When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rides A Pale Horse
14 years ago
If I weren’t such an optimist I’d say……”WE’RE DOOMED!!!!”
But I am
So I won’t
firefirefire
14 years ago
Hey, that’s great news for KSM.
He should try to get to Nathan’s Famous in Coney Island while he’s in NYC, They have the best Franks in all the world.
Maybe he can visit some other great NYC landmarks while he’s there.
Unfrickingbelieveable!
Obama 2012
Because even murdering terrorists have
the same rights as those they seek
to kill.
Inge
14 years ago
As radical as Holder, and Obama are, this is simply an attempt to open the possibility to try the prior admin for war crimes (the left for years have accused the Bush admin of war crimes; waterboarding etc).
I also want to mention that Obama wrote in ‘Dreams of my father”: Should the wind blow at my muslim brothers, I will stand with them!”
This also shows in his reaction to the Ft. Hood killing by a radical jihadist. Nothing the Obama, and Holder admin does is without motive, and what better way to get this jihadist into civil court, giving info away to handicap the fight against radical islam. Remember KSM is the guy who beheaded Daniel Perl with a dull knife, why he was screaming. That won’t matter to them, because Daniel Perl was jewish.
I can’t help but to think, this admin is hellbend to cause extreme harm to this country.
Inge
14 years ago
One more thing: When is anyone in DC screaming loud, and clear: Stop, enough is enough. Somebody got to have some gonards.
Let there be no mistake regarding this decision by Eric “Rich Loving” Holder and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
We have a President of the United States who has been kowtowing to Islamo Fascism since Day 1 when he met Abbas abroad, the Cairo Speech, bowing to the King of Saud, etc.
Under this malevolent scenario these scumbags will have access to intelligence files, methods and maybe even operatives?????????? The Bush administration will indirectly be put on trail due to waterboarding, enhanced interrogation, et al
I would not put it past Obama to one day, if convicted, pardon these monsters or exchange them in some sort of peace meal deal with his Caliphate dreaming, Muslims brothers and sisters.
savage24
14 years ago
Is this ever going to be a goat rope. The Obama administration is not putting the terrorist on trial, they are going to try the Bush administration. If the defense can prove that these terrorist were water boarded that will grounds to throw the charges out. Then the Justice Department will blame Bush and Cheney for the whole mess.
B-Rob
14 years ago
The continued silliness on the right makes me that much happier that McCain got his a$$ kicked last November. Where to start . . . .
Let’s start with the Supreme Court. It was more than five years ago that the Court, in something like 7-2 decisions running in series, ruled that anyone captured by the US had the right to an independent review of the charges against them, and the right to a trial. It is not a matter of whether these guys get a trial, but how.
The people who are getting military tribunals are people who did not commit any crimes in the US. KSM and company will get their justice metted out by US citizens since that is who they targeted. Again, I am having a hard time finding out why this is a bad thing. Indeed, it is the exact same procedure that has been used in terrorism cases going back almost 50 years.
Let’s loop in a little history. The SDNY courts have done terrorism prosecutions going back to the Puerto Rican nationalists, up to the blind sheik and the first WTC bombing perps. How did those prosecutions turn out? The terrorists had access to the courts, they had great attorneys, and they were convicted in open court and they all are rotting in jail or dead. The al Queda people, if there is evidence against them, will be buried next to John Ghotti and James Earl Ray and Tim McVeigh. On what basis do you think this prosecution will turn out any different than the Clinton administrations prosecution of the blind sheik?
Prosecuting them in NYC will give the families of the victims (concentrated in the Washington DC corridor) a chance to get involved. It is easier for the California families to get there than to some remote island, too. You will have the sunlight of due process, not some shadowy hidden procedure that Islamists can claim was rigged all along. These guys will have good lawyers fighting for them, not some out-gunned JAG officer. And a jury of New Yorkers, Manhattanites at that! If we can get a Muslim or two on the jury, all the better.
Remember also — Holder was at Justice when the blind sheik went down. He knows what went right back then, what went wrong, and what problems may crop up. Not to mention the fact that the federal prosecutors most likely WANTED to prosecute them here and not in a tribunal. Indeed, the Virginia prosecutors and NYC prosecutors were fighting for the chance to convict there mopes. Federal prosecutors RARELY lose. They are the best of the best, with the best resources, which is why they only go after the big fish. They will win these convictions and the al Queda members will draw their lasts breaths in a federal prison in Colorado. And every fact against them will be public and in the newspapers, wired instantaneously around the world.
The only people who are a-scared of these al Queda people are . . . conservatives. Why are conservatives afraid of al Queda? I am not sure why.
Are conservatives afraid that the public will know just how badly the Bush administration tortured people into making false confessions, when their actual conduct would have been enough to convict? If that is the concern, then that is not enough of a reason to take justice from the citizens of the US and the SDNY, where close to 3000 people died one Tuesday morning.
Are the conservatives afraid that there is not enough evidence to convict some of these guys? If so, they should not have been held for five years and tortured. Again — a Bush administration f-up is not a good enough reason to hide these guys from the light of justice before a jury of their peers. You can call them terrorists, killers, whatever. You can say they “don’t deserve” due process, but the Supreme Court has spoken: they do. In my mind, they can be no worse than the seriel killer who is about to be tried in Cleveland for preying on poor, Black female drug addicts and prostitutes. He gets a lawyer, a duly appointed judge, appeal rights, and he will either die of old age, or by the needle. Same with these guys.
Are conservatives afraid KSM will try to grandstand? That is his right, as it would be the right of anyone facing trial. The Supreme Court just heard the case of another seriel killer here in Cleveland who went to his trial sporting a Hitler mustache. The accused has the right to make an a$$ of himself. But what, exactly are you cons afraid that will do? Lengthen the trial? Who cares. Create a p.r. nightmare for the US? Hardly. He is not going to say anything to anyone that they do not know already: the US is evil; Israle is evil; Jews are evil and control everything and should all die; Obama is evil, worse than Bush, controlled by the Jews, and an infidel, blah blah blah . . . .
Will this be an al Queda recruiting device? I doubt it. How will that play out, exactly? “See how the infidels are treating Khalid. Feeding him hallal food, giving him a Koran, and letting his well-educated lawyers argue that he should be spared death. Letting him speak his truth to the jury. A multiracial jury of Muslims and Catholics and athiests and Jews passing judgment on our brother. A Black judge, Barrington Parker. Pure evil.” Uh, huh . . that will rally downtrodden Muslims to al Queda’s side! (I won’t even bother with the fact that Gitmo, which cons seem to love, is already a great recruiting device, as was the Bush torture regime.)
NO, I suspect I know what conservatives are REALLY afraid of. Could it be they are REALLY afraid that the convictions will come down in public in 2012, while Obama is running for re-election?
Hmm . . . . I think I am onto something here . . . . Cons are not so much afraid that these guys would be acquited. Hell, that has pretty much happened already, with bin Laden’s driver, Hamdan, being “convicted” and given a five month sentence and then deportation. But there was not much press about that because it happened at Gitmo. No, conservatives are much more fearful of a CONVICTION in New York City, one that hands a victory to Obama’s Justice Department, one that pleases the 9/11 families, one that passes the muster of fairness even in the darkest recesses of the globe and one that isolates the whiney conservatives even further from the mainstream of America. That is what they fear the most.
psychics (psycho chics) look into future and give us a peek at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Christmas eve, New York City trial. Another Christmas present from the Democrats.
Just in time for the holidays. After killing thousands of Americans on 911, Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , believes himself to be Mohammand-Claus. In an attempt to prove that the terrorist is delusional, the U.S. District Attorney today asked the Court to declare Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a Muslim terrorist and to force him to remove his beard and little red hat. The terrorist’s attorney in a counter move, asked the Court to declare that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in fact Mohammed-Claus. In a classic holiday scene, the terrorist’s attorney related to the judge that he has letters from people who, after cheering the death and destruction of 911, wrote letters to Mohammed-Claus, that the U.S. Post Office delivered to the court house. After the attorney hesitated the judge ordered him to put the letters on his desk. The judge was soon covered in letters, as the court room full of Muslims exploded with calls of “Allahu Akbar” and “fa la hal la la gee, gee, gee, gee……” The judge became suspicious when he noticed that the letters that covered him, all smelled like a strange mix of camels, pita bread, hummus, and baba ghanoush. The trial has been continued until Christmas Eve.
B-Rob
14 years ago
And another example of how cons make no sense at all. Hassan is either (a) a psychotic nut who used religion to give order to his troubled life, went home every evening to his $350 per month apartment (with no woman) and one day decided to shoot up his workplace, or (b) a sleeper Islamist terrorist.
If I am right and he falls into catagory (a), then obviously, he should be prosecuted in the court of competent jurisdiction, which in this case is a military court. He will be afforded the rights of all soldiers, which is a competent defense, due process, and a jury of military people.
Some people think he falls into catagory (b). I doubt it, seeing as al Queda is not known to recruit nut jobs — and if your psychiatrist co-workers think you might be psychotic, well . . . Anyway — I have yet to hear anyone make a rational argument that he should be tried anywhere other than where he is set to be tried, which is the military court martial. Why hasn’t anyone made that argument? Why hasn’t anyone made the argument that he should be tortured like the other 9/11 folks so we can find out who else might be in on it?
And if he is a terrorist and should be tried in some other process other than the regular court of competent jurisdiction, then why haven’t cons made the same argument about the neo-Nazi who shot up the Holocaust Museum, or the nut who shot the abortion doctor? Why do they deserve a jury of their peers in the normal course of justice and Hassan doesn’t?
Dave
14 years ago
It’s nice to see the wingnuts have something to wet their beds over since the birther/bagger hiccup is now completely over. I mean, fox would be without a whining point if not for this.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that in every case when an act of terror is committed, or a flurry of military deaths occur, or any other time a tragedy occurs to those OTHER than to abortion providers, the Lefties stay low and quiet for about a week, then only after the outrage has leveled off, do they come out from under their rocks and start throwing crap like a chimp?
You will notice there is never any condolences for the victims.
You will also notice that the blame is diverted.
You will also notice the lies, and straw-men used to make their newly-found “points”.
You will also notice that every “point” made is reactionary-only, never foundational.
Mostly one notices how freakin weak these reactionary “points” truly are.
Let’s start with the Supreme Court. It was more than five years ago that the Court, in something like 7-2 decisions running in series, ruled that anyone captured by the US had the right to an independent review of the charges against them, and the right to a trial. It is not a matter of whether these guys get a trial, but how.
Yep, that’s why the Bush Administration and Congress approved the military tribunal system.
All of that was painstakingly worked on for YEARS and now is tossed out the window because Obama is trying to play to his left wing America hating base who wants to see Bush and Cheney, the CIA and the U.S. military on trial, NOT terrorists.
SoCal Chris
14 years ago
Oopsy, I guess Obama forgot he said this back in 2006: (from HotAirPundit)
Obama: “I think there are alot of dangerous people, particularly dangerous are people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, ironically those are the guy who are gonna get real military procedures…The irony of the underlying bill as it’s written is someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is gonna get basically a full military trial”
I know, I know, he was for a military trial before he was/is now against it?
I realize I glossed over B-Rob’s confession a bit too hastily earlier.
We should also consider what he meant by this:
“Are the conservatives afraid that there is not enough evidence to convict some of these guys?”
What a complete admission that Dems like B-Rob live in a 9/10 mentality. It’s a WAR we are fighting and the U.S. military’s job isn’t to gather evidence on the battlefield.
And if we needed more proof that Obama’s decision here has a huge political component read this from B:
“I know what conservatives are REALLY afraid of. Could it be they are REALLY afraid that the convictions will come down in public in 2012, while Obama is running for re-election?”
Bad enough Obama made this decision to please his left wing base, but B-Rob suggests Obama may be doing this for entirely political motives.
Another bogus B-Robism: ” Prosecuting them in NYC will give the families of the victims (concentrated in the Washington DC corridor) a chance to get involved. “
So the 9/11 families want to get involved hunh?
“It’s absolutely disgusting,” said Joan Molinaro, whose son, Carl, a firefighter, also died in the attack. She said of Mr. Mohammed, “He was willing to plead guilty in a military court. Now he comes to New York and gets all the rights of an American citizen, which he isn’t. He’s going to be, what, two blocks from ground zero, where he can see his handiwork and mock those he murdered.”
She used to live on Staten Island, but has moved to a small town in Pennsylvania. She couldn’t take hearing the wailing sirens of fire trucks.
She started crying. “Every day I get up and know I’ll never see my son again,” she said. “This is just a smack in his face.”
Margit Arias-Kastell lost her husband, Adam Arias, in Tower 2. She, too, could not countenance the prospect of the suspects being defended by lawyers in a court in her city. She was among scores of relatives who had signed a letter opposing regular criminal trials for them.
“It’s totally unfair,” she said. “Why do we have to constantly relive this? When do we get to be at peace? They should be hung.”
Ed Kowalski, of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America Foundation, said: “To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having U.S. constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and it’s never been done before. President Obama is wrong to do this.”
“If we have to bring them to the United States, New York City is not the place to have it, let alone in a courthouse that is in the shadows of the twin towers,” Lee Ielpi, whose firefighter son died in the 9/11 attacks, said. The city’s wounds, he said, are simply still too raw.
“Ripping that scab open will create a tremendous hardship,” he said.
“Families are furious about this,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chic Burlingame was the American Airlines pilot of one of the planes hijacked on Sept. 11. She said more than 300 family members have implored the administration not to move the trial to New York. “They know we don’t support this. We support military commissions but they are going to see a wave of fury, and I don’t think they’re prepared for it,” she said Friday after the decision became public.
“We have a president who doesn’t know we’re at war,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles Burlingame, had been the pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. “It will be a travesty!” said Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles Burlingame, one of the pilots of the airliners hijacked on Sept. 11.
She said Mohammed’s court appearances will be a “three-ring circus,” with the defendant using every opportunity to spout anti-American views as he did in front of 9/11 family members who traveled to Guantanamo to face him in court.
“He’s going to be exulting in the suffering of the families,” she said. “He will ridicule the judge. He will ridicule his lawyers. He will rally his jihadi brothers all over the world to kill more Americans.”
She said she was sickened by “the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys.”
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
A few thoughts —
“9/10 mentality” is another of those empty phrases that conservatives like to throw around. You say it as if it means something. It doesn’t. Witness . . . well, I am confused. When GW Bush’s Justice Department decided to prosecute Zach Moussoui in federal court, where was the con outrage about that “9/10 mentality”? Or the outrage over John Walker Lindh, the Lackawanna 10, or the Miami goofs? All were post 9/11 and all were prosecuted in the US by Bush’s Justice department, with lawyers representing them, and with the threat of jail time. I do not seem to recall the Republic slipping into anarchy when that happened, nor do I remember al Queda members roaming the streets of Buffalo and Miami over that. Your selective outrage now, when Obama is pretty much doing the same thing, speaks volumes.
You also wrote —
“All of that was painstakingly worked on for YEARS and now is tossed out the window because Obama is trying to play to his left wing America hating base who wants to see Bush and Cheney, the CIA and the U.S. military on trial, NOT terrorists.”
So what? What difference does it make if the prior administration set up military commissions? How is that germane to anything? Obama is treating this case the same way other cases have been treated. And your post is not even accurate. Some of the detainees will have military tribunals, the ones who committed no crimes in the US or against US citizens. Seems to me that is a reasonable distinction.
In addition, there is certainly nothing unlawful about trying them in the US. The military tribunals, in contrast, have not passed constitutional muster. Why should the highest value terrorists be tried under a system that (a) has not been approved by the Supreme Court and (b) might have double jeopardy attach if they were tried there and the process was deemed unconstitutional?
We have a Constitution that has worked well for more than 200 years; you would like to have it be curtailed and thrown out, I guess. Well, no thanks. The Supreme Court could have seen things your way and ruled that these guys had no right to a trial; but they did not, did they? Those who committed crimes in the US get tried in the locale of their wrongdoing by a jury of their peers. These are precepts that go back hundreds of years in English common law — trying someone in the shire where the crime was committed. And that is what these mopes did: they committed awful violations of US criminal law and they deserve to be punished before the eyes of the entire world. All we have is the written law that is on the books; that is how we constrain behavior, that is how we punish wrongdoing. We do not lynch people and we do not torture them. And those who violate THOSE laws and lynch and torture get tried according to the law, not by the sword. If you would prefer to live under a different system, I am sure you can find another country more to your liking.
New York City has held terrorism trials before. Their police force has its own intelligence unit with Arabic speaking interpreters. They will be fine and Holder will get convictions in the light of day, not in some far away hidden recesses of the Eastern bloc.
Will they try to turn it into a propaganda opportunity? Maybe. But the judge has the authority to control, through rulings, what will come into evidence and what won’t. If they disrupt the proceedings, they can be removed and watch by camera. Again . . . there is nothing new under the sun. This has all been done before.
Another thing: the article cited FIVE people from amongst the thousands of 9/11 families and those five people oppose the trials. One of those five, the Burlingame woman, is a well worn con activist. But why should we listen to her any more than the “harpies” (Ann Coulter’s words) who might support the Obama decision?
But this is the best part, the quote from Ed Kowalski:
“To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having U.S. constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and it’s never been done before. President Obama is wrong to do this.”
Sorry to tell you, Mr. Kowalski, but not only do they get constitutional protections AS THE SUPREME COURT RULED, but this HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. It was done in the 90s under Clinton, in the 1950s under Eisenhower, and in the 2000s under Bush. Terrorists face trial all the time. Ditto war criminals. There is just an ignorance of history and law there that is stunning to behold. And it is even more stunning that you would cite it with approval. The commentary on the right is all about emotions and has nothing to do with the law.
And how is it “bogus” to say that the families will have a chance to get involved if the trial is in NYC? If these five families don’t want to get involved, so be it. But my stockbroker’s sister, whose husband Chris died in the jet that hit the Pentagon, she might want to see the perpetrators brought to justice. It is much easier for her to do that if the trial is in NYC than if it was held at some remote military base.
I stand by my original claim: the real fear on the right is that Obama’s Justice will convict in 2012 and get a political win. Otherwise, why didn’t we have the screaming and yelling from the right during any of the Bush era terrorism trials of other terrorists, including Taliban (Lindh) and 9/11 (Moussoui)? What was the difference then? Where was the outrage then?
@B-Rob: “9/10 mentality” fits you to a tee whether you like it or not.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s nothing but noise.
I didn’t see much of a substantive response to what I wrote above, just another misdirected attack.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mile’s America —
I almost missed this!
“Bad enough Obama made this decision to please his left wing base, but B-Rob suggests Obama may be doing this for entirely political motives.”
You 20 point type outrage is HILARIOUS! I did not say Obama made the decision for political reasons. Indeed, since trying KSM in Manhattan is pretty friggin similar to trying Jose Padilla in Miami, I am not sure how you could say that Obama did this “to pleas his left wing base” when what he did is the same as what Bush did. Did Bush do the same thing to please the Dems left wing base, too? And why weren’t you con protesting THOSE prosecutions of al Queda linked terrorists in federal courts before federal judges and juries? Huh? Please explain!
What I DID SAY, however, is that the conservatives selective outrage probably has politics at the root. Again I ask: if it is so awful and evil and wrong to try these al Queda terrorists in US criminal courts, then why was it OK for the Bush administration to try the others in federal court? Please explain the difference.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
Dude, you are totally hilarious! I made about nine different substantive points on why you are simply WRONG. But answer one question:
Why was there no conservative outrage when George W. Bush tried al Queda members in federal court?
Let’s loop in a little history. The SDNY courts have done terrorism prosecutions going back to the Puerto Rican nationalists, up to the blind sheik and the first WTC bombing perps. How did those prosecutions turn out?
Umm… Holder and Clinton let the Puerto Ricans go free, and the Blind Sheik’s lawyer was imprisoned for passing notes between him and known terrorists.
Turned out great (sarc/off)
Missy
14 years ago
Oh dear, I think we have an Geraldo groupie on our hands.
@B-Rob: You haven’t made any substantive points. All you have done is give us a fine regurgitation of the George Soros anti-American point of view.
I hardly call that substantive.
But, you’re clearly a legend in your own mind!
A typical 9/10 delusionist.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mike’s AmericA — It think it is interesting that you claim to be some kind of national security expert, trained under Brzinski (sic?), etc. Yet I asked you a simple question, one that should be very easy to answer for such a self-described learned man:
“if it is so awful and evil and wrong to try these al Queda terrorists in US criminal courts, then why was it OK for the Bush administration to try the others in federal court? Please explain the difference.”
Your response? Rhetoric about me being supposedly “anti-American”. Yeah . . . real powerful argument there, guy!
Do you cons see why you are on the outside looking in, power-wise? Do you understand why you are no longer trusted with the levers of power . . . sorta like the 76 year old whose kids take away the car keys? You think you know what you are talking about, projecting “strength”. But in reality, it is such self-reverential b.s., conservatives claiming they are the only ones who “love America”, etc. Yeah, you represent “real America” — its just that there are fewer actual people in your “real America” than in . . . you know, the actual American that votes. But you continue to pontificate, as if you folks actually know something. But I think I just exposed a sinple fact:
You, Mike, don’t know actually jack sh*t about the subject you are writing about.
You don’t acknowledge the Supreme Court rulings and you don’t seem to understand the fact that military tribunals as created by the GOP Congress in 2006 — the ones you claimed were so great that Obama was “trashing” — were STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You don’t take into account the history of terror trials and convictions in the Southern District of New York, and you don’t even seem to comprehend that Bush did the exact same thing you are whining about Obama doing, i.e., trying al Queda members in US federal courts in the United States. I point all this out, as well as the fact that New York City is a heck of a lot easier for 9/11 family members (concentrated in East Coast Blue states) to reach if they want to attend trial. And your comeback? Your response, as honed by your years at Zbig’s knee? Your learned takedown of what I noted?
George Soros. And anti-American. How friggin weak can you get?
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Patvann —
I think if you were to ask the Puerto Rican nationalists and the blind sheik, they would tend to disagree with you that things went so well.
By the way, as usual, you can’t even get the basic facts right. The Puerto Rican nationalists whose sentences were commuted were NOT THE TRIGGER MEN.
On the blind sheik’s lawyer going to prison . . . an interesting tidbit, but you fail to point out that (a) he was convicted years before she was even arrested, and (b) she is fat and homely.
Yeah, I said she is fat and homely. Because those facts are about as relevant to this discussion as her passing notes is. What the hell does her being convicted in 2005 have to do with him being tried and convicted in NYC in the mid-1990s? You cons really have a hard time staying on subject. Sheesh!
@B-Rob: Try spelling Zbig’s last name “Brzezinski” unless your sic[k].
And I’m not interested in playing word games with an insulting George Soros windup toy. But I will be happy to stack up my education and experience with national security topics against yours any day of the week.
I’ll also be happy to stack up my experience in government at every level from the court house to the White House against your membership in Moveon.org.
Especially so when you say idiotic crapola like “Do you understand why you are no longer trusted with the levers of power.”
Have you noticed how the Independents which afforded Obama his victory in 2008 are fleeing in droves? If not, I recommend you take a look at the election results for VA an NJ governor.
Now spare me the rest of your insults and smarmy, arrogant wise cracking. Insects like you don’t impress me much.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ MataHarley —
Fish in a barrel —
“Kindly tell us just what terrorist was apprehended on foreign soil that was tried in a US federal court?”
Mir Amal Kasi and Ramzi Yusef were tried in civil courts after being arrested in Pakistan. As well as John Walker Lindh, who was captured in Afghanistan; he pled guilty in federal court before any trial.
“and in case you don’t get the Constitutional difference, I’ll say it again s-l-o-w-l—–y….. ‘apprehended on foreign soil.'”
“duh…”
And in case you missed the last five years of US Supreme Court litigation, I will say it s-l-o-w-l-y — it makes no legal difference where they were apprehended, whether in the US or on foreign soil: they still have the right to a fair trial.
Duh!
Do you even have a clue about what you are pontificating on, Mata? It seems you don’t, what with your distinction between people being apprehended on foreign soil, versus in the US. As a matter of law, it simply does not make any difference.
You cons are pontificating about what constitutional right you feel terrorists should not have, but not even seeming to acknowledge that the Supreme Court already rejected your preferred interpretation years ago. You are, to use an analogy, still claiming a flat Earth when everyone else acknowledges it is a sphere. Your first principal (that they are not entitled to due process) is so fundamentally flawed, that your conclusions from that, and the data you used to support those conclusions, are just flat out plain wrong. But since you have NOT KNOWLEDGE about the underlying court decisions, you seem to think what Obama is doing (trying al Queda members in federal court) is somehow “new” or “unusual.” It ain’t. Been done before.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
[ARROGANT, RUDE, WILLFULLY IGNORANT AND INSULTING POST ADOLESCENT COMMENT REMOVED BY POST MODERATOR].
Yusef was EXTRADITED to the US. Imported to US soil by request deliberately for trial for crimes on US soil (not by bad SCOTUS calls… see my comment to you explaining the basics on another thread. Same with Mir Amal Kasi, who was arrested in Pakistan but EXTRADITED for crimes on US soil when shooting five people outside Langley.
Extradition for crimes on US soil is a wholly different matter than KSM.
Walker was a US citizen and always had Constitutional rights.
duh
Yes, I know on which I pontificate. Apparently, you do not. Most especially when you compare Moussoui and Padilla to KSM. You fall into the too stupid to vote category.
Wait a minute… After pondering the extradition argument, I’m retracting and agreeing with b-rob in part here (gasp!) as it relates specifically to KSM.
KSM *did* commit (or is charged with) crimes on US soil, and is therefore a prime candidate for extradition (even if by our joint military capture w-Pak) to the US for trial in a US federal court. Gotta live with that reality.
However r-bob is in Constitutionally (and SCOTUS) stupid in assuming that the Constitution – or the Boumediene decision – grants our Constitutional rights world wide.
Wow… that hurt. And now, I can’t argue KSM’s presence in NYC as invalid based on extradition laws. We may have to live with this one, folks.
So all the crying and whining that led to the House and Senate establishing tribunal rules 3 years ago, was all for nothing. And it’s OK for Holder and Obama to ignore them all.
Hypocrites then and hypocrites now.
No Miranda was given either, so will you be Ok with the trial even starting? If you’re going to be a stickler for granting these ugly bags of mostly water the same “rights” as American citizens, then because they weren’t mirandized, we need to let them go. Are you ok with that too?
Is it OK for you that 5 are fed-court(ed) and 5 other are not? Or is that also being too mean to them? Why have the two different systems for the same crimes? Or is that ok with you too?
Then theres still the fact that Obama can hold them even is they are deemed not guilty. If he holds them over, are you ok with that? Will it still be “fair”?
Hypocrites then and hypocrites now. Can’t wait for the trial of the CIA to begin…
ah, Patvann… legal nuances are wasted on r-bob. He may be close to the DC/VA action, but he’s far removed from connecting the legal dots about access to the US federal system when it comes to Miranda, extradition for crimes on US soil, Constitutional rights to citizens or those apprehended on US soil regardless of citizenry for crimes. I guess, to him, capturing an enemy combatant on the battle field fits all these descriptions and situations, and Constitutional rights are granted to the world.
But I’ll bet the bozo votes every chance he gets…. Thus why we swirl down the toilet bowl. Public education ain’t what it used to be.
@MataHarley worried: “We may have to live with this one, folks. “
No, we do not.
There is simply NO Constitutional requirement for importing this terrorist monster into the United States. There is plenty of U.S. law supporting the trial of these terrorists by military tribunal. Just because KSM COULD be brought to the U.S. does not mean he MUST be.
Obama is doing this for the sake of politics pure and simple. National Security and Justice is the last thing on his mind.
All it really comes down to Mata, is residual BDS.
He and his kind are all now about the “holiness” of our system of laws, claiming sensitivity to “humaneness”, and acting concerned that the world will have less respect for us for doing nothing less than what the Geneva-conventions allow. Yet they now stay quiet about Obama’s continued practice of renditions, wiretaps, and the remaining military tribunals. Not to mention simply killing them as we do now, rather than capturing them. Hell, Obama has in-fact expanded the use of some of these practices, along with more “air raiding of villages”. So I guess by their silence, we can assume that they approve the fact that Obama is doing exactly what Bush was doing, the only difference is now that the Magic Negro is doing it, and not the dummy from Texas.
He and his ilk will say nothing about how we hand over all new prisoners that we don’t kill outright, to the Afghani’s who treat them worse than we ever treated a Nazi general.
They say nothing about how we now hand over non-Afghanis back to their own countries never to be seen again. I’ve worked with the Kazakh’s, and they don’t supply medical care and prayer rugs, I can assure you.
The real goal here is to poke a stick at BushCo. It has NOTHING to do with “fairness” or “rights”
They love to repeat the meme that somehow the world will respect us more, but that is a complete farce. As if the Taliban or anyone else gives damn how our legal system works or doesn’t. Most of the world laughs at our naiveté, and the only “kudos” he’ll ever get is from Fidel and self-hating BDS sufferers. Our military tribunal system, as set up and approved by the Demo-led Senate and House, is much more fair to the defendant than anything ever done in Belgium.
Then there’s the “torture”. The same “torture” that me, 3 or 4 guys here, and several hundred guys a year in our military went through. Waaaa! I wanna sue Carter cuz I got water poured on my face 12 times 29 years ago, and had to spend days at a time on my feet and awake, while listening to Anchors Away blasting the whole damn time.
I was so traumatized, that I went on to kill out-of-uniform Cubans in Grenada rather than capturing them, read them their rights, and bringing them to New York for trial to be defended by a terrorist-sympathizer.
Oh yea…I forgot…It was during war….My bad…
Good thing I didn’t get water in their noses, or I might REALLY feel bad.
Mike, there is “no Constitutional requirement” for extradition since the Constitution doesn’t talk about extradition. But fact is KSM is suspected of crimes on US soil dating back to the 1993 WTC. He was captured in Pakistan… possibly in a joint CIA/ISI raid. Pakistanis gave him to us (or we just took him… which would be a real bitch to see him walk based on the technicality of improper extradition paperwork).
But much as this anguishes me to say, there is ample extradition precedent that is applicable to KSM (not to be confused with the battlefield jihadists unconnected with a specific US crime). Based on what they are accusing KSM of doing, extradition fits the legal bill perfectly.
Believe me, I don’t like the bastard here either. Nor should it be precedent for bringing others who are *not* accused of committing crimes on US soil. But I have to say, re-reading what I responded to r-bob, the extradition bulb went on. And I hadn’t considered that aspect over the foreign apprehension of a jihadist (aka enemy combatant) who was fighting US forces on the battlefield.
KSM is as much a candidate for extradition as Ramzi Yousef for specific crimes here in the US. So I was wrong about him specifically. r-bob still remains delusional about “world wide” Constitutional rights. But while discussing that aspect, I honestly had to look at it in a different light.
Don’t get me wrong, Patvann… don’t in the least like the concept of importing KSM to the US court system. Holder better be right that they have enough admissible evidence. They’ll toss anything to do with interrogation since water in the nose just freaks out the average citizen who’s clueless. Wonder if they’ll use the military tribunal vile he spewed. And then, if they reject all, I have to wonder if anyone on the jury knows about jury nullification…
Lastly, of course, will there be any classified info revealed in the quest?
I’ll agree any day of the week I think this is a bad idea, but I’m going to have to change my attitude as to whether it has any legal footing. Mike is post 911 morally correct when he says we shouldn’t bring KSM here, even tho we can with extradition precedents. But then this POTUS and admin aren’t about to be nat’l security oriented after posturing about this crap all his campaign.
If KSM walks with a light sentence, or nat’l security intel is compromised in the legal process, this blows up in “da Won’s” face… as well as possibly some more US neighborhoods. In fact, I’d say while he’s on trial, we’re going to be at seriously high risk.
I hear ya ma’am, but I can’t get past the fact that just prior to Holder becoming AG, he was in-fact working as the defense in these same cases. Conflict of interest, anyone? He should have never been confirmed, and I don’t care who confirmed, nor what letter they has at the end of their name. That, and all the other reasons we’ve spoken of.
Remember also — Holder was at Justice when the blind sheik went down. He knows what went right back then, what went wrong, and what problems may crop up. Not to mention the fact that the federal prosecutors most likely WANTED to prosecute them here and not in a tribunal.
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department’s obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the “reckoning” that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring “torture” and “war crimes” indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama’s base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today’s announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let’s take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs’ execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can’t help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s case against America. Since that will be their “defense,” the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America’s defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
But my stockbroker’s sister, whose husband Chris died in the jet that hit the Pentagon, she might want to see the perpetrators brought to justice. It is much easier for her to do that if the trial is in NYC than if it was held at some remote military base.
Way to speculate and hijack what the feelings of a “husband of a relative of an acquaintance” ‘s feelings might be to serve your political agenda. Nice try.
Disgusting, actually.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ MataHarley —
Sorry to burst your bubble, but extradition has nothing to do with anything. That is a process where, if the countries have a treaty, the main decision is whether the individual arrested is the one who is sought. It is simply irrelevant to this analysis because there is, with these persons, no dispute that they are who we think they are.
And another thing: you wrote —
“However r-bob is in Constitutionally (and SCOTUS) stupid in assuming that the Constitution – or the Boumediene decision – grants our Constitutional rights world wide.”
There is, of course, not a single court case cited by you, or even a rational argument given to support your notion that Hamdan, Hamdi and their progeny DON’T stand for the proposition I stated. You just throw your naked opinion out there (that our Constitution does not constrain our government outside the US borders) as if it is fact, or even rational. It is not. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on that.
The Bush adminisitration, led by incompetents John Yoo and David Addison, took the position that the president, because he was president, could have anyone he wanted arrested anywhere and held “indefinitely” — which is a fancy word for “foreever” — with no judicial review. They took the position that the president had auithority that was tantamount to a king. Justice Scalia practically laughed at the notion and said “No, you try them for treason or war crimes, or you let them go.” The bulk of the other justices said “No, Mr. President, the right of habeas, the Geneva Convention, the US Code of Military Justice and the federal criminal statutes all grant any detainee a right to judicial review” — which is what a criminal trial is, at root: a judge’s review of whether the state has evidence justifying its constraint on a person’s liberty. Whether you are a citizen or not, arrested in the US or not, those distinctions no more matter than whether the detainee was wearing boxers or briefs when arrested. Because the US Constitution is a contraint on governmental overreach, not just a bunch of “rights” given to the accused. THAT is the hoop the Supreme Court made the Bush administration jump through and that is why all these detainees have to be given a fair trial, or be set free. Both Obama and Bush have set some people free without trial, and others have been tried.
I mean, seriously, imagine if the Bush administration had won. It would mean that Obama could declare Glenn Beck an enemy combatant, have him arrested and taken to Poland, have him tortured there by the CIA and contractors, and hold him incommunicado for the rest of the Obama administration, with no court review, no attorney, etc. And the next President, if they so chose, could keep Glenn in chains for another four or eight years if they wanted. THAT is the power Addison and Yoo claimed the president possessed. Simply insane.
You cons see everything through a partisan lens; that is why your analysis here is so f’d up and nonsensical. Step back for a minute and consider this:
1) There is no difference between Obama trying Ramzi Binasheib (a 9/11 facilitator) in Manhattan and Zach Moussoui (the 20th hijacker and pilot in training) being tried in Virginia, across the river from the Capitol he wanted to destroy and down the road from the Pentago that they hit. So far, neither you nor Mike’s America nor that other mook have explained why there was no outcry from conservatives about the safety threats from that trial, how that gives Moussoui a forum he wanted, how that would disclose sources and methods of intelligence, blah blah blah. Only your partisan lens explains the different reaction now.
2) You folks keep saying that this is about the Bush administration and CIA torture regime being criticised. This is nonsensical on so many levels.
a) Obama has shown very little interest in going after the people who set thr torture regime in place. In fact, they have offered argument after argument to shield the Bush torture stuff from trial. Why? Because
b) If the CIA torture gets litigated, it will be litigated on Obama’s dime. His Justice department will defend, his administration would be constrained by any equitable relief ordered, and his Treasury will have to come up with the cash to pay any judgment. For obvious reasons, Obama would rather avoid all three outcomes. And, finally,
c) The more the trial focuses on the Bush administration torture (which occurred AFTER 9/11), the worse it is for Obama’s case against the al Queda members. Holder will try tooth and nail to keep the focus on who did what from 1991 through September 11, 2001 at 8:30 a.m., before the first plane was jacked. Oh, you forgot that part? Yeah. The evidence against KSM goes back to the early 90s. One of the reasons NYC is the preferred locale for the trial is because the federal prosecutors there have been dealing with this group since the first WTC attack. They have evidence that is not tainted by the counterproductive and illegal torture the Bush adminstration authorized. The more this is about torture, the more Holder’s case is at risk. But the fact remains that
3) Even if they were tried in military tribunals, the same problem would be present: what to do with confessions and implicating statements that were the product of torture.
There is, of course, not a single court case cited by you, or even a rational argument given to support your notion that Hamdan, Hamdi and their progeny DON’T stand for the proposition I stated.
Blatant oversight by you as I had referenced the link rich post I did on Boumediene… the quintessential case INRE the status of the Gitmo detainees and the base there as US sovereign territory. Hamdan addressed the terms of military tribunals, and whether Hamdan was entitled to Geneva Convention rights and protections as a POW… a status which he fits no logical description.
Hamdi, on the other hand, is something akin to your absurd Beck analogy. Beck is exercising his 1st Amendment rights, and Hamdi (an American citizen) was hanging with the Taliban, fighting US forces, in Afghanistan. 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.
I disagreed with the enemy combatant approach on HamdI. Personally, I would have gone for treason, or just shot the scumbag on sight… my favorite Af/Pak miranda rights in today’s climate.
The Bush adminisitration, led by incompetents John Yoo and David Addison, took the position that the president, because he was president, could have anyone he wanted arrested anywhere and held “indefinitely” — which is a fancy word for “foreever” — with no judicial review.
You mean like Obama is doing at Bagram? But obviously that’s okay with you. Rather hypocritical, to put it kindly. What the Bush admin did is the very same that Obama does with Bagram, sans the name controversy… place detainees from the battlefield in a US holding tank for intel/interrogation. And both POTUS specifically chose locations that were not to put them within the jurisdiction of the US federal court systems, as that would be counterproductive to their aims.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to combatants who wage battle as no state military. There are jihad gangs and thugs, not a state militia. Thus the definition of enemy combatants.
There is no difference between Obama trying Ramzi Binasheib (a 9/11 facilitator) in Manhattan and Zach Moussoui (the 20th hijacker and pilot in training) being tried in Virginia, across the river from the Capitol he wanted to destroy and down the road from the Pentago that they hit. So far, neither you nor Mike’s America nor that other mook have explained why there was no outcry from conservatives about the safety threats from that trial, how that gives Moussoui a forum he wanted, how that would disclose sources and methods of intelligence, blah blah blah. Only your partisan lens explains the different reaction now.
First of all I said I agreed that there is legal footing for bringing KSM here via extradition for accusations of crimes committed on US soil. I do not agree that any other of the merry band of thugs coming here have that same legal ground. Your points for being correct on any similarity as a precedent are akin to cleaning up some broken glass off the kitchen floor by doing a broad vaccuming and washing the walls of every room in the house. Constitutional rights are not granted to the world’s population, and military tribunals have a legitmate place in our system in conditions of war.
However I have not entered the argument INRE “a forum” about KSM’s trial. Additionally, you are wrong. I was royally PO’d that US Marshals passed Moussoui’s classified info which he should NOT have possessed as part of discovery. This stuff simply cannot be handled in the US court system without extreme risk. So if you think I was a happy camper during Moussoui, you are batting 1000 with your errors. It’s like all the ASSumptions you do with your personal assaults.
And speaking of partisan, it appears to be you who demonstrates that quality with your BDS lens INRE the previous admin, while deliberately overlooking identical actions (military tribunals and holding Bagram detainees indefinitely without charges or trial) by the current admin. If you haven’t looked at your rear end, that kettle is as black as the pot you accuse.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Wordsmith —
You think it is “disgusting” that I consider whether his sister would want to see the trial of the people who killed her husband?
Your reaction says more about you than it says about me or Obama . . . .
Trial for 9/11
On February 11, 2008 US Department of Defense charged Mohammed as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Walid Bin Attash for the September 11 attacks under the military commission system, as established under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. They have reportedly been charged with the murder of almost 3000 people, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism and plane hijacking; as well as attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury and destruction of property in violation of the law of war. The charges against them list 169 overt acts allegedly committed by the defendants in furtherance of the September 11 events”. The charges include 2,973 individual counts of murder — one for each person killed in the 9/11 attacks.
The US government is seeking the death penalty, which would require the unanimous agreement of the commission judges.
Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights, and US military defense lawyers have criticised the military commissions for lacking necessary rights for a fair trial. Critics generally argue for a trial either in a civilian federal court as a common criminal suspect, or by court martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions. Mohammed could still face the death penalty under any of these systems.
The Pentagon insists that Mohammed and the other defendant will receive a fair trial, with rights “virtually identical” to US military service personnel. However, there are some differences between US courts martial and military commissions.
The U.S. Defence Department has built a $12 million “Expeditionary Legal Complex” in Guantánamo with a snoop-proof courtroom capable of trying six alleged co-conspirators before one judge and jury. Media and other observers are sequestered in a soundproofed room behind thick glass, at the rear. The judge at the front and a court security officer have mute buttons to silence the feed to the observers’ booth — if they suspect someone in court could spill classified information.
The trial, presided over by judge Ralph Kohlmann, began on 5 June 2008 with the arraignment. About 35 journalists watched on closed-circuit TV in a press room inside a converted hangar, while two dozen others watched through a window from a room adjacent to the courtroom.
Mohammed insisted he would not be represented by any attorneys. The other detainees quickly followed suit and said they too wanted to represent themselves. One of the civilian attorneys Mohammed spurned, David Nevin, later told The Associated Press that he would attempt to meet with Mohammed to “hear him out and see if we can give him information that is helpful”.
Mohammed was careful not to interrupt Kohlmann. He lost his composure only after the Marine colonel ordered several defense attorneys to keep quiet “It’s an inquisition. It’s not a trial,” Mohammed said in broken English, his voice rising. “After torturing they transfer us to inquisition-land in Guantanamo.”
He explained he believes only in religious “Sharia” law and railed against U.S. President George W. Bush for waging a “crusade war”. When judge warned Mohammed that he faces execution if convicted of organizing the attacks on America, Mohammed said he welcomes the death penalty. “Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time,” Mohammed declared. “I will, God willing, have this, by you.”
A sound feed to journalists from the courtroom was turned off twice. The first time, a soldier told reporters it was because a detainee was discussing a medication he had been given, which was a privacy issue.
But his defense attorney, Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, told The Associated Press later that the prisoner had been discussing his five years as a prisoner of the United States.
The sound was also turned off when another defendant discussed early days of his imprisonment. Judge Ralph Kohlmann said that in both cases sound was turned off because classified information was discussed.
On September 23, 2008, in the voir dire process, Mohammed questioned the judge on his potential bias at trial. “Glaring and poking an occasional finger in the air,” Mohammed told Kohlmann, “The government considers all of us fanatical extremists,” and asked, “How can you, as an officer of the US Marine Corps, stand over me in judgment?” Insisting that he was attempting to work out if Kohlmann was a religious extremist, he continued: “[President] Bush said this is a crusader war and Osama bin Laden said this is a holy war against the crusades. If you were part of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson’s group, then you would not be impartial.”
For his part, Kohlmann attempted to maintain his dignity, explaining that he was currently unaffiliated with a church “because I’ve moved so often”. He added that he had previously worshiped at “various Lutheran churches and Episcopal churches”.
Mohammed then proceeded to ask Kohlmann about his views on torture. As part of the background materials supplied to him — or made available to the civilian lawyers who are voluntarily assisting him in his defense — he referred to an ethics seminar that Kohlmann had conducted at his daughter’s high school in 2005, in which the students had been asked to consider their responses to a “Ticking Time Bomb” scenario. Based on a fictional proposition that a bomb is about to go off, and an unwilling captive knows its location but is unwilling to disclose the information, the scenario is widely used by proponents of “enhanced interrogation techniques” to justify the use of torture.
Kohlmann explained that he encouraged the debate as part of “a complex question that might be dealt with differently if someone were specifically trying to save the nation or just looking at it from an ethical sense or just looking at it from a legal sense”, and dismissed a combative question from Mohammed — “It seems that you are supportive of the use of torture for national security?” — by stating, “I have no idea where that would come from”.
On October 12, 2008 Kohlmann ruled that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and his four co-charged, should be provided with laptops, so they can work on their defenses.
Kohlmann was scheduled to retire in 2009. In November 2008, he was unexpectedly replaced by Stephen Henley.
On December 8, 2008, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-defendants told the judge that they wished to confess and plead guilty to all charges. The plea will be delayed until a hearing
for Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ramzi Binalshibh can be held; Mohammed said, “We want everyone to plead together.” Spencer Ackerman, writing in the Washington Independent, reported that Presiding Officer Stephen Henley had to consider whether he was authorized to accept guilty pleas.
The trial was already underway. They’ve already pled guilty…Shoot them today.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Wordsmith —
You know, I would credit Andrew McCarthy’s opinion and yours a lot more if Holder’s decision was unprecedented. But I have asked over and over and over again the exact same question, which you cons continue to dodge:
Where was the outrage when BUSH TRIED AL QUEDA MEMBERS IN CIVILIAN COURTS!
Please explain the absense of conservative outrage over the criminal charges against Walker Lindh, Moussoui, Faris, the Lackawanna 10, the Miami 5, Jose Padilla, etc — all were al Queda and all were tried in federal court, with not a peep from conservatives. What intelligence secrets leaked out during those proceedings? What sources and methods did the Bush administration disclose? And why was there no outrage from you conservatives about that “9/10 mentality” on display when Bush tried terrorists in criminal proceedings?
I now add you to the list of contributors and posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious: this decision is no different than what the BUsh administration did all along.
You think it is “disgusting” that I consider whether his sister would want to see the trial of the people who killed her husband?
Your reaction says more about you than it says about me or Obama . . . .
No. It’s disgusting how you’re trying to put a personalized connection to the events of 9/11 in order to give some sort of legitimacy and endorsement of your opinion. In short, you’re politicizing without even knowing what the woman’s personal feelings actually are in the matter- a woman you don’t even know.
Says a lot about you.
Keep typing away. Long on wind and short on breath, breadth, and depth.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Patvann —
You wrote:
“I hear ya ma’am, but I can’t get past the fact that just prior to Holder becoming AG, he was in-fact working as the defense in these same cases. Conflict of interest, anyone?”
Care to provide some links supporting this claim?
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Wordsmith —
You obstensible objection represents just one more of a number of 180 reversals by conservatives. Given the lack of objection to the Bush administration’s prosecution of al Queda members in federal courts, it seems that you were, at minimum, not against is before, but you are against it now. Why the reversal? You and Mike’s America STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED you sudden opposition to 9/11 perps and sundry al Queda members being tried in federal court. It was fine when Bush tried Moussoui in Virginia and Padilla in Miami, but it is NOT OK when Obama tries the rest of the skells in Manhattan.
Wordsmith, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR MIND!
You have no legal argument on why it is improper and there is no legitimate logistical argument, either. NYC knows how to try terrorism cases better than any other city; they have, literally, been there and done that. And all the equities support trying these people in the place where their criminal acts had the most impact — including the ability for 9/11 families (like my stockbroker’s sister) to be involved.
I do have a suggestion, though. All you conservatives who don’t want to see the Obama administration convict these terrorists in NYC (and that appears, at root, to be the actual objection), why don’t you all band together. And when the terror suspects move for a change of venue (which they will, because the terrorists and the conservatives seem to be of the same mind here), why don’t you cons do a friend of the court brief and suggest moving the case to federal court in Albany (the Northern District of New York) or Buffalo (Western District). Or suggest that they get the jurors from Buffalo or Albany and have them stay in Manhattan. Don’t just oppose everything the Obama administration does, no matter how sensible; make yourselves useful for once!
I see B-Rob hasn’t responded to your last comment, no matter, you are right. Then there is this……..On November 9th the 911 families wrote a letter to Obama objecting to using our courts to try terrorists, and signed it.
Here’s an excerpt of the lengthy letter:
We strongly object to the creation of a two-tier system of justice for terrorists in which those responsible for the death of thousands on 9/11 will be treated as common criminals and afforded the kind of platinum due process accorded American citizens, yet members of Al Qaeda who aspire to kill Americans but who do not yet have blood on their hands, will be treated as war criminals. To date, you have offered no explanation or justification for this contradiction, even as you readily acknowledge that the 9/11 conspirators, now designated “unprivileged enemy belligerents,” are appropriately accused of war crimes. We believe that this two-tier system, in which war criminals receive more due process protections than would-be war criminals, will be mocked and rejected in the court of world opinion as an ill-conceived contrivance aimed, not at justice, but at the appearance moral authority.
The public has a right to know that prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in federal courts will result in a plethora of legal and procedural problems that will severely limit or even jeopardize the successful prosecution of their cases. Ordinary criminal trials do not allow for the exigencies associated with combatants captured in war, in which evidence is not collected with CSI-type chain-of-custody standards. None of the 9/11 conspirators were given the Miranda warnings mandated in Article III courts. Prosecutors contend that the lengthy, self-incriminating tutorials Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others gave to CIA interrogators about 9/11 and other terrorist operations–called “pivotal for the war against Al-Qaeda” in a recently released, declassified 2005 CIA report–may be excluded in federal trials. Further, unlike military commissions, all of the 9/11 cases will be vulnerable in federal court to defense motions that their prosecutions violate the Speedy Trial Act. Indeed, the judge presiding in the case of Ahmed Ghailani, accused of participating in the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, killing 212 people, has asked for that issue to be briefed by the defense. Ghailani was indicted in 1998, captured in Pakistan in 2004, and held at Guantanamo Bay until 2009.
Additionally, federal rules risk that classified evidence protected in military commissions would be exposed in criminal trials, revealing intelligence sources and methods and compromising foreign partners, who will be unwilling to join with the United States in future secret or covert operations if doing so will risk exposure in the dangerous and hostile communities where they operate. This poses a clear and present danger to the public. The safety and security of the American people is the President’s highest duty.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “the challenges of terrorism trials are overwhelming.” Mr. Mukasey, formerly a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, presided over the multi-defendant terrorism prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abel Rahman, the cell that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and conspired to attack other New York landmarks. In addition to the evidentiary problems cited above, he expressed concern about courthouse and jail facility security, the need for anonymous jurors to be escorted under armed guard, the enormous costs associated with the use of U.S. marshals necessarily deployed from other jurisdictions, and the danger to the community which, he says, will become a target for homegrown terrorist sympathizers–like the recent Fort Hood shooter–or embedded Al Qaeda cells.
Finally, there is the sickening prospect of men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being brought to the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, or the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, just a few blocks away from the scene of carnage eight years ago, being given a Constitutionally mandated platform upon which he can mock his victims, exult in the suffering of their families, condemn the judge and his own lawyers, and rally his followers to continue jihad against the men and women of the U.S. military, fighting and dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan on behalf of us all.
There is no guarantee that Mr. Mohammed and his co-conspirators will plead guilty, as in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose prosecution nevertheless took four years, and who is currently attempting to recant that plea.
The lengthy list of 911 families that signed is below the letter, scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll through the list if you wish, many signed it.
@MataHarley: I do admire your patience and ability to tolerate fools gladly.
Yes, we should point out how Obama is doing precisely what Bush did in terms of renditions, holding terrorists at Bagram, what the left called “domestic spying” with FISA and so much else. But it won’t make a dent in our arrogant and willfully ignorant George Soros parrot.
Another general point that cannot be stressed too much, and has only been lightly touched on here, is the issue of what this overtly political act will do to future CIA operations such as the one that nabbed KSM in Pakistan. Will our agents now think twice about undertaking such operations? Will they be forced to read these monsters miranda rights and gather the level of evidence necessary to meet the standards of an American criminal trial? It’s that chilling effect on our national security agencies that amplifies the already huge security concerns this political decision entails.
And will the same people who got their panties in a wad over the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s PAST undercover status now be equally concerned with the safety of current CIA operatives? Don’t bet on it.
RatDog
14 years ago
Sorry if it’s been brought up in this long list of comments, but my wife suggested the following: first the AFOne flyover panic, now this. Does Barry hate New York? Does the Chicago mob hate the New York mob? Hmmmmm.
@Missy: Thanks for posting the letter and the link. I had it in my “stack of stuff” yesterday and just didn’t get to it.
Here’s Tim Brown, 9/11 Firefighter who barely escaped death himself and who heads up “The Bravest” which wrote the letter:
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Missy —
I did write a response, but I think it may be in moderation, or lost in the ether.
But Missy, I have a question. You wrote “the 911 families” signed a letter opposing the trial of the 9/11 suspects in federal court.
Did all 3,000 families sign the letter? What percentage signed? And did they sign the letter after Bush prosecuted the 20th hijacker in federal court? If so, their letter was tardy by a number of years.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
You still have not answered the question.
Why didn’t you conservatives oppose Bush trying.
The “disclosure of agents” thing is a red herring and you know it. How much did the Bush administration disclose when it prosecuted Walker Lindh, Farris, Moussoui, Padilla, etc.? There is no logical reason to think that this approach will be any different.
I am still trying to get at the root of the con reversal on the whole “prosecuting al Queda in federal court” issue. One side of me thinks you cons don’t want to see Obama convict the terrorists and get the glory. In that sense, the opposition is cravenly political.
Another side of me wonders if you just fear the risk that the idiotic torture decisions of the Bush administration will be shown to have been ineffective and counterproductive. In that sense, the opposition is partisan, too.
Is it possible that you folks truly believe that this sets a bad precedent by trying the case in the media capital of the world? If that is the case, trying it in Virginia (where Moussoui was tried by the Bush administration) is only slightly less public. So you opposition would not be craven as much as it is misguided.
Safety is also not a serious concern; there is no better court in the country for trying these kinds of cases.
Propaganda is not a serious concern, either, because the judge’s do not have to permit the defendant to offer “evidence” of that type, or permit discovery.
I am leaning on the opposition being purely political, mainly because you refuse to be consistent on the issue of proesecuting al Queda members in federal court.
If I weren’t such an optimist I’d say……”WE’RE DOOMED!!!!”
But I am
So I won’t
Hey, that’s great news for KSM.
He should try to get to Nathan’s Famous in Coney Island while he’s in NYC, They have the best Franks in all the world.
Maybe he can visit some other great NYC landmarks while he’s there.
Unfrickingbelieveable!
Obama 2012
Because even murdering terrorists have
the same rights as those they seek
to kill.
As radical as Holder, and Obama are, this is simply an attempt to open the possibility to try the prior admin for war crimes (the left for years have accused the Bush admin of war crimes; waterboarding etc).
I also want to mention that Obama wrote in ‘Dreams of my father”: Should the wind blow at my muslim brothers, I will stand with them!”
This also shows in his reaction to the Ft. Hood killing by a radical jihadist. Nothing the Obama, and Holder admin does is without motive, and what better way to get this jihadist into civil court, giving info away to handicap the fight against radical islam. Remember KSM is the guy who beheaded Daniel Perl with a dull knife, why he was screaming. That won’t matter to them, because Daniel Perl was jewish.
I can’t help but to think, this admin is hellbend to cause extreme harm to this country.
One more thing: When is anyone in DC screaming loud, and clear: Stop, enough is enough. Somebody got to have some gonards.
Let there be no mistake regarding this decision by Eric “Rich Loving” Holder and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
We have a President of the United States who has been kowtowing to Islamo Fascism since Day 1 when he met Abbas abroad, the Cairo Speech, bowing to the King of Saud, etc.
Under this malevolent scenario these scumbags will have access to intelligence files, methods and maybe even operatives?????????? The Bush administration will indirectly be put on trail due to waterboarding, enhanced interrogation, et al
I would not put it past Obama to one day, if convicted, pardon these monsters or exchange them in some sort of peace meal deal with his Caliphate dreaming, Muslims brothers and sisters.
Is this ever going to be a goat rope. The Obama administration is not putting the terrorist on trial, they are going to try the Bush administration. If the defense can prove that these terrorist were water boarded that will grounds to throw the charges out. Then the Justice Department will blame Bush and Cheney for the whole mess.
The continued silliness on the right makes me that much happier that McCain got his a$$ kicked last November. Where to start . . . .
Let’s start with the Supreme Court. It was more than five years ago that the Court, in something like 7-2 decisions running in series, ruled that anyone captured by the US had the right to an independent review of the charges against them, and the right to a trial. It is not a matter of whether these guys get a trial, but how.
The people who are getting military tribunals are people who did not commit any crimes in the US. KSM and company will get their justice metted out by US citizens since that is who they targeted. Again, I am having a hard time finding out why this is a bad thing. Indeed, it is the exact same procedure that has been used in terrorism cases going back almost 50 years.
Let’s loop in a little history. The SDNY courts have done terrorism prosecutions going back to the Puerto Rican nationalists, up to the blind sheik and the first WTC bombing perps. How did those prosecutions turn out? The terrorists had access to the courts, they had great attorneys, and they were convicted in open court and they all are rotting in jail or dead. The al Queda people, if there is evidence against them, will be buried next to John Ghotti and James Earl Ray and Tim McVeigh. On what basis do you think this prosecution will turn out any different than the Clinton administrations prosecution of the blind sheik?
Prosecuting them in NYC will give the families of the victims (concentrated in the Washington DC corridor) a chance to get involved. It is easier for the California families to get there than to some remote island, too. You will have the sunlight of due process, not some shadowy hidden procedure that Islamists can claim was rigged all along. These guys will have good lawyers fighting for them, not some out-gunned JAG officer. And a jury of New Yorkers, Manhattanites at that! If we can get a Muslim or two on the jury, all the better.
Remember also — Holder was at Justice when the blind sheik went down. He knows what went right back then, what went wrong, and what problems may crop up. Not to mention the fact that the federal prosecutors most likely WANTED to prosecute them here and not in a tribunal. Indeed, the Virginia prosecutors and NYC prosecutors were fighting for the chance to convict there mopes. Federal prosecutors RARELY lose. They are the best of the best, with the best resources, which is why they only go after the big fish. They will win these convictions and the al Queda members will draw their lasts breaths in a federal prison in Colorado. And every fact against them will be public and in the newspapers, wired instantaneously around the world.
The only people who are a-scared of these al Queda people are . . . conservatives. Why are conservatives afraid of al Queda? I am not sure why.
Are conservatives afraid that the public will know just how badly the Bush administration tortured people into making false confessions, when their actual conduct would have been enough to convict? If that is the concern, then that is not enough of a reason to take justice from the citizens of the US and the SDNY, where close to 3000 people died one Tuesday morning.
Are the conservatives afraid that there is not enough evidence to convict some of these guys? If so, they should not have been held for five years and tortured. Again — a Bush administration f-up is not a good enough reason to hide these guys from the light of justice before a jury of their peers. You can call them terrorists, killers, whatever. You can say they “don’t deserve” due process, but the Supreme Court has spoken: they do. In my mind, they can be no worse than the seriel killer who is about to be tried in Cleveland for preying on poor, Black female drug addicts and prostitutes. He gets a lawyer, a duly appointed judge, appeal rights, and he will either die of old age, or by the needle. Same with these guys.
Are conservatives afraid KSM will try to grandstand? That is his right, as it would be the right of anyone facing trial. The Supreme Court just heard the case of another seriel killer here in Cleveland who went to his trial sporting a Hitler mustache. The accused has the right to make an a$$ of himself. But what, exactly are you cons afraid that will do? Lengthen the trial? Who cares. Create a p.r. nightmare for the US? Hardly. He is not going to say anything to anyone that they do not know already: the US is evil; Israle is evil; Jews are evil and control everything and should all die; Obama is evil, worse than Bush, controlled by the Jews, and an infidel, blah blah blah . . . .
Will this be an al Queda recruiting device? I doubt it. How will that play out, exactly? “See how the infidels are treating Khalid. Feeding him hallal food, giving him a Koran, and letting his well-educated lawyers argue that he should be spared death. Letting him speak his truth to the jury. A multiracial jury of Muslims and Catholics and athiests and Jews passing judgment on our brother. A Black judge, Barrington Parker. Pure evil.” Uh, huh . . that will rally downtrodden Muslims to al Queda’s side! (I won’t even bother with the fact that Gitmo, which cons seem to love, is already a great recruiting device, as was the Bush torture regime.)
NO, I suspect I know what conservatives are REALLY afraid of. Could it be they are REALLY afraid that the convictions will come down in public in 2012, while Obama is running for re-election?
Hmm . . . . I think I am onto something here . . . . Cons are not so much afraid that these guys would be acquited. Hell, that has pretty much happened already, with bin Laden’s driver, Hamdan, being “convicted” and given a five month sentence and then deportation. But there was not much press about that because it happened at Gitmo. No, conservatives are much more fearful of a CONVICTION in New York City, one that hands a victory to Obama’s Justice Department, one that pleases the 9/11 families, one that passes the muster of fairness even in the darkest recesses of the globe and one that isolates the whiney conservatives even further from the mainstream of America. That is what they fear the most.
psychics (psycho chics) look into future and give us a peek at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Christmas eve, New York City trial. Another Christmas present from the Democrats.
Just in time for the holidays. After killing thousands of Americans on 911, Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , believes himself to be Mohammand-Claus. In an attempt to prove that the terrorist is delusional, the U.S. District Attorney today asked the Court to declare Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a Muslim terrorist and to force him to remove his beard and little red hat. The terrorist’s attorney in a counter move, asked the Court to declare that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in fact Mohammed-Claus. In a classic holiday scene, the terrorist’s attorney related to the judge that he has letters from people who, after cheering the death and destruction of 911, wrote letters to Mohammed-Claus, that the U.S. Post Office delivered to the court house. After the attorney hesitated the judge ordered him to put the letters on his desk. The judge was soon covered in letters, as the court room full of Muslims exploded with calls of “Allahu Akbar” and “fa la hal la la gee, gee, gee, gee……” The judge became suspicious when he noticed that the letters that covered him, all smelled like a strange mix of camels, pita bread, hummus, and baba ghanoush. The trial has been continued until Christmas Eve.
And another example of how cons make no sense at all. Hassan is either (a) a psychotic nut who used religion to give order to his troubled life, went home every evening to his $350 per month apartment (with no woman) and one day decided to shoot up his workplace, or (b) a sleeper Islamist terrorist.
If I am right and he falls into catagory (a), then obviously, he should be prosecuted in the court of competent jurisdiction, which in this case is a military court. He will be afforded the rights of all soldiers, which is a competent defense, due process, and a jury of military people.
Some people think he falls into catagory (b). I doubt it, seeing as al Queda is not known to recruit nut jobs — and if your psychiatrist co-workers think you might be psychotic, well . . . Anyway — I have yet to hear anyone make a rational argument that he should be tried anywhere other than where he is set to be tried, which is the military court martial. Why hasn’t anyone made that argument? Why hasn’t anyone made the argument that he should be tortured like the other 9/11 folks so we can find out who else might be in on it?
And if he is a terrorist and should be tried in some other process other than the regular court of competent jurisdiction, then why haven’t cons made the same argument about the neo-Nazi who shot up the Holocaust Museum, or the nut who shot the abortion doctor? Why do they deserve a jury of their peers in the normal course of justice and Hassan doesn’t?
It’s nice to see the wingnuts have something to wet their beds over since the birther/bagger hiccup is now completely over. I mean, fox would be without a whining point if not for this.
Good luck wingers!
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that in every case when an act of terror is committed, or a flurry of military deaths occur, or any other time a tragedy occurs to those OTHER than to abortion providers, the Lefties stay low and quiet for about a week, then only after the outrage has leveled off, do they come out from under their rocks and start throwing crap like a chimp?
You will notice there is never any condolences for the victims.
You will also notice that the blame is diverted.
You will also notice the lies, and straw-men used to make their newly-found “points”.
You will also notice that every “point” made is reactionary-only, never foundational.
Mostly one notices how freakin weak these reactionary “points” truly are.
@B-Rob said:
Yep, that’s why the Bush Administration and Congress approved the military tribunal system.
All of that was painstakingly worked on for YEARS and now is tossed out the window because Obama is trying to play to his left wing America hating base who wants to see Bush and Cheney, the CIA and the U.S. military on trial, NOT terrorists.
Oopsy, I guess Obama forgot he said this back in 2006: (from HotAirPundit)
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/obama-2006-khalid-shiekh-mohammed-will.html
I know, I know, he was for a military trial before he was/is now against it?
@ SoCal
Remember…All Obama positions come with an expiration date of his choosing, and if you’re a Lefty, your position changes along with his.
Kinda like they’re having sex.
I realize I glossed over B-Rob’s confession a bit too hastily earlier.
We should also consider what he meant by this:
“Are the conservatives afraid that there is not enough evidence to convict some of these guys?”
What a complete admission that Dems like B-Rob live in a 9/10 mentality. It’s a WAR we are fighting and the U.S. military’s job isn’t to gather evidence on the battlefield.
And if we needed more proof that Obama’s decision here has a huge political component read this from B:
“I know what conservatives are REALLY afraid of. Could it be they are REALLY afraid that the convictions will come down in public in 2012, while Obama is running for re-election?”
Bad enough Obama made this decision to please his left wing base, but B-Rob suggests Obama may be doing this for entirely political motives.
SHAMEFUL!!!
Another bogus B-Robism: ” Prosecuting them in NYC will give the families of the victims (concentrated in the Washington DC corridor) a chance to get involved. “
So the 9/11 families want to get involved hunh?
@ Mike’s America —
A few thoughts —
“9/10 mentality” is another of those empty phrases that conservatives like to throw around. You say it as if it means something. It doesn’t. Witness . . . well, I am confused. When GW Bush’s Justice Department decided to prosecute Zach Moussoui in federal court, where was the con outrage about that “9/10 mentality”? Or the outrage over John Walker Lindh, the Lackawanna 10, or the Miami goofs? All were post 9/11 and all were prosecuted in the US by Bush’s Justice department, with lawyers representing them, and with the threat of jail time. I do not seem to recall the Republic slipping into anarchy when that happened, nor do I remember al Queda members roaming the streets of Buffalo and Miami over that. Your selective outrage now, when Obama is pretty much doing the same thing, speaks volumes.
You also wrote —
“All of that was painstakingly worked on for YEARS and now is tossed out the window because Obama is trying to play to his left wing America hating base who wants to see Bush and Cheney, the CIA and the U.S. military on trial, NOT terrorists.”
So what? What difference does it make if the prior administration set up military commissions? How is that germane to anything? Obama is treating this case the same way other cases have been treated. And your post is not even accurate. Some of the detainees will have military tribunals, the ones who committed no crimes in the US or against US citizens. Seems to me that is a reasonable distinction.
In addition, there is certainly nothing unlawful about trying them in the US. The military tribunals, in contrast, have not passed constitutional muster. Why should the highest value terrorists be tried under a system that (a) has not been approved by the Supreme Court and (b) might have double jeopardy attach if they were tried there and the process was deemed unconstitutional?
We have a Constitution that has worked well for more than 200 years; you would like to have it be curtailed and thrown out, I guess. Well, no thanks. The Supreme Court could have seen things your way and ruled that these guys had no right to a trial; but they did not, did they? Those who committed crimes in the US get tried in the locale of their wrongdoing by a jury of their peers. These are precepts that go back hundreds of years in English common law — trying someone in the shire where the crime was committed. And that is what these mopes did: they committed awful violations of US criminal law and they deserve to be punished before the eyes of the entire world. All we have is the written law that is on the books; that is how we constrain behavior, that is how we punish wrongdoing. We do not lynch people and we do not torture them. And those who violate THOSE laws and lynch and torture get tried according to the law, not by the sword. If you would prefer to live under a different system, I am sure you can find another country more to your liking.
New York City has held terrorism trials before. Their police force has its own intelligence unit with Arabic speaking interpreters. They will be fine and Holder will get convictions in the light of day, not in some far away hidden recesses of the Eastern bloc.
Will they try to turn it into a propaganda opportunity? Maybe. But the judge has the authority to control, through rulings, what will come into evidence and what won’t. If they disrupt the proceedings, they can be removed and watch by camera. Again . . . there is nothing new under the sun. This has all been done before.
Another thing: the article cited FIVE people from amongst the thousands of 9/11 families and those five people oppose the trials. One of those five, the Burlingame woman, is a well worn con activist. But why should we listen to her any more than the “harpies” (Ann Coulter’s words) who might support the Obama decision?
But this is the best part, the quote from Ed Kowalski:
“To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having U.S. constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and it’s never been done before. President Obama is wrong to do this.”
Sorry to tell you, Mr. Kowalski, but not only do they get constitutional protections AS THE SUPREME COURT RULED, but this HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. It was done in the 90s under Clinton, in the 1950s under Eisenhower, and in the 2000s under Bush. Terrorists face trial all the time. Ditto war criminals. There is just an ignorance of history and law there that is stunning to behold. And it is even more stunning that you would cite it with approval. The commentary on the right is all about emotions and has nothing to do with the law.
And how is it “bogus” to say that the families will have a chance to get involved if the trial is in NYC? If these five families don’t want to get involved, so be it. But my stockbroker’s sister, whose husband Chris died in the jet that hit the Pentagon, she might want to see the perpetrators brought to justice. It is much easier for her to do that if the trial is in NYC than if it was held at some remote military base.
I stand by my original claim: the real fear on the right is that Obama’s Justice will convict in 2012 and get a political win. Otherwise, why didn’t we have the screaming and yelling from the right during any of the Bush era terrorism trials of other terrorists, including Taliban (Lindh) and 9/11 (Moussoui)? What was the difference then? Where was the outrage then?
@B-Rob: “9/10 mentality” fits you to a tee whether you like it or not.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s nothing but noise.
I didn’t see much of a substantive response to what I wrote above, just another misdirected attack.
@ Mile’s America —
I almost missed this!
“Bad enough Obama made this decision to please his left wing base, but B-Rob suggests Obama may be doing this for entirely political motives.”
You 20 point type outrage is HILARIOUS! I did not say Obama made the decision for political reasons. Indeed, since trying KSM in Manhattan is pretty friggin similar to trying Jose Padilla in Miami, I am not sure how you could say that Obama did this “to pleas his left wing base” when what he did is the same as what Bush did. Did Bush do the same thing to please the Dems left wing base, too? And why weren’t you con protesting THOSE prosecutions of al Queda linked terrorists in federal courts before federal judges and juries? Huh? Please explain!
What I DID SAY, however, is that the conservatives selective outrage probably has politics at the root. Again I ask: if it is so awful and evil and wrong to try these al Queda terrorists in US criminal courts, then why was it OK for the Bush administration to try the others in federal court? Please explain the difference.
@ Mike’s America —
Dude, you are totally hilarious! I made about nine different substantive points on why you are simply WRONG. But answer one question:
Why was there no conservative outrage when George W. Bush tried al Queda members in federal court?
B-Rob… surely you can’t be this easy of a pigeon?
Kindly tell us just what terrorist was apprehended on foreign soil that was tried in a US federal court?
and in case you don’t get the Constitutional difference, I’ll say it again s-l-o-w-l—–y….. “apprehended on foreign soil”.
duh…
B-rob:
Umm… Holder and Clinton let the Puerto Ricans go free, and the Blind Sheik’s lawyer was imprisoned for passing notes between him and known terrorists.
Turned out great (sarc/off)
Oh dear, I think we have an Geraldo groupie on our hands.
@B-Rob: You haven’t made any substantive points. All you have done is give us a fine regurgitation of the George Soros anti-American point of view.
I hardly call that substantive.
But, you’re clearly a legend in your own mind!
A typical 9/10 delusionist.
@ Mike’s AmericA — It think it is interesting that you claim to be some kind of national security expert, trained under Brzinski (sic?), etc. Yet I asked you a simple question, one that should be very easy to answer for such a self-described learned man:
“if it is so awful and evil and wrong to try these al Queda terrorists in US criminal courts, then why was it OK for the Bush administration to try the others in federal court? Please explain the difference.”
Your response? Rhetoric about me being supposedly “anti-American”. Yeah . . . real powerful argument there, guy!
Do you cons see why you are on the outside looking in, power-wise? Do you understand why you are no longer trusted with the levers of power . . . sorta like the 76 year old whose kids take away the car keys? You think you know what you are talking about, projecting “strength”. But in reality, it is such self-reverential b.s., conservatives claiming they are the only ones who “love America”, etc. Yeah, you represent “real America” — its just that there are fewer actual people in your “real America” than in . . . you know, the actual American that votes. But you continue to pontificate, as if you folks actually know something. But I think I just exposed a sinple fact:
You, Mike, don’t know actually jack sh*t about the subject you are writing about.
You don’t acknowledge the Supreme Court rulings and you don’t seem to understand the fact that military tribunals as created by the GOP Congress in 2006 — the ones you claimed were so great that Obama was “trashing” — were STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You don’t take into account the history of terror trials and convictions in the Southern District of New York, and you don’t even seem to comprehend that Bush did the exact same thing you are whining about Obama doing, i.e., trying al Queda members in US federal courts in the United States. I point all this out, as well as the fact that New York City is a heck of a lot easier for 9/11 family members (concentrated in East Coast Blue states) to reach if they want to attend trial. And your comeback? Your response, as honed by your years at Zbig’s knee? Your learned takedown of what I noted?
George Soros. And anti-American. How friggin weak can you get?
@ Patvann —
I think if you were to ask the Puerto Rican nationalists and the blind sheik, they would tend to disagree with you that things went so well.
By the way, as usual, you can’t even get the basic facts right. The Puerto Rican nationalists whose sentences were commuted were NOT THE TRIGGER MEN.
On the blind sheik’s lawyer going to prison . . . an interesting tidbit, but you fail to point out that (a) he was convicted years before she was even arrested, and (b) she is fat and homely.
Yeah, I said she is fat and homely. Because those facts are about as relevant to this discussion as her passing notes is. What the hell does her being convicted in 2005 have to do with him being tried and convicted in NYC in the mid-1990s? You cons really have a hard time staying on subject. Sheesh!
@B-Rob: Try spelling Zbig’s last name “Brzezinski” unless your sic[k].
And I’m not interested in playing word games with an insulting George Soros windup toy. But I will be happy to stack up my education and experience with national security topics against yours any day of the week.
I’ll also be happy to stack up my experience in government at every level from the court house to the White House against your membership in Moveon.org.
Especially so when you say idiotic crapola like “Do you understand why you are no longer trusted with the levers of power.”
Have you noticed how the Independents which afforded Obama his victory in 2008 are fleeing in droves? If not, I recommend you take a look at the election results for VA an NJ governor.
Now spare me the rest of your insults and smarmy, arrogant wise cracking. Insects like you don’t impress me much.
@ MataHarley —
Fish in a barrel —
“Kindly tell us just what terrorist was apprehended on foreign soil that was tried in a US federal court?”
Mir Amal Kasi and Ramzi Yusef were tried in civil courts after being arrested in Pakistan. As well as John Walker Lindh, who was captured in Afghanistan; he pled guilty in federal court before any trial.
“and in case you don’t get the Constitutional difference, I’ll say it again s-l-o-w-l—–y….. ‘apprehended on foreign soil.'”
“duh…”
And in case you missed the last five years of US Supreme Court litigation, I will say it s-l-o-w-l-y — it makes no legal difference where they were apprehended, whether in the US or on foreign soil: they still have the right to a fair trial.
Duh!
Do you even have a clue about what you are pontificating on, Mata? It seems you don’t, what with your distinction between people being apprehended on foreign soil, versus in the US. As a matter of law, it simply does not make any difference.
You cons are pontificating about what constitutional right you feel terrorists should not have, but not even seeming to acknowledge that the Supreme Court already rejected your preferred interpretation years ago. You are, to use an analogy, still claiming a flat Earth when everyone else acknowledges it is a sphere. Your first principal (that they are not entitled to due process) is so fundamentally flawed, that your conclusions from that, and the data you used to support those conclusions, are just flat out plain wrong. But since you have NOT KNOWLEDGE about the underlying court decisions, you seem to think what Obama is doing (trying al Queda members in federal court) is somehow “new” or “unusual.” It ain’t. Been done before.
@ Mike’s America —
[ARROGANT, RUDE, WILLFULLY IGNORANT AND INSULTING POST ADOLESCENT COMMENT REMOVED BY POST MODERATOR].
B-Rob
fish in a barrel you are indeed
Yusef was EXTRADITED to the US. Imported to US soil by request deliberately for trial for crimes on US soil (not by bad SCOTUS calls… see my comment to you explaining the basics on another thread. Same with Mir Amal Kasi, who was arrested in Pakistan but EXTRADITED for crimes on US soil when shooting five people outside Langley.
Extradition for crimes on US soil is a wholly different matter than KSM.
Walker was a US citizen and always had Constitutional rights.
duh
Yes, I know on which I pontificate. Apparently, you do not. Most especially when you compare Moussoui and Padilla to KSM. You fall into the too stupid to vote category.
Wait a minute… After pondering the extradition argument, I’m retracting and agreeing with b-rob in part here (gasp!) as it relates specifically to KSM.
KSM *did* commit (or is charged with) crimes on US soil, and is therefore a prime candidate for extradition (even if by our joint military capture w-Pak) to the US for trial in a US federal court. Gotta live with that reality.
However r-bob is in Constitutionally (and SCOTUS) stupid in assuming that the Constitution – or the Boumediene decision – grants our Constitutional rights world wide.
Wow… that hurt. And now, I can’t argue KSM’s presence in NYC as invalid based on extradition laws. We may have to live with this one, folks.
@Rob
So all the crying and whining that led to the House and Senate establishing tribunal rules 3 years ago, was all for nothing. And it’s OK for Holder and Obama to ignore them all.
Hypocrites then and hypocrites now.
No Miranda was given either, so will you be Ok with the trial even starting? If you’re going to be a stickler for granting these ugly bags of mostly water the same “rights” as American citizens, then because they weren’t mirandized, we need to let them go. Are you ok with that too?
Is it OK for you that 5 are fed-court(ed) and 5 other are not? Or is that also being too mean to them? Why have the two different systems for the same crimes? Or is that ok with you too?
Then theres still the fact that Obama can hold them even is they are deemed not guilty. If he holds them over, are you ok with that? Will it still be “fair”?
Hypocrites then and hypocrites now. Can’t wait for the trial of the CIA to begin…
ah, Patvann… legal nuances are wasted on r-bob. He may be close to the DC/VA action, but he’s far removed from connecting the legal dots about access to the US federal system when it comes to Miranda, extradition for crimes on US soil, Constitutional rights to citizens or those apprehended on US soil regardless of citizenry for crimes. I guess, to him, capturing an enemy combatant on the battle field fits all these descriptions and situations, and Constitutional rights are granted to the world.
But I’ll bet the bozo votes every chance he gets…. Thus why we swirl down the toilet bowl. Public education ain’t what it used to be.
@MataHarley worried: “We may have to live with this one, folks. “
No, we do not.
There is simply NO Constitutional requirement for importing this terrorist monster into the United States. There is plenty of U.S. law supporting the trial of these terrorists by military tribunal. Just because KSM COULD be brought to the U.S. does not mean he MUST be.
Obama is doing this for the sake of politics pure and simple. National Security and Justice is the last thing on his mind.
All it really comes down to Mata, is residual BDS.
He and his kind are all now about the “holiness” of our system of laws, claiming sensitivity to “humaneness”, and acting concerned that the world will have less respect for us for doing nothing less than what the Geneva-conventions allow. Yet they now stay quiet about Obama’s continued practice of renditions, wiretaps, and the remaining military tribunals. Not to mention simply killing them as we do now, rather than capturing them. Hell, Obama has in-fact expanded the use of some of these practices, along with more “air raiding of villages”. So I guess by their silence, we can assume that they approve the fact that Obama is doing exactly what Bush was doing, the only difference is now that the Magic Negro is doing it, and not the dummy from Texas.
He and his ilk will say nothing about how we hand over all new prisoners that we don’t kill outright, to the Afghani’s who treat them worse than we ever treated a Nazi general.
They say nothing about how we now hand over non-Afghanis back to their own countries never to be seen again. I’ve worked with the Kazakh’s, and they don’t supply medical care and prayer rugs, I can assure you.
The real goal here is to poke a stick at BushCo. It has NOTHING to do with “fairness” or “rights”
They love to repeat the meme that somehow the world will respect us more, but that is a complete farce. As if the Taliban or anyone else gives damn how our legal system works or doesn’t. Most of the world laughs at our naiveté, and the only “kudos” he’ll ever get is from Fidel and self-hating BDS sufferers. Our military tribunal system, as set up and approved by the Demo-led Senate and House, is much more fair to the defendant than anything ever done in Belgium.
Then there’s the “torture”. The same “torture” that me, 3 or 4 guys here, and several hundred guys a year in our military went through. Waaaa! I wanna sue Carter cuz I got water poured on my face 12 times 29 years ago, and had to spend days at a time on my feet and awake, while listening to Anchors Away blasting the whole damn time.
I was so traumatized, that I went on to kill out-of-uniform Cubans in Grenada rather than capturing them, read them their rights, and bringing them to New York for trial to be defended by a terrorist-sympathizer.
Oh yea…I forgot…It was during war….My bad…
Good thing I didn’t get water in their noses, or I might REALLY feel bad.
Mike, there is “no Constitutional requirement” for extradition since the Constitution doesn’t talk about extradition. But fact is KSM is suspected of crimes on US soil dating back to the 1993 WTC. He was captured in Pakistan… possibly in a joint CIA/ISI raid. Pakistanis gave him to us (or we just took him… which would be a real bitch to see him walk based on the technicality of improper extradition paperwork).
But much as this anguishes me to say, there is ample extradition precedent that is applicable to KSM (not to be confused with the battlefield jihadists unconnected with a specific US crime). Based on what they are accusing KSM of doing, extradition fits the legal bill perfectly.
Believe me, I don’t like the bastard here either. Nor should it be precedent for bringing others who are *not* accused of committing crimes on US soil. But I have to say, re-reading what I responded to r-bob, the extradition bulb went on. And I hadn’t considered that aspect over the foreign apprehension of a jihadist (aka enemy combatant) who was fighting US forces on the battlefield.
KSM is as much a candidate for extradition as Ramzi Yousef for specific crimes here in the US. So I was wrong about him specifically. r-bob still remains delusional about “world wide” Constitutional rights. But while discussing that aspect, I honestly had to look at it in a different light.
Don’t get me wrong, Patvann… don’t in the least like the concept of importing KSM to the US court system. Holder better be right that they have enough admissible evidence. They’ll toss anything to do with interrogation since water in the nose just freaks out the average citizen who’s clueless. Wonder if they’ll use the military tribunal vile he spewed. And then, if they reject all, I have to wonder if anyone on the jury knows about jury nullification…
Lastly, of course, will there be any classified info revealed in the quest?
I’ll agree any day of the week I think this is a bad idea, but I’m going to have to change my attitude as to whether it has any legal footing. Mike is post 911 morally correct when he says we shouldn’t bring KSM here, even tho we can with extradition precedents. But then this POTUS and admin aren’t about to be nat’l security oriented after posturing about this crap all his campaign.
If KSM walks with a light sentence, or nat’l security intel is compromised in the legal process, this blows up in “da Won’s” face… as well as possibly some more US neighborhoods. In fact, I’d say while he’s on trial, we’re going to be at seriously high risk.
BTW, personally I prefer your ROE.
I hear ya ma’am, but I can’t get past the fact that just prior to Holder becoming AG, he was in-fact working as the defense in these same cases. Conflict of interest, anyone? He should have never been confirmed, and I don’t care who confirmed, nor what letter they has at the end of their name. That, and all the other reasons we’ve spoken of.
It’s gonna be ugly.
@B-Rob #7:
Here’s what the lead prosecutor in that case has to say:
@B-Rob #17:
Way to speculate and hijack what the feelings of a “husband of a relative of an acquaintance” ‘s feelings might be to serve your political agenda. Nice try.
Disgusting, actually.
@ MataHarley —
Sorry to burst your bubble, but extradition has nothing to do with anything. That is a process where, if the countries have a treaty, the main decision is whether the individual arrested is the one who is sought. It is simply irrelevant to this analysis because there is, with these persons, no dispute that they are who we think they are.
And another thing: you wrote —
“However r-bob is in Constitutionally (and SCOTUS) stupid in assuming that the Constitution – or the Boumediene decision – grants our Constitutional rights world wide.”
There is, of course, not a single court case cited by you, or even a rational argument given to support your notion that Hamdan, Hamdi and their progeny DON’T stand for the proposition I stated. You just throw your naked opinion out there (that our Constitution does not constrain our government outside the US borders) as if it is fact, or even rational. It is not. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on that.
The Bush adminisitration, led by incompetents John Yoo and David Addison, took the position that the president, because he was president, could have anyone he wanted arrested anywhere and held “indefinitely” — which is a fancy word for “foreever” — with no judicial review. They took the position that the president had auithority that was tantamount to a king. Justice Scalia practically laughed at the notion and said “No, you try them for treason or war crimes, or you let them go.” The bulk of the other justices said “No, Mr. President, the right of habeas, the Geneva Convention, the US Code of Military Justice and the federal criminal statutes all grant any detainee a right to judicial review” — which is what a criminal trial is, at root: a judge’s review of whether the state has evidence justifying its constraint on a person’s liberty. Whether you are a citizen or not, arrested in the US or not, those distinctions no more matter than whether the detainee was wearing boxers or briefs when arrested. Because the US Constitution is a contraint on governmental overreach, not just a bunch of “rights” given to the accused. THAT is the hoop the Supreme Court made the Bush administration jump through and that is why all these detainees have to be given a fair trial, or be set free. Both Obama and Bush have set some people free without trial, and others have been tried.
I mean, seriously, imagine if the Bush administration had won. It would mean that Obama could declare Glenn Beck an enemy combatant, have him arrested and taken to Poland, have him tortured there by the CIA and contractors, and hold him incommunicado for the rest of the Obama administration, with no court review, no attorney, etc. And the next President, if they so chose, could keep Glenn in chains for another four or eight years if they wanted. THAT is the power Addison and Yoo claimed the president possessed. Simply insane.
You cons see everything through a partisan lens; that is why your analysis here is so f’d up and nonsensical. Step back for a minute and consider this:
1) There is no difference between Obama trying Ramzi Binasheib (a 9/11 facilitator) in Manhattan and Zach Moussoui (the 20th hijacker and pilot in training) being tried in Virginia, across the river from the Capitol he wanted to destroy and down the road from the Pentago that they hit. So far, neither you nor Mike’s America nor that other mook have explained why there was no outcry from conservatives about the safety threats from that trial, how that gives Moussoui a forum he wanted, how that would disclose sources and methods of intelligence, blah blah blah. Only your partisan lens explains the different reaction now.
2) You folks keep saying that this is about the Bush administration and CIA torture regime being criticised. This is nonsensical on so many levels.
a) Obama has shown very little interest in going after the people who set thr torture regime in place. In fact, they have offered argument after argument to shield the Bush torture stuff from trial. Why? Because
b) If the CIA torture gets litigated, it will be litigated on Obama’s dime. His Justice department will defend, his administration would be constrained by any equitable relief ordered, and his Treasury will have to come up with the cash to pay any judgment. For obvious reasons, Obama would rather avoid all three outcomes. And, finally,
c) The more the trial focuses on the Bush administration torture (which occurred AFTER 9/11), the worse it is for Obama’s case against the al Queda members. Holder will try tooth and nail to keep the focus on who did what from 1991 through September 11, 2001 at 8:30 a.m., before the first plane was jacked. Oh, you forgot that part? Yeah. The evidence against KSM goes back to the early 90s. One of the reasons NYC is the preferred locale for the trial is because the federal prosecutors there have been dealing with this group since the first WTC attack. They have evidence that is not tainted by the counterproductive and illegal torture the Bush adminstration authorized. The more this is about torture, the more Holder’s case is at risk. But the fact remains that
3) Even if they were tried in military tribunals, the same problem would be present: what to do with confessions and implicating statements that were the product of torture.
Don’t push your luck, billy-bob. Extradition had everything to do with Yousef, and is still somewhat of a mystery with KSM, as the Pak interior minister spent time denying that the US requested extradition not long following his capture. Walker, as a US citizen, was subject to US laws and always had Constitutional rights. You might as well be comparing apples to an orange crate.
Blatant oversight by you as I had referenced the link rich post I did on Boumediene… the quintessential case INRE the status of the Gitmo detainees and the base there as US sovereign territory. Hamdan addressed the terms of military tribunals, and whether Hamdan was entitled to Geneva Convention rights and protections as a POW… a status which he fits no logical description.
Hamdi, on the other hand, is something akin to your absurd Beck analogy. Beck is exercising his 1st Amendment rights, and Hamdi (an American citizen) was hanging with the Taliban, fighting US forces, in Afghanistan. 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.
I disagreed with the enemy combatant approach on HamdI. Personally, I would have gone for treason, or just shot the scumbag on sight… my favorite Af/Pak miranda rights in today’s climate.
You mean like Obama is doing at Bagram? But obviously that’s okay with you. Rather hypocritical, to put it kindly. What the Bush admin did is the very same that Obama does with Bagram, sans the name controversy… place detainees from the battlefield in a US holding tank for intel/interrogation. And both POTUS specifically chose locations that were not to put them within the jurisdiction of the US federal court systems, as that would be counterproductive to their aims.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to combatants who wage battle as no state military. There are jihad gangs and thugs, not a state militia. Thus the definition of enemy combatants.
First of all I said I agreed that there is legal footing for bringing KSM here via extradition for accusations of crimes committed on US soil. I do not agree that any other of the merry band of thugs coming here have that same legal ground. Your points for being correct on any similarity as a precedent are akin to cleaning up some broken glass off the kitchen floor by doing a broad vaccuming and washing the walls of every room in the house. Constitutional rights are not granted to the world’s population, and military tribunals have a legitmate place in our system in conditions of war.
However I have not entered the argument INRE “a forum” about KSM’s trial. Additionally, you are wrong. I was royally PO’d that US Marshals passed Moussoui’s classified info which he should NOT have possessed as part of discovery. This stuff simply cannot be handled in the US court system without extreme risk. So if you think I was a happy camper during Moussoui, you are batting 1000 with your errors. It’s like all the ASSumptions you do with your personal assaults.
And speaking of partisan, it appears to be you who demonstrates that quality with your BDS lens INRE the previous admin, while deliberately overlooking identical actions (military tribunals and holding Bagram detainees indefinitely without charges or trial) by the current admin. If you haven’t looked at your rear end, that kettle is as black as the pot you accuse.
@ Wordsmith —
You think it is “disgusting” that I consider whether his sister would want to see the trial of the people who killed her husband?
Your reaction says more about you than it says about me or Obama . . . .
A good compendium of the facts.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed#encyclopedia
Excerpt:
The trial was already underway. They’ve already pled guilty…Shoot them today.
@ Wordsmith —
You know, I would credit Andrew McCarthy’s opinion and yours a lot more if Holder’s decision was unprecedented. But I have asked over and over and over again the exact same question, which you cons continue to dodge:
Where was the outrage when BUSH TRIED AL QUEDA MEMBERS IN CIVILIAN COURTS!
Please explain the absense of conservative outrage over the criminal charges against Walker Lindh, Moussoui, Faris, the Lackawanna 10, the Miami 5, Jose Padilla, etc — all were al Queda and all were tried in federal court, with not a peep from conservatives. What intelligence secrets leaked out during those proceedings? What sources and methods did the Bush administration disclose? And why was there no outrage from you conservatives about that “9/10 mentality” on display when Bush tried terrorists in criminal proceedings?
I now add you to the list of contributors and posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious: this decision is no different than what the BUsh administration did all along.
@B-Rob #42:
No. It’s disgusting how you’re trying to put a personalized connection to the events of 9/11 in order to give some sort of legitimacy and endorsement of your opinion. In short, you’re politicizing without even knowing what the woman’s personal feelings actually are in the matter- a woman you don’t even know.
Says a lot about you.
Keep typing away. Long on wind and short on breath, breadth, and depth.
@ Patvann —
You wrote:
“I hear ya ma’am, but I can’t get past the fact that just prior to Holder becoming AG, he was in-fact working as the defense in these same cases. Conflict of interest, anyone?”
Care to provide some links supporting this claim?
@ Wordsmith —
You obstensible objection represents just one more of a number of 180 reversals by conservatives. Given the lack of objection to the Bush administration’s prosecution of al Queda members in federal courts, it seems that you were, at minimum, not against is before, but you are against it now. Why the reversal? You and Mike’s America STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED you sudden opposition to 9/11 perps and sundry al Queda members being tried in federal court. It was fine when Bush tried Moussoui in Virginia and Padilla in Miami, but it is NOT OK when Obama tries the rest of the skells in Manhattan.
Wordsmith, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR MIND!
You have no legal argument on why it is improper and there is no legitimate logistical argument, either. NYC knows how to try terrorism cases better than any other city; they have, literally, been there and done that. And all the equities support trying these people in the place where their criminal acts had the most impact — including the ability for 9/11 families (like my stockbroker’s sister) to be involved.
I do have a suggestion, though. All you conservatives who don’t want to see the Obama administration convict these terrorists in NYC (and that appears, at root, to be the actual objection), why don’t you all band together. And when the terror suspects move for a change of venue (which they will, because the terrorists and the conservatives seem to be of the same mind here), why don’t you cons do a friend of the court brief and suggest moving the case to federal court in Albany (the Northern District of New York) or Buffalo (Western District). Or suggest that they get the jurors from Buffalo or Albany and have them stay in Manhattan. Don’t just oppose everything the Obama administration does, no matter how sensible; make yourselves useful for once!
@Wordsmith:
I see B-Rob hasn’t responded to your last comment, no matter, you are right. Then there is this……..On November 9th the 911 families wrote a letter to Obama objecting to using our courts to try terrorists, and signed it.
Here’s an excerpt of the lengthy letter:
http://www.keepamericasafe.com/?page_id=1822
The lengthy list of 911 families that signed is below the letter, scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll through the list if you wish, many signed it.
@MataHarley: I do admire your patience and ability to tolerate fools gladly.
Yes, we should point out how Obama is doing precisely what Bush did in terms of renditions, holding terrorists at Bagram, what the left called “domestic spying” with FISA and so much else. But it won’t make a dent in our arrogant and willfully ignorant George Soros parrot.
Another general point that cannot be stressed too much, and has only been lightly touched on here, is the issue of what this overtly political act will do to future CIA operations such as the one that nabbed KSM in Pakistan. Will our agents now think twice about undertaking such operations? Will they be forced to read these monsters miranda rights and gather the level of evidence necessary to meet the standards of an American criminal trial? It’s that chilling effect on our national security agencies that amplifies the already huge security concerns this political decision entails.
And will the same people who got their panties in a wad over the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s PAST undercover status now be equally concerned with the safety of current CIA operatives? Don’t bet on it.
Sorry if it’s been brought up in this long list of comments, but my wife suggested the following: first the AFOne flyover panic, now this. Does Barry hate New York? Does the Chicago mob hate the New York mob? Hmmmmm.
@Missy: Thanks for posting the letter and the link. I had it in my “stack of stuff” yesterday and just didn’t get to it.
Here’s Tim Brown, 9/11 Firefighter who barely escaped death himself and who heads up “The Bravest” which wrote the letter:
@ Missy —
I did write a response, but I think it may be in moderation, or lost in the ether.
But Missy, I have a question. You wrote “the 911 families” signed a letter opposing the trial of the 9/11 suspects in federal court.
Did all 3,000 families sign the letter? What percentage signed? And did they sign the letter after Bush prosecuted the 20th hijacker in federal court? If so, their letter was tardy by a number of years.
@ Mike’s America —
You still have not answered the question.
Why didn’t you conservatives oppose Bush trying.
The “disclosure of agents” thing is a red herring and you know it. How much did the Bush administration disclose when it prosecuted Walker Lindh, Farris, Moussoui, Padilla, etc.? There is no logical reason to think that this approach will be any different.
I am still trying to get at the root of the con reversal on the whole “prosecuting al Queda in federal court” issue. One side of me thinks you cons don’t want to see Obama convict the terrorists and get the glory. In that sense, the opposition is cravenly political.
Another side of me wonders if you just fear the risk that the idiotic torture decisions of the Bush administration will be shown to have been ineffective and counterproductive. In that sense, the opposition is partisan, too.
Is it possible that you folks truly believe that this sets a bad precedent by trying the case in the media capital of the world? If that is the case, trying it in Virginia (where Moussoui was tried by the Bush administration) is only slightly less public. So you opposition would not be craven as much as it is misguided.
Safety is also not a serious concern; there is no better court in the country for trying these kinds of cases.
Propaganda is not a serious concern, either, because the judge’s do not have to permit the defendant to offer “evidence” of that type, or permit discovery.
I am leaning on the opposition being purely political, mainly because you refuse to be consistent on the issue of proesecuting al Queda members in federal court.