• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind

Catawba said:
The case you referred to was in 1942.
Click to expand...

And it's still good law. So good, in fact, that the Obama Administration has relied on it repeatedly in asserting its authority to detain suspected terrorists.

I thought you were going to link to a current challenge by the Supreme court over the Justice Dept's current plans to try the terrorists.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

As far as being an enemy combatant. That is simply a term used incorrectly by the previous administration.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The concept of an unlawful or enemy combatant has existed for well over a century. The exact term "unlawful combatant" has been accepted since the 40's.

As I showed before, that misnomer is not being applied by the current administration ~

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a dramatic break with the Bush administration, the Justice Department on Friday announced it is doing away with the designation of "enemy combatant," which allowed the United States to hold suspected terrorists at length without criminal charges."
U.S. reverses policy, drops 'enemy combatant' term - CNN.com
Click to expand...

lol. The fact that Obama is no longer using the explicit term "unlawful combatants" doesn't change the fact that he has reasserted the underlying principle. Again, read the In Re Gitmo Detainee Litigation filing above.
 
Catawba said:
From your link ~ "'Guantanamo's evil twin'

However, Clara Gutteridge, an investigator of secret prisons and renditions from the human rights organisation, Reprieve, said Bagram is seen as "Guantanamo's lesser-known evil twin".

That is what you call a legitimate solution? :rofl
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood his point.
 
RightinNYC said:
What are you talking about?

What I am talking about is there is no current Supreme Court decision or plans for one to stop the Justice Dept from trying the terrorists in federal court.



Wrong again. The concept of an unlawful or enemy combatant has existed for well over a century. The exact term "unlawful combatant" has been accepted since the 40's.

And who determines who is an enemy combatant?

lol. The fact that Obama is no longer using the explicit term "unlawful combatants" doesn't change the fact that he has reasserted the underlying principle. Again, read the In Re Gitmo Detainee Litigation filing above.
Click to expand...

I agree with the human rights organizations on that one, that they should not be held indefinitely without a trial.
 
Please use the quote feature.

Catawba said:
What I am talking about is there is no current Supreme Court decision or plans for one to stop the Justice Dept from trying the terrorists in federal court.
Click to expand...

And where did I say there was or should be? Oy vey. If you don't understand what I'm saying, don't make assumptions.

And who determines who is an enemy combatant?
Click to expand...

The executive, pursuant to his Art. II powers.

I agree with the human rights organizations on that one, that they should not be held indefinitely without a trial.
Click to expand...

And the Obama administration, following long-standing precedent, disagrees with you.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
what was wrong with the military tribunals?
Click to expand...

You mean aside from the fact that only 3 have been tried in 8 years?

"A close look at Quirin reveals a process and a decision with so many deficiencies that it should be remembered as a precedent not worthrepeating. The same conclusion applies to the record of other U.S. mili-tary commissions over the past two centuries. In addition to issues sur-rounding precedents of dubious and disturbing quality, a second fundamental question arises: are these commissions created on the basis of constitutional authority conferred upon Congress, or may they be established by drawing on “inherent” authority available to the President? If the latter, there should be concern about a President concentrating all three powers––executive, legislative, and judicial––in a single branch and opening the door to undefined, and probably indefinable, emergency powers. Allowing military commissions to operate on the exclusive authority of the President poses a challenge to basic principles of the U.S. Constitution, including the war prerogatives of Congress, separation of powers, and checks and balances. The framers believed that the rights and liberties of individuals can be best protected by structuring government in such a manner that power is not concentrated––and abused––in a single branch. In any war, including actions against terrorism, power must be vested in the federal government and executive agencies, but a democratic society requires Congress and the courts to closely monitor the exercise of authority.

I. A SYSTEM OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

The American constitutional system is founded on the principle of the separation of powers. Contrary to the willingness of some people today to defer to the government’s use of power after 9/11, the framers did not trust human nature. James Madison counseled: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”2 The framers depended on institutional structures to check power. Madison said in Federalist No. 47 that the “accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”3It was the military abuses by the King of England that drovecolonial leaders in America to seek their independence and to limit theconcentration of military power in the new republic."
MILITARY COMMISSIONS: PROBLEMS OF AUTHORITY AND PRACTICE
 
RightinNYC said:
Please use the quote feature.

It does not work on my computer.

And where did I say there was or should be? Oy vey. If you don't understand what I'm saying, don't make assumptions.

So there is no one contesting the Justice Dept on a legal basis? That was my point.

The executive, pursuant to his Art. II powers.

Exactly, the executive does not deem them to be enemy combatants as I have referenced twice now.

And the Obama administration, following long-standing precedent, disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with Obama on many things. He is far too much of a moderate on some issues. He was just better than the alternative.
 
Ethereal said:
I don't know. Let's ask Catawba...

Catawba, are you opposed to a military tribunal for terrorists?
Click to expand...

I've already answered that question. See here
 
Ethereal said:
Then you must be outraged by Holder's decision to try Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri before a military tribunal?
Click to expand...

I've already answered that too here.
 
Catawba said:
It does not work on my computer.
Click to expand...

Trust me, it does.

If you want to quote something, use the button that looks like a little speech bubble. If that doesn't work, you can type [quote ] and [/quote ] without the spaces around each thing you want to quote.

So there is no one contesting the Justice Dept on a legal basis? That was my point.
Click to expand...

Where did anyone disagree? You have a tendency to change points as the discussion evolves.

My point was that Obama has established a bifurcated (or trifurcated) system of "justice" for these detainees

If we have a surfeit of admissible evidence that will guarantee conviction, we try them in the Article III courts.

If we have a fair amount of evidence, but a significant portion of it is either inadmissible or questionable, we try them in the military tribunals.

If we have a small amount of evidence, or if all the evidence is inadmissible or questionable, we simply keep them locked up in Gitmo or Bagram.
Click to expand...

You said "Apparently not." I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why it's not.

Exactly, the executive does not deem them to be enemy combatants as I have referenced twice now.
Click to expand...

Ok.

HYPO: Let's say that you and I are playing basketball. Every time I bump into you, you call a foul. I don't like that, so I say that I don't want you to call fouls anymore. You agree, and we resume play. The next time I bump into you, you say "improper contact!" When I ask what that means, you say that it means you get two shots.

When I look at that scenario, it seems pretty obvious to me that you're still calling a foul every time I bump into you. You may see something different.

I do not agree with Obama on many things. He is far too much of a moderate on some issues. He was just better than the alternative.
Click to expand...

And that's fine. I'm just pointing out that you disagree with him on far more than you think you do.
 
Well, the choice was up to the Obama administration - to try them before a federal court judge or before a military tribunal.

We can debate where they should be tried all we want, but the former mayor of NYC, Ed Koch, a Democrat, just got through saying that it was a very unpoluplar move by the Obama administration, and that the people of New York, though mostly Democrat, are going to repudiate against the Dems at the pols come next November.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
From your link ~ "'Guantanamo's evil twin'

However, Clara Gutteridge, an investigator of secret prisons and renditions from the human rights organisation, Reprieve, said Bagram is seen as "Guantanamo's lesser-known evil twin".

That is what you call a legitimate solution? :rofl
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my point. You said Gitmo was the only thing the Right did on this subject for eight years. That statement was clearly wrong because you omitted Bagram prison from the equation. My point is that you have made a factual mistake. I then went on to attack Obama as "Bagram Obama" because he is keeping Bagram prison open.

Your post which responds to mine contains an admission against interest, i.e., that Bagram is Gitmo's evil twin. Who is responsible for people disappearing into the bowels of the overseas American penal system? Barack Obama. Who is your real enemy? Barack Obama. Now that you're properly oriented, go get him pal.
 
RightinNYC said:
Trust me, it does.

If you want to quote something, use the button that looks like a little speech bubble. If that doesn't work, you can type [quote ] and [/quote ] without the spaces around each thing you want to quote.

I've tried it on 3 different forums. I highlight the quoted text I want and hit the " button. That works if I want to quote from several different posts but when I do that with one post, I get the whole post without the quote symbols necessary for them to show up as individual paragraphs.

For your alternative suggestion, it is too much trouble to copy and paste the quote symbols for individual paragraphs. It is much easier to highlight and color.

Where did anyone disagree? You have a tendency to change points as the discussion evolves.

My point was that Obama has established a bifurcated (or trifurcated) system of "justice" for these detainees

And I prefer that to Bush's approach.

You said "Apparently not." I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why it's not.

Because the Justice Dept. is proceeding without legal challenge.

Ok.

HYPO: Let's say that you and I are playing basketball. Every time I bump into you, you call a foul. I don't like that, so I say that I don't want you to call fouls anymore. You agree, and we resume play. The next time I bump into you, you say "improper contact!" When I ask what that means, you say that it means you get two shots.

When I look at that scenario, it seems pretty obvious to me that you're still calling a foul every time I bump into you. You may see something different.

You got me there, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

And that's fine. I'm just pointing out that you disagree with him on far more than you think you do.
Click to expand...

How would you know what I think better than I do? I have never said I agree with him on everything.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
You misunderstood my point. You said Gitmo was the only thing the Right did on this subject for eight years. That statement was clearly wrong because you omitted Bagram prison from the equation. My point is that you have made a factual mistake.

I don't consider Bagram a legitimate solution, which was the context my statement was made.

I then went on to attack Obama as "Bagram Obama" because he is keeping Bagram prison open.

I agree with that.

Your post which responds to mine contains an admission against interest, i.e., that Bagram is Gitmo's evil twin. Who is responsible for people disappearing into the bowels of the overseas American penal system? Barack Obama. Who is your real enemy? Barack Obama. Now that you're properly oriented, go get him pal.
Click to expand...

I have and will continue to do so.
 
Catawba said:
And I prefer that to Bush's approach.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I'm asking why you keep saying the following:

Because the Justice Dept. is proceeding without legal challenge.
Click to expand...

Please go back and reread what you wrote.

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.


You got me there, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

If I treat the detainees like unlawful combatants, does it matter whether I call them "unlawful combatants," "nonprotected persons," or "strawberry muffins"?

How would you know what I think better than I do? I have never said I agree with him on everything.
Click to expand...

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/
 
Catawba,

The quote feature looks like this:
quote.gif


Please learn how to use it.
 
Ethereal said:
Is everyone on the planet entitled to Constitutional due process?
Click to expand...

Only if we want to decrease the recruitment capability of the terrorists which I feel should be our goal for our national security.
 
Ethereal said:
Catawba,

The quote feature looks like this:
quote.gif
Click to expand...

Yeppers it does. Please stop asking questions that have already been answered. This was addressed here.
 
Catawba said:
Only if we want to decrease the recruitment capability of the terrorists which I feel should be our goal for our national security.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom