November 16, 2009

"Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point."

"The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war."

174 comments:

MadisonMan said...

I've also read that KSM wants just to plead guilty so his martyrdom is assured, in which case how does AQ learn anything they don't already know?

PJ said...

IMO, this case isn't being brought in the hope of obtaining any particular jury verdict or sentencing decision, it's being brought in order to force (prolonged) pretrial discovery and suppression proceedings. The actual trial and verdict are indeed beside the point.

Robert Cook said...

More of the self-disgraced enabler of war crimes John Yoo's mewlings to try to save his own quivering ass from the judicial fires.

Burn, baby, burn!

1jpb said...

"It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war."

No doubt, according to the right wing, we ended up on the losing side of the "in effect" ended war.

As Rush said; this is BHO's Waterloo. I guess healthcare isn't going to be BHO's Waterloo anymore. Anyway, now that BHO is on track for failure, Rush's dream will soon come to pass thanks to America having lost the war on terror. How it is that you cons can admire and follow these dopey professional cons is endlessly fascinating.

BTW, did anyone catch Rush's chit chat regarding food hiding from poor folks w/ kids? It turns out that when Rush sends his people to get food (he doesn't shop himself), they never come back saying that the food was scarce: it's not like food can hide from folks w/ kids. That was something.

Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

STFU Cook. You are worse than Lonewacko.

We are giving a trial where the accused will remain locked up even if he is aquitted. How is that not a show trial?

So, if we think we can convict you, we bring you to trial, and keep bringing you to trial until we get a conviction.

If we don't think we can convict you, we just keep you locked up.

And having a military tribunal that looks at all of the evidence under relaxed rules of admisibility, would have been the Dark Night of Fascism. Better to it like this and destroy the entire justice system.

Which reminds me: liberals, how is that fierce moral urgency of ending the dark night of Bush fascism thing going?

Chase said...

"The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war."

Damn Straight.

John Yoo is a patriot who has done great service to this country, unlike a certain lawyer who currently holds the title of Attorney General of the United States. Yoo's critics aren't patriots - they are self-serving prigs who don't really give a shit about whether the United States remains free and protected at all. They aren't worthy enough to even lick the soles of the feet of amn like John Yoo.

We are heading down the road of disrespect for the United States and it's military that will exceed the painful days of Jimmy Carter. The price doesn't come due today - but it will arrive within the next 3 years. And it will be far steeper than the haters of America on the left want you to even think about today.

Ann Althouse said...

"I've also read that KSM wants just to plead guilty so his martyrdom is assured, in which case how does AQ learn anything they don't already know?"

That question is answered at the link.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Why didn't the Bush team air and defend their point of view on these questions while they were in power? There really wasn't a debate then; just the administration doing what it wanted and crazy hippies in the other corner screaming about civil liberties. Pretty undemocratic.

traditionalguy said...

My thoughts exactly mirror John Yoo's on this inside of the White House terrorist accomplice act by Obama against the USA. This is the G. D. America proclamation sending killer chickens home to roost in NYC again in order to show the Muslims that Obama is not their enemy, but rather Obama has their back. He cannot spin this one or smile about it as if it's a rational act that we just do not understand right. This President hates America and he is seeking its total destruction by making one "mistake" at a time that's being attributed to politics.

John said...

"Why didn't the Bush team air and defend their point of view on these questions while they were in power? There really wasn't a debate then; just the administration doing what it wanted and crazy hippies in the other corner screaming about civil liberties. Pretty undemocratic."

There was a huge debate then. And they aired all of their points back then. Liberals were just too busy screaming and throwing shit like angry monkeys to notice.

If liberals had actually cared about anything except throwing temper tantrums and scoring political points, they wouldn't look like such confused fools now that they are responsible for something.

Cedarford said...

The problem is that it was an act of war, but it happened a long time ago and most Americans resist the rhetoric that we are still in real war where we must mobilize and fight a significant enemy.

Even Bush though he postured as a wartime President..spent most his time talking about the need to love Islam as a religion of Peace, while our duty was to shop, travel, and enjoy our "wartime" tax cuts. And spent his time on 2 elective Nation-building wars and doing symbolic visits celebrating 9/11 Victimhood, "hero troops" Victimhood events and so on.

Our problem is that this is a "tweener" sort of war. Like all the other decades-long low level, low intensity armed threats that some 100 nations in any given year are dealing with.

The WWII rhetoric - amidst tax cuts and calls for us to do more shopping AND do something nice for a neighbor - of course are in bad conflict with one another!

At the same time, these opponents in no way see themselves as civilian criminals. Even though they may be arrested and imprisoned as a civilian criminal (Mandels) or executed as a criminal. They are enemy combatants fighting outside the rules of war and protections Conventions give if caught. OSS agents who later drank beer with ex-Gestapo did so without any belief that either side was a morally berift criminal - even though a few years earlier the OSS guy was trying to blow up Gestapo HQ and the Gestapo would have put a bullet in the OSS guy's head or hanged him after a rough interrogation period.

John said...

"The problem is that it was an act of war, but it happened a long time ago and most Americans resist the rhetoric that we are still in real war where we must mobilize and fight a significant enemy."

That is exactly right. Bush should have gone forward with a military tribunal and hung him years ago. That is what the US would have done in saner times when it actually was willing to defend itself. The whole thing is a farce.

Elliott A said...

Trying KSM in the US Courts is like spitting on the graves of all those buried in Arlington and all over the country . How does a foreigner who committed an act of war against the US deserve the rights that all those men and women fought and died for. The 9/11 attack wasn't crazy people trying to see how many people they could kill, rather an attempt to disrupt our government, our military, and our financial center. Acts of war committed by foreigners are not crimes. Clearly, the president and his minions have a total disconnect with reality.

MadisonMan said...

I don't think that question is answered at all. Yoo talks about Moussaoui's (I almost spelled that correctly the first time!) case, but are the two equivalent if KSM just goes ahead a pleads guilty?

Does KSM even have lawyers at this point? John Yoo says that KSM's lawyers are going to press for secrets, yet there aren't any lawyers around, as far as I can tell.

John said...

Elliot,

Haven't you heard Dr. Phil? These Islamists are just misunderstood. And we will never really know if religion was a factor in what KSM is accused of doing. We just need to understand what a hard life he has as a Muslim and try to reach out and help him.

Now if KSM had been found with a Glen Beck book in his possession or listening to Rush Limbaugh that would be different. In that case, just hang him and be done with it. But since there is no evidence of him being anything but an oppressed Muslim, we need to be understanding and the legal process do its job.

John said...

"Does KSM even have lawyers at this point? John Yoo says that KSM's lawyers are going to press for secrets, yet there aren't any lawyers around, as far as I can tell."

Mousaoui plead guilty as well. Also, KSM will have court appointed attornies and it will take a long time for him to convince a court to let him fire them. Those attorneys will not exactly be friends of the US and will have some time to do as much damage as they can.

Darcy said...

What John says. All day long on this.

Joan said...

MadisonMan, don't you think "if KSM just pleads guilty" is an awfully big "if"? Why should he plead guilty when he can just file a motion for dismissal? The case, legally speaking, is a mess. He wasn't read his Miranda rights, he was water-boarded to obtain his confession -- how can any evidence actually ever be admitted?

This is a very bad joke. "If" he pleads guilty, "if" he lawyers up -- what "if" he decides to represent himself, in which case all discovery will have to be delivered to him, personally?

This decision has no rational basis whatsoever.

garage mahal said...

John Yoo quotes Andy McCarthy in the WSJ. Perfect.

Lance said...

"Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it."

Is that true? Isn't there some standard of relevance that would permit the Justice Dept. to only reveal those details that are directly relevant to the case? Or must the defense be granted access to everything, on the assumption that something might be relevant?

MadisonMan said...

Joan, as I said, I had read last week that that was his intention, to guilt-plead himself into martyrdom. I have no idea how the author -- I think it was in the Daily News -- knew this. I agree it's a big IF. But I think it's something to ponder.

edutcher said...

Cedarford said...

The problem is that it was an act of war, but it happened a long time ago...

Stick around. In most parts of the country, it will feel like yesterday only because it happened at the local mall yesterday, a lot sooner than most would like to contemplate.

PS tg, We agree on this one.

Cedarford said...

MadisonMan said...
I've also read that KSM wants just to plead guilty so his martyrdom is assured, in which case how does AQ learn anything they don't already know?


That was true at GITMO when he couldn't give speeches to the world or had no massive set of rights by which he could try and seriously damage America by giving AQ an intelligence windfall through Discovery. Or use the courts to stretch this out for 3-5 years before trial and further damage America economically.

(Zacharias Moussaoui's lawyers diverted up to 200 people at a time from looking for Islamist dangers or apprehending others - by forcing the FBI and other agencies to fetch all the discovery documents and have a whole layer of people looking and trying to stop other lawyers getting rich off this to not get stuff with sensitive secrets. The cost of the MOussaoui case was 32 million in extra lawyers, security, crap like paying investigators to go to France for two weeks to see if Zack had an abusive father. That did not include the 200 already salaried FBI, Homeland Sec people pulled off other assignments and duties to be Moussaoui's lawyers fetch boys.)

Don't worry, the anti-American ACLU lawyers, Jewish/WASP/Foreign-born activists (whatever) will be happily telling KSM that a guilty plea may have made sense at GITMO...but using the US civilian justice system against the BUsh people, the CIA, the military...is just too delicious an opportunity to pass on. Just start screaming torture and Zionism made me do it and I weep for the children unfortunately killed. 5 years of fun. 100 million spent, minimum.
Possibility of crippling the CIA and portions of the military needing life-saving intelligence as well as poltically damaging opponents of the Islamist-friendly Obama-Holder-Leahy Left.

Sweet!

His ACLU lawyers will explain it to KSM and his pals.

Maguro said...

The strategy of fighting international terrorism through the courts is what got us 9/11 in the first place. So yes, by all means, let's go down that road again as long as it will make the Europeans like us a little more.

Idiots.

Robert Cook said...

"The whole thing is a farce."

Truer words were never spoke...although not in the way you mean.

AJ Lynch said...

This must be Obama's stimulus package for lawyers!

chickenlittle said...

Even the New Yorker got the big picture right. Before the 2008 election even.

Wake up before it's too late!

Floydster said...

Ah, John Yoo is highly attuned to declarations that we are not at war. Too bad he is so lame on actual declarations of war. To wit, Yoo was (and still is) fighting a war we never declared.

Details, details.

Larry J said...

Lawyers and legalists will be the death of America. They worship at the alter of the bitch-god "process" while justice takes a distant back seat.

traditionalguy said...

Defense attorneys are ethically required to put up the best defense. Remember the attorney who brilliantly and intentionally presented no defense and his tactic brought a retrial on appeal? The attorneys will simply demand release of state secrets on cyber intelligence and insider Al Queada tips that are way more than a phony Valerie Plame exposure, and wait for the case to be voluntarily dismissed. OR, a much worse outcome would be the First Great Stalinist Show trial that we ever put on which will set the future standard for your rights and mine too.

1jpb said...

Cedarford,

Since you seem to like a bit of a philosophical POV, you must be willing to acknowledge that the phrase 'war on terror' was destined to follow the trajectory of all other impossible to end 'wars on X', e.g. the war on drugs or poverty.

Sure, a 'war on islamofascist terrorists' would have made a bit more sense. But, this title does still overly credit the relative historical power of these current perpetrators. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that plenty of anti-Western folks and possible recruits might appreciate taking on this islamofascist title.

You don't have to be Sun Tzu to think that it'd be best to have a war on something that doesn't appeal to our enemies or folks that could be recruited to fight us. Otherwise we're just making up phrases to make ourselves feel good, while we simultaneously lose real ground in the so-called 'war on X'. Why do right wingers like to exalt the power of our enemies? For all of W's tough talk and Yoo's legal advice, it is still undeniable that the W tribunals and the overwhelming pile of legal challenges created by the previous administration have been a giant mess that was completely unacknowledged in Yoo's piece. [These facts were also absent in Althouse's presentation of Yoo's piece--and she is a law prof!! Haha.] But Yoo did have lots of scary 'what if' questions, most (if not all) of which he certainly knows have non-scary answers. Funny stuff.

You cons can take your tough terror talk (bring em on, smoke em out, war on em terrorists, etc) to substitute for you blankies and teddy bears. I'll stick w/ BHO blowing away terrorists in Pakistan and bringing terrorists to justice in Fed courts, tribunals, or indefinite detention on a case by case basis.

Pogo said...

My hope is that KSM and his fellow conspirators get a long probation and a big red mark in their personal files.

A strongly-worded lecture by the judge before they are set free is surely in order as well.

Upon their release, visits by social workers to their homes can offer assistance with the strains of daily life in the US, while maintaining their cultural diversity. With sufficient welfare payments and job training, they can return to being productive members of society.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Yeah, the cons are really revealing themselves to be a bunch of bed wetting pansies on this one. Here in NYC we say "bring it on" and actually mean it. As for KSM having a platform to speak against America, how this "damages" us is something I really don't understand. Are the cons THAT insecure about our way of life? Let him make an ass out of himself. Then give him life in jail to deny him martyrdom.

mccullough said...

This is what we expected from Obama, and he does not disappoint.

If he decides to run for re-election in 2012, people can judge him by his decisions (and indecisions).

Everyone now knows what Hope and Change means. Enjoy.

Pogo said...

"bringing terrorists to justice"...

How true!

If only the Illinois State Bar Association could have had a role in the process in the first place!

Clearly the solution to terrorist attacks, like flying planes into buildings, is modern criminal law.

Take Chicago, for example.
It's like paradise, only better.
Criminals live in fear of the legal system there.

9/11 would have been just another serial killer conviction and wrapped up long ago, had we only had the foresight to give the reins over to Obama, Blagojevich, and the Illinois Democratic Machine.

garage mahal said...

"Due process will kill us all".

I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson said that.

Almost Ali said...

I think we're overlooking the tourist angle. If I were a NYC retailer, I'd stock up on selected Surahs, prayer rugs, and goat kebabs. It'll be like Mecca. Business will boom.

Robert Cook said...

"Lawyers and legalists will be the death of America. They worship at the alter of the bitch-god 'process' while justice takes a distant back seat.

Without "process" there can be no justice. In other words, without process, there is only vigilantism.

Quayle said...

Our district and circuit courts are all constructs of Congress. Since we're in a 'tweener war, why don't we fashion some kind of 'tweener courts, part military/part civilian?

The constitution give us a way to alter as needed. Why are our representatives so lacking in imagination that they can't design and implement the changes we need in this new 'tweener war era?

mccullough said...

Robert Cook,

How is a military commission not process?

The issue is whether KSM and the others deserve a civil trial in the U.S. with all the constitutional rights it entails.

I notice that the criminal justice systems in Europe nowhere resemble the criminal justice system in the U.S. Do those countries not provide process?

Joseph said...

They should be tried in the International Criminal Court which was designed to try war criminals.

John said...

"Yeah, the cons are really revealing themselves to be a bunch of bed wetting pansies on this one. Here in NYC we say "bring it on" and actually mean it. As for KSM having a platform to speak against America, how this "damages" us is something I really don't understand."

Of course you don't understand. You are retarded. It must be really hard going through like that stupid. "Bring it on" means we find you and kill you. It doens't mean "oh lets make sure we give a good lawyer and lots of understanding in court in New York."

LarsPorsena said...

"Without "process" there can be no justice."

What's justice in this case?

A judicial masturbatory exercise?

A concurrent life sentence along with the Gitmo detention?

Surely not the death penalty?

After all his death can not bring the victims back to life...or so the meme goes........after a five year trial, 15 years of appeals..

judicial jackoff

Almost Ali said...

"They should be tried in the International Criminal Court which was designed to try war criminals.

Bingo. You read Obama's mind.

Scott M said...

Without "process" there can be no justice. In other words, without process, there is only vigilantism.

If we're going to parse words, the general use of the term justice isn't the process, it's the outcome. You can have justice served (albeit subjectively) by a complete accident of circumstances.

I believe what he meant was the process in the larger sense of the law and how we apply it. We started out with a fairly straightforward process. This was added upon and added upon until what we have now is a legal system that only the experts and specialists can truly understand.

Nobody has yet mentioned the obvious drawbacks to a civil trial. The judge, the prosecutors, the jury...all will become "legitimate" fatwa (?spelling?) targets for pretty much the rest of their lives...and their family's lives?

Adele Mundy said...

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

John said...

"I notice that the criminal justice systems in Europe nowhere resemble the criminal justice system in the U.S. Do those countries not provide process?"

When you are on the kind of meds Cook is on, you really don't have time to know much about other criminal justice systems.

You are correct in non common law countries things like the right to confront witnesses and exclude hearsay and have an adversarial trial are not gaurenteed.

mccullough said...

They can't be tried in the International Criminal Court.

The ICC allows all kinds of hearsay and KSM and others have the right to confront the witnesses against them. Also due process allows KSM to have a trial by jury, not some crazy left wing panel of judges.

The ICC is a kangaroo court. It is not worthy of these American prisoners.

edutcher said...

Robert Cook said...

Without "process" there can be no justice. In other words, without process, there is only vigilantism.

While Montana made a mess of it, California found process was hopelessly corrupt and there was no justice without the Committees of Vigilance.

Dark Eden said...

This is going to be such a clusterfuck of epic, biblical proportion. Its like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I feel a little bad because the car crash seems to be aiming at the house of someone I don't particularly like and I dare to have a tiny bit of schadenfreude amongst my general disgust and remorse.

Almost Ali said...

Who here would like to represent the accused? Especially given the forgone conclusion.

The American justice system is now poised to prove to the world that we're NOT a country of laws, but a country of men.

Pogo said...

Future terrorist attacks should be compared to the impact of nonviolent deaths from, say, heart disease or car accidents or choking on hot dogs.

And you will see how minor a worry it really is!

Unless the impact at least meets the level of diabetes-related deaths, perhaps no more than a firm editorial in the NYTimes need be done for terror crimes resulting in fewer than, oh, say, 13 deaths.

Lengthy resolutions by Congress would be a welcome tool as well.

Alex said...

The ICC is a kangaroo court. It is not worthy of these American prisoners.

So says another Rushbot. Why do you hate intentional law? Why is America in flagrant violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, and the Human Rights Conventions? Why do we support Israel, that viper's nest of war criminals?

Alex said...

America is a country of Rushbots hurrying to lynch the scary Muslim man.

Cedarford said...

1jpb said...
Cedarford,

Since you seem to like a bit of a philosophical POV, you must be willing to acknowledge that the phrase 'war on terror' was destined to follow the trajectory of all other impossible to end 'wars on X', e.g. the war on drugs or poverty.


Of course I find the WOT was just rhetoric.
And Bush was derelict claiming that he was so consumed with Evidloers and his two elective nation-building wars that he had no time to look at exploding healthcare costs, a failing financial system, loss of 3.8 million manufacturing jobs to
China as "wartime commander".

The fool even failed to address his own Party's major issues when he had both the House and Senate in Republican hands - like illegal immigration, working to restrict late-term abortions. Instead he worked to reward his wealthy cronies with tax cuts, grew the Fed gov't faster than LBJ, failed to veto a single spending bill for his 1st 6 years in office.

But be that as it may, the person in Yemen who seeks to attack the US because he disagrees with our policies - and organizes in a military style organization and uses military weapons is still an enemy combatant quite different from a common civilian criminal or a US citizen doing "insurgency" over policy.
These enemy combatants do not consider themselves criminals, do not believe they are bound by infidel laws anymore than we believe we are bound by Sharia.

Yes, they are few in number, but they are still enemy..but in 10 years they might not be considered enemy but colleagues. Just as many Saudi "hero" Mujahadeen went from being guests at Reagan's White House to being on Clinton's executive sanction list, into Bush's "Defining time of our lives" bin of evildoers in under 10 years.

Whereas a civilian criminal will almost always be considered a criminal by most cultures and nations - cutting across societal lines. And 10 years out, changes in politics, conflict end...will not make a civilian criminal into a non-criminal

So...you try enemy combatants in the military or you treat them as blameless POWs.
And you try civilian criminals in civilian criminal court, not by military tribunals.

Mix the two up, as Obama-Holder-Leahy-ACLU have done and you create a hell of a mess.

Simon Kenton said...

From now on, if you are a terrorist, there is certainly no point in attacking us anywhere other than in the US itself. Bigger targets, better publicity, free representation, and all the rights of US citizens. This is eminently foreseeable. It was either not foreseen, or it doesn't matter to those making the decision. BOHICA.

Alex said...

From now on, if you are a terrorist, there is certainly no point in attacking us anywhere other than in the US itself. Bigger targets, better publicity, free representation, and all the rights of US citizens. This is eminently foreseeable. It was either not foreseen, or it doesn't matter to those making the decision. BOHICA.

How horrible we should be a nation of laws, not fire-breathing Rushbots.

Alex said...

As usual Cedarford is the only voice of reason from the right-wing on this blog.

Almost Ali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Almost Ali said...

The only question at this point is whether the judge will be allowed to wear a burka for his own protection.

Alex said...

Almost Ali - why should a judge be hidden from the accused? We are a nation of laws, not rabid mouth-breathing right-wingers. This is OUR country, not theirs.

Bill Kilgore said...

If the host, or anyone besides, has a moment- I'd like a little feedback on a concern of mine. What I'm most uncomfortable about is that KSM will be tried in a "standard" Federal Court. However, it is virtually certain that standard principals of American jurisprudence must be ignored, or altered significantly, in order to allow this trial to proceed. KSM certainly wasn't Mirandized, he won't be able to confront certain witnesses- we also have the "torture" issue to work around amongst a host of other problems.

As such, I see virtually no way that we aren't about to create a separate Federal "track" to handle terrorism cases. In short, we are creating a "New" (parallel) Federal Court. That court will offer a rather narrow set of Constitutional protections. I find this precedent to be extremely dangerous going forward and I am absolutely shocked that Obama (who should have some background in this area) isn't at least dealing with that concern.

Am I the only one seeing this problem?

Pogo said...

Alex's comments are a sine wave alternating between Buchanan and Chomsky.

Alex said...

Bill Killgore - since we aren't willing to deal with the matter as a war and keep KSM in military detention as a POW, then it has to be tried as criminal case. Since he received no Miranda warning, AND was tortured, I'd say the government has no case and must release him!

John said...

"So says another Rushbot. Why do you hate intentional law? Why is America in flagrant violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, and the Human Rights Conventions? Why do we support Israel, that viper's nest of war criminals?"

Alex, I am sorry but dunk and liberal is no way to go through life. You should go read the rules for the Nurmberg trials. That is international law. The gold standard of international law. And those trials were nothing like what KSM is going to get. Further, military tribunals are an establish part of international law. There is nothing illegal about having them. Countries have had them and special teorrism courts where the judges and jurors are anonmous and the rules for evidence are relaxed for decades.

If you are going to scream "international law" at least know what the term means.

Almost Ali said...

Meanwhile, it's a great relief to hear this is all Bush's fault - and shall remain his fault until kingdom-come.

The only thing I don't get is why the kingdom-comers are doing Bush's bidding. Apparently there's some nuance that I'm just not getting. Of course, I'm not a community organizer steeped in Alinsky and Affirmative Action.

Joan said...

I was going to award Adele top points for humor with her Palin quip, but then I stumbled across this gem from Alex:

As usual Cedarford is the only voice of reason from the right-wing on this blog.

Words fail.

Andrea said...

Hey, Robert Cook, Montaigne(2), and the rest of the lefty trolls, you've got to step up to the plate because alex is leaving you in the dust:

"Almost Ali - why should a judge be hidden from the accused? We are a nation of laws, not rabid mouth-breathing right-wingers. This is OUR country, not theirs."

Man, that is some prime, grade-A stupid right there. Beautiful.

Anyway, I can't wait until terrorism is so common in this country that we will have "an acceptable level of violence" like they had in Northern Ireland. Living in a city in the US will be like living in Beirut -- it'll be such fun for the kids to dodge bomb attacks on their way to school! To think I thought the rest of my life would be boring and peaceful. Thanks, D'Ohbama Co.!

chickenlittle said...

As usual Cedarford is the only voice of reason from the right-wing on this blog.

You really have jumped the shark haven't you?

Kirk Parker said...

"You can have justice served (albeit subjectively) by a complete accident of circumstances. "

Indeed, like with that Dahmer fellow.


Adele Mundy wins Best Comment, though--ROFL!!!

Darcy said...

LOL, Joan.

I think Palladian once said that Alex is Titus. Could that be true? Palladian is pretty sharp.

John said...

"Bill Killgore - since we aren't willing to deal with the matter as a war and keep KSM in military detention as a POW,"

No, he is not a POW. He committed war crimes. You lose your POW status the moment you refuse to wear a uniform and target civilians. He is a war crminal and should be treated like every other war criminal, tried by military tribunal.

chickenlittle said...

I just figured out that Alex must enjoy liquid lunches.

wv: commo (honest to blog it said that)

former law student said...

It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

Not exactly. Trying KSM as a criminal declares that this nation was never at war.

Obama's trying to undo the Bush administration's mischief. Are we surprised that this provokes criticism from the Bush administration?

Recall the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln, one of about four wise GOP presidents:

“How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? The answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”

Calling a bunch of thugs an enemy force doesn't make it so.

XWL said...

My father's theory (one that makes as much sense as any), is that the DOJ will put the Bush Administration on trial more so than KSM.

John Yoo, expect your subpoena any day now.

Voi dire, ought to be fascinating, a shame it won't be televised, I'd love to see how they find a sufficient number of impartial New Yorkers to serve in a jury, and as alternates.

Anybody who claims they can be impartial in this case is lying, so it's up to the lawyers to determine why they are lying, and what biases they are trying to hide.

AJ Lynch said...

Alex A. Fonzarella

former law student said...

You lose your POW status the moment you refuse to wear a uniform

What uniform should the al-Qaeda have worn? The same as Tim McVeigh?

Scott M said...

“How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? The answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”

This coming from the side of the spectrum that gave us political correctness??? Words do indeed fail.

former law student said...

Further, do no lawyers read this blog? Not being an idiot, Holder must have enough admissible evidence to convict KSM.

Does he have to lay bare all of our intelligence-gathering secrets in order to convict KSM? I seriously doubt it on my theory that Eric Holder is not a complete idiot.

John said...

"What uniform should the al-Qaeda have worn? The same as Tim McVeigh?"

The act of joining an international organization committed to waging asyemetric warfare makes you a war criminal. For the longest time, people who pretended to be civilians, didn't wear uniforms or fight for a specific country, were sumarily executed. We did that becasue we wanted to protect civilians. If combatants hide among and pretend to be civilians, then civilians are placed in much greater danger. The idea was to make sure people wore uniforms and didn't fight as partisans.

KSM is not Erwin Rommel. Rommel worked for a nation and did not hide among enemy civilians for the purpose of killing them.

Today thanks to your type of thinking, we have made it pay to be a terrorist. If you are a soldier and wear a uniform, you are either shot on sight or locked up in a POW camp for the duration of the war no questions asked. But if you are a terrorist, you get to move freely among the civilian population and if you are caught get a gold plated trial in New York before anyone can do squat to you. Asymetric warfare and terrorism is much more effective than playing by the rules. Terrorism pays. And the more we bend over backwards to treat them as criminals, the more it will pay and the more it will become the preferred method of warfare. That is not a good thing.

John said...

"Further, do no lawyers read this blog? Not being an idiot, Holder must have enough admissible evidence to convict KSM.

Does he have to lay bare all of our intelligence-gathering secrets in order to convict KSM? I seriously doubt it on my theory that Eric Holder is not a complete idiot."


Frankly I hope your theory is right. But I am not convinced. But even if you are right and they have other evidence, thing about what we are doing here. So, if we think we can convict you, we bring you to trial, and keep bringing you to trial until we get a conviction. If we don't think we can convict you, we just keep you locked up.

And this is supposed to not be a show trial and make our justice system look good?

former law student said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Parker said...

Alex,

As the famous philosopher once said, "Sometimes words have two meanings".

"Law" as it appears the the phrase "American civil and criminal law", is something completely different from "law" as used in "international law". You appear to be unaware of the difference.

Kirk Parker said...

"As usual Cedarford is the only voice of reason from the right-wing on this blog."

See? C4 is a moby, and Alex is his assistant.

Almost Ali said...

Relax, Alex, I'm only expressing an opinion.

Well, maybe that's not entirely true regarding the "opinion," since I see it more as a foregone conclusion - the upcoming, so-called trial, that is.

In fact, I see it as yet another display of American buffoonery - which was [also] clearly demonstrated in the last presidential election.

To be sure, however, I have great empathy for the believers, the lemmings. Although I'd rather not die for their mindless and dangerous stupidity.

So, kindly forgive me for refusing to go along with the program.

Maguro said...

My father's theory (one that makes as much sense as any), is that the DOJ will put the Bush Administration on trial more so than KSM.

That does make a certain amount of sense. The DOJ's prosecution strategy could be something like this:

"Yes, the evil Bush administration tortured this man and none of the evidence they collected is admissible in court, but please let us execute him anyway."

Then, if KSM beats the rap it's all Bush's fault for not following the legal process. On the other hand, if he's convicted, then the Obama DOJ brilliantly succeeded in bringing KSM to justice despite Bush's lawless stupidity.

Dark Eden said...

You lose your POW status the moment you refuse to wear a uniform

What uniform should the al-Qaeda have worn? The same as Tim McVeigh?
11/16/09 2:53 PM
>>>>

The mighty Bill Whittle wrote an amazing article called Sanctuary that discussed exactly this point. Sadly it doesn't seem to be on the web anymore, but I'll try to paraphrase the point with my own inadequate 'prose.'

A uniform is a sanctuary for the people not wearing one. It says, "hey, I'm a target, shoot me!" But more importantly it says that the guy over there is NOT a target, leave him alone.

Taking off the uniform is a distinct advantage for the individual soldier / fighter / whatever. It makes it so you can blend in with civilians and kill more of the enemy.

The downside is it puts those civilians' lives in danger because there's no longer an easy way to differentiate you from them.

This is why a uniform is such a big deal. its life and death. Its using another person as a shield and letting them be killed so you can get away. Its a cowardly, vile act that is not readily obvious if you haven't been in combat or have been distanced from it.

This is one of the reason combatants who don't go in uniform don't get the same rights as those who do. Its officially a 'big deal.'

As to what uniform they should have worn... well that very question sort of leads you down a road to answer why Al Queda is such a bad organization.

Bill Whittle's version was so much better. Ah well.

Scott M said...

What uniform should the al-Qaeda have worn? The same as Tim McVeigh?

I suppose the difference in citizenship between the two is lost on you and has no significance?

John said...

"Then, if KSM beats the rap it's all Bush's fault for not following the legal process."

No one outside of the derranged left will buy that. Further, Obama and Holder are kidding themselves if they think anyone outside their derranged supporters are going to be shocked or care how KSM was treated. If anything people are going to be surprised at how well he was treated considering what he is. They picked the wrong anti-torture posterboy.

Robert Cook said...

"The issue is whether KSM and the others deserve a civil trial in the U.S. with all the constitutional rights it entails.

I notice that the criminal justice systems in Europe nowhere resemble the criminal justice system in the U.S. Do those countries not provide process?"


Why shouldn't they deserve a full and fair trial in the American system? Don't we always brag about how fucking perfect and infallible we are, the heroes of the world, the most virtuous society that ever lived? Don't we point to our Constitution and the system of justice erected upon it as the acme of human jurisprudence, as recognizing that all men are created equal, and thus possessed of the same rights before the law?

The fact of the matter is, most of the alleged "terrorists" we have arrested, imprisoned and tortured in our terror war have been released, with even the Pentagon saying most were innocents caught up in our global dragnets.

Shouldn't we want to give these men our full due process of law to insure that we don't put innocent men away for life, or execute them, (as well as to demonstrate for the world how the angelic choirs sing when American justice is delivered)? It's obvious that many--though, not all--right wingers don't really believe their own words when they extoll the unique virtues of the American system, preferring persecution to prosecution, fearful of the possible results when the they aren't predetermined.

As it is, our system is too far from fair or impartial, and is far too punitive, even for Americans, so it really is the least we can do to provide these men with criminal trials.

And, just because the Europen criminal justice systems do not replicate our own, (or are--presumably--inferior to our own), does not mean they lack process; they merely have different processes. This is vastly different than merely throwing these men in jail cells for life without any adjudication at all.

Dark Eden said...

Plus dredging up how Bush acted is going to make people compare the job Bush did to the one Obama is doing. Its a lot easier to compare Bush's terms to Hopenchange. Its a lot harder to compare it to the mess we have now and come off looking good.

This is really going to rebound on them badly. We're all telling them this and they still don't see it coming.

They WON'T see it coming.

William said...

At his trial, KSM will say words and strike poses that the audience here will find oocasionally comical and frequently vile. In other lands, some silent fool will nod assent and vow to take up the cause.....Was any terrorist dissuaded from his cause because the blind sheikh got a fair trial? I think John Yoo's scenario that the trial helped the cause of terrorists far more likely. I just don't see the point. The money being spent on this trial would be far better spent on other causes. ACORN workers should picket the courhouse and demand that the money be spent on food stamps for the children of the unemployed.

Alex said...

Cookie - then MOVE to Europe and renounce your US citizenship since you hate America so much!

*burp* meds kickin' in

traditionalguy said...

As I remember the War on Terrorism quandry is the high vulnerability of a developed city such as NYC that is nearly indefensable to a sneak attack on the cheap at its weak points.The only salvation for NYC the last 8 years has been the Bushies viscious determination to intercept the planners messages and ruthlessly acquire secrets by Waterboarding and rendition. But we can join Alex thanking Allah that the evil days of Bush are over for moslem terrorists everywhere...now NYC's song will become "meet you at the Easter Parade in your Bomb Bonnet with all the frills upon it."

Dark Eden said...

Why shouldn't they deserve a full and fair trial in the American system? Don't we always brag about how fucking perfect and infallible we are, the heroes of the world, the most virtuous society that ever lived? Don't we point to our Constitution and the system of justice erected upon it as the acme of human jurisprudence, as recognizing that all men are created equal, and thus possessed of the same rights before the law?
>>>>>

Woo, snarkorama.

You know they sell plane tickets out of the country.

Just saying.

You could have snark free living in the socialist utopia of Eurabia by tomorrow! Just imagine it!

Big Mike said...

Very strange that no one seems to remember how easily Zacarias Moussaoui was able to tie our court system in knots. I look for more of the same with KSM, except that KSM is probably smarter than Moussaoui and has had time to study the Moussaoui trial and refine his tactics.

I see no upside to this prosecution, and I suspect that long before the trial is over the American public will be thinking that Bush and Yoo got it right and Obama and Holder were fools. I hope I'm wrong, not because I think Obama and Holder are anything other than foolish, but it will be bad for the United States and I happen to live here.

former law student said...

"Law" as it appears the the phrase "American civil and criminal law", is something completely different from "law" as used in "international law".

Funnily enough, our Supreme Court has held quite the opposite:

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. The Paquete Habana, 44 L.Ed. 320 (1900).

the difference in citizenship between the two is lost on you

The Bush administration threw U.S. citizens into Gitmo same as foreigners. They wanted to try in front of military commissions anyone “engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” irrespective of citizenship. Are you arguing this Bush policy was a bad or misguided idea?

MadisonMan said...

Does he have to lay bare all of our intelligence-gathering secrets in order to convict KSM? I seriously doubt it on my theory that Eric Holder is not a complete idiot.

I agree. Even though it pains me to admit a political appointee might not be an idiot.

Joan: I had the exact same reaction to Adele's comment.

Robert Cook said...

"Cookie - then MOVE to Europe and renounce your US citizenship since you hate America so much!"

It's a sure sign teh stupid prevails when one hears the old "love it or leave it" chestnut.

One might response with the question: does it betray hatred for America to expect that we live up to our own ideals (and institutional instruments) of justice?

Dark Eden said...

Its not a matter of love it or leave it really.

Its a matter of if you loathe it so much why are you still here when its so easy to leave?

Almost Ali said...

Bill Kilgore:

Criminal courts don't come in assorted flavors. Nor may they "streamline" or materially abridge procedure for so-called national security purposes.

Not to suggest that such is not done, and to suit many purposes; mainly, expediency.

But here we're dealing with a show trial, a spectacular, wherein procedure is implied to be etched in stone, ostensibly for the world to witness.

Which is why the defense need only understand one tactic; silence, no objection. Based on one strategy; appeal. Because the prosecution is going to break every law on the books, the judge affirming.

former law student said...

Obama and Holder are kidding themselves if they think anyone outside their derranged supporters are going to be shocked or care how KSM was treated.

This exemplifies the conservative theme that we had to destroy America's ideals in order to save them. Instead of a shining city on a hill we've become phonebook-wielding goons beating up thugs in a back alley. Yet conservatives see no inconsistency here. Conservatives have exquisitely mastered Orwell's Doublethink:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Robert Cook said...

Former Law Student said:

"This exemplifies the conservative theme that we had to destroy America's ideals in order to save them. Instead of a shining city on a hill we've become phonebook-wielding goons beating up thugs in a back alley."

This is so apt and well-said I just had to see it posted again!

Robert Cook said...

In fact, FLS's remark is the perfect description of and response to most of the brain-dead right wing talking points that we see and hear everywhere today.

John said...

"This exemplifies the conservative theme that we had to destroy America's ideals in order to save them. Instead of a shining city on a hill we've become phonebook-wielding goons beating up thugs in a back alley."

That is just unmitigated bullshit. What American ideal? America has always done what was necessary to defend itself. That is why we have a country. Was the American ideal when we carpet bombed Germany and nuked Japan. Was it the American ideal when we wiped out the Indians to take the place? Just where did you get this idea that Americans, or any country that manages to survive more than a decade, is this wonderful soft hearted country when it comes to its enemies? We routinely shot prisoners in World War II in the Pacific. And routinely did much worse than waterboard german agents in europe. And we also ran military tribunals and executed German sabataurs caught on US soil.

This is how wars are fought. Wars are nasty horrible things. But that is how they have to be fought. Only decadent people who don't understand that things can end or understand how the world works, think you can fight them any other way.

John said...

"In fact, FLS's remark is the perfect description of and response to most of the brain-dead right wing talking points that we see and hear everywhere today."

Cooke you know nothing about international law and even less about history. You are a walking talking example of what it means to be brain dead.

Bill Kilgore said...

Robert and FLS sound like 13-year-old boys who jut discovered that their mother, too, has a vagina- and knows how to use it. The idea that America pummeling a foreign actor (that's today's topic) who engages against violence towards Americans is some new thing are the words of children. America has always been devastating in her application of violence against those who harm her own- twas always thus, and always thus shall be. At least, one would hope.

As to Almost Ali- you articulate my point much better than I. Federal criminal courts have never come in assorted flavors. I'm not sure that remains correct. I am sure, however, that it would be a terrible precedent if there were such an assortment.

Bill Kilgore said...

That should be "engages in violence"

Sloanasaurus said...

I agree with the above post regarding the Jury. This is not a criminal matter. We are still in an active war with Al Qaeda, and KSM is a solder in that army. If we pretend to use a jury, it is so obvious that Al Qaeda will threaten to kill anyone on the jury or any relative to a juror. This is not like using a jury to prosecute a mobster. There is no way we can protect all the jurors or their families from an entire world army of islamists. What juror would be crazy enough to be on that jury or crazy enough not to vote for aquittal. It's absurd that Obama is going to ask a citizen to volunteer for jury duty for this case. Insane.

We need to fight al Qaeda with tanks and guns, not stupid show trials and innicent jury members.

This trial is a huge huge mistake.

John said...

"Robert and FLS sound like 13-year-old boys who jut discovered that their mother, too, has a vagina- and knows how to use it."

Classic. They don't believe a word of it. If the issue were applying violence to someone they didn't sympathize with or actually disliked as opposed to KSM (who is an oppressed minority and always worthy of liberal sympathy no matter how vile), they would be all for a tribunal. If only our enemies were Rush listeners, then Cooke and FLS would be on board.

Chef Mojo said...

Only decadent people who don't understand that things can end or understand how the world works, think you can fight them any other way.

Textbook definition of a libtard.

But in then end, they simply don't care. The other is simply a bunch of disorganized, criminal "thugs." Nothing but a law and order thing. Just something solved by the correct method of policing, proper civilian trials, and in the off chance that one of them might actually be guilty, we'll put them in a nice American jail somewhere, where we can rehabilitate them for the betterment of society.

Do you libtards actually buy into this drivel? Do you really not see? Of course not. You're terminal fools.

Enjoy your dhimmitudes.

1jpb said...

"It's absurd that Obama is going to ask a citizen to volunteer for jury duty for this case. Insane."

Right...just like it's impossible to find recruits to go to foreign lands to fight and die for America. Speak for yourself (and your fellow scaredy cons).

Dark Eden said...

Right...just like it's impossible to find recruits to go to foreign lands to fight and die for America. Speak for yourself (and your fellow scaredy cons).
>>>

In the service you get training, a vest, a helmet and a weapon, at minimum, before they throw you to the lions.

Almost Ali said...

"It's absurd that Obama is going to ask a citizen to volunteer for jury duty for this case..."

With exceptions, jury service is mandatory.

Sloanasaurus said...

Right...just like it's impossible to find recruits to go to foreign lands to fight and die for America. Speak for yourself (and your fellow scaredy cons).

You don't get it. Our soldiers go overseas backed by tanks and guns. Who will protect our jurors? The FBI? Obama? You are kidding!!!!

It would be tactically smart of Al Qaeda to intimidate the jurors. What better way to stick America in the eye then to get an aquittal. How easy would it be to instigate the untimely death of say the nephew of one of the jurors.

Salmon Rushdie has been in hiding for 25 years. Are we going to ask our jurors to do the same?

Joe said...

Bill, the problem you bring has been brought up before, specifically by The Drill Sgt. He also brought up the question of double jeopardy--KSM has already plead guilty in a military tribunal.

I maintain that whatever judge gets this case will be obligated under the law to free KSM.

Chef Mojo said...

Right...just like it's impossible to find recruits to go to foreign lands to fight and die for America. Speak for yourself (and your fellow scaredy cons).

Oh, piss off and die, 1jpb. Seeing as the vast majority of those who serve in the military vote conservatively, your amateur snark simply betrays your contempt for those who serve. Typical for a libtard like yourself.

And suppose KSM's buds overseas decide to grab some Americans and saw off a few heads when KSM is moved to Manhattan? Just as a gentle hint to the juror pool. Think it can't happen?

Of course not. Obviously, these are just poor, misunderstood, tortured criminals.

You are an ass.

Robert Cook said...

Sloanasauris muttered,

"If we pretend to use a jury, it is so obvious that Al Qaeda will threaten to kill anyone on the jury or any relative to a juror. This is not like using a jury to prosecute a mobster."

I'd be far more nervous sitting on a juror for a mobster than for any of these stateless actors. Who do you think they are, supervillians from Bruce Willis movies? HA!

John lied,

"If the issue were applying violence to someone they didn't sympathize with or actually disliked as opposed to KSM (who is an oppressed minority and always worthy of liberal sympathy no matter how vile), they would be all for a tribunal."

Speak for yourself, dillweed.

Sloanasaurus said...

The criminal justice system was designed to protect the rights of citizens from abuse by yhe government. It was not designed to wage war.

KSM's criminal "rights" have already been violated. No one read him his rights, etc....

These trials in civil court are jokes. They are the Left's equivilent of the communist show trials. They mean nothing.

1jpb said...

Why am I thinking 'chicken hawk'?

Sloanasaurus said...

I'd be far more nervous sitting on a juror for a mobster than for any of these stateless actors. Who do you think they are, supervillians from Bruce Willis movies? HA!

Don't be naive. Killing off just a relative of one of the jurors in this case will be worth more than a terrorist attack killing hundreds. You don't need to be a supervillain to do that.

John said...

Touch a nerve did I there Cook? Insults only hurt when they are true.

Robert Cook said...

"Salmon Rushdie has been in hiding for 25 years. Are we going to ask our jurors to do the same?"

Rushdie is no longer in hiding and even appears at swank social events with glamorous models on his arm. So much for the inevitable doom that awaits he over whose head hangs the dreaded fatwa.

Adele Mundy said...

1jpb said...
Why am I thinking 'chicken hawk'?


Because you like young boys?

Robert Cook said...

"Touch a nerve did I there Cook? Insults only hurt when they are true."

Is that really the best you have, John?

John said...

Well Cook, since you never make any substantive responses to anyone's arguments and just rant and rave, that is not "all I have" so much as it is all you merit.

Robert Cook said...

So I see it is.

John said...

"Don't be naive. Killing off just a relative of one of the jurors in this case will be worth more than a terrorist attack killing hundreds. You don't need to be a supervillain to do that."

You also don't need to plan it. You just issue the Fatwa and let the loser wannabes like Hassan down at Fort Hood do the rest.

Chef Mojo said...

Who do you think they are, supervillians from Bruce Willis movies?

Oh, I dunno, Cook. Seems like flying airliners into tall buildings and bringing them down is sort of a Roland Emmerich wet dream. I mean, it could have only been conceived of in Hollywood. Yeah, they could never be seen as "supervillains" from the movies. That's just crazy talk. It's not like they had the resources and singleminded dedication to kill 3000 people. Unlike "supervillains," of course.

Goddamn, Cook. You're too easy.

Paul said...

The reason vermin like Robert Cook don't leave the country they loathe is because they live for the smug, self righteousness they feel as they spit on a nation and people who have spent untold amounts of blood and treasure just so ingrates like him can grow fat and spiteful on the peace and prosperity secured by the sacrifices of men infinitely his superior.

Like all his traitorous leftist comrades he commits the unforgivable karmic sin of nurturing a poisonous and terminal ingratitude toward the very system that has given him unmatched freedoms and physical security and abundance.

There is no room for gratitude or respect when one is filled to the brim with self righteous conceit.

Andrea said...

"Rushdie is no longer in hiding and even appears at swank social events with glamorous models on his arm. So much for the inevitable doom that awaits he over whose head hangs the dreaded fatwa."

Jesus. Salman Rushdie was in hiding or had to go out under armed guard for years, his marriage ended, bookstores were bombed, there were riots by insane Muslims, people were attacked and killed, the freakatollah of Iran put him under a fatwa of death which the government of Iran has so far (I believe) refused to revoke, he even tried signing a declaration of his Islamic faith -- but the fact that Rushdie now goes to parties and hangs out with models means that none of the preceding was at all wrong. I'm sure you, Robert Cook, would be a-okay with going through a few years of being confined under guard for your own protection -- basically imprisoned -- not to mention all the rest of it so you could one day in the far future, when you're old, can go to parties and maybe a model who hasn't read anything but the price tags at Tiffany's will hang off your arm. Is there no limit to the depths to which Obama's fans will sink in order to show how much they approve of their lord and master's decisions?

Almost Ali said...

There was only one objection here about the judge wearing a burqa for his own protection - but now I'm wondering if the jury will be required to wear full body cover.

Come to think of it, the courtroom could wind up looking like a Taliban wedding. Notwithstanding leaks from the New York Times.

AllenS said...

How do I feel about it? It's show time, baby. Relax, there's nothing that can be done about it. Enjoy the theatrics. Hope and change, man!

Robert Cook said...

"Seems like flying airliners into tall buildings and bringing them down is sort of a Roland Emmerich wet dream."

Actually, it strikes me as a pretty crude and unrepeatable way to attack a country.

If you think it bespeaks the unstoppable tactics of supervillians, who can find jurors and their families wherever they might hide, you have a pretty low standard for supervilliany and a lower threshold for being a scaredy-cat.

Robert Cook said...

Andrea,

Who's talking about whether what Rushdie went through was wrong? Of course it was wrong.

The question is whether jurors must fear the inevitable doom that awaits those targeted by the...THUGGEES!

Robert Cook said...

"Is there no limit to the depths to which Obama's fans will sink in order to show how much they approve of their lord and master's decisions?"

By the way...I'm no fan of Barack Milquetoast Obama, and didn't vote for him. Seeing as he seems to be following the George Bush playbook, he's even worse than I feared he would be.

Andrea said...

So it's okay for you if the jurors end up having to live the life Rushdie lived? All for doing their civic duty? You know, that hole you're in? Put the shovel down now.

Alex said...

So it's okay for you if the jurors end up having to live the life Rushdie lived? All for doing their civic duty?

Stop invoking neocon scardey-cat fantasies. There will be no juror intimidation by fictional Islamic bogyemen. BOO!

Alex said...

Cook - but aren't you even the slightest bit concerned about juror intimidation by KSM followers?

Maguro said...

Cook doesn't care about the jurors and their trivial little problems, his liberal conscience must be appeased at all costs.

Cedarford said...

FLS - International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. The Paquete Habana, 44 L.Ed. 320 (1900).

Law derived from treaties and Conventions the US has signed onto are considered law the US abides by. But we haven't signed on to the ICC. So no, the EuroLeft and the progressive Jewish-run organizations like Human Rights Watch and the ACLU don't really have a say in KSM or others facing "international justice" at the Hague.
The guy and his buddies aren't even criminals, but unlawful enemy combatants. Ones that can be nailed for war crimes just like Gen's Harris, Eisenhower, Zhukov, and LeMay would have been if the Axis had won WWII. And they should ideally be in front of a military tribunal.

Andrea said...

Robert, how do you know what you claim? Answer: you don't, you just like saying things like "Stop invoking neocon scardey [sic]-cat fantasies" and projecting an aura Big Mister Macho Liberal Man. And it's working -- he's giving off such a cloud of manly testosterone that I can barely restrain my unladylike desires, and also for some reason I have the urge to subscribe to Utne magazine. I'll bet sometimes he even leaves the doors to his Prius unlocked when he's driving!

AllenS said...

I hope this trial costs so much money, that NYC goes bankrupt.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This exemplifies the conservative theme that we had to destroy America's ideals in order to save them. Instead of a shining city on a hill we've become phonebook-wielding goons beating up thugs in a back alley

I think we should beat them up with copies of Palin's "Going Rogue" instead and leave the phone books in the booths where they belong. We can buy copies of Going Rogue for about $9.00 now and they have much harder covers than a phone book

See, Adele.....it does have to do with Palin.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So it's okay for you if the jurors end up having to live the life Rushdie lived? All for doing their civic duty?

This was among one of my first thoughts about bringing this trial to a civil (as in civilian) setting. Mobster trials in the past have been known to have juror intimidation. I can't imagine that this would be any less corrupt.

I would rather go to jail than be a juror on this trial. You know it is going to last for years, the jurors will have zero private lives and will be in great jeopardy.

AND BTW: Andrea knows how to use [sic] properly.

former law student said...

Law derived from treaties and Conventions the US has signed onto are considered law the US abides by.

The case goes on to say that the US also follows customary international law. In fact, custom trumps treaty in international law. (where's 7 machos?)

The guy and his buddies aren't even criminals, but unlawful enemy combatants.

If only we had some authority for that definition other than a Bush administration proclamation.

We can buy copies of Going Rogue for about $9.00 now

Why buy it when you can get it "free"?

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE
It's not even in bookstores but it's already a best-seller online! Townhall bought a shipment of books before they sold out so our new subscribers will a copy first when it's released Nov. 17. Subscribe to a year of Townhall Magazine for $34.95 and receive Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE.

Chef Mojo said...

Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost. It's very painful. We're still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.

Quote by noted neocon, Gov. David Patterson of New York, while blasting Obama's decision to try Gitmo war criminals in Manhattan.

I'm sorry, Cook. What was that you were saying about "scaredy-cats."

And actually, flying airplanes into tall buildings (and not so tall buildings) is rather sophisticated and very repeatable. It required a great deal of planning and training, and was carried out like, well, a military operation! Go figure, right?

And it was so repeatable, that these crude, unsophisticated criminals had plans in the pipeline to do the same thing in LA. One Soldier of Allah tried to get it on at high altitude with his shoes, or does that not count?

Count on it, Cook. It happened. It worked. And because of that, it will happen again.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

FLS Says: "Why buy it when you can get it "free"?"

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE
It's not even in bookstores but it's already a best-seller online! Townhall bought a shipment of books before they sold out so our new subscribers will a copy first when it's released Nov. 17. Subscribe to a year of Townhall Magazine for $34.95 and receive Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE.


Ok. So this totally illustrates why liberals should never be allowed anywhere near economics or in control of anything that has to do with money..... or basically with anything.

If you think that $34.95 equals FREE, I have some really hot stock to sell you that is double dip guaranteed to never lose any money.

(JOKING just in case FINRA is looking....It's a JOKE....looks over her shoulder at the closet door and under the desk for wires)

Robert Cook said...

"Cook - but aren't you even the slightest bit concerned about juror intimidation by KSM followers?"

No.

Methadras said...

President Barely gets what he wanted; he can now proudly claim that he isn't following Bush doctrines and is setting his own definition and path to what the war on terror is. He said it all along that he views this to be a police action not a military action. If no one saw this coming, then I can't understand why not. The fact of the matter is, is that now that it's been done, it won't be taken back. Except Gitmo detainees to be either cut loose or brought to trail wholesale within the US. If any of them are acquitted, then you may see any of them seek political asylum within the US. Will they be acquitted, I don't think so. But now you've created a situation in this country where anyone who prosecutes these sub-human will need lifetime protection. From the judges all the way down to the juries.

And all people like Cookie the Commie care about is scoring political points so he doesn't have to look bad in the world's eyes and he sleep safe at night knowing that pretending to understand what true and real justice is. Hey Cookie, still going to squeal like a stuck pig about torture? Why don't you head down to NYC and explain to any number of people how they are being re-terrorized again by bringing that actual architects that killed their family and friends within the confines of where they live and work, hmmm? You worry about the sub-humans and neglect the wounds inflicted by them against us. You care more about what you consider to be torture against sub-humans then you do about the abject torture these sub-humans inflicted on our citizens as they fly airliners into our buildings. I wonder what Daniel Pearle thinks of your equivocations? Frankly, you aren't even worthy of eating dog shit you traitorous filth.

Andrea said...

I know how to use [sic] from needing it so much... I went down to the basement to put some laundry in the washer and came back up here and realized my last comment was to a Alex (who was paraphrasing Robert Cook), not Cook himself.

Still, what I said stands. Robert Cook is the kind of ignorant person who goes around telling people who will be in a danger he will never face (unless he's a resident of New York City, in which case he's a fool), that they have nothing to be worried about, based on the fact that many years later a celebrity writer whose life was indeed threatened by "THUGGEES!" can now go to parties.

By the way, the Thuggees? Were really very dangerous and caused a great deal of death and mayhem. They weren't just made up characters in an Indiana Jones movie.

rogerz said...

AJ Lynch said...

"This must be Obama's stimulus package for lawyers!"

I was thinking it was the administration's first foray into direct support for dead-tree media. The NY Times will fill miles of columns with news and commentary on these trials, and Islamists all over the world will eat them up.

Andrea said...

Mr Cook hopes the jurors will be threatened, and maybe there will be some more nice juicy terrorist attacks on New York as well. Then he can blame it all on the "neocons."

Robert Cook said...

Andrea said: "...projecting an aura Big Mister Macho Liberal Man...I'll bet sometimes he even leaves the doors to his Prius unlocked when he's driving!"

To the contrary; I hardly think it's "macho" to see as infinitesimally small any potential danger to jurors on these trials...rather, it's hysterical fear-mongering to invoke such danger as being likely. Even assuming the small possibility there may be those who have designs on attacking the proceedings, and the even smaller possibility such persons will be able to come anywhere close to the area, we can be certain the security will be airtight.

I don't own a car or drive, by the way.

Methedras said:

"Hey Cookie, still going to squeal like a stuck pig about torture? Why don't you head down to NYC and explain to any number of people how they are being re-terrorized again by bringing that actual architects that killed their family and friends within the confines of where they live and work, hmmm?"

Your comment is a non sequitur; it assumes I believe bringing these men to trial here will "re-terrorize" live who work and live in the area, which I do not. In fact, I live in Manhattan and work downtown. For the record, I haven't heard anyone here express any concerns so far about these upcoming trials.

Methadras said...

Robert Cook said...

By the way...I'm no fan of Barack Milquetoast Obama, and didn't vote for him. Seeing as he seems to be following the George Bush playbook, he's even worse than I feared he would be.


And that means what, you clumsy fat cow? That because you didn't vote for him that somehow your ideology is rendered even more valid? That you now stand on a higher moral ground than others? I wonder if you would have the same sentiment of high mindedness when a couple of really tall buildings fall on top of your head. Your type of group think is deadly and dangerous and frankly fatal in many regards. You elevate your do-gooding on a pedestal that has no foundation beneath it.

Methadras said...

Robert Cook said...

Your comment is a non sequitur; it assumes I believe bringing these men to trial here will "re-terrorize" live who work and live in the area, which I do not. In fact, I live in Manhattan and work downtown. For the record, I haven't heard anyone here express any concerns so far about these upcoming trials.


It's a direct attack against your entrenched pacifistic cowardice.

Rialby said...

For everyone out there who keeps asking the question, "why didn't Bush take care of this", blame the lawyers. WSJ "did an excellent piece on this in 2008:


"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others have been referred for trial at Guantanamo Bay under the 2006 Military Commissions Act. Yet a guerrilla campaign by military attorneys and human-rights lawyers is throwing up obstacles at every turn. The latest is an attempt to discredit Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann, the legal adviser to the commissions who has been given the thankless task of getting the trials underway." AND

"The larger game here, among many lawyers and most of the press, is to give the impression that military commissions are unworkable. The critics want to delay the trials long enough to push them into the next Administration, which they hope will then abandon commissions. Their ultimate goal is to get terrorists tried like any other defendant in civilian courts or regular courts-martial – fully aware of how daunting the chance of convictions would be.

AST said...

That's why Obama said he was the first pacifist president. No?

Andrea said...

You live and work in Manhattan, Robert Cook, the site of the worst terrorist attack in the history of the nation, and you say there's an "infinitesimally small any potential danger to jurors on these trials" and that it's "hysterical fear mongering" to speculate otherwise? You are a fool.

The hilarious thing is, people like Robert Cook will be in the front of the line screaming at the authorities about why no one was prepared when the next terrorist attack happens in his area.

Matthew said...

KSM isn't on trial...GWB and Dick Cheney are.

So, yes, the ultimate sentence IS, sadly, beside the point.

Personally, I hope these bloodsuckers get tossed above the Bermuda Triangle from 30,000 feet...accidentally.

Big Mike said...

The hilarious thing is, people like Robert Cook will be in the front of the line screaming at the authorities about why no one was prepared when the next terrorist attack happens in his area.

All too true.

Robert Cook said...

"The hilarious thing is, people like Robert Cook will be in the front of the line screaming at the authorities about why no one was prepared when the next terrorist attack happens in his area."

Setting aside that one could find anything "hilarious" about my reaction to the "next terrorist attack" that might happen in my area, I would not be in any line screaming at any authorities about "why no one was prepared." I didn't react that way after the first attack. That would be like assuming that once a police force or fire department is in place no crimes or fires can possibly occur unless someone in authority "wasn't prepared." In other words, it would be irrational.

jr565 said...

John wrote:
If liberals had actually cared about anything except throwing temper tantrums and scoring political points, they wouldn't look like such confused fools now that they are responsible for something.

It's made worse by the fact that they aren't even consistent in how they are proposing to handle combatants now. Some they ARE going to try by using military tribunals and some like KSM they are going to bring to our courts.
Which begs the question, do they even believe the pablum they were spewing? If Obama sees fit to try anyone using a tribunal then doesn't that suggest that a tribunal is in fact sufficient in dealing with terrorists. Yet some are tried in courts. Irregardless of the absolute stupidity of actually opening our courts to such drivel doesn't that open a can of worms as to some people getting fairer trials than others? If a tribunal is good enough for random jihadist why isn't it good enough for KSM? And if KSM requires a full blown trial with all the trimmings, why shouldn't random jihadist get the same trimmings?

former law student said...

they aren't even consistent in how they are proposing to handle combatants now. Some they ARE going to try by using military tribunals

People who attacked a military target (the USS Cole) in a foreign country (Yemen) will be tried by a military tribunal.

Gary Rosen said...

" Zionism made me do it "

A little projection from C-fudd. He must be a self-loathing Jooo.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger former law student said...

they aren't even consistent in how they are proposing to handle combatants now. Some they ARE going to try by using military tribunals

People who attacked a military target (the USS Cole) in a foreign country (Yemen) will be tried by a military tribunal.

..and the people who attacked the Pentagon will be tried in SDNY.
What's wrong with this picture?

mrs whatsit said...

Cook believes that people volunteer to serve on juries. That tells you everything you need to know about his grasp of how the American legal system works -- that is, he doesn't have one. When Cook gets the summmons in the mail directing him to appear for the jury panel for this trial, we'll see just how deeply he really believes that KSM should be tried in an American court. It's easy to tap empty braggadocio onto a keyboard. But the jurors who end up on this panel will never be fully safe again, and neither will any member of their families.

mrs whatsit said...

For the record, I haven't heard anyone here express any concerns so far about these upcoming trials.

Maybe you should try listening a little more carefully. On the day you posted your comment, this was all over the Internet:

Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.

"This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country," he said.

Paterson's comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President's decision.

"Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost," he said. "It's very painful. We're still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.

Robert Cook said...

Mrs. Whatsit: I'm referring not to posturing politicos like Patterson (or assholes like Giuliani), but to actual people I work and associate with...here in downtown Manhattan. So far, none of them have uttered a peep of concern or dismay.

As for your hallucination about what I do or don't know or believe about the jury system, I last served on a jury in a criminal trial--in possibly the same courthouse where KSM and his fellows will be tried--seven months ago. That makes six times I've served on a jury...well, five really, as one civil case I served on was dismissed on the morning the trial was to commence; over the weekend the parties in dispute reached a settlement.

"...the jurors who end up on this panel will never be fully safe again, and neither will any member of their families."

Insanity.

jr565 said...

Former law student said:
People who attacked a military target (the USS Cole) in a foreign country (Yemen) will be tried by a military tribunal.


But I thought the issue was that the tribunals themselves were at fault and didn't offer proper legal protections and not just to people who happened to attack the US but for people held in general. The argument was that we can't hold anyone indefinitely without due process.
Most people in Guantanemo for example did not attack us on US soil, yet there was a hue and cry about their being held.
So you're saying the issue for the left the whole time was just that we need trials for people who attacked us on US soil alone?
By the way, unless I'm mistaken, KSM had a hand in the USS Cole attack,(not to mention the attack on the embassies in Africa)so then what kind of trial should we hold for him?

jr565 said...

Former Law Student:
The Wall Street Journal must be reading my mind

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539792069224238.html

It says:
"And the perverse message that decision will send to terrorists all over this dangerous world is this: If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.


Doesn't having seaprate standards for terrorists undermine the whole argument about why tribunals couldn't be used in the first place? Since Holder and Obama's justice dept ARE using tribunals already. But why should KSM get MORE protections than nameless jihadi. I feel bad for the nameless jihadi. If he wanted a fair day in court (in comparison to his more well known brethren) he should have aimed a bit higher, killed more people and done it closer to home.

Almost Ali said...

Obama/Holder's military vs. civilian target is a completely bogus argument. Simply because the Pentagon is a military target.

David said...

It's amazing to me how many of you fail to grasp the basic point that WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THESE GUYS ARE TERRORISTS, because the charges against them have not been subjected to the adversarial process. You've all convicted them already, based on . . . the word of the government (i.e., the prosecution)?