[speechlesstx]

Once again I am un-American according to one of our elected officials. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) thinks it is un-American 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? How American is it to call Daniel Pearl's family un-American?

At least Obama has made Durbin's "dream come true."

[tomder55]

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.

[tomder55]

Steve ;Stratfor dissects this decision .

Deciphering the Mohammed Trial | STRATFOR

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

Once again I am un-American according to one of our elected officials. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) thinks it is un-American to oppose Obama and Holder's show trial in New York

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 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

[tomder55]

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

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

[excon]

Rudy was talking about the Zacarias Moussaoui case

Hello again, tom:

And, the difference is??

excon

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Gimme a link.

excon

It is from tom's earlier post.

[tomder55]

I'll give another
Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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 !

[excon]

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