In the NY Post--

Is there no wonder they wanted to give rights to the diaper bomber??

9 DOJ attorneys are running the show and they worked for AQ terrorists.

They sympathies are obvious.

"9 DOJ attorneys are running the show and they worked for AQ terrorists."

I'm curious: can you taste the stupid when you post shit like that?

How else do you explain the stupidity over the diaper bomber and getting mirandized and an attorney??

Holder like terrorists--he is sypathetic. Ergo FALN during Clinton--he got them pardoned.

So he continues--with the KSM trial and the diaper bomber and the next and the next...

"How else do you explain the stupidity over the diaper bomber and getting mirandized and an attorney??"

Maybe the same way the shoe bomber was Mirandized.

That, or the current DOJ actually read the Constitution and the SCOTUS decisions.

Since 9/11, we've convicted hundreds of terrorists through the court system, and 3 through military tribunals.

#5 | Posted by Danforth

You are looking at this from a far-too-narrow context.

First off, the shoe-bomber case was different in a couple of ways:

1. The guy was British - The UK is one of our staunchest allies and as double-standard-ish as it is, we are going to treat their citizens differently than we are 'citizens' from Yemen.

2. After the Shoe-bomber incident congress signed into law certain provisions making it easier to refer captured terrorists to the tribunal system - a measure that Obama re-signed after coming into office.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, by referring these issues to the civilian court system we lose our ability to interrogate these assholes. This is particularly important due to the fact that, oftentimes, the value of the information they may possess is often time-sensitve - if we don't extract the information now, its relevance diminishes rapidly to the point of being irrelevant a couple of months after-the-fact.

"You are looking at this from a far-too-narrow context."

Well, then let's look at the main difference in most people's eyes:

Shoe-bomber happened when the President had an R after his name.
Diaper-bomber happened when the President had a D after his name.

"and as double-standard-ish as it is..."

No "ish" about it. You're just being an apologist.

"MOST IMPORTANTLY, by referring these issues to the civilian court system we lose our ability to interrogate these assholes."

Except in this case, we interrogated him, and got actionable information.

"oftentimes, the value of the information they may possess is often time-sensitve"

If that's the standard, why don't we waterboard gang members? Why wan't O'Keefe waterboarded? We knew he was part of a conspiracy in a federal building, didn't we need to know if he was working with others? For that matter, why isn't EVERY suspect tortured??? They all may possess time-sensitive information.

"represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the department"

So what?

Shoe-bomber happened when the President had an R after his name.
Diaper-bomber happened when the President had a D after his name.

First off, I disagreed with how the Shoe-bomber was handled at the time. However, since then congress signed into law (and Obama re-upped it) making it easier to funnel these dicks into the tribunal system. Do you deny this? Or, are you going to ignore what has transpired since and simply argue that, well if Bush did it, it must be OK?

Except in this case, we interrogated him, and got actionable information.

We interrogated him for 50 minutes before he was able to lawyer-up and go silent. It was only a couple of months later, AFTER his family got involved, that he began speaking again. Any time-sensitive info he had became worthless while we were dicking-around. Going further, if he decided to shun his family he STILL had the ability to remain clammed-up, if he had so chosen.

If that's the standard, why don't we waterboard gang members? Why wan't O'Keefe waterboarded? We knew he was part of a conspiracy in a federal building, didn't we need to know if he was working with others? For that matter, why isn't EVERY suspect tortured??? They all may possess time-sensitive information.

American civilians are entitled to protections set forth in the constitution. This guy asshole is not only a non-citizen, but he's also an enemy combatant in a war. Sorry, different standards apply. Apples and oranges, to say the least.

"However, since then congress signed into law (and Obama re-upped it) making it easier to funnel these dicks into the tribunal system. Do you deny this?"

No.

Do you deny that hundreds of convictions through the court systems is MORE than 3 convictions through military tribunals.

"and simply argue that, well if Bush did it, it must be OK?"

Too funny, coming from the guy who wanted to distinguish between British non-citizens and Yemeni non-citizens.

"but he's also an enemy combatant in a war"

Two questions: what date, exactly, was war declared by Congress? Where in the Constitution does it define "enemy combatant"?

Darth Cheney Bitch Slapped by Petraeus and Powell

Dick Cheney made headlines last week at CPAC, the big ultra-conservative fiesta in Washington, by claiming that the Obama administration has made the U.S. less safe by halting the practice of torture and wanting to try the Underwear Bomber in civilian court. Sunday, Cheney got smacked around pretty good on the political talk shows by Colin Powell and Gen. David Petraeus.

Powell was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation about Cheney's claims that Obama has hurt national security, and replied quickly that, "I don't know where the claim comes [from]." He went on to strongly defend the use of civilian courts to try terrorists (as every other civilized country does, by the way and effectively), and essentially called Cheney a liar, saying of the former VP's charges, "I don't think that's borne out by the facts."

Do you deny that hundreds of convictions through the court systems is MORE than 3 convictions through military tribunals.

A good point, if convictions were the ONLY end-game. Gathering intel is FAR more important - which is why putting these animals into the tribunal system is so important.

coming from the guy who wanted to distinguish between British non-citizens and Yemeni non-citizens.

Abolutely. Foreign-policy is extremely fluid and is often hypocritical. Very much so. This truth sucks, but it is also reality. Look at the dynamics in play that resulted in our support for Saddam relative to his ouster as exhibit-A.

Two questions: what date, exactly, was war declared by Congress?

Therein lies part of the problem. Actual war wasn't declared. However, how in the hell does Congress declare war against stateless entities? Going further, how in the hell do YOU justifiy treating these assholes with kid-gloves simply because they were smart enough to work around our constitution and our law to accomplish the same ends as an enemy state, without having to match our military might in the process?

Where in the Constitution does it define "enemy combatant"?

It doesn't. If the constitution addressed every single conceivable detail that could ever surface, we wouldn't have a legislative branch of our government. The Constitition puts limitations on federal powers. However, it does NOT prohibit the government from passing laws. Come on, man! You can do better than this.

"1. The guy was British - The UK is one of our staunchest allies and as double-standard-ish as it is, we are going to treat their citizens differently than we are 'citizens' from Yemen.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ"

Really, JeffJ? Wow. Now you should see why I think it is so amusing when you try to be a constitutional scholar.

"how in the hell do YOU justifiy treating these assholes with kid-gloves simply because they were smart enough to work around our constitution"

Rewrite the parts they've gotten around. Aren't we supposed to be smarter than them?

" If the constitution addressed every single conceivable detail that could ever surface, we wouldn't have a legislative branch of our government."

All right, I'll play: when did Congress write legislation defining "enemy combatants"?

"Therein lies part of the problem. Actual war wasn't declared."

Which makes the rest of your point moot.

"Foreign-policy is extremely fluid"

Then don't use it as a base to compare, if it's based on temporal whim.

Looks like Jeffie ran away. Maybe to read Emmanuel's Con Law or something.

"Looks like Jeffie ran away. Maybe to read Emmanuel's Con Law or something."

The latest edition has a forward from lil' Joe.

Maybe the same way the shoe bomber was Mirandized.

That, or the current DOJ actually read the Constitution and the SCOTUS decisions.

Since 9/11, we've convicted hundreds of terrorists through the court system, and 3 through military tribunals.

#5 | Posted by Danforth

The shoe bomber was three months after 9/11--we didn't have any aparatice in place.

But then Bush and then Congress approved of military tribunals and Bush set up Gitmo.

Our country has a long history of using military tribunals in times of war--including the Civil War and WW2.

Shouldn't we --the American people-- be allowed to know the names of the 9 DOJ attorneys that Holder wants to hide?

Shouldn't we know what cases they worked on for terrorists?

Ya, sure. Release their names and make them targets.

If the shoe was on the right foot, instead of the left, AU, you'd be howling the loudest to name names...

Don't we have the right to know?

Like Obama and his czars--putting people in positions without consent.

Like Obama and his lousy vetting process to appoint people.

Status quo is a-ok for AU?

re: "The shoe bomber was three months after 9/11--we didn't have any aparatice in place."

Yes we did. That's just something flacks for the Bush admin. say when called on their bullshit. The truth is that every single terrorist suspect arrested on US soil during the Bush years was eventually tried in a civilian court. Why? Because it's the fucking law.

Ya, sure. Release their names and make them targets.

Ronald Reagan appointed the first 'czars', and George W Bush appointed more than anyone else.

"Status quo" - i.e. not getting government officials killed, is fine with me. Shall we out more CIA covert agents too?

re: Like Obama and his czars--putting people in positions without consent.

Previous presidents appointed what the media refers to as "czars", and most have been confirmed by the senate prior to appointment, as is the case in the Obama Administration. The only difference is that you have had a mental breakdown in the last year.

CZARS:

Bill Clinton 19932001 (positions) 7 (appointed) 10

George W. Bush 20012009 (positions) 35 (appointed) 47

Barack Obama 2009 (positions) 38 (appointed) 8

Shall we out more CIA covert agents too?

#25 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY a

Since when are DOJ attorneys the same as CIA covert agents?

That's a whopper even for you.

And who says they would be killed? You?

We have the right to know who the attorneys are and who they represented.

This would certainly answer why the Obama administration is going in the direction they are going or not.

They aren't, of course.

The right have always stated Valerie Plame's outing was of her own making and richly deserved. All because Bush didn't like what his own envoy to investigate Yellow Cake claims said after Bush still used the "looming mushroom cloud" BS in the SOTU after Wilson reported back there was nothing to the claims.

Bye MURPHY.

Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line - 202-353-1555

Be sure to leave your phone number so they can call you back, MURPHY

"The latest edition has a forward from lil' Joe.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian"

Yeah, talking about how great it was to work with Real Lawyers who had passed the bar on the edits.

I guess we are supposed to be thankful it is only 9.

What to expect from Obama?

More of the same.

"9 DOJ attorneys are running the show and they worked for AQ terrorists."

Murphy, are you really a lawyer?