"... people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours. It can be rendered with fidelity to the Constitution. You have a right to be proud of your service in this case."
Judge Lewis Kaplan speaks words of inspiration to the jury that acquitted Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani of 284 of 285 criminal charges relating to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०९ टिप्पण्या:
The ghosts of the dead thank you too.
The ghosts of the dead will thank the Govt lawyers who could not prove the case.
He forgot to add 'This is bullshit."
the Govt lawyers who could not prove the case.
Oh they could prove it, but their evidence was excluded because the witness was identified through isolation techniques (enchanced interrogation).
As it should have been.
But this means that hundreds of more innocents will be blown up because the lawyers don't want the chain of evidence to be corrupted.
Trying illegal combatants in our civillian courts was a really stupid idea.
"...people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours...."
But wait! Don't I get health insurance and retirement from the government?
How in the hell can this judge say I'm not beholden to our government when I am due to get a substantial amount of money from them?
wv: butfult - a new TSA procedure
From the vantage point of the transnational elites, Ghailani and KSM have the same rights under the law as any American.
To the elites, the responsbility of American gov't to protect Afghani civilians from "collateral damage" is far greater than its responsibility to protect its civilians from terror attacks.
Now what? Back to Gitmo?
Garage, FLS, HDHouse, AlphaLib ... We're waiting for you.
We're short of Obama talking points at this time about how this is a great victory for the constitution (like Steve Zissou, one of Ghailani's lawyers said).
Steve Zissou?
This guy would never have said that.
A guy like Ghailani would never end up in American custody today. He would either be vaporized by a Hellfire missile or turned directly over to the Pakistanis.
Funny thing - The more rights a terrorist has, the worse off he ends up.
And of course we don't get the benefit of the intelligence he would have provided, so we're worse off, too.
But at least liberals like Cook get to feel good about themselves. That's the important thing.
"But wait! Don't I get health insurance and retirement from the government?
How in the hell can this judge say I'm not beholden to our government when I am due to get a substantial amount of money from them?"
You don't get health insurance from the government unless you're on Medicare.
That aside, it's not that we are beholden to the government but that the government is beholden to us. We pay into the Social Security fund and we are taxed, the monies from which are used to fund programs meant to benefit the public. We are realizing the fruit of our collective investment.
(I speak of the platonic ideal here; in reality, what with the war profiteers and banksters and Wall Street thieves taking our money from us, we're really getting less than we are entitled to.)
yeah he was charged with conspiracy to blow up buildings, but not with the murder of any of the people actually in the buildings.
if you know how the law of conspiracy works, you know that doesn't make a bit of sense.
"From the vantage point of the transnational elites, Ghailani and KSM have the same rights under the law as any American."
From the vantage point of the Constitution, as well.
A guy like Ghailani would never end up in American custody today. He would either be vaporized by a Hellfire missile or turned directly over to the Pakistanis.
Saves the messy trial thing, doesn't it?
From the vantage point of the Constitution, as well.
Wrong again.
When you narrow the evidence down to nothing, what do you expect the result to be?
(The Crypto Jew)
From the vantage point of the Constitution, as well.
WHAT?!?! Oh Puh-leeeze, the BoR applies to US citizens and resident aliens. It doesn’t apply to doods overseas, who are NOT US citizens. Does Aung San Suu Kyi
Have standing to sue for illegal detention or official misconduct, because she’s being deprived of her “American Rights?” What Federal District Court should she apply to? I respect your consistency Cooke, not your legal argumentation skills.
"Robert Cook said...
From the vantage point of the transnational elites, Ghailani and KSM have the same rights under the law as any American."
From the vantage point of the Constitution, as well.
11/18/10 9:45 AM
Bullshit. The Constitution does not say that and neither do the treaties we entered.
...Ghailani and KSM have the same rights under the law as any American."
From the vantage point of the Constitution, as well.
Let's flip this around. I see an opportunity! President Obama, this is your chance, tax the whole world! No Constitutional Rights with out Taxpaying!
So far, only Cook has entered his opinion. Garage, FLS, AlphaLib, FLS, so far only crickets.
Cook has no problem thus far with terrorists getting reduced sentences, even ones who confessed to murdering 200 Americans.
You're right Fred4Pres. If everyone is under U.S. Consitutional protection, then everyone should be subject to the Commerce Clause, and the tax authority of Congress.
Anything else means you're an evil Rethuglikkkan Nazi who likes to torture innocent Muslims.
"No prisoners!"
So the hundred s of african killed by him are worthless?
Cowards and racists are the words for the jury members
The guy was convicted on one count that goes 20-life. How many times do you want him to serve the same 20 years?
MadisonMan said...
The ghosts of the dead will thank the Govt lawyers who could not prove the case.
at some level, the judge was self-validating his decision to exclude voluntary testimony from an untainted witness, who was turned up thru some rigorous intergotions.
While I understand the judge's decision, the praise of the jury in the result isn't without some baggage.
I have to admit that I'm curious (almost in a tin-foil hat way) how they ended up with one conviction out of 285 charges, and the crime he was found guilty of brings a 20-to-life sentence.
Reminds me of Holder saying that even if KSM is acquitted we'll keep him in custody anyway.
Anyway, I'm very glad the grubby bastard will be missing the Hajj for at least a couple decades.
Brian said...
"...talking points at this time about how this is a great victory for the constitution.."
It was. The guy got a trial and was found guilty and is likely to serve 20-life.
If Bush's idiots handn't used torture as the soup du jour he might have gotten 30-life who knows.
Court system worked. Constitution worked. What is your problem? Try and be specific.
Conceptually, I'm all for the entire world getting American constitutional rights.
(Though the Germans and Japanese may have some issues with it, but let's get past that.)
Now, Cook, FLS, Alpha, et. al., let's talk implementation -how's this going to work exactly?
To enforce the protections of the US Constitution in the whole world, do we expand the DC Circuit's jurisdiction to include everything to the east of Main, or do we put district courts in Madagascar and Vladivostok?
Hyperbole aside, the idea is that constitutional protections are afforded to terrorists because they are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Govt. In this case, the military. Non-citizens under other sovereign states are not.
However, as has been noted before, if you afford constitional protections to non-citizens captured on foreign soil, in a war zone, the problems of gathering evidence, making witnesses available at trial, etc., become highly problematic. I'm talking civilian protections, the kind that common criminals are afforded in civilian court.
Which means you avoid the sticky legal issues by either vaporizing the person with missles from a drone, or you let the Pakistanis (or other country) intel service do the interrogation.
I hope that this leads to us playing "El Degüello" before every engagement and acting accordingly.
Libtard: If Bush's idiots handn't used torture as the soup du jour he might have gotten 30-life who knows.
You fucking moron. The CIA used isolation techniques to break him down and catch the terrorist cell that had already bombed 2 embassies, killing hundreds.
You would have allowed them to murder another 200 innocents, just so you could don a righteous pose on the chatrooms.
Your sense of Morality is twisted.
"You have a right to be proud of your service in this case."
I would argue that by exposing our constitution to the mockery that is a common criminal trial of avowed suicidal enemies of the United States.. It is Obama who is FAILING to the best of his ability to preserve protect and defend us against this enemy.
It is Obama who is creating an explosive mixture.. the extraordinary lengths of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt and the doubt that this enemy presents a clear and existential threat to our way of life.
Libtard: Court system worked. Constitution worked. What is your problem? Try and be specific.
A.W. already did @ 9:45:
"yeah he was charged with conspiracy to blow up buildings, but not with the murder of any of the people actually in the buildings.
if you know how the law of conspiracy works, you know that doesn't make a bit of sense."
Why did you ignore that? Talking points late again?
Yes, they are holy martyrs on the shrine of political correctness! They will go right to heaven.
Trooper York said...
I hope that this leads to us playing "El Degüello" before every engagement and acting accordingly.
translated into squadie speak:
Sarge: "OK guys, we're going outside the wire to do a sweep of the village. The Old Man didn't say anything special about prisoners on this run, so remember the squad motto: Two in the chest and one in the head.
Any questions?
Ok, and remember, Let's be careful out there"
That's a good point Quayle..
For people who claim US involvement around the world as the root of all evil.. I cant think of anything more intrusive/interventionist than extending the US jurisdiction to the whole world.
Talk about globalism.
Is it better that a hundred mass murdering religious fanatics go free rather than convict one mass murdering religious fanatic on the grounds of tainted evidence?
No prisoners means no trials. Simple really.
Oh and the press is to be sequested at all times far from the front line. They are not loyal Americans and can not be trusted with the defense of our Union.
But then you kind of get the same feeling with the Obama Administration.
So we should bring all the troops home and send 100,000 or so police officers to arrest Al Quaeda and try them in civilian courts? How is a terrorist in Waziristan who gets a predator missile different from a guy who blows up Embassies? Where is their calm, deliberate American justice?
The Obama administration is incoherent and totally driven by ideology and politics. They are a danger to the entire world.
Trying international terrorists as ordinary criminals is only step one in the insanity of our government.
Step two is arming and training police departments like they were military, or causing the TSA to do a Terry stop on every 13 year old airline passenger.
We're extending rights to international enemies of America, and taking them away from U.S. citizens that actually live in America.
The insanity of which is detected only by mere common sense.
It requires a more exalted, enlightened understanding, such as that of our ruling elite, to see how reasonable and logical it all is.
Quayle said..
We're extending rights to international enemies of America, and taking them away from U.S. citizens that actually live in America.
Please check this out.
Trooper York said...
I hope that this leads to us playing "El Degüello" before every engagement and acting accordingly.
By any chance, does "El Degüello" involve copping discrete boobie feels in a bar?
"Is it better that a hundred mass murdering religious fanatics go free rather than convict one mass murdering religious fanatic on the grounds of tainted evidence?"
How do you know who is a mass-murdering religious fanatic if you have not fairly appraised the evidence in a trial setting?
Are you just going to believe the government?
The whole reason we have the judicial system we do is because our founders knew governments can't be trusted to be restrained and prudent in their use of power and they can't be trusted to tell the truth.
"Now, Cook, FLS, Alpha, et. al., let's talk implementation -how's this going to work exactly?
To enforce the protections of the US Constitution in the whole world, do we expand the DC Circuit's jurisdiction to include everything to the east of Main, or do we put district courts in Madagascar and Vladivostok?"
That's not America's obligation; our obligation is to afford due process to defendants brought before the law where America is.
Lem, this kind of idiocy is the full ripening of every bureaucratic regime.
The fruit of our 'government can fix all' mindset is now rotting. More time won't make it any better, only worse.
"That's not America's obligation; our obligation is to afford due process to defendants brought before the law where America is."
So keep them in Cuba where America isn't, is the solution then.
Well that's what I thought, but the lefties kept telling me that was unconstitutional.
But, Cook, if the constitution applies to Guantanamo, why wouldn't it apply in North Eastern Pakistan?
"WHAT?!?! Oh Puh-leeeze, the BoR applies to US citizens and resident aliens."
It applies to anyone brought before an American court.
The Constitution does not grant "American citizens and resident aliens" special rights, it places a leash on the powerful beast that is our government, and friends and strangers alike are meant to benefit from the protections that leash provides against the unchecked power of authority.
No dude, this is the song you sing when you are copping a feel in a bar.
"But, Cook, if the constitution applies to Guantanamo, why wouldn't it apply in North Eastern Pakistan?"
Or would you argue that the constitutional protections should follow some density function of r, where r is the distance from America?
It what I always lead of with on Karoke Night at the Bar.
Just sayn'
"So keep them in Cuba where America isn't, is the solution then."
No...America is wherever America resides or exercises legal authority. America is in Guantanamo, and America is in every one of our Embassies and military bases around the world.
""But, Cook, if the constitution applies to Guantanamo, why wouldn't it apply in North Eastern Pakistan?"
Do we exercise legal authority there? Does American soil (as under an American Embassy or military base) exist there?
If it does, then it does, there.
Oh Puh-leeeze, the BoR applies to US citizens and resident aliens. It doesn’t apply to doods overseas, who are NOT US citizens.
Heh. The California Supreme Court just ruled that illegal aliens can not only attend state universities but get to pay in state tuition! Isn't that awesome? If I, an American citizen wanted to go to CA university I'd have to pay more as an Indiana resident but not someone who broke the law.
I mean is this an awesome country or what!???
Are you just going to believe the government?
You believe the government should be the sole provider of health care in this country so why shouldn't we think they have our best interest at heart when it comes to national security?
For those who think NPR dosn't lean left see here:
"The failure to convict Ghailani — the first Guantanamo inmate to face a civilian trial in the U.S. — on the most serious terrorism charges plays right into the hands of those who say terrorists should be tried in special courts, not criminal courts, because juries are notoriously unpredictable."
This is completely false, and in fact not one of the quotes from "critics" supports this assertion. Those against this practice typically object because (a) they believe courts will or have rigged the evidence rules to unfairly help the terrorists, and (b) the discovery process which forces us to choose between revealing our asymetric war capabilities and allowing a not-guilty verdict is inappropriate in war. I've never heard anyone complain about "unpredictable" juries.
Yet the NPR reporter (mis)informs its liberal audience that the entire reason for objecting to criminal courts is concern over juries, omitting the most compelling rationales and resting the entire point on something relatively easy to dismiss. It doesn't even matter whether this happens intentionally, or because the reporter misunderstood someone's point, or found the stupidest objector she could, or because this is truly the only description of conservative objection she's ever heard.
When conservatives talk about media bias it is this type of bias they most resent. Failing to use the best arguments to support their position is far more serious than failing to identify liberal commentators or think tanks as liberal.
Robert the Child Molestor said:
The Constitution does not grant "American citizens and resident aliens" special rights, it places a leash on the powerful beast that is our government, and friends and strangers alike are meant to benefit from the protections that leash provides against the unchecked power of authority.
Thats so cute. Now square it with this:
"Even had he been acquitted on all counts, the Obama administration had made clear that it would simply continue to imprison him anyway under what it claims is the President's "post-acquittal detention power" -- i.e., when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the "law of war" even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an "enemy combatant" (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial" - Glenn Greenwald
/cross-linked at Reason so you don't have to visit the Master of Sockpuppets:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/18/the-show-trial-must-go-on
Marshal: Yet the NPR reporter (mis)informs its liberal audience that the entire reason for objecting to criminal courts is concern over juries, omitting the most compelling rationales and resting the entire point on something relatively easy to dismiss.
Yup. Thats their MO. Nice catch.
"How do you know who is a mass-murdering religious fanatic if you have not fairly appraised the evidence in a trial setting?
Are you just going to believe the government?"
_____
Cook, I think you're confused. We wanted the evidence appraised in a trial setting. The judicial system prevented that.
So Robert, I'll be waiting to hear your defense of the Constitution on this:
"when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the law of war even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an enemy combatant (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial" - Glenn Greenwald
HDHOuse wrote:
he guy was convicted on one count that goes 20-life. How many times do you want him to serve the same 20 years?
285 times, consecutively, not concurrently.
Cook - "America is in Guantanamo, and America is in every one of our Embassies and military bases around the world."
Does that include our embassy in Tehran?
"You believe the government should be the sole provider of health care in this country so why shouldn't we think they have our best interest at heart when it comes to national security?"
No, health care would still be provided by private doctors and hospitals. They would simply be paid by the government.
By the way, I am a great believer in government as the facilitator of policies that provide for or promote the general welfare. But this requires a government that is representative of and answerable to the people, to an informed electorate who oversee the exercise of government power to check abuses.
Our founders did found a government, after all, not an anarchy, but a government of law, ruled by law, answerable to law...all issuing from the people.
"Does that include our embassy in Tehran?"
Yes.
"America is in Guantanamo, and America is in every one of our Embassies and military bases around the world."
And the Pentagon is in America and America is in the Pentagon - same goes for Buckley Air Force Base in Denver.
Yet from these locations we plan and execute predator strikes on people in the Swat Valley that by U.S. criminal procedure laws have not been indicted, have not had a hearing, and have not been adjudged guilty of any crime.
How do you square that with your jurisdictional limit theory, Cook?
Hoosier Daddy said...
Heh. The California Supreme Court just ruled that illegal aliens can not only attend state universities but get to pay in state tuition!
It's worse than that.
Illegal Mexicans pay in-state tuition.
Legal Mexicans on a student visa must pay full rate.
go figure :)
How do you square that with your jurisdictional limit theory, Cook?
Hey! Get in line. I'm still waiting for Robert to square the Constitution with this:
when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the law of war even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an enemy combatant (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial - Glenn Greenwald
No, health care would still be provided by private doctors and hospitals. They would simply be paid by the government.
Oh yes of course. The government will just pay whatever claim comes across the desk right? Or, will they only pay whatever claims they see fit to pay?
By the way, I am a great believer in government as the facilitator of policies that provide for or promote the general welfare. But this requires a government that is representative of and answerable to the people, to an informed electorate who oversee the exercise of government power to check abuses.
Well I'd say the last election provided a clear indication that the people spoke and we have a whole new slew of representatives that are now answerable to the people.
The problem is the term 'general welfare' means one thing to you and a whole 'nother thing to me.
I guess people like Robert only invoke the Consitution when its convenient...
"So Robert, I'll be waiting to hear your defense of the Constitution on this:
'when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the law of war even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an enemy combatant (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial' - Glenn Greenwald"
I don't defend it, I don't believe the Constitution supports it, and neither, I believe, does Greenwald, (it's hard to tell without a link to the original article to see his surrounding comments).
What he describes is a show trial, and the system it implies is a tyranny, where the rule of law is a farce, given lip service only to justify brute exercise of unilateral power. This is the system you "terror warriors" have cheered for and wanted...and got.
"Yet from these locations we plan and execute predator strikes on people in the Swat Valley that by U.S. criminal procedure laws have not been indicted, have not had a hearing, and have not been adjudged guilty of any crime.
How do you square that with your jurisdictional limit theory, Cook?"
I don't; these acts constitute mass murder and war crimes.
"Well I'd say the last election provided a clear indication that the people spoke and we have a whole new slew of representatives that are now answerable to the people."
You're mistaken, I believe. We have a poorly informed electorate and the newly elected representatives will probably be answerable to the same entities who put their predecessors and opponents in power: the big lobbies and corporate interests who pay for everything.
"I don't; these acts constitute mass murder and war crimes."
Just curious. Did you vote for Obama and do you intend to vote for him again ... given that you believe he is engaging in acts that constitute mass murder and war crimes.
You're mistaken, I believe. We have a poorly informed electorate and the newly elected representatives will probably be answerable to the same entities who put their predecessors and opponents in power: the big lobbies and corporate interests who pay for everything.
Well I don't think I'm mistaken. Why? Well the answer is right in your comment. If the same entities were the ones who put their predecessors in power than logic dictates that they'd still be in power and not updating thier resumes.
jr565 --
"285 times, consecutively, not concurrently."
I want him fried, but your suggestion is a helluva lot better than what happened.
"If the same entities were the ones who put their predecessors in power than logic dictates that they'd still be in power and not updating thier resumes."
The faces change and the persons come and go according to the caprice of the voters, many of whom are uninformed--they blame the individual representatives for polices that they believe hurt them rather than those behind the scenes calling the shots--but the policies don't substantively change that much, at least, they don't where those paying for the system would otherwise lose money on their investment.
As we see, Obama is running his economic policy pretty much as Bush did, even to where he now appears ready to cave on the matter of applying minimally higher taxes on the wealthy, (or rather, on allowing the recently extablished Bush tax cuts on them from expiring).
But we'll see.
"Just curious. Did you vote for Obama and do you intend to vote for him again ... given that you believe he is engaging in acts that constitute mass murder and war crimes."
No, I did not vote for him and I will not. I voted for Ralph Nader, as I have done several times previously. (I voted for Clinton, reluctantly, first time around, but learned my lesson and voted for Ralph Nader the second time around.)
The faces change and the persons come and go according to the caprice of the voters, many of whom are uninformed--they blame the individual representatives for polices that they believe hurt them rather than those behind the scenes calling the shots...
I'm sorry Robert but when I see this kind of stuff I just can't help but think about Stuart MacKenzie going off on his rant about the Pentavirate.
No, I did not vote for him and I will not. I voted for Ralph Nader
Well considering that even the very progressive Euros don't even go with someone as far left as Nader, you clearly set yourself on the outer limits of the political spectrum.
Extradite him to Kenya to stand trial in Kenyan court for the 200+ citizens of Kenya killed and 4,000+ wounded.
This will also tend to take the wind out of the sails of the international chorus of disdain for the U.S. court system.
Hoosier,
"If I, an American citizen wanted to go to CA university I'd have to pay more as an Indiana resident but not someone who broke the law."
Maybe a brief sojourn in Tijuana will fix your problem.
This will also tend to take the wind out of the sails of the international chorus of disdain for the U.S. court system.
There has been international disdain for the US since its founding. Nothing will ever change that.
"Well considering that even the very progressive Euros don't even go with someone as far left as Nader, you clearly set yourself on the outer limits of the political spectrum."
And I don't consider Nader to be extreme at all, or even particularly left wing. I see him as standing for that which our government was meant to be. Although I hate the word, I consider Nader a true patriot.
"I see him as standing for that which our government was meant to be. Although I hate the word, I consider Nader a true patriot."
Now Cook's proving the uninformed electorate theory for us.
Quayle: "Or would you argue that the constitutional protections should follow some density function of r, where r is the distance from America?"
I love a good science joke.
And I don't consider Nader to be extreme at all, or even particularly left wing.
Of course not. Alcoholics don't think they have drinking problems either.
"No, health care would still be provided by private doctors and hospitals. They would simply be paid by the government."
No, it won't. The so-called "death panels" will decide what is paid for and what is not. And there is an inherent conflict of interest in their mission.
There is a logical conflict between your distrust of government in one sphere and your trust in another. And you're a smart enough guy to realize this, though I don't expect you to admit it.
btw, i blog on the inconsistent verdicts, here:
http://patterico.com/2010/11/18/the-inconsistent-verdicts-in-the-ghailani-case/
Hoosier,
The elites may sniff all they want, but the entire world is still being "Californicated"!
Or, on a more "respectable" level, note that, except for politicians favoring national costumes, all executives from developed or developing nations dress in Brooks Bros. suits.
"The so-called 'death panels' will decide what is paid for and what is not. And there is an inherent conflict of interest in their mission."
The so-called "death panels" are just that: so-called. You can just as easily (and more readily) term the insurance companies as institutional death panels...they take our premiums and look for ways to deny us coverage. Moreover, you're talking about the health insurance bill that Obama passed, the so-called Obamacare, (which really is simply Romneycare rebranded).
I didn't support Obamacare and consider it a huge gift to the insurance companies. I think the insurance companies should be removed from the health care equation entirely, or , at most, be allowed to operate only as non-profits, as many once were. (My insurance provider only changed from non-profit to for-profit status within the past half-decade.)
I support universal healthcare, single-payer, "medicare for all," however it might be termed. As we don't have that, we don't know exactly how it would work, but if modeled at all on existing plans found elsewhere in the world, it could be very workable and equitable.
"There is a logical conflict between your distrust of government in one sphere and your trust in another. And you're a smart enough guy to realize this, though I don't expect you to admit it."
No, it's not "logical conflict," but it is tension. This is built into our system. Our founders deeply distrusted the power of government and did their best to create one that would mitigate the dangers while promoting the primacy of the citizenry...but they did, in the end, found a government.
Government does many things. Where it provides services to the public it can be and has been very successful and beneficial. Social security, all the scare stories and lies to the contrary, has been very successful and is still entirely solvent. "Medicare" has its shortcomings, but the elderly are mostly very happy with it and it provides for their medical needs where many wouldn't otherwise be able to be treated.
Where the government becomes militarized or accrues unilateral power unto itself, and attempts to exert authority over the doings of the citizenry, it can be and has been very dangerous and destructive.
The point is: the government is the people, as long as the people stay informed and involved, and retains close oversight of that done in their name. "Government secrecy?" A treason to what we should be. In secrecy malignancy grows. When the people remove themselves from the doings of government, and accept those representing them keeping secret that which they're doing, then the government divorces itself from the governed, and the ambitious seek the people's power for themselves.
I don't defend it, I don't believe the Constitution supports it, and neither, I believe, does Greenwald,
What!? Glenn Greenwald doesn't support it. (Clearly a higher authority than the Constitution.)
Well that's good enough for me!!
"If I, an American citizen wanted to go to CA university I'd have to pay more as an Indiana resident but not someone who broke the law."
The other irony is that there is an explicit Federal law that prohibits what CA does. The CA-Supremes dont seem to care much about those foreign laws:
In September 1996, Congress passed the landmark Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Led by Lamar Smith (R– TX) in the House of Representatives and Alan Simpson (R–WY) in the Senate, Congress significantly toughened the nation’s immigration laws. To his credit, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
brining this sort of back on topic. Holder and his crew don't seem to have an issue when CA preempts explicit Federal Laws, but do when AZ writes code that supports Federal Law.
"... people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours. It can be rendered with fidelity to the Constitution. You have a right to be proud of your service in this case."
Judge Lewis Kaplan speaks words of inspiration
=================
A progressive Jewish lawyer dressed in robes trying to put lipstick on a pig. In a way his fellow po-mo Manhattanites will applaud him for at the upcoming soirees.
Far be it from Kaplan to be honest and say the civilian justice system is inadequate to the job of trying enemy blowing up our embassies and soldiers in foreign lands.
Or that in a time when public restrooms in national parks have to be closed because of lack of money - that a 53 million dollar trial for the likes of a Moussaoui that only enriches lawyers offices isn't exactly a wise use of public funds.
Holder is perhaps the most corrupt and politized Attorney General since John Mitchell.
He has one of his minion's trying to peddle accusations against Governor Christie from his time as a US attorney. To bring him down before he can become even a potential rival to Obama.
If they want these prosecutions to be successful, they should appoint a special prosecutor who knows what he is doing. But that won’t happen because they are going to drop the show trials.
Holder is a sham and a disgrace and one can only hope that his behavior and that his department will come under the scrutiny of the new Congress.
Come to think of it I bet he resigns for “personal reasons” sometime in the spring when the new Congress comes in. There is going to be lot of that going around.
C-4 said...Far be it from Kaplan to be honest and say the civilian justice system is inadequate to the job of trying enemy blowing up our embassies and soldiers in foreign lands.
actually, and I'm not going to bother looking it up, I think that the judge did in fact make reference to that early on when he tossed the confession.
in short, as I recall, it was:
...not sure why you guys are here, given you have other venues more suitable for this defendant and crime, but if you are, you have to play by the full set of rules...
New York said...
From the vantage point of the transnational elites, Ghailani and KSM have the same rights under the law as any American.
To the elites, the responsbility of American gov't to protect Afghani civilians from "collateral damage" is far greater than its responsibility to protect its civilians from terror attacks.
===============
And it is worth pointing out that ALL transnational elites and Cosmopolitans are NOT progressive Jews like George Soros and Judge Kaplan. Lest progressive Jews be singled out. The problem is bigger than just them.
"I think the insurance companies should be removed from the health care equation entirely"
With private health insurance, I have a contract. I don't have to trust them. If I am due services which they refuse to provide, my lawyer will go after them. This ain't perfect, but I am in a much better position than I will be with the government, who is not accountable to anybody.
The symmetry with the terror trials is pretty good. In one case you are unwilling to trust the government and in another, your own life, you are. Those of use on the other side of the health care debate are deeply distrustful of the government when it comes to the most important thing of all; our life. I would think you would see our point.
This ain't perfect, but I am in a much better position than I will be with the government, who is not accountable to anybody.
The crux of the matter...entirely. In a single payor system, the majority of people cannot go anywhere else to get their care...unless someone else sets up a new United States for us, the Canadians and Brits to run to for that gotta-have-it-now procedure.
Let me correct myself:
"yeah he was charged with conspiracy to blow up buildings, but not with the murder of any of the people actually in the buildings."
Actually he was charged with murder, too. the word i should have used was "convicted."
(a. Worthing is the same guy as A.W.)
Turtledove - So we should bring all the troops home and send 100,000 or so police officers to arrest Al Quaeda and try them in civilian courts?....The Obama administration is incoherent and totally driven by ideology and politics. They are a danger to the entire world.
If you make that argument, you have to start with the foolish early decisions of Bush and Ashcroft that introduced incoherency to their case that Islamoid terrorists were enemy combatants best tried in military courts.
Because the Bushies were happy to treat certain captured Islamoids as civilian criminals when they were told a "great conviction in civilian court was a slam-dunk!". Lawyers then had a field day with the incoherency and inconsistency of the Bushies.
"OK, so Moussaoui is a civilian with rights but Padilla is not?"
"So Richard Reid after trying to blow up the plane he was on got a civilian trial, but Khalid Shekh Mohammed is different? How"
"OK, we have armed enemy combatants captured held without trial at GITMO, but you gave a lavish civilian trial for John Walker Lindh, captured in their ranks on the same battlefield?
"Why are FBI "assigned" to certain cases and fighting the CIA to take charge in others??"
Bush's answers and his peoples then kicked up the whole "Unitary Executive" legal morass when they said - in some circumstances The Great American Churchill may elect to treat certain enemy as civilians with full legal rights but not others. HIs Decision! And it boils down to what the Executive determines is convenient and expedient.
You can't criticize Obama and ignore the idiotic behavior and incoherency of the Bushies.
(As well as organizations ill-suited for counter-terror roles by their mindset - such as the "conviction in civilian court is the only thing that matters to boost our careers....FBI".
Hey Robert Cook, why don't you just start putting a disclaimer on your comments that says that you didn't vote for Obama and think he's evil, too? I know it's a little bit LoneWacko-y, but it might cut down a lot on the noise here.
Also, I wish Fen would stop calling you a child molester. I like Fen (and I think you're a bit of a nutter, to be quite honest), but I think that's over the top and uncalled for, given that you are usually polite and thoughtful in your responses.
- Lyssa
Oglioncella wrote:
jr565 --
"285 times, consecutively, not concurrently."
I want him fried, but your suggestion is a helluva lot better than what happened.
Or fried. That would work too.
"...You can't criticize Obama and ignore the idiotic behavior and incoherency of the Bushies..."
Sure I can. Obama and his ilk know exactly what you explained so eloquently in your post and ignored every lesson. Obama/Holder are twice as obtuse for being told what a can of worms this whole thing was and then blithely proceeded on their way to this point. Can't teach those Ivy Leaguers nothing. This was uncharted turf during the Bush years. The outcome was quite knowable for the BO's
Don't worry. We'll get that punk kid who wouldn't let the TSA touch his junk!
How many times do you want him to serve the same 20 years?
285. The sentences don't have to be concurrent. Consecutive sentences are an option.
"You can't criticize Obama and ignore the idiotic behavior and incoherency of the Bushies.
(As well as organizations ill-suited for counter-terror roles by their mindset - such as the "conviction in civilian court is the only thing that matters to boost our careers....FBI"."
Oh yes I can. More to the point is that so many people like you can't seem to answer any criticism of Obama without comparing him to Bush!
Kaplan is a monster. He deserves to be scorned and shunned.
I hope his neighbors treat him accordingly.
So what were the flaws in the government's case? It would be nice if the article contained some information about that issue.
And no it's not Obama incompetence, even though there is plenty of that.
There had to be something really weak about the evidence for this to happen.
Also, I wish Fen would stop calling [Robert Cook] a child molester. I like Fen (and I think you're a bit of a nutter, to be quite honest), but I think that's over the top and uncalled for, given that you are usually polite and thoughtful in your responses.
Tell ya what Lyssa, I'll be happy to stop making up mean stuff about Robert Cook if Robert Cook will stop making up mean stuff up about other people. Fair?
He's a propagandist. A Liar. And deliberately so. He deserves to have his mouth bashed in, so this is light.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा