April 15, 2010

"Watching Attorney General Eric Holder struggle on Wednesday to answer senators’ questions about the detention and trial of terrorism suspects..."

Watching this NYT op-ed struggle to avoid holding Holder responsible for his own shortcomings....

86 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

If the NYT gig does not work out, that reporter could do a stint as a contortionist with Cirque du Soleil.

Roger J. said...

All of the campaign promises fade in the face of reality when all of a sudden you are in charge.

That said, it seems to me (perhaps over simplistically, not being a lawyer) that the primary determinant of where one is tried for terrorism should be based on the suspect's nationality. If a US citizen, then that suspect gets the appropriate constitutional protections. If not a US citizen, then no such protections accrue, and a military tribunal is the appropriate venue.

My .02

AlphaLiberal said...

You mischaracterize what this editorial says. this statement leaps out:

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have a bill that would require the military detention and trial of anyone accused of any terrorism-related crime, including American citizens. That is the stuff of police states. .

Yes. Conservatives hate the American legal system and want to replace it with military kangaroo courts. This, even though it has worked fine on terrorism, say when Bush used it!

The legal system worked fine with Najibullah Zazi but conservatives, like Althouse, are oddly silent about Holder's success there.

All this is about is more Obama-bashing. That's it. you guys are criticizing a practice BUSH USED. Where were your complaints then?

AlphaLiberal said...

It's also appalling how conservatives want to inflate the perceived worth and power of these cretins.

They are no better than criminals, but you want to elevate them to the status of a nation-state when they have no such status.

But all you care about is the politics, bashing Obama and Democrats and getting Republicans back in power.

No? Show me where these arguments came up when Bush was in power and tried terror cases in court.

Quayle said...

The final product - the pinnacle - of our societal struggle for knowledge and enlightenment - what 200+ years of toil and effort has brought us:

My guy: good (always)

Your guy: bad (always)

E Buzz said...

A guy in Holder's position is only supposed to be held accountable if he's a conservative. If he's a leftist, he should be treated with deference and, hell, not even brought in front of congress at all!

Lem said...

Trying Mr. Mohammed in a military court.. serves as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

God forbid Al Qaeda should run out of inauspicious reasons to recruit suicide bombers ;)

Fred4Pres said...

I am all for civil rights protections for U.S. Citizens, but definitely not for foriegn enemy combatants. Military tribunals are appropriate for such acts.

E Buzz said...

Maybe we need an AG that actually works hand in hand with Al Qaeeda, to help them overthrow the country quicker...

It would help the New Left out a lot, people like Bill Ayers and Rev Wright would approve, I'm sure.

Lem said...

It's also appalling how conservatives want to inflate the perceived worth and power of these cretins.
They are no better than criminals, but you want to elevate them to the status of a nation-state when they have no such status
.

You are right Alpha, we a long history of people flying big planes into bldgs and planing suicide attacks aimed at maximizing the killing of people w/ wepons of mass destruction.

That's happened all the time. Melodramatic 9/11.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yes. Conservatives hate the American legal system and want to replace it with military kangaroo courts. This, even though it has worked fine on terrorism, say when Bush used it!

Or even when FDR used it.

I never thought Alpha considered FDR as a conservative.

vet66 said...

Terrorists who use civilians for cover, don't wear a uniform and use civilians for suicide bombings as a means to affect public opinion by murdering innocents do not have any rights whatsoever in the civilian judicial system.

States are mostly incapable of handling the new battlefields of the 21st century battlefield as evidenced by 9/11. We haven't built the memorial yet to honor our murdered citizens at ground zero. Politics does not belong in battlefield decisions. Not only is it morally reprehensible it is suicidal on our part to treat these people as anything other than battlefield detainees. It is also a waste of scarce resources to tie up our judicial system with political machinations from the ACLU, CAIR etc. organizations who use our liberties against us.

The U.S. military must have jurisdiction over detainees who commit or plan acts of terrorism against us.

alpha liberal; I task you with studying the liberal attitude that died with Daniel Pearl, Theo Van Gogh, and a host of others who died at the hands of terrorists who scoffed at your moral weakness and cowardice in the face of resident evil. But then it is only a statistic until it happens to you personally then it is too late to change your attitude, right?!

Hoosier Daddy said...

All this is about is more Obama-bashing. That's it. you guys are criticizing a practice BUSH USED. Where were your complaints then?

Well I always complained that Bush was treating captured terrorists with kid gloves. My preferred method was that they be treated in accordance of the rules of war for captured spies and saboteurs which, in essence is exactly what they are.

In other words, just the way they were treated by the US when FDR was CinC.

Chase said...

Is there a bigger crock of bullshit in any New York Times editorial this year than this last sentence?

That would continue the unjust system that has made other countries reluctant to turn prisoners over to the United States, elevates criminals to the status of warrior and serves as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

Proving again that receiving the title "editor" at the New York Times does not require either basic common sense or minimal
reasoning skills.

GMay said...

BetaLib froths: "Something about conservatives."

I hope you and the source you link realize that while one of the terrorists co-operated with the law, he is certainly not obliged to right? He doesn't have to offer one whit of usable intelligence if he doesn't want to.

That we got something from one and not the other should clue guys like you in. But it won't.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The Obama regime has also ordered the murder of an American citizen.

Actually I have no problem with that. The American citizen in question is actively engaged in what we conservatives would call treason (versus the liberal view of 'voicing his dissent'). If he can be captured and rigoursly interrogated for intel that's good. If he happens to be sitting at ground zero for a Predator, all the better.

Moose said...

It's all really complicated now, innit? Versus when Bush was doing things that were CLEARLY WRONG.

Now that we're all growed up math is indeed hard...

WV: horygov - no doubt!

GMay said...

Lem said: "God forbid Al Qaeda should run out of inauspicious reasons to recruit suicide bombers ;)"

It's truly shocking to think that some really do buy into this. It's almost as if there were never any terrorist attacks on us or our allies before the eeeevil George "The Chimp" Bushitler. As if they don't even realize that if terrorist weren't successful in March of '93 we wouldn't have had 9/11.

But look how Captain Wonderful has changed everyone's tone toward us! Ummm, wait a minute...

Balfegor said...

Or even when FDR used it.

Yeah, Quirin is kind of the elephant in the room here. Nothing on the table is even close to matching what the Supreme Court signed off on in Quirin.

Richard Dolan said...

Holder deserves all the criticism he is getting because he is supposed to be in charge of these policies but isn't doing the job. It's Holder job to articulate and implement a coherent policy on these issues -- not just what to do with Gitmo and the prisoners, but more generally about how terrorists (here and abroad) should be dealt with under law. As his testimony on Wednesday in the Senate showed (again), he is completely unable to do that -- he offers instead a lot of blather about continuing "reviews," "process" blah-blah-blah, with no conclusion or policy in sight.

Part of this is a holdover from the poisonous attacks against the Bushies by the Obama crowd, all of which is now coming back to haunt them. What to make of the contention that the Bushies were "shredding the Constitution" when the reality today is that the Obama Administration has just tinkered at the margins with the policies put in place by the Bushies -- Patriot Act, FISA amendments, Military Commission act, etc.? It has also finally dawned on the Obami (as it did to the Bushies) that, while there would be advantages (mostly PR) in closing Gitmo, there is no compelling substantive reason to make that the driving element in anti-terrorism policies and, at the practical level, no acceptable alternative. Yet Holder is completely unable to get beyond that.

Quite apart from the expense and disruption that a KSM trial in Foley Square would cause, there are many solid reasons to prefer a military rather than a civilian forum for the KSM trial, not the least of which is the difficulty in handling classified information. The Classified Information Procedures Act can become quite unwieldy in operation during pre-trial procedures, particularly in a civilian forum.

But apart from the specifics, what is truly remarkable, from a political perspective, is that terrorism policy could potentially be one of the Obama team's strongest successes, but Holder is turning it into a disaster. It is a truism that no single administration can put in place a lasting policy, and particularly one over which the President exercises so much authority, if its basic outlines are unacceptable to the other party. When Obama came in, he had the opportunity to fix up what needing fixing in the Bush policies (it turned out to be not that much), and to present a coherent policy that would win broad support. Instead, Holder has made a mess of it, by continuing to demonize the Bushies while keeping in place most of what they came up with. Only a political hack would fail to see the contradiction. Enter Holder.

It's all become a display of astonishing incompetence, first by Holder and his DOJ team and now by Obama and the WH crowd in letting the political disaster continue to undermine him. Whether you are for or against the Obami at the political level, everyone should recognize that the real loser in all of this is the US national interest.

Balfegor said...

But look how Captain Wonderful has changed everyone's tone toward us! Ummm, wait a minute...

Not all of that is Obama's fault, though -- some of it is just our allies' (or ex-allies') domestic politics. In Japan, for example, Hatoyama is kind of anti-American from time to time -- certainly moreso than any of his predecessors in the 00's -- but he didn't come to power because he was anti-American; he came to power because Japan was in a recession, and the LDP wasn't able to pull them out. Also, because he's fantastically wealthy.

GMay said...

Hey Betalib, since you hold this administration and due process in such high regard, what's your take on Gibbs' differing opinion?

Brian Day said...

There are close to 200 Guantánamo inmates. Some should be released, and some should be tried in federal or military courts. The administration says 48 are a danger but cannot be tried because the evidence is too thin or fatally tainted by abuse and torture. (bold mine)

Well, how do those 48 break down? Evidence too thin - hold 'em or release.
Abuse - that is not fatally tainted. Proceed to trial.
"Torture" (yes, I'm using scare quotes) - if torture was used then hold 'em till the end of the conflict and release 'em back into the wild.

wv: gumbi - what Fred4Pres called the editorial writer.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yeah, Quirin is kind of the elephant in the room here. Nothing on the table is even close to matching what the Supreme Court signed off on in Quirin.

Not to mention that spies and saboteurs were routinely shot out of hand as a matter of course during WW2 and WW1 for that matter.

Not all of that is Obama's fault, though -- some of it is just our allies' (or ex-allies') domestic politics.

I don't think its fair to blame Obama for that either but I will blame him for his Sheryl Crowe (lets just not have enemies) approach to how foreign affairs works. When he can actually get Iran and the Norks to do some meaningful action on their nuke programs I'll give credit. Until then, getting the Canadians, Chileans and Ukranians to store their enriched uranium here isn't blowing my skirt up.

AJ Lynch said...

We need fewer laws.

These congress critters can't stop proposing laws that they think will fix stuff. Fewer laws and fewer regulations is it.

WTF do you think the Tea Parties are all about.

gk1 said...

I actually feel safer Holder and the other Obama hypocrites are doing exactly as Bush had done in keeping us safe. If they have to do it over the faux, moral preening of progressives, I can live with that.

Mark O said...

Holder is just not that smart. He's remarkably overrated, like his boss.

AlphaLiberal said...

I like this statement from Eric Holder blasting the reprehensible McCarthyite Liz Cheney:

"There has been an attempt to take the names of the people who represent Guantanamo detainees and to drag their reputations through the mud. There were reprehensible ads in essence to question their patriotism. I'm not going to allow these kids -- I'm not going to be a part of this effort."

Conservatives sure do hate the principles of the American justice system.

GMay said...

Balfegor,

Oh don't mind me, my real views on foreign policy aren't as simplistic and naive as those who thought a Coke and a smile was all we needed to make the world a better place in Nov. 08.

At the most basic level - given the increase of heated rhetoric from Iran, NK, Al Q, Syria, the Muslim world in general, Russia, Venezuela, and the rest of the usual suspects, the less dazed of the Obama followers should be snapping out of that delusion right about now. Keyword: should.

AJ Lynch said...

Mark O:

Comments like that may make you a racist.

Balfegor said...

if torture was used then hold 'em till the end of the conflict and release 'em back into the wild.

There's two problems with that. (1) No idea when the conflict will end, if ever. (2) Releasing them back "into the wild" may mean in many cases that they will simply be apprehended and executed by the government of wherever they are released, if they are released to their home countries. This was the problem with the Uighur terrorists, for example -- we could release them to, say, China, and I think China would be perfectly happy to take them, but China would just execute them since they're members of anti-Chinese terrorist groups operating in Xinjiang or something. And we'd feel bad about handing people over to their deaths like that.

GMay said...

Betalib keeps belching: "Conservatives sure do hate the principles of the American justice system."

I guess Robert Gibbs is now one of those evil conservatives huh?

traditionalguy said...

We used to fight this country's battles from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli. Now Holder wants to make us do a kabuki submission to the righteous Moslem murderers at a Show Trial in NYC just to prove that he can make it happen. Elections have consequences. Moslems despise any showing of weakness and mercy. They are laughing harder than anyone at Holder's total lack of competance.

Balfegor said...

Moslems despise any showing of weakness and mercy.

This is not, I think, unique to Moslems. International politics is not about being nice, moral, or merciful, not, at least, if you want to play at realpolitik as Obama fancies he does.

That said, I think the foreign policy team in the administration are under the misconception that beating up on friendly small countries (e.g. Israel) is a way to show strength. That's just bullying. I'm sure it makes them feel like big men, but I don't think it particularly impresses anyone.

GMay said...

O/T I'd like to get our resident imbeciles' take on some of the latest financial data to hit the streets.

And by imbeciles, I mean those who were gushing over the rosy outlook of the economy by citing the fucking stock market of all things.

vet66 said...

Then there is the troubling account of Eric Holder's law firm that seems to be a little too enthusiastic in providing pro bono (follow the money) legal support for detainees/terrorists. Their presence at the justice department does little to assuage the fears of the rest of us as to whose side are they really on?

I further task alpha liberal and his apologists to read the book "A Time To Betray" which provides a moving account of life in Iran since the revolution. The rape story from the young girl who would rather face a firing squad than go through medieval interrogation techniques in various rape rooms is terror at it's subhuman worst.

Ignoring atrocities will not make them go away alpha liberal! Shame on you! Your willfull blindness encourages the terrorists to continue their rape, mayhem and pillage free of the fear of being held accountable. Consider yourself put on notice and being held accountable for your moral obtuseness.

Hagar said...

What is the color of the sky on Eric Holder's planet?

bagoh20 said...

"Conservatives sure do hate the principles of the American justice system."

Maybe they hate injustice, which is often part of said system. Unless you think it's perfect.

garage mahal said...

This was the problem with the Uighur terrorists, for example

George Bush and the Pentagon found they were not terrorists, or enemy combatants, yrs ago. In fact they found their enemy was the communist Chinese government. Oops.

vet66 said...

gmay: what is your point? That people who bought homes they could not afford with little or no down are now losing those same homes? Some of which were bought in the stupid belief that they could be turned at a speculative profit? Furnished with big screen tv's and all the high end accoutrements financed on credit cards at 21% interest rates? No health insurance premiums? Totally ignoring the "bubbble" warnings from economists who predicted the collapse?

People who don't understand derivatives, bundling of government enforced (Fannie/freddie) bad loans with good debt to make them more salable for overseas consumption (China) with an excess of American dollars should not buy property.

The rest of us have enjoyed a runup in the stock market of around 70%. We are also spending money on home improvement on the cheap instead of high priced labor during the boom years.

Cash talks, BS whining walks!

Balfegor said...

George Bush and the Pentagon found they were not terrorists, or enemy combatants, yrs ago. In fact they found their enemy was the communist Chinese government. Oops.

Well, they're still terrorists and enemy combatants. Just not our enemy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

International politics is not about being nice, moral, or merciful, not, at least, if you want to play at realpolitik as Obama fancies he does.

I know many people like to beat up the Frogs but in reality, they're still the kings of realpolitik. When you read the following from Sarkozy with his interview with perky Katie, you realize Obama is a wide eyed 8th grader at best:

Couric: Having said that, let me just ask you the question I asked you a few minutes ago. Not now, but down the road, maybe in many years, can you conceive of a nuclear free world?

Sarkozy (translator): Well, a virtual world where there would be no nuclear weapons, I think everyone would applaud that. But-- but I cannot jeopardize the security and safety of my country. You have to realize, we're a country of 65 million inhabitants. We have fewer conventional weapons than the U.S. and Russia and China, for that matter.

Now, I have inherited the legacy of the efforts made by my predecessors to-- build up arms as a nuclear power. And I could not-- give up nuclear weapons, insofar as I wasn't sure that the world is-- was a stable and safe place. What is the role of a head of state. To ensure the safety of his country-- and the fate of the citizens that have entrusted him with the task of being President. Which is why entirely recognize my thinking, and that-- of President Obama. So-- and I believe that President Obama said he probably wouldn't be around when the world is-- has divest itself of its nuclear weapons.

Couric: But do you think it's a realistic goal? And I won't ask you this again.

Sarkozy (translator): It's a dream. An awesome dream that can turn into reality. But I will not give up that nuclear weapon because it underpins my country's security. I will not do so on a unilateral basis, in a world as dangerous as the one in which we live in today.

Balfegor said...

Then there is the troubling account of Eric Holder's law firm that seems to be a little too enthusiastic in providing pro bono (follow the money) legal support for detainees/terrorists.

It's pro bono -- they don't get money for the representation, just spend it. And they're doing it for reasons of common or garden moral vanity, not because they're getting paid by terrorists, or because they want to support terrorism. I think it's silly that there's lawyers involved to this extent at all, but to the extent we've injected them into the process, we can't very well criticise them for doing what they do. Why does the scorpion sting? Because it is his nature.

Balfegor said...

I know many people like to beat up the Frogs but in reality, they're still the kings of realpolitik.

I believe the French are still the only nuclear power that has formally embraced the possibility of a nuclear first strike in retaliation for a terrorist attack. The French take their nuclear deterrent very seriously. And they do not care what other people think.

mccullough said...

Holder should step down. He's in way over his head, just like Alberto Gonzalez.

Perhaps his personal beliefs are conflicting with what Obama wants him to do. Regardless, he's not up to the job.

Methadras said...

AlphaLiberal said...

But all you care about is the politics, bashing Obama and Democrats and getting Republicans back in power.


This is why your ideology is a short-sighted, narrow minded stream of putrid thought. You think this is about putting republicans back into power and bashing Obama? No, you idiot. It's about trying to restore this country to principals of limited government, individual freedoms and liberties without undo ingress of government intrusion or regulation, and where the promise of life is given a chance to flourish for all American citizens. This isn't a republican mandate, this is a conservative mandate. You are incapable of seeing this distinction because, frankly, you are incapable of thinking even this deeply. You and your ilk are so bent on reshaping this country into a marxist utopia that you are willing to sacrifice your own souls to do it. I and millions of others like me are here to tell people like you, that we will stop you.

William said...

The NYT can find that the change of venue for KSM is the precursor to a police state. They also claim that the government takeover of the health care system can in no way be construed as even a teeny-weeny baby step towards socialism. The hyperbole and hypocrisy of the NYT can best be described as a kind of religious vision. Attempts to refute their arguments with logic or facts are doomed to fail. You either see the way and the light, or you don't.

GMay said...

vet66 - Had a long response worked up, but the blog ate it. Suffice it to say, my point was about information that indicates our economic outlook is rather grim. I guess I wasn't clear on that or something.

Why should people who don't understand derivatives not buy homes? Their understanding of derivatives has squat to do with their ability to make payments. People who don't understand their own finances are the ones who shouldn't buy homes.

Do some math on 1,000,000 home foreclosures. Come up with some conservative estimates on what sort of loss the banks are going to take on those. You number will be in the tens of billions in an industry that's fucked. That's not even counting the fact that these homes are going to go right back into a market that's crap and will be for a few years.

And don't forget that all those toxic assets that led to this mess are still out there and no one is doing a damn thing about 'em. The government is too worried about the 2 cents on a $100 bill that went to corporate bonuses while the other $99.98 is just not that important.

What could there possibly be to worry about?

You might be doing well, but you're gonna end up paying for those that didn't. Bank on it.

vet66 said...

Methadras: AMEN!

Hoosier Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mesquito said...

A. Shooting water up terrorists noses.

B. Blowing way suspected terrorists, and whatever civilans might be hanging around the blast radius.

c. Assaswsinating American citizens who have gone overseas and and taken up terrorism.

D. Holding terrorists as enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities.

Now, one can be a hardass and support all four. Or one can be a civil libertarian and oppose all four. But you have to take some seriously psychoactive chemicals to arrive at the Holder-Obama position.

Quayle said...

That would continue the unjust system that has made other countries reluctant to turn prisoners over to the United States, elevates criminals to the status of warrior and serves as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

Right - to Al-Qaeda its all about which venue is proper. That's what is driving the outrage.

It couldn't be their rejection of the corrosive sleaze of our pop culture.

It couldn't be our support or tolerance of social constructs, norms, and behavior that ruins families, burdens the poor, and makes children fatherless.

It couldn't be our dissolute sexual mores and our secular insistence on driving religion out of the public space.

No - it's all about venue - that's what really gets the Muslims motivated to bomb innocent civilians in the west.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But you have to take some seriously psychoactive chemicals to arrive at the Holder-Obama position.

I'm holding out hope that 53% of the electorate was taking those chemicals on election day and not because they actually fell for his spiel.

Cause even I did some stupid stuff when heavily inebriated once.

edutcher said...

I love this line from the piece, "All of that has stopped — because of Republican fear-mongering, administration blundering and Democratic not-in-my-backyardism." So it looks like Alpha just cuts phrases from the Gray Lady and pastes them together for his comments.

What happened is that some of the few adults left in the government sat The Zero down and told him what would happen if the bad guys got through in DC. Apparently, Holder never got the memo.

AlphaLiberal said...

Yes. Conservatives hate the American legal system and want to replace it with military kangaroo courts.

This, of course, explains why they keep quoting the Constitution and complaining how The Zero is doing end runs around it.

I like this statement from Eric Holder blasting the reprehensible McCarthyite Liz Cheney:

You can always tell when the National Socialists are down to their last gasp, they invoke Tail-Gunner Joe.

Or does he mean Clean Gene?

Methadras said...

Hagar said...

What is the color of the sky on Eric Holder's planet?


Red of course, and from time to time a picture of Rev. Wright pops up to remind him of how evil America really and truly is.

Flexo said...

the primary determinant of where one is tried for terrorism should be based on the suspect's nationality

That makes no sense. If an act is an act of war, it is an act of war, not a violation of civilian criminal law.

The determinate of where one is tried is and must be based on the nature of the act alleged to have been done -- if it is a war crime, an act in violation of the laws of war, as are all of these cases, then the appropriate forum is a military tribunal.

The Drill SGT said...

Dana Milbank, hardly a member of the VRWC had a good piece about how incoherent Holder is in his argument's. It serves as a perfect rebuttal to the NYT. The most significant point being that 15 months into their GITMO c;osing process, they are still sorting out the F'ing process for evaluating the detainees. Here's a chunk:

Eric Holder is a Guantanamo Bay prisoner.

A little enhanced interrogation for the attorney general.
He's not imprisoned at Gitmo, but he's imprisoned by Gitmo. The Justice Department he leads, and to some extent the whole Obama administration, has been detained -- tortured, even -- by the star-crossed attempt to close the military prison.

It began in the first hours of the administration, when Obama pledged to close Gitmo without a plan for doing so. It got infinitely worse in November, when Holder announced that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed would be tried in New York City.

So when Holder came before the Senate Judiciary Committee for questioning Wednesday morning, Democrats and Republicans confronted the attorney general with the same question: What's the plan? And Holder had no answer.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) asked Holder about the administration's interminable deliberations over what to do with the detainees. "How far along are we?"

"Well, that is something that we're still working on," Holder said, turning on his verbal fuzz machine. "Needs to be a process . . . initial determination . . . task force . . . principals' committee . . . ongoing review . . . still working through in the interagency."

Quayle said...

the primary determinant of where one is tried for terrorism should be based on the suspect's nationality

That would have worked really well for an Afghan citizen in 2001, don't you think?

What kind of a trial do you think an Iraqi would have received in 2001?

I guess this statemetn shows the Times' implied support for regime change, because surely they don't believe that a a rogue or openly hostile regime should handle the terrorist's trial.

They must mean the judicial system that gets put in place after the Americans overthrow the government that nurtured, educated, and fomented the terrorist.

Alex said...

Remember it's American conservatives who are the real threat, not Al Queda.

Alex said...

AlphaLiberal said...

But all you care about is the politics, bashing Obama and Democrats and getting Republicans back in power.


Projection, thy name is Democrat.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"The American citizen in question is actively engaged in what we conservatives would call treason ..."

The American citizen in question is accused of actively being engaged in what we conservatives would call treason - but nobody has proven that and that's why we have a Constitution and due process.

There, FIFY.

The President of the United States cannot order the murder of an American citizen just because he claims that person is acting treasonously.

And if you don't understand why that is Hossier, then I suggest you think on it some more. I for one do not trust Barack Obama to order murders of people he claims - but doesn't have to prove to a court - are actually acting treasonously.

Once you think on it some, I think you'll agree with me that even though American citizens might be committing treason, our Constitution guarantees them a trial for a reason.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Eric Holder blasting Liz Cheney? Really, AlphaLiberal ... that's what you're impressed by?

Liz Cheney is a private citizen you fucking moron.

Address the central issue of debate today:

Your President, Barack Obama, has ordered - with no due process - the murder of an American citizen.

What is Eric Holder doing about that?

Wnd what criticism do you, AlphaLiberal, have to offer about a President who is so out of control with his own power that he is ordering the murders of American citizens who have not even been tried?

Do you have no criticism of that Alpha? Any intellectual honesty left in you? Can you sleep at night?

Titus said...

I would do Eric Holder. He is kind of hot.

I bet he has a nice long hog.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The American citizen in question is accused of actively being engaged in what we conservatives would call treason - but nobody has proven that and that's why we have a Constitution and due process.

Actually the American citizen in question has proven it himself by openly stating it on video and on his own website. There really isn't anything further to prove IMO.

If he stayed here in the country then I would agree with you. But since he left town, moved to the goat hills of Yemen to hang with his Islamofascist pals then he's just another target.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I and millions of others like me are here to tell people like you that we will stop you."

Here, here!

And let me just add AlphaLiberal, that we will do so with all that due force required to defeat you.

If that is at the ballot box, fine.

If it takes more than that ... I and millions of others like me are here to tell people like you that we will not allow your president to order the murder of American citizens he claims are acting treacherously.

We're going to the ballot box in November.

And if necessary, there are other boxes we'll go to, but understand this: You and your ilk will not prevail.

GMay said...

I'm still waiting for BetaLib to explain away the Lord Gibbsy's take on due process from earlier in the thread.

(Libs get really pissed when you use MSNBC as a source.)

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Actually the American citizen in question has proven it himself by openly stating it on video and on his own website. There really isn't anything further to prove IMO."

Then it should be trivial to hold a trial (even one held in absentia).

However, Barack Obama has not done that. He has ordered the murder of an American citizen without giving that citizen the due process that is required by the Constitution. That is an illegal act.

It doesn't matter whether you, or Barack Obama, think it should be that way.

That's just the fucking way it is in the United States.

Even the treasonous have rights. Especially the treasonous have rights.

The innocent don't need rights.

Turtledove said...

Holder needs to explain to me why some terrorists get a missile up their butts and others get a big civilian trial. And don't say "because Bush did it".

HDHouse said...

Gosh I wonder how Mukaset and Gonzales would have responded under oath or if they would have shown up at all to answer these questions....

Looking back on your blogs Ann, would you point out where you took them to task for "struggling"?

GMay said...

"And don't say "because Bush did it"."

Considering that's their campaign strategy for the upcoming November elections, don't hold your breath.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Gosh I wonder how Mukaset and Gonzales would have responded under oath or if they would have shown up at all to answer these questions."

The Democrat-controlled Congress has the power to subpoena anyone they like and place that person under oath and ask that person questions.

You should be asking instead why your own Congressional leadership has been unwilling to do that.

I think it's because Mukasey and Gonzolez would say much to commend themselves.

They weren't ordering the murder of American citizens, but your president has done just that.

You fuckers don't give a rats ass about justice or the law - and it's evident by your refusal to address the issue of your president ordering the suspension of due process and acting like some mafia don ordering fucking hit men to take people out.

None of you have a fucking shred of intellectual honesty. You're all a bunch of fucking hacks. I hope your children pay the price for your fucking depravity.

The Drill SGT said...

HD,

I think Mesquito upthreat already gave you your Gonzales answer. They might have said. A,B,C,D or like me, A, B, D,

but I think either is more coherent than the Obama/Holder B,C,D version...

Titus said...

I am trying to determine whether Holder is cut or uncut. I am leaning to cut with a nice mushroom head.

Obama is definitely uncut. I am sure about that.

c3 said...

Clearly he's done poorly in public presentation. You can't on one hand voice firm faith in the American justice system and then later state "the reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden."

Penny said...

John Yoo surely got a good laugh when he read this article.

Whoever said earlier that the current administration needs a PLAN is correct. The thing that Yoo keeps pointing out is that our current laws don't really fit our world reality today, and that new policies are in order.

Those in charge are now aware of that, but are not willing to bite the bullet because politics are getting in the way. The NYT's was at least right in noticing the Policy - Politics dilemma.

craig said...

Russian citizens assassinated on foreign soil by order of Putin & co.: bad.

American citizens assassinated on foreign soil by order of Barack Obama: good.

Why? Because Democrats say so. Shut up, he explained.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You can't on one hand voice firm faith in the American justice system and then later state "the reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden."

Well the second line is just dumb. I would have preferred something along the lines of"

Longshanks: Bring me Wallace. Alive, if possible. Dead...just as good.

Braveheart, 1995

Cedarford said...

AlphaLiberal said...
It's also appalling how conservatives want to inflate the perceived worth and power of these cretins.

They are no better than criminals, but you want to elevate them to the status of a nation-state when they have no such status
===========================
Alpha makes the insipid argument that there is no such thing as warfare, no such thing as enemy. Just human history as a law enforcement exercise where lawyers best deal with criminals like Islamic Jihad and the beastial Imperial Japanese Forces.

By fighting Mongols, did the Mameluks "legitimize" them by resisting them with force vs. sending out lawyers with a cease and desist order to the Horde? Did that inflate the Mongols perceived power and self-worth?

If all war is criminal, are all Germans and Japanese sons and grandsons of criminals? If all killing and destruction in war is a law enforcement matter, why are only 1/10th of 1% of enemy ever prosecuted? If that?
And what of soldiers on our side? Does Alpha believe that each soldier or Marine civilian military policy maker should be investigated under US criminal law to verify that each killing, wounding, destruction of property, search of an Iraqi house without a US civilian judge's seach warrant was justified??

No, basically Alpha is simply regurgitating the brainless Lefty talking point that going to war against an enemy only empowers and legitimizes the enemy. And if we kill enemy, we are "no better than the enemy".

Cedarford said...

And I think Holder is in the trouble he is in, and fast becoming an object of ridicule even amongst Democrat senators - because he is an exemplar of Alpha Liberals way of thinking.

The Drill SGT said...

Penny said...
John Yoo surely got a good laugh when he read this article.

Whoever said earlier that the current administration needs a PLAN is correct.


That was a WaPo columist, Dana Milbank, a certified Liberal.

The irony that our left leaning posters won't admit is that Bush and Company had a somewhat coherent view and plan, (even though they were caught off guard by 9/11 and had to put the plan together on the fly and build the rules for tribunals etc.) Obama/Holder? They are winging it....after claiming during the elections that they had a secret plan to close GITMO, make the world love us and solve world hunger (j/k on the last one)

Hoosier Daddy said...

They are winging it....after claiming during the elections that they had a secret plan to close GITMO, make the world love us and solve world hunger (j/k on the last one)

I never understood how closing down a prison in the Carribean and moving the terrorists to a prison in [insert US state] was going to endear us to the world.

Cedarford said...

Hoosier - "If he stayed here in the country then I would agree with you. But since he left town, moved to the goat hills of Yemen to hang with his Islamofascist pals then he's just another target."

We aren't exactly whacking Islamoid traitors hiding out in countries that have functioning legal systems and rule of law extending to all regions. (big difference between Russian whacking a dissident in London and us whacking a US citizen with AQ in North Waziristan)

Those the fetishize the US Constitution to the point where they claim "precious liberties and due process rights" prevent us from killing traitors fighting with the enemy on sight - are crazy.
And perhaps nothing would be sweeter to a Marine sniper than having a US citizen traitor who was a high value Al Qaeda target in the crosshairs.

Brian said...

@Alpha:
The legal system worked fine with Najibullah Zazi but conservatives, like Althouse, are oddly silent about Holder's success there.

If Zazi's attack had succeeded, we would have picking up body parts in the subway (a body count of what, 30, 40, 50 or more?). New York grinds to a halt just like after 9/11 as millions avoid using the subway. Thank God law enforcement worked in this case.

However, I have to ask: How was the intelligence gathered to stop him? I mean, did they get tipped off by wiretapping phone calls to foreign nationals? The link doesn't say, so we don't know. Since these are jihadis we're talking about, it's possible we were tipped off by overseas intelligence, gathered in a manner that civil libertarians have decried since the Bush era.

You're praising the prosecution; what about the methods used to stop this guy?

cokaygne said...

Let me see if I've got this right. It is OK for POTUS to sign off on ASSANIATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD. If a foreigner engages in an attack on the US by boarding an airplane in a foreign country and attempting to deytonate his weapon before the plane lands we are supposed to read him his Miranda rights and schedule a trial in a court room somewhere in the US.

Dial back then to December 7, 1941, that date that the great Democratic president said will live in infamy. On that day, by this policy, the US attorney for Honolulu should have been out serving arrest warrants on those Japanese pilots.

cokaygne said...

Sorry, I meant ASSASINATION.

Methadras said...

Titus said...

I am trying to determine whether Holder is cut or uncut. I am leaning to cut with a nice mushroom head.

Obama is definitely uncut. I am sure about that.


Dude, seriously. You aren't even a homosexual.