Is America at war, or not?

[Councilman]

Is America at war, or not?

Posted: November 16, 2009
6:50 pm Eastern

Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

A jaw-dropping expose on the six-month undercover operation that revealed the true terror-supporting nature of CAIR: "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." It's also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.

Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?

Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.

When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Fort McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?

This idiocy shows in graphic reality how much of a foolish amateur Obama is and how he is once again using what I have recently decided is one of his favorite tactics because it's easy to use in pulling the wool over the eyes of his already blind followers. That tactic is double speak and in this case I believe Obam's goal is to have either the accused or their lawyers turn these trials into indictments of the Bush administration and expose the entire security and intelligence apparatus to public scrutiny.
Obama has said he didn't want this and this is his way of getting it done anyway with the built in excuse, "We never thought something like this could ever happen."

Another problem openly being talked about and rightly so is this is putting the lives of the Judges and jurors at stake but Obama is more interested in his hate for Bush, Chaney, and America than he is in justice.

Another case of double speak is, he claims to be putting them on trial for justice but he knows in giving them rights they are not entitled to, they could walk for a number of technicalities.

Obama will happily allow these terrorists to go free on technicalities because he doesn't want to have to pardon them to appease his Muslim brothers if they had been sentenced to death at GITMO.

One of the most disturbing aspects of all this is the people who claim to be good Americans that don't have the good sense God gave to a dead rock and so they support anything Obama tells them is true no matter how many times he's caught in lies. The count is up to 158 documented ones so far.

Never forget these words of Obama from his Book Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

An old adage says the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. Obama disciples are proving it true.

 

[Catawba]

Is America at war, or not?

A trial is how we differentiate ourselves from the terrorists. It is a vital moral distinction that I for one am glad we are making.

 

[Polynikes]

A trial is how we differentiate ourselves from the terrorists. It is a vital moral distinction that I for one am glad we are making.

So you agree then that is immoral to take a Predator drone shot should we have Bin Laden or other high profile terrorists in the sights?

I mean, they haven't been proven guilty in a court of law of anything right?

I love how people say 'we must take the moral high ground to avoid being like the terrorists' Last time I checked we didn't hijack 4 airliners and use them as guided missiles. Executing terrorists isn't succumbing to their level, it's a necessary step in ridding the world of evil.

Evil is not culturally relative. I am not religious whatsoever, I believe though that there are people who do not deserve to live.

You might have forgotten Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States. That alone is grounds for his execution, the execution of anyone who swears allegiance to him, and anyone who supports him.

Anyone who picks up arms against the United States with the intent of killing civilians or military personnel should be killed. Period.

It is not so much a question of immorality, as it is of cowardice.

This republic was not founded by cowards, and it will not be preserved by them either.

 

[Catawba]

So you agree then that is immoral to take a Predator drone shot should we have Bin Laden or other high profile terrorists in the sights?

I mean, they haven't been proven guilty in a court of law of anything right?

The problem has been that the Predator drone has killed innocent civilians and not Bin Laden. That and our other methods we have killed innocent civilians is why we have created more terrorists world wide than we have killed.


I love how people say 'we must take the moral high ground to avoid being like the terrorists' Last time I checked we didn't hijack 4 airliners and use them as guided missiles.

No, we bombed electrical and water treatment plants that civilians depended on which resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, over 30 times the number killed here on 9/11.

Executing terrorists isn't succumbing to their level, it's a necessary step in ridding the world of evil.

Executing terrorists after a fair trial and not killing innocent civilians is how we distinguish ourselves morally from the terrorists.

Evil is not culturally relative. I am not religious whatsoever, I believe though that there are people who do not deserve to live.

I am not religious either yet still believe in morals. I do not believe the terrorists or those that support the war on terror that the ends justify the means.

You might have forgotten Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States. That alone is grounds for his execution, the execution of anyone who swears allegiance to him, and anyone who supports him.

Than go after Bin Laden, not countries that never attacked us. Although it should be noted that the FBI has never implicated Bin Laden in the 9/11 attack.

Anyone who picks up arms against the United States with the intent of killing civilians or military personnel should be killed. Period.

Even if they are defending their country from our occupation?

It is not so much a question of immorality, as it is of cowardice.

It is not a matter of cowardice, it is a matter of doing what is productive.

This republic was not founded by cowards, and it will not be preserved by them either.

Neither was it founded by stupidity, and it will not be preserved by it either.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

If America's current state is defined as war, I'm not sure how many years of peace America has ever had. If this is war, then we must have been at war with the Native Americans for hundreds of years straight. Are cops at war with gangs? Are we at war with drugs? The word has been diluted into anything involving strife.

 

[RightinNYC]

Executing terrorists after a fair trial and not killing innocent civilians is how we distinguish ourselves morally from the terrorists.

Hypo: Say the jury deadlocks and KSM is acquitted. What do you think we should do, and what do you think we will do?

Than go after Bin Laden, not countries that never attacked us. Although it should be noted that the FBI has never implicated Bin Laden in the 9/11 attack.

I'm not sure what you think this means - are you arguing that because the FBI has never specifically "implicated" Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks (whatever you mean by that), that means he didn't do it?

edit: As to the OP, the AUMF-Afghanistan is still in effect, so yes.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Hypo: Say the jury deadlocks and KSM is acquitted. What do you think we should do, and what do you think we will do?

Deport them to their native country, it seems. However, I am under the impression that while they are claiming that the trials (as opposed to tribunals) are a matter of staying true to our values, they seem to be more a matter of a political expose given sufficient strength of evidence, as tribunals are also being used. Any jury is going to be biased against a terrorist suspect. So I find them not convicting to be pretty unlikely. Knowing juries, they'd probably convict on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Catawba]

Hypo: Say the jury deadlocks and KSM is acquitted. What do you think we should do, and what do you think we will do?

I don't think there is a chance in hell of that happening. I do not think the Justice department would have brought them to trial if that were a possibility.

I'm not sure what you think this means - are you arguing that because the FBI has never specifically "implicated" Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks (whatever you mean by that), that means he didn't do it?

If there is not enough proof to convince the FBI, I have no reason to believe that he was connected in anyway directly. What proof do you have that escaped the FBI?

 

[RightinNYC]

Deport them to their native country, it seems. However, I am under the impression that while they are claiming that the trials (as opposed to tribunals) are a matter of staying true to our values, they seem to be more a matter of a political expose given sufficient strength of evidence, as tribunals are also being used. Any jury is going to be biased against a terrorist suspect. So I find them not convicting to be pretty unlikely. Knowing juries, they'd probably convict on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

But what if they do? You think we should/would just deport them back to their native countries?

I don't think there is a chance in hell of that happening. I do not think the Justice department would have brought them to trial if that were a possibility.

It's always a possibility in trials. Again, what do you think we should/would do if that were to happen?

If there is not enough proof to convince the FBI, I have no reason to believe that he was connected in anyway directly. What proof do you have that escaped the FBI?

You're kidding, right?

I don't know what you're referring to when you say "the FBI never implicated Bin Laden," as that doesn't mean anything in particular. There is no official "implication" process by which an individual magically becomes responsible for a crime. Furthermore, the FBI is not the supreme arbiter of who did what - there are other governmental agencies that handle things like this. If you would like to hear what those other agencies think, you can feel free to check out the 9/11 Commission report or even your friendly local google. Finally, if that still isn't enough to convince you, I would suggest that you check out our Conspiracy Theories forum to chat with like-minded individuals.

 

[Polynikes]

Neither was it founded by stupidity, and it will not be preserved by it either.

So you agree then that is immoral to take a Predator drone shot should we have Bin Laden or other high profile terrorists in the sights?

I mean, they haven't been proven guilty in a court of law of anything right?

The problem has been that the Predator drone has killed innocent civilians and not Bin Laden. That and our other methods we have killed innocent civilians is why we have created more terrorists world wide than we have killed.


Question not answered. Please provide links showing we have created more terrorists than killed?

Heres another, if we have Osama Bin Laden in our sights, but we must kill 5 innocent civilans, should we take the shot?

I love how people say 'we must take the moral high ground to avoid being like the terrorists' Last time I checked we didn't hijack 4 airliners and use them as guided missiles.

No, we bombed electrical and water treatment plants that civilians depended on which resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, over 30 times the number killed here on 9/11.

Strawman. Bringing the Iraq war in to a discussion on the War on Terror and the war against Al-Qaeda isn’t relative.

Executing terrorists isn't succumbing to their level, it's a necessary step in ridding the world of evil.

Executing terrorists after a fair trial and not killing innocent civilians is how we distinguish ourselves morally from the terrorists.

Again, they declared war against the United States, they are not entitled to fair trials. We don’t PURPOSELY kill innocent civilians THAT is how we distinguish ourselves

Evil is not culturally relative. I am not religious whatsoever, I believe though that there are people who do not deserve to live.

I am not religious either yet still believe in morals. I do not believe the terrorists or those that support the war on terror that the ends justify the means.

Not sure what you mean in the 2nd sentence. So we shouldn’t go after terrorists because we are just creating a never ending cycle of creating more terrorists?

You might have forgotten Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States. That alone is grounds for his execution, the execution of anyone who swears allegiance to him, and anyone who supports him.

Than go after Bin Laden, not countries that never attacked us. Although it should be noted that the FBI has never implicated Bin Laden in the 9/11 attack.

We are going after Bin Laden, again, please leave Iraq out of this discussion. If you are referring to Afghanistan, the Taliban, which was the governing body of Afghanistan when we were attacked on September 11th, harbored Bin Laden and refused to give him up. Bin Laden doesn’t need to be implicated in the 9/11 attack, he was for the Embassies in Africa. KSM was implicated in the 9/11 attack, and he is a member of Al-Qaeda, founded by Osama Bin Laden.

Anyone who picks up arms against the United States with the intent of killing civilians or military personnel should be killed. Period.

Even if they are defending their country from our occupation?

AGAIN, how is Iraq relevant to this discussion? If you were referring to Afghanistan by that comment, I hope you are joking.

It is not so much a question of immorality, as it is of cowardice.

It is not a matter of cowardice, it is a matter of doing what is productive.

This republic was not founded by cowards, and it will not be preserved by them either

PLEASE do not reply by not quoting and adding colored inserts instead. It makes replies very difficult and time consuming, not to mention confusing to others attempting to pick up on the discussion on a latter page.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

But what if they do? You think we should/would just deport them back to their native countries?

Well it's not like they're the only ones willing to blow themselves up or plan attacks, so I'm not sure if it matters. I actually do wonder if the net effect upon our security would be negative. It is America's unilateral and biased way of dealing with perceived foreign threats that generates some (but certainly not all) of the animosity towards us. So while we may be releasing one potentially dangerous person, we could be reducing radicalism overall. The social movement of muslim extremism is not necessarily reduced by us killing more of them, particularly in ways that would be considered unfair like a sham trial (tribunal).

 

[RightinNYC]

Well it's not like they're the only ones willing to blow themselves up or plan attacks, so I'm not sure if it matters.

Yes, but they're fairly important to their organization - KSM planned 9/11.

It is America's unilateral and biased way of dealing with perceived foreign threats that generates some (but certainly not all) of the animosity towards us.

And what does our foreign policy in the ME (the reason for that animosity) have to do with whether we try terrorists in a military tribunal or civilian court? Do you think that animosity would fade if we gave everyone at gitmo civilian trials as opposed to hearings before military tribunals?

So while we may be releasing one potentially dangerous person, we could be reducing radicalism overall.

Using your logic, there's no reason to hold any terrorist, as we could reduce terrorism by just letting them all go.

The social movement of muslim extremism is not necessarily reduced by us killing more of them, particularly in ways that would be considered unfair like a sham trial (tribunal).

And you think that the average Islamic extremist will view this trial as any less of a sham than a hearing before a military tribunal?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Yes, but they're fairly important to their organization - KSM planned 9/11.

So you think he has some kind of special insights and abilities that nobody else can offer?

And what does our foreign policy in the ME (the reason for that animosity) have to do with whether we try terrorists in a military tribunal or civilian court? Do you think that animosity would fade if we gave everyone at gitmo civilian trials as opposed to hearings before military tribunals?

I think it's a matter of weighing grains of rice on separate scales. Some will never stop hating us, some will stop hating us if we stop supporting Israel, some will stop hating us if we withdraw from the middle east, some will stop hating us if we stop acting like total hypocrites where we say we are all about justice and freedom and yet we give people sham trials. Then there are those between moderate and radical Islam, who cannot decide what to think of America. Where would sham trials push them?

Using your logic, there's no reason to hold any terrorist, as we could reduce terrorism by just letting them all go.

No, the implication is that they should get as fair a trial as possible and that this should be as obvious as possible. I would even go so far as to make half the jury American Muslims.

And you think that the average Islamic extremist will view this trial as any less of a sham than a hearing before a military tribunal?

I'm more interested in those in the middle of the spectrum, neither fully extremist nor fully moderate, as those are the ones most likely to be persuaded. Politics 101.

 

[Polynikes]

So you think he has some kind of special insights and abilities that nobody else can offer?

Yes, that is what made him a high value target. His intellect and organizational skills combined with his ability to plan complex attacks.

Do you think Obama has special insights and abilities that nobody else can offer? How about Michael Jordan, or Bill Gates?

Maybe not NOBODY, but VERY few people.

 

[Catawba]

It's always a possibility in trials. Again, what do you think we should/would do if that were to happen?

Immediately arrest them on other charges they have against them.

You're kidding, right?

Not at all.

I don't know what you're referring to when you say "the FBI never implicated Bin Laden," as that doesn't mean anything in particular. There is no official "implication" process by which an individual magically becomes responsible for a crime. Furthermore, the FBI is not the supreme arbiter of who did what - there are other governmental agencies that handle things like this. If you would like to hear what those other agencies think, you can feel free to check out the 9/11 Commission report or even your friendly local google. Finally, if that still isn't enough to convince you, I would suggest that you check out our Conspiracy Theories forum to chat with like-minded individuals.

The FBI has charges against Bin Laden for several crimes but 9/11 is not one of them.

 

[Catawba]

So you agree then that is immoral to take a Predator drone shot should we have Bin Laden or other high profile terrorists in the sights?

I mean, they haven't been proven guilty in a court of law of anything right?

Excellent point.

The problem has been that the Predator drone has killed innocent civilians and not Bin Laden. That and our other methods we have killed innocent civilians is why we have created more terrorists world wide than we have killed.


Question not answered. Please provide links showing we have created more terrorists than killed?

See the Rand Report to the Pentagon where they determined the war on terror was a failure.

Heres another, if we have Osama Bin Laden in our sights, but we must kill 5 innocent civilans, should we take the shot?

Only if we consider ourselves no better than the terrorists.

I love how people say 'we must take the moral high ground to avoid being like the terrorists' Last time I checked we didn't hijack 4 airliners and use them as guided missiles.

No, we bombed electrical and water treatment plants that civilians depended on which resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, over 30 times the number killed here on 9/11.

Strawman. Bringing the Iraq war in to a discussion on the War on Terror and the war against Al-Qaeda isn’t relative.

Oh our killing 30 times more innocent civilians is not relevant? Why is that?
It was relevant to increasing the size of our enemies ranks, that makes it relevant does it not?

Executing terrorists isn't succumbing to their level, it's a necessary step in ridding the world of evil.

Terrorists that have been found guilty yes, not some pure scmuck defending his country from occupation, or an innocent civilian.

We have probably killed more innocent civilians in these wars than actual terrorists. That is the immoral aspect of these wars against countries that never attacked us.

Executing terrorists after a fair trial and not killing innocent civilians is how we distinguish ourselves morally from the terrorists.

Again, they declared war against the United States, they are not entitled to fair trials. We don’t PURPOSELY kill innocent civilians THAT is how we distinguish ourselves

We knowingly struck targets that citizens depended on for drinking water, and do not forget that the US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons on civilian populations. So don't tell me we do not purposely kill innocent civilians.

Evil is not culturally relative. I am not religious whatsoever, I believe though that there are people who do not deserve to live.

I am not religious either yet still believe in morals. I do not believe the terrorists or those that support the war on terror that the ends justify the means.

Not sure what you mean in the 2nd sentence. So we shouldn’t go after terrorists because we are just creating a never ending cycle of creating more terrorists?

No we should have the police and intelligence community and political organizations take care of investigating and prosecuting the crimes and the offenders. As the Rand Report recommends, "there should be very light military footprint, or none at all."

You might have forgotten Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States. That alone is grounds for his execution, the execution of anyone who swears allegiance to him, and anyone who supports him.

Then execute him. Don't keep killing innocent civilians that simply creates more terrorists.

We are going after Bin Laden, again, please leave Iraq out of this discussion.

If we had left Iraq out of our war on terror, than we could leave it out of the discussion. The thing is that is where the predominant amount of our resources have gone for the last couple of decades. And it is where we killed 30 times the number of innocent civilians killed on 9/11.

Who should be brought to justice for that crime against humanity???

If you are referring to Afghanistan, the Taliban, which was the governing body of Afghanistan when we were attacked on September 11th, harbored Bin Laden and refused to give him up. Bin Laden doesn’t need to be implicated in the 9/11 attack, he was for the Embassies in Africa. KSM was implicated in the 9/11 attack, and he is a member of Al-Qaeda, founded by Osama Bin Laden.

We helped train and provided support to the Taliban, just as we supported Saddam Hussein when he was at his murderous worst. The Taliban are simply Afghanis who have more to lose from our military occupation than they do from the al Qaeda's presence.

We have created our enemies. We have elevated the al Qaeda from a small rag tag band of Islamic extremists to a worldwide network bent on attacking Satan's minion which is how they see our invasions and occupations where we have killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Anyone who picks up arms against the United States with the intent of killing civilians or military personnel should be killed. Period.

Even if they are defending their country from our occupation?

AGAIN, how is Iraq relevant to this discussion? If you were referring to Afghanistan by that comment, I hope you are joking.

You think the Afghanis have no desire to protect their homeland from foreign invaders? Then you do not know human nature very well.

It is not so much a question of immorality, as it is of cowardice.

It is not a matter of cowardice, it is a matter of doing what is productive.

This republic was not founded by cowards, and it will not be preserved by them either

As mentioned before, neither was it founded on stupidity, and it will not be preserved by it either.

 

[Polynikes]

As mentioned before, neither was it founded on stupidity, and it will not be preserved by it either.

Do you realize how annoying and inconvenient it is to try and reply to one of your posts when you play this color game? I do not have time to go through, cut and paste your quotes and mine and then rework the color scheme today.

 

[RightinNYC]

So you think he has some kind of special insights and abilities that nobody else can offer?

No, I think he's a high ranking official who demonstrated his ability to plan an attack that killed 3,000 people and who should not be released under any circumstances. I think it's absolutely absurd to say "oh, well there could be other terrorists, so who cares about this guy?"

If somebody from Apple is going to get killed in a car crash, does it matter whether the victim is a janitor or Steve Jobs? Of course.

I think it's a matter of weighing grains of rice on separate scales. Some will never stop hating us, some will stop hating us if we stop supporting Israel, some will stop hating us if we withdraw from the middle east, some will stop hating us if we stop acting like total hypocrites where we say we are all about justice and freedom and yet we give people sham trials. Then there are those between moderate and radical Islam, who cannot decide what to think of America. Where would sham trials push them?

And I don't think there's even a shred of evidence to support your argument. Islamic extremists don't give a **** about our justice system. They're angry about our actions in the ME.

No, the implication is that they should get as fair a trial as possible and that this should be as obvious as possible. I would even go so far as to make half the jury American Muslims.

lol. So you say that they should get treated like everyone else, then you would completely subvert the rule of law in order to give them a special jury? Where are you coming up with this ****?

I'm more interested in those in the middle of the spectrum, neither fully extremist nor fully moderate, as those are the ones most likely to be persuaded. Politics 101.

And I submit that very few of those people will be swayed either way by this.

Immediately arrest them on other charges they have against them.

What "other charges"? Presumably if they're being prosecuted, we're going to bring all available charges.

Not at all.

The FBI has charges against Bin Laden for several crimes but 9/11 is not one of them.

Again, I don't know what you think that means. The FBI does not "bring charges."

If you're going to spout off some conspiracy theory bull****, at least figure out the quote feature so as to make it easier for others to express their incredulity at your beliefs.

 

[Catawba]

What "other charges"? Presumably if they're being prosecuted, we're going to bring all available charges.

Again, I don't know what you think that means. The FBI does not "bring charges."

How do you know there would be not be charges that would not be brought forth initially?

Bin Laden in on the FBI's most wanted list for the following actions -
"MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH."
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden

 

[RightinNYC]

How do you know there would be not be charges that would not be brought forth initially?

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Bin Laden in on the FBI's most wanted list for the following actions -
"MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH."
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden

I have no idea what you think this proves.

 

[Ethereal]

Neither was it founded by stupidity, and it will not be preserved by it either.

Then you better stop talking.

 

[Catawba]

Then you better stop talking.

Insult noted. If you think of an on-topic response please feel free to share it.

 

[Catawba]

I have no idea what you think this proves.

What is says, that the 9/11 attack is not one of the things Bin Laden is wanted for by the FBI, which was my claim.

 

[Ethereal]

Insult noted. If you think of an on-topic response please feel free to share it.

Okay. What is your legal rationale for trying KSM in the criminal justice system?

 

[katiegrrl0]

Is America at war, or not?



This idiocy shows in graphic reality how much of a foolish amateur Obama is and how he is once again using what I have recently decided is one of his favorite tactics because it's easy to use in pulling the wool over the eyes of his already blind followers. That tactic is double speak and in this case I believe Obam's goal is to have either the accused or their lawyers turn these trials into indictments of the Bush administration and expose the entire security and intelligence apparatus to public scrutiny.
Obama has said he didn't want this and this is his way of getting it done anyway with the built in excuse, "We never thought something like this could ever happen."

Another problem openly being talked about and rightly so is this is putting the lives of the Judges and jurors at stake but Obama is more interested in his hate for Bush, Chaney, and America than he is in justice.

Another case of double speak is, he claims to be putting them on trial for justice but he knows in giving them rights they are not entitled to, they could walk for a number of technicalities.

Obama will happily allow these terrorists to go free on technicalities because he doesn't want to have to pardon them to appease his Muslim brothers if they had been sentenced to death at GITMO.

One of the most disturbing aspects of all this is the people who claim to be good Americans that don't have the good sense God gave to a dead rock and so they support anything Obama tells them is true no matter how many times he's caught in lies. The count is up to 158 documented ones so far.

Never forget these words of Obama from his Book Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

An old adage says the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. Obama disciples are proving it true.

no you are not at war. you are in the process of invading two different countries. that is not war. it is the US that should be on trial before the world.