PDA

View Full Version : Fort Hood and now this....



RodB
11-13-2009, 06:57 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/self-proclaimed-sept-mastermind-face-trial-ny/

The real beginning of the end of Obama's psycho administration. First Obama would not even call Fort Hood a terrorist attack... then this.... trying enemy combatants in our courts... Is this what you voted for????

Only idiots would cause the families of the 9-11 to endure this bull**** ... not to mention redefining the meaning of terrorist and combatant... these guys are nuts! This type of trial is just for show.... since Holder said they were certain of a guilty verdict... gimme a break.



RodB

ljb5
11-13-2009, 07:04 PM
Why shouldn't they be tried in court? If they committed a crime, that's how we treat criminals.

Are you saying you don't have faith our legal system can handle criminals?

Heck, it was good enough for Tim McVeigh and he got the death penalty.

I was a waiter in Denver during the trial and saw dozens of family members from Oklahoma City. None of them complained about the trial. They were happy to see it handled properly. I even had a friend on the jury and he didn't have any problems convicting McVeigh.

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 07:15 PM
Try to contain your bloodlust, Rod!
Conviction in a civil court will show the world that the People, not the military condemn criminals.
The law of our land is not military law, as some wish it were.

Keith Wilson
11-13-2009, 07:18 PM
Is this what you voted for????The rule of law? Damn right it's what I voted for. If they're "certain of a guilty verdict", what are you complaining about?

Bruce Hooke
11-13-2009, 07:22 PM
Seems to me in many criminal trials they actually try to hold the trial close to where the victims live so that the victims (if they want to) can attend the trial and see justice done to those who did them or their family harm. Why should this case be any different?

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 07:24 PM
"what are you complaining about?"

Justice is never swift enough to suit the Conservative and the Godly.
Rod would have had ole whats-his-name strung up on a flag pole at Fort Hood 30 minutes after he was shot.
Anything less than that is mamby-pamby Liberal Lite Justice.

RodB
11-13-2009, 07:25 PM
1) this started off as going after enemy combatants who had declared war on the USA...you know "Terrorists part of Al Queda... When they were captured, they were not treated as common criminals... but put in Guantanamo...

2) In our court system, they could get off... how do you mix war with a civilian criminal court system?

3) They will most certainly bring up their incarceration at Gitmo and relay how "badly" they were treated, whether true or not...

4) It will be a showcase for Islamic extremists.... lots of PR for their point of view... enabled by the USA...

5) and the families of the victims of 9-11 will have to be subjected to this circus.

Should I go on??

R

RodB
11-13-2009, 07:27 PM
J
ustice is never swift enough to suit the Conservative and the Godly.
Rod would have had ole whats-his-name strung up on a flag pole at Fort Hood 30 minutes after he was shot.
Anything less than that is mamby-pamby Liberal Lite Justice.

I would not have a problem with him being rolled up the the gallows in a wheel chair and hanged after the investigaton is over.:)


The rule of law? Damn right it's what I voted for. If they're "certain of a guilty verdict", what are you complaining about?

You know damn well a guilty verdict could be iffy if you try to hold some type of hybrid trial... meaning you have many things that happened to these guys that would not have happened to common criminals in a civil system. How will the civil court view Gitmo, the process, etc??? THis will be a cluster F__k.
R

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 07:29 PM
No, Rod B, you should not go on. You've already embarrassed yourself, and the rest of us, quite enough already.

Keith Wilson
11-13-2009, 07:34 PM
Terrorism is not war; that's for organized states and armies. While war is certainly not a good thing, it has a certain legitimacy in law and history. Calling it war gives terrorists far more legitimacy than they deserve. They want people to think they're brave warriors for their cause. They're actually common murderers.

RodB
11-13-2009, 07:35 PM
No, Rod B, you should not go on. You've already embarrassed yourself, and the rest of us, quite enough already.

Watch and see the uproar in the country over this... we'll see how far I am out of the mainstream. Another nail in the coffin of Obama's one term presidency.

R

openboater
11-13-2009, 07:39 PM
Even Roosevelt was smarter that Obama. He let the military hang-em down there in Florida, and those guy's didn't even kill anybody. All they did was swim in from their U Boat.

perldog007
11-13-2009, 07:44 PM
If they were arrested here by civilian authorities then yes, civilian trial. Civilian trials for those detained on the battlefield, I am not convinced of the precedent for that. Not really sure if it's a good thing or not.

Don't know enough about it to be definitive, but have to believe there is a reason that it wasn't done sooner and don't believe the reason was "because Bush is/was a moron".

I know some New Yorkers are upset.

MiddleAgesMan
11-13-2009, 07:44 PM
Rob is drinking the repuke koolaid, spouting all the talking points the reps have been repeating ad nauseum throughout the day.

It was perfectly fine for Bush to hold trials for about 150 terrorists since 9/11, in US courts, all of whom are now serving their sentences in maximum securty prisons.

Same old-same old: Bush does it and it shows how strong he was, Obama does it and he's weak.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 07:44 PM
1) this started off as going after enemy combatants who had declared war on the USA...you know "Terrorists part of Al Queda... When they were captured, they were not treated as common criminals... but put in Guantanamo...

That wasn't a good idea at the time.


2) In our court system, they could get off... how do you mix war with a civilian criminal court system?

Only if they're not guilty, in which case, they should get off.


3) They will most certainly bring up their incarceration at Gitmo and relay how "badly" they were treated, whether true or not...

Probably not. The judge in cases like this usually exercises tight control over the types of evidence and arguments that can be introduced.


4) It will be a showcase for Islamic extremists.... lots of PR for their point of view... enabled by the USA...

Often, the best treatment for a pathetic enemy is to put them on display so everyone can see how pathetic they are.


5) and the families of the victims of 9-11 will have to be subjected to this circus.

It's called justice. It's our way.

If the families of murder victims can tolerate trials, so can the 9/11 families.

PeterSibley
11-13-2009, 07:45 PM
There seems to be some confusion ...why am I not surprised .

RodB
11-13-2009, 07:46 PM
Terrorism is not war; that's for organized states and armies. While war is certainly not a good thing, it has a certain legitimacy in law and history. Calling it war gives terrorists far more legitimacy than they deserve. They want people to think they're brave warriors for their cause. They're actually common murderers.

Keith... wake up! Do you have any idea how much less information and how many more attacks we would have had around the world and here...if the captives at Gitmo had been treated as common criminals in our civilian court system... get real. All bets were off after 9-11, at least with an administration that took such an attack as a very serious attack on the future of this country. Remember the interview with Cheney where he said Gitmo was part of the solution based on precedent from WWII... They needed to keep the captives out of the USA as in similar situations in WWII. They felt they were on solid legal ground with what they came up with.


R

John Smith
11-13-2009, 07:47 PM
First of all, this was not an act of terrorism:

ter⋅ror⋅ism  /ˈtɛrhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌrɪzhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA

Use terrorism in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+terrorism+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)


See web results for terrorism (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=terrorism&o=100049)


See images of terrorism (http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=terrorism&o=100049)

–noun 1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Read the above carefully, calling too many violent acts terrorism improperly is, itself, terrorism.

All violent acts done by a member of any religion are not necessarily done BECAUSE the perpetrator is a member of that religion.

Calling murders terrorism generates fear, no?

What I find really amazing is that the conservatives who accused me of "blaming America" for 9/11, are now saying that trying these people in our courts in NYC is inviting an attack.

If we do get attacked, they will be blaming America. If we don't get attacked, I think they'll be disappointed, but I don't know who they'll blame.

I'm still of the opinion we'll not be attacked again until we are done rebuilding at their favorite target.

I'm also proud that we are going to show the world that we trust the system we all claim to be so proud of, rather than cowardly hiding behind tribunals.

ripley699
11-13-2009, 07:47 PM
No, Rod B, you should not go on. You've already embarrassed yourself, and the rest of us, quite enough already.

And just why should he not go on ? He has embarrassed YOU,???,,you must be joking !!
Not only is he spot on, he has managed to bring out the sissy in you ..ya' got no balls garbanzo,you just want to make nice and not offend anyone...some times people need to be offended but that wouldn't be nice would it ,pansy !
The only way I would change Rods ideas is that ,because that towel headed murderer is completly paralyised,maybe we should keep him alive and keep him in a military prison.That way the United States servicemen and women can guard him ,,maybe change his diapers once every day or two,,let him sit in his bed or wheel chair in his own dirty diapers full of ****e all day every day for the rest of his life.other than that,Shoot him a quick one right behind the ears

John Smith
11-13-2009, 07:50 PM
Keith... wake up! Do you have any idea how much less information and how many more attacks we would have had around the world and here...if the captives at Gitmo had been treated as common criminals in our civilian court system... get real. All bets were off after 9-11, at least with an administration that took such an attack as a very serious attack on the future of this country.

R
You lost me here. You think the previous administration took 9/11 seriously? They fooled the hell out of me.

John Smith
11-13-2009, 07:52 PM
That wasn't a good idea at the time.



Only if they're not guilty, in which case, they should get off.



Probably not. The judge in cases like this usually exercises tight control over the types of evidence and arguments that can be introduced.



Often, the best treatment for a pathetic enemy is to put them on display so everyone can see how pathetic they are.



It's called justice. It's our way.

If the families of murder victims can tolerate trials, so can the 9/11 families.
So far, the 9/11 familly/ies heard from support this decision. In fact, they like it.

RodB
11-13-2009, 07:55 PM
Read the above carefully, calling too many violent acts terrorism improperly is, itself, terrorism.

All violent acts done by a member of any religion are not necessarily done BECAUSE the perpetrator is a member of that religion.

Calling murders terrorism generates fear, no?

Thus... after 9-11, we called our actions the "War on Terror" which really meant... "WAR on those who are determined to kill us"....

GET IT?


So far, the 9/11 familly/ies heard from support this decision. In fact, they like it.

This is total BS... I think you will find the real numbers of those for and against in the next few days.... but your comment is not true as of now... just watch the news reports. One poll on Fox was 90% of New York folks were against the trials being held in NY.

R

ljb5
11-13-2009, 07:57 PM
Keith... wake up! Do you have any idea how much less information and how many more attacks we would have had around the world and here...if the captives at Gitmo had been treated as common criminals in our civilian court system.

Obviously, we don't know and neither do you.

You're just speculating.

History shows us that the Bushes and his neocon adherents were wrong about just about everything, so I have no reason to suspect you're right about this.

As it happens, we suffered tens of thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11, claiming something like 6,000 American lives.

GITMO did not keep us terror free. Perhaps it hid the problem from you.

ljb5
11-13-2009, 07:57 PM
Thus... after 9-11, we called our actions the "War on Terror"


Who is "we," Kemosabe?

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 07:59 PM
And just why should he not go on ? He has embarrassed YOU,???,,you must be joking !!
Not only is he spot on, he has managed to bring out the sissy in you ..ya' got no balls garbanzo,you just want to make nice and not offend anyone...some times people need to be offended but that wouldn't be nice would it ,pansy !
The only way I would change Rods ideas is that ,because that towel headed murderer is completly paralyised,maybe we should keep him alive and keep him in a military prison.That way the United States servicemen and women can guard him ,,maybe change his diapers once every day or two,,let him sit in his bed or wheel chair in his own dirty diapers full of ****e all day every day for the rest of his life.other than that,Shoot him a quick one right behind the ears

If you're not a Fundamentalist Christian, you need to join up right away with views like yours.
Persecute the Paralyzed, the quicker the better!
Will that make you feel safer? Or will it simply satisfy your venomous sense of justice?

ripley699
11-13-2009, 08:02 PM
[quote=ljb5;2386681]



As it happens, we suffered tens of thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11, claiming something like 6,000 American lives.

SOURCES PLEASE

Keith Wilson
11-13-2009, 08:03 PM
I think it would be marvelous if those folks were given a very obviously fair trial in New York, convicted and sentenced to death.

From a strictly practical point of view, all morality aside, going outside the law in the "GWOT" has done more damage to our efforts against actual terrorists, both by damaging international cooperation and encouraging new terrorist recruits, than any possible benefit we could have gained. The essential thing is to fight barbarians without becoming barbarians ourselves.

RodB
11-13-2009, 08:07 PM
Obviously, we don't know and neither do you.

You're just speculating.

History shows us that the Bushes and his neocon adherents were wrong about just about everything, so I have no reason to suspect you're right about this.

As it happens, we suffered tens of thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11, claiming something like 6,000 American lives.

GITMO did not keep us terror free. Perhaps it hid the problem from you.

I guess the director of the CIA under Bush was lying when he stated they got lots of valuable info from the war criminals in Gitmo.

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 08:09 PM
Keith... wake up! Do you have any idea how much less information and how many more attacks we would have had around the world and here...if the captives at Gitmo had been treated as common criminals in our civilian court system...

I can't speak for Keith, but no, I don't know how many, and neither do you!

Just shut up, dude. The lauded Republican party hails itself as being the party of Reason, blah, blah, blah, but y'all always come off as a drama-queen, emotion-addicted freakshow.

RodB
11-13-2009, 08:10 PM
I think it would be marvelous if those folks were given a very obviously fair trial in New York, convicted and sentenced to death.

From a strictly practical point of view, all morality aside, going outside the law in the "GWOT" has done more damage to our efforts against actual terrorists, both by damaging international cooperation and encouraging new terrorist recruits, than any possible benefit we could have gained. The essential thing is to fight barbarians without becoming barbarians ourselves.
__________________

Hello, wake up!!! Gitmo did not exist before 9-11, they attacked us anyway...

Note.... how much of our CIA confidential info will be exposed in open court for these trials... How they were caught, etc...
this is insane..

R

PeterSibley
11-13-2009, 08:10 PM
The essential thing is to fight barbarians without becoming barbarians ourselves.

That seems pretty much the nub of it .We have failed so far .

Flying Orca
11-13-2009, 08:11 PM
y'all always come off as a drama-queen, emotion-addicted freakshow.

Hmmm. Fear? Check. Hate? Check. Lies? Check.

Yeah, looks like you're right.

openboater
11-13-2009, 08:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

RodB
11-13-2009, 08:14 PM
I can't speak for Keith, but no, I don't know how many, and neither do you!

Just shut up, dude. The lauded Republican party hails itself as being the party of Reason, blah, blah, blah, but y'all always come off as a drama-queen, emotion-addicted freakshow.


If you fricking lefties know so much... hide and watch the reaction to this abomination over the next couple of weeks... this is the real beginning of the end of the Obama administration... finally enough is enough...

R

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 08:19 PM
.... this is the real beginning of the end of the Obama administration... finally enough is enough...

R

LMAO!!!! Dude!!!! Finally?!?!?!? You mean, after 8 months you've had enough!?!?!?!?

You freakin' lightweight!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Pugwash
11-13-2009, 08:21 PM
Remember the interview with Cheney where he said Gitmo was part of the solution based on precedent from WWII... They needed to keep the captives out of the USA as in similar situations in WWII. They felt they were on solid legal ground with what they came up with.


R

Yup.

They kept WWII captives out of the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_POW_camps_in_the_United_States


:rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
11-13-2009, 08:23 PM
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

I think the Bush administration did great harm by going outside the law, both to the rule of law in the US and to really effective counter-terrorism work, and this decision is one step in our return to decency and good sense.

wardd
11-13-2009, 08:27 PM
to fight a war you need an army, an army is a sanctioned organization.
alqueda hardly fits that description.
they are criminals belonging to a criminal organization

perldog007
11-13-2009, 08:34 PM
I think it would be marvelous if those folks were given a very obviously fair trial in New York, convicted and sentenced to death.

From a strictly practical point of view, all morality aside, going outside the law in the "GWOT" has done more damage to our efforts against actual terrorists, both by damaging international cooperation and encouraging new terrorist recruits, than any possible benefit we could have gained. The essential thing is to fight barbarians without becoming barbarians ourselves.

Personally Keith, I am divided on that point. I agree that we need to lead by example on the one hand. On the other, there ain't no such thing as a fair fight and you don't wear sixteen ounce gloves when the other guy has a blade and a crowbar if you want to see home again.

Part of me feels that we need to show the terrorists that they can't possibly more barbaric than we can when it comes to defeating them.

Part of me feels like that strategy is morally wrong.

That's probably why I am not POTUS. A C-130 full of feral pigs headed to the "Death to America" rally in Tehran.........

If your family is attacked should you mount a 'moral' defense even if you know that fighting fair will likely cause death or injury to your family?

Or do you fight to win?

Does the Torah admonish us to "Arise quickly and kill him' if somebody comes to your home in the night. or is the command to "wake up and engage in a fair fight"?

Does the bible say fight by the Marcus of Queensbury rules or does it advise us to "Sell your cloak and buy a sword".

I don't mean to offend anyone by bringing religion into it, but our founders arguably had judeo-christian morals in mind when they drafted our constitution.

I can see strong arguments for both sides. I would rather we remain moral for as long as we can, realizing that at some point when the gloves are off, the gloves are off.

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 08:36 PM
You boys be nice to Rod and don't make any sudden movements!
There, there, Rod, have some nice warm tea and a coookie and relax.
That's it, rear back in that easy chair, pard, and let God and Obama take care of all this dirty work.
You are not responsible! That's it! Let your blood pressure drop down below 240 over 180. Show us some boat pictures!

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 08:38 PM
... you don't wear sixteen ounce gloves when the other guy has a blade and a crowbar if you want to see home again.
...

There's plenty of guys out there who can put on the 16 ounce gloves and deprive the blade and crowbar crew of their lives.

Pugwash
11-13-2009, 08:39 PM
Is "Marcus of Queensbury" somehow related to the Marques of Queensbury?

Maybe a half-brother with a newly published auto-biography?

:)

Keith Wilson
11-13-2009, 08:40 PM
False dichotomy. I have no objection to using force, a great deal of force, a truly horrifying amount of force even, where it's appropriate and it will do some good. However, some of what has been done was out of a desire for revenge, and a simple-minded outlook that equates brutality with effectiveness. I don't even object to occasionally fighting dirty. I object to being stupid. I object to making the US look like what the Islamist extremists claim it is. I object to doing things that make enemies faster than we can kill them.

Chris Coose
11-13-2009, 08:44 PM
5) and the families of the victims of 9-11 will have to be subjected to this circus.


Subjected to the Constitution?

You must really hate America.

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 08:48 PM
Subjected to the Constitution?

You must really hate America.

He only hates half of America, the Godless Liberal Half!
Hell, if he could just get rid of half of us, he could have a Real America with real Law and Order.:eek::rolleyes::)

ripley699
11-13-2009, 09:08 PM
Subjected to the Constitution?

You must really hate America.
No Chris and you know it ! But like all left wackos you simply change the wording so it fits to an answer that you like.
Rod has no problem with a trial ..BUT why move it to New York ??? just a grand stand for Barry and the boys..
Have the trial ,,,,there are a million and one places to have it,,,Why new York City ?

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 09:14 PM
...Why new York City ?


Why not?

If you were Obama, and you wanted to make dead damned certain that no one could ever accuse you of holding a kangaroo court over this (as you seem particularly bloodthirstily to want to do), where would you hold the trial?

Not that I expect a rational answer, or anything...

perldog007
11-13-2009, 09:18 PM
Is "Marcus of Queensbury" somehow related to the Marques of Queensbury?

Maybe a half-brother with a newly published auto-biography?

:)


Depends on which old movies you like :)

Pugwash
11-13-2009, 09:19 PM
No Chris and you know it ! But like all left wackos you simply change the wording so it fits to an answer that you like.
Rod has no problem with a trial ..BUT why move it to New York ??? just a grand stand for Barry and the boys..
Have the trial ,,,,there are a million and one places to have it,,,Why new York City ?

I suspect that this has less to do with The Constitution and more with International Law which has, previously, been blatantly disregarded.

And, Mr Ripely, if you could direct me to the passage in the Bill of Rights where it says that it only applies to American Citizens, I would be very grateful.

:rolleyes:

perldog007
11-13-2009, 09:19 PM
There's plenty of guys out there who can put on the 16 ounce gloves and deprive the blade and crowbar crew of their lives.
Well we better have all of them on our side if we insist on a fair fight against an enemy who will not be bound by any such considerations.

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 09:21 PM
Well we better have all of them on our side if we insist on a fair fight against an enemy who will not be bound by any such considerations.

They are.

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 09:24 PM
Well we better have all of them on our side if we insist on a fair fight against an enemy who will not be bound by any such considerations.

Who said anything about Fair Fights?
Fair fights are for Losers!

Pugwash
11-13-2009, 09:25 PM
Depends on which old movies you like :)

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_rules


:rolleyes:

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Has anybody else around here ever killed somebody just to put them put of their misery? No? I figgered!:)

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 10:00 PM
Has anybody else around here ever killed somebody just to put them put of their misery? No? I figgered!:)

What about our misery? No? Well that figgers too! :p

Pugwash
11-13-2009, 10:20 PM
Has anybody else around here ever killed somebody just to put them put of their misery? No? I figgered!:)

No.

But then again, I was brought up by someone that that had to do that more times than you would be comfortable with.

And so I will defer my "experience" to my original SAS, Chindit (x2), Korea RSM father.

Who would have kicked my ass if I didn't get an education and didn't do something other than join the Army.

Us children of the "Burma Stars" have a different take on the world.

Google "Chindits".

:)

RodB
11-13-2009, 10:36 PM
Some comments online from 9-11 victim's families...


"We have a president who doesn't know we're at war," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
She told AP news agency she was sickened by "the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys" if the trial focused on torture allegations.



"I'm very, very disappointed in the government," said Anne Ielpi, whose son, Jonathan Ielpi, was a firefighter who was killed in the south tower.
"It's like throwing it in our face again," she said, speaking by phone Friday. "We can't get away from 9/11, we can't."
She said the five, who include confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, should be tried in military court.
"It definitely should have been finished in Cuba," she said.




Dozens of family members of 9/11 victims have signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced the trial decision; President Obama; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposing a civilian trial for the alleged plotters.
They said it would give the men a well-publicized platform, blocks from where the towers stood, in which they could espouse their views.
"It is incomprehensible to us that members of the United States Congress would propose that the same men who today refer to the murder of our loved ones as a 'blessed day' and who targeted the United States Capitol for the same kind of destruction that was wrought in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, should be the beneficiaries of a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy: the United States Constitution," the letter said.




Former Mayor Giuliani's ( paraphrased comments from an interview)

dangerous, ... decision

NY already a target for terrorism

Irresponsible decision

9-11 was an Act of war

First attack on the World Trade Center ...the perpetrators were tried here... it did us no good...

The atty gen etc have elevated process over safety...

once 9-11 happened... how can anyone go back to the mindset before 9-11




US News and World Report....

...The plan that Holder outlined Friday is a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.

"This is definitely a seismic shift in how we're approaching the war on al-Qaida," said Glenn Sulmasy, a law professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy who has written a book on national security justice. "It's certainly surprising that the five masterminds, if you will, of the attacks on the United States will be tried in traditional, open federal courts."

The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

RodB

Pugwash
11-13-2009, 10:46 PM
What do you want RodB?

A quiet execution?

RodB
11-13-2009, 10:50 PM
Friday, November 13, 2009

Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

Real good ideas here.... accommodate the bastards....

R

RodB
11-13-2009, 10:53 PM
What do you want RodB?

A quiet execution?

You have to admit, no matter what we do... let them go, execute them, put them in prison for life... we will still have Islamic Jihadists trying to kill us across the world.

R

perldog007
11-13-2009, 11:02 PM
If KSM and company were ready to plead guilty at military tribunals, I can't understand why we would bring them to NYC, unless Holder wants to dredge for charges against the CIA/CONTRACTORS/GWB? I think that would backfire, so I am at a loss. I don't believe it's some kind of moral imperative, I 'm just too cynical for that.

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 11:02 PM
"trying to kill us across the world"

Rod, Rod, trust me, if you hole up there in Dallas and keep your damn mouth shut, no Jihadists will get you!
Have a nice day!

RodB
11-13-2009, 11:07 PM
Glen, I notice you always fail to answer solid arguments... so you make jokes.... very weak!!!

By Bill Oreilly....
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda big shot involved in planning the 9/11 atrocities, is perhaps the biggest terrorist ever captured by America. For the past three years, Mohammed has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, where he should have been tried in front of a military tribunal. The man is a war criminal who killed thousands of civilians, and it's hard to believe the Obama administration doesn't understand that. So now Mohammed will be tried in a New York civilian court, and Attorney General Eric Holder says he is 'quite confident' of a successful prosecution. Talking Points believes Mohammed will not be on trial - waterboarding and the CIA will be on trial. The exposition is likely to be a fiasco that will take years and cost tens of millions of dollars. President Obama should explain this thoroughly; instead, the announcement is made while he is in Asia. Why didn't he wait until he got back? Because this is indefensible.

Link to rest....http://www.billoreilly.com/show;jsessionid=D6AB0EE62DD86D290913B8CAA822CBC4?a ction=viewTVShow&showID=2471#1
R

High C
11-13-2009, 11:47 PM
Children have been placed in charge of our national security. I hope we can survive it for the next three years. This goes far beyond idiocy. :mad:

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 11:49 PM
Children have been placed in charge of our national security. I hope we can survive it for the next three years. This goes far beyond idiocy. :mad:

Just wanted to make sure you'd been quoted on that. :)

High C
11-13-2009, 11:51 PM
Children

perldog007
11-13-2009, 11:53 PM
I know this is far fetched for most here, but if O'reilly is right, does it matter? What if the CIA/GWOT/BUSH end up on trial. Good thing? Bad thing? looks bad to me if he is right.

RodB
11-13-2009, 11:55 PM
Children have been placed in charge of our national security. I hope we can survive it for the next three years. This goes far beyond idiocy.

Your right on the money....HC


R

oznabrag
11-14-2009, 12:01 AM
I haven't watched your Bill O'Reilly, but don't you werry yer purty lil head none atall, lil feller! Bill is never right.

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 12:03 AM
Glen, I notice you always fail to answer solid arguments... so you make jokes.... very weak!!!

By Bill Oreilly....

Link to rest....http://www.billoreilly.com/show;jsessionid=D6AB0EE62DD86D290913B8CAA822CBC4?a ction=viewTVShow&showID=2471#1
R

Rod, you would not know a solid argument if it bit you on the ass.
You have no idea of your own delusion.
I don't hold that against you!:)

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 12:06 AM
Children have been placed in charge of our national security. I hope we can survive it for the next three years. This goes far beyond idiocy. :mad:

You wish!
Fortunately, your interpretation is flawed.

RodB
11-14-2009, 12:11 AM
Rod, you would not know a solid argument if it bit you on the ass.
You have no idea of your own delusion.
I don't hold that against you!

Glen, you must have drank gallons of Obama coolaid the way your mind works.

Can you ever be objective on this administration??? Do they ever do any wrong... in your opinion????

R

RodB
11-14-2009, 12:19 AM
Most military folks I have seen interviewed on this subject... declared they had lots of confidence in Military Tribunals....

How the hell does a war criminal gain the constitutional rights of a US citizen???

This entire situation is making less and less sense.

R

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 12:22 AM
Glen, you must have drank gallons of Obama coolaid the way your mind works.

Can you ever be objective on this administration??? Do they ever do any wrong... in your opinion????

R

Obama has only been around for a few months, Rod.
I think I am objective!
So far, his policies have Started No Wars, Killed No People, Trashed No Economies!
You are siphoning Kool-Aide in your sleep, Rod. You have Kool-Aide in your genes that you don't even acknowledge.
You are bat**** crazy. I am not! Get over it!

perldog007
11-14-2009, 12:46 AM
I haven't watched your Bill O'Reilly, but don't you werry yer purty lil head none atall, lil feller! Bill is never right.

I didn't see the show either, just the memo posted in the thread. Still If he is right, does it matter? Are there folks who would rather try Bush/CIA than KSM?

perldog007
11-14-2009, 12:53 AM
Children have been placed in charge of our national security. I hope we can survive it for the next three years. This goes far beyond idiocy. :mad:

I am not so sure, have you read "Will" by Liddy? We have survived a lot, this goose is a tough old bird as long as somebody thinks it still has some golden eggs to lay.

I was amazed at how naive those guys were are portrayed in the book. The plot to take out Jack Anderson read like a sitcom script. We survived that crew, I suspect we might live to see the next administration whatever form that takes.

We always seem to hear the TEOTWAKI speech from whichever side lost the last election. Socialists? Leftists? sure, maybe. Children? No I can't go that far.

Will there be pain? probably, but my money is on the republic surviving just fine. The "extremes" on the left and the right get all the media attention, but the media can't fool all of us all the time.

RodB
11-14-2009, 01:05 AM
Obama has only been around for a few months, Rod.
I think I am objective!
So far, his policies have Started No Wars, Killed No People, Trashed No Economies!
You are siphoning Kool-Aide in your sleep, Rod. You have Kool-Aide in your genes that you don't even acknowledge.
You are bat**** crazy. I am not! Get over it!

Still harping back to the wrongs you attribute to Bush... I think you are the one filled with bat****...

So, Glen, you have no problem with Obama not being honest about Hasan at Fort Hood... or this latest fiasco of these trials being held in New York?

ripley699
11-14-2009, 01:21 AM
[quote=Glen Longino;2386898]Obama has only been around for a few months, Rod.
I think I am objective!
So far, his policies have Started No Wars, Killed No People, Trashed No Economy.
Glen you are almost right :he hasn't done those things. But you left out a few :
He hasn't improved the economy he hasn't saved or created a single job , he has spent more money than the last 3 presidents combined and has accomplished not one effing thing except to fly around the world apologizing to every other country about the things America has done and all the while ,he has his golf clubs with him.
so many things he hasn't done would fill this entire web site . he is a do nothing coward who got where he is because he was chosen years ago to be the one to turn the United States into a socialist country.
Ipray to GOD we survive the next 3 years with ....

perldog007
11-14-2009, 01:42 AM
to be a true believer, you have to think that socialism has never worked because the right people have never been in charge.

I can't see any reasons to move the trials to NYC except to put CIA on trial. Gonna go with Rudy and the Wing Nuts on this on this one.

Nicholas Carey
11-14-2009, 01:50 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/self-proclaimed-sept-mastermind-face-trial-ny/

The real beginning of the end of Obama's psycho administration. First Obama would not even call Fort Hood a terrorist attack... then this.... trying enemy combatants in our courts... Is this what you voted for????Why, yes, I do believe I did. Good on Obama.


Only idiots would cause the families of the 9-11 to endure this bull****Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a nation of Laws and not of Men. From the standpont of criminal law, the families/friends of those kiiled in the WTC/Pentagon attacks are not the injured parties. They are, like so many dead in Afghanistand and Iraq, "collateral damage". And like any other bereaved loved ones, Civil Law provides them with avenues of relief.


... not to mention redefining the meaning of terrorist and combatantErrr....this is more a return to long-standing precedent than a redefining of anything...other than the Shrubbery's cavalier rape of standing law.[/quote]

perldog007
11-14-2009, 02:51 AM
I am not so sure I completely agree with you Rod, but I think it's a fair bet that information could come out of the trials that will help Holder go after CIA officers, perhaps throw some heat at past officials. " Military Tribunals" are good enough for our service people, and have been used in past conflicts as far as I know.

Anybody know of past wars/conflicts where combatants have been brought t the States for trial? I'm not a history buff.

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 02:56 AM
[quote=Glen Longino;2386898]Obama has only been around for a few months, Rod.
I think I am objective!
So far, his policies have Started No Wars, Killed No People, Trashed No Economy.
Glen you are almost right :he hasn't done those things. But you left out a few :
He hasn't improved the economy he hasn't saved or created a single job , he has spent more money than the last 3 presidents combined and has accomplished not one effing thing except to fly around the world apologizing to every other country about the things America has done and all the while ,he has his golf clubs with him.
so many things he hasn't done would fill this entire web site . he is a do nothing coward who got where he is because he was chosen years ago to be the one to turn the United States into a socialist country.
Ipray to GOD we survive the next 3 years with ....

He's spent all that money paying for Numb-Nuts' mistakes during his presidency.
We will survive!

stevebaby
11-14-2009, 03:01 AM
he is a do nothing coward who got where he is because he was chosen years ago to be the one to turn the United States into a socialist country.
Ipray to GOD we survive the next 3 years with ....That's the funniest thing I've seen for ages. Thank you for brightening my day.

PeterSibley
11-14-2009, 03:16 AM
That's the funniest thing I've seen for ages. Thank you for brightening my day.

Yep ,he's great isn't he !! A brilliant sense of humor and irony !:rolleyes:

ripley699
11-14-2009, 03:20 AM
Glen,
please try to remember:
The financial problems are the result of wall street thieves and the house of cards the insurance industry built..
It wasn't pres.Bush or Pres.Clinton nor pres.O'bama...it was the den of thieves ,,the captain being Ken Lay.
I am not blaming Pres.O'bama for this mess only that he has done little to correct it...Oh he has done stuff,but it has had minimal effect and when the next tumble comes ,and surely it will come, the pres has nothing left to throw at it ,,,he blew his wad and he has no options unless you consider cowering in front of the Chinese an option. The Chinese just reported a GDP of 8.9 % for the third quarter ,,which every analyst knows is a bunch of whoey..the question is why would they report that? they are going down as well ..all the billion dollar malls in china are empty,as are ours
it is all coming together in a "perfect storm" ,,a
witches brew....nothing can stop it.kinda like a nuclear meltdown:all you can do is throw sand on it and wait .

I am not blaming O'bama for these problems ,nor am I blaming Bush or Clinton......what I am mad at is that Barry and company have not been able to solve this riddle utilizing the greatest minds we have at our disposal...that pisses me off
we need to stop that crap about who was at fault for this mess they all were,,,none of them were,,what matters is what is next

seanz
11-14-2009, 03:33 AM
Talking Points believes Mohammed will not be on trial - waterboarding and the CIA will be on trial. The exposition is likely to be a fiasco that will take years and cost tens of millions of dollars.


Waterboarding etc. will have to go on trial eventually.........

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 03:51 AM
Glen,
please try to remember:
The financial problems are the result of wall street thieves and the house of cards the insurance industry built..
It wasn't pres.Bush or Pres.Clinton nor pres.O'bama...it was the den of thieves ,,the captain being Ken Lay.
I am not blaming Pres.O'bama for this mess only that he has done little to correct it...Oh he has done stuff,but it has had minimal effect and when the next tumble comes ,and surely it will come, the pres has nothing left to throw at it ,,,he blew his wad and he has no options unless you consider cowering in front of the Chinese an option. The Chinese just reported a GDP of 8.9 % for the third quarter ,,which every analyst knows is a bunch of whoey..the question is why would they report that? they are going down as well ..all the billion dollar malls in china are empty,as are ours
it is all coming together in a "perfect storm" ,,a
witches brew....nothing can stop it.kinda like a nuclear meltdown:all you can do is throw sand on it and wait .

I am not blaming O'bama for these problems ,nor am I blaming Bush or Clinton......what I am mad at is that Barry and company have not been able to solve this riddle utilizing the greatest minds we have at our disposal...that pisses me off
we need to stop that crap about who was at fault for this mess they all were,,,none of them were,,what matters is what is next

I agree that what matters is our future.
Where is Nostradamus when we need him?:)
Barry and company have not solved this riddle because they have had only 9 months to cure 8 years of incompetent mis-management.
Be patient!

Joe (SoCal)
11-14-2009, 05:55 AM
Children

Fat

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-14-2009, 06:41 AM
We never called the IRA and the UDF and the rest of them "enemy combatants" - we called them criminals and we treated them as criminals. Bobby Sands and a few others went on hunger strike to make us change our minds so we let them die.

Most of us here think there was a mistake made by the Bush administration early on. By calling terrorists "enemy combatants" rather than criminals and speaking of a "war on terror" the Bush administration gave away the point that Thatcher defended throughout the IRA campaign.

elf
11-14-2009, 08:41 AM
.O'bama...... Pres.O'bama ...... O'bama

There is no apostrophe in Obama.

High C
11-14-2009, 08:48 AM
There is no apostrophe is Obama.

http://www.barack-obama-now.com/pix-2007/obama-green-shirt.jpg

Mrleft8
11-14-2009, 08:58 AM
Where do these nut cases come from anyway?......... Oh...."Dallas"......Never mind....:rolleyes:

C. Ross
11-14-2009, 09:00 AM
I think Nuremburg is the relevant model, and New York the appropriate venue. I'm pretty sure the Dept of Justice can find a tough federal judge in New York to keep a lid on this.

SWMBO the Lawyer and I talked about this last night. If Obama and Holder had committed to having a criminal trial for all Guantanamo detainees, there would be problems as convictions would be very difficult. The DOJ knows this, and has been clear this is not their direction. (SWMBO is one of those outraged that Holder's DOJ maintained many decisions from the Ashcroft-Gonzales-Mukasey DOJ. I believe this shows Obama and Holder understand the lousy situation they are in, but thankfully are choosing to be pragmatic.)

The only potential downside of this decision is whether it creates a precedent for criminal trials for all Guantanamo defendants as a class. We'll see.

perldog007
11-14-2009, 09:06 AM
Waterboarding etc. will have to go on trial eventually.........

But will it be during the KSM trial? Is that the right time?

elf
11-14-2009, 09:10 AM
http://www.barack-obama-now.com/pix-2007/obama-green-shirt.jpg

:D:D:D

High C
11-14-2009, 09:16 AM
....The only potential downside of this decision is whether it creates a precedent for criminal trials for all Guantanamo defendants as a class....

How could it not? The law is obsessed with the concept of precedent these days. One mistake gets by, and it becomes set in stone. Happens all the time.

C. Ross
11-14-2009, 09:31 AM
Norman Bernstein One has to wonder if ANY of these implications had dawned on the Bush administration, when they came up with the idea of using Guantanamo. I'm sure they thought they were being very clever, keeping the detainees within US control, but away from US courts. It was a bitterly cynical plan, and the fruits of that scheme are simply coming home to rest.

There can only be one standard of justice.... the minute we create lessor standards, we become hypocrites to our own principles.


How could it not? The law is obsessed with the concept of precedent these days. One mistake gets by, and it becomes set in stone. Happens all the time.

We arrive at the nub of the problem!

The Bush approach to Guantanamo only worked if it allowed permanent detention of prisoners of war, conviction under military tribunals, or rendition to the prisoners' nation of origin. Maybe also under a couple of other conditions.

I opposed Bush's approach to Iraq and the management of al quaeda, but if I try hard to be fair, imagine what they might have been thinking: when first detainees arrived at Gitmo, the "hot wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were still going on, and the Bush administration might have foreseen thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of captured terrorists and Baathist war criminals from Iraq and Afghanistan.

We ended up with far fewer "terrorist captives", captured under chaotic conditions, and the need for "intelligence from interrogation" (an odious concept under best conditions, a horrific one as it was actually managed at Gitmo as far as we know) was seen as paramount over management of captives.

So we are caught between wind and water, running not a POW camp for former SS Guards to be tried for war crimes, but a detention facility subject neither to rule of law or rule or war. What a mess!

I hope this trial doesn't create a precedent. These defendants are being tried for very specific criminal acts, my understanding is that other detainees have not been arraigned on any kind of criminal charge and are therefore unrecognizable by a criminal court. The Holder DOJ has not given them access to habeus corpus which could allow them to force a criminal court to recognize them. As I wrote before, we'll see how long this can last...

oznabrag
11-14-2009, 09:34 AM
There is no apostrophe in Obama.

According to the Corrigan Brothers, there's no one as Irish as Barack Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNY7Npjw1fA :p

Puts a whole new meaning on the term 'Black Irish'! ;)

:D

jbelow
11-14-2009, 10:39 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/self-proclaimed-sept-mastermind-face-trial-ny/

The real beginning of the end of Obama's psycho administration. First Obama would not even call Fort Hood a terrorist attack... then this.... trying enemy combatants in our courts... Is this what you voted for????

Only idiots would cause the families of the 9-11 to endure this bull**** ... not to mention redefining the meaning of terrorist and combatant... these guys are nuts! This type of trial is just for show.... since Holder said they were certain of a guilty verdict... gimme a break

RodB

RodB , don't sweat it . These terrorist trials will be a big libturd circus act. They will go on for years. It is not about justice , it is about Ideology. The libturds desire to bash the dead horse George Bush and tweek the conservatives. If it was about justice , most of these terrorist would already be executed. This is a good for our country. The moderates and non-politicos will choose the right side. They will see how screwed up the great undecider BO and his libturd friends are. In 2010 and 2012 , we will have new leadership.

Flying Orca
11-14-2009, 10:43 AM
RodB , don't sweat it . These terrorist trials will be a big libturd circus act. They will go on for years. It is not about justice , it is about Ideology. The libturds desire to bash the dead horse George Bush and tweek the conservatives. If it was about justice , most of these terrorist would already be executed. This is a good for our country. The moderates and non-politicos will choose the right side. They will see how screwed up the great undecider BO and his libturd friends are. In 2010 and 2012 , we will have new leadership.

I LOL'D AN LOL'D!!!1!one

You're a political sophisticate without parallel, sir. :p

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 10:54 AM
I LOL'D AN LOL'D!!!1!one

You're a political sophisticate without parallel, sir. :p

And you, Sir, are a libturd!:)

elf
11-14-2009, 10:55 AM
What I want to know, Cris, is where are the other Republicans like you and Kathleen Parker blogging to each other. I read Andrew Sullivan every day, and he sounds, most of the time, like the same sort of "caught between a rock and hard place" Republican I understand you to be. But his cohort is mostly silent in his email, or he doesn't report much from them if they're talking.

Surely they're conversing about the state of their party somewhere. Do you know where?

jbelow
11-14-2009, 10:57 AM
I LOL'D AN LOL'D!!!1!one

You're a political sophisticate without parallel, sir. :p

I know that is too simple for you , but watch the circus trials and take notes on how much the trial attorneys will bash the Bush administration in defence of the terrorist. Watch the elections of 2010 & 2012.

jbelow
11-14-2009, 10:59 AM
And you, Sir, are a libturd!:)

Glen , STOP IT! Do not use my words.

ccmanuals
11-14-2009, 11:01 AM
Most military folks I have seen interviewed on this subject... declared they had lots of confidence in Military Tribunals....

How the hell does a war criminal gain the constitutional rights of a US citizen???

This entire situation is making less and less sense.

R

Most military people I know actually think just the opposite (and I suspect I know a lot more military than you do).

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 11:01 AM
Glen , STOP IT! Do not use my words.
:D:D

C. Ross
11-14-2009, 11:19 AM
What I want to know, Cris, is where are the other Republicans like you and Kathleen Parker blogging to each other. I read Andrew Sullivan every day, and he sounds, most of the time, like the same sort of "caught between a rock and hard place" Republican I understand you to be. But his cohort is mostly silent in his email, or he doesn't report much from them if they're talking.

Surely they're conversing about the state of their party somewhere. Do you know where?

Why Moderate Republicans Suck (http://themoderatevoice.com/40392/why-moderate-republicans-suck/)

I used to go to church with the author; a black, gay, Presbyterian seminarian, Republican. (Hey, we really do believe in a Big Tent y'know!)

One of Dennis's best points:
One of the glaring problems among moderates in the GOP is the lack of a counterpart to the Democratic Leadership Council. (http://www.ndol.org/) The DLC describes itself as a organization started to bring Democrats out of the “political wilderness. ” The goal was to moderate the Democratic Party and wrest it from the hands of the liberals who controlled the party and brought it to defeat. If you go to the DLC website, you find papers on various issues from immigration to health care, all placing a centrist Democratic spin on things. There really isn’t a counterpart among Republicans. Also, centrist Republicans are almost exclusively institutionalists who like to change from within, not break down walls from outside. You're unlikely to hear us rock the boat. We're also usually busy DOING things -- running families, businesses, non-profits.

Personally, I've gotten myself drawn back into government as a volunteer, so I've kind of recused myself from politics for the moment.

Flying Orca
11-14-2009, 11:24 AM
watch the circus trials and take notes on how much the trial attorneys will bash the Bush administration in defence of the terrorist.

I'll be paying attention to the trials, don't fret your purty li'l head none about that. While I do expect some condemnation of the Bush administration, if the Bush administration did wrong, condemnation is the proper response. That, however, has little relevance to the defendant's guilt.

jbelow
11-14-2009, 12:01 PM
I'll be paying attention to the trials, don't fret your purty li'l head none about that. While I do expect some condemnation of the Bush administration, if the Bush administration did wrong, condemnation is the proper response. That, however, has little relevance to the defendant's guilt.

If that is the case . Why beat the dead horse George Bush? Is the old Bush administration on trail or are the terrorist on trial.

ljb5
11-14-2009, 12:19 PM
Is the old Bush administration on trail or are the terrorist on trial.

The terrorists are on trial. Duh.

The judge will almost certainly prevent the introduction of any evidence or arguments not related to the charges against the terrorists.

We have a pretty good criminal justice system in this country. Probably the best in the world. It was good enough for Tim McVeigh, it'll be good enough for these guys.

Not sure why anyone thinks otherwise.

jbelow
11-14-2009, 12:27 PM
The terrorists are on trial. Duh.

The judge will almost certainly prevent the introduction of any evidence or arguments not related to the charges against the terrorists.

We have a pretty good criminal justice system in this country. Probably the best in the world. It was good enough for Tim McVeigh, it'll be good enough for these guys.

Not sure why anyone thinks otherwise.

I take it that you mean there will not be politics in this trial like the OJ Simpson trial ? ljb5 , I hope your right.

ljb5
11-14-2009, 12:36 PM
I take it that you mean there will not be politics in this trial like the OJ Simpson trial ? ljb5 , I hope your right.

Not sure what you're talking about. I don't know of any "politics" in the OJ trial.

There was an issue about the competence of the investigators and the quality of the evidence they presented.

It kinda sounds like you want more politics in this 9/11 trial, not less.

bobbys
11-14-2009, 01:12 PM
On Larry king alive ,{Wolf Blitzer guest hosting}One of his guests on that segment was Jamie Rubin, former State Department official in the Clinton administration (and husband of CNN's Christiane Amanpour). Here is a portion of that discussion: BLITZER: Jamie Rubin, you understand what's going on right now. They could have been brought to the United States, perhaps to a military tribunal or a military commission. Instead they're going to the federal court system in New York City and a lot of people are pretty angry about that. RUBIN: Well, this is a function of an election we had last year, in which President Obama made clear that his approach to the war on terrorism was not the Bush administration's approach. It was not to see these things all done through military commissions. It was not to keep people in Guantanamo indefinitely.[...]
This may turn out to be an opportunity for some people to get some of the justice they've been looking for for a long time and may show that the civilian court system can succeed in certain cases where the evidence is clear, is overwhelming and where you don't need to use all this secret evidence or evidence that's been obtained through the torture program of the Bush administration. [....]
There is a -- a problem. And problem is that the United States believes it is important that our standards of justice be restored after eight years of waterboarding and Guantanamo Bay and the events of Iraq and the prisons there. And that did great damage to the reputation of the United States as the -- the country that has used the rule of law as our benefit around the world.[....]

And that is that after eight years, we get the world to see our justice system operating properly and in accord with what the rest of the civilized countries of the world believe is the way to go..

IF there doing this to put Bush on trial it may backfire on them.

I was tortured!!!!.

Case Dismissed.

jbelow
11-14-2009, 01:12 PM
Not sure what you're talking about. I don't know of any "politics" in the OJ trial.

There was an issue about the competence of the investigators and the quality of the evidence they presented.

It kinda sounds like you want more politics in this 9/11 trial, not less.

OK ! ljb5 , you can believe that but I can't.

ljb5
11-14-2009, 01:29 PM
I was tortured!!!!.

Case Dismissed.


If you believe our criminal justice system works that way, you could make a fortune as a defense attorney.

More likely, the judge will simply say that the trial is limited to the criminal activities of the defendants and anything that happened after that is not relevant to the case, cannot be introduced as evidence and cannot be introduced as defense.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

If torture is an issue, it will be addressed as a separate criminal prosecution against those who authorized or engaged in it, and has no bearing on the guilt of innocence of the GITMO detainees.

C. Ross
11-14-2009, 01:35 PM
More likely, the judge will simply say that the trial is limited to the criminal activities of the defendants and anything that happened after that is not relevant to the case, cannot be introduced as evidence and cannot be introduced as defense.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

This is the challenging issue that Norm and High C and I were discussing earlier. The judge will certainly try to suppress irrelevant evidence. The government will certainly try to limit access to intelligence information, and will try to work with evidence that was not obtained through torture or other illegal means.

But the defense should be aggressive, and they will try every technique possible to force in evidence that will either acquit their clients or end the trial.

If Obama wanted to play politics he would have done something different. In this case the high road is the rockiest road.

But there is a significant chance that this prosecution will not end in conviction (and imprisonment or execution) because of good attorney advocacy and inability of the judge to contain things.

A risk we should take, but one would be foolish to deny the risks.

Flying Orca
11-14-2009, 02:18 PM
Is the old Bush administration on trail or are the terrorist on trial.

In the trial to which the thread refers, it will be the terrorist(s). I for one hope the Bush administration will be brought to trial for its crimes, as well, if there is reason to believe it has committed same.

RodB
11-14-2009, 02:20 PM
As you read the reactions to the trials being held in NY... it certainly looks to break down along party lines... for the most part...

Many on the left have consistently criticized Bush supporters as unable to see any fault with the leader they voted for.... which for the most part was not true IMHO... but flip things around, you Obama supporters do not seem able to see anything past your support of Obama. I guess it'll be like this till his term is over.... sigh!

R

ljb5
11-14-2009, 02:36 PM
But there is a significant chance that this prosecution will not end in conviction (and imprisonment or execution) because of good attorney advocacy and inability of the judge to contain things.

A risk we should take, but one would be foolish to deny the risks.

That's a possibility, but I wouldn't consider it a "risk."

If the case against him cannot be proved, then finding him not guilty is the right thing to do, not a "risk."

Regardless, if these people are found not guilty, I suspect that their future activities will be so carefully monitored and impeded that they will never again pose a threat to anyone. There's a good chance they'd just be thrown back in prison on the same shaky legal ground that they were originally thrown in.

I'm not really proud of that, but what can you do? Some people want to hang them without a trial, some want to hang them with a trial.... sounds like a compromise.

ahp
11-14-2009, 02:53 PM
I very strongly believe in trial in open court, rules of evidence, and due process of law. Am I then a libturd? I think I am a good traditional American.

Closed secrete trials are always suspect, with good reason. You and I might actually agree that one way to keep governments honest is keep out in the open and fully illuminated.

Nicholas Carey
11-14-2009, 04:46 PM
I think Nuremburg is the relevant model, and New York the appropriate venue. I'm pretty sure the Dept of Justice can find a tough federal judge in New York to keep a lid on this.Luckily, the executive branch doesn't get to "pick a judge". All they get to do is file the case with the District Court having jurisdiction in the case (since the WTC attack occurred in Manhattan, the court having jurisdiction is the 2nd Circuit's NY Southern District Court). The court itself assigns the case to a judge. Outside of prosecuting the trial, the DoJ and Executive branch are out of the picture. It's this quaint little thing we have here in America called "Separation of Powers". We are rather fond of it.

Cases are randomly assigned within each court. I believe that in general, cases are placed on a judge's docket via the simple method of the Clerk pretty much rolling the dice when the case is filed.

From the Federal Courts FAQ:
Q: How are judges assigned to cases?
Judge assignment methods vary. The basic considerations in making assignments are to assure equitable distribution of caseload and avoid judge shopping. By statute, the chief judge of each district court has the responsibility to enforce the court's rules and orders on case assignments. Each court has a written plan or system for assigning cases. The majority of courts use some variation of a random drawing.

One simple method is to rotate the names of available judges. At times judges having special expertise can be assigned cases by type, such as complex criminal cases, asbestos-related cases, or prisoner cases. The benefit of this system is that it takes advantage of the expertise developed by judges in certain areas. Sometimes cases may be assigned based on geographical considerations. For example, in a large geographical area it may be best to assign a case to a judge located at the site where the case was filed. Courts also have a system to check if there is any conflict that would make it improper for a judge to preside over a particular case.


Closed secrete trials are always suspect, with good reason. You and I might actually agree that one way to keep governments honest is keep out in the open and fully illuminated.Not to mention illegal and unconstitutional.


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

No Star Chambers in this country.

McMike
11-14-2009, 05:21 PM
I think it’s impossible to try this in a civilian court. That ship sailed long ago. As said above, the civil rights of these people were destroyed long ago. Also, sorry if I’m repeating but I think this trial is a sham. This country will never let these people go it’s very clear this is a show trial. Seriously, by the book, these men should be let go. We are fooling and making a fool out of ourselves. I agree that the only way to do this is through an international commission or through a US military trail.

perldog007
11-14-2009, 05:38 PM
I am not sure that it's impossible to try it in NYC, just inadvisable. Mukasey's view in the WSJ highlighted the intel risk.

I agree it's on mostly party lines. Most of those who opposed Bush and GWOT want to see the trials held in civilian court.

I opposed Iraq, enhanced interrogation ( took JSM's word on that one, he would know) and am in general opposed to rendition and all the CIA supra legal type of stuff.

Having said all that, still don't think we need to put these guys on a stage and give them rights by bringing them into the U.S. legal system.

What I think don't count it's going down.

McMike
11-14-2009, 05:44 PM
Impossible according to the law that is. These people have no place in our mainstream legal system.

C. Ross
11-14-2009, 06:26 PM
Luckily, the executive branch doesn't get to "pick a judge". ...

No Star Chambers in this country.

Oh, I agree with you Nicholas. Notice I said "find" not "pick". My point is that the attorney general will try hard to find an especially circumspect judge. (And the defense will do their best as well!)

The 2nd Circuit has many tough and experienced trial judges. It shouldn't surprise us if the chief judge assigns this case to a "superstar".


ljb5 If the case against him cannot be proved, then finding him not guilty is the right thing to do, not a "risk."

Yeah. To be clear, I think the risk is entirely political -- that wasn't the easiest move for Obama and Holder, but it was the right thing to do.

Chris Coose
11-14-2009, 08:06 PM
Have the trial ,,,,there are a million and one places to have it,,,Why new York City ?

Ah, because that is where the boom-boom occured?

perldog007
11-14-2009, 08:12 PM
OTOH, if military tribunals are good enough for our troops, then why not for those who are caught on the battlefield?