[speechlesstx]

As Patterico has pointed out, 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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[speechlesstx]

More food for thought for you ex, courtesy of James Taranto:

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?

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

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

excon

[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

[tomder55]

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 !

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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. ;)

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .