^ How's that any different than anything that Bush said during his 7 years' dealings with terrorism? Because now that Obama says it, that makes it B-A-D? Jesus, you're just being a hypocrite now.

11/19/2009 2:46:57 PM

^ So if Bush said something similar (setting aside whether he actually did), it's totally cool for Obama to do it? Yet another nail in the coffin of "Change," I see.

It's fucking hilarious how some of you buffoons excuse anything Obama may say or do with BUSH DID IT, TOO!

STFU.

11/19/2009 2:51:29 PM

You're the one that brought up Obama's statements about this. No one is really going to bat for him, but in your screwed up view of the world where you think people either agree with you or are rabid Obama supporters, I'm sure you disagree.

11/19/2009 3:00:28 PM

I'm saying it's political grandstanding and doesn't matter worth a tinker's damn to anyone. You're saying that OH NO OBAMA SAID THIS, as if it's revealing something amazing. It doesn't matter. Have that cup of STFU yourself.

11/19/2009 3:00:33 PM

Quote :

""Obama himself has said they will be found guilty and be put to death...so its not exactly like je intends to give them a fair trial if he is so confident in the outcome." That's sort of like when a prosecutor does a press conference and says, "We're going to get a conviction, make no mistake!""

exactly

and part of the reasoning that Holder gave on not giving him the military tribunal was because that's exactly what KSM requested, and wanted to be put to death. He's not giving him what he wants, and to a certain extent, I agree with that line of reasoning.

I think it's a dicey idea, but I don't think there's any chance of him being turned loose. Ret. Gen Charles Swift (JAG) did an awesome interview on CNN this morning regarding it, and his agreement with Holder. Can't find the video though.

11/19/2009 3:08:20 PM

Quote :

"I wonder what McDanger thinks about this"

What's to wonder about? Haven't I been abundantly clear?

11/19/2009 3:13:19 PM

Why would we use a military tribunal?

Just cause it's cheaper?

11/19/2009 3:41:21 PM

For the theory behind allowing these kinds of trials, you guys should read Boumediene v. Bush if you have not already done so. I actually agree with Roberts (the dissent) in this kind of case. But it'll answer your questions on the (in)adequacy of military tribunals, how it can(not) possibly apply to GTMO prisoners, and why detainees may need constitutional rights, depending on whether you side with the majority or with Scalia/Roberts.

We just covered this in my Federal Jurisdiction class in Law school, and I'd be happy to post the legal theory behind it if anyone is interested.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 3:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Why would we use a military tribunal? Just cause it's cheaper?"

Bullshit to it being cheaper. How much did that court complex at Guantanamo cost? On top of all the other B.S. necessary just to get those military commissions legal and approved? They've already been litigated several times, costing even more money.

11/19/2009 3:52:15 PM

^^^^You had been abundantly clear until you mentioned that it would probably be ok to kill someone like Mussolini. You went from everyone deserves life, to in some cases it might be ok to kill someone. That makes your opinion on this particular issue as clear as mud.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 4:06:44 PM

^^^The lazy folks can get a quick briefing here, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

I just scanned the criticisms, and military tribunals for this type of offender appear to be a really bad idea.

^^Yeah, all I'm getting from the pro-tribunal folks is that he can't get a fair trial anyway and it's cheaper to do a quickie tribunal. Neither of those reasons is compelling enough to justify a tribunal.

11/19/2009 4:22:27 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit to it being cheaper. How much did that court complex at Guantanamo cost?"

Gee, if that place cost so much maybe we should keep using it then.

11/19/2009 4:52:17 PM

Oh yeah, that's a really great reason. Why not build a concert hall and Six Flags while you're at it!

11/19/2009 4:53:37 PM

Quote :

"^^^^You had been abundantly clear until you mentioned that it would probably be ok to kill someone like Mussolini. You went from everyone deserves life, to in some cases it might be ok to kill someone. That makes your opinion on this particular issue as clear as mud."

Only to an outright fucking idiot such as yourself.

You never were a very good student, were you? I'm having trouble deciding whether or not to waste my time trying to educate you on the obvious.

I don't think it would be okay to kill Mussolini once he's in custody. If it was during his reign and killing him was the fastest, most effective way to end his policies then yes, killing him would be tantamount to self-defense (or the defense of others).

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 4:56:27 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it would be okay to kill Mussolini once he's in custody"

How about, do you think KSM should be sentenced to death if convicted? Since nothing at all in your last post was relevant to anything.

11/19/2009 6:02:54 PM

Isn't it peculiar how anyone who dares disagree with McDouche needs educating? He probably means reeducation provided by the resistance in a Che-inspired hill camp somewhere.

El Che Vive!



[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 7:11 PM. Reason : V Shut the fuck up. ]

11/19/2009 6:54:48 PM

^ you mean like how its similarly interesting that anyone that disagrees with you needs to STFU? Why do you hate the first amendment, hacksaw?

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 7:08 PM. Reason : rawr]

11/19/2009 7:06:13 PM

^^ Way to prove the point, hacksaw.

11/20/2009 3:07:25 PM

They fucked up when they just didn't kill them after they extracted whatever information they could get from them. I'm sure there could have easily been some "accidents" that would result in a few body bags.

11/20/2009 3:12:26 PM

I'M SO GLAD THAT HOOKSAW, TREETWISTA, AND THE REST OF THE TWW NEO-CON CHICKENHAWK GANG KNOW SO MUCH BETTER THAN 32 GENERALS AND ADMIRALS ON THIS SUBJECT

Quote :

" We have watched with disappointment efforts to engender fear among the American people about the prospect of bringing suspected terrorists to the United States for trial. Our federal justice system has a proven track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists and incarcerating them safely in our prisons. Our courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 9/11. Meanwhile, there have been only three successful prosecutions of terrorists by military commissions over that same period; two of those found guilty were released in less than a year. Those convicted in our federal courts, including many al Qaeda terrorists, are serving long sentences in federal prisons. The highly respected American Correctional Association, the nation’s largest corrections organization, in a recently passed resolution assured the American public they “would be safe from harm and free from danger should any detainees be transferred to a facility or facilities within the United States.” Our prisons currently house more than 150 convicted terrorists and none has ever escaped. The American people can have confidence that our judicial and penal institutions are strong and that our military, law enforcement and corrections professionals are second to none. Signed, GENERAL JOSEPH HOAR, USMC (RET.) GENERAL CHARLES KRULAK, USMC (RET.) GENERAL DAVID M. MADDOX, USA (RET.) GENERAL MERRILL A. MCPEAK, USAF (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD E. ADAMS, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT G. GARD JR., USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL LEE F. GUNN, USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAUDIA J. KENNEDY, USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL ALBERT H. KONETZNI JR., USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES OTSTOTT, USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL JACK SHANAHAN, USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY E. SOYSTER, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL PAUL D. EATON, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL EUGENE FOX, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL JOHN FUGH, USA (RET.) REAR ADMIRAL DON GUTER, JAGC, USN (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL FRED E. HAYNES, USMC (RET.) REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. HUTSON, JAGC, USN (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL MELVYN S. MONTANO, ANG (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM L. NASH, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL WALTER L. STEWART, JR., USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL FRANK TERRELL, USAR, (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID M. BRAHMS, USMC (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES P. CULLEN, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL EVELYN P. FOOTE, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL LEIF HENDRICKSON, USMC (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID R. IRVINE, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD O’MEARA, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL MURRAY G. SAGSVEEN, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTHONY VERRENGIA, USAF (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN N. XENAKIS, USA (RET.) "

[Edited on November 21, 2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

11/21/2009 12:17:51 PM

Quote :

" First, Obama's not a prosecutor--separation of powers and all."

When did DOJ leave the executive branch?

11/21/2009 12:30:26 PM

Quote :

" I love the people that just want to discard the rule of law in favor of swift justice."

It’s amazing, isn’t it?

People have been crying for the past 9 months how Obama is like Hitler, and now these same people want to do what Hitler would do and just skip the whole judicial process.

Quote :

"I'm saying it's political grandstanding and doesn't matter worth a tinker's damn to anyone. You're saying that OH NO OBAMA SAID THIS, as if it's revealing something amazing. It doesn't matter. Have that cup of STFU yourself. "

Exactly. It’s like they want him to go on TV and say “he might get off, he might not, we’ll see!”.

[Edited on November 21, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/21/2009 12:49:33 PM

just burn them to death.

i honestly don't think they deserve a "fair trial". fair is lighting them the fuck up.

11/21/2009 9:44:45 PM

^^ how do you explain Obama saying that it was a foregone conclusion that KSM would be convicted and sentenced to death? Sounds like a kangaroo court to me... Of course, you'll rationalize this because you're a liberal and he's on your side. But if it was Bush that had said this, you'd be screaming about due process and presumption of innocence.

11/21/2009 9:56:05 PM

I'm liberal

and I want to watch these fucks melt

Don't come in here with that left or right shit

11/21/2009 10:11:39 PM

^^that's quite presumptuous of you

[Edited on November 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2009 10:11:47 PM

well now that they're in the us court system, I want them to have the presumption of innocence and i def. don't want their conviction to be a foregone conclusion, because that creates a precedent for everyone else.

11/21/2009 10:26:45 PM

Quote :

"But if it was Bush that had said this, you'd be screaming about due process and presumption of innocence."

I don’t really think I would. 9/11 wasn’t a partisan event.

Quote :

"well now that they're in the us court system, I want them to have the presumption of innocence and i def. don't want their conviction to be a foregone conclusion, because that creates a precedent for everyone else. "

I’m reasonably certain the lawyers on both sides are going to do their jobs the best they can, it’s a high profile case and they have a lot to gain from doing well.

I don’t see where the criticism of Obama is coming from, if he says nothing, the right will spin it as tacitly supporting terrorists, if he calls for a fair trial and nothing more, they’ll spin it as supporting terrorists, and if he says what he has said, he’s suddenly supporting kangaroo courts. It’s moronic.

And there’s no substance to the criticism in this situation either. It’s like the hoopla over Obama’s bow, the majority of Americans don’t have a problem with the bow, even the majority of Republicans (according to a recent poll), yet you see the media outlets, especially Fox News, harping on it.

But, it’s a pretty harmless annoyance. I think the Obama admin is moving in the right directions for the most part, and I think he’ll come out on top. His approval ratings are where Clinton’s were this time in his first term, so while they aren’t great, they aren’t critical either.

11/22/2009 2:06:08 AM

Quote :

"And there’s no substance to the criticism in this situation either. It’s like the hoopla over Obama’s bow, the majority of Americans don’t have a problem with the bow, even the majority of Republicans (according to a recent poll), yet you see the media outlets, especially Fox News, harping on it."

Not to mention that there's plenty of documented precedent for similar behavior from several former presidents. To gain cooperation and trust from other countries, it doesn't hurt to show them the same respect for their leaders that we'd expect them to show ours. Bullshit to it making the U.S. look "weak." Since when is treating someone else with respect a sign of weakness?

11/22/2009 2:14:19 AM

I think it is because our president is not really a secret muslim but rather a secret follower of Shinto, much like myself, and he is simply showing the proper respect to the Japanese spiritual leader who, despite that perverse proclamation after WWII, is still kami.

11/22/2009 2:44:45 AM

-- Our federal courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 9/11.

-- there have been only 3 successful prosecutions of terrorists by military commissions since 9/11

-- the terrorists convicted in our federal courts include many al Qaeda terrorists and are serving long sentences in federal prisons.

-- 2 out of the 3 terrorist found guilty by military commissions were released in less than a year.

-- US federal prisons currently house more than 150 convicted terrorists and none has ever escaped


and yet the screaming batch of TWW GOP chickenhawks still want everyone to wet the bed about trying terrorists on us soil.

11/22/2009 4:51:34 PM

^ didn't you hear? we're better than the rest of the world. we can do whatever we fucking want to those terrorists. they don't need trials, just let them rot in guantanamo, or kill them outright.

i really wonder how some of these conservative lawmakers and sleep at night. they must have whiplash from all of the contortions necessary to go from law-and-order (defense spending, crackdowns on illegal immigrants) to lawlessness (make up a separate military commissions court system, deny habeus corpus, torture).

11/22/2009 5:56:29 PM

I still don't understand how terrorists can be arrested for civil trial by anyone other than the Coast Guard, since the Coast Guard is the only branch of the military that has civil arrest authority. Does this not apply to non-citizens, or do we just not give a fuck anymore?

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM. Reason : do we call them enemy combatants anymore?]

11/22/2009 7:35:21 PM

they were never "arrested"

11/22/2009 7:58:07 PM

Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
November 23, 2009

Quote :

"The five detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay who will soon be brought to the U.S. for trial -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali , Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi – intend to plead not guilty, an attorney for one of the defendants confirmed to ABC News's Jason Ryan over the weekend. The story was first reported by the New York Times to whom Ali's attorney, Scott Fenstermaker, said the men would plead not guilty 'so they can have a trial and try to get their message out.'"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/gitmo-detainees-intend-to-plead-not-guilty-in-us-court.html

Sweet Jesus.

BTW, it is commonplace for an attorney to request a venue change for a defendant because the counsel has reason to believe that the defendant cannot be heard before an impartial jury. Why would a jury pool in New York--a city that experienced the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor--be any different?

11/23/2009 3:48:25 PM

The trial will not be televised. And everyone already knows what their fucking message is. What are you so afriad of? This is politically hackery at it's most transparent.

11/23/2009 4:06:24 PM

I'm not "afriad." We shouldn't be giving an international reality show to murdering enemy combatants--we should be murdering them.

And what about the impartial jury issue. Do you honestly believe that a New York jury will be "impartial"? How soon will a change-of-venue request be made?

11/23/2009 4:17:10 PM

The jury will be impaneled just like any other jury in this country and will hear all the evidence, then make their decision. this has been happening for >200 years. Our fellow citizens can handle the responsibility. Our justice department can handle the responsibility.

Quote :

"We shouldn't be giving an international reality show to murdering enemy combatants"

That's laughable. Get a grip.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2009 6:16:12 PM

well, the defense lawyers for these scumbags have already said they want to turn this in to a circus. It's gonna be fucking awesome

11/23/2009 6:54:14 PM

for hooksaw:

Quote :

" -- Our federal courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 9/11. -- there have been only 3 successful prosecutions of terrorists by military commissions since 9/11 -- the terrorists convicted in our federal courts include many al Qaeda terrorists and are serving long sentences in federal prisons. -- 2 out of the 3 terrorist found guilty by military commissions were released in less than a year. -- US federal prisons currently house more than 150 convicted terrorists and none has ever escaped "

11/23/2009 7:06:36 PM

So none of you has the sack to address the impartial jury/change-of-venue question? I see.

11/23/2009 10:11:18 PM

Quote :

"well, the defense lawyers for these scumbags have already said they want to turn this in to a circus. It's gonna be fucking awesome"

link?

11/23/2009 10:12:47 PM

Quote :

"I'm not "afriad." We shouldn't be giving an international reality show to murdering enemy combatants--we should be murdering them."

That's the reason why you fail. The more civility we show to the people we hate, the more the world will respect us for upholding the principles of freedom, democracy and rule of law that you and your fellow conservatives claim to hold so dear. You can't have it both ways, you stupid bastard.

Quote :

"And what about the impartial jury issue. Do you honestly believe that a New York jury will be "impartial"? How soon will a change-of-venue request be made?"

So let them have a venue change and move on. That's a function of the judicial system, and not terribly controversial. Get over it, it's not an issue.

11/23/2009 10:18:03 PM

^ To what venue, you dumb fuckhead?

And tell all that other bullshit to Daniel Pearl. . .



Oh, that's right--you can't. KSM chopped his fucking head off.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM. Reason : And military tribunals are a part of the "rule of law," you ignorant fuck. ]

11/23/2009 10:34:39 PM

and KSM will be tried, found guilty, and most likely executed for it. justice will be served.

THE HORROR

11/23/2009 10:45:26 PM

^^ To any venue they want. Why's it my job to tell you where they're going to move it to? Don't be an idiot, there's a reason why a process exists.

The Daniel Pearl thing was terrible, no question. But in using his killing, you didn't answer any of the substance of what I said. All you're doing is saying to go kill terrorists, but the world isn't that simple. You're doing nothing more than grandstanding on the side of "9/11 gives us unlimited vengeance." If you think the pillars of our system of government and democracy are so strong, why are you afraid to let them work as they were intended by the founders?

Good lord, why are you acting like they can't get a fair trial? Do you doubt that there are 12 citizens in the entire city and/or state of NY that are capable of being impartial jurors? I'm glad you know much more about the application of law than the federal judicial system.

By the way, with several Supreme Court rulings against the military commissions system, as devised by the Bush administration, your claim that they're a part of the rule of law is considerably shakier. The results from those commissions are not "battle tested," so to speak. Go read that quoted list above, then come back when you have some better rhetoric besides "KILL THEM ALL RAAAAWR THEY MAKE ME ANGRY."

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 10:53 PM. Reason : rawr]

11/23/2009 10:53:32 PM

^ You're so stupid--it's really sad. Please demonstrate the following:

1. How military tribunals are unlawful.

2. How allowing KSM et al to put America and/or Bush on trial is serving justice.

3. How KSM et al's "rights" were not already violated.

4. How an impartial jury will be seated.

5. To what venue would the trial(s) move if a change request were granted.

Until then, go fuck yourself, troll. You and people like you are the problem with this country--and you'll be the death of it.

11/23/2009 11:07:26 PM

Quote :

"Until then, go fuck yourself, troll. You and people like you are the problem with this country--and you'll be the death of it. "

Since you've now decided that I'm a problem for this country (thanks for that trial by jury, too, Judge Dredd), I'm going to ignore your list of demands above. I have neither the energy or willingness to spend on researching those questions to the very millimeters of detail that you'd nitpick, regardless. Your contention that we should kill the people being put to trial is a load of bullshit, but you demand that everyone prove why you're wrong. There's ample precedent in modern history for successful prosecutions of terrorists in federal courts, but you're hell-bent on ignoring it. Go do your own goddamn research.

I'm a troll for calling you out for being hypocritial, eh? Fine. I'm pleased to have pissed you off so badly that you're signing off every reply with a personal insult now. Keep up the good work. Why don't you lay into me for being gay, while you're at it? Go for the hatred trifecta!

btw, if KSM's rights (no quotations) were already violated, guess who put us in that legal thicket? (Hint: the answer isn't "Obama.")

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 11:16 PM. Reason : -s]

11/23/2009 11:15:49 PM

Quote :

"Your contention that we should kill the people being put to trial is a load of bullshit, but you demand that everyone prove why you're wrong."

What, you mean my position is "bullshit" like Obama's is bullshit?

Obama: KSM will be convicted, executed

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama backtracked Wednesday after telling an interviewer Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be convicted and executed. In an interview with NBC News, Obama defended his administration's decision to try Mohammed and four other accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack in a New York court. Critics have said it is offensive to afford Mohammed the same legal rights and privileges granted to defendants in U.S. courts but Obama said those critics will not find it 'offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.' The president quickly added he did not intend to prejudge the outcome of a trial. 'I'm not going to be in that courtroom,' he said. 'That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.'"

http://tinyurl.com/ygc7hhm

Quote :

"Why don't you lay into me for being gay, while you're at it?"

I didn't know--and I don't give a fuck. Happy landings to you.

Quote :

"btw, if KSM's rights (no quotations) were already violated, guess who put us in that legal thicket? (Hint: the answer isn't 'Obama.')"

KSM and his cohorts should have never been given "rights." They were not prisoners of war--thus the term "enemy combatants" was applied--and they were not in the United States. So, they could have simply been given a military tribunal and promptly executed--just as Obama says they will be. Except in my scenario, there is no opportunity for those fuckheads to violate us and the families of the dead yet again--and it would be significantly less expensive and risky.

And let's not forget that left-wing attorneys blocked many attempts by the Bush administration to do something with the enemy combatants.


[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM. Reason : Answer my list of questions, troll.]

11/23/2009 11:35:05 PM

except that military tribunals rarely result executions.

and we can't just invent legal categories for people when it's convenient.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 11:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2009 11:47:21 PM