wow the battle of the minds is right here on this blog,i am concern about a 200yars law into this modern world,and should they be tryed for each one that they kill at 911 and does the judge and lawers have to learn the muslims language too,thank you

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ B-Rob

I’m late to the party. I had finals this weekend.

When GW Bush’s Justice Department decided to prosecute Zach Moussoui in federal court, where was the con outrage about that “9/10 mentality”?

Um, Moussaoui was captured in Minnesota. Pretty much had our hands tied there, huh?

Walker Lindh

American citizen, hands tied.

Jose Padilla?

Born in Brooklyn, hands tied. I have no idea who Farris is.

One last thing:

The lack of introspection here, combined with the groupthink and regurgitation of Newsmax talking points, show exactly why the conservative movement is dying.

From Gallup dated October 26, 2009.
~Snip~

Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either “very conservative” or “conservative.” Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves “moderate,” while the percentage calling themselves “very liberal” or “liberal” has consistently registered between 20% and 21% — making liberals the smallest of the three groups.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Chicago billy-bob: 1) None of you are able to distinguish the conservative response to Obama trying al Queda members in federal court from Bush’s decisions to do the same thing. There are two reasons this is important

a) it shows the intellectual dishonesty of the conservative side in opposing Obama; and

b) it shows that the opposition is, at root, political.

You mean political opposition like refusing to support the Iraq surge, yet applauding widely at Obama’s half hearted Afghan surge #1, and dilly dallying on the requested surge #2? Or keeping the FISA/wiretaps in place? Or like not withdrawing from Iraq and honoring the SOFA in place between Iraq and the Bush admin instead of fulfilling his BS promises?

Or maybe that political opposition of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to whining about Gitmo and indefinition detention… ahem… and remaing moot on Bagram?

Yeah… you got real moral high ground here, billy-bob.

Your sweeping assumption that Hamdan delegitimizes all military commissions is nothing short of unbelievable. While in fact it did ding a monster hole in the MCA, nowhere in the syllabus did the SCOTUS nullify the military commission as a method of dealing with those detained in a time of war. It merely applied to Hamdan, an American citizen (unlike the non-citizen cockroaches you grant the lofty status of being human beings), the relief to contest charges he was an enemy combatant.

The failure to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s rejection of Bush’s position on executive power resonates here is troubling. When I see posts that say “terrorists have no rights”, I am seeing the rantings of people who are woefully ignorant about the plain language of the Constitution. There is a REASON Obama cannot arrest and execute Glenn Beck simply because Obama labels him “terrorist”. Yet I have seen rantings on this board that shows it is the preferred approach for these “terrorists”.

Shall I remind you that everyone here is quite aware that Obama cannot simply arrest American citizen (that pesky due process 14th Amendment language again) Beck within our Constitutional boundaries. Not that I don’t bet he wishes he could. However again you compare apples to an orange crate when you equate rights of terrorists who are not citizens, and are captured on battlefields, with the Constitutional rights of a US born or naturalized citizen.

And you call us “woefully ignorant”? Chutzpah

You argue your points well enough, billy-bob. Must be all that trial lawyer experience. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that you start from a Constitutionally flawed, and delusional foundation, that the Constitution is rights granted world wide, regardless of citizenship. Wrong… and not Hamdan, Hamdi nor Boumediene even hinted at this, or the illegality of tribunals in general.

Of course, were your delusional interpretation of the Constitution true, the US would not need the Geneva Convention, and never would tribunals been held in past conflicts. Apparently you, a “living Constitution” type with nary a conscience about mutilating the ideals of that document, are on board with that. Repulsive.

However you’re a far cry from a strict constructionist which, of course, makes me dismiss you as quickly as a fly on a screen in summer.

And speaking of that attorney status, @I mentioned above:

Look up the due process amendment text, as I quoted for you on the Cry Havoc thread. Nor is Beck engaging in an armed conflict. Likening the two requires, if I may borrow the SOS phrase, a willing suspension of disbelief. See Hamdi for confirmation that enemy combatant status requires the individual is who ” ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States’ “. If you confuse free speech with an enemy combatant engaging in armed conflict, I hope to God you aren’t an attorney.

You then reveal:

Me . . . I’m just a simple attorney with a degree from a certain law school on the South Side of Chicago, practicing management side litigation.

Small wonder our court system is FUBAR…. I repeat, public education (or even private higher learning Ivy league) ain’t what it used to be.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Did anyone cover this earlier? From HuffPo:

Daniel Pearl’s Family Disagrees WIth NYC Trial For Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The mother and father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl are disappointed with the federal government’s decision to try Pearl’s professed killer and Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, according to The Hill.

Pearl’s father, Judea Pearl, told the New York Post that the Justice Department’s decision made him “sick to the stomach.”

The foundation started by Pearl’s parents, Ruth and Judea Pearl, released a statement to The Hill Saturday night, explaining their disappointment. The Hill:

We are respectful of the legal process, but believe that giving confessed terrorists a worldwide platform to publicize their ideology sends the wrong message to potential terrorists…

The Pearl family is not the first to object to the federal trial for Guantanamo detainees. The Washington Post has written that a public trial could be the “perfect arena” for smug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s huge ego. And that a trial for the “9/11 mastermind” could provide him with “the attention he craves.”

Pearl was beheaded in 2002, after he was kidnapped in Pakistan. He left behind a wife, Mariane, and young son, Adam Daniel, who was born three months after Pearl’s murder. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to killing Pearl in 2007.

And in case you missed it, the beheading video where KSM cuts the throat of Daniel Pearl:

http://www.libertyunites.us/video_daniel_pearl_beheading_video-425.html

This is the man libs want to put center stage in New York!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@B-Rob: You have demonstrated that Obama’s decision to bring KSM to New York is TOTALLY POLITICAL. And you compound this admission by claiming that WE are somehow being intellectually dishonest?

Seems to me you are describing yourself.

KSM could very well have been tried at the Military Commissions OBAMA will use at Gitmo. This decision is entirely political and if you want to lie to yourself about it that’s fine. But you are not fooling anyone else.

Go bake your cake and eat it too!

And for the real patriots out there who are really interested in the fundamentals of this issue, Rudy Giuliani, himself a former prosecutor in New York appeared on ABC’s This Week program:

Rudolph W. Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said on Sunday that the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the attacks, in a civilian court in Manhattan would unnecessarily cost millions of dollars for security, create legal advantages for the defense and symbolically deny that the United States is at war with terrorism.

“It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists and why would you want to give an advantage to the terrorists, and it poses risks for New York,” Mr. Giuliani said in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He also interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” and “Fox News Sunday.”

Mr. Giuliani argued that military trials were used for enemy combatants in previous wars and that “we wouldn’t have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii.” Allowing such trials in a civilian courtroom creates strategic opportunities, like protracted legal maneuvering and changes in venue and increases the possibility of an acquittal, he said.

“To treat this as a act like an ordinary murder that year was a mistake,” he said on “State of the Union.” “It should have been treated as an act of war.”

The decision, he said, was another example of “Barack Obama deciding we’re not at war with terrorists any more.”

“I’m concerned that we no longer believe we’re at war with Islamic terrorists when they’re at war with us,” he said. He added that the administration has been hesitant to label the Nov. 5 deadly shooting of 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., as an act of terrorism, noting that the suspect, Nidal Malik Hasan, had printed a personal business card that used an abbreviation describing himself as a “Soldier of Allah.”

“The administration has been slow to come to the conclusion that Hasan is an Islamic terrorist,” he said on “This Week.” “These are acts of war.”

If anyone needs more proof that this decision by Obama is political, keep in mind that he will use Military Tribunals for other terrorists which could just as easily, and at less risk and cost, do the same with KSM!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Howz the the viewing Obama, lying his ass off going Rob?

Hmmm. And he talks about ignoring things…

You’ll support Obama Ver-2, but we and Bush are all supporting Obama Ver-1.

C-ya.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ All –

I am going to watch my Cowboys stomp some Packer fanny, then bake a pound cake. I close with a few comments:

1) None of you are able to distinguish the conservative response to Obama trying al Queda members in federal court from Bush’s decisions to do the same thing. There are two reasons this is important

a) it shows the intellectual dishonesty of the conservative side in opposing Obama; and

b) it shows that the opposition is, at root, political.

2) There may be sound arguments against trying KSM in Manhattan in favor of, for example, Virginia or the Western District of New York. For example, because of lower death tolls in Virginia, you are less likely to have a pool that is directly tainted by the events of the day, compared to NYC. Same thing with connections of people in Buffalo versus Manhattan. But no one makes this argument, mainly because your goal is not a fair trial; you guys want no trial at all. Not going to happen, of course, because the Supreme Court has spoken and these people get their day in court.

3) The failure to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s rejection of Bush’s position on executive power resonates here is troubling. When I see posts that say “terrorists have no rights”, I am seeing the rantings of people who are woefully ignorant about the plain language of the Constitution. There is a REASON Obama cannot arrest and execute Glenn Beck simply because Obama labels him “terrorist”. Yet I have seen rantings on this board that shows it is the preferred approach for these “terrorists”. You may not like it, but our government does not have the right to detain ANYONE without due process of law — either in the Article III court system or the military justice system. This is not Argentina in the 1970s, people; this is America! If our system of checks on government abuses offends you, move to a country that has no such checks. I hear Russia works that way!

4) The desire to protect the Bush administration from a light being shone on its incompetence smacks of partisan considerations that should NOT enter into the prosecution of these people. Obama was not on duty during 9/11 or the torture decisions, so he has no ox that can be gored EXCEPT to the extent that Bushie incompetence makes it harder to convict these people and send them to Florence. Obama gains nothing by those case turning on what the Bush people f’d up. In fact, I would not be suprised if the prosecutors used NOTHING LEARNED from the post 9/11 interrogations when they move on these guys. If the tainted evidence is not used, there is no relevance to any efforts to disclose how it was gained.

5) The lack of introspection here, combined with the groupthink and regurgitation of Newsmax talking points, show exactly why the conservative movement is dying. Reliance on emotion instead of rational argument; elevation of ignorance as virtue; and inability to be critically introspective — all are signs of intellectual decline. Buckley and Goldwater are turning in their graves, I fear.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@B-Rob: What you fail to understand is that I am not interested in your opinion nor am I about to allow you to set the agenda for the conversation.

Clearly you think more highly of yourself than you deserve.

I’m just not interested in stroking an inferior ego and intellect.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Mike’ America –

Know when to fold ‘em, dude! Just can’t let it go, can you?

My question was simple. You have now ducked it over and over and over again. Your ducking has nothing to do with me supposedly being “arrogant”* and everything to do with you not being able to articulate a reasonable response.

If you had a snappy comeback, you would throw it. You don’t, so you call names. Like I said: I get it. A sure sign of weakness and the absence of any intellectual underpinings to your opinion.

In short, if you, with all your knowledge gleened at Zbig’s knee, could provide a rational response, you would. Ditto MataHarley. But since y’all can’t explain the difference between trying al Queda members in federal court under Bush (good) and doing the same thing under Obama (bad), you are left to refer to moveon.com, George Soros, anti-Americanism, “shyster”, etc. Very weak, but I get the underlying motivation for that approach.

And it’s OK, Mike. You can’t win ‘em all . . . just ask Sarah Palin! This one you lost, but you may win the next one against me . . . probably NOT, but it is possible. But you do need to know when to stop digging the hole you have put yourself in. And the digging should stop right now.

* arrogant — a word usually used by people who are projecting their own perceived inadequacies on others who they perceive as being superior in some way. Again, the weak comeback and the name calling says more about you than me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Aye Chihuahua said: “b-rob attempts, quite limply, to shift the focus of his argument. “

I noticed the same tactic with Missy and Wordsmith’s comments too. What do you expect?

Like or Dislike: 0  0