. We have to clearly show wrong for what it is. The far right on the other hand is simply ok with breaking the law if it punishes enemies. That of course, is exactly how the Jihadis think.

We didn't torture them.

Waterbaording isn't torture. Nor is belly slapping and sleep deprivation.

But even if I concede your assertion, it is still wrong.

Any interrogation without mirandizing and access to counsel is inadmissible.

Period.

End of story.

Torture or not.

We could have offered them coca colas and humus and had a pleasant chant. Anything they admitted prior to mirandizing and a access to counsel is a violation of what are now their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination.

The "were it not for the torture" crap is just moralist bile and completely irrelevant to the admissibility of the information from interrogations.

357

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:30am

re: #351 Cineaste

wish I had more updings for that one... ;)

Thats exactly why you don't!

358

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:42am

re: #351 Cineaste

wish I had more updings for that one... ;)

I wish you would answer my question.

359

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:43am

re: #342 Sharmuta

KSM should be put up at the Waldorf too.

Check out the treatment he receives at GITMO. Better than any prison on earth.

360

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:53am

re: #337 LudwigVanQuixote

Its about what kind of trial-Military tribunal like international law calls for or our own criminal justice system. Or just keep him as a combatant. No trial needed.

361

charlz Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:36:59am

re: #294 albusteve

can you link to an explanation for the difference in venues?

Is your question about how the selection of different venues was made? No I don't at the moment, but I was hoping that Holder's testimony would address that. I just haven't had time to read it yet.

362

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:37:20am

re: #331 sattv4u2

Lets talk legalese
For KSM, please define "jury of his peers"?
Once all the people and procedures are in place, please tell me how soon before his lawyers ask for change of venue?
Once a CIA, FBI, DOD soldier in the chain of command starting with Gitmo Guards and working his way up, where do you envision the defense attorney stopping?

Go study the federal trials of other terrorists and then come back. Your answers are there. The definition of Jury of Peers in these cases is structured quite differently than your local murder case. Also, the judges are very good at limiting the cases to the relevant facts. Again, this isn't padoukaville, these judges are very good at what they do.

363

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:37:36am

re: #338 Sharmuta

Are you not reading lawhawk's comments?

astonishing disconnect through this whole thread...amazing

364

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:37:43am

re: #337 LudwigVanQuixote

To continue, we have a mess that needs to get cleaned up. We need to re-establish that we are a nation of laws and a republic that stands by its own ideals. The only way to re-establish that is to follow those ideals even when it is painful.

This would be about the fourth or fifth thing on my list for why we should never have tortured. However, it is too late to do anything about that. We are either proud Americans with the courage to satnd for our own system or we are not.

The sub-context here about not giving them a trial is the belief that our own law is so unworkable and so broken that it does not apply. If that is true, then why bother fighting for it?

Sovreignty of Nations. There IS a line and without we do not have a nation. Justice, Freedom and Peace cannot prevail without that line--anywhere, not just here.

IMHO, this is just one more stop towards the "One World" senerio or whatever the lollipop and unicorn whackos call it.

365

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:37:43am

re: #347 Sharmuta

If we are nice to al-qaeda, they will be nice to us!

You get more with kindness and a Predator armed with hellfires than with just kindness.

366

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:37:54am

re: #330 Cato the Elder

It's the end of the Republic! We cannot survive trials in open court!

Obama is selling us out!

Run! Hide!

Why engage the arguments when you can conflate the opponents arguments into hysteria and then dismiss them?

367

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:15am

re: #339 webevintage

[Link: www.c-span.org...]
The morning and afternoon sessions for our viewing.
I love C-Span.

I do too!

368

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:30am

re: #344 Walter L. Newton

How do you know that there is not a terrorist plot almost ready to go RIGHT now and they are just waiting for a good reason?

You're right, I don't know. However, Terrorists don't need a good reason to to their deeds; they would make their attempt regardless of weather or not KSM is tried here, at a tribunal, or publicly fried in bacon on the White House lawn. (Which sounds like fun, doesn't it?)
:-D

369

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:37am

re: #354 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, we violated ~~our own~~ MY principles. Because we did, we OBAMA AND HOLDER handed him the opportunity to be more difficult than it would have been otherwise

ftfy

370

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:39am

re: #344 Walter L. Newton

How do you know that there is not a terrorist plot almost ready to go RIGHT now and they are just waiting for a good reason?

What kind of logic is that? What other reasons could they possibly be waiting for? Terrorists have been trying to attack America again since the day after 9/11. You think they need the public trial of KSM as a reason?

Let me get this straight. Holding KSM at a black-site prison and ~~torturing~~ interrogating him wasn't enough of a reason to launch an attack. Or holding a military tribunal resulting KSM's execution wouldn't be enough of a reason to attack. But if we give him a fair public trial, well NOW THE TERRORISTS ARE MAD!!!

371

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:40am

re: #335 Walter L. Newton

I asked you, answer.

The risk is no different, any day, week to week, month to month, whether they are in town or not, whether there is a trial or not, it's the same... yes or no... I asked you.

I'm saying that the risk of an ultimate attack does not change. The timing might but the risk doesn't.

372

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:42am

re: #300 zelnaga

Saddam was tried in an Iraqi court under Iraqi law, not a US court.

Noriega's case presents an interesting support for all detainees getting trial, but for the fact that in Noriega's case the charges involved aren't terrorism related and acts of war, but rather simple criminal enterprises (racketeering, drug running, etc.).

373

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:43am

re: #365 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You get more with kindness and a Predator armed with hellfires than with just kindness.

Bugsy! dat you?

374

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:38:57am

re: #364 ggt

Sovreignty of Nations. There IS a line and without we do not have a nation. Justice, Freedom and Peace cannot prevail without that line--anywhere, not just here.

IMHO, this is just one more stop towards the "One World" senerio or whatever the lollipop and unicorn whackos call it.

Evidently that would be OK with Ludwig.

375

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:39:30am

re: #316 marjoriemoon

As I also understand it, Mohammed has already plead guilty to his crimes so there is a VERY strong possibility there will be no jury trial, he will not pass go, he will not collect $200 and instead go directly to jail. And thereby not be given the chance to espouse his views.

You cannot plead guilty to capital offenses. If you try, the judge will reject your plea and enter a plea of "not guilty" instead. In such cases, court examination of all evidence is considered a necessity given the severity of the possible punishment upon conviction, so the case proceeds to trial regardless.

The confession can be used at that trial, but in this case it will most likely be excluded for any of a variety of reasons, ranging from lack of Mirandazation to coercion.

The only way a jury won't be seated is if the accused asks for - and receives - a bench trial. Even them, I'm not certain such a request is permitted, and there is every reason to believe that a judge would not honor it.

376

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:39:33am

re: #325 Sharmuta

What makes you think he'll plead guilty now that he has a platform to spew his propaganda? What makes you think his confession will stand?

I have no idea, but it makes sense to me that since he's been very proud of his guilt, he won't plead not guilty. Then there's no jury trial and we don't have to worry about it.

377

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:39:50am

re: #349 Bloodnok

Tribunals are a part of that very system, Ludwig.

OK, so then, had we given them a proper tribunal, with defense, and openess in a proper and speedy manner, there would not be a problem.

The whole point of putting them in Gitmo in the first place was to put them in a legal black hole. That automatically brings questions.

378

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:40:03am

re: #362 Cineaste

Go study the federal trials of other terrorists and then come back. Your answers are there. The definition of Jury of Peers in these cases is structured quite differently than your local murder case. Also, the judges are very good at limiting the cases to the relevant facts. Again, this isn't padoukaville, these judges are very good at what they do.

HAHAHAHA
How many times did Gotti walk in the very city you're talking about!?!!?

379

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:40:15am

re: #356 karmic_inquisitor

The "were it not for the torture" crap is just moralist bile and completely irrelevant to the admissibility of the information from interrogations.

Aside from being complete BDS inspired bullshit.

380

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:40:27am

re: #365 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You get more with kindness and a Predator armed with hellfires than with just kindness.

I do wonder about those strikes, which I support. If we return to criminalizing the war, as appears to be happening at least in this case, would this mean that certain persons, formerly deemed fair game, would have to be subjects of indictments and trials prior to a snuff-out?

Not snarky, but a genuine question.

381

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:40:31am

re: #355 J.S.

Obviously KSM's lawyers are going to be arguing that his so-called 'confessions" were made under duress. And guess what happens to his "confessions" of guilt? They will be thrown out -- as they must be...(unless, of course, you think it's acceptable to torture people in the U.S. and then proceed to use their statements against them in a court of law...)

His confessions are irrelevant. You think that Holder is stupid enough to bring this case to trial if they don't have other evidence. We have a goddamn video of him beheading someone, not to mention countless reams of intelligence that probably has not been made public.

If the only argument that you can summon against bringing KSM to trial is that "we might lose" you need to keep digging.

382

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:40:48am

re: #355 J.S.

Obviously KSM's lawyers are going to be arguing that his so-called 'confessions" were made under duress. And guess what happens to his "confessions" of guilt? They will be thrown out -- as they must be...(unless, of course, you think it's acceptable to torture people in the U.S. and then proceed to use their statements against them in a court of law...)

You already have his confessions thrown out of court. Neither you nor I have any idea about that.

383

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:40:48am

Gitmo Terrorists Want to 'Confess'

The five said they decided on Nov. 4, the day President-elect Barack Obama was elected to the White House, to abandon all defenses against the capital charges. It was as if they wanted to rush toward convictions before the inauguration of Obama, who has vowed to end the war-crimes trials and close Guantanamo.

They don't WANT a trial. They want death. Why prevent this?

384

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:41:21am

re: #368 Surabaya Stew

You're right, I don't know. However, Terrorists don't need a good reason to to their deeds; they would make their attempt regardless of weather or not KSM is tried here, at a tribunal, or publicly fried in bacon on the White House lawn. (Which sounds like fun, doesn't it?)
:-D

No. And you still have not answered my question. I'm looking fore a simple yes or no. The threat of possible terror is the same, on any day, in NYC, no matter what is going on. Having the trial in NYC would not make a terror attack any more attractive to terrorists than any other time of the year.

Yes or no... that's all I ask.

385

abolitionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:02am

re: #97 Sharmuta

How many soldiers are going to put in jeopardy because they have to read Miranda rights?

I imagine that an interpreter would have to be made available, after identifying the native tongue of the hostile(s), before Mirandaizing could even be contemplated.

Undoubtedly, that's been thought of (by the jihadist-rights advocates).

386

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:06am

re: #377 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, so then, had we given them a proper tribunal, with defense, and openess in a proper and speedy manner, there would not be a problem.

The whole point of putting them in Gitmo in the first place was to put them in a legal black hole. That automatically brings questions.

HE HAD A TRIBUNAL AT WHICH HE CONFESSED!

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.

Why stop this?!

387

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:07am

re: #380 Guanxi88

I do wonder about those strikes, which I support. If we return to criminalizing the war, as appears to be happening at least in this case, would this mean that certain persons, formerly deemed fair game, would have to be subjects of indictments and trials prior to a snuff-out?

Not snarky, but a genuine question.

/we tape a warrent to the hellfire, it's all good.

388

zelnaga Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:07am

re: #304 Sharmuta

Saddam was tried in an American Federal court?!

I didn't say American - I said civilian. In lieu of having any familiarity with Iraqi jurisprudence, I'm assuming their civilian courts are similar to ours. Besides, I think his trial might be less applicable if he had been tried in an American Federal court. Saddam wasn't renowned for terrorizing American civilians - he was renowned for terrorizing his own civilians. As such, trying Saddam in an American Federal court seems about as appropriate as trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Swiss court or a French court.

389

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:10am

re: #378 sattv4u2

HAHAHAHA
How many times did Gotti walk in the very city you're talking about!?!!?

You're really flailing now if all you can do is compare the KSM trial to attempts to try Gotti.

390

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:20am

re: #381 drcordell

His confessions are irrelevant. You think that Holder is stupid enough to bring this case to trial if they don't have other evidence. We have a goddamn video of him beheading someone, not to mention countless reams of intelligence that probably has not been made public.

If the only argument that you can summon against bringing KSM to trial is that "we might lose" you need to keep digging.

You keep saying that, but I do not beleive thats one of the charges, so either show us that it is, or stop saying that

391

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:47am

re: #355 J.S.

Obviously KSM's lawyers are going to be arguing that his so-called 'confessions" were made under duress. And guess what happens to his "confessions" of guilt? They will be thrown out -- as they must be...(unless, of course, you think it's acceptable to torture people in the U.S. and then proceed to use their statements against them in a court of law...)

I think it's a given that any confessions are not going to be presented as evidence, for a variety of reasons.

The hope is that the government is smart enough to realize this, and feels that it has enough additional evidence that will be admitted to obtain a conviction.

Whether that's a reasonable hope or not remains to be seen.

392

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:42:54am

re: #390 sattv4u2

You keep saying that, but I do not beleive thats one of the charges, so either show us that it is, or stop saying that

Can't we charge him on it?

393

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:43:05am

re: #356 karmic_inquisitor

Water boarding is not torture?

OK, it was a war crime during the second world war. It was considered torture, byt the U.S. at the tokyo trials. About a dozen journalists tried it and they came out gasping that yes indeed it is torture. The Nazis and the Kmer Rouge considered it torture. American Marines died under it in Japanese hands when it went wrong and it was murder and torture then... But ok, stick to the crazy, foolish, utterly wrong meme that somehow it is just a walk in the park.

It was one of the things that made Andersonville such a horror as well.

To say it is not torture is simply an ignorant and painful lie. Every military in the world knows this is torture.

Next, you will be telling me that a triangle has four sides.

394

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:43:18am

re: #375 SixDegrees

I wonder what would happen if the judge orders a psychiatric exam, and it comes back that the Dude is a delusional psychotic...(so he spends the rest of his life in a mental institution at taxpayers' expense? writing up his crazed "memoirs of the Jihad")

395

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:43:23am

re: #388 zelnaga

He and Noriega also didn't qualify as non-uniformed enemy combatants.

396

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:43:34am

re: #381 drcordell

His confessions are irrelevant. You think that Holder is stupid enough to bring this case to trial if they don't have other evidence. We have a goddamn video of him beheading someone, not to mention countless reams of intelligence that probably has not been made public.

If the only argument that you can summon against bringing KSM to trial is that "we might lose" you need to keep digging.

How do you know it is him?

And do we have the right to prosecute a murder committed in Pakistan? Who are we to go around the world and prosecute criminals for crimes on foreign soil? Isn't that a bit hegemonic? Isn't that immodest of us to presume what are crimes here should be considered crimes in all places and all cultures?

397

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:43:59am

re: #389 drcordell

You're really flailing now if all you can do is compare the KSM trial to attempts to try Gotti.

The person I posted that to was comparing the "other" high profile trials in the city to "drug kingpins" etc that have been tried there in the past

So ,,, no flail here ,l, but thatnks for playing

398

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:04am

re: #337 LudwigVanQuixote

We've always been a nation of laws and even with the Bush bashing nonsense, the tribunals were approved by Congress - both in the original incarnation, and then after the S.Ct. ruled it unconstitutional, in a manner consistent with the S.Ct. ruling. The detainees had access to the courts throughout, despite their standing as terrorists and not a protected class under the Geneva Conventions. The courts ruled that they were indeed a protected class, and actually now have rights greater than those of an ordinary POW.

So, far from being some kind of lawless entity under Bush, we were always operating under the rule of law - just one that you didn't necessarily agree with (outcome oriented).

Now, we've got the Obama Administration pushing a set of directives that makes little sense under the law, and which opens up a whole new set of problems that will end up in still more lawsuits for detainees that will result in still more access to the courts than most common criminals will ever get (and with far better counsel - as many top tier law firms are providing assistance pro bono).

And once you submit these detainees to the civil court system, that means they get all the protections of defendants.

399

charlz Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:29am

re: #338 Sharmuta

Are you not reading lawhawk's comments?

I commented on at least one of his comments.

400

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:34am

re: #396 karmic_inquisitor

exactly! Good Grief! It's "Everyone is Subject to American Jurisprudence" gone wild...

401

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:37am

re: #384 Walter L. Newton

No. And you still have not answered my question. I'm looking fore a simple yes or no. The threat of possible terror is the same, on any day, in NYC, no matter what is going on. Having the trial in NYC would not make a terror attack any more attractive to terrorists than any other time of the year.

Yes or no... that's all I ask.

I'll answer that question when I decide to answer in a yes or no fashion if I've stopped beating my wife yet.

402

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:45am

re: #369 sattv4u2

OK, we violated ~~our own~~ MY principles. Because we did, we OBAMA AND HOLDER handed him the opportunity to be more difficult than it would have been otherwise

ftfy

Yes, my principles are shared by a bunch of people including Obama and Holder, and Washington, and Adams, and Jefferson (the whole point of the 5th amendment BTW was to prevent torture and forced confession)... You are absolutely right. My values are American. You get yours clearly from a gulag.

403

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:55am

re: #375 SixDegrees

You cannot plead guilty to capital offenses. If you try, the judge will reject your plea and enter a plea of "not guilty" instead. In such cases, court examination of all evidence is considered a necessity given the severity of the possible punishment upon conviction, so the case proceeds to trial regardless.

The confession can be used at that trial, but in this case it will most likely be excluded for any of a variety of reasons, ranging from lack of Mirandazation to coercion.

The only way a jury won't be seated is if the accused asks for - and receives - a bench trial. Even them, I'm not certain such a request is permitted, and there is every reason to believe that a judge would not honor it.

That's pretty much the opposite of what I've heard everywhere else! But you sound like a lawyer hehe... Maybe you should talk to the AP!

404

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:57am

re: #378 sattv4u2

HAHAHAHA
How many times did Gotti walk in the very city you're talking about!?!!?

1: we're 145-0 in terrorism cases

2: Gotti got off on numerous state cases but I believe it was the fed court that ultimately got him, no?

405

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:44:58am

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

Water boarding is not torture?

OK, it was a war crime during the second world war. It was considered torture, byt the U.S. at the tokyo trials. About a dozen journalists tried it and they came out gasping that yes indeed it is torture. The Nazis and the Kmer Rouge considered it torture. American Marines died under it in Japanese hands when it went wrong and it was murder and torture then... But ok, stick to the crazy, foolish, utterly wrong meme that somehow it is just a walk in the park.

It was one of the things that made Andersonville such a horror as well.

To say it is not torture is simply an ignorant and painful lie. Every military in the world knows this is torture.

Next, you will be telling me that a triangle has four sides.

But we use it in SERE training! Or used to! We wouldn't torture our own boys just to teach them to withstand torture, would we???!!!

//MY triangle has four sides.

406

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:45:02am

re: #390 sattv4u2

You keep saying that, but I do not beleive thats one of the charges, so either show us that it is, or stop saying that

No formal charges of any sort have been announced yet.

407

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:45:09am

criminalizing war?

Isn't that the point.

Back to Thomas Sowell. The unconstrained thinkers cannot see that War is a fact of life. They see it as preventable.

408

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:45:13am

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

You're loosing this one Ludwig.

409

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:45:31am

re: #392 SanFranciscoZionist

Can't we charge him on it?

Not sure
Where/When against whom did it happen (the one that is "on tape") MAy not fall under American jurisprudence
And is it does, was it done as an act of war or a just a murder?

410

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:45:35am

re: #399 charlz

I commented on at least one of his comments.

Great- here's a cookie. I'd read all of his comments next.

411

Varek Raith Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:46:12am

re: #401 Surabaya Stew

I'll answer that question when I decide to answer in a yes or no fashion if I've stopped beating my wife yet.

Huh? Walter's question is quite valid.

412

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:46:17am

re: #401 Surabaya Stew

I'll answer that question when I decide to answer in a yes or no fashion if I've stopped beating my wife yet.

Good, then I win. There is a different threat level in NYC if this trial is held in the city. Thanks for playing.

413

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:46:20am

re: #377 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, so then, had we given them a proper tribunal, with defense, and openess in a proper and speedy manner, there would not be a problem.

The whole point of putting them in Gitmo in the first place was to put them in a legal black hole. That automatically brings questions.

You mean like the military commission that Eric Holder and the President want for Al Nashiri? One of those?

Well that is the same fucking commission that KSM was in front of when Obama and Holder (in violation of his right to a speedy trial) aborted so he could be dragged to a trial in New York. One that will be a public spectacle. Isn't that a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

414

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:46:26am

re: #407 ggt

The unconstrained thinkers cannot see that War is a fact of life. They see it as preventable.

DING DING DING DING DING!

415

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:46:39am

re: #409 sattv4u2

Not sure
Where/When against whom did it happen (the one that is "on tape") MAy not fall under American jurisprudence
And is it does, was it done as an act of war or a just a murder?

It's sort of hard to distinguish, with these guys, isn't it?

416

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:46:41am

re: #410 Sharmuta

Great- here's a cookie. I'd read all of his comments next.

*perks*

417

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:46:54am

re: #396 karmic_inquisitor

How do you know it is him?

And do we have the right to prosecute a murder committed in Pakistan? Who are we to go around the world and prosecute criminals for crimes on foreign soil? Isn't that a bit hegemonic? Isn't that immodest of us to presume what are crimes here should be considered crimes in all places and all cultures?

You're missing the point. He's being tried for 9/11 above all else. The fact that it's believed to be KSM in the beheading tape certainly can't hurt the prosecutions case.

418

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:47:01am

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

I disagree with the broader point, but agree about the water-boarding. I've hd time to thinnk it over, and I cannot avoid concluding that it is torture, irresepective of the motives of the person administering it.

I am, however, prepared to permit it continued use in the settings and contexts in which it is an appropriate method, after other options have failed, to gain actionable intelligence for military purposes. Any information gained through its use is automatically excluded from courts - it has to be, or else our legal system warps into something monstrous.

I recognize that advocating torture does harm my morality, but I'm prepared to sacrifice some small measure of my own moral purity and righteousness to save the lives of others.

419

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:47:07am

re: #354 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually I don't. Since we tortured him and held him indefinitely, I think he is smart enough to play the "forced confession" card as strong as he can. That is why the video of him murdering an American will be so important.

OK, we violated our own principles. Because we did, we handed him the opportunity to be more difficult than it would have been otherwise.

Just keep repeating lies and slander, typical leftist propaganda techniques.

No-one was tortured, no one "violated our principles".

Brave American patriots captured these terrorist scum with precision and success. Actionable intelligence was acquired through the careful and conservative use of harsh interrogation. Terrorist plots were thwarted and innocent American citizens had their lives protected.

All involve are heroes who deserve our gratitude, praise and medals.

Those who fret over the suffering of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and otherwise sympathize with the enemy, whether because of their hatred of Bush, America or Republicans, are beneath contempt.

420

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:47:30am

re: #390 sattv4u2

You keep saying that, but I do not beleive thats one of the charges, so either show us that it is, or stop saying that

I believe the beheading of Danny Pearl is one of the charges. They were talking about that all weekend.

421

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:47:42am

re: #404 Cineaste

1: we're 145-0 in terrorism cases

2: Gotti got off on numerous state cases but I believe it was the fed court that ultimately got him, no?

Dodge BAll

Your original assertion was that THIS trial poses no more of a security threat than "drug kingpins" et al that have been tried in the city

AND that the judges there "know what they're doing"

They're in VERY unchartered waters here

Let The Circus Begin!

((Thanks Holdren))((and BHO)))

422

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:47:51am

re: #411 Varek Raith

Huh? Walter's question is quite valid.

Thanks.

Surabaya Stew does this over and over, we have all seen it before on other threads. He/she/it comments itself into a corner and then attempts to shut down the debate.

423

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:48:01am

re: #407 ggt

criminalizing war?

Isn't that the point.

Back to Thomas Sowell. The unconstrained thinkers cannot see that War is a fact of life. They see it as preventable.

it is preventable if your enemy fears you...

424

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:48:45am

re: #394 J.S.

I wonder what would happen if the judge orders a psychiatric exam, and it comes back that the Dude is a delusional psychotic...(so he spends the rest of his life in a mental institution at taxpayers' expense? writing up his crazed "memoirs of the Jihad")

The only question is whether he was mentally competent enough to understand the consequences of his actions. Lots of people who are certifiably insane go to trial and are convicted. Entering an insanity plea is a last-ditch effort that rarely pays off.

It's made even more difficult thanks to the substantially different culture KSM is from. Things that strike you and I as patently insane might be considered quite normal elsewhere. I doubt very much that KSM would approve of such an approach, either; it's certain he views himself as wholly justified in all of his actions, and doesn't want to be portrayed as a lunatic for committing them.

It's a risk, but a small one.

425

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:49:36am

re: #423 brookly red

it is preventable if your enemy fears you...

But it is human nature for that state to not be indefinite.

426

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:49:55am

re: #420 marjoriemoon

Daniel Pearl's father is opposed to bringing KSM to federal trial in NY City (btw.) He was on CNN.

427

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:50:11am

re: #417 drcordell

You're missing the point. He's being tried for 9/11 above all else. The fact that it's believed to be KSM in the beheading tape certainly can't hurt the prosecutions case.

Prosecution: "Your honor - do you mind if I introduce some innuendo to the jury that can't be proven, aren't relevant to the charges he faces, but will prejudice them against the accused?"

Judge: "OK"

/ Dr Cordell's world of justice.

428

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:50:14am

re: #423 brookly red

it is preventable if your enemy fears you...

BBbbbut, but we want theym to LOVE us! We want to be friends, go to Starbucks, hang-out . . .

429

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:50:45am

re: #417 drcordell

You're missing the point. He's being tried for 9/11 above all else. The fact that it's believed to be KSM in the beheading tape certainly can't hurt the prosecutions case.

of COURSE it can hurt it

Lets say KSM's attorney provides eye witnesses that state KSM had nothing to do withy the beheading, even to the point of bringing in a sacraficial jihadists that confesses ON THE STAND

Next step, the defense lawyer states that the Gov'ts case is so shoddy they throw ANY charges against KSM even though it's now been "proven" one charge was false

Again

Let The Circus Begin!!

430

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:51:06am

re: #422 Walter L. Newton

Surabaya Stew does this over and over, we have all seen it before on other threads. He/she/it comments itself into a corner and then attempts to shut down the debate.

Yeah, well... it's become a common practice lately.

431

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:51:21am

re: #425 ArchangelMichael

But it is human nature for that state to not be indefinite.

/and if elected I will make it definite, fo sure.

432

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:51:25am

re: #383 Sharmuta

Gitmo Terrorists Want to 'Confess'

They don't WANT a trial. They want death. Why prevent this?

because the left knows what they want more than the terrorists do...therefore expressing their own twisted dreams that the terrorists are the victims...sick beyond words

433

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:51:59am

Unreal. I have to go do things that matter in the real world.

Moralists on the left are every bit as dense, smug, moronic and incapable of moving off of scary strawmen as those on the right.

This thread provides ample evidence.

434

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:52:21am

re: #412 Walter L. Newton

Good, then I win. There is a different threat level in NYC if this trial is held in the city. Thanks for playing.

Playing what? Jesus Christ, my city can handle this dude! Why are you convinced that it can't?

Ok, lets think about it this way: Suppose KSM were subject to a military tribunal. Would New York all of a sudden continue to be at the same level of risk of attack? Or would the fact that KSM is being tried at all make terrorists more likely to attack?

Like I said, we're damned either way.

435

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:52:38am

Islamofascists hate America. They have nothing but hatred and contempt for democracy, the US justice system, the presumption of innocence, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The Islamist terrorists understand and fear only one thing - overwhelming force.

Accordingly, it is a futile couterproductive fantasy to pretend that we can make these enemies see the light by bestowing upon them rights and privileges to which they are not legally entitled. The issue of military vs civilian trial is not therefore to be resolved with reference to scoring propoganda points with the Islamists. Rather, the issue should be resolved solely by doing what will enhance US security.

436

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:52:49am

re: #408 Walter L. Newton

You're loosing this one Ludwig.

What, by pointing out the true history of this offense?

If you honestly believe that water boarding isn't torture, I have a bridge to seel you. Perhaps you can tell me how shocking genitals isn't torture as well. Walter, you are simply divorced from reality. If others here can not face that reality - for crying out loud read any account from any of the journalists who tried it - then that is not me losing, that is America losing to the forces of stupidity, misplaced vengeance and depravity.

437

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:52:49am

re: #417 drcordell

You're missing the point. He's being tried for 9/11 above all else. The fact that it's believed to be KSM in the beheading tape certainly can't hurt the prosecutions case.

He admitted to the beheading. He was very proud of it.

438

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:52:56am

re: #432 albusteve

because the left knows what they want more than the terrorists do...therefore expressing their own twisted dreams that the terrorists are the victims...sick beyond words

Those poor poor islamists! I'd play the world's smallest violin for them, but music is hara'am.

439

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:53:02am

re: #403 marjoriemoon

That's pretty much the opposite of what I've heard everywhere else! But you sound like a lawyer hehe... Maybe you should talk to the AP!

Not an attorney, but I've hung around them long enough to know the basics. Murder and other capital offenses don't allow guilty pleas. They do allow confessions, but unless he stands up in court and offers one, any statements made previously are almost certainly not going to be admissible.

440

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:53:26am

re: #422 Walter L. Newton

Thanks.

Surabaya Stew does this over and over, we have all seen it before on other threads. He/she/it comments itself into a corner and then attempts to shut down the debate.

Just "opened it" up again, due to popular demand!
:-D

441

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:53:37am

re: #426 J.S.

Daniel Pearl's father is opposed to bringing KSM to federal trial in NY City (btw.) He was on CNN.

Really? Do you recall what he said about it?

442

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:54:20am

re: #437 marjoriemoon

He admitted to the beheading. He was very proud of it.

Where did he admit to it? Along with the rest of the things he confessed? It's not going to hold up in court because he wasn't Mirandized.

443

Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:54:21am

I'm off.

Have a great day all!

444

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:54:26am

re: #432 albusteve

because the left knows what they want more than the terrorists do...therefore expressing their own twisted dreams that the terrorists are the victims...sick beyond words

well sometimes it seems that they are on the same page...

445

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:55:11am

The opposition to this trial is so unbelievably transparent. If Obama were supporting military tribunals the same chorus of National Review idiots would be squealing about Obama perverting our legal system and demanding that a trial be held in New York.

Rudy Giuliani is case and point. He's such a blatant hypocrite that the Daily Show was able to edit together video so he debates himself over this very same issue.
Here.

There is no additional terror threat to New York City. There is no risk of KSM being set free considering the overwhelming case we have built against him, and considering the US is 145-0 when prosecuting terror cases in Federal Court. Since when did hardcore "war-on-terror" conservatives become such bedwetters when it comes to bringing a single terrorist in a cage to NYC?

446

sattv4u2 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:55:22am

re: #436 LudwigVanQuixote

What, by pointing out the true history of this offense?

If you honestly believe that water boarding isn't torture,
Thank you thank you thank you

This "trial" is NOT about bringing KSM to justice. It's about GITMO, "TORTURE", GWB, Cheney and how the past admin was baaaddd and this admin is good!

447

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:56:01am

re: #417 drcordell

You're missing the point. He's being tried for 9/11 above all else. The fact that it's believed to be KSM in the beheading tape certainly can't hurt the prosecutions case.

Actually, at this point it's completely unknown what charges he will face. It remains entirely possible that the government will bring charges it believes it stands a strong chance of winning and that carry the death penalty, but are unrelated to 9/11 or only tangentially so.

I doubt it. But until formal charges are filed, it's all speculative.

448

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:56:09am

re: #413 karmic_inquisitor

You mean like the military commission that Eric Holder and the President want for Al Nashiri? One of those?

Well that is the same fucking commission that KSM was in front of when Obama and Holder (in violation of his right to a speedy trial) aborted so he could be dragged to a trial in New York. One that will be a public spectacle. Isn't that a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

No where did I say that military tribunals were a priori wrong.

I have said again and again that these men needed to be tried in a speedy, fair and legitimate manner. The botch that was done under Bush, by purposefully bending, breaking and evading our own principles is part of what needs to be cleaned up now. The fewer questions that we have about the actual guilt of these men, or that we are actually acting the way American ideals say we should the better.

I am so sick and tired of the wingnut meme, that it isn't torture if we do it, that it isn't an abrogation of the principles we stand for when we break them or that the law only applies when we say it does.

We destroyed the village to save the village does not wash.

449

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:56:16am

re: #434 Surabaya Stew

Playing what? Jesus Christ, my city can handle this dude! Why are you convinced that it can't?

Ok, lets think about it this way: Suppose KSM were subject to a military tribunal. Would New York all of a sudden continue to be at the same level of risk of attack? Or would the fact that KSM is being tried at all make terrorists more likely to attack?

Like I said, we're damned either way.

GAZE.

450

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:56:34am

Judea Pearl said he was "sick to the stomach" when he heard that the Justice Department decided to prosecute Mohammed in Manhattan federal court.
Daniel Pearl's Father - NYPOST
[Link: www.nypost.com...]

"I don't want to hear every morning in the papers what KSM did," Pearl told The Post last night. "Danny was killed once. Now he will be killed 10 times a day. Leave him alone."

His son's beheading in 2002 was caught on a gruesome video that shocked the world.

"The 21st century saw three shocks," Pearl said. "The first was 9/11. The second was the killing of my son. And the third was the shock today."

The reporter's outraged father, a UCLA professor, said a public trial would allow the admitted mass murderer to "boast about his cruelty" and encourage other terrorists to inflict harm.

Pearl said the prosecution of Mohammed should be done in closed session to avoid giving terrorists a platform.

Read more: [Link: www.nypost.com...]

451

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:56:49am

re: #383 Sharmuta

Gitmo Terrorists Want to 'Confess'

They don't WANT a trial. They want death. Why prevent this?

Because...umm...we're not terrorists and there is such a thing as the rule of law?

What's so hard to grasp about that?

Unless you come from an old family named Lynch.

452

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:57:12am

re: #442 Sharmuta

Where did he admit to it? Along with the rest of the things he confessed? It's not going to hold up in court because he wasn't Mirandized.

He filmed himself doing it. We have his face on video doing it. It's pretty slam dunk.

453

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:57:21am

re: #440 Surabaya Stew

Just "opened it" up again, due to popular demand!
:-D

You didn't do shit, since you still have not answered my question. My question was framed according to what YOU SAID, and then you run scared to back up you own opinion.

Worthless.

454

MinisterO Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:57:33am

Bush kept us safe for 7 years and 4 months. Obama has not even kept us safe for 10 months yet. Obama thinks the NY federal courts can handle the men responsible for the nation's worst mass murder since the Trail of Tears. How foolish.

The terrorists are going to be so angry and will attack NYC again and you will all wish you had voted for McCain.

455

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:58:32am

re: #434 Surabaya Stew

my city can handle this dude! Why are you convinced that it can't?

Who is saying NYC can't handle it?! What we're saying is this is a bad idea for a host of reasons. I'm tired of this nonsense that somehow conservatives think the federal court system "can't" handle this. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT! What we ARE saying is there are legitimate reasons to leave this in tribunals.

456

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:58:36am

re: #446 sattv4u2

What, by pointing out the true history of this offense?

If you honestly believe that water boarding isn't torture,
Thank you thank you thank you

This "trial" is NOT about bringing KSM to justice. It's about GITMO, "TORTURE", GWB, Cheney and how the past admin was baaaddd and this admin is good!

Yeah and if they weren't bad and would have cared about the principles of this nation a little more, we wouldn't have this mess.

457

Varek Raith Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:58:38am

re: #454 MinisterO

...Huh?..

458

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:58:44am

We give people trials in the court of law precisely because we are not terrorists. We are BETTER THAN THEY ARE. We RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW. That is what separates us from them. That is what gives us moral authority. It's as simple as that.

459

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:59:20am

re: #438 Sharmuta

Those poor poor islamists! I'd play the world's smallest violin for them, but music is hara'am.

this really sucks..what are we supposed to think?...shifting the whole mess to civil court is beyond the pale, an obvious benefit to the terrorists...if I was an officer in the armed forces I'd resign...citizenship, the most prized possession of all just got sold off so Holder and BO can have htheir way and insure votes from the far left...there is no other explanation...it's nearly criminal imo

460

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:59:23am

re: #454 MinisterO

Bush kept us safe for 7 years and 4 months. Obama has not even kept us safe for 10 months yet. Obama thinks the NY federal courts can handle the men responsible for the nation's worst mass murder since the Trail of Tears. How foolish.

The terrorists are going to be so angry and will attack NYC again and you will all wish you had voted for McCain.

If NYC gets attacked again then it's Bush's fault, right? Just like 9/11 was Clinton's?

461

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:59:42am

re: #445 drcordell

There is no risk of KSM being set free considering the overwhelming case we have built against him

What case is that? To date, charges haven't even been filed, and no substantive information on what evidence the government plans to introduce has been released.

It's impossible to evaluate the possible outcome of any trial until the charges and evidence are known, and even then a great deal depends on what the prosecutor's strategy may be.

Statements like this are going to have to wait for a while before they can be considered valid.

462

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:59:49am

re: #442 Sharmuta

Where did he admit to it? Along with the rest of the things he confessed? It's not going to hold up in court because he wasn't Mirandized.

I'm not sure that's true either...

His quote was, "I beheaded Danny Pearl with this blessed hand." He's also visible in the video IIRC.

Look, I'm not for or against a civilian trial. I don't know enough about either trials to make a real decision. I think I understand security risks, but as far as him espousing his own views on holy Jihad, I'm with Ludwig on this one. Let him talk. We haven't heard it before? He's going to recruit more jihadis? That's possible, but what's more possible, at least AS likely, is that people will hear the horror of what he's about.

463

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:59:54am

re: #455 Sharmuta

Who is saying NYC can't handle it?! What we're saying is this is a bad idea for a host of reasons. I'm tired of this nonsense that somehow conservatives think the federal court system "can't" handle this. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT! What we ARE saying is there are legitimate reasons to leave this in tribunals.

Can't let the fact get in the way of their coordinated assault on the strawman brigade.

464

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:59:55am

re: #458 drcordell

We give people trials in the court of law precisely because we are not terrorists. We are BETTER THAN THEY ARE. We RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW. That is what separates us from them. That is what gives us moral authority. It's as simple as that.

Tribunals are a part of our rules of law.

465

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:00:23pm

re: #436 LudwigVanQuixote

What, by pointing out the true history of this offense?

If you honestly believe that water boarding isn't torture, I have a bridge to seel you. Perhaps you can tell me how shocking genitals isn't torture as well. Walter, you are simply divorced from reality. If others here can not face that reality - for crying out loud read any account from any of the journalists who tried it - then that is not me losing, that is America losing to the forces of stupidity, misplaced vengeance and depravity.

You have very little support in this dude, for crying out loud.

By the way, were fucked, Obama is backing away from doing anything about global climate change, your hero is fucking you royally. Gordon Brown said we had 50 days before we reach the point of no return.

Well, it ain't happening dude, you've been screwed by Obama.

466

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:00:50pm

re: #451 Cato the Elder

Because...umm...we're not terrorists and there is such a thing as the rule of law?

What's so hard to grasp about that?

Unless you come from an old family named Lynch.

Are military tribunals outside the American rules of law?

467

jaunte Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:00:55pm

re: #455 Sharmuta

What we ARE saying is there are legitimate reasons to leave this in tribunals.

I'm still not clear on the reason to try some accused with tribunals and try others in Federal court.

468

MandyManners Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:00:55pm

re: #458 drcordell

We give people trials in the court of law precisely because we are not terrorists. We are BETTER THAN THEY ARE. We RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW. That is what separates us from them. That is what gives us moral authority. It's as simple as that.

Military tribunals ARE courts of law.

469

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:01:07pm

re: #456 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah and if they weren't bad and would have cared about the principles of this nation a little more, we wouldn't have this mess.

Yea, like Obama cares about climate change...

470

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:01:20pm

re: #466 Sharmuta

Are military tribunals outside the American rules of law?

Are civilian courts?

471

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:01:58pm

re: #454 MinisterO

MinisterO raises a very subtle point that I think many people are missing, and does so in a perfect dead-pan.

472

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:01:58pm

re: #448 LudwigVanQuixote

No where did I say that military tribunals were a priori wrong.

I have said again and again that these men needed to be tried in a speedy, fair and legitimate manner. The botch that was done under Bush, by purposefully bending, breaking and evading our own principles is part of what needs to be cleaned up now. The fewer questions that we have about the actual guilt of these men, or that we are actually acting the way American ideals say we should the better.

I am so sick and tired of the wingnut meme, that it isn't torture if we do it, that it isn't an abrogation of the principles we stand for when we break them or that the law only applies when we say it does.

We destroyed the village to save the village does not wash.

If you want to put the alleged torturers on trial then do so.
That however has nothing whatsoever to do with whether KSM should have a civilian vs a military trial.
Your entire argument about torture is therefore irrelevant.

473

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:02:05pm

The fact that this is even a matter of discussion shows weakness, division & is an advantage to our enemies. We strive for correctness while they strive to kill us.

474

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:02:05pm

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

Water boarding is not torture?

OK, it was a war crime during the second world war. It was considered torture, byt the U.S. at the tokyo trials. About a dozen journalists tried it and they came out gasping that yes indeed it is torture. The Nazis and the Kmer Rouge considered it torture. American Marines died under it in Japanese hands when it went wrong and it was murder and torture then... But ok, stick to the crazy, foolish, utterly wrong meme that somehow it is just a walk in the park.

It was one of the things that made Andersonville such a horror as well.

To say it is not torture is simply an ignorant and painful lie. Every military in the world knows this is torture.

Next, you will be telling me that a triangle has four sides.

You just argue the same tripe over and over again like a parrot.

Who cares what some "journalists who tried it" thought? The very fact they were able to sip their cappuccinos and write their subversive nonsense proves they were not harmed. So they gasped, oh dear, the horror, the humanity.

The Japanese were soldiers under completely different rules from the terrorist scum.

Compare the American military to the Nazis and Kmer Rough? That is contemptible and dishonest.

But hey, have fun with your anti-American terrorist sympathizing ignorance and demonisation of Bush and American Patriots protecting your life and right to keep repeating falsehoods and propaganda.

475

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:02:15pm

re: #461 SixDegrees

What case is that? To date, charges haven't even been filed, and no substantive information on what evidence the government plans to introduce has been released.

It's impossible to evaluate the possible outcome of any trial until the charges and evidence are known, and even then a great deal depends on what the prosecutor's strategy may be.

Statements like this are going to have to wait for a while before they can be considered valid.

I agree with you. Tell that to the the bedwetters who are hyperventilating over the prospect of KSM being set free. All I'm saying is, we are 145-0 in Federal terror prosecutions. If we didn't have what we felt was an IRON CLAD case against KSM, the prospect of a Federal trial wouldn't even have come up. We would just keep him locked away. The fact that Holder is bringing this to trial means the Gov't knows they have a slam dunk.

476

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:02:19pm

re: #452 LudwigVanQuixote

He filmed himself doing it. We have his face on video doing it. It's pretty slam dunk.

Then I'll ask Karmic's question again. By what right do we have the jurisdiction to prosecute a murder committed on foreign soil?

477

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:02:31pm

re: #470 Cato the Elder

Are civilian courts?

Nice dodge.

478

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:02:51pm

re: #445 drcordell

The opposition to this trial is so unbelievably transparent. If Obama were supporting military tribunals the same chorus of National Review idiots would be squealing about Obama perverting our legal system and demanding that a trial be held in New York.

Rudy Giuliani is case and point. He's such a blatant hypocrite that the Daily Show was able to edit together video so he debates himself over this very same issue.
Here.

There is no additional terror threat to New York City. There is no risk of KSM being set free considering the overwhelming case we have built against him, and considering the US is 145-0 when prosecuting terror cases in Federal Court. Since when did hardcore "war-on-terror" conservatives become such bedwetters when it comes to bringing a single terrorist in a cage to NYC?

I'm opposed to the trial because the tribunals were the appropriate venue, not access to the federal courts. The Administration made the wrong choice, and the City will now have to put up with years of inconvenience with trying them at Foley Square (and I'll be sure to blog all the craziness experienced by both myself and my wife, who often finds herself in the area).

However, given that this decision was made (wrongly in my book), the SDNY is the appropriate venue because the prosecutors here are best suited to the task and the NYPD can provide security like no other law enforcement force in the nation.

As for the 145-0 case, does that count mistrials and retrials? Is Holy Land included? And if we're presupposing a conviction (which President Obama did just today), why are we not doing so in a tribunal, where the evidence and national security concerns are better addressed, and issues such as unindicted coconspirators are better addressed? Again, I have heard nary a voice or an explanation as to why tribunals are not sufficient for all the detainees that will go through this process?

479

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:03:24pm

re: #450 Guanxi88

Judea Pearl said he was "sick to the stomach" when he heard that the Justice Department decided to prosecute Mohammed in Manhattan federal court.
Daniel Pearl's Father - NYPOST
[Link: www.nypost.com...]

"I don't want to hear every morning in the papers what KSM did," Pearl told The Post last night. "Danny was killed once. Now he will be killed 10 times a day. Leave him alone."

His son's beheading in 2002 was caught on a gruesome video that shocked the world.

"The 21st century saw three shocks," Pearl said. "The first was 9/11. The second was the killing of my son. And the third was the shock today."

The reporter's outraged father, a UCLA professor, said a public trial would allow the admitted mass murderer to "boast about his cruelty" and encourage other terrorists to inflict harm.

Pearl said the prosecution of Mohammed should be done in closed session to avoid giving terrorists a platform.

Read more: [Link: www.nypost.com...]

With all due respect to the Pearl family, victims do not get to decide how, when or who goes to trial. If it was up to the Pearls, they'd simply put a bullet in his head and be done with it. And while I think that IS probably the best decision! we don't do things that way.

480

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:03:31pm

re: #475 drcordell

I agree with you. Tell that to the the bedwetters who are hyperventilating over the prospect of KSM being set free. All I'm saying is, we are 145-0 in Federal terror prosecutions. If we didn't have what we felt was an IRON CLAD case against KSM, the prospect of a Federal trial wouldn't even have come up. We would just keep him locked away. The fact that Holder is bringing this to trial means the Gov't knows they have a slam dunk.

One would hope that you're correct. Only time will tell.

481

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:03:45pm

Ooh, now were down to hurling the "you're anti-American" slur.

Joe McCarthy. Paging Joe McCarthy.

482

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:03:47pm

re: #467 jaunte

I'm still not clear on the reason to try some accused with tribunals and try others in Federal court.

I'm not clear as to why some folks think this double standard is acceptable.

483

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:04:24pm

re: #441 marjoriemoon

Yes, I do (frankly, before I heard the interview, I was thinking, "oh no, here comes a plea on behalf of murderers" -- but, I was wrong.) Daniel Pearl's father argues that terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts, nor tried in military tribunals. Rather, he believes, those accused of terrorist crimes should be tried in a Special Court (with a new definition, a new set of procedures for dealing with this scourge...which deals exclusively with Terrorist or Ideological Murders..etc.) I'll look up the CNN transcript...

484

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:04:42pm

re: #482 Sharmuta

I'm not clear as to why some folks think this double standard is acceptable.

Nobody has said they do think the double standard is acceptable.

485

Kragar Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:04:44pm

And now a science fact from Al Gore:

People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...

Guess we will need steel drill bits to get down there, since as we all know, steel cannot melt.

///

486

jaunte Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:04:50pm

re: #478 lawhawk

Again, I have heard nary a voice or an explanation as to why tribunals are not sufficient for all the detainees that will go through this process?

I'd like to reiterate that point. Anyone care to take it up?

487

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:04:55pm

re: #453 Walter L. Newton

You didn't do shit, since you still have not answered my question. My question was framed according to what YOU SAID, and then you run scared to back up you own opinion.

Worthless.

Relax. Please. A demand for a yes or no answer isn't always going to be greeted with enthusiasm. The answer I gave is somewhat more complex than that. Which is:

1. No new terrorist plot against New York will be formed (due to time constraints) as a result of this decision.

2. An existing terror plot might be pushed forward time wise, in order to maximize publicity, but it would do nothing to change the fact that the attempt would have happened anyway.

3. Even if KSM were to be held in a military tribunal, NYC would still be under a greater risk of attack.

Either way, (trial or tribunal) we're at risk in my opinion, so if you want to conflate that into a "yes", then be my guest. Others may feel that a "simple yes or no answer" isn't possible in this case.

488

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:05:00pm

re: #445 drcordell

The opposition to this trial is so unbelievably transparent. If Obama were supporting military tribunals the same chorus of National Review idiots would be squealing about Obama perverting our legal system and demanding that a trial be held in New York.

Rudy Giuliani is case and point. He's such a blatant hypocrite that the Daily Show was able to edit together video so he debates himself over this very same issue.
Here.

There is no additional terror threat to New York City. There is no risk of KSM being set free considering the overwhelming case we have built against him, and considering the US is 145-0 when prosecuting terror cases in Federal Court. Since when did hardcore "war-on-terror" conservatives become such bedwetters when it comes to bringing a single terrorist in a cage to NYC?

I am personally very dubious about doing this in civilian court. However, I have to agree that this would be argued the other way 'round by everyone, depending on the party of the parties involved.

489

MinisterO Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:05:35pm

re: #460 drcordell

If NYC gets attacked again then it's Bush's fault, right? Just like 9/11 was Clinton's?

Don't be silly. Any national security failure after the 235th day of a president's term is strictly the fault of that president.

490

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:05:54pm

re: #451 Cato the Elder

Because...umm...we're not terrorists and there is such a thing as the rule of law?

What's so hard to grasp about that?

Unless you come from an old family named Lynch.

a bright guy like you should be able to grasp the concept that there is no rule of law that applies to these guys...we had to make it up as we went along for their benefit...they could have been shot where they stood...the tribunals got straightened out...now BO needs to scrap the whole thing for some but not others?...giving terrorists access to our civil law is ludicrous and ought to be illegal...rule of law does not apply...grasp that

491

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:05:59pm

re: #465 Walter L. Newton

That is an interesting way to bring in AGW... Since you are trying to piss me off about something very serious, but very not related can we assume that you have nothing meaningful to contribute?

Just because you don't believe it is torture doesn't make that reality. You believe lots of stupid things. The same goes to any of the other sheep who are trying to bleat that this was not torture. It was. It was absolutely torture. That is the reality.

Whether or not that view is popular with some of the kiddies in the clubhouse makes no difference. This is not a popularity contest. Your whining or declarations of sound bytes will not change that.

If a triangle has three sides, is not a popularity contest either.

492

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:06:44pm

re: #384 Walter L. Newton

No. And you still have not answered my question. I'm looking fore a simple yes or no. The threat of possible terror is the same, on any day, in NYC, no matter what is going on. Having the trial in NYC would not make a terror attack any more attractive to terrorists than any other time of the year.

Yes or no... that's all I ask.

It's possible there is a slight increase, but that isn't proven. It is possibly offset by the extra amount of law enforcement and a heightened sense of concern in the city -- NYC has a state of pride for working through these attacks, at least my friends, there, show it -- commemorate it (as they commemorate the friends they lost).

In any case, is a slight increase reason enough to suspend the rules of law?

On the other hand, is there a benefit to seeing the conviction happen in one of the major cities of impact?

I suspect we disagree on the amount of benefit and harm there are to each case, but they seem like reasonable disagreements to have -- and with-out really good cause (that is, imminent specific threat) we should not avoid the standards we set for ourselves and our judicial system.

493

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:06:45pm

re: #486 jaunte

I'd like to reiterate that point. Anyone care to take it up?

They are not sufficient because they are closed and secretive. The entire point of this trial is not only to bring KSM to justice, but to send a message to the world that we are a nation of laws. That we are morally superior to the terrorists. That our war against terror is a just war because we are right and they are wrong.

494

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:06:53pm

re: #472 Spare O'Lake

If you want to put the alleged torturers on trial then do so.
That however has nothing whatsoever to do with whether KSM should have a civilian vs a military trial.
Your entire argument about torture is therefore irrelevant.

No it is quite relevant because it is the primary piece of anti-American propaganda we have handed this bastard. We are also guilty of it, so it will really sting.

495

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:07:10pm

re: #488 SanFranciscoZionist

I am personally very dubious about doing this in civilian court. However, I have to agree that this would be argued the other way 'round by everyone, depending on the party of the parties involved.

I disagree, at least in the sense that Lizards wouldn't be hypocritical about this point. If Obama had allowed the tribunals to go forward, I think Lizards would have praise for the decision.

496

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:07:24pm

re: #472 Spare O'Lake

If you want to put the alleged torturers on trial then do so.
That however has nothing whatsoever to do with whether KSM should have a civilian vs a military trial.
Your entire argument about torture is therefore irrelevant.

I don't know much about military law except what I've learned from watching JAG.

However, isn't the fact that we tortured this dude--excuse me--interrogated harshly--going to tend to work to the defense's benefit in any civilian court?

497

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:08:23pm

re: #490 albusteve

a bright guy like you should be able to grasp the concept that there is no rule of law that applies to these guys...we had to make it up as we went along for their benefit...they could have been shot where they stood...the tribunals got straightened out...now BO needs to scrap the whole thing for some but not others?...giving terrorists access to our civil law is ludicrous and ought to be illegal...rule of law does not apply...grasp that

Don't you get it. The fact that we offer the rule of law to everyone is what makes us good and the terrorists bad.

498

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:08:46pm

re: #455 Sharmuta

Who is saying NYC can't handle it?! What we're saying is this is a bad idea for a host of reasons. I'm tired of this nonsense that somehow conservatives think the federal court system "can't" handle this. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT! What we ARE saying is there are legitimate reasons to leave this in tribunals.

I agree, there are legitimate reasons to hold tribunals. If Obama had decided that route, I wouldn't criticize him at all. However, that's not what he chose to do, and I respect that. It's ok to bring up possible risks to this method, and am happy to hear that we "can" handle this way of prosecuting this scumbag, even if we disagree that this is the way to do it. Personally, I don't care very much, just as long as he ends up either dead or in prison for life. Which there no doubt that he will, IMHO.

499

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:09:08pm

re: #476 Sharmuta

Then I'll ask Karmic's question again. By what right do we have the jurisdiction to prosecute a murder committed on foreign soil?

He murdered an American citizen. I do not know the proper legal phraseology, but there is precedent for trying those who commit crimes against Americans.

500

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:09:15pm

re: #484 drcordell

Nobody has said they do think the double standard is acceptable.

That must be why we're hearing all the *crickets* concerning that point.

501

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:09:53pm

re: #454 MinisterO

Bush kept us safe for 7 years and 4 months. Obama has not even kept us safe for 10 months yet. Obama thinks the NY federal courts can handle the men responsible for the nation's worst mass murder since the Trail of Tears. How foolish.

The terrorists are going to be so angry and will attack NYC again and you will all wish you had voted for McCain.

Hate to say it but if you're playing that game - wasn't it Bush's FBI that decided Hassan wasn't someone to be concerned about? Come on - enough with the tit-for-tat...

502

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:09:54pm

re: #488 SanFranciscoZionist

I find the splitting the difference - that Obama and Holder chose to hold some in tribunals and others in federal district court to be the most troubling aspect of this whole mess. It's one that can't be blamed on anyone but Obama and Holder.

Tribunals are a lawful and recognized court of law for purposes of dealing with these detainees - as per the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. All have had input into their formation and operation. Multiple lawsuits and adjudications attest to that very fact, along with the Congressional record and laws enacting and amending the operation of the tribunals.

They could have chosen to put all in federal court, but didn't.

Apparently the reason some get tribunals and others don't is based on whether they can get convictions in federal court. If they can, they go to federal court.

Again, if that's the case, why not try all in tribunals where the evidence is better safeguarded?

That's a whole can of worms that I've addressed above and in prior posts.

503

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:10:13pm

re: #498 Surabaya Stew

Great- I hope you cease with the strawman then.

504

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:10:45pm

re: #501 Cineaste

Hate to say it but if you're playing that game - wasn't it Bush's FBI that decided Hassan wasn't someone to be concerned about? Come on - enough with the tit-for-tat...

re: #471 Guanxi88

MinisterO raises a very subtle point that I think many people are missing, and does so in a perfect dead-pan.

Re-read his comment and his follow-ups. He is not making the point you seem to think he is, and is no engaging in tit-fot-tat

505

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:10:56pm

re: #479 marjoriemoon

With all due respect to the Pearl family, victims do not get to decide how, when or who goes to trial. If it was up to the Pearls, they'd simply put a bullet in his head and be done with it. And while I think that IS probably the best decision! we don't do things that way.

absolutely - this is like when we let the widows of 9-11 fight it out over the commission and everything else. That's not how it's done.

506

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:11:11pm

re: #493 drcordell

They are not sufficient because they are closed and secretive. The entire point of this trial is not only to bring KSM to justice, but to send a message to the world that we are a nation of laws. That we are morally superior to the terrorists. That our war against terror is a just war because we are right and they are wrong.

I gots a headstone here dat says "I was right", who wants tah sign for it?

507

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:11:39pm

re: #505 Cineaste

... that's not how it's done because justice should be impartial.

though I personally am routing for kicking KSM's butt in whatever court he gets tried in...

508

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:11:43pm

re: #493 drcordell

They are not sufficient because they are closed and secretive. The entire point of this trial is not only to bring KSM to justice, but to send a message to the world that we are a nation of laws. That we are morally superior to the terrorists. That our war against terror is a just war because we are right and they are wrong.

So you admit this is nothing but a show trial?

509

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:11:52pm

re: #473 brookly red

The fact that this is even a matter of discussion shows weakness, division & is an advantage to our enemies. We strive for correctness while they strive to kill us.

The rule of law and the free airing of difference is not a sign of weakness. If we give ourselves permission to become savages any time we feel threatened, we will never find it prudent to stop.

510

Spider mensch Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:12:12pm

re: #465 Walter L. Newton

You have very little support in this dude, for crying out loud.

By the way, were fucked, Obama is backing away from doing anything about global climate change, your hero is fucking you royally. Gordon Brown said we had 50 days before we reach the point of no return.

Well, it ain't happening dude, you've been screwed by Obama.

unemployment trumps climate change..like rock beats scissors..it's tough to get a guy worried about melting icecaps when he's worrying about putting dinner on the table for his kids...and that's just the plain truth.

511

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:12:21pm

re: #492 keithgabryelski

It's possible there is a slight increase, but that isn't proven. It is possibly offset by the extra amount of law enforcement and a heightened sense of concern in the city -- NYC has a state of pride for working through these attacks, at least my friends, there, show it -- commemorate it (as they commemorate the friends they lost).

In any case, is a slight increase reason enough to suspend the rules of law?

On the other hand, is there a benefit to seeing the conviction happen in one of the major cities of impact?

I suspect we disagree on the amount of benefit and harm there are to each case, but they seem like reasonable disagreements to have -- and with-out really good cause (that is, imminent specific threat) we should not avoid the standards we set for ourselves and our judicial system.

I was only asking about the possible increase. If you go up thread, you won't find me stating any opinions on the trial itself. I was only questioning the rational of whether certain possibilities increase or decrease.

That's all. Thanks for the answer (more than I got from some others).

512

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:13:03pm

re: #491 LudwigVanQuixote

That is an interesting way to bring in AGW... Since you are trying to piss me off about something very serious, but very not related can we assume that you have nothing meaningful to contribute?

Just because you don't believe it is torture doesn't make that reality. You believe lots of stupid things. The same goes to any of the other sheep who are trying to bleat that this was not torture. It was. It was absolutely torture. That is the reality.

Whether or not that view is popular with some of the kiddies in the clubhouse makes no difference. This is not a popularity contest. Your whining or declarations of sound bytes will not change that.

If a triangle has three sides, is not a popularity contest either.

Ludwig Von Beck is back in action.

Here to flaunt his moral superiority over all the ignorant rubes who disagree with his propaganda.

Look smart people, your betters are present! And put on your thinking caps, teacher will expect you to pay attention to his voluminous drivel.

513

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:13:18pm

re: #508 Sharmuta

It's hilarious -- they want it both ways -- yet appear to be oblivious to the flagrant contradiction.

514

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:13:23pm

re: #504 Guanxi88

Re-read his comment and his follow-ups. He is not making the point you seem to think he is, and is no engaging in tit-fot-tat

I stepped off the thread for a minute to do some work. If I mischaracterized then I apologize completely MinisterO. That was my bad.

515

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:13:27pm

If we ~~don't go shopping at Wal-Mart enough~~ ~~fail to support the bogus war in Iraq~~ ~~call Freedom Fries French~~ ~~don't vote for McCain/Palin~~ ~~dislike country music~~ ~~eat couscous~~ try them in civilian courts, the terrorists win!

516

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:13:49pm

re: #489 MinisterO

Don't be silly. Any national security failure after the 235th day of a president's term is strictly the fault of that president.

nice trolling there, buddy.

517

jaunte Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:13:55pm

re: #508 Sharmuta

'Show trial' sounds bad. Can we call it a 'message-sending' trial?

518

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:14:00pm

re: #497 drcordell

Don't you get it. The fact that we offer the rule of law to everyone is what makes us good and the terrorists bad.

that's what the tribunals are for...in the case of internation terrorism, that is the rule of law, is it not?...wtf are you even talking about...American Constitutional rule of law applies to Americans and visitors on our soil...don't you get it?...we don't owe these killers anything, let alone equality with American citizens...don't you get it?... the tribunals are legal within our system, designed just for them, don't you get it...and why the double standard, explain that, how is that fair and justified?

519

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:14:03pm

re: #514 Cineaste

I stepped off the thread for a minute to do some work. If I mischaracterized then I apologize completely MinisterO. That was my bad.

I disagree with the point he makes, but he does it well, and it's not an easy one to dismiss.

520

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:14:13pm

re: #509 SanFranciscoZionist

The rule of law and the free airing of difference is not a sign of weakness. If we give ourselves permission to become savages any time we feel threatened, we will never find it prudent to stop.

Yes. Thank you. If we're going to act as savage as the terrorists, at what point do we become no better than they are? If we disregard the rule of law in the same way as terrorists, where is the moral difference between a bomb dropped by an F-16 and a bomb set off in a cafe?

521

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:14:38pm

re: #474 Bagua

You just argue the same tripe over and over again like a parrot.

Who cares what some "journalists who tried it" thought? The very fact they were able to sip their cappuccinos and write their subversive nonsense proves they were not harmed. So they gasped, oh dear, the horror, the humanity.

The Japanese were soldiers under completely different rules from the terrorist scum.

Compare the American military to the Nazis and Kmer Rough? That is contemptible and dishonest.

But hey, have fun with your anti-American terrorist sympathizing ignorance and demonisation of Bush and American Patriots protecting your life and right to keep repeating falsehoods and propaganda.

So waterboarding is torture, but only when applied to uniformed combatants or done by bad people? And saying otherwise is "anti-American"?

522

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:14:52pm

re: #474 Bagua

You just argue the same tripe over and over again like a parrot.

Who cares what some "journalists who tried it" thought? The very fact they were able to sip their cappuccinos and write their subversive nonsense proves they were not harmed. So they gasped, oh dear, the horror, the humanity.

The Japanese were soldiers under completely different rules from the terrorist scum.

Compare the American military to the Nazis and Kmer Rough? That is contemptible and dishonest.

But hey, have fun with your anti-American terrorist sympathizing ignorance and demonisation of Bush and American Patriots protecting your life and right to keep repeating falsehoods and propaganda.

Breathe buddy... I am not trying to let the terrorists off. I am angered that fools like you gave them ammunition.

As to the fact that waterboarding is torture... well that is not tripe. However pissed you get at that fact, at that repeatedly, demonstrated fact, at the fact that every military in the world considers this to be torture and that our own military tried our own marines for doing it in the Phillipines to Phillapinos, well your bluster or refusal to look at those facts changes nothing.

As to terrorist scum - yes they are.

However, we part ways because well I don't believe that only some men are created equal or that only some men have inalienable rights.

Take your firebreathing and your hysteria to a nation that likes that kind of thinking, like where the jihadis themselves are from. We are the good guys. If we are to be the good guys, we do it by playing up to our own standards and having faith in our own republic.

523

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:15:03pm

re: #491 LudwigVanQuixote

No, I was not trying to rattle your cage, I went off on a different topic. I am really surprised that Obama (in my opinion) basically told the whole climate change folks that he is not going to keep his promises. I thought you would have an opinion on that. Sorry, I guess that's not something you are interested in.

You know Ludwig, no one can win or loose with you. Someone shows no interest in climate change, you go crazy on them, someone shows interest and you go crazy on them.

Sorry to waste your time.

524

Varek Raith Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:15:27pm

re: #520 drcordell

Yes. Thank you. If we're going to act as savage as the terrorists, at what point do we become no better than they are? If we disregard the rule of law in the same way as terrorists, where is the moral difference between a bomb dropped by an F-16 and a bomb set off in a cafe?

It's intended target, that's what.

525

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:16:52pm

re: #517 jaunte

'Show trial' sounds bad. Can we call it a 'message-sending' trial?

Sure to end all anti-Americanism in a single bound...

526

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:17:05pm

re: #522 LudwigVanQuixote

Breathe buddy... I am not trying to let the terrorists off. I am angered that fools like you gave them ammunition.

As to the fact that waterboarding is torture... well that is not tripe. However pissed you get at that fact, at that repeatedly, demonstrated fact, at the fact that every military in the world considers this to be torture and that our own military tried our own marines for doing it in the Phillipines to Phillapinos, well your bluster or refusal to look at those facts changes nothing.

As to terrorist scum - yes they are.

However, we part ways because well I don't believe that only some men are created equal or that only some men have inalienable rights.

Take your firebreathing and your hysteria to a nation that likes that kind of thinking, like where the jihadis themselves are from. We are the good guys. If we are to be the good guys, we do it by playing up to our own standards and having faith in our own republic.

Ludwig Von Beck

{gaze}

527

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:17:18pm

re: #519 Guanxi88

I disagree with the point he makes, but he does it well, and it's not an easy one to dismiss.

Actually - I just reread it and it wasn't part of a thread (it's his only post here). He's completely wrong. We are very good at convicting terrorists who attack us regardless of body count and he should read the counter arguments on the safety of New York.

528

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:17:24pm

re: #512 Bagua

Ludwig Von Beck is back in action.

Here to flaunt his moral superiority over all the ignorant rubes who disagree with his propaganda.

Look smart people, your betters are present! And put on your thinking caps, teacher will expect you to pay attention to his voluminous drivel.

Do you care to melt down any further?

I am arguing the facts in an even tone. You are the only one having a hissy fit.

As to morality, this is not my morality - in as much as I did not come up with it. Rather, it is the morality of the United States.

Further, calling me Beck is really laughable, because he is stupid enough and divorced enough from reality to throw out American values and agree with your reprehensible position.

529

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:17:39pm

re: #522 LudwigVanQuixote

Breathe buddy... I am not trying to let the terrorists off. I am angered that fools like you gave them ammunition.

As to the fact that waterboarding is torture... well that is not tripe. However pissed you get at that fact, at that repeatedly, demonstrated fact, at the fact that every military in the world considers this to be torture and that our own military tried our own marines for doing it in the Phillipines to Phillapinos, well your bluster or refusal to look at those facts changes nothing.

As to terrorist scum - yes they are.

However, we part ways because well I don't believe that only some men are created equal or that only some men have inalienable rights.

Take your firebreathing and your hysteria to a nation that likes that kind of thinking, like where the jihadis themselves are from. We are the good guys. If we are to be the good guys, we do it by playing up to our own standards and having faith in our own republic.

(I'm going to take a page from Ludwig's book and repost something that I have posted before)

You display absolutely zero professionalism in your manner and approach to debating a issue. You would make Newton and Liebniz ashamed, and they were master debaters and so very capable of making stating their science without taking it to the level of malice.

Pay close attention, you show malice toward you fellow man, you actually have a hate, a hatred of anyone who doesn't see things the way you do, doesn't parrot back the science the way you do or value the same things you do.

I will actually suggest that you go back to Talmud, go back to the writing of the Rebbe's, look over the commentaries and learn something about wisdom.

I wish only good for you, but you have to start finding a little love for those who don't see things the way you do. Otherwise, you are going to grow up to be a very lonely old man.

I'm getting tired of your passive/aggressive bullshit.

530

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:17:53pm

re: #520 drcordell

So following the rule of law which allows for military tribunals is us being as savage as terrorists?

531

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:18:04pm

re: #495 Sharmuta

I disagree, at least in the sense that Lizards wouldn't be hypocritical about this point. If Obama had allowed the tribunals to go forward, I think Lizards would have praise for the decision.

I hope so.

532

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:18:17pm

re: #503 Sharmuta

Great- I hope you cease with the strawman then.

Obviously, we both feel rather strongly about this, and it would seem as if our opinions frustrate the other. Please don't accuse me of being a strawman, when all I'm trying to do is have an open and honest debate. This is not worth loosing our cool over.

533

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:18:34pm

re: #518 albusteve

that's what the tribunals are for...in the case of internation terrorism, that is the rule of law, is it not?...wtf are you even talking about...American Constitutional rule of law applies to Americans and visitors on our soil...don't you get it?...we don't owe these killers anything, let alone equality with American citizens...don't you get it?... the tribunals are legal within our system, designed just for them, don't you get it...and why the double standard, explain that, how is that fair and justified?

I'm going to try and respond to this the best I can, despite the complete lack of sentence structure and coherence. What makes America great is that we treat everyone equally. Even if you are accused of the most disgusting and heinous crimes imaginable, you are afforded the right to a fair trial. That is what makes us different, and morally superior, from the terrorists.

534

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:18:41pm

re: #523 Walter L. Newton

No, I was not trying to rattle your cage, I went off on a different topic. I am really surprised that Obama (in my opinion) basically told the whole climate change folks that he is not going to keep his promises. I thought you would have an opinion on that. Sorry, I guess that's not something you are interested in.

You know Ludwig, no one can win or loose with you. Someone shows no interest in climate change, you go crazy on them, someone shows interest and you go crazy on them.

Sorry to waste your time.

ahahaha!...it's called obsession

535

jaunte Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:18:43pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

I don't have much confidence in the political side of the trial changing any previously held strong opinions around the world.

536

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:18:55pm

re: #509 SanFranciscoZionist

The rule of law and the free airing of difference is not a sign of weakness. If we give ourselves permission to become savages any time we feel threatened, we will never find it prudent to stop.

Touche. I don't suggest that we become savages but acting in our own interests does not include mercy to terrorists IMO.

537

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:19:26pm

re: #532 Surabaya Stew

I didn't accuse you of being a strawman. Your argument, however, is.

538

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:19:29pm

re: #522 LudwigVanQuixote

An Arch terrorist who destroyed the World Trade Center does not have "inalienable rights".

Your expansive concern for his well being and discomfort speak volumes about your loyalties and priorities.

539

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:19:38pm

War is a bitch. We are at war. Feel good actions like these trials will not change that.

Whether you like it or not.

540

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:19:51pm

re: #535 jaunte

I don't have much confidence in the political side of the trial changing any previously held strong opinions around the world.

It's Pollyanna to think it would.

541

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:20:29pm

re: #536 brookly red

Touche. I don't suggest that we become savages but acting in our own interests does not include mercy to terrorists IMO.

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

542

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:20:59pm

re: #528 LudwigVanQuixote

{gaze}

I too am tired of your passive/aggressive bullshit.

543

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:21:14pm

re: #533 drcordell

I'm going to try and respond to this the best I can, despite the complete lack of sentence structure and coherence. What makes America great is that we treat everyone equally. Even if you are accused of the most disgusting and heinous crimes imaginable, you are afforded the right to a fair trial. That is what makes us different, and morally superior, from the terrorists.

If i was in your shoes, I would certainly not answer such a badly worded comment. Hell, next thing you know, you will be whining that you were FORCED to respond because you had no choice :)

544

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:21:17pm

re: #527 Cineaste

Actually - I just reread it and it wasn't part of a thread (it's his only post here). He's completely wrong. We are very good at convicting terrorists who attack us regardless of body count and he should read the counter arguments on the safety of New York.

He is trolling this forum.

He basically said "any attack on U.S. soil on or before Sept. 11 of the year a president is inaugurated is the fault of the previous president -- anything after that, is the fault of the current president".

He should be ignored.

545

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:21:24pm

re: #529 Walter L. Newton

So when you had nothing more to say about the fact that waterboarding is indeed torture you tried to go for AGW...

Then you tried for a popularity contest...

Then you tried for insulting me...

Walter, a debate is based on facts - and processing those facts.

Waterboarding is torture. It is a fact.

We tortured those terrorists and that puts a black eye on our own honor, even if they were terrorists. That is a fact. In fact, it is the primary thing we gave him to deflect his trial from justly convicting him of his crimes.

So, do notice those facts and stop being a silly person.

546

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:21:59pm

re: #538 Bagua

An Arch terrorist who destroyed the World Trade Center does not have "inalienable rights".

Your expansive concern for his well being and discomfort speak volumes about your loyalties and priorities.

What part of "all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights" do you not understand?

547

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:22:26pm

re: #533 drcordell

I'm going to try and respond to this the best I can, despite the complete lack of sentence structure and coherence. What makes America great is that we treat everyone equally. Even if you are accused of the most disgusting and heinous crimes imaginable, you are afforded the right to a fair trial. That is what makes us different, and morally superior, from the terrorists.

And our legal system allows for military tribunals. That's more fair than these barbarians deserve, and a point that no one here sees fit to deny them. Let them have their tribunals. We won't complain.

548

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:22:32pm

re: #545 LudwigVanQuixote

So when you had nothing more to say about the fact that waterboarding is indeed torture you tried to go for AGW...

Then you tried for a popularity contest...

Then you tried for insulting me...

Walter, a debate is based on facts - and processing those facts.

Waterboarding is torture. It is a fact.

We tortured those terrorists and that puts a black eye on our own honor, even if they were terrorists. That is a fact. In fact, it is the primary thing we gave him to deflect his trial from justly convicting him of his crimes.

So, do notice those facts and stop being a silly person.

Answer me about Obama and his blowing off of the whole climate change problem. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

549

baier Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:22:37pm

re: #535 jaunte

I don't have much confidence in the political side of the trial changing any previously held strong opinions around the world.

Especially when the president and attorney general are guaranteeing a conviction an execution. The trial is just a formality?

550

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:22:37pm

re: #524 Varek Raith

It's intended target, that's what.

Well duh. You're missing the point. The point is that if we become as barbaric as the terrorists, eventually we become terrorists ourselves.

551

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:22:50pm

re: #494 LudwigVanQuixote

No it is quite relevant because it is the primary piece of anti-American propaganda we have handed this bastard. We are also guilty of it, so it will really sting.

It may be propoganda, but it is not admissible evidence except insofar as the government attempts to introduce evidence obtained by the use of torture. Which they will not.
Therefore the alleged torture is irrelevant both to the mode of trial and to the trial itself.

552

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:23:20pm

OK can we cut with some of the more obtuse and asinine arguments here.

No one who isn't an idiot, or purposely trying to get someone's goat, thinks that having the trial in NYC will result in another terrorist attack during the trial.

Military Tribunals are fully within the Rule of Law. The GITMO detainees were all unlawful combatants captured by the US military on foreign soil. They were not US citizens either. The one who was, John Walker Lindh, was tried in a US civilian federal court. Neither the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions apply to KSM or the GITMO detainees.

Waterboarding is not torture. Using psychology or attempts to frighten someone into answering questions is not torture. Causing them pain and physical harm is.

Nothing that KSM has said in custody will be admissible evidence in a civilian court of law and everyone here with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows this well. A lot of evidence against him, including any confessions he made, will disappear in a puff of legal logic.

If a Republican president was doing this, I and most other Lizards here who are against it still would be. We are intellectually honest. If we weren't we would be at the douche blog calling Obama hitler and ranting about every other nontroversy of the day.

553

Varek Raith Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:23:34pm

re: #550 drcordell

Well duh. You're missing the point. The point is that if we become as barbaric as the terrorists, eventually we become terrorists ourselves.

Perhaps it is you who are missing the point. Do military tribunals = savagery in your book?

554

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:23:41pm

re: #546 Cato the Elder

What part of "all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights" do you not understand?

The part that says that's not in the Constitution.

555

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:23:59pm

re: #533 drcordell

I'm going to try and respond to this the best I can, despite the complete lack of sentence structure and coherence. What makes America great is that we treat everyone equally. Even if you are accused of the most disgusting and heinous crimes imaginable, you are afforded the right to a fair trial. That is what makes us different, and morally superior, from the terrorists.

that's your first assumption that is just plain wrong...for one reason or another people are not equal...terrorists are not equal to American citizens...you want to go off into some progressive realm of unicorns and I won't go there...we do not have to express our morality to anybody, they can judge us by our actions...we have not stiffed the world...we have no message we need to send or apologies to make...that's BOs kool aid...severe BDS

556

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:24:07pm

Holder and President Obama have said waterboarding is torture.

Holder says (in effect) the case against KSM is a slam dunk.

But evidence obtained under torture is not admissable in our courts.

So Holder either feels he can convict KSM using inadmissable evidence, or there is a good chance much of the evidence against KSM will not be allowed to be presented to the jury.

This is NOT a slam dunk if that happens. And Holder can say that his boss the POTUS was not consulted about trying KSM in Federal Court, but that HAS to be a lie. So if KSM walks, the POTUS can fire Holder, but there is a really good chance that if KSM walks, we will fire the POTUS. Unless, of course the trial of KSM takes place after November 2012.

557

jaunte Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:24:22pm

re: #549 baier

Especially when the president and attorney general are guaranteeing a conviction an execution. The trial is just a formality?

Oops.

558

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:24:33pm

re: #552 ArchangelMichael

Waterboarding is not torture.

Ask Chris Hitchens about that, tough guy.

559

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:25:11pm

re: #554 Sharmuta

The part that says that's not in the Constitution.

Ah, so you discard the Declaration of Independence when it suits you?

Suits you.

560

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:25:33pm

re: #537 Sharmuta

I didn't accuse you of being a strawman. Your argument, however, is.

Now this is interesting; I always thought that a strawman argument automatically makes the one doing it a strawman, who enjoys doing so to fight with people. Because I've noticed that when people regarded as reasonable commentators make a "strawman-like" case, it's usually dismissed as an issue that the person eels passionate about. Which is what this is, IMHO.

561

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:25:36pm

re: #521 SanFranciscoZionist

So waterboarding is torture, but only when applied to uniformed combatants or done by bad people? And saying otherwise is "anti-American"?

Context and application are key. Removal of a kidney with a scalpel is torture and criminal when done by a murderer, and life saving surgery when done by a surgeon.

Illegal combatants who destroy buildings do not have the same rights as civilians under occupation or military forces during war time.

562

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:25:49pm

re: #544 keithgabryelski

He is trolling this forum.

He basically said "any attack on U.S. soil on or before Sept. 11 of the year a president is inaugurated is the fault of the previous president -- anything after that, is the fault of the current president".

He should be ignored.

And if you do so, you miss the point he's making, which is that creating an arbitrary deadline date for responsibility for a President for any terror attacks that occur is an absurd and pointless and fundamentally dishonest thing to do, as NO President is responsible for terrorist attacks, and no President can be held to account for failures in the intelligence and national security apparatus, which exists independently of administrations and operates continuously in the background on time-cycles unrelated to elections and electoral politics. He's pointing out the absurdity of it by stating the position directly, baldly, and in deadpan.

563

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:26:14pm

re: #559 Cato the Elder

Ah, so you discard the Declaration of Independence when it suits you?

Suits you.

The Constitution is the law, not the DoI.

564

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:26:22pm

re: #538 Bagua

An Arch terrorist who destroyed the World Trade Center does not have "inalienable rights".

Your expansive concern for his well being and discomfort speak volumes about your loyalties and priorities.

And now I am somehow disloyal for standing up for American values...
That sounds like something Beck or Rush or Hannity would say.

You really have hit the bottom of the barrel.

Care to dig anymore?

Because you reason seems to be impaired, I will explain it slowly to you.

1. I want the terrorists to have justice served to them.

2. For justice to be served in a way that is both just and upholds American principles (the things these monsters want to destroy) we must be scrupulous to uphold our own principles.

3. We must do so for our own sake more than theirs.

565

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:26:40pm

re: #538 Bagua

An Arch terrorist who destroyed the World Trade Center does not have "inalienable rights".

Your expansive concern for his well being and discomfort speak volumes about your loyalties and priorities.

Clearly there is no reason to oppose the use of torture, or even ask inconvenient questions about it, unless one is disloyal to America. Strike up the band!

566

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:26:42pm

re: #556 _RememberTonyC

Holder and President Obama have said waterboarding is torture.

Holder says (in effect) the case against KSM is a slam dunk.

But evidence obtained under torture is not admissable in our courts.

So Holder either feels he can convict KSM using inadmissable evidence, or there is a good chance much of the evidence against KSM will not be allowed to be presented to the jury.

This is NOT a slam dunk if that happens. And Holder can say that his boss the POTUS was not consulted about trying KSM in Federal Court, but that HAS to be a lie. So if KSM walks, the POTUS can fire Holder, but there is a really good chance that if KSM walks, we will fire the POTUS. Unless, of course the trial of KSM takes place after November 2012.

Another possibility is that there is additional admissible evidence that the Feds feel is sufficient to obtain a conviction.

567

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:26:50pm

re: #558 Cato the Elder

Ask Chris Hitchens about that, tough guy.

I don't give 2 shits what Hitchens thinks about it. He's not the end all be all of right and wrong. When he gets his fingers smashed with a hammer, hot lead poured down his urethra, or a car battery hooked up to his testicles then maybe I'll listen to him about it.

568

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:27:06pm

re: #563 Sharmuta

The Constitution is the law, not the DoI.

And the Ten Commandments also hold no sway.

569

William Barnett-Lewis Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:27:16pm

re: #538 Bagua

Either all have inalienable rights or none do. That's rather the point of the concept...

570

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:27:16pm

re: #546 Cato the Elder

What part of "all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights" do you not understand?

The part were you apply that to alien, terrorist murderers who crash airplanes full of civilians into building full of civilians.

571

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:27:41pm

re: #566 SixDegrees

Another possibility is that there is additional admissible evidence that the Feds feel is sufficient to obtain a conviction.

Which they had better have in spades.

572

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:27:48pm

re: #543 Walter L. Newton

If i was in your shoes, I would certainly not answer such a badly worded comment. Hell, next thing you know, you will be whining that you were FORCED to respond because you had no choice :)

noobs always bring that shit up...funny that, like it sets the ground in their favor for their reply?...hahaha!...that's why they're noobs!...

573

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:28:11pm

re: #571 Surabaya Stew

Which they had better have in spades.

Yes, indeed.

574

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:28:12pm

re: #570 Bagua

The part were you apply that to alien, terrorist murderers who crash airplanes full of civilians into building full of civilians.

Those guys are dead, in case you hadn't noticed. The ones on trial get rights like any other accused.

575

baier Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:28:20pm

re: #558 Cato the Elder

Ask Chris Hitchens about that, tough guy.

Hicthens thinks being on a dry transatlantic flight is torture.

576

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:28:32pm

re: #568 Cato the Elder

And the Ten Commandments also hold no sway.

Where did I argue they did?

577

charlz Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:28:34pm

re: #518 albusteve

why the double standard, explain that, how is that fair and justified?

I'll attempt to ask the question again: what double standard? Just because there are two types of venue does not establish a double standard. I was told to go read lawhawk's comments; I did and saw an argument that the two types of venue had the potential to create problems for the prosecution, but nothing that argued for a double standard. I don't know how the DOD and DOJ divvied up this cases -- nor does anyone else -- here, but you can be damn sure that they didn't do so thinking that they were going to hurt their chances of conviction.

578

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:28:39pm

re: #564 LudwigVanQuixote

{gaze}

I'll leave you to hijack another thread with your repetitive bullshit.

579

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:28:57pm

re: #548 Walter L. Newton

Answer me about Obama and his blowing off of the whole climate change problem. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

It pisses me off to no end. I have remarked probably a dozen times how I am shocked at the lack of proper action from our government on this, how I think that the Cap and Trade Bill does not do enough to address the issues and that the real solutions are physical ones (like actually developing other energy sources like nuclear solar and wind and a better national grid), not economic and political architectures.

You are the only one wasting time Walter. You've seen me write those things a dozen times.

Your insipid games are tiresome.

580

Barbarian at the Gate Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:29:37pm

re: #493 drcordell

They are not sufficient because they are closed and secretive. The entire point of this trial is not only to bring KSM to justice, but to send a message to the world that we are a nation of laws. That we are morally superior to the terrorists. That our war against terror is a just war because we are right and they are wrong.

Do you really think that after 236 years of constitutional freedom we still need to send a "message" to the world that we are a nation of laws? Also which nations do we need to send that message to - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, the Sudan?

581

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:29:43pm

re: #548 Walter L. Newton

Answer me about Obama and his blowing off of the whole climate change problem. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

How the hell did Obama's climate change policy get into this mess?

582

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:29:58pm

re: #574 Cato the Elder

Those guys are dead, in case you hadn't noticed. The ones on trial get rights like any other accused.

Right, and I care far more about the dead innocents than I do about their Alien, Enemy, Terrorist Murderers. They have no "rights", they forfeited them.

583

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:30:01pm

re: #559 Cato the Elder

Ah, so you discard the Declaration of Independence when it suits you?

Suits you.

And no- I don't dismiss the DoI. Logically fallacious, and you ought to apologize for that bullshit comment.

584

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:30:05pm

re: #567 ArchangelMichael

I don't give 2 shits what Hitchens thinks about it. He's not the end all be all of right and wrong. When he gets his fingers smashed with a hammer, hot lead poured down his urethra, or a car battery hooked up to his testicles then maybe I'll listen to him about it.

Why not give two when you could not give just the one?

Waterboarding is torture. It is administered to our soldiers in courses teaching them how to withstand torture. Quod erat demonstrandum.

585

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:30:17pm

re: #567 ArchangelMichael

I don't give 2 shits what Hitchens thinks about it. He's not the end all be all of right and wrong. When he gets his fingers smashed with a hammer, hot lead poured down his urethra, or a car battery hooked up to his testicles then maybe I'll listen to him about it.

The listen to MacArthur about it when he had Japanese tried for it. Or is MacArthur just a lefty too?

Your argument is just stupid...

So in order to say the rack is torture you have to be able to compare it to the iron maiden?

586

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:30:29pm

re: #583 Sharmuta

And no- I don't dismiss the DoI. Logically fallacious, and you ought to apologize for that bullshit comment.

Don't hold your breath.

587

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:30:40pm

re: #581 SanFranciscoZionist

How the hell did Obama's climate change policy get into this mess?

Ludwig Von Beck.

588

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:01pm

re: #566 SixDegrees

Another possibility is that there is additional admissible evidence that the Feds feel is sufficient to obtain a conviction.

that could very well be the case, but KSM and his lawyers will use the "torture" club to beat the prosecutors with at every turn. And that is part of the risk for Holder and his boss in trying this case in civilian court.

589

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:10pm

re: #555 albusteve

that's your first assumption that is just plain wrong...for one reason or another people are not equal...terrorists are not equal to American citizens...you want to go off into some progressive realm of unicorns and I won't go there...we do not have to express our morality to anybody, they can judge us by our actions...we have not stiffed the world...we have no message we need to send or apologies to make...that's BOs kool aid...severe BDS

Well that's where you and I differ. I do think that terrorists should be afforded the same rights as an American. Again, that's what makes us GOOD and what makes the terrorists BAD.

Your attitude seems to be that America can just do whatever it wants, and everyone else in the world can suck it. And you're right, we pretty much can do what we want. But that doesn't mean it's wise to.

By your logic the Taliban can treat our prisoners however they want? And we should simply deal with it? When they hold a tribunal and then executed a captured prisoner, they are justified?

590

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:16pm

re: #564 LudwigVanQuixote

And now I am somehow disloyal for standing up for American values...
That sounds like something Beck or Rush or Hannity would say.

You really have hit the bottom of the barrel.

Care to dig anymore?

Because you reason seems to be impaired, I will explain it slowly to you.

1. I want the terrorists to have justice served to them.

2. For justice to be served in a way that is both just and upholds American principles (the things these monsters want to destroy) we must be scrupulous to uphold our own principles.

3. We must do so for our own sake more than theirs.

in fact I'll pile on and agree with Bagua...your loyal American values need some adjustment

591

lawhawk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:29pm

MSNBC headline: Obama: Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Will Be Executed.

Again, just a wee bit prejudicial and putting the cart before the horse? Where are the civil libertarians to get their knickers in a twist about a sitting President declaring the outcome before we've even settled into the jury selection and pre trial motion phase?

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

You should.

I want 'em found guilty and convicted based on whatever evidence is presented in the forum at hand. I want the sentencing to be appropriately handled by that same jury.

Yet, a constitutional law scholar such as President Obama is releasing statements that are deeply prejudicial?

This has to be a joke, but it's on all of us.

592

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:33pm

re: #496 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't know much about military law except what I've learned from watching JAG.

However, isn't the fact that we tortured this dude--excuse me--interrogated harshly--going to tend to work to the defense's benefit in any civilian court?

See my #551.
Of course KSM's defence lawyers will be on Larry King scoring propoganda points against the Republicans with these torture allegations, and sadly this is what Obama is probably hoping for...to gain political advantage at the expense of US security interests.

593

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:33pm

re: #568 Cato the Elder

And the Ten Commandments also hold no sway.

What are you talking about? The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our legal system, and ought to be nailed up behind every judge so defendants can see them and quake in fear at them.

What part of "You shall have no other God before me," "You will not take my name in vain" and "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" don't you understand, or think aren't legally binding?

594

brookly red Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:36pm

re: #574 Cato the Elder

Those guys are dead, in case you hadn't noticed. The ones on trial get rights like any other accused.

not in my backyard! let him have his trial in Guantanamo.

595

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:45pm

re: #546 Cato the Elder

What part of "all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights" do you not understand?

Good for you Cato.

596

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:31:52pm

re: #582 Bagua

Right, and I care far more about the dead innocents than I do about their Alien, Enemy, Terrorist Murderers. They have no "rights", they forfeited them.

Sorry, but they did not. We grant rights to accused serial killers. Got a problem with that?

597

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:32:01pm

re: #552 ArchangelMichael

Neither the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions apply to KSM or the GITMO detainees.

The supreme court disagrees with you.

Waterboarding is not torture. Using psychology or attempts to frighten someone into answering questions is not torture. Causing them pain and physical harm is.

The dictionary disagrees with you -- torture is defined as severe pressure (mental or physical) intended to coerce someone or a third party into some action.

Nothing that KSM has said in custody will be admissible evidence in a civilian court of law and everyone here with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows this well. A lot of evidence against him, including any confessions he made, will disappear in a puff of legal logic.

That is not the fault of of law. That is the fault of people not following the law.

598

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:32:16pm

re: #586 Cato the Elder

At least I'm not stupid enough to think the DoI trumps the Constitution. You sound like a Creationist historian with that comment. Good job!

599

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:32:26pm

re: #579 LudwigVanQuixote

It pisses me off to no end. I have remarked probably a dozen times how I am shocked at the lack of proper action from our government on this, how I think that the Cap and Trade Bill does not do enough to address the issues and that the real solutions are physical ones (like actually developing other energy sources like nuclear solar and wind and a better national grid), not economic and political architectures.

You are the only one wasting time Walter. You've seen me write those things a dozen times.

Your insipid games are tiresome.

Ludwig, I have not seen you write those things, since last week, when this came up, I was in hell week at the theatre and was not on LGF as much as usual.

You fucking think that you are so important that everyone must know what you are thinking, what you are doing and we should be at your beck and call.

Thank you so much for the information.

600

MinisterO Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:32:49pm

re: #544 keithgabryelski

Don't take yourself so seriously. You have quite missed the point.

He should be ignored.

Well, yes, but you didn't have to go tell everyone.

601

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:32:58pm

re: #598 Sharmuta

At least I'm not stupid enough to think the DoI trumps the Constitution. You sound like a Creationist historian with that comment. Good job!

Oh, blow it out your sycophantic arse.

602

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:33:00pm

re: #580 Barbarian at the Gate

Do you really think that after 236 years of constitutional freedom we still need to send a "message" to the world that we are a nation of laws? Also which nations do we need to send that message to - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, the Sudan?

Yes. You think we should just rest on our laurels? If tomorrow they scrap the constitution and hold you in prison indefinitely without trial, would you rest content that for the previous 236 years we were a nation of laws? Didn't think so.

603

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:33:03pm

re: #587 Bagua

Ludwig Von Beck.

Uhh, that would be Walter who brought that up in an attempt to deflect this conversation.

Bagua you are really losing it today.

How about you get up, walk around and breathe. I mean given all the times you preached that at me, you should take your own advice.

604

Barbarian at the Gate Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:33:09pm

re: #591 lawhawk

Alleged 9/11 mastermind? That's like saying that Eichmann was allegedly involved in the Holocaust.

605

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:33:57pm

re: #581 SanFranciscoZionist

How the hell did Obama's climate change policy get into this mess?

I haven't seen Ludwig in more than a week (I was away a lot, we have tech week at the theatre) and I was interested in his opinion on Obama's recent reversal.

Why, no one ever goes off topic? Gee, sorry...

606

SixDegrees Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:34:22pm

re: #588 _RememberTonyC

that could very well be the case, but KSM and his lawyers will use the "torture" club to beat the prosecutors with at every turn. And that is part of the risk for Holder and his boss in trying this case in civilian court.

Yes, but the same would be true in a military court, and any additional evidence is presumably free of any taint of coercion, Miranda rights or other complications, and has been obtained independent of KSM's time in captivity.

Presumably.

607

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:34:27pm

re: #599 Walter L. Newton

Walter, go have a chill. You have argued with me on threads where I wrote those things. I have only been writing them for months.

Now please go away. I am not going to get sucked into your stupid games.

608

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:34:33pm

re: #580 Barbarian at the Gate

Do you really think that after 236 years of constitutional freedom we still need to send a "message" to the world that we are a nation of laws? Also which nations do we need to send that message to - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, the Sudan?

Agreed, the leading classes of these places won't learn a damn lesson from this (or any) trial. It may influence some of the residents of said countries, but it's possible that Obama and Holder may have made this desision to remind citizens of this country about the rule of law. Not as if they'll learn anything either...

609

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:34:49pm

Name calling is petty.

/ya assholes.

;-)

610

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:34:50pm

re: #562 Guanxi88

He's pointing out the absurdity of it by stating the position directly, baldly, and in deadpan.

It's a disrespectful way to present an argument -- and its intent is to be disrespectful.

611

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:34:57pm

re: #585 LudwigVanQuixote

The listen to MacArthur about it when he had Japanese tried for it. Or is MacArthur just a lefty too?

Your argument is just stupid...

So in order to say the rack is torture you have to be able to compare it to the iron maiden?

OK I've this bullshit from you several times I want proof. Links, something that both Japanese waterboarded, and Macarthur condemned it specifically. I'll wait...

612

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:35:01pm

re: #603 LudwigVanQuixote

Uhh, that would be Walter who brought that up in an attempt to deflect this conversation.

Bagua you are really losing it today.

How about you get up, walk around and breathe. I mean given all the times you preached that at me, you should take your own advice.

That would be Walter who haven't seen you in about a week interested in what you think about Obama's reversal. Fine, it's not important...

613

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:35:55pm

re: #590 albusteve

in fact I'll pile on and agree with Bagua...your loyal American values need some adjustment

Yep, Then take that up with Washington and Jefferson and Adams while you are at it, as you get on a plane and leave my country. There was a time when America stood for justice. We are not going to let cretins like you take it from us.

614

Barbarian at the Gate Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:36:20pm

re: #602 drcordell

Yes. You think we should just rest on our laurels? If tomorrow they scrap the constitution and hold you in prison indefinitely without trial, would you rest content that for the previous 236 years we were a nation of laws? Didn't think so.

I think that was a huge leap you jsut made. Tyrannies by the way are not impressed by our laws - we need send them any messages. The messages we sent ot Germany and Japan (1941 - 45) was that we are going to smash your brutal system of genocide and imperialism.

615

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:36:24pm

re: #585 LudwigVanQuixote

So in order to say the rack is torture you have to be able to compare it to the iron maiden?

nobody expected the spanish inquisition...

sorry, talk of torture always makes me think of witches and the inquisition and how people were more then willing to admit to being witches and practicing the dark arts (which we all know is not possible since there is no such thing as magic) after being tortured...water boarding being one of the tortures used.
It has been recognized as a form of torture since then.
Why not now?

616

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:36:57pm

re: #611 ArchangelMichael

OK I've this bullshit from you several times I want proof. Links, something that both Japanese waterboarded, and Macarthur condemned it specifically. I'll wait...

Tell you what, look up article 52 of the Tokyo Trials. Try it, I dare you. Do your own research.

617

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:37:04pm

re: #592 Spare O'Lake

See my #551.
Of course KSM's defence lawyers will be on Larry King scoring propoganda points against the Republicans with these torture allegations, and sadly this is what Obama is probably hoping for...to gain political advantage at the expense of US security interests.

you are exactly right...this is huge, huge selfish grab for popularity...I hope it somehow blows up in his face...BO has written off the military with this maneuver...I actually don't think he knows how serious the blowback from this could be...

618

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:37:05pm

Why not a Sharia court?

619

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:37:19pm

re: #591 lawhawk

the President began this (ie, that the alleged terrorists will be found guilty and executed) while in China (yeah, that great and wonderful State of China, which, I guess does precisely the same things -- ie, present Show Trials with Verdicts predetermined...and the executioners standing in wait...) When asked if he wasn't prejudicing the trial (being just a tad premature) Obama answered, to the effect (not verbatim): well of course not since he wasn't inside the courtroom while making the comments... [oh brother]

620

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:37:24pm

re: #610 keithgabryelski

It's a disrespectful way to present an argument -- and its intent is to be disrespectful.

There was no profanity, no name-calling, no resort to personal villification, or any of the other hallmarks of disrespect. It was a very clever way of highlighting the absurdity of the counter-position by compelling one who read something so obviously and densely absurd to think through the reasons for that absurdity, and arrive thereby at the desired conclusion.

It's called ironic, and not in the Alanis Morisette sense of the term.

621

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:37:43pm

re: #591 lawhawk

MSNBC headline: Obama: Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Will Be Executed.

Again, just a wee bit prejudicial and putting the cart before the horse? Where are the civil libertarians to get their knickers in a twist about a sitting President declaring the outcome before we've even settled into the jury selection and pre trial motion phase?

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

You should.

I want 'em found guilty and convicted based on whatever evidence is presented in the forum at hand. I want the sentencing to be appropriately handled by that same jury.

Yet, a constitutional law scholar such as President Obama is releasing statements that are deeply prejudicial?

This has to be a joke, but it's on all of us.

This administration is doing everything they can to queer this trial. It's as plain as the nose on ones face.

622

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:38:10pm

re: #616 LudwigVanQuixote

Tell you what, look up article 52 of the Tokyo Trials. Try it, I dare you. Do your own research.

Because I'm not the one making this argument with no proof, you are.

623

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:38:28pm

re: #589 drcordell

By your logic the Taliban can treat our prisoners however they want? And we should simply deal with it? When they hold a tribunal and then executed a captured prisoner, they are justified?

we've seen how al qaeda, et al treat our prisoners. they cut their heads off, they burn them and hang them from bridges, and they torture them in the most heinous fashion. there is plenty of evidence of this.

624

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:40:08pm

re: #483 J.S.

Yes, I do (frankly, before I heard the interview, I was thinking, "oh no, here comes a plea on behalf of murderers" -- but, I was wrong.) Daniel Pearl's father argues that terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts, nor tried in military tribunals. Rather, he believes, those accused of terrorist crimes should be tried in a Special Court (with a new definition, a new set of procedures for dealing with this scourge...which deals exclusively with Terrorist or Ideological Murders..etc.) I'll look up the CNN transcript...

That's interesting. I didn't read the above article on the Pearls either.

Personally I think there should be a separate court for juvenile offenders (16 and under) who commit capital crimes, like imprisonment until age 25 with significant psychological testing and/or rehab.

But I don't think I'd agree with the same for terrorists mostly because terrorism isn't anything really new. It's been going on for centuries and I think our court systems, military and civilian both can handle it.

By and large, I don't believe juveniles should be tried as adults, but some may, indeed, be psychopaths and need to be removed from society.

625

tokyobk Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:40:29pm

re: #591 lawhawk

MSNBC headline: Obama: Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Will Be Executed.

Again, just a wee bit prejudicial and putting the cart before the horse? Where are the civil libertarians to get their knickers in a twist about a sitting President declaring the outcome before we've even settled into the jury selection and pre trial motion phase?

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

You should.

I want 'em found guilty and convicted based on whatever evidence is presented in the forum at hand. I want the sentencing to be appropriately handled by that same jury.

Yet, a constitutional law scholar such as President Obama is releasing statements that are deeply prejudicial?

This has to be a joke, but it's on all of us.

This is what I think too. This pre-ordained civilian trial is less fair than a military tribunal where the prejudice of the government is open. In a civil trial it is the moral obligation of the defense to get him off, the assumption of the jury that he is innocent and the whole thing stands on the premise that it is better to let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man.

I find the whole thing morally incoherent but I still would like to think I am wrong, that this is part of something good for our system that I cannot yet percieve.

626

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:41:44pm

re: #613 LudwigVanQuixote

Yep, Then take that up with Washington and Jefferson and Adams while you are at it, as you get on a plane and leave my country. There was a time when America stood for justice. We are not going to let cretins like you take it from us.

you called me a cretin!
a cretin!...you can't insult me, you don't have the game for it...and if you did , it wouldn't be with words like cretin...you/us?...hahaha!...what bullshit

627

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:42:13pm

re: #138 Bagua

Again,

I am not interested in weasel words.

Fuck you for mentioning the "judicial system" when talking about alien terrorist murderers.

I saw people jumping from the burning towers with my own eyes. I trust our military to do their jobs.

You sympathize with and give comfort to the enemy. I don't give a toss about your "opinions".

I've downdinged you for the last line That's over the top and absolutely uncalled for. Emotions may run high on this debate but you're out of bounds to say this.

628

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:42:30pm

re: #601 Cato the Elder

Sorry. I take back "sycophantic". I meant "wind-socky".

629

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:43:07pm

re: #623 _RememberTonyC

we've seen how al qaeda, et al treat our prisoners. they cut their heads off, they burn them and hang them from bridges, and they torture them in the most heinous fashion. there is plenty of evidence of this.

it's called equality, we are no better than them...chew on that

630

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:43:25pm

re: #591 lawhawk

MSNBC headline: Obama: Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Will Be Executed.

Again, just a wee bit prejudicial and putting the cart before the horse? Where are the civil libertarians to get their knickers in a twist about a sitting President declaring the outcome before we've even settled into the jury selection and pre trial motion phase?

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

You should.

I want 'em found guilty and convicted based on whatever evidence is presented in the forum at hand. I want the sentencing to be appropriately handled by that same jury.

Yet, a constitutional law scholar such as President Obama is releasing statements that are deeply prejudicial?

This has to be a joke, but it's on all of us.

Didn't he do this before back during the primary debates? Something about him wanting the death penalty for a particular suspect because he had daughters the same age of the victim, or something like that?

631

abolitionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:45:31pm

re: #618 Racer X

Why not a Sharia court?

Because the koran is not law in Dar ul Harb ?

632

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:45:49pm

re: #622 ArchangelMichael

Because I'm not the one making this argument with no proof, you are.

Then look up article 54 (sorry 52 was a typo) of the tokyo trials.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Here is a start:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Here is the Spanish Inquisition doing it:
[Link: www3.interscience.wiley.com...]

Here is us doing it to Phillipinos leading to American courts martials of our own troops for doing it.

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Here from the Wiki is some Tokyo Trials reference...

World War II
During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[100] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[101] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[102][103][104]
Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[105] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[34]

Now go look it up and stop being so stupid.

633

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:46:03pm

re: #629 albusteve

it's called equality, we are no better than them...chew on that

excuse me, Steve? Are you being sarcastic here? Or am I just too thick to understand your point?

634

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:46:45pm

re: #613 LudwigVanQuixote

Yep, Then take that up with Washington and Jefferson and Adams while you are at it, as you get on a plane and leave my country. There was a time when America stood for justice. We are not going to let cretins like you take it from us.

Are you temporarily insane or is this something more serious?

635

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:47:26pm

Back to that Quirin case (that's the nazi one -- those nazis who arrived onto the shores of the U.S.)

"...all eight men were in full or partial German naval uniforms when they landed on American shores, then quickly changed into civilian clothes. So were they legally to be considered soldiers or civilians?" Here's the Supreme Court decision:

Our government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those, though combatants, who do not wear 'fixed or distinctive emblems.,' And by article 15 of the Articles of War, Congress has made provision for the trial and punishment by military commission, acording to 'the laws of war.'"

[and four days after the military tribunal found them guility, 6 were executed.]

636

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:47:35pm

re: #626 albusteve

you called me a cretin!
a cretin!...you can't insult me, you don't have the game for it...and if you did , it wouldn't be with words like cretin...you/us?...hahaha!...what bullshit

Didn't you get the memo albusteve? Anyone who opposes the academic brilliance of the infallible Ludwig Von Beck is a cretin, stupid, idiot, fool, moron. Hasn't he said so hundreds of times already?

637

ghazidor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:47:40pm

A short piece describing the five going to trial in New York and what they are accused of.

Also the five that are headed for Military Commissions in the US on terrorism charges.

Five in civilian court, five in military court, kinda makes it obvious that the ones going to civilian court are doing so solely for propaganda purposes.

[Link: www.boston.com...]

638

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:48:42pm

re: #633 _RememberTonyC

excuse me, Steve? Are you being sarcastic here? Or am I just too thick to understand your point?

somebody above keeps insisting the equality between people, that Americans are righteous because we are no better than terrorists

639

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:49:27pm

re: #591 lawhawk

You're correct, of course, but then again so is Obama. He WILL be convicted and he WILL be executed. I have no doubt about that. Most people don't so I 'm not sure why we're arguing this military v. civilian court issue. The outcome is for sure to be one thing. That's not something you can say about most capital cases, but most cases are not terrorist cases. There's 200 some odd terrorists in Supermax and probably every one was a slam dunk.

640

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:50:02pm

re: #636 Bagua

Didn't you get the memo albusteve? Anyone who opposes the academic brilliance of the infallible Ludwig Von Beck is a cretin, stupid, idiot, fool, moron. Hasn't he said so hundreds of times already?

yeah, what's left?...what a guy!

641

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:50:07pm

re: #584 Cato the Elder

Why not give two when you could not give just the one?

Waterboarding is torture. It is administered to our soldiers in courses teaching them how to withstand torture. Quod erat demonstrandum.

That's a little too much logic there buddy... I mean that in learning to drive a car you would experience driving a car... Yet somehow the idea that applying torture to withstand torture makes the torture not torture gets a torturous use here by those who like to torture logic.

642

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:50:49pm

re: #561 Bagua

Context and application are key. Removal of a kidney with a scalpel is torture and criminal when done by a murderer, and life saving surgery when done by a surgeon.

Illegal combatants who destroy buildings do not have the same rights as civilians under occupation or military forces during war time.

Per what? U.S. law, or the Geneva Convention, or what? I'm open to the idea that we can legally get away with it. I'm not even entirely opposed to waterboarding KSM, although I do fear that slippery slope. I'm just opposed to pretending that it's not torture, or that saying so is unAmerican, or that Ludwig is somehow out of line to post the history of the practice, and our traditional condemnation of it in the U.S.

643

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:51:38pm

re: #637 ausador

(although none has yet been formally charged...)

644

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:51:50pm

re: #641 LudwigVanQuixote

That's a little too much logic there buddy... I mean that in learning to drive a car you would experience driving a car... Yet somehow the idea that applying torture to withstand torture makes the torture not torture gets a torturous use here by those who like to torture logic.

Indeed.

645

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:52:13pm

re: #638 albusteve

somebody above keeps insisting the equality between people, that Americans are righteous because we are no better than terrorists

well ... that's bullshit. KSM confessed, but will get a fair trial. Not so for Danny Pearl, the contractors murdered in Fallujah and hung from a bridge, or the American soldiers who were captured, tortured, and killed.

646

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:52:39pm

re: #636 Bagua

Didn't you get the memo albusteve? Anyone who opposes the academic brilliance of the infallible Ludwig Von Beck is a cretin, stupid, idiot, fool, moron. Hasn't he said so hundreds of times already?

Brilliance? You're lying again. I don't know how you have the nerve to come on here and call someone brilliant when that is evidently the most dishonest thing I have ever heard.

Apologize.

647

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:53:36pm

re: #567 ArchangelMichael

I don't give 2 shits what Hitchens thinks about it. He's not the end all be all of right and wrong. When he gets his fingers smashed with a hammer, hot lead poured down his urethra, or a car battery hooked up to his testicles then maybe I'll listen to him about it.

So we can torture, just not a lot?

648

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:54:11pm

And now Walter has gone into pissy whiny ding mode...

Along with Bagua...

Guys, it's really simple, rather than down dinging the stuff from the Spanish Inquisition, numerous wars, including American ones and other sources that show that yes indeed, sane people call this torture, you actually read it and process the implications.

649

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:54:48pm

re: #570 Bagua

The part were you apply that to alien, terrorist murderers who crash airplanes full of civilians into building full of civilians.

I'm convinced. Let's just burn them at the stake in Central Park.

650

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:55:05pm

re: #648 LudwigVanQuixote

And now Walter has gone into pissy whiny ding mode...

Along with Bagua...

Guys, it's really simple, rather than down dinging the stuff from the Spanish Inquisition, numerous wars, including American ones and other sources that show that yes indeed, sane people call this torture, you actually read it and process the implications.

You caught me.

651

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:56:14pm

re: #636 Bagua

Didn't you get the memo albusteve? Anyone who opposes the academic brilliance of the infallible Ludwig Von Beck is a cretin, stupid, idiot, fool, moron. Hasn't he said so hundreds of times already?

Are you done yet? Maybe this will help.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

652

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:58:06pm

Bagua- you harm your argument about Ludwig calling people names in his arguments when you call him names in yours. I'd like to see you both stop.

653

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:58:17pm

re: #634 Spare O'Lake

Are you temporarily insane or is this something more serious?

IN as much that the values of this nation are serious yes.

654

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:58:41pm

re: #604 Barbarian at the Gate

Alleged 9/11 mastermind? That's like saying that Eichmann was allegedly involved in the Holocaust.

Eichmann was convicted.

655

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:58:44pm

re: #648 LudwigVanQuixote

And now Walter has gone into pissy whiny ding mode...

Along with Bagua...

Guys, it's really simple, rather than down dinging the stuff from the Spanish Inquisition, numerous wars, including American ones and other sources that show that yes indeed, sane people call this torture, you actually read it and process the implications.

I'm sorry, really. I'll take my down dings back if you take your down dings back (isn't this so 3rd grade? Which works for me, since I am an uneducated fool, but for Ludwig, this must really hurt).

656

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:58:50pm

re: #628 Cato the Elder

Yes- please do keep it coming. Ad hominem looks good on you.

657

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:58:54pm

re: #652 Sharmuta

Bagua- you harm your argument about Ludwig calling people names in his arguments when you call him names in yours. I'd like to see you both stop.

Actually I've been pretty restrained so far. His meltdown is amusing me.

658

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:59:21pm

re: #652 Sharmuta

Bagua- you harm your argument about Ludwig calling people names in his arguments when you call him names in yours. I'd like to see you both stop.

Indeed. These assholes are getting on my nerves.

;-)

659

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:59:34pm

re: #645 _RememberTonyC

well ... that's bullshit. KSM confessed, but will get a fair trial. Not so for Danny Pearl, the contractors murdered in Fallujah and hung from a bridge, or the American soldiers who were captured, tortured, and killed.

And you can't see the fucking difference here? Danny Pearl was summarily executed with no trial by terrorists. We are going to give KSM a fair trial, prove his guilt beyond a doubt, and then execute him. That is what makes them TERRORISTS and us RIGHTEOUS. The fact that they summarily execute people, and we ensure a fair trial.

660

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 12:59:47pm

That's nice. Thanks for updinging people who call me names, Ludwig.

661

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:00:16pm

re: #623 _RememberTonyC

we've seen how al qaeda, et al treat our prisoners. they cut their heads off, they burn them and hang them from bridges, and they torture them in the most heinous fashion. there is plenty of evidence of this.

Personally, I do not want to emulate al-Qaeda in any way.

662

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:00:37pm

re: #657 LudwigVanQuixote

That wasn't a defense of you, so please feel free to keep updinging people who call me names.

663

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:01:17pm

re: #655 Walter L. Newton

I'm sorry, really. I'll take my down dings back if you take your down dings back (isn't this so 3rd grade? Which works for me, since I am an uneducated fool, but for Ludwig, this must really hurt).

I'm sorry, but that is funny.

I like LVQ and Walter. Can I buy you both a beer?

664

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:01:46pm

re: #641 LudwigVanQuixote

Stop being a jackass, that's not what I said and you know damn well. "You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?" No. This ad hominem shit is really out of line. You too Cato I'm looking at you. You keep calling people stupid for disagreeing with you and you are just going to get the perma-gaze.

Now if we can get beck to being reasonable. You proved your point "somebody" thinks it is. I don't. I don't make laws or have a say in the UCMJ, so I concede this to you. Fine you can call it torture, I wont. I will not use this as an argument further in this discussion. I am deeply disappointed that we are cheapening the definition to torture though.

665

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:04:22pm

re: #660 Sharmuta

That's nice. Thanks for updinging people who call me names, Ludwig.

Where.. Did I miss?

666

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:04:59pm

re: #665 LudwigVanQuixote

If you don't know what it is you're updinging, perhaps you shouldn't upding it.

667

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:05:05pm

re: #645 _RememberTonyC

well ... that's bullshit. KSM confessed, but will get a fair trial. Not so for Danny Pearl, the contractors murdered in Fallujah and hung from a bridge, or the American soldiers who were captured, tortured, and killed.

That's because we're the good guys.

668

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:06:11pm

re: #666 Sharmuta

If you don't know what it is you're updinging, perhaps you shouldn't upding it.

Sharm.. I have been reading lots of comments here and both up and down dinging... It is possible I hit the wrong thing. Now what are you talking about?

669

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:06:45pm

re: #663 Racer X

I'm sorry, but that is funny.

I like LVQ and Walter. Can I buy you both a beer?

Of course you are kidding. Ludwig is way out of my league. I would not feel comfortable around him in the least.

670

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:06:56pm

re: #666 Sharmuta

And by the way, I am now officially getting tired of unnecessary snark.

671

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:07:22pm

re: #669 Walter L. Newton

For you...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

672

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:07:43pm

re: #670 LudwigVanQuixote

Then don't upding people calling me a windy sock.

673

Walter L. Newton Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:07:44pm

re: #670 LudwigVanQuixote

And by the way, I am now officially getting tired of unnecessary snark.

Stop the thread, Ludwig wants to get off.

674

Racer X Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:09:01pm

... and scene!

675

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:10:26pm

re: #648 LudwigVanQuixote

And now Walter has gone into pissy whiny ding mode...

Along with Bagua...

Guys, it's really simple, rather than down dinging the stuff from the Spanish Inquisition, numerous wars, including American ones and other sources that show that yes indeed, sane people call this torture, you actually read it and process the implications.

The "inalienable rights" of the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden did not cloak them with immunity from brutal, merciless mass death in time of war.
The wartime enemy has no such rights, unless you are prepared to retroactively ban war and rewrite history.
Tool that you are.

676

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:11:02pm

re: #632 LudwigVanQuixote

Now go look it up and stop being so stupid.

I wasn't going to get involved but I can't let this kind of reasoning slide.

1. There was not one person on either side of the battle during WW2 who was tried solely for the act of water boarding.
2. There is a difference between water boarding and the Japanese water torture. Namely, the end result. The Japanese water torture generally ended in death. Hence the hangings of a variety of Japanese military commanders in the Philippines after the war.
3. Lastly, there is also a big difference between how military troops and the various state agencies are legally allowed to deal with prisoners. Military troops are not allowed to engage in anything even resembling water boarding.

677

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:11:02pm

re: #634 Spare O'Lake

Are you temporarily insane or is this something more serious?

1. I want the terrorists to have justice served to them.

2. For justice to be served in a way that is both just and upholds American principles (the things these monsters want to destroy) we must be scrupulous to uphold our own principles.

3. We must do so for our own sake more than theirs.

So... this is insane now?

I guess I'm insane. Hi, Nurse Ratched!

678

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:11:14pm

re: #664 ArchangelMichael

Stop being a jackass, that's not what I said and you know damn well. "You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?" No. This ad hominem shit is really out of line. You too Cato I'm looking at you. You keep calling people stupid for disagreeing with you and you are just going to get the perma-gaze.

Now if we can get beck to being reasonable. You proved your point "somebody" thinks it is. I don't. I don't make laws or have a say in the UCMJ, so I concede this to you. Fine you can call it torture, I wont. I will not use this as an argument further in this discussion. I am deeply disappointed that we are cheapening the definition to torture though.

No I don't know damn well. You commented that once Hitchens had molten lead used on him you might take his word for it being torture. What else could you possibly have meant.

As to conceding that some people consider it torture, but you do not... OK... Just understand clearly that over 200 years of American law considers it torture.

We have case law about it going back to the Dutch East India Company. Just understand that everyone from the Spanish Inquisition to the Nazis considered it torture.

There comes a certain point where it is one thing to follow the beat of your own drummer. It is another to start believing in delusions. This is one case where the rest of the world is not wrong. You are. Tell you what, if you are so convinced, go try it.

679

abolitionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:11:18pm

Semi off-topic: Georgia Man Held Without Trial for 4 Years
...because of budgetary problems and workload, the state has not provided him with the two lawyers required in a capital case.

Anyone recall the economic ruin strategy that OBL was peddling?

680

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:13:52pm

re: #659 drcordell

And you can't see the fucking difference here? Danny Pearl was summarily executed with no trial by terrorists. We are going to give KSM a fair trial, prove his guilt beyond a doubt, and then execute him. That is what makes them TERRORISTS and us RIGHTEOUS. The fact that they summarily execute people, and we ensure a fair trial.

the idea is to try him in a military tribunal, that's fair and just...whether terrorists are equal to choir boys was never the point...you have drifted

681

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:15:33pm

re: #676 RogueOne

Nonsense.

Waterboarding was one of the charges brought as an example of Japanese cruelty to our POWs look at article 54 and the testimony given. People can have more than one charge brought against them at a trial. It was certainly one of the charges.

Further, what about the courts martials in the Phillipines... Those certainly were specifically about it. We convicted our own men for doing it - in time of war, against irregular troops, who were captured on the battlefield . In otherwords, as far as UCMJ is concerned, we have already convicted our own people for doing these things to others who fit the same bill as these men.

Just nonesense.

682

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:16:46pm

re: #679 abolitionist

Semi off-topic: Georgia Man Held Without Trial for 4 Years
...because of budgetary problems and workload, the state has not provided him with the two lawyers required in a capital case.

Anyone recall the economic ruin strategy that OBL was peddling?

he has his man in office for that strategy...I'm a believer of the theory of intentional ruin, but I'm an extremist

683

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:17:12pm

there's another consideration -- about sending alleged terrorists to a Federal court as opposed to a military tribunal...and this is about the appellate courts...From the Nov. 16, 2009 Best of the WallStreet Journal:

"...the corollary of treating KSM like ordinary criminals is treating ordinary criminals like KSM. This column approves of aggressive interrogation to gather intelligence from terrorists, but there is little doubt that some of the methods that were used would have been abusive had they been applied by law-enforcement agents to domestic criminal suspects. When appellate courts decide questions of law, they set precedents for future cases. If they make allowances for the exigencies of the war on terror in order to uphold convictions of KSM and his associates, it could end up diminishing the rights of ordinary cimirnal defendants. That's why the smart civil-libertarian position is to oppose trying terrorists as civilians."

Basically that's also McCarthy's position in the text, "Willful Blindness."

684

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:17:27pm

re: #675 Spare O'Lake

The "inalienable rights" of the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden did not cloak them with immunity from brutal, merciless mass death in time of war.
The wartime enemy has no such rights, unless you are prepared to retroactively ban war and rewrite history.
Tool that you are.

To repeat, you are completely off base.

What about the courts martials in the Phillipines? We convicted our own men for doing it - in time of war, against irregular troops, who were captured on the battlefield . In otherwords, as far as UCMJ is concerned, we have already convicted our own people for doing these things to others who fit the same bill as these men.

685

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:18:25pm

re: #681 LudwigVanQuixote

Nonsense.

Waterboarding was one of the charges brought as an example of Japanese cruelty to our POWs look at article 54 and the testimony given. People can have more than one charge brought against them at a trial. It was certainly one of the charges.

Further, what about the courts martials in the Phillipines... Those certainly were specifically about it. We convicted our own men for doing it - in time of war, against irregular troops, who were captured on the battlefield . In otherwords, as far as UCMJ is concerned, we have already convicted our own people for doing these things to others who fit the same bill as these men.

Just nonesense.

This is what most disturbs me about this debate. That so many people support the use of torture, while all the while plugging their fingers in their ears and denying that we are actually torturing people. If someone wishes to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture, but that they still believe its use is justified, at least I would respect them for their intellectual honesty. Instead the debate simply turns into a denial that waterboarding is torture, then shifts into the "but it worked!" trope, and then finally to the last stage where they start screaming about how many innocent Americans the terrorists have killed.

686

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:19:35pm

re: #685 drcordell

This is what most disturbs me about this debate. That so many people support the use of torture, while all the while plugging their fingers in their ears and denying that we are actually torturing people. If someone wishes to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture, but that they still believe its use is justified, at least I would respect them for their intellectual honesty. Instead the debate simply turns into a denial that waterboarding is torture, then shifts into the "but it worked!" trope, and then finally to the last stage where they start screaming about how many innocent Americans the terrorists have killed.

Absolutely. And then they question your loyalty as an American and go of on other gingoistic rants.

687

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:19:35pm

re: #677 WindUpBird

So... this is insane now?

I guess I'm insane. Hi, Nurse Ratched!

Islamofascist Terrorists have no rights except the right to a bullet between the eyes.
So go ahead America: wring your hands and tie yourselves up in knots while the Islamofascists kill you, mock you and dream of pissing on your graves.

688

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:19:40pm

re: #684 LudwigVanQuixote

blacks used to ride in the back of the bus...times change, just like the climate...come back to this millennium to discuss the topic

689

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:23:17pm

re: #688 albusteve

blacks used to ride in the back of the bus...times change, just like the climate...come back to this millennium to discuss the topic

What a clever attempt to ignore all the facts I've brought...

Guess what, The human body and what it can withstand have not really changed and everyone except morons who believe jingoistic propaganda consider this torture too even today.

That was one of the more pathetic things I've ever seen posted.

690

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:24:28pm

Sorry that those pesky facts keep bothering you Bagua... It is 100% certain that waterboarding is torture.

Actually I am not sorry.

691

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:24:37pm

re: #685 drcordell

This is exactly correct. There's no point in concealing facts about an action or policy one supports. Me? i used to dodge around the thing, saying water-boarding wasn't torture because of the intent of the interrogator, the protections on the life of the one being interrogated, and the fact that the act, if carried out with medical supervision, is unlikely to cause death or even permanent physical harm.

I then went on to praise it as being ingenious because it appeared to serve all the purposes of torture, but without all the negatives attached to it. But then I realized that the effectiveness of torture is not dependent upon its ability to kill or maim - those are not the primary intended effects at the time of administration. Consequently, I realized that waterboarding was torture - refined, scientific, and, if done properly, non-lethal - but still torture.

In the end, I was unable to avoid assimilating waterboarding to torture. It is torture, in my estimation, and I have no problem with its use in military and national security and intelligence settings to obtain actionable information not otherwise obtainable. It compromises us, but we have always the possibility of reform when we go astray.

692

Bloodnok Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:26:18pm

re: #668 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #666 Sharmuta

Sharm.. I have been reading lots of comments here and both up and down dinging... It is possible I hit the wrong thing. Now what are you talking about?

Weak.

693

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:26:27pm

re: #687 Spare O'Lake

Islamofascist Terrorists have no rights except the right to a bullet between the eyes.
So go ahead America: wring your hands and tie yourselves up in knots while the Islamofascists kill you, mock you and dream of pissing on your graves.

And I'm sure somewhere there is an Islamofascist saying the same thing about a "capitalist pig" that deserves a shot to the head. You seem hellbent on placing ourselves on the same moral plane as them.

694

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:27:01pm

re: #689 LudwigVanQuixote

What a clever attempt to ignore all the facts I've brought...

Guess what, The human body and what it can withstand have not really changed and everyone except morons who believe jingoistic propaganda consider this torture too even today.

That was one of the more pathetic things I've ever seen posted.

thanks, it really didn't take much tho...my position (for the noods) as posted many times when this was an issue...is this...I don't care if it's torture or not, I am in favor of it's limited use, therefore I am a rampaging American heathen no better than the terrorists...and guess what?...I could car less what you think

695

RogueOne Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:28:16pm

re: #681 LudwigVanQuixote

Nonsense.

Waterboarding was one of the charges brought as an example of Japanese cruelty to our POWs look at article 54 and the testimony given. People can have more than one charge brought against them at a trial. It was certainly one of the charges.

Further, what about the courts martials in the Phillipines... Those certainly were specifically about it. We convicted our own men for doing it - in time of war, against irregular troops, who were captured on the battlefield . In otherwords, as far as UCMJ is concerned, we have already convicted our own people for doing these things to others who fit the same bill as these men.

Just nonesense.

The UCMJ covers military personnel and only military personnel. Do I need to explain why that's different than saying water boarding is illegal? The CIA is not bound by the army field manual or the UCMJ and they are entitled to do whatever the president and congress believes is within the legal boundries of whatever treaties we may have signed.

Secondly, if the japanese had just done the american version of water boarding, without all that messy drowning and tens of thousands of deaths, do you think there would have been any trials?

696

Neutral President Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:28:20pm

re: #689 LudwigVanQuixote

What a clever attempt to ignore all the facts I've brought...

Guess what, The human body and what it can withstand have not really changed and everyone except morons who believe jingoistic propaganda consider this torture too even today.

That was one of the more pathetic things I've ever seen posted.

Belief that there is a clear difference between physically harming or injuring someone, and trying to frighten or irritate them is not "believing jingoistic propoganda".

697

albusteve Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:28:28pm

re: #693 drcordell

And I'm sure somewhere there is an Islamofascist saying the same thing about a "capitalist pig" that deserves a shot to the head. You seem hellbent on placing ourselves on the same moral plane as them.

you seem to want to place them on the same moral level as us

698

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:29:05pm

re: #694 albusteve

thanks, it really didn't take much tho...my position (for the noods) as posted many times when this was an issue...is this...I don't care if it's torture or not, I am in favor of it's limited use, therefore I am a rampaging American heathen no better than the terrorists...and guess what?...I could car less what you think

Actually that at least is an intellectually honest stance.

If you want to argue that yes it is torture, but in this special case it was justified, I will disagree strongly, but at least you will not be saying falsehoods from the start.

699

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:29:56pm

re: #692 Bloodnok

Weak.

Look I'm sorry, I updinged her back. Jeeze.

700

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:30:45pm

re: #697 albusteve

you seem to want to place them on the same moral level as us

Rebuttal fail? Not really sure what your point is there.

701

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:31:38pm

re: #695 RogueOne

You know you are right, the CIA is a civilian operation... What do you think the civillian law is on torturing your captives for information?

702

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:31:49pm

re: #683 J.S.

there's another consideration -- about sending alleged terrorists to a Federal court as opposed to a military tribunal...and this is about the appellate courts...From the Nov. 16, 2009 Best of the WallStreet Journal:

"...the corollary of treating KSM like ordinary criminals is treating ordinary criminals like KSM. This column approves of aggressive interrogation to gather intelligence from terrorists, but there is little doubt that some of the methods that were used would have been abusive had they been applied by law-enforcement agents to domestic criminal suspects. When appellate courts decide questions of law, they set precedents for future cases. If they make allowances for the exigencies of the war on terror in order to uphold convictions of KSM and his associates, it could end up diminishing the rights of ordinary cimirnal defendants. That's why the smart civil-libertarian position is to oppose trying terrorists as civilians."

Basically that's also McCarthy's position in the text, "Willful Blindness."

Exactly. American citizens are now on par with this man. Think about that, oh you supporters.

Then looking at abolitionist's #679- there is a real concern that any abuses by the government or by the defense could have serious repercussions on our rights and our security and become legal precedents! It's as if the supporters aren't considering the unintended consequences at all.

Meanwhile, they're painting the conservative position as if we don't support the system. Yet the system allows for the tribunals, and the system recognizes the Geneva Convention- which we support. So I fail to see how we're not supporting the system. They are simply dismissing our interpretation of the system out of hand by painting us as being opposed to it.

703

reine.de.tout Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:32:00pm

re: #691 Guanxi88

. . . In the end, I was unable to avoid assimilating waterboarding to torture. It is torture, in my estimation, and I have no problem with its use in military and national security and intelligence settings to obtain actionable information not otherwise obtainable. It compromises us, but we have always the possibility of reform when we go astray.

I'm with you.
If someone was threatening an action that I knew would result in the death of my child, and I had access to a person who I could torture in order to get information to save her life, I would do it in a heartbeat.

In the case of the country - we are the children, the Gov't is the "parent" responsible for our protection. If using waterboarding in a small number of cases will result in information that can be used to save the lives of our citizens, I have no problem with it's use.

704

J.S. Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:32:34pm

re: #699 LudwigVanQuixote

You "updinged her back" -- ?! (say, weren't you the one who was going on and on about Bush touching Merkel's back there a while ago? eh? eh? eh?) lol

/just bugging you...

705

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:32:58pm

re: #703 reine.de.tout

I'm with you.
If someone was threatening an action that I knew would result in the death of my child, and I had access to a person who I could torture in order to get information to save her life, I would do it in a heartbeat.

In the case of the country - we are the children, the Gov't is the "parent" responsible for our protection. If using waterboarding in a small number of cases will result in information that can be used to save the lives of our citizens, I have no problem with it's use.

Once you open Pandora's box it can't be shut.

706

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:33:46pm

re: #704 J.S.

You "updinged her back" -- ?! (say, weren't you the one who was going on and on about Bush touching Merkel's back there a while ago? eh? eh? eh?) lol

/just bugging you...

OK that is funny...

707

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:36:50pm

re: #703 reine.de.tout

I'm with you.
If someone was threatening an action that I knew would result in the death of my child, and I had access to a person who I could torture in order to get information to save her life, I would do it in a heartbeat.

In the case of the country - we are the children, the Gov't is the "parent" responsible for our protection. If using waterboarding in a small number of cases will result in information that can be used to save the lives of our citizens, I have no problem with it's use.

WaPo: How a Detainee Became an Asset

708

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:39:00pm

re: #705 drcordell

Once you open Pandora's box it can't be shut.

It's part of what makes these trials in federal court such a really bad idea. We did things to them in pursuit of one set of goals (national security, disruption of terrorist plans and networks) that are wholly unrelated to the requirements for due process and conventional legal proceedings. Anything and everything even remotely related to or derived from the intelligence we gathered this way is inadmissible in Court (and quite rightly, too).

What this means is that trying them in federal court is going to be very difficult indeed. Add to that the fact that hauling them into court effects a retro-actively judicial or law enforcement classification of their treatment and interrogation beforehand, and you've got all the makings of a kngaroo court and/or the possibility that evidence obtained in ways suitable for national security purposes can also be used in criminal porceedings, and you have effectively gutted the rule of law in this country. It's going to be bad no matter what happens.

709

reine.de.tout Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:39:07pm

re: #705 drcordell

Once you open Pandora's box it can't be shut.

I don't believe that.
I could very easily take an action to save my child that I would not normally take, and then never take that action again. Very easily.

I have a responsibility to mankind to act in a particular way toward others.
I have a responsibility to my child to protect her. In a case where I have to choose - fulfill my responsibility to others, OR fulfill my responsibility toward my child, I will choose my child. And hope that I never again am forced to make that choice.

If the government's choice is to fulfill its obligation toward citizens of other countries or fulfill its obligation to protect citizens of this country - I hope they choose to protect us. And then I hope there never again occurs a situation where they have to make that choice.

710

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:39:17pm

re: #647 SanFranciscoZionist

So we can torture, just not a lot?

LOL Just little bits of torture... like... make them read the stalker threads. Guaranteed to make any head explode on contact.

711

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:40:18pm

re: #659 drcordell

And you can't see the fucking difference here? Danny Pearl was summarily executed with no trial by terrorists. We are going to give KSM a fair trial, prove his guilt beyond a doubt, and then execute him. That is what makes them TERRORISTS and us RIGHTEOUS. The fact that they summarily execute people, and we ensure a fair trial.

go back and read what you are responding to ... you make no sense.

712

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:41:24pm

re: #705 drcordell

Once you open Pandora's box it can't be shut.

Yeah- think about that from our point of view. KSM in federal courts. Waterboarding being ok'd by a federal judge so we can execute him like the President wants and now this standard could be used on American citizens thanks to legal precedents.

Hello-ooo?

713

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:43:51pm

re: #693 drcordell

And I'm sure somewhere there is an Islamofascist saying the same thing about a "capitalist pig" that deserves a shot to the head. You seem hellbent on placing ourselves on the same moral plane as them.

Instead of focusing on "moral planes", I suggest you focus on winning the war while at the same time keeping in mind the immorality of what they did with the four planes.
War is Hell...even worse if you lose.

714

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:45:05pm

re: #510 Spider mensch

unemployment trumps climate change..like rock beats scissors..it's tough to get a guy worried about melting icecaps when he's worrying about putting dinner on the table for his kids...and that's just the plain truth.

True, but having not enough food or clean water or a place to live trumps the economy.

715

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:46:09pm

re: #713 Spare O'Lake

Instead of focusing on "moral planes", I suggest you focus on winning the war while at the same time keeping in mind the immorality of what they did with the four planes.
War is Hell...even worse if you lose.

And by torturing our prisoners, we gave the biggest possible propaganda and recruiting boost we could to our foes.

It is a great way to loose the war.

716

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:46:19pm

re: #690 LudwigVanQuixote

Sorry that those pesky facts keep bothering you Bagua... It is 100% certain that waterboarding is torture.

Actually I am not sorry.

Right, more 100% certain propaganda. Your credibility is very weak on things you are 100% certain of that you claim others are stupid and ignorant for disagreeing with.

Most people on this forum have seen through your propaganda, exaggerations and outright lies.

717

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:46:29pm

re: #712 Sharmuta

Yeah- think about that from our point of view. KSM in federal courts. Waterboarding being ok'd by a federal judge so we can execute him like the President wants and now this standard could be used on American citizens thanks to legal precedents.

Hello-ooo?

That's a bizarre leap. If a cop beats a prisoner, do all cops get to beat prisoners with out being held responsible?

They are orthogonal issues. The issue of whether someone tortured KSM or not is not related to whether he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of.

718

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:48:55pm

re: #713 Spare O'Lake

Instead of focusing on "moral planes", I suggest you focus on winning the war while at the same time keeping in mind the immorality of what they did with the four planes.
War is Hell...even worse if you lose.

I think the point is "we are trying to win the war by showing what our true beliefs are".

And no one is missing the immorality of terrorist attacks -- NO ONE.

719

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:50:10pm

re: #717 keithgabryelski

That's a bizarre leap. If a cop beats a prisoner, do all cops get to beat prisoners with out being held responsible?

Follow it to its conclusion, and you conclude that either, yes, they all get a pass for it, or no, some get a pass for it, and some don't.

They are orthogonal issues. The issue of whether someone tortured KSM or not is not related to whether he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of.

If he can be tortured and information gathered from those sessions ends up as part of the case, or if it is used to determine or establish other facts used in the case, or assists in identifying a person or item of evidence previously unknown, then the torture becomes a factor in the case. If we should have learned the name of one person whom we subjected to surveillance on the basis of these interrogations, and that surveillance should have resulted in information that established definitively the prosecution's case, no judge worth his or her gavel would permit it in court.

720

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:50:40pm

re: #709 reine.de.tout

I don't believe that.
I could very easily take an action to save my child that I would not normally take, and then never take that action again. Very easily.

I have a responsibility to mankind to act in a particular way toward others.
I have a responsibility to my child to protect her. In a case where I have to choose - fulfill my responsibility to others, OR fulfill my responsibility toward my child, I will choose my child. And hope that I never again am forced to make that choice.

If the government's choice is to fulfill its obligation toward citizens of other countries or fulfill its obligation to protect citizens of this country - I hope they choose to protect us. And then I hope there never again occurs a situation where they have to make that choice.

That's all well and good you could make that choice, but we aren't talking about a single person. We're talking about a massive government. Big difference.

721

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:51:24pm

re: #712 Sharmuta

Yeah- think about that from our point of view. KSM in federal courts. Waterboarding being ok'd by a federal judge so we can execute him like the President wants and now this standard could be used on American citizens thanks to legal precedents.

Hello-ooo?

Thank George Bush and Dick Cheney for making torture legal. That's not Obama's precedent, that's theirs.

722

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:51:59pm

re: #721 drcordell

Thank George Bush and Dick Cheney for making torture legal. That's not Obama's precedent, that's theirs.

Bringing it to federal court will be Obama's.

723

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:52:02pm

re: #716 Bagua

Really... like all the history that has been brought here? Facts getting you down?

If you have some evidence that it is not torture, strong enough to overcome evidence on it from the times of the Spanish Inquisition to the present, then go right ahead, no one is stopping you.

The same would apply to your past and laughable attempts to discredit the certainties in AGW science.

You see, when I lose it, I at least bring facts and evidence to back the case, that yes indeed what they are saying is false.

So, make your case...

Tell us how it is not torture.

Otherwise, this may help.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

724

reine.de.tout Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:53:14pm

re: #720 drcordell

That's all well and good you could make that choice, but we aren't talking about a single person. We're talking about a massive government. Big difference.

Ah, now you're talking about trusting the people chosen to carry out the government's policies, and trusting that there is sufficient oversight to what they do and how they do it.

That's a different matter entirely.

725

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:53:16pm

re: #719 Guanxi88

If he can be tortured and information gathered from those sessions ends up as part of the case, or if it is used to determine or establish other facts used in the case, or assists in identifying a person or item of evidence previously unknown, then the torture becomes a factor in the case. If we should have learned the name of one person whom we subjected to surveillance on the basis of these interrogations, and that surveillance should have resulted in information that established definitively the prosecution's case, no judge worth his or her gavel would permit it in court.

agreed -- let's not do that.

I'm sure there is plenty of evidence against KDM outside of the torture tainted lines of evidence.

726

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:53:23pm

re: #721 drcordell

Thank George Bush and Dick Cheney for making torture legal. That's not Obama's precedent, that's theirs.

And a big thank you to Obama and Holder for making persons originally classified as threats to national security and our national survival into defendants in the courts. Bush & Cheney never intended or pretended that what we were doing had anything to do with law enforcement or criminal prosecution.

727

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:53:24pm

re: #722 Sharmuta

Bringing it to federal court will be Obama's.

I doubt that and I thank God that is unlikely. The Samrt move would be to try him to the Pearl Murder and throw out all testimony that came under duress. Therefore we reinforce the precedent that we do not torture, remove his only real defensive strategy and then convict him.

728

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:53:58pm

re: #722 Sharmuta

Bringing it to federal court will be Obama's.

You do realize that 145 previous terror cases have been tried in Federal Courts before, yes? This isn't some new and crazy Obama precedent. For Christ sakes they were doing this in 2006 and Rudy Giuliani was the biggest cheerleader! Check your facts.

729

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:54:18pm

re: #715 LudwigVanQuixote

And by torturing our prisoners, we gave the biggest possible propaganda and recruiting boost we could to our foes.

It is a great way to loose the war.

The torture, if any, has been done. If you believe that the enemy propoganda from the civilian trial will cause our defeat, then why on earth would you argue in favour of maximizing their propoganda victory through a political show trial in NYC?
Can you not see that your position is defeatist?

730

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:55:22pm

re: #729 Spare O'Lake

The torture, if any, has been done. If you believe that the enemy propoganda from the civilian trial will cause our defeat, then why on earth would you argue in favour of maximizing their propoganda victory through a political show trial in NYC?
Can you not see that your position is defeatist?

Can you not see the harm that was done to us when the US, who used to routinely punish others for torturing, came out as a torturer?

731

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:56:46pm

re: #730 LudwigVanQuixote

Can you not see the harm that was done to us when the US, who used to routinely punish others for torturing, came out as a torturer?

No, because can't you see whatever we do is unequivocally RIGHT god dammit!

732

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:57:16pm

re: #717 keithgabryelski

The issue of whether someone tortured KSM or not is not related to whether he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of.

It just affects the status of the evidence used to prove his guilt.

This is where we start getting into trouble. If the court allows the evidence obtained through waterboarding, which they shouldn't, what repercussions does that have?

What about the treatment before his trial? Do you think American citizens should be allowed to be kept in such conditions as he was kept in?

733

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:57:31pm

re: #726 Guanxi88

Bush & Cheney never intended or pretended that what we were doing had anything to do with law enforcement or criminal prosecution.

and they were wrong.

That really is what this comes down to, right? we disagree that criminals should be prosecuted or even classified as criminals.

734

Cheechako Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:58:54pm

re: #511 Walter L. Newton

I was only asking about the possible increase. If you go up thread, you won't find me stating any opinions on the trial itself. I was only questioning the rational of whether certain possibilities increase or decrease.

That's all. Thanks for the answer (more than I got from some others).

Walter - here's my thoughts. Yes we will see an increase in the terrorism alert during the NYC trail. Historically terrorism groups have used important dates and anniversaries to stage an attack. Think about the Tet offensive. These dates are used to ad emphasis to the attack. The date of conviction/sentencing will become one of these dates. I expect an attack to occur just so the terrorists can say "See, you can capture, torture us, gives us a show trial and sentence us to death, BUT YOU CANNOT STOP US. WE WILL PREVAIL!!!"

735

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:59:18pm

re: #675 Spare O'Lake

The "inalienable rights" of the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden did not cloak them with immunity from brutal, merciless mass death in time of war.
The wartime enemy has no such rights, unless you are prepared to retroactively ban war and rewrite history.
Tool that you are.

Hold on. There's a distinct difference between civilian casualties and treatment of prisoners. Or whatever the hell we are talking about by now.

736

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 1:59:20pm

re: #732 Sharmuta

It just affects the status of the evidence used to prove his guilt.

This is where we start getting into trouble. If the court allows the evidence obtained through waterboarding, which they shouldn't, what repercussions does that have?

What about the treatment before his trial? Do you think American citizens should be allowed to be kept in such conditions as he was kept in?

And that is one of the reasons we never should have tortured in the first place.

Fortunately we have enough evidence on him that was not taken from torture to obtain a conviction. The move is to reject torture in the courts and still see justice done. It makes us back into the good guys and it still serves justice. We can only kill him once. It really does not matter if it is for one murder or another.

737

reine.de.tout Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:00:50pm

re: #731 drcordell

No, because can't you see whatever we do is unequivocally RIGHT god dammit!

Well, if somebody said that, I didn't see it.

I'm not saying that whever "we" do is unequivocally RIGHT.

I do believe that there are times when difficult choices have to be made.

And I expect my government to fulfill its obligation to citizens to protect us from those who would do us harm. It's at LEAST as important an obligation as making sure everyone uses seatbelts, or that the fat content in our food is reduced, or that smokers are taxed out of the habit, etc. etc.

738

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:02:57pm

re: #733 keithgabryelski

and they were wrong.

That really is what this comes down to, right? we disagree that criminals should be prosecuted or even classified as criminals.

Exactly - one side views this as a criminal matter, the other as a warfare/national security matter. Neither side denies that there are elements of truth in the opposing viewpoint (I do not deny that their actions constituted crimes, nor do I think anyone doubts that these acts were part of a campaign of warfare and related to national security matters), it's a question of emphasis.

I emphasize the warfare/national security aspects of it, as those appear to me to be primary factors motivating the actions. That is, they did not conspire to commit the acts they did for conventional criminal motives, or to attain conventional criminal ends. Their express purpose and intent was to cause direct harm to the national security of the United States as part of a campaign of unconventional and unlawful warfare carried out by asymmetrical means. Recognizing this does not diminish or deny the criminality of their acts, but does say that these acts are not primarily criminal.

739

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:03:12pm

re: #728 drcordell

You do realize that 145 previous terror cases have been tried in Federal Courts before, yes? This isn't some new and crazy Obama precedent. For Christ sakes they were doing this in 2006 and Rudy Giuliani was the biggest cheerleader! Check your facts.

You're comparing apples to oranges, I think. Those trials involved crimes where the defendant(s) wasn't/weren't taken into custody by the military.

Additionally, I've been told at LGF that comments from the past are not relevant to current events so I guess I can dismiss Rudy's previous comments and focus on his comments now that this trial is a bad idea.

740

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:03:13pm

re: #732 Sharmuta

It just affects the status of the evidence used to prove his guilt.

This is where we start getting into trouble. If the court allows the evidence obtained through waterboarding, which they shouldn't, what repercussions does that have?

It shouldn't. I'm guessing we have more information than that which came from interrogations. If we didn't -- why the hell were we so sure he was the right person to torture?

What about the treatment before his trial? Do you think American citizens should be allowed to be kept in such conditions as he was kept in?

no -- i think keeping him under those conditions was a problem, the supreme court ruled against such treatment, right? This doesn't absolve him of his crimes (the case can't be dropped because he was poorly treated) and the fact that a prisoner was poorly treated doesn't mean future prisoners will be treated that (in fact, court ruling should reinfornce that it shouldn't happen).

741

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:03:33pm

re: #687 Spare O'Lake

Islamofascist Terrorists have no rights except the right to a bullet between the eyes.
So go ahead America: wring your hands and tie yourselves up in knots while the Islamofascists kill you, mock you and dream of pissing on your graves.

So, shall we shoot KSM then? Why bother with a military tribunal?

I suggested burning in Central Park earlier.

Why are you under the impression that people who disagree with you don't understand the evil of our enemies?

742

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:04:31pm

re: #736 LudwigVanQuixote

And that is one of the reasons we never should have tortured in the first place.

Fortunately we have enough evidence on him that was not taken from torture to obtain a conviction. The move is to reject torture in the courts and still see justice done. It makes us back into the good guys and it still serves justice. We can only kill him once. It really does not matter if it is for one murder or another.

But who in the Hell would have thought, at the time, that these guys would end up in court? No reasonable person could ever have foreseen the election of a President whose AG decided to move some but not all of these cases to federal court. The very idea was laughably naive at the time.

743

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:05:27pm

re: #738 Guanxi88

I emphasize the warfare/national security aspects of it, as those appear to me to be primary factors motivating the actions. That is, they did not conspire to commit the acts they did for conventional criminal motives, or to attain conventional criminal ends. Their express purpose and intent was to cause direct harm to the national security of the United States as part of a campaign of unconventional and unlawful warfare carried out by asymmetrical means. Recognizing this does not diminish or deny the criminality of their acts, but does say that these acts are not primarily criminal.

A million updings, if I could.

744

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:06:09pm

re: #713 Spare O'Lake

Instead of focusing on "moral planes", I suggest you focus on winning the war while at the same time keeping in mind the immorality of what they did with the four planes.
War is Hell...even worse if you lose.

Yeah! Screw the rule of law! This time the enemy is REALLY bad!

745

lemonslice Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:09:36pm

I think the title has an error, probably an honest mistake. Here's a correction:

Holder Struggles to Defend Controversial 9/11 Trial Decision

Perhaps LGF could post the updated headline.

746

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:11:42pm

re: #739 Sharmuta

You're comparing apples to oranges, I think. Those trials involved crimes where the defendant(s) wasn't/weren't taken into custody by the military.

Additionally, I've been told at LGF that comments from the past are not relevant to current events so I guess I can dismiss Rudy's previous comments and focus on his comments now that this trial is a bad idea.

I thought the number was closer to 200.

I'm not sure that's true, Sharm. That these criminals weren't taken into court by the military. Look at the list here of notable Supermax prisoners. Some are spies. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

747

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:11:56pm

I'll add, too, that the fact he was captured abroad by a foreign intelligence agency, raises matters of legal complexity, treatment of prisoners, validity or invalidity of warrants or lack thereof, that guarantee it'll be years and years before opening statements start in his case.

748

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:12:08pm

One unintended consequence of this trial could be to throw some of our allies (who participated in renditions) under the bus. If countries in eastern Europe (former Soviet clients) or even some muslim countries who are now our friends are embarrassed in open court, we can kiss their future cooperation goodbye. And others who might help us because they feel threatened by the islamofascists might be afraid to do so. This is another reason I am concerned about the way this prosecution is being handled.

749

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:12:40pm

re: #742 Guanxi88

So it would have been ok to break the law if we hadn't gotten caught?

Look, all of the talk about innocent Americans mudered negelcts a very crucial point. KSM is most likely guilty as sin, and we have him on enough other things that he deserves to die. Fine.

However, not everyone picked up is a priori guilty.

What about those actually innocent ones that we picked up, detained for years on end and tortured? Or don't they matter. American justice is still ok if it makes us feel we got our vengeance? Or is it that American justice still ok if it only does that now and again to brown people?

750

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:12:46pm

re: #742 Guanxi88

But who in the Hell would have thought, at the time, that these guys would end up in court? No reasonable person could ever have foreseen the election of a President whose AG decided to move some but not all of these cases to federal court. The very idea was laughably naive at the time.

Closing Gitmo and trying them in federal court might not have been a winning position.

751

marsl Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:13:16pm

Can KSM be senteced to death or just life in jail without parole? And, if he is senteced to life in prison, will he go to a Supermax prison?

752

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:14:28pm

re: #751 marsl

Can KSM be senteced to death or just life in jail without parole? And, if he is senteced to life in prison, will he go to a Supermax prison?

I think that if he were somehow not executed that supermax with the other trade center bombers - from the first attempt - is a given.

753

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:14:39pm

re: #723 LudwigVanQuixote

AGW

Obsessed much?

{gaze}

754

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:15:24pm

re: #753 Bagua

Obsessed much?

{gaze}

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

755

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:17:51pm

re: #751 marsl

Can KSM be senteced to death or just life in jail without parole? And, if he is senteced to life in prison, will he go to a Supermax prison?

Yes, life in prison, he'd go to Supermax, but they will seek the death penalty.

I think it's going to be a pretty open and shut case. He's not going to get a chance to mouth off. He'll plead guilty, gladly, with a big ole grin on his fucked up face and the judge will put a needle in his arm. Well, best case scenario.

756

Cineaste Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:19:11pm

hehe - here's a growing list of who's afraid of the terrorists.

Current list includes:

James Inhofe
Dana Rohrabacher
Sarah Palin
Chuck Grassley
Rudy Giulliani

Who is NOT afraid includes:

Michael Bloomberg
Jim Sacia

757

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:19:21pm

re: #755 marjoriemoon

Yes, life in prison, he'd go to Supermax, but they will seek the death penalty.

I think it's going to be a pretty open and shut case. He's not going to get a chance to mouth off. He'll plead guilty, gladly, with a big ole grin on his fucked up face and the judge will put a needle in his arm. Well, best case scenario.

why do you think KSM will go meekly to his doom?

758

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:21:28pm

re: #757 _RememberTonyC

why do you think KSM will go meekly to his doom?

He won't get a chance to rant in the press as people are afraid he would at a trial. If he cops a guilty plea right off, there's no trial and it's pretty much the end of it.

759

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:21:30pm

re: #744 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah! Screw the rule of law! This time the enemy is REALLY bad!

If you tortured him then put his torturers on trial - or don't you have the guts to advocate that?
As for KSM why is a military trial not good enought for him?
Instead, you are willing to give the bastard a civilian propoganda show trial.
Rule of law my ass.

760

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:23:33pm

re: #749 LudwigVanQuixote

So it would have been ok to break the law if we hadn't gotten caught?

Yes, LVQ, that's exactly my position - we can be criminally evil and suicidally stupid so long as we don't get caught at it. If you can't see that actions taken at that time were not intended to be part of a campaign of legal prosecution, but were part of national security matters, then there's no point in trying to explain it to you. They weren't treated like defendants because no one ever imagined we'd be so painfully stupid as to classify them as criminals.

Look, all of the talk about innocent Americans mudered negelcts a very crucial point. KSM is most likely guilty as sin, and we have him on enough other things that he deserves to die. Fine.

Save that refutation for those who brought it up. I didn't.

However, not everyone picked up is a priori guilty.

What about those actually innocent ones that we picked up, detained for years on end and tortured?

Who are these innocents we wronged so? Where are they? They don't exist. It's not as if we went tear-assing around afghanistan grabbing every bearded guy who wasn't nailed down or in the ground and started hassling him.

American justice is still ok if it makes us feel we got our vengeance? Or is it that American justice still ok if it only does that now and again to brown people?

Ahh! Clever LVQ, seeing through my false distinction between criminality and unconventional warfare! How keenly your piercing gaze saw right through to the inherent atavistic racism in my position! There's not reply I can make to that, so completely have you revealed my evil.

Which means I won't have to bore you with pointing out that no one gets any sort of vengeance from having the guy grow his beard, get over his tuberculosis, and get fat in Guantanamo. But the President and the AG promising certain death for him, why, that's nothing less than enlightened and fair jurisprudence for all to see, in sharp contrast to my own blood thirsty racism.

761

Spare O'Lake Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:24:24pm

re: #730 LudwigVanQuixote

Can you not see the harm that was done to us when the US, who used to routinely punish others for torturing, came out as a torturer?

Yes I can. Do I think you should now increase and maximize the harm with a civilian show trial? No, unlike you, I do not.

762

charlz Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:25:08pm

re: #738 Guanxi88

Their express purpose and intent was to cause direct harm to the national security of the United States as part of a campaign of unconventional and unlawful warfare carried out by asymmetrical means. Recognizing this does not diminish or deny the criminality of their acts, but does say that these acts are not primarily criminal.

ooo, you had me with you right up until that last clause. The acts aren't objectively either criminal nor unlawful warfare. That's why this is such a tough situation to handle. And whatever you think of this Administration's ideological foundations, I don't believe that the lawyers representing it are driven by... well, a lot of the stuff that's been spewed here today. They're simply trying to do what they can to deal with this.

763

_RememberTonyC Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:25:12pm

re: #758 marjoriemoon

He won't get a chance to rant in the press as people are afraid he would at a trial. If he cops a guilty plea right off, there's no trial and it's pretty much the end of it.

but now that he sees he has at least a chance of acquittal, don't you think he'll play his cards and see what happens? What does he have to lose by letting the trial take place? His lawyers will tell him that he could walk if he gets lucky.

764

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:26:23pm

re: #746 marjoriemoon

I thought the number was closer to 200.

I'm not sure that's true, Sharm. That these criminals weren't taken into court by the military. Look at the list here of notable Supermax prisoners. Some are spies. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

In some of those cases, there were obvious rights of the prisoner, such as being an American citizen. My point in the apples to oranges is that there are these cases where American jurisdiction was clear hence the 145 convictions. In these cases jurisdiction is not clear, hence the legal limbo.

As stated previously, they're not even entitled under Geneva for military tribunals. That we grant them these rights is more than fair. Try them there, convict them, open court records early so the world can see. If we decide Supermax or death from there- fine. I would be glad to house the piece of shit there. Or kill him. I really don't care. Allow him to appeal to the military appellate courts even. But the unintended consequences will be worse than a tribunal.

Meanwhile we're being diverted to torture when the topic is about the legal process. The courts have decided on torture, you say, so whatever with your diversion. Now the issue is should this be in federal court. No- it shouldn't, and 2/3 of the country think so.

765

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:26:46pm

re: #762 charlz

ooo, you had me with you right up until that last clause. The acts aren't objectively either criminal nor unlawful warfare. That's why this is such a tough situation to handle. And whatever you think of this Administration's ideological foundations, I don't believe that the lawyers representing it are driven by... well, a lot of the stuff that's been spewed here today. They're simply trying to do what they can to deal with this.

Status quo ante was lousy, but we have no assurance that anything else would have worked.

766

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:27:57pm

re: #757 _RememberTonyC

why do you think KSM will go meekly to his doom?

I wish it could be held in Virginia actually. They kill people right quick over there! Usually a deathrow inmate will spend at least 25 years in prison through various appeals before they actually meet their maker, but who was it that was just killed last week after 7 years? 7 years is a lot yes, but pretty quick for the death penalty.

I'm assuming the military doesn't use the firing squad any more. How many years does it take for the military to carry out a death sentence?

767

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:28:06pm

re: #760 Guanxi88

Who are these innocents we wronged so? Where are they? They don't exist. It's not as if we went tear-assing around afghanistan grabbing every bearded guy who wasn't nailed down or in the ground and started hassling him.

Are you sure? What about the ones we quietly released who we had nothing on? Yes, some of them were then later picked up again. Others were not.

Do you really think that the government always only ever captures the guilty?

Guilty until proven innocent is not the American way. Care to debate that? Care to look at the innocent Americans, who were given full trials in American courts who none the less got executed?

Your argument is just divorced from the realities of justice systems.

768

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:28:56pm

re: #763 _RememberTonyC

but now that he sees he has at least a chance of acquittal, don't you think he'll play his cards and see what happens? What does he have to lose by letting the trial take place? His lawyers will tell him that he could walk if he gets lucky.

Because his pride is greater than anything. I don't see him taking a not guilty plea. He's proud of this and he wants martyrdom.

769

What, me worry? Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:29:55pm

Ack, I gotta jet. Hope to check back in a bit.

770

drcordell Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:32:23pm

re: #760 Guanxi88

We DID practically go tear-assing around Afghanistan rounding up whoever looked like a terrorist. We offered cash bounties for anyone who turned us over a "terrorist." And shockingly, there were less than scrupulous Afghanis who simply turned over people they didn't like, simply to collect a bounty.

771

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:32:24pm

re: #749 LudwigVanQuixote

However, not everyone picked up is a priori guilty.

What about those actually innocent ones that we picked up, detained for years on end and tortured? Or don't they matter. American justice is still ok if it makes us feel we got our vengeance? Or is it that American justice still ok if it only does that now and again to brown people?

Exactly Ludwig. Those are the real issues here.

772

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:32:53pm

Getting back -

LVQ - please don't obfuscate over torture. Re read my post - while I don't consider waterboarding torture (which makes me a bad person) even if I stipulate that it is it has no impact on the evidence that can be admitted as you allege. The Miranda and right to counsel tests will be triggered much sooner than we ever get to a torture test. If we do get a torture test then we will have seen the Government get past both Miranda and right to counsel for the accused. If that comes to pass (I highly doubt it will) then the Obama Admin will have rolled back civil liberties and Constitutional protections much further than Bush ever did.

Dr Cordell - What can I say? You are vastly superior to me morally. I will have to send you a Certificate of Moral Superiority just like I do to SoCons who call me RINO because I am pro choice.

My moral failings present me with few choices for redemption. Perhaps I should vote in someone to office who will say things like " this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. " Someone who will do away with the "excesses and lack of protections" endemic to the military commissions system (something progressives condemned - until this week - as an unworkable "parallel justice system"). Yes - I could do that and perhaps cleanse myself of my sin.

Maybe when that has happened our allies will offer more help with Afghanistan (after all - the reason they wouldn't before was our moral failings and , as a practical matter, if we just correct those failings they will help us again).

And if I am really faithful, I can simply ignore any instances where the leader of this massive, communal moral redemption goes back on his own sermons and sends a guy through the Military Commissions system. I can ignore it much the same way evangelicals ignored Jimmy Swaggart (yes - he still has a following) and Jim Baker. Staying with the charismatic leader and ignoring his hypocrisy while condemning his critics to the hellfire of their sin is the true test of the faithful.

773

captdiggs Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:33:37pm

A purely political decision, and a very bad one.
It bestows constitutional rights on prisoners of war. It will be a circus, where the defense objective will be to put the Bush administration on trial for "torture", "rendition" and Guantanamo.
The precedent now set is that even if illegal combatants are taken prisoner in foreign lands, they must be Mirandized and offered legal council.
The rights of the accused under our Constitutional system include access to virtually all the information the government has on them, including classified materials.
The best article so far on this horrendous idea:
[Link: online.wsj.com...]

From that article:

"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. "

774

charlz Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:33:44pm

re: #760 Guanxi88

Who are these innocents we wronged so? Where are they? They don't exist. It's not as if we went tear-assing around afghanistan grabbing every bearded guy who wasn't nailed down or in the ground and started hassling him.

from Guantanamo detainees getting day in court:
In the cases of 30 detainees, the judges have found the government's evidence wanting and ordered their release. Dozens of additional challenges are on track to be heard.

Sorry to post and run but I have a bus to catch.

775

Sharmuta Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:34:43pm

WOW. Just WOW.

There is plenty of reading for some people to catch up on. Where are all those "innocent" detainees? We released them. Guess what they did.

776

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:35:03pm

re: #767 LudwigVanQuixote

Are you sure? What about the ones we quietly released who we had nothing on? Yes, some of them were then later picked up again. Others were not.

You mean we released them? Unimaginable! And here I thought the whole point was to go around and round up brown people to torture and imprison.

Do you really think that the government always only ever captures the guilty?

In a warzone, I'm inclined to defer to the judgment of the fellow who were being shot at. But we all have our quirks.

Guilty until proven innocent is not the American way. Care to debate that? Care to look at the innocent Americans, who were given full trials in American courts who none the less got executed?

You are the one who supports making these things legal cases, not me. You're the one supporting a case with such painful facts about prisoner abuse and mistreatment, not me.

Your argument is just divorced from the realities of justice systems.

That's because unconventional warfare, which is what KSM et al were waging, is not viewed as a criminal justice problem. One not blinded by evil racist hatred, or low, base desires for revenge fantasies to be fulfilled, as I am, could perhaps explain why unconventional warfare should be called unconventional criminality, and why the only role of the CIA and our intelligence agencies should be as Sam Spades for the Justice Department. Such enlightened refinement eludes me, however, and so I defer to my betters.

777

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:35:50pm

re: #770 drcordell

We DID practically go tear-assing around Afghanistan rounding up whoever looked like a terrorist. We offered cash bounties for anyone who turned us over a "terrorist." And shockingly, there were less than scrupulous Afghanis who simply turned over people they didn't like, simply to collect a bounty.

And equally shockingly, when we found this out, we cut the guys loose and sent them home.

778

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:37:24pm

re: #772 karmic_inquisitor

Umm..

If I said that I didn't consider the Earth's orbit to be elliptical, it wouldn't change the fact that it is.

Once again...

Every civilized and uncivilized military in the world considers this torture. So did the Spanish Inquisition, the Khmer Rouge, the Confederates at Andersonville and oh yes the UNITED STATES MILITARY.

Don't obfuscate that it is somehow not torture.

Don't obfuscate that it is against our law to do.

Don't obfuscate the fact that more than anything else, this issue has given aid and comfort to our enemies.

779

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:38:11pm

re: #775 Sharmuta

WOW. Just WOW.

There is plenty of reading for some people to catch up on. Where are all those "innocent" detainees? We released them. Guess what they did.

Not all of them did so Sharmuta.

Would you believe that some of them were actually innocent?

780

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:38:19pm

re: #727 LudwigVanQuixote

I doubt that and I thank God that is unlikely. The Samrt move would be to try him to the Pearl Murder and throw out all testimony that came under duress. Therefore we reinforce the precedent that we do not torture, remove his only real defensive strategy and then convict him.

That as far as I know is the plan. He's being tried in criminal court precisely because we can convict him without resorting to evidence or testimony derived as a result of torture-- thus sidestepping all those nasty issues about whether we did or did not torture, what constitutes torture, etc.

781

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:38:48pm

Just a down-ding, Obdicut? Why not a response, or am I beneath contempt and so unworthy of such a courtesy?

782

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:40:26pm

re: #779 LudwigVanQuixote

Not all of them did so Sharmuta.

Would you believe that some of them were actually innocent?

How ever could we have found that out? And what happened to the folks who ordered their release? I'd hope they were punished severely for letting them go before we'd had the opportunity to bring to bear the full weight of our evil.

783

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:40:48pm

re: #781 Guanxi88

Just a down-ding, Obdicut? Why not a response, or am I beneath contempt and so unworthy of such a courtesy?

Cut him some slack, I bet he's typing one right now.

784

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:41:49pm

re: #783 iceweasel

Cut him some slack, I bet he's typing one right now.

Hate the arguments by down-ding. I think of them like I do the old f-bomb. You save it up for really deserving cases, or it loses all value.

785

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:43:32pm

re: #770 drcordell

We DID practically go tear-assing around Afghanistan rounding up whoever looked like a terrorist. We offered cash bounties for anyone who turned us over a "terrorist." And shockingly, there were less than scrupulous Afghanis who simply turned over people they didn't like, simply to collect a bounty.

Must you advertise your ignorance? Are you completely insensitive to facts and data points that contradict the moronically constructed and easily discredited moralist memes that you spew here?

Perhaps you simply were too busy protesting our aggressions that brought on 9/11 to have watched the news when the first death of an American was reported in Afghanistan after 9/11.

CNN didn't miss it.

It was a CIA officer who was interviewing captured people who were suspected of being with the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda.

For your simplisme to be even remotely operable there cannot be a person in theater who performs this task. No - all people captured must be flown to Gitmo, stored for eons and then the idjits then ask questions only after heroic moralists like you have applied enough moral pressure.

You are the craven moron you presuppose others to be.

786

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:44:30pm

re: #783 iceweasel

Cut him some slack, I bet he's typing one right now.

It's been 10 minutes. I'll assume it'll be there later.

787

Ayeless in Ghazi Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:46:29pm

re: #660 Sharmuta

That's nice. Thanks for updinging people who call me names, Ludwig.

You seem perfectly happy to do this to others, Sharmuta, so it's rather hypocritical of you to complain when others do it to you:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

788

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:48:12pm

re: #778 LudwigVanQuixote

Umm..

If I said that I didn't consider the Earth's orbit to be elliptical, it wouldn't change the fact that it is.

Once again...

Every civilized and uncivilized military in the world considers this torture. So did the Spanish Inquisition, the Khmer Rouge, the Confederates at Andersonville and oh yes the UNITED STATES MILITARY.

Don't obfuscate that it is somehow not torture.

Don't obfuscate that it is against our law to do.

Don't obfuscate the fact that more than anything else, this issue has given aid and comfort to our enemies.

Once again you wont address the fact that you are wrong in saying that torture taints the evidence. The evidence was tainted long before the waterboarding because the scum was not Mirandized. Nor did he have counsel present or available for his questioning.

But ignore that. Stay on your high horse of extended moral claims and scream at me. Also ignore that Obama and Holder are both hypocrites for sending Al Nashiri through the system that they both condemned as unlawful prior to being sworn into their offices.

Would you like me to issue you a Certificate or Moral Superiority so that we can all agree that you are morally superior to me? I am happy to do it if that will make you feel like you won the argument you just lost.

789

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:49:16pm

re: #784 Guanxi88

Hate the arguments by down-ding. I think of them like I do the old f-bomb. You save it up for really deserving cases, or it loses all value.

Agree. I no longer down ding and haven't in a while. Bad karma.

790

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:50:26pm

re: #784 Guanxi88

Hate the arguments by down-ding. I think of them like I do the old f-bomb. You save it up for really deserving cases, or it loses all value.

Yeah, I know-- Obdicut never struck me as the silent type though. :)

791

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:52:50pm

re: #784 Guanxi88

Hate the arguments by down-ding. I think of them like I do the old f-bomb. You save it up for really deserving cases, or it loses all value.

A while ago I proposed a textual drop down to go along with the +/- dinging. Require the dinging to come up with one word that explains the ding.

akin to the slashdot meta ratings.

"troll", "funny", "offensive", "inspiring", "enlightening", ...

The dinging system we have is relatively lightweight and works -- but suffers from the inability to determine why. The change I suggest is heavyweight and may be too cumbersome for anyones use.

792

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:53:26pm

re: #787 Jimmah

You seem perfectly happy to do this to others, Sharmuta, so it's rather hypocritical of you to complain when others do it to you:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Actually Sharm dinging up people who called me un American or questioned my loyalty to America for standing up for American law was pretty low of you. I've decided that I am no longer interested if you are upset when I disagrees with you.

793

Obdicut Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:54:06pm

re: #784 Guanxi88

Hate the arguments by down-ding. I think of them like I do the old f-bomb. You save it up for really deserving cases, or it loses all value.

I did save it for a special case.

I do consider you with a great deal of contempt, since the first conversation you had included you lying, repeatedly, about what I'd said. I thought I'd made it clear that that had garnered you my contempt.

You are again lying; there are people who we captured who were turned into us by fellow Afghani's. We had no direct evidence, in any way, of their involvement in anything.

You acknowledge this, when you say:

re: #777 Guanxi88

And equally shockingly, when we found this out, we cut the guys loose and sent them home.

794

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:56:30pm

re: #771 iceweasel

Exactly Ludwig. Those are the real issues here.

I see, so the couple of mistakes are the real issue, not the actual war? By that reasoning doctors should stop the practice of medicine as there are tens of thousands a mistakes leading to suffering or death every single year.

Fighting international terrorism is a dirty business, mistakes are made, ask the Israelis. I trust civilizes nations like the US and Israel to do the right thing and I trust the judgement of the professionals in the military and intelligence forces.

The few mistakes are regrettable, but a normal and acceptable risk, just as medical mistakes are an acceptable risk in the practice of medicine.

795

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:56:46pm

re: #789 karmic_inquisitor

Agree. I no longer down ding and haven't in a while. Bad karma.

I upding for anyone that engages (replies to one of my posts) in an honest conversation -- no matter if I agree with them or not. If the response is insulting I just leave it ... Except for the occasional "fuck yous" -- i never down ding.

/well, there was that pile-on down ding a couple of months ago -- but I was just hoping to help get them to negative four digits

796

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:58:56pm

re: #794 Bagua

A policy of torture and denial of the rule of law is not a little mistake. It is an abrogation of what we stand for as Americans.

You are just too divorced from being an American to understand that. Go back to Russia or China or Syria. They approve of your legal theories. So do the Norks.

797

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:04:26pm

re: #792 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually Sharm dinging up people who called me un American or questioned my loyalty to America for standing up for American law was pretty low of you. I've decided that I am no longer interested if you are upset when I disagrees with you.

That's it, attack Sharmuta now, the person who was asking that you be treated more gently earlier and one of the most consistently fair minded individual on this blog.

You jump in a thread in which we are discussing a civilian as opposed to military trial of the 911 terrorists, change it into a thread about, you and the horrors of waterboarding and your moral pontification, replete with calling all your opponents stupid and ignorant. And you have the nerve to be dismissive of Sharmuta?

You are too full of yourself Ludwig Von Beck, among other things.

re: #796 LudwigVanQuixote

A policy of torture and denial of the rule of law is not a little mistake. It is an abrogation of what we stand for as Americans.

You are just too divorced from being an American to understand that. Go back to Russia or China or Syria. They approve of your legal theories. So do the Norks.

Now I'm the second person you have suggested should leave "your" America. Pathetic, and more of your reductio ad absurdum.

798

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:11:12pm

re: #787 Jimmah

Participation via downdinging is not very constructive.

799

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:12:50pm

re: #797 Bagua

Uhhh baggy,

I don't think that trying to question the loyalty of an American for actually standing up for American values is cool. It was unexpected from her.

You on the other hand, I would expect it from. She is not however an idiot.

So first of all, my argument is not a reducto ad absurdem.

Not at all. The "justice" system you are defending is not the American one. Similar conditions do obtain however in North Korea.

A reducto ad absurdem would be to follow a principle to a logical contradiction. Since the Norks actually do pick people up and detain them and torture them without trial, as to the Russians and the Syrians and the Chinese, there is no contradiction.

The only contradictions arise from your stupid, jingoistic ranting and attempts to turn this into a popularity contest. Don't try to use big words you don't understand baggy, they will only further confuse your feverish imagination.

Now, I realize that reality is difficult for you to engage in. Perhaps your meds are imbalanced. Perhaps you are simply just having a bad day. I really don't care.

If you do ever care to discuss facts and reality then please do come back to the real world. Until then, try sucking on this:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

800

Ayeless in Ghazi Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:14:22pm

re: #797 Bagua

That's it, attack Sharmuta now, the person who was asking that you be treated more gently earlier and one of the most consistently fair minded individual on this blog.

Ask yourself : how 'fair minded' is it to act all wounded about someone doing to you what you are happy to do to others?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

801

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:15:16pm

re: #800 Jimmah

Ask yourself : how 'fair minded' is it to act all wounded about someone doing to you what you are happy to do to others?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Oh he is just having a melty...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

802

Ayeless in Ghazi Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:15:24pm

re: #798 Bagua

Participation via downdinging is not very constructive.

I'm replying, and dinging up or down as I see fit - just like you are.

803

soxfan4life Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:19:47pm

re: #715 LudwigVanQuixote

And by torturing our prisoners, we gave the biggest possible propaganda and recruiting boost we could to our foes.

It is a great way to loose the war.

So is having a Commander in Chief who is doing a better job evading McChrystal than Osama bin Laden is.

804

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:20:21pm

re: #803 soxfan4life

So is having a Commander in Chief who is doing a better job evading McChrystal than Osama bin Laden is.

Excuse me? How is that?

805

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:20:55pm

re: #784 Guanxi88

Hate the arguments by down-ding. I think of them like I do the old f-bomb. You save it up for really deserving cases, or it loses all value.

It often is a bad idea, since the other party will usually respond in a satisfactory manner anyway, given enough time.

806

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:21:42pm

re: #804 LudwigVanQuixote

Excuse me? How is that?

Countdown to bullshit about Obama 'dithering' because he's actually thinking about the troop request in Afghanistan in 3..2...

807

Ayeless in Ghazi Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:22:07pm

re: #801 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh he is just having a melty...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I agree a lot of the time with Bagua, I have to say, and overall he seems a decent sort to me. On some things though, such as AGW and this issue, I disagree with him strongly.

808

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:23:49pm

re: #800 Jimmah

Ask yourself : how 'fair minded' is it to act all wounded about someone doing to you what you are happy to do to others?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

jimmah, you linked to a comment from someone else, not I.

809

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:23:55pm

re: #807 Jimmah

I agree a lot of the time with Bagua, I have to say, and overall he seems a decent sort to me. On some things though, such as AGW and this issue, I disagree with him strongly.

Yeah, I used to think that way.

Right now though he is behaving like a two year old, and honestly he never backs up a damn thing he says when cornered. He always shifts areound and tries to obfuscate. This thread though is the first time I've seen him try for a popularity contest to win his arguments.

It's pretty pathetic.

810

soxfan4life Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:24:42pm

re: #804 LudwigVanQuixote

Excuse me? How is that?

How long do we need to leave our troops hanging on a decision for the war strategy? Everything else seems to be much more important to him. Push healthcare, world travel, meanwhile our soldiers are facing more casualties in Afghanistan than they ever have.

811

soxfan4life Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:26:06pm

re: #806 iceweasel

Countdown to bullshit about Obama 'dithering' because he's actually thinking about the troop request in Afghanistan in 3..2...

Meanwhile soldiers are facing higher casualties. Obama fiddles while Rome burns. Sorry you consider troops dying to be bullshit.

812

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:27:12pm

re: #810 soxfan4life

How long do we need to leave our troops hanging on a decision for the war strategy? Everything else seems to be much more important to him. Push healthcare, world travel, meanwhile our soldiers are facing more casualties in Afghanistan than they ever have.

I absolutely agree that we need more troops in Afghanistan. We may however need them for Iran, which is much more important and we have been deeply bled by the two wars. Short of a draft, I see no easy answer.

I don't see where Obama can come up with the requisite troops and material easily. I don't see where Eisenhower could either. I think we may well be dealing with a situation that has no easy options.

813

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:27:36pm

re: #810 soxfan4life

How long do we need to leave our troops hanging on a decision for the war strategy?

BINGO!

/sorry soxfan, couldn't resist.

814

Ayeless in Ghazi Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:27:38pm

re: #808 Bagua

jimmah, you linked to a comment from someone else, not I.

I linked to the correct comment. It shows Sharmuta updinging someone for calling me an idiot. Now read 787 again.

815

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:28:08pm

re: #780 iceweasel

That as far as I know is the plan. He's being tried in criminal court precisely because we can convict him without resorting to evidence or testimony derived as a result of torture-- thus sidestepping all those nasty issues about whether we did or did not torture, what constitutes torture, etc.

Ice - I have to disagree with you. The reasons for placing him through the civilian system are not as clear as you seem to imply. Nor were the statements both made at the time of the announcement nor in subsequent testimony so clear.

The evidence is not tainted by torture.

It is tainted by not making counsel available to the accused at the time of questioning and not warning the accused of self incrimination. There is also the question of warrants and search and seizure. Those are pretty much inviolable standards of the US civilian court system.

That taint of not extending the rights of the accused to KSM et al is significant. Perhaps we can assume that there is still enough clean evidence gathered after KSM was mirandized to convict.

OK - then what about Al Nishiri? Are we to assume (as you seem to infer) that there is not enough clean evidence for him? If that is the case, then how can we claim a high moral standard for rule of law if we are sending him to a court that (it is implied by that argument) doesn't mind such taint?

If you want my opinion on it (none have asked, but what the hell?) the only compelling reason for Al Nashiri going to the Military Commissions is that the evidence collected on him is extremely sensitive regarding ongoing operations. The CIA Inspector General's Report on Interrogation shows a higher concentration of redactions related to Al Nishiri's intelligence cascade than to any of the other 2 who were waterboarded. Some have concluded from that fact that Al Nashiri must not have had much intelligence value. If that is the case, and if he is just a minro player then certainly he should get a civilian trial, shouldn't he? Or could there be more at work? And could it be that both Obama and Holder see that and will maintain and use the Military Commissions system for largely the same reason that Bush did?

That last thought, I think, poses an existential issue for amny on the left that they are unwilling to confront. So they maintain a moralist narrative and then back the facts into it.

816

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:28:24pm

re: #809 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, I used to think that way.

Right now though he is behaving like a two year old, and honestly he never backs up a damn thing he says when cornered. He always shifts areound and tries to obfuscate. This thread though is the first time I've seen him try for a popularity contest to win his arguments.

It's pretty pathetic.

Ludwig Von Beck again, always with the insults. If anyone routinely acts like a petulant child on this forum it is you, not I.

But write another essay, it's all about you isn't it?

817

captdiggs Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:29:37pm

re: #810 soxfan4life

I worry about that upcoming "strategy".
I recall Obama being one of the most vocal on how the Iraq "surge" was guaranteed to be a failure and widen the war.

He was dead wrong.

818

soxfan4life Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:30:36pm

re: #817 captdiggs

I worry about that upcoming "strategy".
I recall Obama being one of the most vocal on how the Iraq "surge" was guaranteed to be a failure and widen the war.

He was dead wrong.

You mean he was never for it before he was against it?

819

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:30:52pm

re: #814 Jimmah

I linked to the correct comment. It shows Sharmuta updinging someone for calling me an idiot. Now read 787 again.

Your right, I was confusing your reply to me in 802 with your comment to Sharmuta in 787, sorry.

820

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:31:35pm

re: #816 Bagua

Ludwig Von Beck again, always with the insults. If anyone routinely acts like a petulant child on this forum it is you, not I.

But write another essay, it's all about you isn't it?

Baggy bags, no I really haven't insulted you yet...

Here so you can distinguish...

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Now that is an insult... GO away or I shall taunt you a second time!

Really I am laughing at you right now. A lot.

821

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:32:03pm

re: #812 LudwigVanQuixote

I don't see where Obama can come up with the requisite troops and material easily.

He can't.
Army Data Show Constraints on Troop Increase Potential

If President Obama orders an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, he will be deploying practically every available U.S. Army brigade to war, leaving few units in reserve in case of an unforeseen emergency and further stressing a force that has seen repeated combat deployments since 2002.

Excellent article from this AM on the troop situation.

In any case, rest assured that the GOP and the wingnuts are prepared to bitch no matter what Obama does:

GOP Aide: Party Will Criticize Any Afghanistan Escalation Under 40,000

The storyline for the wingnuts is already written, just as with the KSM trial.

822

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:33:13pm

re: #821 iceweasel

Excellent article from this AM on the troop situation.

In any case, rest assured that the GOP and the wingnuts are prepared to bitch no matter what Obama does:

GOP Aide: Party Will Criticize Any Afghanistan Escalation Under 40,000

The storyline for the wingnuts is already written, just as with the KSM trial.

And for a brief while the wingnut line was we need to withdraw from Afganistan... How they think our memories are so short.

823

soxfan4life Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:36:31pm

re: #812 LudwigVanQuixote

I absolutely agree that we need more troops in Afghanistan. We may however need them for Iran, which is much more important and we have been deeply bled by the two wars. Short of a draft, I see no easy answer.

I don't see where Obama can come up with the requisite troops and material easily. I don't see where Eisenhower could either. I think we may well be dealing with a situation that has no easy options.

Wasn't McChrystal put in charge because of his "expertise" in the area and special ops background? If this is the case than shouldn't his word pretty much dictate strategy? Sure President Obama needs to have others involved, but if the reason above was why McChrystal was chosen than take his advice an run with it.

824

captdiggs Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:37:17pm

re: #815 karmic_inquisitor

The evidence ...

It is tainted by not making counsel available to the accused at the time of questioning and not warning the accused of self incrimination. There is also the question of warrants and search and seizure. Those are pretty much inviolable standards of the US civilian court system.

I can't wait to see how they square away all the constitutional violations of his "arrest"...his spending years in Gitmo without trial ( ie. no speedy trial), alleged "torture", no bail hearing, as well as those you mentioned.
All of which would get a common criminal's motion to dismiss, granted.

I can't see how they can get a conviction without actually ignoring at least some constitutional guarantees.

825

webevintage Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:38:41pm

re: #812 LudwigVanQuixote

I absolutely agree that we need more troops in Afghanistan. We may however need them for Iran, which is much more important and we have been deeply bled by the two wars. Short of a draft, I see no easy answer.

and there it is.
Will conservatives support a draft if the President gives them the 40,000 troops and that is the only way to put that many troops in Afghanistan?

826

Surabaya Stew Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:39:39pm

re: #821 iceweasel

In any case, rest assured that the GOP and the wingnuts are prepared to bitch no matter what Obama does:

And this goes for about anything the Dems do! An honest opposition is the very least that is expected, not people screaming their head off out of fear of becoming a loyal opposition. Obama needs to be called out when he is wrong or controversial, not hacked to bits whenever he opens his mouth. These folks hate him, and would be jumping on his back if he had decided to go the military tribunal route.

827

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:40:28pm

re: #824 captdiggs

I can't wait to see how they square away all the constitutional violations of his "arrest"...his spending years in Gitmo without trial ( ie. no speedy trial), alleged "torture", no bail hearing, as well as those you mentioned.
All of which would get a common criminal's motion to dismiss, granted.

I can't see how they can get a conviction without actually ignoring at least some constitutional guarantees.

Fear not - if he is acquited the NYPD will arrest him on the spot for aggravated vandalism.

828

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:41:13pm

re: #823 soxfan4life

Wasn't McChrystal put in charge because of his "expertise" in the area and special ops background? If this is the case than shouldn't his word pretty much dictate strategy? Sure President Obama needs to have others involved, but if the reason above was why McChrystal was chosen than take his advice an run with it.

40,000 more troops is not special ops.

I don't understand your point.

829

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:41:37pm

re: #815 karmic_inquisitor

Or could there be more at work? And could it be that both Obama and Holder see that and will maintain and use the Military Commissions system for largely the same reason that Bush did?

Bingo. I disagree with some of what you've said, and I favourited your post and will come back to answer you more fully. (Late here and into the booze at the moment). Let me say for now that I completely agree with this bit above.

Fact is the Obama admin is just about as bad (and in some cases worse) than the Bush admin in re: civil liberties etc. Fantasies that this is Obama trying to put the Bush admin policies on trial are just that-- fantasies. Obama has in virtually every instance continued or expanded bush policies in re: torture, detention, etc. (Yes, the EIT are suspended, but all the legal action so far undertaken will have the effect of legitimising the Yoo memos ex post facto). The Obama admin isn't doing anything differently from how the Bush admin would have done it, folks: the tiered justice system, the criminal trials for KSM, the symbolic closing of Gitmo while as many as 75 detainees are being held indefinitely and shuffled off to a neo-Gitmo at Bagram or elsewhere.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as I said earlier.

830

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:42:54pm

re: #820 LudwigVanQuixote

Baggy bags, no I really haven't insulted you yet...
[...]

Granted you are the expert in insulting anyone who dares question your hogwash.

I could not hold a candle to that, nor would I wish.

831

soxfan4life Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:46:09pm

re: #828 LudwigVanQuixote

40,000 more troops is not special ops.

I don't understand your point.

No 40,000 troops is not special ops, but due to his special ops background he is very familiar with the area as we have been using alot of special ops guys up until now. He seemed to come highly recommended

[Link: www.time.com...]

832

BARACK THE VOTE Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:47:07pm

re: #826 Surabaya Stew

And this goes for about anything the Dems do! An honest opposition is the very least that is expected, not people screaming their head off out of fear of becoming a loyal opposition. Obama needs to be called out when he is wrong or controversial, not hacked to bits whenever he opens his mouth. These folks hate him, and would be jumping on his back if he had decided to go the military tribunal route.

yes. And this is the real problem for us all: the more that crap, insane criticisms of Obama get airtime, the more the reasonable and legitimate ones never get heard at all. And the more the average person hears the insane ones, the more likely that person is to just start tuning out all criticisms. Right now the only legitimate criticism Obama is getting is from the left!

833

Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Nov 18, 2009 3:53:20pm

re: #830 Bagua

Here, just for you duder...

Youtube Video

834

Bagua Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:01:30pm

re: #833 LudwigVanQuixote

{gaze}

835

gDavid Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:10:53pm

Won't be much of a trial, maybe 2 hours, no rights read to them, no lawyers present, etc. Judge will have to dismiss charges under US law.

836

keithgabryelski Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:22:15pm

re: #835 gDavid

Won't be much of a trial, maybe 2 hours, no rights read to them, no lawyers present, etc. Judge will have to dismiss charges under US law.

You've been watching too many court room drama tv shows.

This isn't how it works.

837

Daniel Ballard Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:24:48pm

re: #824 captdiggs

Are you familiar with Manzanar? Upheld by SCOTUS?
It's going to look a lot like that.

838

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:24:57pm

re: #829 iceweasel

"favourited"

So I dare you to start adding words to Jimmah's spell checker.

839

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:31:12pm

re: #793 Obdicut

Now, you and I had a very engaging little thread about hermeneutics of revealed textsnot long ago.

But I see the feelings are still bruised from last week's discussion. So be it. Snipe from anonymity if it meets your needs.

840

Obdicut Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:32:39pm

re: #839 Guanxi88

Now, you and I had a very engaging little thread about hermeneutics of revealed textsnot long ago.

But I see the feelings are still bruised from last week's discussion. So be it. Snipe from anonymity if it meets your needs.

No, it really is honestly that you lie. I actually am one of those people who finds that a real offense.

Especially that you don't care that you lie, that it's just a tactic to you. People like you literally scare me.

841

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:34:07pm

re: #840 Obdicut

No, it really is honestly that you lie. I actually am one of those people who finds that a real offense.

Especially that you don't care that you lie, that it's just a tactic to you. People like you literally scare me.

How, then, oh sage, shall I mend my ways and earn your valuable esteem?

842

Obdicut Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:41:01pm

re: #841 Guanxi88

How, then, oh sage, shall I mend my ways and earn your valuable esteem?

Pretty simple. It would take you not lying for quite awhile.

843

Guanxi88 Wed, Nov 18, 2009 4:45:14pm

re: #842 Obdicut

Pretty simple. It would take you not lying for quite awhile.

That's a tall order. Given my previous history of distortion and misrepresentation, I daresay there'd be little point, and even less wisdom, in your trusting me at all.

It is odd, how I decided, of all the Lizards here, I should have chosen you, and on your first day, yet, as the particular target of my deception. Clearly, I'd been saving up my dishonesty for just such an occasion, or perhaps it is that your keen insight into matters enabled you to detect what had escaped the notice of others.

It is endlessly fascinating and transformative, not unlike an ongoing war the discussion of which sparked your initial assessment of me.

844

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 5:06:39pm

Interesting tidbit from Holder's testimony -

Senator Schumer wants $75 Million from the federal govt to pay for more security. And Holder said he'd try to get NYC full reimbursement for whatever additional costs it incurs.

Here is a different idea - Hold the trial at the rural Thompson prison complex in Illinois that may be the new home of Gitmo detainees. The annual budget for that facility housing detainees is forecast at $85 million. Such a move would also place the trial well away from the prejudicial site of the attacks on the WTC.

845

Achilles Tang Wed, Nov 18, 2009 5:06:47pm

Changing the subject, from those enamored with being enamored;

Holder said he was confident his decision “will withstand the judgment of history.”

If all it takes to defend one's position is to state that the future agrees, then there would be little reason for debate in this life, would there?

846

karmic_inquisitor Wed, Nov 18, 2009 5:09:21pm

re: #845 Naso Tang

Changing the subject, from those enamored with being enamored;

If all it takes to defend one's position is to state that the future agrees, then there would be little reason for debate in this life, would there?

I need not defend my upding of your comment - history will prove it a sage act.

847

Achilles Tang Wed, Nov 18, 2009 5:11:19pm

re: #846 karmic_inquisitor

I need not defend my upding of your comment - history will prove it a sage act.

I can prove it by updinging yours in the present. Done.

848

Cato the Elder Wed, Nov 18, 2009 5:30:28pm

re: #656 Sharmuta

Yes- please do keep it coming. Ad hominem looks good on you.

Egg looks good on you.

849

Achilles Tang Wed, Nov 18, 2009 5:32:23pm

re: #848 Cato the Elder

Egg looks good on you.

Ooh. That was a fun one to backtrack on.

850

JoyousMN Wed, Nov 18, 2009 6:30:51pm

re: #823 soxfan4life

Not one of us elected McChrystal to make the decision. We elected Obama (whether or not you voted for him, he's the one who makes the final decision). McChrystal is responsible for making a military recommendation. Obama is responsible for making an overall US strategy decision.

I'm glad he's thinking it through. Much better than the "flying by the seat of your pants" decider we had before.

BTW, how much blood and treasure will the escalation cost? How will it be paid for? Where will the troops come from? If we devote all of these resources to Afghanistan will we "win?" Is this in our country's best interest? These are questions a commander in chief had to take into account, not McChrystal.

I continue to be amazed that no one ever seems to talk about cost of wars the way we talk about costs for everything else in the budget. Bush never even PUT the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets. I ask again, how do we pay for this and get troops for it?

851

nickzi Wed, Nov 18, 2009 7:19:31pm

It's bizarre that so many "conservatives" are in such a rush to discard the long-standing idea that trials are supposed to be conducted fairly and publicly. It seems that many of them also want to deny the defendant counsel, as well as pre-supposing guilt. Not only would these wishes be profoundly contrary to the legal tradition of the US, they would also open up an immense space for abuse of citizens by the government. In denying KSM legal representation and rights, you would be opening the door for you yourselves to be put in the same position. Is this really a trade-off you want to make? Also, why are so many people frightened of KSM? He's one man, overweight, unarmed, among a population that detests him. Do you honestly think the US is so weak and pitiable that it can't handle him? What happened to faith in the US?

852

littleugly Wed, Nov 18, 2009 11:48:19pm

#851 nickzi

" In denying KSM legal representation and rights, you would be opening the door for you yourselves to be put in the same position
Is this really a trade-off you want to make? Also, why are so many people frightened of KSM? He's one man, overweight, unarmed, among a population that detests him"

We are "frightened",

berry, berry.

853

nickzi Thu, Nov 19, 2009 6:59:05am

Littleugly, I am sure you've said something incisive and witty, the trouble is, I have no idea what your last post means. Would someone translate?

854

Cato the Elder Thu, Nov 19, 2009 7:24:07am

re: #604 Barbarian at the Gate

Alleged 9/11 mastermind? That's like saying that Eichmann was allegedly involved in the Holocaust.

Eichmann was given a trial in open court in Jerusalem. He was not summarily executed, detained for years, tortured, or otherwise mistreated.

855

pummy Thu, Nov 19, 2009 11:16:39am

bottom line, once a lawyer always a lawyer with liarspeak...
“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions,” Holder said Wednesday.
oh really??? have any of you heard his ideology spewing from his "waterboard platform"?

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Holder Defends 9/11 Trial Decision

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud