Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Wednesday marked the debut of the Pentagon's showcase ''Expeditionary Legal Complex'' valued at $12 Million. Problems persisted throughout the session. At the new state-of-the-art press room adjacent to the razor-wire-ringed court complex, a closed-circuit broadcast of the proceedings froze on an image of the military judge midsentence, his mouth agape. English translation of Bahlul's speech was at times inaudible. Then, as the charges were read, the power was cut to the courtroom, turning the screen nearly black as an alarm sounded -- and Brownback ordered the reading to continue. He refused to enter a plea at the arraignment but earlier passed three Arabic language notes to the judge: one declaring his rejection of the court, another declaring his plan to boycott and the last affirming his "renewal of allegiance to Osama bin Laden."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

mcas

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Just like everything else the disaster-in-chief has ever done......

Maybe it should have been "The Disasterer".....

I mean, let's be realistic here, folks... this WAS built by the Army Corps of Engineers, the same people who built the New Orleans dams.

"disastrous failure"

Ironically enough, that's the name of the GW Bush Presidential library.

Gitmo justice. The ultimate ultimate oxymoron. Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. Where are the death penalty fans spouting off so noisily on other threads? Why not just execute 'em all at Guantanamo and let gawd sort it out? herm

Herm-
If the Military Commissions Act had even kinda adhered to the relatively restricted standard of even Nuremberg, which were martial trials, they'd be no problem.

But we can't live up to that.

It's like the Midas touch....in reverse.

It's like the Midas touch....in reverse.

Probably a lot of Bush supporters got golden contracts.

Guess it's just best to not take them alive; that will solve future problems of this kind.

Geez, what's all the fuss about. What a waste of time and money. As a society, we've increasingly ritualized everything. It's sort of a substitute for religious ceremonies. I suppose that we need spectacles to keep us engaged.

Now we have the "prisoner processing ritual." Just take the malefactor out and hang him. Or if he's a real baddie, hang him upside down so that he suffers more before he expires.

Where are lynch mobs when you need them. We should revive the good old American tradition. We've become prisoners of ideologues who give too much value to ceremonies. Sounds as if the Pharisees are in charge.

Let's get down to brass tacks. We want to dispatch these guys. Don't make the process so cumbersome.

Guantanamo is Treason to the US Constitution!

The whole idea of the US Military setting up,what is in reality,its own government and court system in Cuba,that's completely disassociated and immune from the US Constitution,is blatant "Treason"!

Personally I think Guantanamo Bay prison was set up not for any (mythological) al Qaeda terrorists but really as a "test case" by the Bush Regime to see if they could contravene,bypass and just simply ignore the US Constitution and in doing so then they could "pre empt" American citizens,especially opponents of the Bush Fascists,arresting them without any charge and throwing them in these prisons or concentration camps,where there would be no trials except maybe in a "Kangaroo Court" like what the US Military is now presiding over in Guantanamo Bay!

close it down and let the captives pursue justice in the country they were captured in.

Since Many of the detainees were sold to the CIA for bounty and are innocent. How can they receive justice for a crime they did not commit in the Country that they were captured in?? Explain THAT one to Me.

Larry Mohr

"al Qaeda propogandist"
This took 6 years to go to trial?
This is "the worst of the worst," according to Rumsfeld?
Surely, at least he "shot his mouth off" or something more heinous.

We had no idea what a failure it really is - nationalsquib.com

So, how is this a failure when it's a trial run?

Larry,

Really, you know they're innocent? Wow...

Posted by AntiCadillac at 2008-05-08 04:09 AM

The whole idea of the US Military setting up,what is in reality,its own government and court system in Cuba,that's completely disassociated and immune from the US Constitution,is blatant "Treason"!

Wow! Have you tried publishing your ruminations in a legal journal?

What "U.S. constitutional rights" do "illegal combatants out of uniform" have? How were those created? Let's see. The U.S. is party to a treaty. Oh? What rights for these "combatants" does the treaty create? Er, none.

Well for a lefty, "rights," which represent a consensus decision by a society, are converted by the atheist lefty's "mysticism" to something "created" by some disembodied spirit apart from human existence. It's somewhat of an anomaly. But anomalies are easy for people to resolve. We just don't integrate the elements in our psyches. We engage in self-deception frequently to resolve contradictions.

So, the lefty waves his magic wand, and says "rights," and lo and behold, there were "rights. These are accorded" to someone attempting to kill you, using new ways of war. Quite naturally, being lefties we want to make it "fair," another magic word, so we provide for rules that endanger our men on the field of combat who are at risk. A lefty personally avoids such situations, and jeopardizes others, not his elite buddies, who with him are good at parsing words.

And "blatant Treason," capitalized. That must be worse than "inconspicuous treason." Now "treason is defined in the U.S. Constitution. Read it. For your edification, since you seem inclined to give new meanings to terms as suits your convenience, and your contrived argument, I'll post a definition of "treason" here for you.
TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

By golly, but AntiCadillac is using the word "treason" differently and pretending it applies.

Unless a person is completely in the throes of ideological thrall AntiCadillac, he can't convolute and torture the word treason to have the meaning that you attribute to it.

Your premise and therefore your entire argument, is fallacious. But that doesn't matter, continue to rant and rave advancing your meritless thesis.



After a Castro-sized marathon harangue that blatantly (as compared to surreptitiously) displays his vast ignorance, Johnson gives us:

"Your premise and therefore your entire argument, is fallacious. But that doesn't matter, continue to rant and rave advancing your meritless thesis."

Proving once again that vocabulary alone does not a scholar make.

"Unless a person is completely in the throes of ideological thrall AntiCadillac, he can't convolute and torture the word treason to have the meaning that you attribute to it."

It would look better with another comma, J, but you surely include words that most people with your views will not understand. herm

Herm,

There is a well-proscribed history and provision for military courts. They've always handled this sort of thing. The weird part here is that these terrorists have no citizenship, so there is not government to bargain with as there often is in these situations.

They are not US citizens, so how would our legal system be involved? Their crimes were not committed in the USA, so how would our legal system be involved?

Their crimes were committed against our military in a theater of war, so why would it not be the military court who presides?

Herm, you have no case. The fact that you don't understand his words doesn't mean nobody else did.

Posted by herm at 2008-05-07 06:08 PM

Where are the death penalty fans spouting off so noisily on other threads? Why not just execute 'em all at Guantanamo and let gawd sort it out? herm

Good plan, herm. You've made a sensible suggestion.

After all, look at the nature of the "combatants, and their deportment.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Bahlul then launched into a one-hour monologue in Arabic. He said he did not dispute the U.S. allegations against him, pledged his allegiance to bin Laden and rejected the authority of the military court.

''I'm telling you now I will never deny any actions I did alongside bin Laden fighting you and your allies, the Jews,'' he said. ``We will continue our jihad and nothing will stop us.''

Even though the United States toppled Islamic law in its post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, he proclaimed, God will have the last word.

``He can sink the whole continent of the United States if he wants.''

Bahlul is accused of three war crimes violations at the first U.S. military tribunals since World War II: conspiracy, providing material support for terror and solicitation to commit murder.


Fortunately, Allah, the Moon God, has not yet been able to accrue and exercise sufficient "powers" to sink the whole continent of the United States. Who needs people with this disposition around and loose. The processing procedures, the rituals we indulge, are nothing more than an attempt to disregard the realities on the ground and create hoops to jump through. We have lost sight of our needs and objectives in playing these silly games.

One unfortunate aspect of this matter, herm, is that the death penalty is not available, and that the maximum sentence that can be levied as set forth in the article for this man who should be summarily offed without all this ceremonial processing is a life sentence.


Why did you solicit the participation of "death penalty fans?" Did you miss this line in the article regarding his situation?

Conviction carries a life sentence.

More's the pity of course, I would like to see him sewed up in a pig carcass and left to starve to death aside from ingesting pig blood, while contemplating his descent into Hell for violating the halal laws requiring him to avoid pig. Oops. My humanitarianism and love for my enemies is showing.

Oh, back to the facts of this "unfortunate innocents" situation. I forgot. You live in fantasyland and will contrive to create a "straw man" scenario and address that. Facts be damned. Well, ignored anyway. Hysteria and hyperbole seem to be leftist characteristics. They "breathe their own ether," and are so fervid in presentation of their arguments that they keep agitating themselves.

These people are not interested in "dialogue" or "compromise." The only good terrorist is one throughly vetted and then dispatched to his Paradise. Inshallah.

Get real. As Bahlul said, "We will continue our jihad and nothing will stop us.'' Well, we might not be able to stop "them," but only our own diffidence and weakness is stopping us from removing Bahlul from the land of the living. Kill these jihadist bastards, who intend to harm us. Who needs this elaborate and expensive ceremony?

The weird part here is that these terrorists have no citizenship, so there is not government to bargain with as there often is in these situations.


Sorry, Jon they all have citizenship-many are those sold to America afganis, there are saudis (lots of them, though they usually get a chartered flight home), yemenis, chechyans, etc.etc.
This rag tag bunch are the people you wet your bed over.

pathetic.

I'm sure Bush planned the whole thing. I just can't believe he has time for all these details. The man is amazing.

Just because something is legal does not make it right.

Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.

Just because you do not have to do a thing does not mean you should not.

We can extend these people the same rights as our citizens, and thereby show that we are indeed the greatest nation.

Or we can show that despite our lip service to liberty and justice for all; we are in fact no different than all the other nations out there.

Of the thousands of enemy combatants they have detained and tortured, how many were important enough to use extraordinary rendition on? 2 or 3?

Like LA prosecutors, they haven't gotten a legitimate conviction yet. Its either a kangaroo Court or release the guys that cost us tens of millions in bounties, but had nothing to do with al Qaida.

"Really, you know they're innocent? Wow..."

They can 't be innocent of anything when they haven't been charged with anything. herm

"They are not US citizens, so how would our legal system be involved? Their crimes were not committed in the USA, so how would our legal system be involved? Their crimes were committed against our military in a theater of war, so why would it not be the military court who presides? Herm, you have no case. The fact that you don't understand his words doesn't mean nobody else did."

As usual, Jon emits a lot of noise but very little light. I suggest reading, Jon. Lots of reading. Our constitution. The results from the Nuremberg trials. The bible, if you're into letting that matter.

Essentially, Jon, WHAT crimes? They're not Murricans, so they have no basic human rights? herm

Posted by Salaryman at 2008-05-08 11:46 AM J

Just because something is legal does not make it right.

Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.

Okay. So we have a problem, the existence and actions of jihadists and those affiliated with them.

Haven't you folks ever heard of "Management by Objectives?"

We are being "pestered" by jihadists. What's the way to stop it and discourage future participation by others so inclined? Well, how about swift and unrelenting elimination of "the pests."
We can extend these people the same rights as our citizens, and thereby show that we are indeed the greatest nation.

Huh? How does this comport with our "objectives?" Are we such egotistical fools that we want to strut and parade what we suppose that others may deem to be virtues? Don't we resemble preening peacocks? What are we trying to accomplish, attract a peahen?

Refrain please: "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself." Why are we so concerned regarding the opinions of others when we are confronted by a harsh reality. Are we so easily distracted and sidetracked from the crux of the matter at hand?
Or we can show that despite our lip service to liberty and justice for all; we are in fact no different than all the other nations out there.

Well, yes. We should look after our own interests, and stop posturing to attract the approval of others, when such deportment redounds to our detriment.

Here Salaryman, if you require approbation, I'll provide it for you. Salaryman is a real good guy. He's intelligent, kind, considerate, charitable, understanding, treats his family, friends, and neighbors well, works hard, contributes his time to help others less fortunate in his community. There. Is that enough? Now get off your high horse, and support realistic and direct action against those trying, and sometimes succeeding in harming you and yours. Let's stop the mindless prattle and attend to the task at hand without compromising our ability to act in our own behalf, and restrain (incarcerate forever) or remove (execute), those imperiling or seeming to imperil us.

Johnson,

Using a lot of words does not make you intelligent. I am trying to decipher what your point are. I think maybe you are like the A-Team from 80's television you put a lot of rounds (words) in the air but hit nothing.

In all that soup of nonsense did you have anything to say at all?

I am trying to decipher what your point is.

Tiny Johnson's point?

You mean other than the one at the top of his
head?

The entire point to Tiny, as far as Spud can figure, is that he obviously swallowed a thesaraus one day while at a Klan meeting.

/Call it a hunch.

Be Well.

That was funny.

Posted by herm at 2008-05-08 12:37 PM

As usual, Jon emits a lot of noise but very little light. I suggest reading, Jon. Lots of reading. Our constitution. The results from the Nuremberg trials. The bible, if you're into letting that matter.


You keep referring to the Constitution, herm, as if it contained some material relevant to your position. What are you "citing," and with some specificity now, herm?

What about the Nurenberg trials pertains to the situation of armed combatants conducting a terror campaign? Do you have any citations on point?

What you seem to do, herm, is take a document or an event to which some positive semantic connotation is attached, and then "pretend" that it contains material that supports your position.

I certainly believe that you are sincere, and not deliberately contriving to mislead. But you are confused, and in a sense confabulating. There are gaps in your information, but you fill them in to suit your purpose. Try instead to re-evaluate your position holistically - in terms of the whys and wehrefores of the world as it is - without being misled by your subjection of your thought processes to documents which don't say what you ascribe to them.

Essentially, Jon, WHAT crimes? They're not Murricans, so they have no basic human rights? herm

I suppose this compound statement illustrates part of your confusion, herm. Why do you conflate your inquiry concerning "WHAT crimes" with the succeeding allusion to "basic human rights."

Their crimes are myriad. One is being engaged in behavior conjointly with others to do harm, terrorism, with the presence of those apprehended being their suspicious presence in a battle zone.

What "human rights" are you suggesting they have. "Human rights" are a creation of the state. These "rights" are conditional and are subject to divestment when the situation warrants. Or are you atheists suggesting that they come from God, have a supernatural origin, which would seem to be contrary to your world view?

Even if the "rights" are God-given, sometimes these rights are suspended. Remember when Kings ruled because they embodied "The Divine Right of Kings" to rule, a supposed God given right. Do you agree with the "Divine Right of Kings" concept, and believe that royal houses should be restored? These so-called "human rights" have the same validity, functionalism under particular sets of circumstances. It would certainly be oxymoronic to act as if these "rights' applied to jihadists trying to harm us. We would just be facilitating doing harm to ourselves. Now that's clinical madness, isn't it?

Posted by dethspud at 2008-05-08 01:50 PM

Hi deth. Glad to see that you're seemingly okay.

Have you eloped or are you on leave?

Or have you just been provided with access to computers again, deth?

Or have you just been provided with access to computers again, deth?

Spud's been werking hard after hardly werking fer a bit.

Dividing up his blogtime between this place and Fark and doing a lot more independant reading besides.

Also in the springtime the girls all smell better and Spud tends to spend inordinate amounts of time wandering around after them with a big dopey grin on his puss.

Also doing the Movie Thang again. Iron Man RAWKS!!!

Thanx fer askin'.

Be Well.

Posted by Salaryman at 2008-05-08 01:41 PM

In all that soup of nonsense did you have anything to say at all?

Yes. But I accept the responsibility for any failure to communicate, Salaryman. I'll try to use even greater simplification in responses to your posts in the future. There will be interposition of folderol. I'll attempt to avoid frivolity entirely.

Johnny boy,

This is not the senate floor you can not win by filibustering here. Her is a clue most people skip over your "wall of text" arguments because, after stumbling through your clumsy overly verbose attempts at writing, they find that you have said in 200 words what could have been said in 10. Or more often than not said nothing at all.

So, how is this a failure when it's a trial run?

[edit]

Posted by jonryker

...Ummm, 'Trial Run' or not-- this is a Court of Law deciding a REAL PERSON's fate.

...and if the audio system that communicates between the defendant and the judge doesn't work, that's not a fair trial.

"It is a maximum-security, eavesdropping-proof complex that arms security officers with a mute button to silence a defendant -- were he to blurt out a U.S. national security secret, such as where he was interrogated overseas by the CIA, or how."


I see this reporter has no agenda. Nice how he slid that jab in there. I guess the only thing that can be considered a national security concern is how these guys were interrogated. It couldn't be what plans they've heard of or were a part of. No, only how they were detained and questioned is the only thing this reporter sees as dangerous.

"Johnny boy,

This is not the senate floor you can not win by filibustering here. Her is a clue most people skip over your "wall of text" arguments because, after stumbling through your clumsy overly verbose attempts at writing, they find that you have said in 200 words what could have been said in 10. Or more often than not said nothing at all.

Posted by Salaryman "

It's a good thing that Johnson's bloviating posts are so long. Makes them easy to recognize and scroll past.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable