Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, November 13, 2009

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday, adding that he expects to seek the death penalty against them.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

truthhurts

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

Already Republicans have attacked this decision. I am wondering what, if anything, they are afraid of.
I wonder if the prospect of open court interrogation of Sheik Mohammed is frightening any people who had the responsiblity for protecting us from such a terrorist attack. If the objections become much louder I think it will convince me some people have something important they wish to hide and that they fear Sheik Muhammed might be the key that opens that door they want kept closed.

is there anyone who doesnt think this is a real possiblility

uh judge.

my client ADMITTED TO BEING guilty at a militray tribunal BUT he did it because america is the worst country in the world

judge.

oKAY sir.....you are free to go........should be a cab out front.

is there anyone who doesnt think this is a real possiblility

uh judge.

my client ADMITTED TO BEING guilty at a militray tribunal BUT he did it because america is the worst country in the world

judge.

oKAY sir.....you are free to go........should be a cab out front.

#2 | Posted by afkabl2

dude you are insane

AND rush also had a great idea

JURY OF PEERS....right??????????

cindy shehan

durbin.......he could talk about the american gulags

KERRY.......soldiers terrorizing house to house

RIED...could mention that the war "IS LOST" anyway

REV WRIGHT...it was "God damn" americas' "CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST"

AYERS...he would be delighted with these people who REALLY knew how to blow up buildings.

(the commentary alongside the names are mine)

and ALL ALONG

for a couple of years,..the world would know jUST HOW bad this country is.......

and all over the country...potheaded, glassy eyed, obama orgamatron, dupes would be drooling all over thier tye dyed shirts and bell bottom pants in DELIGHT over the whole thing.

ok, thanks for answering, you ARE insane

dude you are insane

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009

you never heard of a judge throwing a case out of something even less than this..

they have already admitted their guilt to the military law..have they not??????

and to put them within sight of the spot where the towers were

SHAME ON YOU>..holder.

but I DO HAVE some advice for the shiek

dress up in all black
blacken your face
carry some big sticks.

the racist piece of shit AG wouldnt dare bring you to trial.

So Sheik Mohammed you say you were tortured and told that the torture would stop only if you connected 9-11 to Saddam Hussein???

IM insane with rage over this bullshit from the racist AG.

at least TEXAS MUSLIMS know what to do about horse shit like this.

never happen........

obama and holder would never elicit the rage of the muslim world and the vast majority of muslims are too scared to speak out.

ok so you have a problem with the perpetrators of 9/11 being convicted in a court of law and put to death? ok gotcha

actually danni that was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi

en.wikipedia.org

he was captured by US forces, tortured until he linked AQ to Iraq.

then he was sent to Libya.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
m

Al-Libi led the Al Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, the facility where Zacarias Moussaoui and Ahmed Ressam trained. An associate of Abu Zubaydah,

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

seems this guy would be source of a wealth of intelligence for america and should be kept in custody being interrogated to get additional interrogation

what happened to him>

he was sent to Libya?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMM

Now why would Bush do that?

BTW I predict no rightie will answer that question.

to get additional intelligence

"IM insane with rage over this bullshit from the racist AG."

ADKABL2 is displaying the venom which is going to flow from many of the Bush defenders because they fear....the truth and this court might just reveal some truth.

the racist piece of shit AG wouldnt dare bring you to trial.

#6 | Posted by afkabl2

you mean the AG who is trying them and seeking the death penalty? that AG

Actually, if the Judge really wanted to screw Khalkid Mohammed over, he would do exactly what BL2 suggests. Dismiss the charges and let him walk out the front door. How many minutes does anyone think the mastermind of the WTC attack would survive when leaving a courtroom in NYC under those circumstances? LOL

why did Bush send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Libya?

why did Bush send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Libya?

for takeout?

ok so you have a problem with the perpetrators of 9/11 being convicted in a court of law and put to death? ok gotcha

#9 | Posted by truthhurts

I believe that justice has little to do with it.
its a political show just like holder talking about putting the agents on trial.

there is NOTHING that comes as a shock to me out of this bunch of arrogant assholes

ADKABL2 is displaying the venom which is going to flow from many of the Bush defenders because they fear....the truth and this court might just reveal some truth.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2009-11

wrong again.
I dont believe anyone I Know or have read has said anything about not bringing them to trial but they have ALREADY DONE that

is that correct or not.
have they or have they not pleaded guilty in front of a military judge?

"According to the declassified memos, waterboarding was used on alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003."

www.breitbart.com

I believe that justice has little to do with it.
its a political show just like holder talking about putting the agents on trial.

there is NOTHING that comes as a shock to me out of this bunch of arrogant assholes

#17 | Posted by afkabl2 at

soooooo if KSM is legally tried convicted and executed, you would have a problem with that? that would not be justice in your mind?

seems an objective viewer would see this as an effort to resolve the legal mess made by Bush.

again afkababble

Why did Bush send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Libya?

I will try and answer that if you will tell us why obama continues to refuse to produce a birth certificate and why not one doctor or nurse or even worker has come forward and said yES I was in the hospital in hawaii when he was born.

so if you want to play your 'truther' game I can play the 'birther' game..

soooooo if KSM is legally tried convicted and executed, you would have a problem with that? that would not be justice in your mind?

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11

of course it would...where are you coming up with that??

a better idea is for soldiers on the ground to just go ahead and put a bullit in their ear and save us a lot of money.

yeah yeah I know..thats extreme........

BUT I havent had a definitive answer yet..

havent they already pleaded guilty in front of a military judge>?
if so...why this NOW and WHERE....

IM JusT SAYIN

for takeout?

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2009-11-13 02:27 PM | Reply

Nice!

"I will try and answer that if you will tell us why obama continues to refuse to produce a birth certificate"

Got to hand it to AFKABL2, he really knows how to argue on topic with facts relevant to the subject.

Got to hand it to AFKABL2, he really knows how to argue on topic with facts relevant to the subject.

He could bring up Reagan or how Bush stole Florida in 2000.

If he did that we wouldn't hear a peep from you.

danni

sorry that you didnt get that 'nuance'...

surely you get the connection between the 'truthers' and the birthers'...

its not the JETs and the ...oh shit what was thier name..from westside story

but its close.

geesh..I thought you libs were so frickin smart????
lol

Why are they trying these guys in civilian court?

Military or Federal court are more appropriate.

What a nightmare.

Caused by Obama and Holder the absolute idiot.

if the shiek would just listen to me, I could have him free tomorrow

dress up in black
blacken your face
carry a big stick

and holder wont do a friggin thing...

HEY I KNOW

hey BARRY..

invite the 9/11 pricks to the white house for a beer with you and joe.

that will do it.

"Military or Federal court are more appropriate."

I believe Federal Prosecutors usually prosecute in Federal courts.

ok so you have a problem with the perpetrators of 9/11 being convicted in a court of law and put to death? ok gotcha

#9 | Posted by truthhurts
--------------------
No you simpleton, we have a problem trying these people in a civil court when the only justice system capable of extending to foreign ground is a military tribunal. Most of the evidence we have on these scumbags is classified and your side is tying one hand behind our back in prosecuting these Sacks of Shit (SOS). We can not present classified information from intelligence gathering operations to uncleared persons on a fucking civil court jury. Obviously this is too complicated of an issue for you but please attempt to stay up.

Wake me up when we get a competent attorney general up to the tasks of trying these scumbags. Otherwise, it's Eric Holder's attempt to clear them of all charges so we can let them sue us in court and finance their next terror attack.

Lonnie

and all within site of the place where the towers used to sit.

wouldnt you think the defense would demand a change of venue or do they WANT it there for some reason

and let me be compLETELY serious on this one

just where will they get a jury of their peers????
and someone who may not know about the case????

isnt that like a REAL problem????

"Wake me up when we get a competent attorney general"

I'll let you know when Alberto Gonzalez is available or perhaps you'd prefer John Ashcroft.

Can you hear me laughing????

ADKABL2 is displaying the venom which is going to flow from many of the Bush defenders because they fear....the truth and this court might just reveal some truth.

#12 | Posted by danni
-----------------------
We don't fear the truth. We want him tried and disposed of like the douchebag he is. We don't want him freed because all of the evidence can't be shown to the jury. Keep spinning danni, eventually, you'll make that hole deeper.

Lonnie

"We don't want him freed because all of the evidence can't be shown to the jury."

Have any examples of that happening to terrorists. The one's who bombed the WTC the first time were tried in civillian court and are in prison for it today. Apparently you don't trust the American justice system. This was a crime committed on American soil, not in Afghanistan, not against a ship in a harbor in Yemen. It deserves a trial here in the US and punishment here in the US. I have confidence that Eric Holder wouldn't bring the charges if he didn't think he could get a conviction.

haha you think the us legal system is incapable of handling a trial like this?

try looking up the name of Ramzi Yousef, dumbass

the trial will accommodate the needs of national security with portions not available to the public

so lonnie

Why did Bush send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Libya?

"Wake me up when we get a competent attorney general"

I'll let you know when Alberto Gonzalez is available or perhaps you'd prefer John Ashcroft.

Can you hear me laughing????

#34 | Posted by danni
------------------------
Face facts, Holder is an idiot. Why this wasn't a terror attack, it was a criminal act? Really mr rocket scientist? Is that what the 9/11 report said? I remember a statement saying "While we weren't at war with them, they were at war with us!"

What holder is doing, shows exactly how incompetent he is. I never mentioned those guys but I'd be against them anyways. How can a civil court try someone for a crime that was executed on US soil but was not planned on US soil. If he could have captured the 9/11 idiots that crashed the plane then they were eligible to be tried here. Someone who wasn't in the US and planned the attack miles away from US soil can not be tried by a civil court. The crime was actually committed in Afghanistan not in the US. The legal system does not allow civil courts to extend to foreign lands.

Lonnie

on a more ordinary issue

think of the traffic in that area???

but not to worry..

just finished reading about the election of 1896.

congress was basically 'turned over'...looking for something similiar real soon

and what was up with william jennings bryan.

could the man NOT taKE A HINT??

LOL

TRUTH........try and do SOMETHING constructive today...

yeah I guess trying to educate you is not constructive

Why did Bush send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Libya?

lonnie read about ramzi yousef

IM insane

#8 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-13 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag

You've never uttered a truer statement 'dribbles.

haha you think the us legal system is incapable of handling a trial like this?

try looking up the name of Ramzi Yousef, dumbass

#37 | Posted by truthhurts
-------------------
If you were honest with yourself or anyone else, this is a different case. His case was not built on classified intelligence information. Law enforcement officers built the case not the CIA. If you want to see a dumbass look in the mirror.

Lonnie

well I have faith in our judicial system, sorry you dont.

BTW

Why did Bush send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Libya?

I don't have to read about ramzi yousef because I know he was tried and convicted of bombing the WTC in '93. Law enforcement built that case not the intelligence community. Again, you haven't got a clue about anything.

Lonnie

"How can a civil court try someone for a crime that was executed on US soil but was not planned on US soil."

It will be criminal court not civil court. Holder isn't suing him.

well lonnie RY was a foreign national captured outside the country

there are tremendous similarities.

intelligence evidence is a matter for the court to handle and I have faith in that

you hatred of democrats blinds you to the fact that justice will be served

yeah I guess trying to educate you is not constructive

Why did Bush send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Libya?

#42 | Posted by truthhurts
--------------------
Al-Libi is a dead terrorist, has no bearing on trying scumbags in civil court instead of a military tribunal.

Lonnie

#47 | Posted by lwalk17

I don't have to read about ramzi yousef because I know he was tried and convicted of bombing the WTC in '93. Law enforcement built that case not the intelligence community. Again, you haven't got a clue about anything.
--------------------

You are correct.

You have to remember this mentality runs California.

one wonders why america never had the chance to try al libi since bush sent him to libya

Also I bet they were not read thier miranda rights.

I guess they will have to let him go!

well lonnie RY was a foreign national captured outside the country

there are tremendous similarities.

intelligence evidence is a matter for the court to handle and I have faith in that

you hatred of democrats blinds you to the fact that justice will be served

#49 | Posted by truthhurts
--------------------------
Nice try Mr. Dishonesty the cases bare absolutely no resemblence other than it was a terrorist act. Yousef's case was built by law enforcement and KSM's case will built by intelligence agencies. Do you actually lie to yourself all of the time and believe every word you said very often?

No, it has a lot to do with the incompetent way they are going about it. I'm afraid that without the intelligence data that these scumbags will walk away from killing 3,000 people a free man. Another thing, I normally support the death penalty as justice served however, I think he should go down in history as the guy who killed 3,000 people and had to suck dick in prison for the rest of his life and not a inspiration for the rest of the terrorist scumbags. That being said, I fully support Nidahl Hasan's death sentence. Sure, we can make him a hero to a bunch of zeros but we'll send a strong message to everyone like him in our Armed Forces.

Lonnie

so when KSM etal are tried, convicted and executed you will come here and apologize for the errors of your opinions?

absolutely not. My opinion is based on US law which says that the US court system does not extend past our borders. You do believe in the rule of law? Why do you think we have a military justice system? Because US law does not extend beyond our borders. I don't apologize when I know I am right.

Lonnie

Just set him loose inside any Fire House in NYC.
Justice Guaranteed!!!

If this is a trial by jury, how do they find 12 people who have no opinion of this guy?

So the trial gets thrown out because;

1)He was not read his rights
2)He was roughed up to get his confession
3)He did not get a speedy trial

He is a free man.

oh, I thought this was a Bush thread...

"So the trial gets thrown out because;

1)He was not read his rights
2)He was roughed up to get his confession
3)He did not get a speedy trial

He is a free man."

He's guilty but the only way he gets convicted is if its just a show trial.

Whatever evidence we have wasn't gathered by detectives and wasn't immediately sent to a police evidence room. So I'm sure any decent lawyer could raise all sorts of chain of custody issues - some of which the prosecution probably can't even address because the information is classified.

There are probably issues with jurisdiction too considering he planned the attack while in Afghanistan and his actions were "legal" over there to the extent the Taliban even had real laws. We grabbed him overseas too so was it even a legal "arrest"?

All the people who think that these terrorists should be tried in civilians courts are trying to shove a square peg in a round hole - and usually talking down to anyone who disagrees with them while doing so. I was against Gitmo from the start because I knew what would happen the minute we took these people into custody. Had we left them with our Northern Alliance allies, they be dead by now and nobody would care.

New laws are needed to deal with the prosecution of international terrorists and anyone who promotes any other solution is not really interested in addressing the problem reasonably.

All of the terrorists who hit the Trade Center in 1993 were prosecuted in civilian court and all are
serving life sentences. Anyone who thinks these guys will be acquitted is kidding himself.

Actually, it would be a pretty good idea to acquit them and tell them they're free to leave. How many
NYPD and FDNY do you think would be waiting for them as they exit the courthouse?

I have to agree with Sully on this. When you pretend that the law is not a factor in matters like this, it comes back to bite you in the ass. They water boarded these guys hundreds of time to build a case. What a sick bunch of evidence they have now. I'm betting they will walk too, and not because they are not guilty, but because their jailers were too.

another thing that chaps my lily white ass about 9/11 is how was our intelligence so awesome that we knew who all of the high-jackers were, right away. made ready for television, and OBL was the big cheese, yet we were willing to fly OBL family members out of the USA on September 12th when no one else could get a flight? All US flights grounded. Period.

Couldn't we leveraged a position with his family members? If you were holding an investigation into 3,000 fresh deaths, if you were CIA, FBI, POTUS, would you have let them leave?

and then he stalled 411 days to investigate while the evidence was carted off to China...

There are so many holes it is simply disgusting.

It is stupidity to argue that these are not "soldiers" in a new type of warfare, a type that was unforeseen by lawmakers at the close of the last world war.

They are enemy combatants that should be treated as such. If that means holding them indefinitely then so be it. If it is shown that they are guilty of crimes of humanity then they should be tried in a military tribunal and EXECUTED just as the Nazi criminals were.

They are not entitled to the protections that American citizens enjoy. They should not get American trials for their crimes. Maybe we should consider what their societies would do to Americans accused of the same crimes.

1)He was not read his rights
2)He was roughed up to get his confession
3)He did not get a speedy trial

He is a free man.

#4 | Posted by Sniper

Hold on there snippy. I'm not so sure those things count when you're captured in war. I personally think he should not be tried in civilian court but in military court. He was captured by the military during a military operation.

You're a smart guy, I have a question for you.

Suppose you were on that jury and you, being an american, hear the evidence. Suppose the evidence is lacking and you cannot find the legal grounds to convict him.

Would you let him go? Would you ever consider convicting him anyway as a symbolic gesture?

The hits keep on coming from the Obama administration. These terrorists were about to be tried by military tribunals and shortly thereafter executed. What possible good comes from trying them in our court system, designed to protect the rights of our citizens, and giving them the power to delay for years the conclusion of this case. The defense lawyers I'm sure will file motion after motion delaying this trial, moving the venue, discovery motions. If the trial judge rejects any defense motion that has merit (confession under duress?) it could provide grounds for appeal. All for what benefit to our country?

The world is watching while the Obama administration allows our enemies (and actually our politically correct policies) to destroy us from within.

Holy Fucking Flying Horseturds!! That's the dumbest post I've seen in a long time. Thank You.

I'll bet you are one of those people that think we are in iraq and afganistan because we are fighting radical terrorists?

Guess where the most wealthy and powerful criminal in the world lives? Juarez Mexico, just a few miles from the texas border.

Here's a clue. Juarez doesn't have any oil.

"All of the terrorists who hit the Trade Center in 1993 were prosecuted in civilian court and all are
serving life sentences. Anyone who thinks these guys will be acquitted is kidding himself."

Apples and oranges. They were arrested on US soil by law enforcement who followed all the correct legal procedures during and after the arrest.

Lipzoidal,

What post are you referring to? Your response does not apply to any posts in this thread. Mexico, powerful criminals, oil? What does that have to do with this topic?

"He was captured by the military during a military operation...."

But not during a declared war. So, as someone posted, legalities do come to bite one in the ass.

Having said that, I'm not particularly worried. Not the first time we or the world have dealt with this sort of criminal in an open court.

Zed,

Could you name one "criminal" that we have dealt with in a US non-military court that was captured by our military forces in a foreign land, never set foot in the USA, and was given all the rights and privaledges of a US citizen?

I don't recall this ever happening before. Please help me.

I'm thinking of Nuremburg and other venues after WWII. Many, many people captured by US military forces and charged criminally. Some in uniform, some not in uniform, some wearing fake uniforms.

True, defendants were not held in the USA but they could well have been, and also tried there.

Things went well enough. The process is usually considered a hallmark of Western civilization. Yes, one or two defendants got off, some others received mercy. Most were hung.

I think we should surrender everything to the terrorists. Give them what ever they want and they'll leave us alone. They will come to understand us and become our friends. Besides the planet is doomed by climate change and we're all gonna die soon anyway?

"Besides, the planet is doomed by climate change...."

Not the planet, BOB. Just Washington State.

Zed,

OK but you are forgetting a few things. The Nuremberg trials were military tribunals for the specific purpose of prosecuting war crimes. I have no problem with giving these animals a military tribunal. In fact, they were scheduled to receive just that. Instead, the Obama administration in keeping with their denial that we are in a war on terror has decided these are criminals. This is unprecendented as I stated before. For what gain? This will drag on for years now on public display. And for whaT?

"They were military tribunals...."

I know the American judge at Nurmeburg was a civilian. If memory serves, the other jurists were as well.

I understand you're miffed Obama has decided these guys are criminals. But we both know he's merely resolved an issue that's been left hanging for eight years.

If Bush wanted to do something with this guy, besides leave him in a convenient limbo, he had more than his chance.

Geez, I thought for a minute somebody had caught old what's his name. You know, old dead or alive?

Khalid should just claim he found Jayzuzz and loves Reagan and the righties will be nominating him for Congress.

"The Obama's denial we are in a War of Terror...."

I'm old fashioned. You want such a war, declare it next time.

No matter what He won't receive a Fair trial. Dubya blew it for us all for even getting justice from the perpetrators of this event. Once You cross the line to illegal activity to justify a detainment and torture how can You expect to met out justice??

Larry

Zed,

On your points:

The Nuremberg International Tribunal was absolutely not a civilian court. It was officially titled the "International Military Tribunal". Each country was asked to appoint a judge. While they may have been civilian judges, the sole purpose was to create a tribunal unique to the needs of prosecuting war crimes. It was NOT simply a case of bringing them to a civilian court with civilian rules. In fact special rules were drafted for this specific tribunal.

As far as resolving an issue hanging for 8 years, the military tribunals were in progress when the Obama administration stopped them. KLM would have been tried and executed under this plan.

As far as declaring a war on terror, could you please explain what declaration of war we made authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan? Are you old fashoined enough to say we should not have gone there without a declaration?

"The military tribunals were in progress when the Obama Adminstration stopped them...."

In order for this to be any sort of point, you're going to have to note when Bush began having any such tribunals at all.

You're also going to have to explain why this guy never had one. I'd have thought he'd be at the top of the list.

I can explain much of this to you. Bush declined to declare war against Afhganistan, or al-Qaeda, in part because he never wanted to extend military status to those captured. That would have been fine, had he then decided to classify them as civilian prisoners. Which he didn'nt.

Cool another media circus brought to you by the WH.

Zed,

I'm not arguing that he should have been tried before now. I agree that his prosecution should have happened long ago. I can't defend why it didn't happen by now and am not trying to.

If the news from the Obama administration today was that KLM's military tribunal was starting today in GITMO I would be overjoyed. However, he has decided to treat these animals as standard criminals giving them rights as if American citizens and bringing them to this country for a circus show trial. It makes no sense.

Why you think I need to argue about what Bush did or when is silly as it is not germane to this argument.

Bush never wanted to resolve this issue the captured because, in large part, he wanted them as intelligence assets without benefit of human rights. To be blunt, he wanted the option to torture, and that option was exercised.

Now we have this moaning about testimony being thrown out because torture was used to get it.

Well, maybe they shouldn't have been tortured, damn it. It's not like other options weren't available, one of them being that Bush behave like an American with an American sensibility.

"Is not germane to this argument..."

By what slight of hand? Context is always germane. This crap at Gitmo has gone on for so long you think it's normal.

Trial or tribunal, whatever you call it, the point is to serve justice. That always means, sorry to tell you, that even an "animal" gets a fighting chance to save his own mangy skin.

You just want him put down. I see exquisite justice in making him face his victims.

Zed,

We have been involved in countless conflicts or "wars" since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Were any of those declared? Were any of those captured by American forces in these conflicts brought to the USA for trial?

New laws are needed to deal with the prosecution of international terrorists and anyone who promotes any other solution is not really interested in addressing the problem reasonably.

#6 | Posted by Sully at 2009-11-13 05:03 PM | Reply |

I agree with your final conclusion. But most of the points you made I don't find to hold water. Except the part about leaving them with the Northern Alliance.

If they had kept this guy within the confines of the US Justice System, he'd already been convicted and serving life, if not on death row.

It would be entirely ridiculous that they will let these guys walk regardless of the outcome. They may very well at the end extradite him to his enemies.

Zed,

You are damn right I want him put down as he was responsible for the murder of thousands of innocents. Military tribunals serve justice and have served justice for war criminals and enemy combatants for centuries. Obama now has decided that we need to give those captured full rights of US citizens. This is insane and has never been done. Because this "crap" at Gitmo has gone on too long in your mind, is this justification that we now give them full rights? That is absurd.

WWII was declared. I'm quite against wars without declarations. Korea occupies a unique position among the examples you advance. The others were mistakes for not following the Constitution.

But why (for the most part) no one was tried after these conflicts (WWII) excepted to because soldier status was extended to all enemy fighters.

That is a different system. Bush should have chosen it, as some in his Cabinet said do. The monster of vagueness he created was usesul to no one.

Oh and about those American rights. They were not defined only to Americans. Its just that realistically, we can't determine the rights people have outside of America. The belief was that all people should have these rights equally.

"Bush declined to declare war against Afhganistan, or al-Qaeda, in part because he never wanted to extend military status to those captured."

Perhaps, but more importantly, he didn't have the constitutional authority to declare war, Congress has that power.

Zed,

OK I see your viewpoint. Now, I will grant you that the Bush administration took too long in putting together the tribunals. But once they were in place why were they suspended by Obama when he took over? Why would he not just continue with the prosecutions via military tribunal? What point is he trying to make by prosecuting them as common criminals? Your thoughts on this?

Bush had the authority, and the obligation, to bring a formal Declaration of War to Congress. Congress had the authority, and the obligation, to demand it.

We have rarely been so poorly served by our government. The list of problems avoided by just following the rules is enormous.

"Your thoughts on this..."

We'll get positive things from this trial. You focus on the negative. One of the positives is legitimacy. The authority of those tribunals was always in doubt. A hearing in open court will never be.

Zed,

OK, you say legitimacy. Let's say the unthinkable happens and the case is thrown out or he is acquitted. What then? Is it worth the risk?

And if you reply, as the attorney general did today, that he is absolutely positive he will get a conviction then how is a trial legitimate? If the outcome is predetermined, is it truly a fair trial?

"And if you reply, as the attorney general did today, that he is absolutely positive he will get a conviction then how is a trial legitimate?"

Prosecutors do that all the time when they know they have the proof. Holder is a prosecutor, he should know if his case is solid or not. It's his ass on the line, BTW, if it isn't. Make no mistake, if Muhammed walks, Holder is toast.

#39 | Posted by SonOfaDemocrat

7 years was 'a little too long'.

Danni,

How did OJ walk? The evidence was overwhelming. All it takes is a great trial lawyer and a sympathetic jury (or a single juror). Why take that risk?

If KLM walks, we are all toast. Including Obama as well.

OK Timex. Because 7 years was too long, do we then confer US citizen rights and a civilian trial for the mastermind of 9-11? Is that the reason for this? This argument is not about what Bush did in the past. It is what Obama is doing RIGHT NOW! And what he is doing is unprecedented and quite frankly stupid.

OK Timex. Because 7 years was too long, do we then confer US citizen rights and a civilian trial for the mastermind of 9-11? Is that the reason for this? This argument is not about what Bush did in the past. It is what Obama is doing RIGHT NOW! And what he is doing is unprecedented and quite frankly stupid.

Posted by SonOfaDemocrat at 2009-11-13 09:15 PM | Reply

In a word Yes. Don't forget the US Constitution not only protects the rights of US Citizens but anyone who finds themselves under Her jurisdiction.

Larry

How did OJ walk? The evidence was overwhelming. All it takes is a great trial lawyer and a sympathetic jury (or a single juror). Why take that risk?

If KLM walks, we are all toast. Including Obama as well.

Posted by SonOfaDemocrat at 2009-11-13 09:12 PM | Reply

Because it's the American way. Or do You even give a fuck about the AMerican Way??

Larry

Larry,

Are military tribunals unconstitutional to try enemy combatants? Has there ever been a case of an enemy combatant against the United States captured on foreign soil by the military, who never set foot on American soil, tried in civilian courts?

Please name an example.

TORTURE VICTIMS Cannot Legally be Tried by the Same (American) Government that KIDNAPPED & TORTURED them for the last 7 Years in Guantanamo Bay!!!

It will have to be a totally "Closed & Hand Picked Kangaroo Court" in New York because you cannot try anyone in a regular US Court who has been systematically Abused & T-O-R-T-U-R-E-D for years by the CIA & US Military as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other four other Guantanamo Bay detainees were!!! Lets see how the "Nazi Bastards" in the US Judiciary can pull off this new Atrocity!!!

Larry, Do you give a fuck about the families of the thousands who died in 9-11? Military tribunals have been used for centuries to try combatants. Quit trying to act like a military tribunal is unamerican or unconstitutional. The fact that what Obama is proposing has never been done before. Please explain why?

Larry, Do you give a fuck about the families of the thousands who died in 9-11? Military tribunals have been used for centuries to try combatants. Quit trying to act like a military tribunal is unamerican or unconstitutional. The fact that what Obama is proposing has never been done before. Please explain why?

Posted by SonOfaDemocrat at 2009-11-13 09:33 PM | Reply

Sorry but Our Constitution and Our Ideals are worth more than the people that it governs and protects. Without them we would be savages.

Larry

Are military tribunals unconstitutional to try enemy combatants? Has there ever been a case of an enemy combatant against the United States captured on foreign soil by the military, who never set foot on American soil, tried in civilian courts?

Please name an example.

#105 | Posted by SonOfaDemocrat at 2009-11-13 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Since acts of terrorism are Criminal Acts it is perpostrious to declare Military Tribunals are legitament forms to try these detainees. They need to be tried in the US Criminal Justice system like we do for every other criminal act and actor.

Larry

Larry,

You didn't answer my question. Why aren't military tribunals appropriate to try these terrorists? Are military tribunals unconsitutional? Is it against our ideals to have military tribunals?

Ok sorry you posted a response while I was typing. Your statement that acts of terrorism are criminal acts says all I need to know about why you propose your argument.

Your way of thinking is exactly why we were caught with our guard down continually during the Clinton administration and 9-11 under Bush. We are at war with an organization bent on the destruction of our country. The 9-11 commission warned that treating terrorists acts other then as acts of war contributed to our problems and the future defense of our country.

Bush had 7 years for military tribunals. None happened. None. Zero.

Some more poppycocked spew. Either You believe in the American way and American ideals or You don't and obviously You don't.

Larry

Some more poppycocked spew. Either You believe in the American way and American ideals or You don't and obviously You don't.

______________________________
_____________________

Ouch that hurt Larry lol.

I guess the 9-11 commission was unamerican as well. Your view that we treat terrorist acts as criminal acts is part of the reason why things progressed to the point of 9-11. But thats OK, right?

Larry, Zed had fun exchanging views. I'll never understand most of your viewpoints as I'm certain you will never understand mine. But it is fun to debate. Until the next time.........

9/11 Commissioners now way they were lied to. Insulting that Bush and Cheney wouldn't testify under oath.

9/11 Commissioniers now say they were lied to ...

You believe in the American way and American ideals or You don't and obviously You don't.

Larry

Our forefathers allowed slavery. They didn't let women vote. The American way began with treason. We killed our fellow countrymen to start our own country. How many treaties with the Indians have been broken and still unkept? Undeclared wars. Republicans all voting one way, Democrats all voting one way. Slavery is legal as punishment for the convicted.

This is the American way.

never happen........
obama and holder would never elicit the rage of the muslim world and the vast majority of muslims are too scared to speak out.
#1 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-13 02:18 PM

Wasn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one of those who are harnessed and electrocuted during trial should he elicit any form of response outside of a script? Also, was his confession excised after he lasted torture far longer than most sane people. Maybe they should do the sham trial at Las Vegas and get HBO to blockbusterize it?

President Obama appears to be sending the 40k more troops into Afghanistan as well as retaining and utilizing extraordinary rendition. If it's true that most of the commercial jet hijacking throughout the 1980's were in fact Mossad and joint operations wouldn't it follow that the 9/11 events also involving Mossad included hijacked planes with remote controlled substitute planes possibly operating as part of Vigilant Guardian directed by NORAD itself? What have been done with the occupants of the commercial planes? They are been disappeared courtesy BushCo.

Flight risk falafels should take extra care this Christ-affiliated season and travel with their most anglo friend for cover. You could try "gaying it up", but might get better response if you "Jew it out", instead.:]

Lonnie, you are not very smart.

If a jury could find OJ innocent--there is certainly room to believe that one could find KSM innocent too.

And if you reply, as the attorney general did today, that he is absolutely positive he will get a conviction then how is a trial legitimate?"

Prosecutors do that all the time when they know they have the proof. Holder is a prosecutor, he should know if his case is solid or not. It's his ass on the line, BTW, if it isn't. Make no mistake, if Muhammed walks, Holder is toast.

#99 | Posted by danni
---------------------
Holder is a fucking idiot. Just look at the final 6 months of the Clinton administration when he pardoned muslim extremist scumbags. How in the hell can you tell me he deserves any kind of trust?

So Holder isn't exactly a very good lawyer I mean if you look at his last fuckup why should we trust him?

Lonnie

Lonnie, you are not very smart.

#120 | Posted by shawnjanika
--------------------
Maybe not but I know I'm at least smarter than you!!

Lonnie

This trial is more about prosecuting the CIA than prosecuting KSM anyway. Again, if you bother to read the geneva convention, it strictly says that to meet the requirements of the Geneva convention:

a. combatants must war a military uniform.

b. combatants must have a military structure.

c. Must have signed on to the Geneva convention.

Does Al Quaeda meet any of these requirements? They have no uniforms, no command structure, and have never signed on to the Geneva convention so according to the Geneva convention documents, it can't be applied to them.

Again, these are WAR criminals not American citizen criminals. WAR criminals are not entitled to miranda rights nor are they entitled to any rights we give our citizens. Military tribunals try WAR criminals not a civilian court system.

Lonnie

KSM is obviously worthy of the death penalty or life in jail fer his part in the 9/11 attacks.

Trouble is a lot of the evidence against him was obtained illegally because of Dumbya and Dickless.

Hopefully they have enuff non tainted evidence to hang him with.

It's actually one of the other 4 men going on trial who Spud is watching closely here.

Omar Khadr.

A 15 yo child soldier at the time dragged over to Iraq by his wingnutty dad and brought to a compound that American forces attempted to search which began a firefight which left one dead American and only one surviving Insurgent.

By Military logic the only survivor musta been responsible fer the only American casualty so Omar got charged despite the fact that he most likely was not to blame.

Was horribly mistreated at the prison at the Baghram airforce base and then treated even worse at Gitmo.

The Supreme Court of Canada over a year ago told Steven Harper (aka Bush-lite) that it was his responsibility to try and seek justice fer Khadr but his conservative base wouldn't cotton to that so he's been dodging the issue fer a while now.

Complicating mastters is a little videotape of a grinning Omar helping build IEDs (children are used a lot fer this apparently because A) they're expendable and B) They got tiny hands).

Harper seems content to let American Justice have it's way with Khadr without mounting any kind of defense for him which, while shoring up his numbers in his base, is making him increasingly unpopular with many other Canadians, Spud included.

Be Well.

Does Al Quaeda meet any of these requirements? They have no uniforms, no command structure, and have never signed on to the Geneva convention so according to the Geneva convention documents, it can't be applied to them.

"Can't be" applied?

Or technically "doesn't have to be"?

Is treating your enemies harshly using completely inhumane standards productive or counter-productive in a global war for hearts and minds?

More likely to encourage moderates or extremists.

Take yer time and think before you respond, Loon.

Just this once.

Fer Spud.

Be Well.

Again, these are WAR criminals not American citizen criminals

Again, THESE are War Criminals and American citizens.

/'Cept fer Lapdawg Tony.

Be Well.

Take yer time and think before you respond

You ask too much, Spud.

Detainees have Geneva convention Rights

en.wikipedia.org

, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

Detainees have Constitutional Rights.

en.wikipedia.org

June 12, 2008 Supreme Court ruling
On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.[84][85][86][87] Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the SCR Tribunals as "an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus" although "both the DTA and the SCRT process remain intact."[88]

You ask too much, Spud.

Spud dares to dream.

Spud's silly like that ^_^

Sup, Rev?

How's with thee, Double-D?

Be Well.

Detainees have Geneva convention Rights

You are correct, sir.

Detainees have Constitutional Rights.

Again, on the money.

Take any of the large stuffed animals from the very highest shelf!

Good werk, Larry.

Spud would go further to state that all of humanity is entitled to equal/human/civil rights.

Got no cite fer that.

Is just wot Spud believes.

Be Well.

There is a beautiful symmetry to all of this. Trying these thugs within blocks of the footprint of the WTC is a powerful image. It says if you act like barbarians we will not respond in kind. Hooray for the return of the rule of law.

I would still like to see them released in any FDNY
firehouse, though.

Is treating your enemies harshly using completely inhumane standards productive or counter-productive in a global war for hearts and minds?

More likely to encourage moderates or extremists.

____

I'll play spud. How did the extremists treat us before we finally went into Afghanistan? Did we bring on their terorist acts and their hatred for us as infidels? They kept ratcheting up their terrorist acts (US Embassies, USS Cole) until 9-11. And we did nothing to them. Do you think they will stop now by winning their hearts and minds? Finally this country woke up on 9-11 with a different outlook. Unfortunately, the liberal mind has forgotten that lesson so we will be doomed to repeat it if we just try to "win over their hearts and minds".

Naivete is dangerous when you have an enemy bent on your destruction for simply existing.

How very odd... I was intrigued by the name of the article (9/11 Mastermind Will Face Trial in New York), but I found no mention of Bush or Cheney within the article itself. Did anybody else find this confusing?

"Could you name one "criminal" that we have dealt with in a US non-military court that was captured by our military forces in a foreign land, never set foot in the USA, and was given all the rights and privaledges of a US citizen?

I don't recall this ever happening before. Please help me."

----

Sure, I'll help you..how about this guy?

en.wikipedia.org

Captured by the military as ordered by Bush I (the smarter) in 1989 (not that the UN declared that invasion to be illegal, not that most righties care). Noriega was brought to the US and tried in Miami in the US District Court.

Captured by military...tried by civilian court...crimes committed in a foreign country.

Glad to help you understand a little bit better.

"Captured by military...tried by civilian court...crimes committed in a foreign country."

And then kept in prison without access to the media to serve his sentence. He had been a paid employee of the CIA and I always figured he had dirt that he could lay on some big wigs perhaps even Bush 1. Even after he served his sentence they still keep him in prison to this day. I bet he will die there without ever being allowed to be interviewed by an honest investigative reporter.

Ahhh Danni... Ever meet a conspiracy theory you didn't like?

Except of course those about the anointed...

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable