PDA

View Full Version : Shoe Bomber vs. Underwear Bomber



ljb5
12-30-2009, 08:12 PM
Looks like someone deleted the thread, but it wasn't me.

johnw
12-30-2009, 08:16 PM
It may have had something to do with Donn posting an actionable libel, claiming someone had 'stolen' some writing that was clearly attributed. You'd think Donn would know a thing or two about libel, since he makes such a big deal of his publishing days.

Anyway, the thread was getting nasty, and much of what was said won't be missed.

Bob Smalser
12-30-2009, 08:17 PM
Looks like someone deleted the thread, but it wasn't me.

To answer your question. McVeigh and Kaz were US citizens. Reid and Moussaoui were foreign nationals and could be tried in either system, as can this week's Nigerian jihadi.

But Obama has gone far beyond that, and intends to confer rights on GTMO foreign nationals captured overseas that are unprecedented:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/npr-shocker-attorney-general-holder-stumped-lindsey-graham


SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.


The issue here is largely about intelligence. Now that the Nigerian has been put into the civilian system he has lawyered up and shut up, hampering our ability to find out what we need to prevent the next wave of jihadi attacks.

TimH
12-30-2009, 08:19 PM
It may have had something to do with Donn posting an actionable libel, claiming someone had 'stolen' some writing that was clearly attributed. You'd think Donn would know a thing or two about libel, since he makes such a big deal of his publishing days.

Anyway, the thread was getting nasty, and much of what was said won't be missed.

Donn is the reason Norm is banned too.

ljb5
12-30-2009, 08:26 PM
To answer your question. McVeigh and Kaz were US citizens. Reid and Moussaoui were foreign nationals and could be tried in either system, as can this week's Nigerian jihadi.

But Obama has gone far beyond that, and intends to confer rights on GTMO foreign nationals captured overseas that are unprecedented:


SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

Either you or Mr. Graham are being loose with the facts. Mr. Abdulmutallab was not caught "on the battlefield."

He was caught on a U.S. civilian aircraft.

We have laws in place already for dealing with that. We have a good legal system with excellent precedents and a long record of success. That's no longer good enough?

ljb5
12-30-2009, 08:29 PM
Now that the Nigerian has been put into the civilian system he has lawyered up and shut up, hampering our ability to find out what we need to prevent the next wave of jihadi attacks.

Actually, our civilian legal system has an excellent history of securing cooperation and information from defendants.

Much better than torture, which has been proven to be an effective method of obtaining false and useless information.

perldog007
12-30-2009, 08:32 PM
Either you or Mr. Graham are being loose with the facts. Mr. Abdulmutallab was not caught "on the battlefield."

He was caught on a U.S. civilian aircraft.

We have laws in place already for dealing with that. We have a good legal system with excellent precedents and a long record of success. That's no longer good enough?

That could go either way, U.S. civilian aircraft have been part of "the battlefield" since 9/11. Are you saying that Al Queda is not an enemy of the U.S. but rather just a criminal organization?

Bob Smalser
12-30-2009, 08:36 PM
Actually, our civilian legal system has an excellent history of securing cooperation and information from defendants.


Right. And protecting sensitive information, too. Fairy tales. What happened to that defense lawyer again of the first World Trade Center bombers in 1993?

Captain Blight
12-30-2009, 08:38 PM
That could go either way, U.S. civilian aircraft have been part of "the battlefield" since 9/11. Are you saying that Al Queda is not an enemy of the U.S. but rather just a criminal organization?Either and both. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Not that it matters, the Underpants Bomber can be shanked in either Leavenworth or Raiford.

Tom Montgomery
12-30-2009, 08:41 PM
And how was the Richard Reid case handled during the Dubya/Cheney administration, hmmm?

I'll give you a clue: he is not currently residing in GTMO.

Tom Montgomery
12-30-2009, 08:43 PM
Gee... I like Norm. :)

ljb5
12-30-2009, 08:44 PM
Are you saying that Al Queda is not an enemy of the U.S. but rather just a criminal organization?

It's a difficult question. Bush spent seven years in court trying to justify his position, with mixed results.

On the other hand, Richard Reid is serving life without parole in a supermax prison. Slam dunk.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that we're going to define the entire planet as "battlefield" whenever we want. We've got Posse Comitatus and such because American citizens don't want to live under perpetual martial law.

Bob Smalser
12-30-2009, 08:46 PM
And how was the Richard Reid case handled during the Dubya/Cheney administration, hmmm?


Here's a clue:

There wasn't a GTMO when Reid was captured. Nor was there a modern procedure for military tribunals. All that came later. In the case of military tribunals, several years later.

ljb5
12-30-2009, 08:51 PM
Here's a clue:

There wasn't a GTMO when Reid was captured. Nor was there a modern procedure for military tribunals. All that came later. In the case of military tribunals, several years later.

Yup. Bush made it up as he went along.... and spent years trying to get it right. Shaky legal foundation and poor precedence is not a good way to handle critical matters.

Meanwhile, Richard Reid is still sitting in that Supermax. Slam dunk.

perldog007
12-30-2009, 08:55 PM
It's a difficult question. Bush spent seven years in court trying to justify his position, with mixed results.

On the other hand, Richard Reid is serving life without parole in a supermax prison. Slam dunk.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that we're going to define the entire planet as "battlefield" whenever we want. We've got Posse Comitatus and such because American citizens don't want to live under perpetual martial law.

I am not sure where we put the line, I am not comfortable with expanding the definition of unlawful combatant until it can be applied capriciously, but feel the distinction has value on paper anyway.

Not sure I am okay with this guy being lawyered up and not talking. When all is said and done, we took him into custody on U.S. soil.

ljb5
12-30-2009, 08:57 PM
BTW, Bob: Bush authorized military tribunals in November of 2001, more than a month before the shoe bomber.

TimH
12-30-2009, 09:35 PM
If you think what I said is 'actionable,' why don't you take action? You've got lots of blah, but no hair.



Norm is the reason Norm was banned. I don't miss him in the least.

idiot

Norm is an intelligent guy who is fun to have around.

You - not so much.

Captain Blight
12-30-2009, 09:52 PM
I am not sure where we put the line, I am not comfortable with expanding the definition of unlawful combatant until it can be applied capriciously, but feel the distinction has value on paper anyway.

Not sure I am okay with this guy being lawyered up and not talking. When all is said and done, we took him into custody on U.S. soil.
Hmmm... First, you might want to re-think the bolded statement? Are you sure this is how the word 'capricious' is to be used?

Second, the term, "enemy combatant" is nebulous at best and a legal grey area at worst. Okay, though, he's lawyered up. I'm not sure that it makes a great deal of difference, he's going to have an awfully confining rest of his (probably short) life. You know it, I know it, the White House knows it and the underwear bomber knows it.

I really don't see how anyone can complain about how the rule of law is applied as long as the rule of law is followed. A nation is a product of its laws. When the laws and the application of those laws becomes situational, then the nation to whom those laws belong ceases to be a nation.

Statistically speaking, hardly anyone ever wins the lottery. Statistically speaking, hardly anyone ever dies in terror attacks.

I don't think that the finest legal minds in the country have decided to base legal policy on statistical outliers.

Paul Girouard
12-30-2009, 10:34 PM
Donn is the reason Norm is banned too.



Typical liberal / progressive thinking:rolleyes: Norm is the reason Norm is banned!

Always someone / some thing else to blame eh:rolleyes:


Why not blame Bush? He started the war , recession , 9/11 attack, or what ever else Donn and Norm where arguing about.


Edited to add:
I should have read the whole thread, I see you already have blamed Bush , Donn , the war etc, etc. for Norm's choice of words.

It figures:rolleyes:

Tom Galyen
12-30-2009, 10:47 PM
What would you think if you found out that you would go down in the history books, for as long as there is history, as the "Underpants Bomber?"

I don't know about anyone else here, but I would not want to show up at a supermax prison with that title. I'd hope for a short life.

The title of this thread suggests that we define the difference between the two attempts. I'd say the biggest difference is in what part of the anatomy got burned.

Lastly as an aside note, when Janet Napolitano first said that the Homeland Security system worked as it should, did she mean that aircraft passengers should beat the snot out of people who attempt to blow up airliners? If so this could make flying much more interesting.

S/V Laura Ellen
12-30-2009, 10:51 PM
What would you think if you found out that you would go down in the history books, for as long as there is history, as the "Underpants Bomber?"...


LONDON -- A man suspected of donning only underwear and a ski mask before frequenting public parks, pathways and trails in Sarnia and Lambton County was arrested yesterday and several computers seized from his home, police say.
The man has been seen in several public areas, most often Canatara Park, since January 2006 and is so notorious he's mentioned frequently on Facebook.
"It's certainly a little different," said Sarnia Const. Bill Baines. "It's not something that we deal with on a daily basis.
"The man talks to people, sometimes he runs across a path, sometimes he masturbates."
There have been no reports of the man touching anyone, Baines said.
"I'm no expert in these matters, but considering these incidents are done in public, on trails and pathways where he's bound to run into people, I think he goes places where he can fulfil a need to be seen."
The man's appearances have been so frequent there are several Facebook groups devoted to him -- people call him the Underwear Man or Undie Man.
On a Facebook group called "You know you're from Sarnia when . . ." several people write about sightings of "The Underwear Man."
There are also discussion groups among people who've seen the man and those who have talked to him. Some claim they've taken his picture.
But it's no laughing matter, Baines said. "It's almost as if it's a form of entertainment. In my mind, it's a very dangerous form of entertainment. These people are indulging this guy. It poses a concern because of what he's up to and whether he would ever go beyond self-gratification."
Sarnia police and Lambton OPP officers are going through the hard drives of computers seized in the man's home and want people who have seen the man to come forward.
Based on Internet chatter, Baines said, police think many people have failed to report encounters with the man.
Anyone who has encountered the man is asked to contact police at 519-344-8861 ext. 5300.
Scott Bedell, 48, of Corunna is charged with voyeurism and wearing a mask while committing an indictable offence. He remains in custody and is scheduled to reappear in court Monday.
kate.dubinski@sunmedia.ca -- with files by Sun Media reporter Cathy Dobson


If you're curious, just ask Undie Man.:D
http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeGlobalnav/invisible.gif

Tom Galyen
12-30-2009, 10:55 PM
"Undie Man?" Oh is he ever going have a good time in the slammer. Maybe as much as the "Underpants Bomber."

ljb5
12-30-2009, 10:59 PM
The title of this thread suggests that we define the difference between the two attempts. I'd say the biggest difference is in what part of the anatomy got burned.

The intent of the original thread was to ask why the Republicans supported Bush's decision to try Reid in civilian court, yet whine like a bunch of babies when Obama wants to try Abdulmutallab the same.

No one on the other thread was able to address that hypocrisy. Rick-Mi tried to divert it with a discussion of Ms. Napolitano's gaffe, Donn tried to divert it by accusing TimH of plagiarism, despite the fact that we could all see that Tim clearly credited the author.... and then Bob Smalser tried to divert it by acting senile.

TimH
12-30-2009, 11:09 PM
Typical liberal / progressive thinking:rolleyes: Norm is the reason Norm is banned!

Always someone / some thing else to blame eh:rolleyes:


Why not blame Bush? He started the war , recession , 9/11 attack, or what ever else Donn and Norm where arguing about.


Edited to add:
I should have read the whole thread, I see you already have blamed Bush , Donn , the war etc, etc. for Norm's choice of words.

It figures:rolleyes:

Im not the one who started it. I was minding my own business and along comes Donnald and accuses me of plagiarism.

LeeG
12-30-2009, 11:23 PM
I haven't heard the phrase "lawyered up" often. Is this Cheneys catch word?

Strange but I suppose that's a reflection of Cheneys status, able to use lawyers as soldiers in domestic warfare.

ljb5
12-30-2009, 11:30 PM
Im not the one who started it. I was minding my own business and along comes Donnald and accuses me of plagiarism.

And then we explained to him about six times that it was properly attributed and he still insisted he wasn't mistaken. :rolleyes:

perldog007
12-30-2009, 11:56 PM
I am pretty comfortable with my statement. I would rather give the underpants bomber full rights of our legal system than to see folks labeled unlawful enemy combatants on a whim according to prevailing political winds, or in an unpredictable manner. That's what I take capriciously to mean.

The quality or length of the suspect's life is secondary to the ability to extract information from him. Still, I would rather see that compromised than to see the government empowered to suspend the constitution whenever we decide the person under arrest is a terrorist.

At the end of the day, I have to agree with putting this clown through the system as a civilian. He was on U.S. soil when we nabbed him and I believe that entails certain rights.

Of course there are all kinds of situational exceptions to our laws, but this is one area where I hope we don't see a shift.

It's not so much the direct damage that terrorists do, it's the fear they instill. Years later we still have to take off our shoes at the airport thanks to Richard Reid, now we have the drawers bomber. More time and money spent on screening.

perldog007
12-31-2009, 12:00 AM
The intent of the original thread was to ask why the Republicans supported Bush's decision to try Reid in civilian court, yet whine like a bunch of babies when Obama wants to try Abdulmutallab the same.

No one on the other thread was able to address that hypocrisy. Rick-Mi tried to divert it with a discussion of Ms. Napolitano's gaffe, Donn tried to divert it by accusing TimH of plagiarism, despite the fact that we could all see that Tim clearly credited the author.... and then Bob Smalser tried to divert it by acting senile.

First things first, partisan hypocrisy which is not an exclusively red or blue trait. Second, perhaps lessons learned from trying Al Queda operators and leaders in civilian court have been learned?

ljb5
12-31-2009, 12:09 AM
...perhaps lessons learned from trying Al Queda operators and leaders in civilian court have been learned?

What would those lessons be?

perldog007
12-31-2009, 12:16 AM
What would those lessons be?

The sound bytes I have heard have to do with the trial of the blind sheik and information being passed to Al Queda through discovery and so forth.

Never really have heard a solid case for holding the trials in secret, just the usual talking points stuff. That doesn't mean somebody hasn't made a solid case, that just means that in my flipping through channels and blog rolls haven't come across it.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 12:30 AM
The sound bytes I have heard have to do with the trial of the blind sheik and information being passed to Al Queda through discovery and so forth.


The Blind Sheik was tried in 1995.

Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in 2001.

Richard Reid was tried in 2003.

Surely if there were any lessons to be learned from the Blind Sheik, the Republicans would have implemented them in 2001 and 2003.

Or at the very least, they would have complained when Bush used civilian courts?

perldog007
12-31-2009, 12:38 AM
The Blind Sheik was tried in 1995.

Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in 2001.

Richard Reid was tried in 2003.

Surely if there were any lessons to be learned from the Blind Sheik, the Republicans would have implemented them in 2001 and 2003.

Or at the very least, they would have complained when Bush used civilian courts?

One would think, but that's not how our political system works. Who does it has as much to do with the complaining as what is done, or so it seems at times.

WND is a good place to look for specific whining. I am loathe to c&p but both the features and commentary sections ( they blur, I think ) have some bleating on this.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 12:49 AM
.... and then Bob Smalser tried to divert it by acting senile.


You mean when I wondered why the logic tree of your thread matched Joan Walsh's Salon article too closely for coincidence?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/12/29/obama_double_standard

Or when I showed that the GTMO and military tribunal options didn't exist when Reid was captured? Something you and Joan (dishonestly IMO) left out? And please don't go into your obtuse act again and repeat that Bush had approved tribunals a few weeks before....because the ACLU shut all that down with lawsuits a short time later, requiring 6 years to resolve. And of course it was more complicated than that....they were also up to their eyeballs invading Afghanistan at the time.

Or when you claimed Obama wasn't setting dangerous precedents giving rights to illegal combatants? You should get out more, and read adult news instead of too many left-wing idiot blogs you agree with.....in the grown-up world Lindsay Graham made a complete, drooling fool out of Eric Holder over that one:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/npr-shocker-attorney-general-holder-stumped-lindsey-graham

Or that your tell is when you've run out of arguments is you get rude, and if pushed eventually launch into personal epithets? Like I've said....you're an easy mark because you spend way too much time here, and have a long way to go before you're ready for prime time, kiddo. Careful you don't wind up somebody's quick professional snack if you ever get to play with the big kids.

Chip-skiff
12-31-2009, 12:54 AM
Rather than tearing at one another's throats, look on the bright side.

If the best Bin Laden can do is to send these shoe-and-underpants guys, who despite the manifold failings of the security blockheads can't even blow off their own feet and arses, then we don't have a great deal to fear.

As compared to drivers loaded up with anti-depressants, texting.

LeeG
12-31-2009, 01:20 AM
Chip, I don't think this guy is connected to Bin ladens Al Qaeda but it does seem that these Waltermitty terrorists can't be very high on the terrorists priority list if they're sent on mission without adequate training. The same device was exploded successfully against a Saudi minister albeit without a successful assasination. The bomb did go off and the terrorist was in parts. The terrorists are busy blowing themselves up against other muslims. It's something the former vice president glosses over in his war mania. Look at what happened in Pakistan a few days ago.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 01:32 AM
You mean when I wondered why the logic tree of your thread matched Joan Walsh's Salon article too closely for coincidence?

As I pointed out to you already, Joan Walsh's piece was mostly about the response from Bush and Obama... i.e., how many days it took them to issue a statement.

My thread was about the legal basis for civilian trial vs. military tribunal, which was not mentioned in Walsh's article.



Or when I showed that the GTMO and military tribunal options didn't exist when Reid was captured?

Bush approved tribunals in November 2001, more than a month before the shoe bombing. The fact that they hadn't been set up yet merely demonstrates Bush's incompetence and shaky foundation. I.e. he was making it up as he went along.


...the ACLU shut all that down with lawsuits a short time later, requiring 6 years to resolve.

Because Bush was on shaky legal ground with poor precedence and unclear foundation. The ACLU didn't screw it up; Bush did.


And of course it was more complicated than that....they were also up to their eyeballs invading Afghanistan at the time.

As we are now.


..Or when you claimed Obama wasn't setting dangerous precedents giving rights to illegal combatants?

Again: he's not setting precedents. He's following them. Richard Reid, Moussaoui, McVeigh, Kaczynski and others have all been tried successfully using civilian courts... and they sit in supermax prisons, serving life sentences without the possibility of parole.

That's a record of success, not a dangerous precedent.


...in the grown-up world Lindsay Graham made a complete, drooling fool out of Eric Holder over that one...

As I pointed out to you already, Mr. Graham was being loose with the facts when he referred to an American civilian aircraft as "the battlefield."

We have laws like posse comitatus because the American people do not allow the military to infringe on their civilian lives.

================================================== ================================================== ==========

I really do think you're getting senile, because we've pointed all of this out to you already, and you just keep repeating your same discredited talking points as if you haven't heard anything.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 01:35 AM
Hell, you and toadies like Joan have even lost Maureen Dowd and the NYT's on this one. You could use a lesson in picking your battles, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1


...If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

...Before he left for vacation, Obama tried to shed his Spock mien and juice up the empathy quotient on jobs. But in his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned.

On Tuesday, Obama stepped up to the microphone to admit what Janet Napolitano (who learned nothing from an earlier Janet named Reno) had first tried to deny: that there had been “a systemic failure” and a “catastrophic breach of security.”

But in a mystifying moment that was not technically or emotionally reassuring, there was no live video and it looked as though the Obama operation was flying by the seat of its pants.

...In his detached way, Spock was letting us know that our besieged starship was not speeding into a safer new future, and that we still have to be scared.

Heck of a job, Barry.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 01:55 AM
More liberal publications abandoning your sinking ship:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-30/what-about-my-right-to-be-alive/



What About My Right to Be Alive?

The underpants bomber teaches us that there are two kinds of Americans: those who'd rather be right and those who'd rather be alive.

The passengers were decidedly in the second camp. People of all nationalities leaped over seats to pummel the burning would-be mass murderer.

....But those passengers are ordinary people whose opinions only matter during elections and in the heat of a crisis. Most of the time our security is in the warm little mitts of No. 2 pencil oval-fillers. They have the walnut-sized brains of a Tyrannosaurus rex who can't let go of the tiny good caught in their massive jaws and therefore can't seize upon the bigger, more important one. They are obsessed with rights—privacy rights, rights of the accused, right to a trial and so on. These rights are, undisputedly, good things. But exercising any of these rights means that individuals have to be, ahem, alive. The devilish thing about terrorism is that it too often pits the sanctity of certain civil rights against the lives of the innocent many. When this happens, the rights-obsessed tyrannosaurs either shut down completely like a computer in a 1960s Star Trek episode that can't abide a contradiction or, manfully assert—contra the Supreme Court—that yes, the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is better, they tell us, that we risk the lives of the public than we shrink the rights of the accused.

...The rights-obsessed forget three big things. First, that the weight of any particular individual right is constantly shifting to maintain a rough balance with other, often conflicting, rights. For a long time, it was illegal in many states for a speaker to urge a large crowd to take violent action. Thus, the public right to safety trumped the individual's right to free speech. In a landmark 1969 case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that state laws unduly restricted the rights of union organizers and student demonstrators, and sharply limited the rights of states to prosecute people urging violent action. After all, who should go to jail for a clumsy metaphor or a hot tempered remark? Now that that precedent is being cited in defense of jihadists, the high court might get the chance to redress the balance in light of new circumstances. If the court does, it hardly means that the Bill of Rights has been thrown in the dumpster. It's simply how the American political process works.

Second, the rights crowd has no sense of proportion. Saving 300 lives is well worth a few punches thrown in anger or tapping the telephones of those who phone the No. 3 man in al Qaeda.

Third, they forget that any good thing taken too far becomes its opposite, as Polybius teaches us. So, an excessive focus on the process protections afforded in the U.S. Constitution can become, not a shield for the innocent, but a weapon for the guilty.

.... "Gentleman don't read each other's mail," President Hoover's Secretary of State Henry Stimson remarked, just as he closed the government's "black chamber" that decoded other government's secret messages in 1929. Very high-minded of him. As a result, the U.S. government was blind as Hitler came to power and the Japanese army brutally swept into China.

Secretary of State Cordell Hull's stunned response still reverberates through history.

....(bad faith) Negotiations (in 1941) were simply a way to distract the Americans while the Japanese fleet positioned itself for attack.

We never learn.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 01:57 AM
Hell, you and toadies like Joan have even lost Maureen Dowd and the NYT's on this one.


Lost Maureen Dowd?

Are you really so senile that you aren't familiar with her work and writing style?

=========================================

Since it was your first objection, it would be nice if you could at least recognize the differences between my post and Walsh's article.

You said, "he whole damn thread is a direct lift from Joan Walsh's Salon column."

That was clearly a lie. Can you go ahead and retract that?

ljb5
12-31-2009, 01:59 AM
More liberal publications abandoning your sinking ship:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-30/what-about-my-right-to-be-alive/


Richard Miniter? Liberal?

You really are senile!

C. Ross
12-31-2009, 02:05 AM
Hell, you and toadies like Joan have even lost Maureen Dowd and the NYT's on this one.

Ouch. That does not bode well for the President.

Now there's news that Anwar al-Awlaki might be linked to both the Ft Hood shootings and the NWA bombing attempt. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126222205417710939.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&

Criticize Bush if you want - it's fair game. I don't think we should give a damn if Bush and Obama are held to different standards - that's the price you pay when you ask for and win the big chair. The issue is only whether President Obama's administration is doing the right things. Let's see if the "thorough review" of security processes is for real, what it turns up, and whether the President follows through. Until then, seems to me that all of this is chatter.

Nicholas Carey
12-31-2009, 02:33 AM
I am not sure where we put the line, I am not comfortable with expanding the definition of unlawful combatant until it can be applied capriciouslyThere is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant" under either the Hague or 1949 Geneva Conventions. The classifications made are:


combatants
prisoners of war
medical personnel attached to the armed forces of parties to the conflict
civilians

As the ICRC --- specifically charged by the Geneva Conventions with verifying compliance by parties to conflict -- put it in their 1958 commentaries on the 1949 Geneva Conventions"
usage has created a body of customary law concerning them, which has been very generally applied. In most cases they very soon receive permission to leave the country of the Government to whom they were accredited, and pending their departure they enjoy preferential treatment. During the last World War, however, the repatriation of diplomats was in some cases delayed by long negotiations of practical difficulties, especially in the case of the war in the Far East. It must therefore be agreed that if diplomats do not enjoy more favourable treatment as a result of international customary law, they must be accorded the full benefit of the Convention's provisions.
In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.Civilians, of course, can be criminals -- murder and attempted murder are crimes, after all. Common article 3 forbids
at a bare minimum:


violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture [and] the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Geneva IV, Article 5, provides that parties to conflict may, under certain conditions, curtail protections accorded inder Geneva IV:


Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State...such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.

all the rights delineated under the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.]

This dope (dupe?) is a common criminal, for whom we have procedures for dealing with. We do, after all, have the harshest laws in the world. We have more people in prison and longer sentences than any other country on the planet. Probably execute more prisoners, too.

Nicholas Carey
12-31-2009, 02:52 AM
First things first, partisan hypocrisy which is not an exclusively red or blue trait. Second, perhaps lessons learned from trying Al Queda operators and leaders in civilian court have been learned?
Umm...exactly how many of those trials have there been, again?

I believe the actual number is approximately two, that I can think of -- Reid and the crazy blind sheik/mullah/whatever who masterminded the very lame attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in the early 90s.

We've tried and convicted a bunch of guys with, at best, flimsy attachments or affiliations to al-qaeda -- a bunch of homeless guys in Miami going to blow up the Sears Tower, really? With no money, no way to get to Chicago, no shoes (the FBI "informant" had to buy them shoes, as well as renting them meeting/training space).

ljb5
12-31-2009, 02:59 AM
The issue is only whether President Obama's administration is doing the right things.

That's the issue for me. If Obama manages to secure the same outcome for Abdulmutallab that Bush was able to get for Richard Reid, that counts as a victory for the good guys.

Life without parole in a supermax prison is the proper outcome for a terrorist.

The problem is that some people (Tom Ridge, Bob Smalser, Dick Cheney) are determined to criticize Obama for doing this, despite the fact that it's effective, legally sound and has good precedence.

perldog007
12-31-2009, 06:43 AM
Umm...exactly how many of those trials have there been, again?

I believe the actual number is approximately two, ........

reading the thread will cough up at least one more, google might yield more here is one such example: http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0912/091217washington.htm


The term of art "unlawful enemy combatant" AFAIK, was coined by the bushies to specify the non-uniformed loosely organized opposition we are finding in the gwot. I think you know that.

Treating Al Queda as "common criminals" is a strategy that is being disagreed with by the right, and in some cases I concur. In the case of folks we catch overseas perhaps.

For the crotch rocket suicide bomber, we caught him on an airliner in the U.S., he has to be tried in our civilian system. My point was that doing other wise due to an arbitrary classification would be injurious to the constitution.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 08:17 AM
Treating Al Queda as "common criminals" is a strategy that is being disagreed with by the right...

Selectively.

LeeG
12-31-2009, 12:02 PM
The chicken hawks and right wing pundits set the terms of the argument about attacking threats in terms of military vs. criminal as though wimpy lawyers "lawyered up" are all that's combating and apprehending terrorists while manly soldiers using manly weapon systems are how real men address threats.
It's a false argument to begin with but it works.

johnw
12-31-2009, 01:29 PM
If you think what I said is 'actionable,' why don't you take action? You've got lots of blah, but no hair.



You don't even know who you libeled. Pathetic.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 02:45 PM
More lessons on picking your battles……Democrat Mort Zuckerman’s The New York Daily News joins the NYT’s in hammering Obama:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/30/2009-12-30_its_time_prez_for_you_to_get_serious.html?page= 1


….Before his first remarks on Monday, Obama had left a vacuum, and into that 76-hour empty space rushed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whose ineptitude made a mockery of her position and threw millions of fliers into continuing states of confusion.

….What the public was left with was a never-to-be-repeated case study in crisis mismanagement. It's time to get a grip, Mr. President.

….Obama's description of Abdulmutallab as an "isolated extremist" was remarkable and disturbing.

….(Obama’s) seeming initial lack of urgency was uncharacteristic in a leader who calls himself a "deadline" executive for his practice of setting same in order to get things done. Most famously, Obama has established a deadline, albeit a slipping one, for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

….Obama is, however, accountable for his own anti-terror appointees and policies…..Among them, his costly and wrongheaded order to try key Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, architect of 9/11, in Manhattan Federal.

….Among them, his determination to release selected detainees into foreign hands and hope for the best, as President George W. Bush did with two Yemenites who wound up leading the Al Qaeda offshoot that sponsored Abdulmutallab.

….Among them, Napolitano, who will never live down her declaration that "the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days." Or her previous clanger that the 9/11 hijackers had entered the U.S. through Canada. Or her euphemistic airbrushing of terrorism as a "man-caused" disaster.

….Ultimately, Obama will be measured by a single, unforgiving standard of accountability….. It will be whether, on his watch, America suffers a terror attack from abroad, as almost happened on Christmas.

And even some “loyal” Obama staffer in the White House Counsel’s office has apparently turned coat and is undermining his bosses with damaging leaks on this week’s desperate attempts to blame Bush for Napolitano’s incompetence:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/31/the-politics-of-incompetence


The Politics of Incompetence

On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.

"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."

The White House, according to the source, is in full defensive spin mode. …

Enjoy these last few months in the sun kiddies, because come November it will begin crashing around your ears.

Keith Wilson
12-31-2009, 03:02 PM
You're trying way too hard, Bob. It was embarrassing when people I mostly agreed with blamed Bush for everything from bad weather to baldness, and blasted him every time he brushed his teeth. It's just as silly when you do it with Obama.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 03:09 PM
You're trying way too hard, Bob. It was embarrassing when people I mostly agreed with blamed Bush for everything from bad weather to baldness, and blasted him every time he brushed his teeth. It's just as silly when you do it with Obama.

Especially if you have to use "famous liberals" like Maureen Dowd, Richard Miniter and the American Spectator to make your point.

Still, I'm not even sure what your point is. The only issue I was trying to raise with this thread was the obvious hypocrisy of Republicans who tried Reid and Moussaoui (successfully!) in criminal court, yet now attack Obama for doing the same thing.

You've bent over about eleven different ways to avoid addressing that.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 03:25 PM
You're trying way too hard, Bob. It was embarrassing when people I mostly agreed with blamed Bush for everything from bad weather to baldness, and blasted him every time he brushed his teeth. It's just as silly when you do it with Obama.

Translation: I don't have a defense that will stand scrutiny either, and will try to find another way out for Illjay.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 03:38 PM
The only issue I was trying to raise with this thread was the obvious hypocrisy of Republicans who tried Reid and Moussaoui (successfully!) in criminal court, yet now attack Obama for doing the same thing.

Nonsense. Repeated for the fourth (and last) time in two threads:

1) Reid and Moussaoui were captured within two months of 9-11.

2) There was no GTMO at the time.

3) There was no modern procedure in place for trying terrorists by military tribunal. Thanks to the ACLU, that didn't come til almost 6 years later.

4) There was no other viable option but to process them in the civilian system.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 03:39 PM
Translation: I don't have a defense that will stand scrutiny either, and will try to find another way out for Illjay.

Defense of what? The fact that Ms. Napolitano made a bone-headed comment? I'm not going to defend what she said. It was a dumb thing to say.

But (as I have pointed out to you already), it has no legal bearing on the case. It does not justify the hypocrisy of trying Reid and Moussaoui in criminal court while attacking Obama for doing the same to Abdulmutallab.

That's the issue here... and that's what you have refused to address.

Lindsay Graham tried to attack Obama by calling a civilian aircraft "the battlefield." Either you or Mr. Graham should have at least admitted that's a perversion of the normal definition of the word.

You admitted that Mr. Bush created the military tribunal system ad hoc, and did such a poor job of doing it that he created seven years of legal arguments.

So the question here is why should we try terrorists with a military tribunal system that has a shaky legal foundation and poor precedence when we have perfectly good criminal justice system that is above reproach and successfully keeps terrorists in supermax prisons for life?

More interesting: why have the Republicans shifted their view on this question since Bush left office?

ljb5
12-31-2009, 03:45 PM
1) Reid and Moussaoui were captured within two months of 9-11.

You're mistaken, but that's pretty normal for you.


2) There was no GTMO at the time.

Didn't have it. Didn't need it.

Criminal courts were good enough to keep Moussaoui and Reid in Supermax prisons for life. Who needs GTMO when you've got Supermax?


3) There was no modern procedure in place for trying terrorists by military tribunal.

Yup. Bush pretty much made it up as he went along with poor legal foundation and shaky precedence.

The fact that there was no proper procedure is not an argument in your favor.


Thanks to the ACLU, that didn't come til almost 6 years later.

That's not the ACLU's fault. That's Bush's fault for trying to create a flawed system with a shaky legal foundation.


4) There was no other viable option but to process them in the civilian system.

We didn't have another system and we didn't need another system.

Our well-established criminal justice system was sufficient to give them life in prison without parole in a supermax prison in rural Colorado.

We have good legal precedence and solid legal foundation --- and it's successful. What's your problem with that?

Keith Wilson
12-31-2009, 03:49 PM
Translation: I don't have a defense that will stand scrutiny either, and will try to find another way out for Illjay.Defending what? Nothing that needs defending here. Ms. Napolitano made a dumb remark; so? According to US law, Abdulmutallab should be tried in a US court. You have a problem with that?

Ljb is more than capable of taking care of himself.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 03:54 PM
Our well-established criminal justice system was sufficient to give them life in prison without parole in a supermax prison in rural Colorado.

We have good legal precedence and solid legal foundation --- What's your problem with that?

Now you're being obtuse again. That wasn't your question. This was your question in both threads:


Originally Posted by ljb5:
The only issue I was trying to raise with this thread was the obvious hypocrisy of Republicans who tried Reid and Moussaoui (successfully!) in criminal court, yet now attack Obama for doing the same thing.

Bush wasn't a hypocrite....he didn't have a choice between civilian and military systems. Obama does. Asked and answered.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 03:58 PM
Ms. Napolitano made a dumb remark; so? According to US law, Abdulmutallab should be tried in a US court. You have a problem with that?

Is this some sort of game where both of you play dumb so I have to repeat previous posts?

Read before typing.

John Smith
12-31-2009, 04:00 PM
More lessons on picking your battles……Democrat Mort Zuckerman’s The New York Daily News joins the NYT’s in hammering Obama:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/30/2009-12-30_its_time_prez_for_you_to_get_serious.html?page= 1



And even some “loyal” Obama staffer in the White House Counsel’s office has apparently turned coat and is undermining his bosses with damaging leaks on this week’s desperate attempts to blame Bush for Napolitano’s incompetence:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/31/the-politics-of-incompetence



Enjoy these last few months in the sun kiddies, because come November it will begin crashing around your ears.

Funny, Obama came forward behind the underwear bomber in less than half the time it took Bush to come forward behind the underwear bomber.

I've come to think the problem with this country is people make decisions based on myths and perceptions, rather than facts. If the facts manage to surface between now and next November, the dems will gain seats. My opinion.

One of the FACTS here, overlooked it seems, is that this guy got on a plane and the shoe bomber got on the plane. Any serious effort by Al Qaeda to blow up a plane would have succeeded. All the aggrevation travelers are put through at airports has achieved NOTHING in making us safer, in spite of Cheney's opinions.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 04:02 PM
Asked and answered.


You haven't answered the question.

Whether or not GITMO existed in 2002 is irrelevant. The plain fact is that the criminal justice system has a proven record of success dealing with dangerous terrorists like the unabomber, Tim McVeigh, Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui.

The fact that Bush stumbled and bumbled around for six years trying to create a military tribunal system with poor legal foundation does not change the fact that our criminal justice system has a proven record of success.

When we have a system with a proven record of success, there's nothing wrong with using it to put terrorists in supermax prisons.

The argument you offered from Mr. Graham is dishonest because it asks us to redefine "the battlefield" as being civilian aircraft. This is an expansion of military jurisdiction into civilian life which Americans have historically tried to avoid.

John Smith
12-31-2009, 04:07 PM
Nonsense. Repeated for the fourth (and last) time in two threads:

1) Reid and Moussaoui were captured within two months of 9-11.

2) There was no GTMO at the time.

3) There was no modern procedure in place for trying terrorists by military tribunal. Thanks to the ACLU, that didn't come til almost 6 years later.

4) There was no other viable option but to process them in the civilian system.
That's not all of it. Our constitution recognizes only two types of defendents. POW's and civilians. Terrorists do not fit the definition (in the constituion) of military. Bush/Cheney did not classify "enemy combatants" as POW's so as to avoid the Geneva convention.

That means civilian courts, which have been working fine.

Ed Schultz last night suggested a voluntary air travel card. People who fly could volunteer to go through any background/security check required and get a card with which they'd get right on the plane. As he pointed out, he needs his "badge" to get into the NBC building.

I believe that the debate over how these people are dealt with once captured is less important than a discussion as to how to prevent them from getting a bomb on a plane. You're not going to get to try a successful suicide bomber in any kind of court.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 04:10 PM
The argument you offered from Mr. Graham is dishonest because it asks us to redefine "the battlefield" as being civilian aircraft. This is an expansion of military jurisdiction into civilian life which Americans have historically tried to avoid.

Tell Eric Holder so he can take his foot out of his mouth, then. I'm serious, as he hasn't yet come up with an answer to Graham.

What you are ignoring is that the issue involves more than just the most recent Nigerian, it involves 500 (or more) currently at GTMO, Bagram and elsewhere. Perhaps the civilian system is the best place to try the Nigerian. The broader point is that there is a military option Obama is foregoing as a matter of policy, and that may be unwise.

But neither thread was about broad points....they were about Republican hypocrisy, which I already addressed.

C. Ross
12-31-2009, 04:11 PM
Ed Schultz last night suggested a voluntary air travel card. People who fly could volunteer to go through any background/security check required and get a card with which they'd get right on the plane. As he pointed out, he needs his "badge" to get into the NBC building.

Sadly, this was tried and failed (http://www.flyclear.com/). Maybe it can be revived. I doubt it.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 04:15 PM
Bush wasn't a hypocrite....he didn't have a choice between civilian and military systems.

Bush did have a choice.

No one forced him to to try to create a flawed military tribunal system with such a shaky legal foundation that he had to spend the next six years getting it straightened out in court.

That's something he elected to do on his own, despite the fact that we have a solid criminal justice system with a demonstrated record of success.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 04:17 PM
Perhaps the civilian system is the best place to try the Nigerian.

Bingo!

Too bad the Republicans are too focused on politicizing terrorism to admit this.


The broader point is that there is a military option Obama is foregoing as a matter of policy, and that may be unwise.

I wasn't talking about all the other suspected terrorists. I was only talking about Abdulmutallab. And the Republicans who have been attacking Obama were talking specifically about him too.

Perhaps there are some others who ought to be tried in military courts... but the Republicans have been attacking Obama specifically for Abdulmutallab.

The really, really crazy thing is the some people are even attacking Obama for using GITMO and military tribunals! Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

John Smith
12-31-2009, 04:25 PM
Bush did have a choice.

No one forced him to to try to create a flawed military tribunal system with such a shaky legal foundation that he had to spend the next six years getting it straightened out in court.

That's something he elected to do on his own, despite the fact that we have a solid criminal justice system with a demonstrated record of success.
As I recall, Bush lost three Supreme Court decisions in this area.

If the "bad guy" is not military, he is civilian. Costitution recognizes no other option. Military, by constitutional definition, has to be connected in some way to a country. These terrorists were specifically NOT military, as identified by Bush so as to avoid treating them under the right of the Geneva convention, so the only other option is civilian.

This is actually, I believe, best anyway. It shows the world that we can live by the values we preach.

As to the hypocrisy of the republicans, and others, many were for things they are now against only because the party of the president has changed.

They make a lot of noise over Obama taking 72 hours to respond to this Christmas event, but had no problem with Bush taking 5 days to respond to the shoe bomber.

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2009, 04:31 PM
It is chilling how little confidence some have in American jurisprudence.

I've got an idea. Let's simply declare war on evildoing. Who needs the FBI, the police and the courts when we have the finest military in the world? Wouldn't everybody feel much safer? And safety, after all, is paramount.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 04:42 PM
.... we have a solid criminal justice system with a demonstrated record of success.

Right.

And a solid record of disclosing sensitive classified information through the discovery process to our opponents.






.....As a result of information--this is one example why--as a result of information disclosed during the trials related to the East Africa Embassy bombings, Osama bin Laden became aware of cell phone intercepts, which prompted his organization to discontinue cell phone conversations. Because of the evidence disclosed in the trial, they simply realized they were being eavesdropped on and quit using cell phones, denying us that intelligence.

During the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade bombing, terrorists became aware of a communications link that provided enormously valuable intelligence to U.S. officials. This link, too, was shut down after the disclosure in that trial.

Then there was the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik. A secret list of unindicted coconspirators in the prosecution wound up in the hands of Osama bin Laden in Sudan.

During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, prosecutors inadvertently leaked sensitive material to defense counsel. Here is what the judge had to say about that case, which she characterized as ``like a circus.'' She said:

[Lawyers] are talking about the contents of sealed hearings [to the media], if I see any more [of] what I think are inappropriate leaks, I'm going to ask the FBI to start an investigation....

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=b435008b-8db3-4a65-8d89-ce4507dcd75b&ContentType_id=19760459-7424-403a-8038-666e11ddb515&Group_id=dfa84483-f8e5-4a56-bf5d-99559367b472



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

In 2005, (Defense Attorney) Stewart was convicted on charges of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists and sentenced to 28 months in prison. Her felony conviction led to her being automatically disbarred. She was convicted of helping pass messages from her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric convicted of planning terror attacks, to his followers in al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, an organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States Secretary of State.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 04:48 PM
And a solid record of disclosing sensitive classified information through the discovery process to our opponents.

Sure, malfeasance is possible in any system, civilian or military.

You may have heard; recently a Major in the U.S. Army killed 13 people and wounded 30 more on a U.S. Army base inside the United States.

You are mistaken if you think that military tribunal system is inherently more secure than a civilian system. Intelligence leaks can (and do) occur in both systems. Those should be dealt with, but are a separate issue.

You've now gone from flailing to grasping at straws. Take a nap. Let us know when you're feeling better.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 05:02 PM
You are mistaken if you think that military tribunal system is inherently more secure than a civilian system.

Take a nap. Let us know when you're feeling better.



Nonsense. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Lynne Stewart would never have passed the background check for the (minimal) security clearance necessary to be a defense attorney in a military tribunal.

And remember what I said about your "tells." When your lack of maturity, self-discipline, poise or sobriety gets you thrown out of here, feel free to blame it all on me.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 05:08 PM
Lynne Stewart would never have passed the background check for the (minimal) security clearance necessary to be a defense attorney in a military tribunal.

Nidal Hasan was a Major in the U.S. Army.

Hasan Karim Akbar was a Seargent.

I know it's convenient for you to believe that the military system is flawless, but the fact is there are security breaches in all systems.

LeeG
12-31-2009, 05:08 PM
Bob, have you read about the militarys performance prosecuting James Yee?

John Smith
12-31-2009, 05:12 PM
This really gets down to having faith in our system, as set forth by our constitution, or not having that faith.

I find it odd that those who wish to follow that consitution are considered America haters, and those who wave the flag the highest seem to have such little faith in our ideals.

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 05:15 PM
Nidal Hasan was a Major in the U.S. Army.

Hasan Karim Akbar was a Sergent.

I know it's convenient for you to believe that the military system is flawless, but the fact is there are security breaches in all systems.

And like I said, you don't have a single clue how it works.

Hasan or Akbar wouldn't have passed the background check to defend the Blind Sheik, either. In fact, it (the update in Hasan's case, as Akbar probably only had a Confidential clearance) would have probably flushed them out.

johnw
12-31-2009, 05:19 PM
Of course, Roosevelt used military tribunals to prosecute German saboteurs and he didn't get any special legislation passed to do it. Bush could have done the same, but why do that when he had an open-and-shut case that could easily be tried in civilian courts.

PeterSibley
12-31-2009, 05:21 PM
And like I said, you don't have a single clue how it works.

Hasan or Akbar wouldn't have passed the background check to defend the Blind Sheik, either. In fact, it (the update in Hasan's case, as Akbar probably only had a Confidential clearance) would have probably flushed them out.

I doesn't work very well ,that much is obvious .

ljb5
12-31-2009, 05:23 PM
Hasan or Akbar wouldn't have passed the background check to defend the Blind Sheik, either.

That's what you claim. In truth, we'll never know.

The plain fact is there are flaws in any system. Hasan and Akbar were both trusted members of the military right up until the moment they started killing people.

You cannot claim that the military has a perfect system of screening people for stability and loyalty.

Was Ahmed F. Mehalba screened for security?

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2009, 05:33 PM
My understanding is that Nidal Hasan lawyered up and clammed up just as effectively as any defendant in our civil system of jurisprudence.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 05:35 PM
Every 2-bit drug dealer on the planet figured that one out about 15 years ago, so these so-called 'terrorists' are solidly behind the times.

Yes... and to take your point one step further, we can point out that the problems of information leaks (wire taps, cell phone intercepts, confidential informants, etc.) are not peculiar to terrorism trials, but also arise in more conventional trials such as the mafia.

Is Bob Smalser going to argue that any case with sensitive information should be transferred to GITMO and adjudicated by military tribunal? Are we going to redefine "the battlefield" as any place where the government doesn't feel like granting a defendant constitutional rights?

Bob Smalser
12-31-2009, 05:59 PM
Is Bob Smalser going to argue that any case with sensitive information should be transferred to GITMO and adjudicated by military tribunal? Are we going to redefine "the battlefield" as any place where the government doesn't feel like granting a defendant constitutional rights?



Yada, yada yada. My argument is unchanged.

Obama now has the OPTION of trying those the administration defines as illegal combatants in either the military or civilian system, and IMO the more flexibility he has, the better. That way the focus can be the method that will produce the best intelligence to prevent future attacks. To forego one of these options out of hand isn't wise for a number of reasons.

Nicholas Carey
12-31-2009, 06:26 PM
Obama now has the OPTION of trying those the administration defines as illegal combatants in either the military or civilian system, and IMO the more flexibility he has, the better. That way the focus can be the method that will produce the best intelligence to prevent future attacks.The point of a trial isn't the production of intelligence. Trials exist to publically prove guilt and publicly deal out appropriate punishment for the proven offense.

Intelligence is the servant of the justice system and not the other way round.

perldog007
12-31-2009, 06:46 PM
The point of a trial isn't the production of intelligence. Trials exist to publically prove guilt and publicly deal out appropriate punishment for the proven offense.

Intelligence is the servant of the justice system and not the other way round.

Intelligence is a function of national security. B.S., warts, and all.

johnw
12-31-2009, 07:21 PM
Yada, yada yada. My argument is unchanged.

Obama now has the OPTION of trying those the administration defines as illegal combatants in either the military or civilian system, and IMO the more flexibility he has, the better. That way the focus can be the method that will produce the best intelligence to prevent future attacks. To forego one of these options out of hand isn't wise for a number of reasons.
Bush had the option of using tribunals, just as Roosevelt did in WWII.

From Wikipedia:


President Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt) ordered military tribunals for eight German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) prisoners accused of planning sabotage in the United States as part of Operation Pastorius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius). Roosevelt's decision was challenged, but upheld, in Ex parte Quirin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin). All eight of the accused were convicted and sentenced to death. Six were executed by electric chair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair) at the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) jail on August 8, 1942. Two who had given evidence against the others had their sentences reduced by Roosevelt to prison terms. In 1948, they were released and deported to the American Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_since_1945#The_division_of_Germ any) of occupied Germany.

The legal precedent was there. Bush did not do as Roosevelt did because there was no point in doing so.

ljb5
12-31-2009, 07:27 PM
Obama now has the OPTION of trying those the administration defines as illegal combatants in either the military or civilian system, and IMO the more flexibility he has, the better.

You've already admitted that trying Abdulmutallab in civilian court really might be the best thing to do.


To forego one of these options out of hand isn't wise for a number of reasons.

We know that he hasn't dismissed military tribunals "out of hand," because (much to the chagrin of many), he has used them.

see here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131.html) and here. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/16/politics/main5018988.shtml)

So despite all your bleating, it sounds like you actually agree with him. You're just looking for something to complain about.

Pugwash
12-31-2009, 07:28 PM
Shoe Bomber vs. Underwear Bomber?

Well, I think it would depend on whether it was Queensbury Rules or a Cage Match.

If it's a Cage Match it could get interesting when the shoe guy goes to kick the underwear guy in the gnuts......

:)

Captain Blight
12-31-2009, 07:56 PM
OKAY OKAY OKAY


Jeebus you guys, simmer down! And look who's asking for decorum! Yeah, that's how bad you are. Yeah, I said it. And I'm glad I did.

GLAD, I SAY!

Back to the original topic, it occurs to me that al-Quada's doing a mighty fine job with their long-term goals. The Shoe Bomber created the shoe-removal clause if you want to fly now, and the Underpants Bomber will surely bring a reaction of greater government intrusion into the lives of fliers yet again. I fear and fear greatly, that there is a subtlety at work here that we as consumers of war media (No matter which end of the Mediterranean we are from) all to easily overlook.

Al-Quaeda doesn't have to defeat us in a series of military battles. They just have to produce a series of memes that prove to be superior. This is much more a war of ideas than a bombing campaign. Or at least, that's the way they're conducting it: look at their return on investment, for Pete's sake. What did Mr Reid's shoes cost to make? Couldn't have been much, as they didn't even include the most rudimentary internal fuse, he had to try to light a match! The Underwear bomber ditto!

And how much will we spend worldwide, for systems to catch this sort of thing (That will probably be tried again?) Millions and millions.

Probably fewer than a dozen people were directly involved with Reid. How many extra TSA employees are adding to the tension in airports while they suckle off the gubbimint tit?

paladin
12-31-2009, 08:52 PM
We're back to cold war operations....
The Russians would fly aircraft into U.S. controlled airspace...sometimes a single fighter, sometimes a Bear Bomber over the Denmark Strait...just close enough to cause a scramble from a military airfield.....
The single fighter or bomber incursion was at minimal cost......we always used a ten ton sledge to swat a gnat.....every scramble cost the defense department(U.S. taxpayer) a bundle.....Al Qaeda is doing the same...same rules of engagement.
One happy incident.....the incursions were seemingly random, but they did have a slightly regular pattern. In 1960 we would send Scorpion jets flying at near water level up Goose Bay/Hamilton Inlet.......they would stay on the deck until called.....one day a MiG came a little too close...into our airspace...and as he turned around he was eyeball to eyeball with our guys.......splash one.......
A similar incident early 1961....with a trawler.....and a tender...sub in the inlet....they dropped depth charges to break up the ice......sub accidentally went down.