[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

In May Obama said he was for these tribunals. 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 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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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=

[speechlesstx]

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, Rove said no such thing. Not even close. I guess that's why you haven't furnished the quote yet.

[speechlesstx]

Get this, 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."

[tomder55]

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

[speechlesstx]

No, he would plead "present."

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Two steps forward, one step back = progress.

Um, all I'm seeing are steps backward.

[tomder55]

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)

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

He's still working on that...

[speechlesstx]

By the way, Obama was FOR a military trial of KSM before he was against it. I guess he was un-American before he wasn't.