Once again I am un-American according to one of our elected officials. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) thinks it is un-American (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/dem-congressman-its-unamerican-to-oppose-us-terror-trials.php) to oppose Obama and Holder's show trial in New York:


"They see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

How many military commissions have been used to prosecute war crimes, etc. in American history? How American is it to bring scum like KSM to virtually ground zero and rub it in the faces of those who were there? How American is it to open up state secrets and counter-terrorism strategies to public view (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)? How American is it to call Daniel Pearl's family un-American (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67801-daniel-pearls-family-opposes-justice-decision-to-try-ksm-in-federal-court)?

At least Obama has made Durbin's "dream come true." (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1886190,CST-NWS-prison16.article)

I don't understand this decision. The President has already confirmed the validity of the Military Commissions and all types of gyrations have been made to make the Commissions compliant with the courts concerns. In fact,Holder et al have already confirmed that they plan on using the Commissions on other of the GITMO detainees.

The only thing I can think is that the terrorist sympathizer Eric Holder thinks that KSM and his kindred will be acquitted in a Federal Court saving him the need to pardon them.

Steve ;Stratfor dissects this decision .

Deciphering the Mohammed Trial | STRATFOR (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091116_postsept_11_legal_dilemma?utm_source=GWee kly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091116&utm_content=readmore)

They say that Holder has " opened a can of worms" .That's being polite.

Andrew McCarthy ;who prosecuted the first WTC attack, says that the disclosure rules demanded in criminal prosecution allowed AQ to obtain very valuable intelligence about what the government knew about the co-conspirators of the attack.

That is the best analysis of the entire situation I've seen. The absurdity of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue is clear:


Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn’t want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option.

Therefore — and now we move to the political reality — it is difficult to imagine how the evidence accumulated against Mohammed could enter a courtroom. Ignoring the methods of questioning, which is a separate issue, how can one prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compromising sources and methods, and why should one? Mohammed was on a battlefield but not operating as a soldier. Imagine doing criminal forensics on a battlefield to prove the criminal liability of German commandos wearing American uniforms.

Once again I am un-American according to one of our elected officials. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) thinks it is un-American (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/dem-congressman-its-unamerican-to-oppose-us-terror-trials.php) to oppose Obama and Holder's show trial in New YorkHello Steve:

Couple things... Don't let being call un-American bother you. Elliot tells me that I hate America all the time (even though I wore a uniform and he DIDN'T - but I digress).

I thought show trials are good. It shows the world that we a nation of laws. I think your buddy Giuliani said that. But, that was before he flip-flopped.

excon

Rudy was talking about the Zacarias Moussaoui case. Here is the transcript from 'Fox News Sunday' (He said essentially the same thing on ABC's 'This Week' )



WALLACE: But, Mayor, I want to pick up on this argument that it's a mistake to treat terrorists as common criminals in a civilian court.
I want to take you back to what you said after the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. You said this, "I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead."
And after the 2006 trial of the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, you said, "It shows that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of war (sic)." Respectfully, Mayor, you supported civilian trials for terrorists then.
GIULIANI: And if there's no other alternative, I support civilian trials for terrorists. The reality is there is another alternative here. And this administration has created tribunals. At least five, possibly more, terrorists are going to be tried in those tribunals.
If there was no other choice, again, Chris, I support this. If there was no other choice and they had to be tried in New York, of course they should be tried in New York. But the reality is there is another choice. It is a better choice for the government. This choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists. Why would you seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you're giving the — than you're giving the public?
WALLACE: But — but, Mayor...
GIULIANI: And finally...
WALLACE:... Mayor...
GIULIANI:... with regard to — but with regard to 1993, it turns out we were wrong in 1993. That was a mistake. Most experts have come to that conclusion.
WALLACE: Well, what about...
GIULIANI:... that we missed...
WALLACE:... 2006 with Zacarias Moussaoui?
GIULIANI: I would have preferred to see him tried in a — in a military court than a civilian court. If it's going to be a civilian court, well, then let's convict him. Let's do it as well as we can.
But the reality is this gives all the benefits to the terrorist and much less benefits to the public. And finally, we are — we are doing what he wants us to do.

Transcript: Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Jack Reed on 'FNS' - FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575238,00.html)

The truth is that Tribunals are the proper place to have these trials. Even Senator and Candidate Obama favored tribunals.

Rudy was talking about the Zacarias Moussaoui caseHello again, tom:

And, the difference is??

excon

Hello Steve:

Couple things... Don't let being call un-American bother you. Elliot tells me that I hate America all the time (even though I wore a uniform and he DIDN'T - but I digress).

I don't mind being called un-American by your average moonbat, they don't know any better. The people elected to serve us should.


I thought show trials are good. It shows the world that we a nation of laws. I think your buddy Giuliani said that. But, that was before he flip-flopped.

Moussaoui was captured by FBI and INS agents in Minnesota. KSM was captured in Pakistan by the Pakistani ISI. That fits entirely with the Stratfor reasoning you didn't comment on.

Rudy praised the conviction of Moussaoui because at the time the possibility of tribunals had been delayed by various liberal lawyers and court decisions. Those issues were resolved by the bipartisan Military Commissions Act of 2006 ;and by Obama's own review of tribunals in May of this year.

There has to be a different reason beyond justice to explain why he wants a civilian trial for KSM while he plans on conducting tribunals for other GITMO detainees.

I think it is as Steve speculated ;That they can put the Bush adm. On trial in abstentia and have the cover of saying they did not directly prosecute them.

The only thing I can think is that the terrorist sympathizer Eric Holder thinks that KSM and his kindred will be acquited in a Federal Court saving him the need to pardon them.
Moussaoui was captured by FBI and INS agents in Minnesota. KSM was captured in Pakistan by the Pakistani ISI. Hello again, Steve:

From a legal perspective, it matters NOT who captures you or where you're captured, you are extradited to the scene of the crime.

Tom, as much as I disagreed with the dufus, the worst I said about him is that he's a dufus. You should be ashamed about the things you're saying, but you're not. It says a LOT more about YOU than it does our president... Your smallness is showing.

excon

Why should I ? Holder was involved in the pardon of terrorists before in the final days of the Clinton adm. His law firm ;that he was a senior partner in before he signed on to become AG ,defends some of the GITMO detainees.

Hello again, Steve:

From a legal perspective, it matters NOT who captures you or where you're captured, you are extradited to the scene of the crime.

Or as Obama has reserved the right to do, renditions. I guess you still didn't read the Stratfor analysis, you really should.

Greg Craig was thrown under the bus right before this announcement ;presumably because he wasn't a team player on GITMO closing .He is going to be replaced with Anita Dung's(the Mao admirer who left the adm. Under pressure ) hubby Bob Baur .

Baur is himself a DNC and Obama attorney and apparatchik. He is the one who ,during the campaign, was sending "cease and desist " letters to stations in Pennsylvania that were running NRA adds against the President. He also threatened stations that were running 'American Issues Project ' ads ,questioning the association between Obama and terrorist William Ayers ,that their operating licenses were at risk.

Or as Obama has reserved the right to do, renditions. I guess you still didn't read the Stratfor analysis, you really should.Hello again, Steve:

Gimme a link.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Gimme a link.

excon

It is from tom's earlier post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/un-american-again-416497.html#post2088741).

I'll give another
Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1)

Hello again Steve:

I read it. I'm familiar with the arguments. We've had them here before. I reject them out of hand.

The article is correct in its description of what a soldier is, and what a POW is, and what a criminal is... Be he fails to tell us what never ending war is, and how THAT relates to those categories... The article assumes it doesn't relate. I disagree.

Those pre-designated categories presume that war will end. If this were a war that is going to end, I'll shut up.

But, it isn't... Given that there's a NEW category of conflict called NEVER ENDING WAR, we're going to have to redesign what to DO about the people we capture. After all, we can't keep them forever WITHOUT a trial - even a military one. The dufus tried and failed in doing that.

So, in order to do justice, we've already got a system in place that CAN convict them...

Stratfor doesn't think so. Holder thinks he can. They, like you, are entitled to your opinions.

I do agree with one comment they made - kind of wherein they blamed Holder for opening up an "ordinarily complex can of worms".

I DO agree that it's an extraordinary complex can of worms. I just don't agree with WHO opened it. No, I'm not going to say it again. Irrespective of WHO opened it, however, in my opinion, Holder is closing it.

excon

Holder is closing it? LOL.

There's a whole section of the analysis dedicated to your concern under the subheading of A Failure to Evolve.


The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.

The international legal community has been quite vocal in condemning American treatment of POWs after 9/11, but it hasn’t evolved international law, even theoretically, to cope with this. Sept. 11 is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, and prosecuting the guilty is not the goal. Instead, it was an act of war carried out outside the confines of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. goal is destroying al Qaeda so that it can no longer function, not punishing those who have acted. Similarly the goal in 1941 was not punishing the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor but destroying the Japanese Empire, and any Japanese soldier was a target who could be killed without trial in the course of combat. If it wishes to solve this problem, international law will have to recognize that al Qaeda committed an act of war, and its destruction has legal sanction without judicial review. And if some sort of protection is to be provided al Qaeda operatives out of uniform, then the Geneva Conventions must be changed, and with it the status of spies and saboteurs of all countries.

KSM has no cover under Geneva, 9/11 was an act of war, and international law hasn't evolved past the whining. I've long been an advocate of just killing terrorists like KSM on the spot. It's a lot simpler that way.

From Holder's press conference announcing his decision:



QUESTION: How much of a factor for you was it that in the case of the five 9/11 detainees you're returning them basically to the scene of the crime?
HOLDER: Well, that is something that typically happens in the criminal law. The cases are typically tried in the place where the offense occurred, and so that was one of the factors.
There are a number of other factors that went into making that determination, including the nature of the people who were the victims: largely civilians in New York.In addition to that, this is a matter that, as I said, happened in this country as opposed to overseas, which is different from what we might do with regard to those who are going to be tried in the military commissions.But that is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, that crimes are tried in the places where they occur.
If the concern was to bring them back to the scene of the crime; ( a rediculous assertion on it's face given how often trials have a change of venue) ;then why didn't he set up a tribunal in NY ? Why a criminal trial ?... and why a criminal trial for a person making a military attack on the US government ;it's military ;and it's financial infrastructure ?

That is my question much more than the choice of venue. Is he saying any military attack inside the US will be treated as a criminal violation while any military attack outside (like the terrorist attack on the USS Cole) will be a matter of tribunal ? This is an inconsistent application since both are military attacks.

Even worse and more to the point;it gives jihadists an incentive to attack us inside the US instead of attacking our military.

Think about it . Attack the US and become a criminal treated with kid gloves and privilaged to constitutional protections only Americans and guest foreigners are entitled to .Use the trial as a platform to spew jihadists rhetoric while the whole world press gives your trial endless free coverage. And ;use evidenturay rules to gain valuable intel for your cause. All paid for by the tax payers from your primary target. Brilliant !

Think about it . Attack the US and become a criminal treated with kid gloves Hello tom:

I am thinking about it.. It's such a silly comment that I don't even know how to respond... I suppose, though, to a guy who thinks they should be tortured a little bit before they're executed, you would think we treat criminals with kid gloves...

excon

As Patterico has pointed out (http://patterico.com/2009/11/15/obama-in-may-2009-al-qaeda-terrorists-are-prisoners-of-war/), Obama has repeatedly said he would not release anyone deemed dangerous to the United States and that he was considering a separate system that "might be limited to those situations when a criminal trial has failed."

In Holder's presser he said "If I was concerned about the forum not leading to a positive result or if I had a concern — a different concern, you know, we would perhaps be in a different place."

A questioner picked up on that and asked how it can be fair “if you’re picking different forums for different defendants based on where you can be sure that the outcome will be a conviction?”

So if Obama has sworn he wouldn't release anyone deemed too dangerous, they're picking the location based on a predicted outcome and he's OK with a separate system for when there is an adverse outcome, how does that mesh with these American principles of justice you're concerned with, ex? That would make Rep. Moran and the Obama administration 'un-American' if you ask me.

So if Obama has sworn he wouldn't release anyone deemed too dangerous, they're picking the location based on a predicted outcome and he's ok with a separate system for when there is an adverse outcome, how does that mesh with these American principles of justice you're concerned with, ex? Hello again, Steve:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, when you break something, it's very difficult to repair it... That's especially true when dealing with criminal justice...

That's pretty much because you only have one shot at it. But, the fact of the matter, once we've detained them, tortured them and treated them like they were less than human beings, there's NOTHING in this universe that Holder could do that would "mesh with American principles" now. You can't unring a bell.

He could, of course, leave them in Gitmo forever. But, that meshes LESS with my American principles. He and Obama are fixing what the dufus broke. Of course, you don't like it.

excon

You can't unring a bell.

Is that similar to "words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct." What meaning do Holder's and Obama's words hold relative to my last post?

Is that similar to "words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct." What meaning do Holder's and Obama's words hold relative to my last post?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what words you're talking about Steve. I read your post again... The words that concern me, are "I'm going to close Guantanamo". THIS, is the best way to do it.

Is it clean? No. Is it nice? No. Does it mesh with American principles? It's as close as we can get given that the dufus broke it beyond repair... Yes, we DO have to repair it the best we can, don't we now?

I don't like that he promised a conviction... But, if the dufus hadn't broke it, a conviction in federal court would have been guaranteed...

Speaking of American values, why is it that you only apply them to me? What would YOU do at this point that meshes with our values?? Oh, that's right. You abandoned those values when you decided to torture... AND, you think it's just fine to leave to rot at Gitmo forever...

So, you won't mind if I don't use YOU as an authority on American values...

excon

I don't know what words you're talking about Steve. I read your post again... The words that concern me, are "I'm going to close Guantanamo". THIS, is the best way to do it...

I don't like that he promised a conviction... But, if the dufus hadn't broke it, a conviction in federal court would have been guaranteed.

I thought you didn't know what I was talking about?


Is it clean? No. Is it nice? No. Does it mesh with American principles? It's as close as we can get given that the dufus broke it beyond repair... Yes, we DO have to repair it the best we can, don't we now?

Just like Obamacare, even it's not really a solution, doesn't really fix anythingt, we give an A for effort? Seems to me that you could just as easily apply that to Bush's handling of the war on terror.


Speaking of American values, why is it that you only apply them to me? What would YOU do at this point that meshes with our values?? Oh, that's right. You abandoned those values when you decided to torture... AND, you think it's just fine to leave to rot at Gitmo forever...

Nah, like I said I was all for shooting them dead on the spot. That's what America used to do to those who attacked her wasn't it?

More food for thought for you ex, courtesy of James Taranto (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539601006447292.html):


When appellate courts decide questions of law, they set precedents for future cases. If they make allowances for the exigencies of the war on terror in order to uphold convictions of KSM and his associates, it could end up diminishing the rights of ordinary criminal defendants. That's why the smart civil-libertarian position is to oppose trying terrorists as civilians.

This won't have any adverse consequences on the rights of Americans will it?

That Taranto piece is good enough to post the whole thing related to the civilian trials.


The decision to try KSM & Co. as civilians drew predictable applause from the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil libertarians. But they should be careful what they wish for. From a criminal-justice standpoint, there are many irregularities about these cases, not least the fact that the government concedes (wrongly in our view, but that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee) that some of the defendants, including KSM, were "tortured" by its agents.

Yet the political pressure for a conviction will be immense. "Anything short of slamdunk convictions will empower the president's critics," opines Devlin Barrett of the Associated Press. Not only that, but an acquittal would put the administration in the position of having either to free a dangerous terrorist or to hold indefinitely someone who has been acquitted--either way, a disastrous failure for the administration's antiterror policies.

The judiciary will not be immune to these pressures. No trial judge will want to be known as the Lance Ito of 9/11. More importantly, appeals judges--including Supreme Court justices--will surely hesitate to let KSM off on a technicality.

But one man's technicality is another's violation of due process; and the corollary of treating KSM like ordinary criminals is treating ordinary criminals like KSM. This column approves of aggressive interrogation to gather intelligence from terrorists, but there is little doubt that some of the methods that were used would have been abusive had they been applied by law-enforcement agents to domestic criminal suspects.

When appellate courts decide questions of law, they set precedents for future cases. If they make allowances for the exigencies of the war on terror in order to uphold convictions of KSM and his associates, it could end up diminishing the rights of ordinary criminal defendants. That's why the smart civil-libertarian position is to oppose trying terrorists as civilians.


You see ;words do indeed matter. Under Bush ,the administration would argue successfully that the interrogations were conducted under existing law ;if the evidence was being submitted to a tribunal. But both Holder and the President have declared to the world that KSM was ,in their words ,tortured.
No civilian court can allow evidence into the record under such terms.
Further ;they were not mirandized .When they are acquitted double jeopardy rules will apply to any future attempt to prosecute.

When they are acquitted double jeopardy rules will apply to any future attempt to prosecute.Hello again, tom:

If I had to choose between your legal synopsis or the Attorney General's, I'm going to go with his.

Of course, you think Holder's a commie who wants to see KSM run around NY, so what you think don't matter too much. I'm just commenting for the record.

excon

Fact and for the record . Holder's law firm Covington & Burling,represented 18 Gitmo detainees in line for tribunals at the time of his selection. As soon as he came in the Adm. Suspended the tribunals ,even after guilty pleas were proudly proclaimed by KSM.

Fact and for the record ,Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them. The sniviling Bill Clintoon of course complied .

Fact and for the record ,I despise him and yes I think he is completely ill suited for the job of AG . He has a conflict of interests related to his loyalties .He is more concerned about getting unprecedented rights to enemies of the country over the security interests of the American people ;and to attack the basic institutions of the country.

Hello again, tom:

Now you know how I felt about the dufus and his gang.

excon

Hello again:

Let me see if I understand you righty's. What Obama really wants to do is put Bush and Cheney on trial, and is willing to let KSM go in order to do so...

I just heard Karl Rove tell Hannity that very thing... It's absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard...

excon

I may volunteer for jury duty. I did a stint at Federal Court last year. Every morning I took the Path train into the WTC station and walked to the court. From the train you get an upclose view of the big hole in the ground this scum is responsible for;a view denied to pedestrians since they put up the construction fences .
Good luck seating a jury in downtown Manhattan !

Hello again,

Chuck Todd asked Obama if he understood why people are offended that KSM is going to be given "all the legal privileges of an American citizen"...

Chuck Todds view predominates - and it's WRONG.

If you BELIEVE our founding documents, and I do, these aren't privileges we're giving to KSM. These are inalienable rights endowed upon him (and everybody else) by his creator...

Therefore, coveting these rights as though they're ours, isn't really spreading democracy. It's the opposite.

Plus, I know you think these rights give bad people certain advantages, and it does... But, they are NOT the get out of jail free cards you purport them to be, or we wouldn't be the worlds largest jailer. And, of course, we are.

When Adolph Eichmann had a public trial, a holocaust didn't ensue. Nazism didn't rise again. The public trial, in fact, put a period on it...

You do know that if KSM were put on trial in a military tribunal, he could be acquitted there too? He could have hopped a plane to NY the next day.

Another argument against his trial, is that secret stuff will be exposed... But, I'm sure there's enough evidence to convict him without using ANY secret stuff. I think he confessed, after all.

Plus, you say he wasn't mirandized, and that'll guarantee his release... But, the FBI did mirandize him.

Nope. This is the best thing that could happen to re-establish the rule of law... Besides, I thought YOU were the law and order dudes.

excon

Let me see if I understand you righty's. What Obama really wants to do is put Bush and Cheney on trial, and is willing to let KSM go in order to do so...

I believe I described that scenario a different way, showing the conflicts of interest between Obama's vow not to release anyone dangerous, holding a rigged trial and a separate system in the event of an adverse outcome in a civil court. I said nothing about him being willing to release KSM.


I just heard Karl Rove tell Hannity that very thing... It's absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard...

Quote and link please.

Quote and link please.Hello again, Steve:

Last night - Hannity. I'm sure you know how to retrieve it... If I misquoted him, let me know... But, words DO matter, and I have a DVR which allows me to rewind live TV and listen again, and again, and then again, just to make sure that I get the words right - because they DO matter.

excon

If you BELIEVE our founding documents, and I do, these aren't privileges we're giving to KSM. These are inalienable rights endowed upon him (and everybody else) by his creator...

And among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think he had his shot at that and wasted it.

I rarely watch Hannity, don't think I've ever seen an entire show. I don't watch Beck either, the only one of Fox's talking heads I occasionally watch is O'Reilly. I'm sure I could find the quote, but it's your quote so find it for us for a change... I get a little tired of doing your work for you. ;)

And among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think he had his shot at that and wasted it.Hello again, Steve:

He did, and he'll be punished...

But, it's clear what you mean, Steve. Tom said it outright. He should have been shot. As much as I personally agree with you, I, like all of us, have given up vigilantism, and have turned justice over to the government... Before it can dish some justice out, though, we've got certain rules. They're in the Constitution.

Speaking of the Constitution, you guys talk about your support, but when push comes to shove, you like the Second Amendment, and the rest - not so much. In fact, you excoriate our CORE AMERICAN VALUES, such as due process, the right to counsel, the right to be free from torture, the right not be searched by the government...

Plus, as tom makes no secret, you believe that anyone who works to provide basic due process and legal representation, or who publicizes the wrongful detentions and abusive treatment of the detainees, are themselves deemed terrorist sympathizers.

No, Steve my friend. That's not what America is about. You guys missed the boat.

excon

I'm the one who said he should have been shot, or a nice air strike would have been fine, kind of like how al-Zarqawi got his virgins.

If you want to talk about only liking certain parts of the constitution we can discuss your support for Congress forcing every American to buy an insurance policy or face jail, but that's another thread.

I've yet to be shown by you or anyone else how KSM, an enemy of the state responsible for acts of war against the country, being tried in a military court at Gitmo is unconstitutional.

I disagree. Regardless of the universality of the rights the founders were very clear that the intention of the Constitution was to secure those rights "for us and our posterity" .

KSM as an enemy of the country is not entitled to these rights . What he planned is the equivalent of the German sabotours who were captured on American soil during WWII.

Roosevelt ;understanding the issues ;demanded a tribunal ,and also demanded a conviction that would result in the death penalty.. This of course made it to SCOTUS ;and SCOTUS completely undertanding the issues affirmed Roosevelts authority to do so .

I've yet to be shown by you or anyone else how KSM, an enemy of the state responsible for acts of war against the country, being tried in a military court at Gitmo is unconstitutional.Hello again, Steve:

I don't know how you missed it, but the dufus tried for 7 years to do it, and he failed...

Time and again, government allegations against the detainees failed to withstand even the most minimal judicial scrutiny to which the 2008 Supreme Court ruled detainees are constitutionally entitled. The Government has now lost roughly 28 out of 33 habeas corpus hearings brought by detainees since the Supreme Court's ruling, often before some of the most right-wing, executive-branch-deferring judges in the country, and they've found there is no credible evidence to support the government's accusations.

So, the tribunals as they were set up, were INDEED, unconstitutional.

excon

So, the tribunals as they were set up, were INDEED, unconstitutional.

In May Obama said he was for these tribunals (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/14/politics/main5015090.shtml). Military commissions "are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered."

In September he vowed to continue indefinite detentions (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24detain.html) using Bush era laws.

The question of KSM seems to hinge on basically one point, whether he is an "enemy combatant.' I think he would qualify.

Hello again, Steve:

When it's broken as badly as it was, you can't fix it all at once. All you can do is take baby steps. That's what this is. However, small they are, they're steps in the RIGHT direction.

excon

Sounds like that Billy Joel song 'We didn't start the Fire' .


George W. Bush inherited a recession. He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office. What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.

At some point, Team Obama might have at least acknowledged that, by January 2009, Iraq was largely quiet; Libya was free of WMD; Syria was out of Lebanon; most of the al-Qaeda leadership had been attrited or was in hiding; a homeland-security protocol was in place to deal with domestic terror plots; European governments were mostly friendly to the U.S. (unlike during the Chirac-Schröder years); and the U.S. enjoyed good relations with one-third of the planet in China and India.


What Bush Inherited, and What He Left Left Behind - Victor Davis Hanson - The Corner on National Review Online (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWYzNWE3ZGZjN2IxMmRiZmZkMDkyZDMxNmQ4ZGFhZTk)=

Lemme see if I understand you righty's. What Obama really wants to do is put Bush and Cheney on trial, and is willing to let KSM go in order to do so...

I just heard Karl Rove tell Hannity that very thing... It's absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard...

I saw the segment (http://video.foxnews.com/11698394/sign-of-weakness), Rove said no such thing. Not even close. I guess that's why you haven't furnished the quote yet.

Get this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTcwYmFmMGFkMDliMmY5ZDY0MDdjMzZkZDRmNzYwZTI=), in China Obama said KSM would be '"convicted" and had "the death penalty
applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case.'


He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.

Isn't Obama a lawyer? How much more of a 'dufus' can this guy be? Yep, the Obama administration is taking "steps in the RIGHT direction."

I doubt if he ever stepped into a court house as a lawyer.

No, he would plead "present."

Isn't Obama a lawyer? How much more of a 'dufus' can this guy be? Yep, the Obama administration is taking "steps in the RIGHT direction."Hello again, Steve:

Two steps forward, one step back = progress.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Two steps forward, one step back = progress.

Um, all I'm seeing are steps backward.

Plus, I know you think these rights give bad people certain advantages, and it does... But, they are NOT the get out of jail free cards you purport them to be, or we wouldn't be the worlds largest jailer. And, of course, we are.

When Adolph Eichmann had a public trial, a holocaust didn't ensue. Nazism didn't rise again. The public trial, in fact, put a period on it...


Had some time yesterday to research the Eichman trial . I'll leave the issue of his being kidnapped aside for the moment . He was tried by a 3 judge panel and not a jury of his peers . The evidentiary rules don't appear to be as strict there .

In fact ; by all appearances ;if that is the standard for civilian trials ,then the Israeli system resembles the military commission system (which has also been confirmed constitutional throughout American history )that I support as the proper venue to try KSM and the 9-11 conspirator's cases. (ht Elliot for his assistance in my research)

Hello again, Righty's:

I want to know something... Did the terrorists want to kill us a month ago?? Do they want to kill us MORE now? If KSM comes to NY, are they going to want to kill us double down triple fantasticly more??

How do you want to kill somebody, and want to kill them more, and then even more?? I don't get it.

Cause if the terrorists really didn't want to kill us a month ago, but NOW they do, why was I taking my shoes off for the last 8 years? And, since NOW they REALLY want to kill us, what else are we going to have to take off?

You're not saying that security should remain the same, are you?? Things have changed, right. I mean they want to kill us MORE!!

excon

Hello again, Righty's:

I wanna know something.... Did the terrorists want to kill us a month ago??? Do they want to kill us MORE now? If KSM comes to NY, are they gonna want to kill us double down triple fantasticly more???

How do you want to kill somebody, and want to kill them more, and then even more??? I don't get it.

Cause if the terrorists really didn't want to kill us a month ago, but NOW they do, why was I taking my shoes off for the last 8 years? And, since NOW they REALLY want to kill us, what else are we going to have to take off?

You're not saying that security should remain the same, are you??? Things have changed, right. I mean they want to kill us MORE!!!

excon

Every single word you have written here is correct. Trying KSM isn't going to make anyone hate us more than they already do. So what you are saying is 100% correct.

And it has NOTHING to do with the fact at hand... that KSM's trial doesn't belong in a civilian court because he is a POW not a criminal. Therefore, if there is to be a trial at all, it should be in a MILITARY VENUE.

Tell me, excon, using your own argument, if we were to try KSM in a military court, would it make the world hate us more? Would it make those who hate us want to kill us more than they do now? If KSM is tried in a military court, "are they gonna want to kill us double down triple fantasticly more???"

Why are you so against trying him in the venue in which he truly belongs?

Elliot

Why are you so against trying him in the venue in which he truly belongs?Hello again, Elliot:

Actually HE wants to be tried as a combatant. It'll make him SHINE in the Arab world as a fighter who martyred himself...

But, he's NOT a combatant. He never picked up a gun. He wasn't captured on the battlefield. He was captured at home. He's a civilian slime ball, and it's a civilian court where he should be tried.

Besides that, if the show trial that you're so afraid of becomes a battle between Jihad and Democracy, why do you think Democracy would lose?? Don't you like it here?

excon

He's a civilian slime ball, and it's a civilian court where he should be tried.

So because he was captured at home he didn't commit acts of war against the United States?

So because he was captured at home he didn't commit acts of war against the United States?Hello again, Steve:

Yes, he committed an act of war. Fortunately for us, it also happens to be a crime. The dufus TRIED to try him in a military court, but he FAILED. You do understand, that if the decider hadn't failed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Good thing we have a backup plan.

I'd ask if you have another alternative, but I know your alternative is to let him rot in gitmo forever... THAT, my friend, would cause a never ending Jihad against us, but you'll NEVER understand that.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Actually HE wants to be tried as a combatant. It'll make him SHINE in the Arab world as a fighter who martyred himself...

But, he's NOT a combatant. He never picked up a gun. He wasn't captured on the battlefield. He was captured at home. He's a civilian slime ball, and it's a civilian court where he should be tried.

Besides that, if the show trial that you're so afraid of becomes a battle between Jihad and Democracy, why do you think Democracy would lose??? Don't you like it here?

excon

Uh huh... and going back to your argument about Eichmann, he was captured in front of his home in Argentina. He never lifted a gun either. He just gave the orders. But he was tried as a WAR CRIMINAL anyway, not a "civillian slime ball".

Can you please show me the legal precedent or SCOTUS ruling for your argument that if a war criminal or POW is captured in his home instead of the field of battle, he should therefore be tried as a civillian criminal and not a war criminal?

BTW, just for your information, he wasn't captured in his home. He was captured at a terrorist safehouse in Rawalpindi, Pakistan owned by Ahmed Abdul Qudoos. (As a side note, Qudoos is a microbiologist who was apparently working on biological weapons for AQ before his capture).

Elliot

Can you please show me the legal precedent or SCOTUS ruling for your argument that if a war criminal or POW is captured in his home instead of the field of battle, he should therefore be tried as a civillian criminal and not a war criminal?Hello again, Elliot:

We've had this conversation MANY times in the past, and I'm sure we'll have it MANY times again...

POW's are tried or released AFTER hostilities have ceased... When the dufus declared that the war on terror will NEVER end, that meant that we have to decide what we're going to do with the POW's, because we can't keep them FOREVER. You think we can. You're wrong.

Besides, if they were POW's, the right wing Supreme Court would NOT have given them habeas corpus rights, but they did. So, I guess even the Supreme Court has doubts about whether we can keep them FOREVER...

Face it, Elliot. The decider decided wrong. We're going to close Gitmo, and restore our American principles. I don't know why that bothers you... Yes, I do... People who want to keep people locked up forever WITHOUT a trial, aren't very American in the first place.

excon

We're gonna close Gitmo, and restore our American principles.

He's still working on that (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jSaBxCzG-HnrhSg0EjbqFuaP-tJQ)...

By the way, Obama was FOR a military trial of KSM (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/senator_obama_in_2006_try_ksm.html) before he was against it. I guess he was un-American before he wasn't.

Ex, your 'steps forward' argument is getting harder and harder to defend, even Newsweek sees through that.

'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx)


Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works.

Yep, two steps forward. How's that restoring our standing in the world thing going to look now?

At least that's the way the system usually works.Yep, two steps forward.... How's that restoring our standing in the world thing gonna look now?Hello Steve:

No, it isn't. It works the way I said it does. If he's acquitted of ONE charge, they'll charge him again, and then again, and even again if they have to... I'm telling you, he will NEVER walk the streets again, no matter what the email you received said.

What makes you think the system is fair? It ISN'T fair. It's biased toward the prosecutor. If it wasn't how come we got more people in jail than that evil old China who has, what, 10 times as many people as we do?

excon

It wasn't an email, it was Newsweek - no friend of conservatives - I made that clear.

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.
Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said. "Their assessment is negative," he said.

My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091122/D9C4RM3O1.html)

My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091122/D9C4RM3O1.html)Hello again, tom:

And, that should scare us how?

excon

Scare us ? No . But they should not be given this platform.

Hello again, tom:

And, that should scare us how?

excon

So you think that it's OK that POWs get a forum to vent their political and religious hatreds and justifications for mass murder.

And here I thought that the purpose of giving them a trial was to deliver justice, not political propaganda.

In point of fact we COULD give them a fair trial without giving them such a forum by using the military tribunal system. But now we know that your goal for this trial isn't justice, it's political venting against the USA. That's why you're fighting so hard to justify this nonsense.

Elliot

No. But they should not be given this platform.Hello again, tom:

I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed, the defense lawyer's wishes notwithstanding. Judges run those courts with an iron hand.

They'll be allowed to defend themselves on the charges - nothing more. As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that the prosecution will bring charges that don't relate to one's views. Therefore, one's views won't be allowed.

excon

Yes and I know that regardless of the iron fist defendants motives are part of the process. I know in the Manson trial his motives were explored by both prosecution and defense.Time Magazine described his statement at the end of the trial as :90 minutes of extraordinary sermonizing about himself and society in general .

I saw the transcripts of the Berrigan and Chicago 8 trials and at the end their motivating factors were well understood.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed, the defense lawyer's wishes notwithstanding. Judges run those courts with an iron hand.

They'll be allowed to defend themselves on the charges - nothing more. As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that the prosecution will bring charges that don't relate to one's views. Therefore, one's views won't be allowed.

excon


So... you think that the defense attorney isn't going to ask "So why did you do this," and then let KSM rant on in answer to the question?

You think that this isn't going to become a forum for Fundamentalist Islamic hatred?

Then you are an even bigger fool that I gave you credit for.

But not by much.

Elliot

You think that this isn't going to become a forum for Fundamentalist Islamic hatred?Hello again, Elliot:

And, if it is, that should scare us HOW? Do you actually think that when democracy puts jihad on trial, jihad will win??

Dude!

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

And, if it is, that should scare us HOW? Do you actually think that when democracy puts jihad on trial, jihad will win???

Dude!

excon

And here, I thought the purpose was to put KSM on trial for his crimes, not to put "jihad" or "democracy" on trial.

Just goes to show, one more time, that your goal isn't justice or upholding the Constitution. It's politics and ideology.

So please drop the talk about defending the Constitution, because you have now proven SEVERAL times in this thread that that isn't your goal.

Elliot

I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed

You mean like in the Moussaoui trial?

Just goes to show, one more time, that your goal isn't justice or upholding the Constitution. It's politics and ideology.Hello again, Elliot:

We hold public trials in this country for SHOW. That's why they're public. Are they public to send a message? Yes.

Are they public, just for the sake of being public, and for no other reason as you assert?? Dude. Why would you think that if JUSTICE wasn't the goal, we'd want to show it to the world?

Is all of this news to you? Dude!

excon

The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is not too pleased with Holder's decision (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68929-dem-chairman-not-happy-with-911-trials):


November 20, 2009

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense
Washington, D.C. 20301

The Honorable Eric H. Holder
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Sirs:

One week ago today, you announced that the Attorney General, in consultation with Secretary Gates, had determined that the United States government will prosecute in the Southern District of New York five detainees who are currently detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are charged in military commissions with conspiring to commit the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. These detainees are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. You also indicated your intention to withdraw pending military commission charges against these detainees, once federal charges are brought against them.

The decision to terminate the prosecution of these self-confessed terrorists in military commissions, transfer them to the United States, and bring them into a federal courthouse for trial raises many serious questions which I would like you both to address in a full committee briefing on December 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM. We would be willing to accommodate a classified briefing, upon request, due to the nature of the information that may need to be discussed.

As you know, the recently enacted Military Commission Act of 2009, which my colleagues and I carefully drafted, is a vast improvement over the previous military commission system by curing many of the legal infirmities of the latter. The new law ensures that hard fought convictions stick and are not overturned on appeal due to these structural deficiencies. I and many others, including the President, have argued that strengthened military tribunals are an appropriate forum to try detainees for law of war violations, such as those perpetrated against us in this country eight years ago. I am interested to know how the decision was made to take these detainees out of the military system and into federal court, how the July 20, 2009 protocol, “Determination of Guantanamo Cases Referred for Prosecution,” for making this decision was applied in these particular cases, the procedural status of the five detainees who will remain in the military commissions system, the location of future military tribunals, and the budgetary and other implications of these decisions. As a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue.

I look forward to engaging with you on this critical topic in the full committee briefing to ensure that justice is served and preserved. I expect that the full committee briefing will also help define the scope of a subsequent full committee public hearing.

Should you have any questions concerning this request, please have your staff contact the committee at 202-225-4151.

Very truly yours,


IKE SKELTON
Chairman

He wants to drag him before the committee to explain why he chose to ignore the legislation "carefully drafted" by he and his colleagues for just such cases, contrary to the President's own assertion that military tribunals were appropriate and wants to know where he's headed next. A Democrat controlled Congress drafted the military commission legislation that would pass SCOTUS' muster and Obama blessed it. It's not just us "cowards" pushing back, ex... Holder's got some explaining to do.