• 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!

Secret Joint Raid Captures Taliban’s Top Commander

Oh groan. Boy I wish you would do the smallest bit of research before posting this tired liberal argument.

We had not received the Supreme Court's ruling when the 20th hijacker and Richard Reed were charged. We have that ability now under the law to use military tribunals for enemy combatants. :roll:




So is your severe understanding and knowledge of basic history.

I call BS on that statement. Since the very beginning, the Bush administration was using Gitmo to house what was termed "unlawful combatants". It was the Bush administration's DECISION to try Reid in a civilian court.

Reid's case has recaptured the spotlight following the failed bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day and the debate over the Obama administration's decision to try the Nigerian suspect in the case, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal.


Supporters of that policy have pointed to the Bush administration's DECISION to try Reid in a federal court, where he pleaded guilty in 2003 to trying to blow up a jumbo jet in late 2001 with explosives in his shoes.

From this article.
 
Most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan, and supported the war on terror.

Patriot Act? Electronic surveillance? Company record access? Gitmo? Enemy Combatants held without rights?

Please, your memory failures quite amusing.:roll:
 
I call BS on that statement. Since the very beginning, the Bush administration was using Gitmo to house what was termed "unlawful combatants". It was the Bush administration's DECISION to try Reid in a civilian court.

Gitmo housing those captured abroad by our military or other nations, Reid arrested by civilian authorities and charged in two days with "interfering with the performance of duties of flight crew members by assault or intimidation."

All of this deflects from the fact that Obama doesn't have a clue as to what to do. Again, to take this case isolated from his ending the military commissions ongoing at Gitmo and breaking his promise to close that facility is telling.
 
I call BS on that statement. Since the very beginning, the Bush administration was using Gitmo to house what was termed "unlawful combatants". It was the Bush administration's DECISION to try Reid in a civilian court.

WRONG. The supreme court had not even heard the case yet. Bush housed them before the decisions were made and Mousowi was in the US as was Reid so it was not like the terrorists captured on the battlefield that Bush put in Gitmo.

And Reid plead guilty in case you forgot.
 
I call BS on that statement. … It was the Bush administration's DECISION to try Reid in a civilian court. …

To follow-up on this point, with a quote from the recent Cheney interview regarding processing Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, through the civilian system of justice.

Excerpted from “'This Week' Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney,” transcript, ABC News, Feb. 14, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]K[/SIZE]ARL: But you still had an option to put him into military custody.

CHENEY: Well, we could have put him into military custody. I don't -- I don't question that. The point is, in this particular case, all of that was never worked out, primarily because he pled guilty.

It should be pointed out, too, that Richard Reed only plead guilty in October, 2002, ten months after he was arrested in December, 2001.¹

All these smoke screens about Supreme Court decisions and Reed pleading guilty is just avoiding the point that the Bush administration consistently used the civilian justice system for people arrested on American soil.
 
WRONG. The supreme court had not even heard the case yet. Bush housed them before the decisions were made and Mousowi was in the US as was Reid so it was not like the terrorists captured on the battlefield that Bush put in Gitmo.

And Reid plead guilty in case you forgot.

It is you who is wrong. Bush had the option of putting both in military custody, long before the Supreme Court decision.
 
Last edited:
Patriot Act? Electronic surveillance? Company record access? Gitmo? Enemy Combatants held without rights?

Please, your memory failures quite amusing.:roll:

The Patriot Act passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66), including 145 Yea votes by Democrats.¹

It passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1) with only Senator Feingold voting against it.²

So much for your memory. :roll:
 
Oh groan. Boy I wish you would do the smallest bit of research before posting this tired liberal argument.

We had not received the Supreme Court's ruling when the 20th hijacker and Richard Reed were charged. We have that ability now under the law to use military tribunals for enemy combatants. :roll:
Which supreme court ruling was that? Name the case. The Bush administration had ample time to set up the tribunals before trying the 20th hijacker and Richard Reid. The supreme court didnt reject the tribunals until 2006 in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Bush gave the military order on Nov 13 2001 to set up the tribunals. Moussaoui was indicted on December 11th 2001 and convicted in 2006 Reid was tried in October of 2002 and convicted in January of 2003. The Bush administration had ample time to try both in tribunals but decided to try them in Civilian courts.
 
Gitmo housing those captured abroad by our military or other nations, Reid arrested by civilian authorities and charged in two days with "interfering with the performance of duties of flight crew members by assault or intimidation."

All of this deflects from the fact that Obama doesn't have a clue as to what to do. Again, to take this case isolated from his ending the military commissions ongoing at Gitmo and breaking his promise to close that facility is telling.
KSM was captured by Pakistani intelligence in his Apartment. The military commissions were put on hold already after the supreme court once again found them inadequate in Boumediene v Bush. Since 2007 3 cases were tried in the tribunals. 1 guy got 9 months and was deported to Australia to serve. The other two cases were dismissed pending revisions in the tribunals.
 
KSM was captured by Pakistani intelligence in his Apartment.

Guess that's why I started the post you just responded to with:"Gitmo housing those captured abroad by our military or other nations"

The military commissions were put on hold already after the supreme court once again found them inadequate in Boumediene v Bush. Since 2007 3 cases were tried in the tribunals. 1 guy got 9 months and was deported to Australia to serve. The other two cases were dismissed pending revisions in the tribunals.

Obama suspends military commissions, may close Guantanamo

On his first day at the new job, President Barack Obama intervened in the trials of Guantanamo detainees -- accused members of al Qaeda -- suspending the use of controversial military commissions until at least May. The new president's team is also, reportedly, preparing an order to close the much-criticized detention center at Guantanamo Bay. If Obama follows through on both counts, it would be a major step toward fulfilling a key civil liberties promise of his campaign.

But then...in his typical flip flop weak spined manner:

Obama resurrects military trials for terror suspects - CNN.com

"These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law," Obama said.

A ping pong President, like watching a tennis match, your neck gets sore as he policies bounce all over the court.
 
Moussaoui was indicted on December 11th 2001 and convicted in 2006 Reid was tried in October of 2002 and convicted in January of 2003. The Bush administration had ample time to try both in tribunals but decided to try them in Civilian courts.

Ample time? This the same people arguing one year wasn't enough for Obama to decide fate of Gitmo detainees.

Oh, the hypocrisy full score now huh?:rofl
 
Ample time? This the same people arguing one year wasn't enough for Obama to decide fate of Gitmo detainees.

Oh, the hypocrisy full score now huh?:rofl

"In an exhaustive study of terrorism prosecutions conducted by two former federal prosecutors for Human Rights First, the outcome of cases brought against 257 individuals charged in U.S. courts with a wide range of terrorism offenses was clear: They were convicted and put away, many of them for life. Of the 160 defendants whose cases were finished between Sept.12, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2007, the overwhelming majority—90 percent—were found guilty. Only about 9 percent of the cases were dismissed or ended in acquittal. The study, released last year, didn’t include in its count the most successful terrorism prosecutions of all: the far-reaching cases that federal prosecutors in New York won during the 1990s.

In a series of spectacular trials, prosecutors convicted those charged in the first World Trade Center bombing and more. They put away terrorists who plotted to simultaneously blow up several U.S. jetliners flying over the Pacific. They broke up a sophisticated terrorist cell that had intended to unleash a day of horror in New York by bombing the United Nations building, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and the main federal office building in Manhattan. In a trial that took place just before the 9/11 attacks, the government also convicted the conspirators who carried out the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. "


From this article.
 
Ample time? This the same people arguing one year wasn't enough for Obama to decide fate of Gitmo detainees.

Oh, the hypocrisy full score now huh?:rofl
Those werent the only terrorist prosecuted in Civilian courts during the Bush administration just the most visible. Theres a difference prosecuting several people at a time and hundreds of people some of whom you dont have enough to hold them on in the first place. When the government closed down Abu Ghraib and set many of the prisoners free they found out their record keeping system was a mess there. They had people they didnt know who they were or why they were even there.
 
The article mentions he is being held and interrogated by Pakistani intelligence, who have a reputation for world class torture. If you really believe the best intelligence is obtained through torture, you should be delighted.

I didn't say anything about torture, did I? If they can extract actionable intel using other methods then that's perfectly fine with me; I'm just not going to take the torture option off the table; if they can save even one American life by torturing that worm then I'm all for it. That warlord knew what he was getting himself into when he went to war with us. He would have no qualms about torturing you or anyone you love if it meant gaining an advantage over America; he has wantonly disregard the laws of war, which means he is not entitled to their protection.
 
"In an exhaustive study of terrorism prosecutions conducted by two former federal prosecutors for Human Rights First, the outcome of cases brought against 257 individuals charged in U.S. courts with a wide range of terrorism offenses was clear.

Timmy McVeigh one of these 257 individuals and my first example shows why this argument is irrelevant. Not captured abroad by our military, many were probably US citizens who do belong in civilian courts.

We are speaking about non US citizens not afforded rights captured by our military or obviously having information vital to US national interests.

And it's interesting you'd speak to the 257...and not acknowledge the KSM trial being considered in the US. This decison to try this Cat in civilian court comes directly after Obama's decision to suspend military tribunals, comes after his broken promise at Gitmo leaving these detainee's fates undecided, and comes after he's suggested we give KSM a civilan trial.

And then to think Obama also decided to send some of these detainees to military commissions while giving KSM civilian trials proves he's winging it.

Why not simply admit it, D? This was a class A bone up. This man should have been interogated immediately and by trained interrogators, not mirandized like a common criminal. The excuse making for this inept comander in Chief isn't necessary nor sound.
 
Last edited:
Timmy McVeigh one of these 257 individuals and my first example shows why this argument is irrelevant. Not captured abroad by our military, many were probably US citizens who do belong in civilian courts.

We are speaking about non US citizens not afforded rights captured by our military or obviously having information vital to US national interests.

And it's interesting you'd speak to the 257...and not acknowledge the KSM trial being considered in the US. This decison to try this Cat in civilian court comes directly after Obama's decision to suspend military tribunals, comes after his broken promise at Gitmo leaving these detainee's fates undecided, and comes after he's suggested we give KSM a civilan trial.

And then to think Obama also decided to send some of these detainees to military commissions while giving KSM civilian trials proves he's winging it.

Why not simply admit it, D? This was a class A bone up. This man should have been interogated immediately and by trained interrogators, not mirandized like a common criminal. The excuse making for this inept comander in Chief isn't necessary nor sound.

No many were not us citizens. We have over a hundred international terrorists in our jails. Many of those that were going to be tried in civilian courts were captured overseas not by the military and not on the battleground. Keep moving those goalposts none of this is unprecedented as you claim.
 
No many were not us citizens. We have over a hundred international terrorists in our jails. Many of those that were going to be tried in civilian courts were captured overseas not by the military and not on the battleground. Keep moving those goalposts none of this is unprecedented as you claim.

You're being disingenuous again. Many are US citizens. The international "terrorists" you speak to are not engaged in a current and deadly ongoing jihad.

Military Tribunals are set up and operational. President Obama.....blew this incident. This Cat should not have been mirandized and given a lawyer P and we both know it.

This man isn't being interrogated in a vacuum, the "terrorists" you name above aren't jihadists, do not have information we need to keep troops or agents alive. And it's all happening under the umbrella of this idiotic idea to have civilian trials for the worst of the worst while sending others to military tribunals.
 
Pogue, what is your suggestion for this Talian Commander?
 
Which supreme court ruling was that? Name the case. The Bush administration had ample time to set up the tribunals before trying the 20th hijacker and Richard Reid.

Your lack of knowledge is showing again. Once Bush made the executive order it was in court until 2006. He couldn't use it :roll:

The supreme court didnt reject the tribunals until 2006 in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Bush gave the military order on Nov 13 2001 to set up the tribunals.

And you somehow can't connect the dots that he couldn't use it because it was going through the court system?

Moussaoui was indicted on December 11th 2001 and convicted in 2006 Reid was tried in October of 2002 and convicted in January of 2003. The Bush administration had ample time to try both in tribunals but decided to try them in Civilian courts.

Once again you fail to understand the history or how the court system works.

Do you even know it was the Senate AFTER the 2006 court case that legalized military tribunals?

No one was even tried in a military tribunal until the summer of 08. History is your friend.
 
Last edited:
That's good news! :applaud

That's awesome news!

Go U.S.A!!!

I really wanted to react like these two when I saw it, and those are my general feelings. However I mostly just feel sick to my stomach and disgusted with politics in this country reading Tex, Haz, Will, and American's bloviating hyper partisanship when it comes to this entire thing.

Shh, don't concentrate on the efforts made by actual hardworking men and women of this country to get this guy. We need to argue about whether it was great by Obama or in spite of Obama.
 
Good Catch!

Now, squeeze him for some intel, then give a double tap to the head and let's get on with destroying the enemy's ability to wage war.
 
Good Catch!

Now, squeeze him for some intel, then give a double tap to the head and let's get on with destroying the enemy's ability to wage war.

I can't believe I actually agree with apdst.

FML
 
Timmy McVeigh one of these 257 individuals and my first example shows why this argument is irrelevant. Not captured abroad by our military, many were probably US citizens who do belong in civilian courts.

We are speaking about non US citizens not afforded rights captured by our military or obviously having information vital to US national interests.

And it's interesting you'd speak to the 257...and not acknowledge the KSM trial being considered in the US. This decison to try this Cat in civilian court comes directly after Obama's decision to suspend military tribunals, comes after his broken promise at Gitmo leaving these detainee's fates undecided, and comes after he's suggested we give KSM a civilan trial.

And then to think Obama also decided to send some of these detainees to military commissions while giving KSM civilian trials proves he's winging it.

Why not simply admit it, D? This was a class A bone up. This man should have been interogated immediately and by trained interrogators, not mirandized like a common criminal. The excuse making for this inept comander in Chief isn't necessary nor sound.

Everyone has rights. The US Constitution does not exclusively apply to citizens. Courts have repeatedly upheld that these are rules the US government must abide by, period.

On the battlefield you get to shoot people. Once they're in custody you have rules that must be followed.
 
Back
Top Bottom