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.
@B-Rob: I’m not under any obligation to answer questions from snarky, willfully ignorant and arrogant post adolescent George Soros parrots.
And if you don’t improve your manners you’ll find more of your comments missing.
But I will say this: The disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name was a red herring and yet it is the HYPOCRISY of people like yourself who don’t see the very real concerns here. Sources and methods, not to mention data and personnel can be compromised in a criminal trial.
And if you don’t think it’s a bad idea to give KSM a platform in what you call the “media capital of the world” then you prove once again how totally wasted anyone’s considerate responses to your ravings are.
P.S. While we are at it, perhaps you can share your special expertise, credentials or other qualifications which back up your opinions. I share mine openly. Sorry, but a subscription to Mother Jones magazine and membership in Moveon.org does not count.
From 2001 until he became Attorney General, Holder worked as an attorney at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. The firm’s recent pro bono matters include:
Former and/or continued representation of fifteen Yemenis, one Pakistani, and one Algerian being held at Guantanamo Bay, and have obtained favorable rulings that detainees have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.[15] The court ruled in March 2005 that the government could not transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to foreign custody without first giving the prisoners a chance to challenge the move in court.
I am still trying to get at the root of the con reversal on the whole “prosecuting al Queda in federal court” issue.
They already confessed and pled guilty at GITMO, they could have been convicted already without all the anguish to the 911 survivors, threat to the judge, jurists and city of NY, astronomical cost and taking US Marshalls from posts they need to be protecting and putting them in NY.
But, Obama stopped the military tribunal after he claimed to fix the system, after he claimed his changes would be used to convict KSM, after we have spent a huge amount of money to build a state of the are facility to try them in in GITMO. No, former prosecutions have absolutely nothing to do with why “cons” are objecting to this fiasco!
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Missy —
So yours is a “cost” argument, huh? OK. Haven’t heard that one before. Any port in a storm, I guess.
Red 73
14 years ago
National Review Online has two articles on its website explaining why this administration wants terrorists tried in New York. But not all terrorists, just those who would create the largest firestorm worldwide.
Excerpt:
“In placing the nation on a war footing after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration invoked the laws of war to detain terrorists as enemy combatants and to try those who had committed provable war crimes by military commission — measures that were endorsed by Congress despite being challenged in the courts by some of the lawyers now working in Obama’s Justice Department.”
And:
“As observed by former attorney general Michael Mukasey — who presided over terrorism cases as a federal judge — “We did just that after the first World Trade Center bombing, after the plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific, and after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. In return, we got the 9/11 attacks and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.””
Excerpt:
“And then there is the Center for Constitutional Rights, a Marxist organization that for years has coordinated legal representation for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The CCR has been attempting to convince Germany, France, Spain, and other countries to file war-crime indictments against former Bush administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. In representing America’s enemies, CCR has collaborated with many private lawyers, who also volunteered their services — several of whom are now working in the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, Holder’s former firm boasts that it still represents 16 Gitmo detainees (the number was previously higher). And, for help shaping detainee policy, Holder recently hired Jennifer Daskal for DOJ’s National Security Division — a lawyer from Human Rights Watch with no prior prosecutorial experience, whose main qualification seems to be the startling advocacy she has done for enemy combatants.
“Foreign charges would result in the issuance of international arrest warrants. They won’t be executed in the United States — even this administration is probably not brazen enough to try that. But the warrants will go out to police agencies all over the world. If the indicted American officials want to travel outside the U.S., they will need to worry about the possibility of arrest, detention, and transfer to third countries for prosecution. Have a look at this 2007 interview of CCR president Michael Ratner. See how he brags that his European gambit is “making the world smaller” for Rumsfeld — creating a hostile legal climate in which a former U.S. defense secretary may have to avoid, for instance, attending conferences in NATO countries.
“The Left will get its reckoning. Obama and Holder will be able to take credit with their supporters for making it happen. But because the administration’s allies in the antiwar bar and the international Left will do the dirty work of getting charges filed, the American media will help Obama avoid domestic political accountability. Meanwhile, Americans who sought to protect our nation from barbarians will be harassed and framed as war criminals. And protecting the United States will have become an actionable violation of international law.”
they could have been convicted already without all the anguish to the 911 survivors, threat to the judge, jurists and city of NY, astronomical cost and taking US Marshalls from posts they need to be protecting and putting them in NY.
I guess when the point you have been running all over the boards with fails…….that’s the only response you’re capable of mustering up. Very child like.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
I already figured out why you did not respond to my simple question, even though I asked it like four times. And it had nothing to do with me being “snarky, willfully ignorant and arrogant” and everything to do with you lacking a coherent explanation for your reversal of position.
Me . . . I’m just a simple attorney with a degree from a certain law school on the South Side of Chicago, practicing management side litigation. You know . . . representing public bodies sued for constitutional violations (First Amendment, search and seizure, unlawful polygraph, due process violations, etc.) I dabble in cooking, too.
Look, I know it is hard out there for a pimp . . . er, conservative. Your last president was a disaster who blew up the budget, your side bungled two wars and are now asking a Dem to clean up the mess, you have no ideas, and your party is shrinking faster than a cashmere sweater washed on the “hot” setting. But the weakness of the arguments here is just stunning. Your response to a simple question is not to answer or explain, but to keep mentioning “George Soros” . . . why not mention “Hitler” while you are at it? Very weak sauce, man.
The right today is all about emotion and bluster. There is no logic, no consistency, and no conclusions based on facts. Which is one reason why conservatives are where they are . . . rallying around a barely literate former governor of a state smaller than many state senatorial districts. Meh.
Mike, you control the levers here, so you can wack my posts if you choose. But guess what? That would simply show how weak your arguments are. I have not cursed at anyone and I have (unlike some responding to me) stayed on topic. You don’t like what I am saying because, when all is said and done, you have no logical argument that can beat me. It happens, man! Sometimes life deals you a bad hand. But as Kenny Rogers sang, “You got to know when to hold ’em/know when to fold ’em.” Best be foldin’ ’em on this subject, Mikey-boy!
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Missy —
Costs is an argument. The rest (like the risk of terror attacks, etc.) are very weak, because Bush set the security, risk, and disclosure precidents by trying al Queda people in federal court years ago.
You have totally skipped over one huge problem with military tribunals, one which has been presented before, which is whether they are even constitutional. They may not be. The federal court system, in contrast, presents no such concerns.
As far as the “anguish to the survivors are concerned”, not sure what to do with that one. I point out the number thing to make a simple point: there is a small sample and a selection bias issue with making any decisions based on the opinions of only a few of the 3,000 families involved. Some will be anguished, some will want the closure. Some of them might want KSM beheaded on Wall Street; that’s not going to happen, either. In the end, this should not be a great consideration because our system has to work, regardless as to what the families might want.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ PatVann —
You wrote:
“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?”
It is nice of you to acknowledge that your statement was false. Holder DID NOT “work as the defense in these same cases”. Some people in his firm did, but he didn’t.
Depending on the state involved, the bar rules might or might not call that a conflict, especially if, as I bet happened, the attorneys working on the cases were ethically screened so that no information about the case would travel outside their group. That is how conflicts and potential conflicts are handled in the real world. Besides . . . he will not bet trying the case anyway; the career prosecutors will do that.
Helped free Puerto rican terrorist’s. (Even if they were’nt the shooters, but even the get-away-driver in a bank robbery is charged with bank robbery.)
Defends the killings of locals by Chaquita Corp thugs.
Defends (pro bono) a bunch of non-repentant and braggardly Yemenis with nothing but procedural moves.
Gee, I feel so warm and fuzzy. Howz that tape look of Obama lying his ass off?
You have totally skipped over one huge problem with military tribunals, one which has been presented before, which is whether they are even constitutional. They may not be.
Heinrich Harm Heinck, Richard Quirin, Edward John Kerling, Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt are unavailable for comment because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of military tribunals.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Aye Chihuahua —
You appear to have been asleep the last 64 years, so maybe I should fill you in. The commission structure in place today is a bit different than it was back then. Read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush and get back to me once you know what the hell we are even talking about.
@B-Rob: A south side shyster is going to lecture me on the soundness of my opinions? I don’t think so. You confuse a reticence to engage a polemicist with a weakness of opinion.
If your comments didn’t ooze and drip with an arrogant, willfully ignorant condescension towards anyone who dares to have an opinion contrary to your own I might make more of a civil effort. But as I see, it’s pointless.
A parrot can only speak back the words it has been taught. It cannot think for itself.
Having been unable to refute the simple fact that the SCOTUS ruling of Ex Parte Quirin is precedent on the issue of tribunal constitutionality b-rob attempts, quite limply, to shift the focus of his argument.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Aye Chihuahua –
Er, no. I stand by what I said: we know not whether these never-before-used military commission procedures will pass muster. We know the criminal statutes do.
@Aye Chihuahua said: “b-rob attempts, quite limply, to shift the focus of his argument. “
I noticed the same tactic with Missy and Wordsmith’s comments too. What do you expect?
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ Mike’ America —
Know when to fold ’em, dude! Just can’t let it go, can you?
My question was simple. You have now ducked it over and over and over again. Your ducking has nothing to do with me supposedly being “arrogant”* and everything to do with you not being able to articulate a reasonable response.
If you had a snappy comeback, you would throw it. You don’t, so you call names. Like I said: I get it. A sure sign of weakness and the absence of any intellectual underpinings to your opinion.
In short, if you, with all your knowledge gleened at Zbig’s knee, could provide a rational response, you would. Ditto MataHarley. But since y’all can’t explain the difference between trying al Queda members in federal court under Bush (good) and doing the same thing under Obama (bad), you are left to refer to moveon.com, George Soros, anti-Americanism, “shyster”, etc. Very weak, but I get the underlying motivation for that approach.
And it’s OK, Mike. You can’t win ’em all . . . just ask Sarah Palin! This one you lost, but you may win the next one against me . . . probably NOT, but it is possible. But you do need to know when to stop digging the hole you have put yourself in. And the digging should stop right now.
* arrogant — a word usually used by people who are projecting their own perceived inadequacies on others who they perceive as being superior in some way. Again, the weak comeback and the name calling says more about you than me.
@B-Rob: What you fail to understand is that I am not interested in your opinion nor am I about to allow you to set the agenda for the conversation.
Clearly you think more highly of yourself than you deserve.
I’m just not interested in stroking an inferior ego and intellect.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ All —
I am going to watch my Cowboys stomp some Packer fanny, then bake a pound cake. I close with a few comments:
1) None of you are able to distinguish the conservative response to Obama trying al Queda members in federal court from Bush’s decisions to do the same thing. There are two reasons this is important
a) it shows the intellectual dishonesty of the conservative side in opposing Obama; and
b) it shows that the opposition is, at root, political.
2) There may be sound arguments against trying KSM in Manhattan in favor of, for example, Virginia or the Western District of New York. For example, because of lower death tolls in Virginia, you are less likely to have a pool that is directly tainted by the events of the day, compared to NYC. Same thing with connections of people in Buffalo versus Manhattan. But no one makes this argument, mainly because your goal is not a fair trial; you guys want no trial at all. Not going to happen, of course, because the Supreme Court has spoken and these people get their day in court.
3) The failure to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s rejection of Bush’s position on executive power resonates here is troubling. When I see posts that say “terrorists have no rights”, I am seeing the rantings of people who are woefully ignorant about the plain language of the Constitution. There is a REASON Obama cannot arrest and execute Glenn Beck simply because Obama labels him “terrorist”. Yet I have seen rantings on this board that shows it is the preferred approach for these “terrorists”. You may not like it, but our government does not have the right to detain ANYONE without due process of law — either in the Article III court system or the military justice system. This is not Argentina in the 1970s, people; this is America! If our system of checks on government abuses offends you, move to a country that has no such checks. I hear Russia works that way!
4) The desire to protect the Bush administration from a light being shone on its incompetence smacks of partisan considerations that should NOT enter into the prosecution of these people. Obama was not on duty during 9/11 or the torture decisions, so he has no ox that can be gored EXCEPT to the extent that Bushie incompetence makes it harder to convict these people and send them to Florence. Obama gains nothing by those case turning on what the Bush people f’d up. In fact, I would not be suprised if the prosecutors used NOTHING LEARNED from the post 9/11 interrogations when they move on these guys. If the tainted evidence is not used, there is no relevance to any efforts to disclose how it was gained.
5) The lack of introspection here, combined with the groupthink and regurgitation of Newsmax talking points, show exactly why the conservative movement is dying. Reliance on emotion instead of rational argument; elevation of ignorance as virtue; and inability to be critically introspective — all are signs of intellectual decline. Buckley and Goldwater are turning in their graves, I fear.
@B-Rob: You have demonstrated that Obama’s decision to bring KSM to New York is TOTALLY POLITICAL. And you compound this admission by claiming that WE are somehow being intellectually dishonest?
Seems to me you are describing yourself.
KSM could very well have been tried at the Military Commissions OBAMA will use at Gitmo. This decision is entirely political and if you want to lie to yourself about it that’s fine. But you are not fooling anyone else.
Go bake your cake and eat it too!
And for the real patriots out there who are really interested in the fundamentals of this issue, Rudy Giuliani, himself a former prosecutor in New York appeared on ABC’s This Week program:
Rudolph W. Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said on Sunday that the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the attacks, in a civilian court in Manhattan would unnecessarily cost millions of dollars for security, create legal advantages for the defense and symbolically deny that the United States is at war with terrorism.
“It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists and why would you want to give an advantage to the terrorists, and it poses risks for New York,” Mr. Giuliani said in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He also interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” and “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Giuliani argued that military trials were used for enemy combatants in previous wars and that “we wouldn’t have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii.” Allowing such trials in a civilian courtroom creates strategic opportunities, like protracted legal maneuvering and changes in venue and increases the possibility of an acquittal, he said.
“To treat this as a act like an ordinary murder that year was a mistake,” he said on “State of the Union.” “It should have been treated as an act of war.”
The decision, he said, was another example of “Barack Obama deciding we’re not at war with terrorists any more.”
“I’m concerned that we no longer believe we’re at war with Islamic terrorists when they’re at war with us,” he said. He added that the administration has been hesitant to label the Nov. 5 deadly shooting of 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., as an act of terrorism, noting that the suspect, Nidal Malik Hasan, had printed a personal business card that used an abbreviation describing himself as a “Soldier of Allah.”
“The administration has been slow to come to the conclusion that Hasan is an Islamic terrorist,” he said on “This Week.” “These are acts of war.”
If anyone needs more proof that this decision by Obama is political, keep in mind that he will use Military Tribunals for other terrorists which could just as easily, and at less risk and cost, do the same with KSM!
Daniel Pearl’s Family Disagrees WIth NYC Trial For Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
The mother and father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl are disappointed with the federal government’s decision to try Pearl’s professed killer and Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, according to The Hill.
Pearl’s father, Judea Pearl, told the New York Post that the Justice Department’s decision made him “sick to the stomach.”
The foundation started by Pearl’s parents, Ruth and Judea Pearl, released a statement to The Hill Saturday night, explaining their disappointment. The Hill:
We are respectful of the legal process, but believe that giving confessed terrorists a worldwide platform to publicize their ideology sends the wrong message to potential terrorists…
The Pearl family is not the first to object to the federal trial for Guantanamo detainees. The Washington Post has written that a public trial could be the “perfect arena” for smug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s huge ego. And that a trial for the “9/11 mastermind” could provide him with “the attention he craves.”
Pearl was beheaded in 2002, after he was kidnapped in Pakistan. He left behind a wife, Mariane, and young son, Adam Daniel, who was born three months after Pearl’s murder. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to killing Pearl in 2007.
And in case you missed it, the beheading video where KSM cuts the throat of Daniel Pearl:
Chicago billy-bob: 1) None of you are able to distinguish the conservative response to Obama trying al Queda members in federal court from Bush’s decisions to do the same thing. There are two reasons this is important
a) it shows the intellectual dishonesty of the conservative side in opposing Obama; and
b) it shows that the opposition is, at root, political.
You mean political opposition like refusing to support the Iraq surge, yet applauding widely at Obama’s half hearted Afghan surge #1, and dilly dallying on the requested surge #2? Or keeping the FISA/wiretaps in place? Or like not withdrawing from Iraq and honoring the SOFA in place between Iraq and the Bush admin instead of fulfilling his BS promises?
Or maybe that political opposition of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to whining about Gitmo and indefinition detention… ahem… and remaing moot on Bagram?
Yeah… you got real moral high ground here, billy-bob.
Your sweeping assumption that Hamdan delegitimizes all military commissions is nothing short of unbelievable. While in fact it did ding a monster hole in the MCA, nowhere in the syllabus did the SCOTUS nullify the military commission as a method of dealing with those detained in a time of war. It merely applied to Hamdan, an American citizen (unlike the non-citizen cockroaches you grant the lofty status of being human beings), the relief to contest charges he was an enemy combatant.
The failure to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s rejection of Bush’s position on executive power resonates here is troubling. When I see posts that say “terrorists have no rights”, I am seeing the rantings of people who are woefully ignorant about the plain language of the Constitution. There is a REASON Obama cannot arrest and execute Glenn Beck simply because Obama labels him “terrorist”. Yet I have seen rantings on this board that shows it is the preferred approach for these “terrorists”.
Shall I remind you that everyone here is quite aware that Obama cannot simply arrest American citizen (that pesky due process 14th Amendment language again) Beck within our Constitutional boundaries. Not that I don’t bet he wishes he could. However again you compare apples to an orange crate when you equate rights of terrorists who are not citizens, and are captured on battlefields, with the Constitutional rights of a US born or naturalized citizen.
And you call us “woefully ignorant”? Chutzpah
You argue your points well enough, billy-bob. Must be all that trial lawyer experience. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that you start from a Constitutionally flawed, and delusional foundation, that the Constitution is rights granted world wide, regardless of citizenship. Wrong… and not Hamdan, Hamdi nor Boumediene even hinted at this, or the illegality of tribunals in general.
Of course, were your delusional interpretation of the Constitution true, the US would not need the Geneva Convention, and never would tribunals been held in past conflicts. Apparently you, a “living Constitution” type with nary a conscience about mutilating the ideals of that document, are on board with that. Repulsive.
However you’re a far cry from a strict constructionist which, of course, makes me dismiss you as quickly as a fly on a screen in summer.
Look up the due process amendment text, as I quoted for you on the Cry Havoc thread. Nor is Beck engaging in an armed conflict. Likening the two requires, if I may borrow the SOS phrase, a willing suspension of disbelief. See Hamdi for confirmation that enemy combatant status requires the individual is who ” ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States’ “. If you confuse free speech with an enemy combatant engaging in armed conflict, I hope to God you aren’t an attorney.
You then reveal:
Me . . . I’m just a simple attorney with a degree from a certain law school on the South Side of Chicago, practicing management side litigation.
Small wonder our court system is FUBAR…. I repeat, public education (or even private higher learning Ivy league) ain’t what it used to be.
When GW Bush’s Justice Department decided to prosecute Zach Moussoui in federal court, where was the con outrage about that “9/10 mentality”?
Um, Moussaoui was captured in Minnesota. Pretty much had our hands tied there, huh?
Walker Lindh
American citizen, hands tied.
Jose Padilla?
Born in Brooklyn, hands tied. I have no idea who Farris is.
One last thing:
The lack of introspection here, combined with the groupthink and regurgitation of Newsmax talking points, show exactly why the conservative movement is dying.
Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either “very conservative” or “conservative.” Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves “moderate,” while the percentage calling themselves “very liberal” or “liberal” has consistently registered between 20% and 21% — making liberals the smallest of the three groups.
wow the battle of the minds is right here on this blog,i am concern about a 200yars law into this modern world,and should they be tryed for each one that they kill at 911 and does the judge and lawers have to learn the muslims language too,thank you
@B-Rob: I’m not under any obligation to answer questions from snarky, willfully ignorant and arrogant post adolescent George Soros parrots.
And if you don’t improve your manners you’ll find more of your comments missing.
But I will say this: The disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name was a red herring and yet it is the HYPOCRISY of people like yourself who don’t see the very real concerns here. Sources and methods, not to mention data and personnel can be compromised in a criminal trial.
And if you don’t think it’s a bad idea to give KSM a platform in what you call the “media capital of the world” then you prove once again how totally wasted anyone’s considerate responses to your ravings are.
P.S. While we are at it, perhaps you can share your special expertise, credentials or other qualifications which back up your opinions. I share mine openly. Sorry, but a subscription to Mother Jones magazine and membership in Moveon.org does not count.
Examples of “cons” rejecting Fed court trials befor Obama was elected:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19825.html
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=336
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252999,00.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/07/dc-court-lets-release-terrorists-into-the-us/
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43769
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/11/federal_court_judge_questions.php
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_rules_in_hamdans_favor/
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/29/scotus-hamdan-ruling-due-any-minute/
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/06/29/supreme-court-rules-5-3-no-military-tribunals-bush-overstepped-authority/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGM3NmEzYzJiZDlhNTI0N2MzOTA3NWFmYWUxZDU0ZGU=
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/06/29/scotus-watch-bracing-for-hamdan/
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NWFmYTZmNzYyNDhlN2ZjMDVlZGFjODdlYzRiOWZjNzY=
From wiki
From 2001 until he became Attorney General, Holder worked as an attorney at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. The firm’s recent pro bono matters include:
Former and/or continued representation of fifteen Yemenis, one Pakistani, and one Algerian being held at Guantanamo Bay, and have obtained favorable rulings that detainees have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.[15] The court ruled in March 2005 that the government could not transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to foreign custody without first giving the prisoners a chance to challenge the move in court.
Let’s all go to the tape, shall we?
http://www.breitbart.tv/bombshell-uncovered-obama-statement-ksm-will-get-full-military-trial/
@B-Rob:
This after you tried to pass off an assumption? You’re kidding!
@B-Rob:
They already confessed and pled guilty at GITMO, they could have been convicted already without all the anguish to the 911 survivors, threat to the judge, jurists and city of NY, astronomical cost and taking US Marshalls from posts they need to be protecting and putting them in NY.
But, Obama stopped the military tribunal after he claimed to fix the system, after he claimed his changes would be used to convict KSM, after we have spent a huge amount of money to build a state of the are facility to try them in in GITMO. No, former prosecutions have absolutely nothing to do with why “cons” are objecting to this fiasco!
@ Missy —
So yours is a “cost” argument, huh? OK. Haven’t heard that one before. Any port in a storm, I guess.
National Review Online has two articles on its website explaining why this administration wants terrorists tried in New York. But not all terrorists, just those who would create the largest firestorm worldwide.
Excerpt:
“In placing the nation on a war footing after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration invoked the laws of war to detain terrorists as enemy combatants and to try those who had committed provable war crimes by military commission — measures that were endorsed by Congress despite being challenged in the courts by some of the lawyers now working in Obama’s Justice Department.”
And:
“As observed by former attorney general Michael Mukasey — who presided over terrorism cases as a federal judge — “We did just that after the first World Trade Center bombing, after the plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific, and after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. In return, we got the 9/11 attacks and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.””
Click here to read the entire article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODlkMzE3MDQzZjQ3OWIxN2FjYWI0Zjk2NDZmYWZkYTc=
Excerpt:
“And then there is the Center for Constitutional Rights, a Marxist organization that for years has coordinated legal representation for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The CCR has been attempting to convince Germany, France, Spain, and other countries to file war-crime indictments against former Bush administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. In representing America’s enemies, CCR has collaborated with many private lawyers, who also volunteered their services — several of whom are now working in the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, Holder’s former firm boasts that it still represents 16 Gitmo detainees (the number was previously higher). And, for help shaping detainee policy, Holder recently hired Jennifer Daskal for DOJ’s National Security Division — a lawyer from Human Rights Watch with no prior prosecutorial experience, whose main qualification seems to be the startling advocacy she has done for enemy combatants.
“Foreign charges would result in the issuance of international arrest warrants. They won’t be executed in the United States — even this administration is probably not brazen enough to try that. But the warrants will go out to police agencies all over the world. If the indicted American officials want to travel outside the U.S., they will need to worry about the possibility of arrest, detention, and transfer to third countries for prosecution. Have a look at this 2007 interview of CCR president Michael Ratner. See how he brags that his European gambit is “making the world smaller” for Rumsfeld — creating a hostile legal climate in which a former U.S. defense secretary may have to avoid, for instance, attending conferences in NATO countries.
“The Left will get its reckoning. Obama and Holder will be able to take credit with their supporters for making it happen. But because the administration’s allies in the antiwar bar and the international Left will do the dirty work of getting charges filed, the American media will help Obama avoid domestic political accountability. Meanwhile, Americans who sought to protect our nation from barbarians will be harassed and framed as war criminals. And protecting the United States will have become an actionable violation of international law.”
Click here to read the entire article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGMyYTQ1ZTM5YTQ5NjJjNzJmNGUxZDIyOTFjYzIyM2Y=
Protecting America – not so much. Using our justice system to promote internationalism – OH Yea!!
@B-Rob:
Is that all you took from what I said?
Missy repeats:
I guess when the point you have been running all over the boards with fails…….that’s the only response you’re capable of mustering up. Very child like.
@ Mike’s America —
I already figured out why you did not respond to my simple question, even though I asked it like four times. And it had nothing to do with me being “snarky, willfully ignorant and arrogant” and everything to do with you lacking a coherent explanation for your reversal of position.
Me . . . I’m just a simple attorney with a degree from a certain law school on the South Side of Chicago, practicing management side litigation. You know . . . representing public bodies sued for constitutional violations (First Amendment, search and seizure, unlawful polygraph, due process violations, etc.) I dabble in cooking, too.
Look, I know it is hard out there for a pimp . . . er, conservative. Your last president was a disaster who blew up the budget, your side bungled two wars and are now asking a Dem to clean up the mess, you have no ideas, and your party is shrinking faster than a cashmere sweater washed on the “hot” setting. But the weakness of the arguments here is just stunning. Your response to a simple question is not to answer or explain, but to keep mentioning “George Soros” . . . why not mention “Hitler” while you are at it? Very weak sauce, man.
The right today is all about emotion and bluster. There is no logic, no consistency, and no conclusions based on facts. Which is one reason why conservatives are where they are . . . rallying around a barely literate former governor of a state smaller than many state senatorial districts. Meh.
Mike, you control the levers here, so you can wack my posts if you choose. But guess what? That would simply show how weak your arguments are. I have not cursed at anyone and I have (unlike some responding to me) stayed on topic. You don’t like what I am saying because, when all is said and done, you have no logical argument that can beat me. It happens, man! Sometimes life deals you a bad hand. But as Kenny Rogers sang, “You got to know when to hold ’em/know when to fold ’em.” Best be foldin’ ’em on this subject, Mikey-boy!
@ Missy —
Costs is an argument. The rest (like the risk of terror attacks, etc.) are very weak, because Bush set the security, risk, and disclosure precidents by trying al Queda people in federal court years ago.
You have totally skipped over one huge problem with military tribunals, one which has been presented before, which is whether they are even constitutional. They may not be. The federal court system, in contrast, presents no such concerns.
As far as the “anguish to the survivors are concerned”, not sure what to do with that one. I point out the number thing to make a simple point: there is a small sample and a selection bias issue with making any decisions based on the opinions of only a few of the 3,000 families involved. Some will be anguished, some will want the closure. Some of them might want KSM beheaded on Wall Street; that’s not going to happen, either. In the end, this should not be a great consideration because our system has to work, regardless as to what the families might want.
@ PatVann —
You wrote:
“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?”
It is nice of you to acknowledge that your statement was false. Holder DID NOT “work as the defense in these same cases”. Some people in his firm did, but he didn’t.
Depending on the state involved, the bar rules might or might not call that a conflict, especially if, as I bet happened, the attorneys working on the cases were ethically screened so that no information about the case would travel outside their group. That is how conflicts and potential conflicts are handled in the real world. Besides . . . he will not bet trying the case anyway; the career prosecutors will do that.
@Rob
Let’s see..He willfully works for a group that:
Helped free Puerto rican terrorist’s. (Even if they were’nt the shooters, but even the get-away-driver in a bank robbery is charged with bank robbery.)
Defends the killings of locals by Chaquita Corp thugs.
Defends (pro bono) a bunch of non-repentant and braggardly Yemenis with nothing but procedural moves.
Gee, I feel so warm and fuzzy. Howz that tape look of Obama lying his ass off?
Heinrich Harm Heinck, Richard Quirin, Edward John Kerling, Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt are unavailable for comment because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of military tribunals.
@ Aye Chihuahua —
You appear to have been asleep the last 64 years, so maybe I should fill you in. The commission structure in place today is a bit different than it was back then. Read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush and get back to me once you know what the hell we are even talking about.
@B-Rob: A south side shyster is going to lecture me on the soundness of my opinions? I don’t think so. You confuse a reticence to engage a polemicist with a weakness of opinion.
If your comments didn’t ooze and drip with an arrogant, willfully ignorant condescension towards anyone who dares to have an opinion contrary to your own I might make more of a civil effort. But as I see, it’s pointless.
A parrot can only speak back the words it has been taught. It cannot think for itself.
Having been unable to refute the simple fact that the SCOTUS ruling of Ex Parte Quirin is precedent on the issue of tribunal constitutionality b-rob attempts, quite limply, to shift the focus of his argument.
@ Aye Chihuahua –
Er, no. I stand by what I said: we know not whether these never-before-used military commission procedures will pass muster. We know the criminal statutes do.
@Aye Chihuahua said: “b-rob attempts, quite limply, to shift the focus of his argument. “
I noticed the same tactic with Missy and Wordsmith’s comments too. What do you expect?
@ Mike’ America —
Know when to fold ’em, dude! Just can’t let it go, can you?
My question was simple. You have now ducked it over and over and over again. Your ducking has nothing to do with me supposedly being “arrogant”* and everything to do with you not being able to articulate a reasonable response.
If you had a snappy comeback, you would throw it. You don’t, so you call names. Like I said: I get it. A sure sign of weakness and the absence of any intellectual underpinings to your opinion.
In short, if you, with all your knowledge gleened at Zbig’s knee, could provide a rational response, you would. Ditto MataHarley. But since y’all can’t explain the difference between trying al Queda members in federal court under Bush (good) and doing the same thing under Obama (bad), you are left to refer to moveon.com, George Soros, anti-Americanism, “shyster”, etc. Very weak, but I get the underlying motivation for that approach.
And it’s OK, Mike. You can’t win ’em all . . . just ask Sarah Palin! This one you lost, but you may win the next one against me . . . probably NOT, but it is possible. But you do need to know when to stop digging the hole you have put yourself in. And the digging should stop right now.
* arrogant — a word usually used by people who are projecting their own perceived inadequacies on others who they perceive as being superior in some way. Again, the weak comeback and the name calling says more about you than me.
@B-Rob: What you fail to understand is that I am not interested in your opinion nor am I about to allow you to set the agenda for the conversation.
Clearly you think more highly of yourself than you deserve.
I’m just not interested in stroking an inferior ego and intellect.
@ All —
I am going to watch my Cowboys stomp some Packer fanny, then bake a pound cake. I close with a few comments:
1) None of you are able to distinguish the conservative response to Obama trying al Queda members in federal court from Bush’s decisions to do the same thing. There are two reasons this is important
a) it shows the intellectual dishonesty of the conservative side in opposing Obama; and
b) it shows that the opposition is, at root, political.
2) There may be sound arguments against trying KSM in Manhattan in favor of, for example, Virginia or the Western District of New York. For example, because of lower death tolls in Virginia, you are less likely to have a pool that is directly tainted by the events of the day, compared to NYC. Same thing with connections of people in Buffalo versus Manhattan. But no one makes this argument, mainly because your goal is not a fair trial; you guys want no trial at all. Not going to happen, of course, because the Supreme Court has spoken and these people get their day in court.
3) The failure to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s rejection of Bush’s position on executive power resonates here is troubling. When I see posts that say “terrorists have no rights”, I am seeing the rantings of people who are woefully ignorant about the plain language of the Constitution. There is a REASON Obama cannot arrest and execute Glenn Beck simply because Obama labels him “terrorist”. Yet I have seen rantings on this board that shows it is the preferred approach for these “terrorists”. You may not like it, but our government does not have the right to detain ANYONE without due process of law — either in the Article III court system or the military justice system. This is not Argentina in the 1970s, people; this is America! If our system of checks on government abuses offends you, move to a country that has no such checks. I hear Russia works that way!
4) The desire to protect the Bush administration from a light being shone on its incompetence smacks of partisan considerations that should NOT enter into the prosecution of these people. Obama was not on duty during 9/11 or the torture decisions, so he has no ox that can be gored EXCEPT to the extent that Bushie incompetence makes it harder to convict these people and send them to Florence. Obama gains nothing by those case turning on what the Bush people f’d up. In fact, I would not be suprised if the prosecutors used NOTHING LEARNED from the post 9/11 interrogations when they move on these guys. If the tainted evidence is not used, there is no relevance to any efforts to disclose how it was gained.
5) The lack of introspection here, combined with the groupthink and regurgitation of Newsmax talking points, show exactly why the conservative movement is dying. Reliance on emotion instead of rational argument; elevation of ignorance as virtue; and inability to be critically introspective — all are signs of intellectual decline. Buckley and Goldwater are turning in their graves, I fear.
Howz the the viewing Obama, lying his ass off going Rob?
Hmmm. And he talks about ignoring things…
You’ll support Obama Ver-2, but we and Bush are all supporting Obama Ver-1.
C-ya.
@B-Rob: You have demonstrated that Obama’s decision to bring KSM to New York is TOTALLY POLITICAL. And you compound this admission by claiming that WE are somehow being intellectually dishonest?
Seems to me you are describing yourself.
KSM could very well have been tried at the Military Commissions OBAMA will use at Gitmo. This decision is entirely political and if you want to lie to yourself about it that’s fine. But you are not fooling anyone else.
Go bake your cake and eat it too!
And for the real patriots out there who are really interested in the fundamentals of this issue, Rudy Giuliani, himself a former prosecutor in New York appeared on ABC’s This Week program:
If anyone needs more proof that this decision by Obama is political, keep in mind that he will use Military Tribunals for other terrorists which could just as easily, and at less risk and cost, do the same with KSM!
Did anyone cover this earlier? From HuffPo:
And in case you missed it, the beheading video where KSM cuts the throat of Daniel Pearl:
http://www.libertyunites.us/video_daniel_pearl_beheading_video-425.html
This is the man libs want to put center stage in New York!
You mean political opposition like refusing to support the Iraq surge, yet applauding widely at Obama’s half hearted Afghan surge #1, and dilly dallying on the requested surge #2? Or keeping the FISA/wiretaps in place? Or like not withdrawing from Iraq and honoring the SOFA in place between Iraq and the Bush admin instead of fulfilling his BS promises?
Or maybe that political opposition of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to whining about Gitmo and indefinition detention… ahem… and remaing moot on Bagram?
Yeah… you got real moral high ground here, billy-bob.
Your sweeping assumption that Hamdan delegitimizes all military commissions is nothing short of unbelievable. While in fact it did ding a monster hole in the MCA, nowhere in the syllabus did the SCOTUS nullify the military commission as a method of dealing with those detained in a time of war. It merely applied to Hamdan, an American citizen (unlike the non-citizen cockroaches you grant the lofty status of being human beings), the relief to contest charges he was an enemy combatant.
Shall I remind you that everyone here is quite aware that Obama cannot simply arrest American citizen (that pesky due process 14th Amendment language again) Beck within our Constitutional boundaries. Not that I don’t bet he wishes he could. However again you compare apples to an orange crate when you equate rights of terrorists who are not citizens, and are captured on battlefields, with the Constitutional rights of a US born or naturalized citizen.
And you call us “woefully ignorant”? Chutzpah
You argue your points well enough, billy-bob. Must be all that trial lawyer experience. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that you start from a Constitutionally flawed, and delusional foundation, that the Constitution is rights granted world wide, regardless of citizenship. Wrong… and not Hamdan, Hamdi nor Boumediene even hinted at this, or the illegality of tribunals in general.
Of course, were your delusional interpretation of the Constitution true, the US would not need the Geneva Convention, and never would tribunals been held in past conflicts. Apparently you, a “living Constitution” type with nary a conscience about mutilating the ideals of that document, are on board with that. Repulsive.
However you’re a far cry from a strict constructionist which, of course, makes me dismiss you as quickly as a fly on a screen in summer.
And speaking of that attorney status, @I mentioned above:
You then reveal:
Small wonder our court system is FUBAR…. I repeat, public education (or even private higher learning Ivy league) ain’t what it used to be.
@ B-Rob
I’m late to the party. I had finals this weekend.
Um, Moussaoui was captured in Minnesota. Pretty much had our hands tied there, huh?
American citizen, hands tied.
Born in Brooklyn, hands tied. I have no idea who Farris is.
One last thing:
From Gallup dated October 26, 2009.
~Snip~
wow the battle of the minds is right here on this blog,i am concern about a 200yars law into this modern world,and should they be tryed for each one that they kill at 911 and does the judge and lawers have to learn the muslims language too,thank you