When did he hire Rove?

"Well, my friend, I'll get right on that"

-John McTraitor

What a friggin asshole--if this is true he should be fired.

Yeah what Murphy said.

Larry

So what, he didn't lie. But he should have added: "George Bush is doing such a good job that there haven't been any attacks on this country since 9/11, but when Obama the Appeaser gets in look out, all hell will break loose!"

Murphy will still vote for the McDouchebag.

As will Goatjizz,Chairpoodle, and Wobbie.

Right Dipshits?

The only good "job" the Chimpy has properly done is the blow jobs he gave Ace Reporter Jeff Gannon.

The only good "job" the Chimpy has properly done is the blow jobs he gave Ace Reporter Jeff Gannon.

The only good "job" the Chimpy has properly done is the blow jobs he gave Ace Reporter Jeff Gannon.

All hell break loose??

You mean like in 201 when George Bush was President?

You know, more American have died on US soil at the hands of Islamic terrorists under George Bush then all other Presidents combined.

Why do the dumbfuck righties like fwthom always forget that part?

Shit, might as well ask:

Hey fwthom, you dumbfuck, why do you always forget that more American have been killed on US soil by Islamic terrorist on George Bush's watch than all other watches combined?

Hey I thought He choked on Jeff Gannon?? That's not a successful *&*(&*(&(

Larry

shit I missed a "0"

And I disagree with you ITSME. Rob and Chair will give it some thought and vote wisely. They won't admit it, but they still might vote for the winner!

Oopsy! Three posts!

That was a "pretzel" Larry.

Shameful, but probably true. Thats not for any other reason than the stupity of the American electorate. The American people would vote for a Dictator if they taught that he would keep them safe. They would give up all of there Constitutional rights for JOHN WAYNE an a six pack of beer, FUCKING IDIOTS.....

"George Bush is doing such a good job that there haven't been any attacks on this country since 9/11 . . ."

When the worst terrorist attack against this country took place -- on his watch.

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"
Presidential Daily Briefing
August6, 2001

What was his response? I mean, other than to go cut some brush.

Right Dipshits?

Posted by itsme
You think a dirty bomb won't affect you under that rock? Stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Well--maybe not for John Wayne and it depends on the kind of beer...;o)

And Many--it is true the 9/11 massacre was under Bush's watch--but what lead up to it?

We handled terrorists as criminals --it didn't work--they attacked and killed Americans in NY.

And NY City is my home town--our home town, our country's home town.

They can't be allowed any rest and that is why we are killing them over there.

Notice there is little news of how good the situation is going over there? Heck even the Iraqis are doing their political check list the Dems wanted.

It doesn't fit in with the narrative of the media.

We handled terrorists as criminals --it didn't work

I think McVeigh would disagree. If he could...

At least we used to catch people that killed us before. Where the fuck is Osama Bin Laden???

A dirty bomb?
You pant pissers still worry about that?

A quivering pussy like yourself is no way to go thru life.

Another 911 would help McCain? It would be like having Bush in charge again after the last attack. No thanks.

A dirty bomb has been proven, again and again, to not be very useful as a weapon.

the worst part would be the ignorant panic and trampling that ensued.

Dirty bobms are very poor way to spread radiation. If you stood in the same spot for a YEAR maybe you'd get the equivalent of 2 years worth of dental x-rays.(ie 2-3 xrays)

Again, it's the PANIC that would be dangerous.

I agree Alex--I want OBL dead and his carcus show on TV for the whole ME to see--just like Saddam Hussein and his boys.

You're hero has had almost seven years murph.

Ankles UP!

"MURPHY".....EVERY, EVERY planned Terriost attack since 9/11 weather in England or Spain or America has been stopped by POLICE type work. Those that have succedded the Police got there to late, no Army could have stopped the bombing in BALI, SPAIN OR ENGLAND GOOD Police work an good intellengence could have stopped it.....

With all of your Military genius, can you tell me when was the last time a Uniformed Military beat in a War, a rag tag group of people who were defending there homeland?????

Itsey bitsey--Mama Mia!

Celis--We are talking about American soil--

So since the police and the military for those countries failed to catch the bombers before hand--we are all supposed to give up?

Have you noticed how quite it is in Iraq--how the bombings are down and the deaths are down?

How about the Iraqi gov't getting business done? Have you noticed?

What the heck would happen there if we left without a plan, without thinking about what the terrorists would do to the country again?

Um, Murphy, you don't read a newspaper, do you? If so, you remember any stories in the last couple of days about suicide bombers? In Iraq? Killing lots and lots of people?

So apparently the genius stroke of the NeoCon nation is to let the leader of Al Queda get away scot free, and send American troops over to the ME so that terrorists can kill them there, instead of flying over here. I'd like to see that on a recruiting poster.

The war in Iraq hasn't tied up any terrorists. They have always been able to leave at any time, and if 911 demonstrated anything, it's that it doesn't take a lot of men or resources to commit a terrorist act. I'm sure they have been foiled in some pilots, but it wasn't done by Rumsfeld and Cheney - it was done by boring government workers, doing their jobs.

Actual Police work - gathering information, developing leads, and informants - is always going to do more than just hardening targets. Republican reliance on the military option for everything just smacks of laziness and an avoidance of responsibility.

For those who have declared we have not been attacked upon US Soil since 9-11 are so full of shit it's not EVEN funny.

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29"31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11"19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

PLEASE do try again.

Larry Mohr

What the heck would happen there if we left without a plan, without thinking about what the terrorists would do to the country again?

I think it would have been a better idea to go IN with a plan. I'm a huge fan of wining certain things like asking the pretty girl from work out on a date or figuring out which movie I should go see or where we should go eat dinner.

War, on the other hand, should be the last resort and month and months of planning should go into it before even the first declaration.

Think of all the deaths suffered on D-Day in Normandy. Now think of how many more deaths would have occurred had the generals just gone "to war with the army they had, not the army they wished they had."

Iraq isn't quieter. It's just another lull between storms.

You're hero has had almost seven years murph.

Ankles UP!

Posted by itsme

Yeah, and he's done a fucking outstanding job of keeping us safe.

Yeah, CNN is all over this one fer some reason.

Black sed sommat partially true albeit really, really stupid and then later apologised for it but only after McCain repudiated the remarks with some horseshit about putting America's security as his highest priority. He sed his entire political life was based purely on national security, he did so because the fact is that the only real lead he has on Obama is right now is on the issue of "The War Against Terrorism" aka TWAT.

McAncient is big fanboy of TWAT.

However if you actually think that by continuing BushCo's FAIL-sure policies in Iraq that McSame is gonna somehow gonna improve results in the battle fer hearts and minds that is at the core of the struggle against religious extremism (all kinds)then yer a bit of a twat yerself.

Be Well.

Yeah, and he's done a fucking outstanding job of keeping us safe.
~WISGOD

Funny flag!

Yea splendid, Iraq from stable to quagmire.

Afghanistan the correct mission abandoned for pipe dreams and after 6 years STILL UNFINISHED.

The economy a mess and $4.00 gas, Oh we're oh so much safer another 67 years and he'll be even with FDR....

There is not enough evidence to convict OBL. He would be found "not guilty" in any American court of law in any jurisdiction.

His "confession" could be thrown out and discredited easily.

The only way of capturing OBL alive is if Obama is President. Bush would have to kill OBL to cover his ass.

"Yeah, and he's done a fucking outstanding job of keeping us safe.

Posted by wisgod at 2008-06-23 08:10 PM"

In fact, pants-pisser wisgod ALMOST feels safe enough to come out of his closet. But not quite. For now, he will continue to pee his pants, sniff his fingers, and cower from all the terrorists that would be knocking down his trailer door this very minute, if it weren't for his hero George Bush.

People think the Republicans are stronger on terror, because Bush has kept America safe for seven years. A terrorist attack may have the exact opposite effect of the one Black predicts. It could make people think that Bush, and by extension Republicans and McCain, screwed up not only the economy and the war in Iraq but also failed to keep us safe. One of Bush's big selling points has been the war in Iraq has made us safer. A terrorist attack would literally blow that theory to hell. After the attack but before the elections, talking heads would no doubt bring up Black's quote. Somehow I don't think the American people would want to vote for someone whose top political advisor is on the record for viewing a terrorist attack in terms of the political gain it would reap for his candidate.

BBob - you have no idea what you are talking about. Any jury, in any jurisdiction in any county of this country would convict Osama bin Laden before the prosecutor even opened her mouth.

For now, he will continue to pee his pants, sniff his fingers, and cower from all the terrorists that would be knocking down his trailer door this very minute, if it weren't for his hero George Bush.

Posted by mOntecOre

That's rich coming from the liberal who thinks O.B.L. is stealing carrots from the garden.

BBob - you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ignore him. The 'there's not enough evidence to convict OBL' is just one of da bOoB's half dozen or so talking points. He finally realized he has run the 'flawed democratic primary' into the ground and that it is time to move on. I predict his next broken record will be the 9/11 conspiracy or smokestacks on the moon. He hasn't trotted either one of those out in a while.

PLEASE do try again.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

Larry, Why don't you try a different tact? Why not talk about our foreign policy? Your list shows how American interests around the world have been attacked, why don't you keep the argument going further? The truth is that these attacks are because we are meddling in other coutry's affairs and they would like for US to stop it. Am I right?

Larry, why do you C&P a list of foreign attacks in response to a retort about attacks on US soil?

If You were as educated as You claim Goatman. You would know attacks upon US Embassies and US Consulates are attacks upon US Soil no matter where they are geographically. Please do try again.

Larry Mohr

"What the heck would happen there if we left without a plan, without thinking about what the terrorists would do to the country again?"

That propaganda has been our sole reason for staying and taking casualties for too long now.
If we left, what would happen would probably be.....some violence would increase but so too would the answer to that violence and then the Iraqi Shiites would probably take full power in Iraq. That won't change if we stay there 100 years and John McBush mentioned. The motivation for the divide in Korea; i.e. Communism, is a minor economic disagreement between parties of the West compared to the permanent cultural divide between American troops in a Muslim country and the Muslims who live there. We need to be dealing with Iraq as a nation in the ME and not as a new territory of the United STates. Even if the moral imperative exists the money to carry it out does not. And that does not mean I believe the moral imperative actually does exist this long after the invasion, which I opposed.

I agree that the war was poorly planned and managed up until they did the surge--that seems to have done the job and it is much better there.

We lost over 50,000 men on D-Day--we attacked like 5 beaches.

Thanks for the list Larry--the bombings appear to have slowed down quite a bit around the world.

And the only evidence shown is that video tape confession by OBL telling the guy with no legs he planned the attack and how the buildings would fall.

Any ACLU attorney worth his salt will tear apart the translation and say OBL "dreamed" of the plot.

So if we left without a plan and 2 million people were slaughtered--Danni would be ok with that?

Yes Eddie they do not want us meddling into their affairs any longer. Now are You in favour of removing ourselves from the Middle East??

Larry

If You were as educated as You claim Goatman.

I guess education is different in Kansas, Larry. My bad. I thought that:

"outside a consulate" meant not on the consulate grounds.

Nor did I know that "May 29"31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company " that the oil company had an embassy inside.

I also remember these events when they took place: "June 11"19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks." and they were not on embassy grounds.

"Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility." These were embassies and therefore American soil? I did not know that Larry.

I could shoot down the rest for you, but I think I've made my point.

You asked me to "do try again". I did.

Happy?

So again I ask, why do you C&P this list in response to a post about attacks on American soil?

Yes Goatman US Embassies and US Consulates are US Soil until we turn control over the land to the Country they reside in. The ones in charge of security are the US State Department in conjuction with the United States Marine Corps based out of Quantico If You were wondering.

Larry Mohr

I don't think it'll fly this time. More and more people are realizing that the republicans claim that they're strong on national security is just that; a claim.
Anyone who believes that government doesn't work can't defend this country.
Obama would tear this strategy to shreds. There's more to national defense than waving a flag and calling yourself a patriot.

Yes Goatman US Embassies and US Consulates are US Soil

Yes, I understand that Larry. But just as you did yesterday to avoid admission of an error, you did not answer my question directly.

In your list there are foreign hotels, Saudi oil offices, Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices, etc. Yes or no: Are you saying these places are on American soil? Stick with the question and answer Yes or no only please -- no lectures about embassies being American soil or anything else.

The places are not US Soil but the American People are US Soil. Does THAT answer Your question Goatman?? Probably not but oh well.

Larry Mohr

The places are not US Soil but the American People are US Soil. Does THAT answer Your question Goatman?? Probably not but oh well.

It answered the immediate one, but not the first one that you keep evading which is:

Why did you post that list in response to a post about lack of attacks on American soil?

Because attacks upon US Embassies and US Consulates are attacks upon US Soil?? Jesus are You that stupid??

Larry Mohr

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29"31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11"19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

So what, he didn't lie. But he should have added: "George Bush is doing such a good job that there haven't been any attacks on this country since 9/11, but when Obama the Appeaser gets in look out, all hell will break loose!"

Posted by fwthom

absolutely and thats why you are going to be attacked.

LARRY>......god damn it....here we go again.
we send you to school, we buy you books and what do you do? you rip the pages out......
if those embassies had the same things going to protect them like we do here in the states, they wouldnt have been attacked either. remember that the host country also has some responsibility as to the safety of the embassies in thier country......

and you can split this hair until your as bald as my BUTT and it wont change a thing.......

SO why didn't you post just those two originally? What do the rest have to do with attacks on American soil?

Why do you evade this question, Larry?

and sad to say, it might help but you see its not going to happen because my president has seen to it that it hasnt happened again.

and also the enemy we are fighting knows that it will help him and they wont do it.....they wont do ANYTHING that could make it harder for obama to be elected.....remember he has the endorsement of HAMAS and other murdering bastards.....

I am not evading anything Goatman I just won't take Your trooling bait is all.

Larry Mohr

I'm thinking there will be at least an attempted attack on the olympics this summer.

I am not evading anything Goatman I just won't take Your trooling bait is all.

It's OK, Larry. I see you'll not admit that you were wrong so I'll quit trying to get you to admit that you were.

Your "trooling" comment (whatever the fuck that is) is always the last bullet in your pathetic aresenal.

Since you can't say it, I'll say it for you: Most of your list has nothing to do with attacks on American soil as you imply. FYI, drizzling shits, why am I not surprised and all that.

"So if we left without a plan and 2 million people were slaughtered--Danni would be ok with that?"

The two million are an obvious reference to the Cambodians who died under the rule of the Kmer Rouge and Pol Pot.

Never mind that it isn't that simple and that our enemies, the North Vietnamese finally closed the "killing fields."

If he was 30 years younger and not another McBush. Now that would help him.

Hey fwthom, you dumbfuck, why do you always forget that more American have been killed on US soil by Islamic terrorist on George Bush's watch than all other watches combined?

They also forget that only one less American was killed by the anthrax terrorist attack than WTC1.

How's Bush doing on tracking that guy down?

There probably will be another attack when Obama becomes President. What better way to work up all the shrill, pants pissing Republican cowards. After all, 911 was all it took to burn up billions of dollars of materiel, wear out half a million soldiers, and make us borrow nearly a trillion dollars from China in panic.

Terrorism isn't about breaking stuff, or even killing people. It's about creating fear. That's why they call it TERRORism.

So if we left without a plan and 2 million people were slaughtered--Danni would be ok with that?

Posted by MURPHY

Maybe the Fighty Rightys should of thought of that before they attacked. Or came up with one soon.

btw, Why hasn't Mcshitstain fired this guy's ass? Is Black keeping Cindy happy when John is out on the bullshit express?

How would that help him? The only talking point the Pubs have left is how they have supposedly kept us safe from terrorists. If that's proven to be a failure, what have they left?

CNN August 24, 2007: Clinton: Terrorist attack would help GOP

Charlie Black June 23, 2008: Terrorist Attack Would Help McCain in Election

Once again the Democrats beat the Republicans to the punch but then blame them for saying it. Only Democrats can utter such trash and get away with it. Sheesh

Whay doesn't McStupid just get Cheney to organize it, since he set the last terrorist attack in motion.

We can set out our lawn chairs and bring a grill and watch several thousand of our fellow citizens get massacred.

But it's not that big of a price to pay for my own ego and sense of entitlement - McSlime-

It would just prove unequivocally what a load of bullshit BushCo and his gang of thugs really are.

McCain NOT getting my vote.

Dunno-9-11 only showed Bush was an incompetent Commander-in-Chief and Mcsame stood loyally behind every bad decision until even a blind man could see the fuck-ups then he turned on him.

No one could ever imagine that terrorists would hijack airplanes and turn them into missiles....again.

Condoleeza Rice, Sec. of State

This guy is both sick and dangerous.

Re: There is not enough evidence to convict OBL. He would be found "not guilty" in any American court of law in any jurisdiction.

I disagree. First, if we capture OBL, and I hope we do, we may WANT to try him but not because a trial gives him rights. Instead, a trial is the only way to dramatize again just how bad 9/11 was and how evil Bin Laden is. This is why the Allies had the Nuremburg trials and why the Israelis tried Adolph Eichmann.

Bin Laden would probably prefer a swift bullet to the head over a long drawn out trials process. Why? Because he would think that a summary execution or death in combat will help his cause, make him a martyr among Muslims, where sitting in a public trial makes him look like a creep. And he would prefer to exit like a hero.

The next point is the assumption that if we bring Bin Laden to trial he has a chance of winning. This takes little effort to disprove. In his first trial, the federal trial, he would be charged with terrorism, attempted terrorism, some 3,000 first degree murders, ditto for second degree murders, ditto for manslaughter, ditto for kidnapping. The jury would see again the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, hear the accounts of people jumping to their deaths, hear their last recordings to their families. No, I do not think there is much chance of him being found NOT guilty.

Then, perhaps you did not know, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT double jeopardy to be tried for a crime in a federal court and then for the same crime in a state court. So then there could be three additional trials: in New York criminal court, Virginia and Pennsylvania. It is unlikely that he would be found innocent of all charges in all four trials.

And then, in the extremely unlikely event that Bin Laden were to win all four trials, why then we can extradite him to another country that is seeking to try him. One of them is Saudi Arabia, where he has absolutely no chance of winning a trial (the royal family hates him) and they cut peoples' heads off. Of course, he could fight extradition to Saudia Arabia, but that would also be embarrassing to him (it would imply that he admitted that the USA is better than a Muslim country, at least for a criminal) and he would have little chance of winning that suit.

Sadly, we haven't even come close to capturing Bin Laden. But I did want to make the point that giving someone the right to trial is not necessarily a great benefit to them. Indeed, it can be a benefit to us. First, it shows the world that the USA is fair and humane, a long-term benefit. Then it shows the world that the criminal is miserable and evil.

Now, you could get some of this benefit by trying him at a military commission under the MCA, but nowhere near to the extent. Think of the difficulty of holding very public trials, with hundreds or thousands of journalists at Guantanamo. Think also, the judges at MCA trials are essentially military legal bureaucrats. If they see evidence that some 3,000 people died, they do not need to see the pain and suffering again. In other words, the trial would hardly be as dramatic as an ordinary criminal court trial.

And finally, the guilty sentence pronouncement from a military court would be a simple "guilty," but the statement from a criminal court judge would be likely to be along the limes: "I have sentenced rapists and murderers, but no one was as contemptible as you."

Re: There is not enough evidence to convict OBL. He would be found "not guilty" in any American court of law in any jurisdiction.

I disagree. First, if we capture OBL, and I hope we do, we may WANT to try him but not because a trial gives him rights. Instead, a trial is the only way to dramatize again just how bad 9/11 was and how evil Bin Laden is. This is why the Allies had the Nuremburg trials and why the Israelis tried Adolph Eichmann.

Bin Laden would probably prefer a swift bullet to the head over a long drawn out trials process. Why? Because he would think that a summary execution or death in combat will help his cause, make him a martyr among Muslims, where sitting in a public trial makes him look like a creep. And he would prefer to exit like a hero.

The next point is the assumption that if we bring Bin Laden to trial he has a chance of winning. This takes little effort to disprove. In his first trial, the federal trial, he would be charged with terrorism, attempted terrorism, some 3,000 first degree murders, ditto for second degree murders, ditto for manslaughter, ditto for kidnapping. The jury would see again the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, hear the accounts of people jumping to their deaths, hear their last recordings to their families. No, I do not think there is much chance of him being found NOT guilty.

Then, perhaps you did not know, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT double jeopardy to be tried for a crime in a federal court and then for the same crime in a state court. So then there could be three additional trials: in New York criminal court, Virginia and Pennsylvania. It is unlikely that he would be found innocent of all charges in all four trials.

And then, in the extremely unlikely event that Bin Laden were to win all four trials, why then we can extradite him to another country that is seeking to try him. One of them is Saudi Arabia, where he has absolutely no chance of winning a trial (the royal family hates him) and they cut peoples' heads off. Of course, he could fight extradition to Saudia Arabia, but that would also be embarrassing to him (it would imply that he admitted that the USA is better than a Muslim country, at least for a criminal) and he would have little chance of winning that suit.

Sadly, we haven't even come close to capturing Bin Laden. But I did want to make the point that giving someone the right to trial is not necessarily a great benefit to them. Indeed, it can be a benefit to us. First, it shows the world that the USA is fair and humane, a long-term benefit. Then it shows the world that the criminal is miserable and evil.

Now, you could get some of this benefit by trying him at a military commission under the MCA, but nowhere near to the extent. Think of the difficulty of holding very public trials, with hundreds or thousands of journalists at Guantanamo. Think also, the judges at MCA trials are essentially military legal bureaucrats. If they see evidence that some 3,000 people died, they do not need to see the pain and suffering again. In other words, the trial would hardly be as dramatic as an ordinary criminal court trial.

And finally, the guilty sentence pronouncement from a military court would be a simple "guilty," but the statement from a criminal court judge would be likely to be along the limes: "I have sentenced rapists and murderers, but no one was as contemptible as you."

Re: There is not enough evidence to convict OBL. He would be found "not guilty" in any American court of law in any jurisdiction.

I disagree. First, if we capture OBL, and I hope we do, we may WANT to try him but not because a trial gives him rights. Instead, a trial is the only way to dramatize again just how bad 9/11 was and how evil Bin Laden is. This is why the Allies had the Nuremburg trials and why the Israelis tried Adolph Eichmann.

Bin Laden would probably prefer a swift bullet to the head over a long drawn out trials process. Why? Because he would think that a summary execution or death in combat will help his cause, make him a martyr among Muslims, where sitting in a public trial makes him look like a creep. And he would prefer to exit like a hero.

The next point is the assumption that if we bring Bin Laden to trial he has a chance of winning. This takes little effort to disprove. In his first trial, the federal trial, he would be charged with terrorism, attempted terrorism, some 3,000 first degree murders, ditto for second degree murders, ditto for manslaughter, ditto for kidnapping. The jury would see again the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, hear the accounts of people jumping to their deaths, hear their last recordings to their families. No, I do not think there is much chance of him being found NOT guilty.

Then, perhaps you did not know, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT double jeopardy to be tried for a crime in a federal court and then for the same crime in a state court. So then there could be three additional trials: in New York criminal court, Virginia and Pennsylvania. It is unlikely that he would be found innocent of all charges in all four trials.

And then, in the extremely unlikely event that Bin Laden were to win all four trials, why then we can extradite him to another country that is seeking to try him. One of them is Saudi Arabia, where he has absolutely no chance of winning a trial (the royal family hates him) and they cut peoples' heads off. Of course, he could fight extradition to Saudia Arabia, but that would also be embarrassing to him (it would imply that he admitted that the USA is better than a Muslim country, at least for a criminal) and he would have little chance of winning that suit.

Sadly, we haven't even come close to capturing Bin Laden. But I did want to make the point that giving someone the right to trial is not necessarily a great benefit to them. Indeed, it can be a benefit to us. First, it shows the world that the USA is fair and humane, a long-term benefit. Then it shows the world that the criminal is miserable and evil.

Now, you could get some of this benefit by trying him at a military commission under the MCA, but nowhere near to the extent. Think of the difficulty of holding very public trials, with hundreds or thousands of journalists at Guantanamo. Think also, the judges at MCA trials are essentially military legal bureaucrats. If they see evidence that some 3,000 people died, they do not need to see the pain and suffering again. In other words, the trial would hardly be as dramatic as an ordinary criminal court trial.

And finally, the guilty sentence pronouncement from a military court would be a simple "guilty," but the statement from a criminal court judge would be likely to be along the limes: "I have sentenced rapists and murderers, but no one was as contemptible as you."