Learn how to use it. It has nothing to do with your computer.
i think it's a good thing these trials will be held in daylight. good for us, and good for our reputation.
and justice will be done.
I explained the new system. You said "Absolutely not," though you now say that you understand and prefer the new system. That makes absolutely no sense.
I prefer the terrorist being brought to justice in a more transparent federal court system over the Bush method of holding them without trial. I don't know how to make that anymore clear to you.
If I treat the detainees like unlawful combatants, does it matter whether I call them "unlawful combatants," "nonprotected persons," or "strawberry muffins"?
Except that one involves holding them indefinitely without a trial and the other allows them a trial by jury in a federal court system.
You said that this somehow demonstrates Obama's commitment to the "rule of law." That's patently false, as eloquently explained by someone who is a fan of the decision:
http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-ha...y-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-in-a-civilian-court/
Nobody becomes a terrorist because of the legal circumstances surrounding unlawful enemy combatants; to think as much is patently absurd. People become terrorists due to ignorance or poverty, and there is no shortage of either. If you actually think someone is going to risk their life fighting the American military because of the legal status of KSM then you're just foolish.
An internet blog plays what role in our criminal justice system?
Thanks for your opinion. That's probably enough to change the Justice Departments plans.
Bye...:2wave:
See ya!:2wave:
If you hear of the anything that will change the Justice Department plans, please drop by and share with us!
I prefer the terrorist being brought to justice in a more transparent federal court system over the Bush method of holding them without trial.
I don't know how to make that anymore clear to you.
Except that one involves holding them indefinitely without a trial and the other allows them a trial by jury in a federal court system.
An internet blog plays what role in our criminal justice system?
So you cannot answer the obvious question, can you?
So you prefer a few selected terrorists being tried in the Art. III courts while the rest are either tried in the Bush/Obama tribunals or held without trial under the Bush/Obama detainee policy. That's fine, I just want you to understand what it is you're endorsing, since you don't seem to.
They can't be tried all at once. However, Obama is set to bring more terrorists to justice in his first two years than the status quo did in 8 years.
And that's fine if that's your opinion. I just want you to understand what it is you are endorsing, since you don't seem to.
The only sliver of difference between Bush and Obama on either issue is that Obama has chosen to take the handful of detainees for whom we have overwhelming admissible evidence and put them on trial.
He's attempting to do what the last administration said could not be done. Closing Gitmo. I give him an A for effort for that.
That's fine. Nobody is saying he doesn't have the authority to do that.
It is only a obvious question to a few who misunderstand the causes, and more importantly, the solutions to terrorism.
As the Rand report to the Pentagon stated, military solutions have only been successful in ending 7% of the terrorist groups in the past. Political solutions are the predominant way that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past. It is all about influencing hearts and minds throughout the world in order to reduce their recruitment capabilities.
We've tried the military route for 8 years and it has been a failure. I think Holder thinks it more prudent to follow the recommendations of the Rand Report.
I do too!
Holder doesn't think a goddamn thing about the Rand Report, nor is it his position to do so. The effect the Rand Report is referring to is entirely a result of military and foreign policy. How we resolve our detainee cases is not substantially related.
That is how you and the fringe right see it. We on the left see it as an integral part of our failed war on terror.
They can't be tried all at once.
However, Obama is set to bring more terrorists to justice in his first two years than the status quo did in 8 years.
He's attempting to do what the last administration said could not be done. Closing Gitmo. I give him an A for effort for that.
by Andrew Cohen
Khalid Sheik Mohammed and You
If you are upset about the Obama Administration’s decision to bring al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a federal civilian trial, and you are looking to blame someone, go straight to your bathroom and look into the mirror. You have no one to blame but yourself.
You sat passively by for years while President George W. Bush and conservatives in Congress (both Republican and Democrat) ginned up one unconstitutional set of military commission rules after another. You didn’t pay attention to the details of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 or the Military Commissions Act of 2006 or the major Supreme Court cases that told you the due process rules in place to try the terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were unlawful. You wanted revenge and retribution, even at the cost of justice and fairness, and, so long as the men you were (falsely) told were the “worst of the worst” were on a foreign island and away from you, you were fine with it.
For years, you didn’t raise your voice and tell your elected officials that you welcomed a fair trial for the detainees under military rules. For years, you didn’t demand that the detainees have lawyers, or access to some of the evidence against them, or meaningful appellate review, or protection from abuse. Either you didn’t have confidence in the evidence against the men, or the application of the law, or you believed that America would somehow be rendered diminished and vulnerable by giving people like Mohammed more justice than they deserve. When the White House and the Congress reluctantly followed the letter but proudly not the spirit of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Hamdan or Hamdi or Boumediene you just changed the channel and moved on with your life.
You were still so angry, so righteously angry, at what happened on September 11, 2001, that you just couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with the details. In good faith, you reckoned that the best and the brightest in Washington would figure out a way to get the job done, processing and prosecuting and sentencing the guilty efficiently and consistent with our nation’s ideals. You delegated the job.
When learned scholars told you that the vast majority of terror suspects on Cuba had nothing to do with anti-U.S. activities, you turned the page. When you first heard about the torture of terror suspects you said, “Good,” until you saw the pictures at Abu Ghraib. You had doubts then, perhaps, but not enough of them to demand of your representatives any sort of formal inquiry into our nation’s torture policy. You didn’t read the torture memos. You didn’t read the International Red Cross’s seminal report. You didn’t want to know what Bush-era lawyers like John Yoo and David Addington and Jay Bybee were up to.
But now it’s happened. As an indirect result of your inattention, and as a direct result of the strength of our Constitution and the concomitant failure of its political and legal stewards, one of these dark, sinister men is coming to Manhattan, to a courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero, for a federal civilian trial.
Stay in front of the mirror for a second. What are you afraid of? What about a Mohammed trial here in the States makes you so angry? Do you think he shouldn’t get the same rights as you? Okay, that’s fair. But so what? Aren’t you willing to set aside your rage at his treatment for the diplomatic and political benefits America will receive from giving the guy an open trial? Don’t you think that treating Mohammed and his colleagues like common criminals is precisely the right message to send to the world about terrorism and al-Qaeda? Don’t you think it hurts their cause to be considered murderers and not jihadist soldiers?
Are you distrustful of the federal judiciary? Have you taken the time to look at the track record that federal prosecutors have in successfully trying terror suspects in New York? Can you name a single case where the feds lost a major terror trial since September 11, 2001? Can you name one from before the terrible events that day? Is Tim McVeigh walking around Buffalo today? Is Terry Nichols walking around Kansas? Is Ramzi Youssef back in Brooklyn or Zacarias Moussaoui out on an airfield trying to fly planes in Minnesota? Have you heard from Jose Padilla or Richard Reid lately?
Are you really worried that Mohammed will go free? Do you really think that a judge and jury are going to let this guy walk? The United States in United States v. Mohammed has the biggest home-court advantage in American legal history. Not only will the government have enough evidence to convict him, it’s likely that Mohammed will gleefully help convict himself. Did you pay attention to the Moussaoui trial when he proudly declared his al-Qaeda allegiance in a Virginia courtroom? Have you paid attention to Mohammed’s incriminating statements made to tribunal officers in Cuba?
Are you worried that Mohammed will try to turn his trial into political theatre? So what? The world already has heard what he and his al-Qaeda pals think of America. The world already has seen the photos from Abu Ghraib. The world knows about waterboarding. It’s old news. Mohammed is just a man, and soon he’ll be a defendant, and then he’ll be a ranting, shrieking crazy person in court, then he’ll be convicted and then he’ll be sentenced. Don’t be angry about it now that is going to occur. Don’t fear it. Welcome it. And at the same time embrace your own role, and your own responsibility, for ensuring that it had to happen this way, at this time, and in this place.Khalid Sheik Mohammed and You - The Atlantic (November 16, 2009)
All Graham was saying is covered in the article: the right is looking for a way out of doing a trial that will likely make Obama look good.The article doesn't say it all. It left out the points that Senator Graham made in this exchange with Eric Holder:
All Graham was saying is covered in the article: the right is looking for a way out of doing a trial that will likely make Obama look good.
I hope some of you accept this appology - sorry - I was wrong.
I previously said that the choice to the Obama administration was up to them to go before a federal judge or a military tribunal - and because they hit civillians in NYC it did not necessitate a military tribunal - though I believe it is not a good choice, I believed the Obama administration rightfuly had that choice, and I figured what the heck, as long as they are found guilty and it doesn't become a trial against the former administration and our intelligence agencies - OK
I got wrapped up in it being only about NYC because the trial is set to go there - and seeing the Twin Towers and it's occupants as civillian only.
BUT - and I totally forgot all about it - again, sorry - they also hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and the Pentagon is all about our military - being housed with many military personnel who were directly affected by their actions.
They hit a military target - therefore, they MUST be tried in a military tribunal.
This article says it all! Every question asked and answered. So what is the right so worried about? Easy! That Obama might get it right publically and undeniably.
It is only a obvious question to a few who misunderstand the causes, and more importantly, the solutions to terrorism.
As the Rand report to the Pentagon stated, military solutions have only been successful in ending 7% of the terrorist groups in the past. Political solutions are the predominant way that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past. It is all about influencing hearts and minds throughout the world in order to reduce their recruitment capabilities.
We've tried the military route for 8 years and it has been a failure. I think Holder thinks it more prudent to follow the recommendations of the Rand Report.
I do too!