January 29, 2010

Suddenly, it's obvious that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should not be tried in NYC.

I mean, it was always obvious, wasn't it? But suddenly, Obama can see it. I guess the gesturing was worth it — or would have been worth it if people had enthused sufficiently. But they didn't, and reality actually leaked in. Cool.

64 comments:

Fen said...

So its only taken Obama a year to figure out what Bush already knew.

OJT during wartime. We are so doomed.

Joaquin said...

Another emotion driven decision gets shot down when reality hits them in the face.
WOLF! WOLF ! WOLF!

Pogo said...

It's supposed to cost $200 million a year in NYC.

Isn't that kind of grotesque spending called the 'stimulus plan', applied elsewhere?

High cost is not a defense, not if spending multiple trillions is a boost to the economy and there is a multiplier effect greater than one from spending tax money.

Unless.... Unless that concept is bullshit, they know it's bullshit, they knew it was bullshit, and always knew the spending would do jack shit for the economy.

Nah, they're just afraid to admit they are afraid, latching onto fiscal conservatism as a defensible crutch.

Joe said...

It was a dumb idea from the get-go. That having been said, you go with the dumb idea, anyway. This makes the Administration look like idiots/amateurs/folks easily spooked. It’s like the “decision” to close Gitmo, this sort of “marry at haste, repent at leisure” merely emboldens your domestic opponents and your foreign enemies, or as this Administration feels it, your foreign opponents and your domestic ENEMIES. As Limbaugh says, every promise comes with an expiration date, so now Obama’s foes just need to drag out the process, of whatever the issue is, until the expiration date goes by, and voila a new policy, possibly more to your liking will emerge. This is the smartest Administration EV-UH?

traditionalguy said...

If a 3 year Global Show in NYC for Muslims to get angry about their Heroic Sheik's bad treatment at the hands of infidels also costs the City $600 million , then why not release the bastard to Yemen's group therapy courses for Gitmo terrorist heroes and use our money to rebuild the Trade Center hole that these friends of Obama caused? The real golden prize for Obama and for AlQaeda is the end of the USA's military might by bombing our economy to ruins...first by ending the USA's dollar control over commerce which was once located at the WTC in NYC, which was done on 9/11 symbolically, and then by crashing a Green Bomb into the USA's GNP until the dollar dies. That second front is being waged from within Obama's Administration by the Global Warming false propagandists and many newly issued Regulations. At this rate Obama should become their new Caliph when the World Caliphate starts.

Lem said...

Couldn't the defense trow in a monkey wrench in the works by requesting to be tried in NY?

What if the defense get a judge to grant the request where does that put Obama?

Does he take a venue issue all the way to the Supremes. Will the Supremes even grant cert?

These are the unforeseen things Obama opened this up to by having the damn trial in Federal court instead of the Military Tribunals in the first place.

(I was talking to my lawyer friend last night, she says this thing could take many years)

William said...

The liberal position has been that military tribunals and Gitmo detentions were used by Islamic militants as a recruiting tool. Does anyone truly believe that some lunatic who throws acid into a woman's face for religious reasons will be dissuaded from terrorism because of the procedural differences between a military tribunal and a civil trial? The Obama administration was willing to pay $200 million per year not to prosecute KSM but to bash Bush......I am afraid that both Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to face the hard truth that there will be no peace with the Islamic world until Spain gives up its unjust occupation of Andulasia. We have let the olive oil interests dictate our foreign policy for far too long.

The Drill SGT said...

Liking that Hopey Changey stuff yet?

Big Mike said...

I've lived for 28 years thinking absolutely no one could be a worse Attorney General than Nixon's John Mitchell, but now there's Eric Holder.

Diera said...

this is a pile of shit post.

200+ "terrorists" have been tried in federal courts. zero tribunal candidates have made it to court.

what is your friggin problem?

Diera said...

Fen said...
So its only taken Obama a year to figure out what Bush already knew."

the more we know about bush the more we know he was perhaps the dumbest dipshit to hold office in the centuries that that office was available to be held.

he was completely inept and downright dangerous to the country at large and you and me in particular.

get a grip man. bush was a fool and you are after the wrong person with your posts.

Pogo said...

Diera has that text in a Word document, available for rapid cut-and-paste when needed.

jwvansteenwyk said...

Jeremy. Take off that stupid mask.

FormerTucsonan said...

I'm sure they realized it was a bonehead move about 10 minutes after it was announced. But losing face is far too horrible a prospect for narcisistic types like Holder and Obama.

We'll probably find out, in Obama's next autobiograpy, that this was the result of an epiphany he had while meditatiing in Michelle's Victory Garden.


wv: props - Something Obama and Holder don't deserve...

SteveR said...

KSM, just your average run of the nill terrorist.

former law student said...

I don't see the problem with having the trial in NYC. Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ahmad Ajaj were all tried and convicted in NYC for bombing the WTC. This is just another trumped-up issue for the GOP to hammer Obama with.

Obama's caving into the GOP one more time. He's letting them play Whack-a-mole, with him filling the role of mole. The GOP represents the absent father he hoped desperately to placate and impress.

AllenS said...

fls--

Chuck Shumer is also against the trial in NYC. Does he represent the GOP?

Joe said...

That's as may be FLS, but it proves my point, better to stick with the "dumb" idea than cave to opposition....all things being equal.

And the original WTC Conspirators were a whole 'nuther ball of wax, BTW. They were arrested by the FBI, IIRC. It was a Law Enforcement case...

KSM was an intelligence operation and then a high value interrogation....a completely different animal. Yusaf Ramzi et al. weren't going to be able to claim "torture" or "gray mail" the prosecution for intelligence sources and methods....So no, SMM does NOT equal the first WTC trial(s).

holdfast said...

FLS - And everything about those trials went so swimmingly, from the commie bitch defense lawyer breaking her agreement and passing messages to the blind sheik, to the fact that the group responsible for attacking the WTc CAME BACK AND DID IT AGAIN, THIS TIME SUCCESSFULLY.

YAY - Clinton had some trials, where a few lame foot soldiers were sent to the clink instead of the needle, and nobody in the "justice system" looked at the underling motivations and players.

former law student said...

Holdfast -- what do they say about hindsight?

If the fearmongers are right, God help NYC if they ever build a memorial to the WTC. That will serve merely as another target for al-Qaeda to gloat over destroying.

TMink said...

William asked: "Does anyone truly believe that some lunatic who throws acid into a woman's face for religious reasons will be dissuaded from terrorism because of the procedural differences between a military tribunal and a civil trial?"

Some people seem to. They believed in global warming and Ted Kennedy's innocence too I bet.

Trey

Lincolntf said...

Watching Barry and Holder try to wriiggle off the hook they stuck through themselves is enlightening. What was a great idea a month ago is now an absolutely stupid idea. Is that about right, President Wee-Wee?
Sadly, the Administration seems intent on holding this show trial anyway. The hundreds of millions of dollars we'll spend on allowing KSM and Co. to spread their message to a global audience in a performance sure to last years should be considered a donation to Al-Qaeda's general fund. Might as well just cut them a check and be done with it.

former law student said...

The hundreds of millions of dollars we'll spend on allowing KSM and Co. to spread their message to a global audience

The trial will spread OUR message to a global audience -- a nation that believes in the rule of law and in rights for all, even the least deserving of them -- a nation that walks its talk.

Why don't conservatives see this?

Lincolntf said...

Blogger former law student said...

Maintaining the fiction that an enemy soldier captured in Pakistan is somehow due the protection of the US Constitution is not gonna do our "image" any good. It just adds one more incentive to attempt terror attacks. Why can't Liberals see that?

Joe said...

FLS, I hear that from folks, on my side, all the time....UH, dude/dudette People already see the difference between us and them...

People tried to use this approach all the time in the Cold War too, the "moral high ground":
1) the moral high ground doesn't actually make you any safer...fire power and money do that...the Jews had the moral high ground in the 1930's...what happened to them?
2) We already held and hold the HIGH GROUND...not a lot of folks want(ed) into the USSR a=or Afghanistan, lotsa folks want into the US and the West. People vote with their feet, and they know who's got the better system, whether or not KSM gets a trial in NYC or a Commission trial in Gitmo
3)And this moral high ground, pointless and useless as it is, falls apart upon the admission that even IF KSM is found "not guilty" he isn't going free. Some message that is, eh?

Lincolntf said...

"IF KSM is found "not guilty" he isn't going free. Some message that is, eh?"

I don't know why I keep forgetting that part, but it really does show the mindset of Obama/Holder. This entire exercise in stupidity may end up showing the world a lot more about Obama than he intended.

Cedarford said...

"former law student said...
I don't see the problem with having the trial in NYC. Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ahmad Ajaj were all tried and convicted in NYC for bombing the WTC. This is just another trumped-up issue for the GOP to hammer Obama with."


Ooooooooooo!!!!

We got CONVICTIONS!
How wonderful is that!!
Lawyers and law enforcement heroes got a little plaque on their wars and some resume` fodder saying they got CONVICTIONS!!
And we sure showed the Islamoids the folly of trying to take down the WTC or attack Americans elsewhere....because ALL WOULD KNOW that America would spend 10s of millions so a jury of infidels and a lawyer dressed in robes could sentence Islamoids to 3 tasty Halal meals a day, free medical care, and deluxe Korans and their own personal prayer rom!


Yeah, that sure worked!

In fact, we were so fixated on "getting convictions" we forgot to interrogate them or the Islamoid who was the killer of some crazed right-wing rabbi, or the bridges and tunnels plot to learn that KSM was Yousefs uncle and confederate, or that Binnie was financing many of these guys.

It would have been nice to have a bead on those guys 8 years before 9/11 and years before the CIA and Jordan & Egyptian intelligence got past the brainless FBI folks solely pursuing criminal CONVICTIONS!! with no idea to asking the Islamoids if they were part of a greater organization.

Thus the CIA informed Clinton in 1999 he was in a war with the relatives of the guys who did the 1993 WTC bombing and the bridges and tunnels plot - and Embassies - which is when the CIA "connected the dots" within months with the Egyptians after the Luxor attack and Jordan (and France) all letting us know it wasn't - mere criminal activity...

Nichevo said...

"crazed right-wing rabbi"

What "crazed," Cedarford? Could you give a non-vitriolic on-point response to this, please? With all due respect, I would have thought Kahane would be on your "good Jews" list. Maybe if you knew more about him you would reconsider. You of all people are not one to fall prey to the blackguarding of dissident types.

former law student said...

[The prospect of a fair trial] just adds one more incentive to attempt terror attacks.

Because Muslims hate fairness and justice?

the Jews had the moral high ground in the 1930's...what happened to them?

Our State Department refused to allow the S.S. St. Louis to land. Their hands were tied by the immigration quotas of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, sponsored by Republicans, passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, and signed into law by the Republican President, Coolidge.

Joe said...

FLS....THAT LAST ONE DESERVES TO BE ON THE ZINN THREAD...but is simply proof of my point, "The Jews had the moral high ground." What did it get them? Again, moral high ground and a couple of bucks gets you a cuppa high-priced Joe, but not much else, eh?

Trooper York said...

If they held the trial in downtown NYC they would have devestated an already horrible business climate. By freezing the zone around the courthouse, this trial would destroy many businesses that are only holding on by their fingernails. I know Obama hates New York as most people from Chicago do but even he has to pause for a moment.

Trooper York said...

The mayor of Newburgh, New York wants the trial there at the big miltary base near his city. That would be perfect.

Original Mike said...

FLS opined: "I don't see the problem with having the trial in NYC. Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ahmad Ajaj were all tried and convicted in NYC for bombing the WTC."

RAMZI YOUSEF TRIAL TIPPED OFF TERRORISTS TO A COMMUNICATIONS LINK
MICHAEL MUKASEY, Former Attorney General: "Again, during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, an apparently innocuous bit of testimony in a public courtroom about delivery of a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists still at large that one of their communication links had been compromised. That link, which in fact had been monitored by the government and had provided enormously valuable intelligence, was immediately shut down, and further information lost."

But I suppose that's a small price to pay, since "The trial will spread OUR message to a global audience."

Chris said...

What about the 6A ("a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed") and Article III section 2 clause 3 ("such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed")?

former law student said...

[Holder] laid out a timeline of what is known about bin Ladin’s cell phone use to dispute the charge that the al Qaeda leader gained intelligence from a criminal trial thousands of miles away.

The phone records were used in trials related to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Holder said bin Ladin last used his cell phone Oct. 9, 1998. The government began producing evidence in the case Dec. 17, 1998. The phone records were disclosed in court more than two years later, March 20, 2001.

“So with regard to those allegations and those contentions, there’s a factual problem,” Holder said in one of several combative exchanges during the hearing. “There are factual inaccuracies that underlie those contentions.”


So how could a trial held in 2001 influence cell phone behavior in 1998?

traditionalguy said...

The middle class American people who see NYC with national pride as a point of the Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty/Broadway complex are smart folks. They want better for NYC than our half hawaian/Half Indonesian and mostly Kenyan, ChiTown Jerk wants for NYC. The cost benefit analysis in the minds of rational Americans are 99.99% to nothing against the abomination civilian trial the Obama told Holder to ram down NYC's throat to punish the Wall Street fat Cats and to make his commie mommie happy. That move was the worst thing Obama has ever done, so far, and it probably got Brown 41 elected.

Lincolntf said...

FLS---[
"Because Muslims hate fairness and justice?"

FLS, I'm talking about terrorists, you're talking about "Muslims".
But since you brought it up, how much fairness and justice do you find in Sharia courts?

former law student said...

as far as I can understand traditional guy, he seems to be saying "New Yorkers are pooping their pants at the prospect of al-Qaeda coming to gloat over the ruin they created." If they're so terrified of al-Qaeda, why don't we simply admit the terrorists won, and turn Manhattan over to them?

Trooper's argument that the protections for the trial would disrupt businesses near the courthouse is more persuasive.

Original Mike said...

@FLS: I don't know. Guess you'd have to ask Mukasey (not being snarky, just pointing out he should know what he's talking about). Not sure they're talking about the same trial. In any case, the potential for providing tips to at-large terrorists is so obvious even I can see it. That, I guess, is to be weighed against the "need" to demonstrate that we are good guys to people who couldn't care less.

former law student said...

I'm talking about terrorists, you're talking about "Muslims".
You were talking about a "global audience." Muslims make up a fifth of the world's population, and are distributed from Gibraltar to Mindanao, with an ever-increasing number living in North America.

Trooper York said...

Downtown New York near the court houses is not laid out like a grid like many major American cities. It is full of meandering streets that stop suddenly with no means of getting to wear you want to go. Just closing off Worth St will cost millions of dollars and just be a catastrophic blow to the economy of New York City. Which is just what the terrorist want. Don't punish NYC anymore. Even totally liberal douchebags like Jerry Waddler the congressman know that this is a terrible idea that will have disasterous consequences. If they insist on having it in NYC, then put it on Governors Island where it can be contained and secure without destroying an alread teetering economy.

Lincolntf said...

Who knew that the decades long war being waged on the West by Islamic terrorists is really just about Judicial reform in the US Federal Court system?
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Libtards.

Joe said...

Well Chris, I didn't know the US Constitution applied to foreign nationals, living in Pakistan.....Geez, we should have done something aobut Musharef's and Bhutto's corruption too, whilst we were at it, as now the US has jurisdiction globally.

Lincolntf said...

Joe said...

Instead of just being the world's policeman. we can be the world's parole officer, the world's IRS and even the world's job placement program. That'll keep the Lefties happy for about a minute.

Joe said...

Now Lincoln, we'll be able to do something about those evillllll transfats that plague our globe.

Lincolntf said...

Seriously, what kind of priorities do these people have?
Transfats and imaginary temperature fluctuations are gonna be the death of all of us, but the people who have murdered our citizens for decades are just a little distraction made up by evil Booosh.

What a bunch of clowns.

former law student said...

Lincoln and Joe, I live in the America founded on the belief that "all men are created equal", and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Not, your America, whose creed apparently is "People born here are equal and have rights, and foreign nationals can just suck it."

Joe said...

Well FLS, if you can point out any clause in the good ole' US of A Constitution that says people NOT citizens of the good Ole' US of A, and NOT RESIDENT in the good ole' US of A are covered by this here Constitution you just might have a point.

We didn't work Nurnberg like the US Court System, so I guess them there Nazi's (Nat-zeez) didn't get no justice.

So now is Vladimir Putin subject to the US Constitution? And can he be charged with violations of the US Constitution, though he's a RUSSIAN living in RUSSIA?

How about Castro, or Chavez...or Slobodan Milosevic, did he get the shaft at the Hague? Should he have been brought to the Good Ole US of A, too? Tried in a Federal Court?

Again, nice try, a bit of rhetoric, where facts and logic fail, right?

Is this a variant of the "moral high ground"...we retain it, by granting US rights to non-resident aliens, this will show them our good hearts and intentions?

former law student said...

We didn't work Nurnberg like the US Court System

Recall that the Nazis were the established government of a foreign country with which we were at war. But which atrocities did the Nazis commit on U.S. soil? I could find none listed in the charges at Nuremberg.

Joe said...

So why was the US of A involved, then? Why not just leave it to the Soviets, the British, the French, the Poles to try them?

And why is KSM subject to the protections and procedures of the US Civilian Court System, when he is a NON-RESIDENT, NON-CITIZEN? Please, quote the Article or Section of the US Constitution that grants this? So we could have and mayhap should have tried the Barbary Pirates in US courts? After all they committed acts detrimental to the US and its citizens, but weren't US citizens or US residents?

I'm sorry, you're supposed legal/constitutional grounds are just hype, aren't they? There's no basis for your claim other than you feel it's a good idea?

Heck as we tried and executed RESIDENT Aliens in the Second World War as saboteurs, I'd say the whole argument is historically weak....resident in that they were ACTUALLY in the US, though they had committed no crimes as of yet.

Cedarford said...

Nichevo said...
"crazed right-wing rabbi"

What "crazed," Cedarford? Could you give a non-vitriolic on-point response to this, please? With all due respect, I would have thought Kahane would be on your "good Jews" list.


I'd put him on the "good jews list" for the JDL and opposing Russia. The JDL was by and large a fine example of a people sticking up for itself in what had become a dangerous city, and Kahane was a good counterpoint - as are most Orthodox - to the Stalinist Jews and red diaper babies.

After the rabbi left for Israel, though, he became a more crazed example of extreme right-wing Zionism and an advocate for returning to terrorism if necessary to make Israel "non-Jew free" and kill or transfer by force all non-Jews from "disputed territories".

After he was killed, his movement was banned in Israel as racist and terroristic. That a follower of his, Baruch Goldstein, committed the Hebron Massacre - also had something to do with this.

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

I'm a resident of NYC. I would be obliged if any of the resident liberals could explain how any life in NYC would be improved by having the trial here or how the cause of justice would be better served by having the trial in this particular location. This was a lame idea made lamer by all the tortured logic advanced to justify it.

Cedarford said...

Joe - Just so you know, two of the Nazi saboteurs were US citizens. We executed one of them. We also summarily shot born-in-the USA Nazis that they tried infiltrating our lines with in the Ardennes Offensive. Frequently the last thing they said before a .45 or M-1A blew their brains all over the snow was "Hey, wait...I was born in Wisconsin!! I'm as American as..BANG!"
And Japanese-American Kebei were killed out of hand by our troops or by Filipinos. Some were tried and punished by military tribunals, a few executed.

A little know fact was that Lord Haw Haw was actually an American citizen. We gave him to the Brits to string up.

Generally, in past wars, if you are on the enemy side, your US citizenship means no extra-special ACLU endorsed rights. It would mean a harder time. Frankly, and I suspect it is true today, it means you are an enemy AND a traitor - and killing such creatures would be an extra bonus in the mind of some Marine riffling the pockets of a dead Islamoid and finding his Newark, NJ high school ID on his corpse.
(Though we would hardly consider some Saudi or Yemeni born here and returning to Camel Land as a kid as a "Real American" - though the law still rewards anything plopping out of it's momma on US soil with instant citizenship. One AQ Islamoid turned out to have hatched in the USA to Saudi grad students...he went back to KSA as a 3-year old and didn't speak a word of English and didn't even know he had been born in America until investigators told him because his devout parents thought it was a little shameful he had been born outside the Dar al Islam, delivered by infidels.

Nichevo said...

C4, what problem do you have with transfer? It would solve the problem once and for all. There could be sweeteners and some notional remnant of old Pal families could remain.

Give them each 40 acres and a camel in the Empty Quarter of KSA. There is no future for them in the bounds of "Greater" Israel. Gaza and WB are untenable by themselves.

If worse came to worst and the Egyptians, Saudis or whatever host country felt they had to massacre them, so what? Would you care? The Arabs are the losers of the world and the Pals are the losers of the Arab world.

Israel could easily afford the end of the post-Camp David subsidies, which should please you. Absent the Pals, tensions would diminish greatly and hopes for "peace" would surely rise.

Really, it is the neatest way of dealing with the whole issue. It just seems to leave a bad taste in one's mouth to speak of it. And you of all people are not interested in such concerns, are you?

Yes, you could equally say "so if you want to get rid of the Pals, why not get rid of the Jews?" Not to speak of any moral issue there, but Jews are more valuable - quantifiably, in terms of Nobels, etc. - and there is no place better or as good for the Jews to go. (You don't want them here, do you?) Whereas Pals have, or should have, all of Araby open to them.

Are you on the Arabs' side? I thought you were pretty much "let 'em all go to hell except Cave 76" in outlook.

former law student said...

So we could have and mayhap should have tried the Barbary Pirates in US courts?

Remember the Marines "on the shores of Tripoli"? We were at war with the Barbary States -- which authorized the depredations of the pirates and took a cut: the Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli -- not the pirates themselves.

The German-American saboteurs of WW II represented a government with which we were at war. Al-Qaeda governs no territory that I can see. The best you could hope for is that they represent their home countries. But I don't think we should invade Saudi Arabia just because Bin Laden is a native son.


And why is KSM subject to the protections and procedures of the US Civilian Court System, when he is a NON-RESIDENT, NON-CITIZEN?

Why not? Do we have one law for residents and another for tourists -- also NON-RESIDENT NON-CITIZENS? Sometimes I'd like to see some surly Brit pot smoker or double parker get death without a trial, but it would be bad for tourism.

former law student said...

In criminal cases venue is proper in the locality where the crime was committed. Trials are moved only when the defendant would not get a fair trial in that locality.

Nichevo said...

Oh and as for him being proscribed in Israel - sure, and the US Army Field manuals proscribe waterboarding. I have nothing to say about Goldstein except he must've gone crazy.

Besides, you don't give credit to Israel for that. Nor for:

Arrest all Stern gang leaders. Surround all Stern bases. Confiscate all arms. Kill any who resist. (response to the assassination of Count Bernadotte)

You're always happy to bring up the legacy of terror in Israel's formation, but never credit its ending.

Joe said...

Aw FLS it's obvious why you're a FORMER law student...
tourists are NOT non-resident, they ARE here...KSM was NEVER here...and is not a citizen...words, mean things. KSM was NOT in the US when he master-minded 9/11. He is NOT subject to the US Constitution. Had he planned it here, he COULD have been tried in the civilian court system, though I’d argue its best not to. Your Mileage may vary on that subject.

C4 yes, two of the Nat-zeez were US citizens…one was shot, IIRC, and one was not, but the other 6 were Germans…but they were IN THE US…they COULD have been tried, and using FLS logic OUGHT to have been…and we didn’t. So there is even LESS case for trying a NON-RESIDENT, Non-Citizen.

MadisonMan said...

Have there been, before, two consecutive althouse blog posts that started with the same word?

I suddenly want to know.

Trooper York said...

Suddenly you have questions?

traditionalguy said...

FLS... Correct me where I am wrong, but did not Al Qaeda declare war on the United States of America, and then spend 10 years sending two hit teams into the USA to kill the WTC complex and all of its workers as an act of war? And did we then capture an enemy General and interrogate by water boarding torture and hold him for 9 years while the war against the USA and all of its citizens, like you, has continued every damn day since then? So why does the enemy combatant General get a ticker tape parade for three years while the USA is put on trial on world TV as mean to Moslem's who just commit mass murder to obey Allah's orders to exterminate our allies who are 6 million more Jews in Israel? The answer is apparently that we can, if we are insane enough to do it to aid and comfort the enemy who declared war upon us 17 years ago and is still sending its warriors out to kill us so that they can kill the Jews faster.

jr565 said...

Former Law Student wrote:
The trial will spread OUR message to a global audience -- a nation that believes in the rule of law and in rights for all, even the least deserving of them -- a nation that walks its talk.

Why don't conservatives see this?



Yet, Obama's administration is already using military tribunals on many detainees now (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/16/politics/main5018988.shtml). So why doesn't Obama believe in the rule of law for those he tries under tribunals? Sound a lot like the big dogs get the full trials, whereas the little jihadis, or as you say the least deserving of them get bubkas, certainly not the rule of law for all. Do you think Obama is maybe talking the talk but not walking the walk?

jr565 said...

William wrote:
The liberal position has been that military tribunals and Gitmo detentions were used by Islamic militants as a recruiting tool.


As they've enunciated over and over (and over). Yet clearly, if they had just treated the detainees to civilian trials they would cease to be jihadis.To libs, was the Blind Sheik tried by military tribunals or by civilian courts. Did we have 9/11 anyway? Sounds like even when we try them using civilian courts their recruiting proceeds apace.

And,as if they couldn't use anything else as a recruiting tool. (ie, the erection of a WTC memorial, Obama's continuation of a war in Afghanistan, the flushing of korans, cartoons depicting Allah in a bad light).

But isn't it funny how libs think that Bush's tribunals will obviously be a recruiting tool for terrorists, but Obama's tribunals somehow wont. I'd think having a two tiered system where some get tribunals and some got court trials would, were it truly a reason to recruit terrorists, might ruffle some feathers.
And isn't it funny that when Bush bombs some al qaeda, Obama says we have to stop carpet bombing, yet when Obama bombs some Al Qaeda, apparently they don't mind as much and it isn't carpet bombing. Are Al Qaeda members being blown up mad that they are being blown up, or mad that they are being blown up by George Bush? I doubt many jihadis who's family members are being blown to bits are refraining from their anti americanism because Obama is Obama. And likewise, of course when Bush occupies Iraq, the libs will leak NIE reports about how that increases terrorism and how wrong it is because we are occupying them. Yet when Obama increases our presence in Afghanistan, not to mention carpet bombs villages and occupies the country or carries out attacks in Yemen, why that wont increase terrorism one iota! The jihadis would never become inflamed by that. It's the lack of civilian trials that is turning them into terrorists.