Very good again slesh, except I would rather Dick(head) Cheney paid the price rather than Bush. Bush was too stupid to mastermind this, and was probably not a bad guy in character. The only quality of Bush's I really hated(don't get me wrong I didn't like him one bit) was the one that also makes me want Cheney nailed to the wall. SMUGNESS. As you said, no one should be above the law, and this guy made the rules, THEN put HIMSELF above them. This guy must have immense power for no one to go after him, and people to take the fall for him. I guess we can only hope there is a God.

Yes, I do agree that Cheney and his henchmen had direct infuence with Bush43, but there were alot of scores to settle with Iraq from him as well. The attempted plot to kill Bush41, in Kuwait in the 90's and let's not forget those lucrative oil contracts Haliburton now has (which most of the oil goes to China).

But, at the end of the day, G.W. Bush took on the job of President of the United States of America. The buck stops with him, it is he alone that bares responsibility based solely on the simple fact he gave the order. He had the power to do otherwise.

The truly sad part of this entire fiasco of recent American history plays into a long stretched out 60 year story that has gone through both political parties. They both have failed to be honest with the American people, treating us like children (in reality slaves to their policies) that will not stop until the citizens of this great nation wake up and realize that it is they alone, that hold the most powerful title in this great land. That of citizen of the United States.

Which of course brings us back full circle to this very post. These are not theoritical or philisophical situaions that deserve only meaningless words to be thrown at. We should practice what we preach as a nation. These men that killed on 9/11 should be tried, convictied and sentenced to death for their actions. The only reason I point out the Iraq situation itself is to point toward the massive failure of our leadership to bring all of Al QEada to justice. To do so, we should have gone into Afghanistan in massive force from the very beginning.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

There is no reason to convey the rights of citizens of our great country to fucking terrorists who are bent on destroying us and our way of life. This is just more evidence of Obama being a spineless, kowtowing, limp-wristed, subservient....

You know what. I'm done ranting. This president wants to knock America down a few pegs. I think he finds it offensive that we are the world's lone superpower. I seriously hope for his sake that this kind of thing is done deliberately, and not out of ignorance. But for the rest of the country, I guess it doesn't really matter. Keep folding like a Trapper-Keeper Obama. I'm sure there are 1 or 2 tyrants, enemies or lunatic mass-murderers whom you haven't legitimized and apologized to.

I thought having Obama in the White House was going to make the world, and the Muslim world in particular, love us again. Ask those gunned down at Ft. Hood if that's the case. Has Iran been cooperative since his Immaculation? This president's idea of foreign policy is to apologize for our country, appease our enemies those nations hostile to us, and to dither on the major decisions that hold American lives in the balance.

Jesus, Mr. President, grow a pair and send some troops to Afghanistan like your generals have requested. Then stand up to Iran and Venezuela and North Korea. I had a lot of problems with President Bush, but one area I agreed with him was the clear defenition of who our enemies were and what we were going to do to them. I think in Barack Obama's mind, the enemy is his own country.

Rant over. For now.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

Well Hammy, I don't disagree with the concepts you put forth. But in all honesty, no matter where we try these mass murderers we as a nation are going to have mud on our face (or blood on your hands if you prefer) in the eyes of the islamic world.
Religion is just another excuse for them, but in the end, as I stated previously, it isn't going to matter if you try them in New York City or Easter fuckin Island. Every American citizen is going to be in the same danger they were before and after this fiasco.
Ya know, i've always just said it like it is, and here is my final 2 cents on this.

The United States has had a policy since post war 1945 of securing access to a majority of the oil in the middle east. And why not dammit. The alternative is not a good vision for us.

The reality is (and I will be blunt and honest, no matter what tag I may be called) I would go into harms way again and again to secure our way of life.
Is it right to kill for the oil? Yes it is, we would put our national security at risk otherwise.
Do we always stand on the right side of the issues? I guess that depends which end of the barrel of the gun your standing on, from my point of view (As an American Army Veteran and Patriot of this great nation) it was the right side, I'm still breathing, ole Abdullah who was on the receiving end of my actions I guess was not. To bad for him, but life goes on.

And the conflict continues, I know it sounds simplistic, but, if the leadership in this nation were honest and told me that I was going to fight to secure further Oil supplies for this nation I would still go, the alternative is not something I want to see happen. As I often say, its a dog eat dog world. Right now, we are the strong, and the strong survive. It has been this way since the begginning of man, it will continue to be this way for my lifetime. I only ask for honesty from our leadership, let me, as a citizen decide if it is correct or incorrect.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

There's nothing to worry about people.

AG Eric Holder has a firm command on how we can prosecute KSM in a civilian trial...He knows how we can get around the Miranda requirement and everything...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/200 ... _lade.html

Oh...he doesn't?
He doesn't even have an answer when he sat in front of a Senate panel about this very situation?

Goddamnitsomuch.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Quote from: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/200 ... _lade.html

" criticism that the Obama Administration is transforming the war on terror from a military to law-enforcement affair."

I find this criticism to be short-sighted. If Obama decided to treat these guys as "enemy combatants", then their actions wouldn't be considered "terrorist". If killing innocent civilians(yes, even on purpose) during war to break economies and their will to fight is terrorism, then chalk up just about every country who fought in WW2 as a terrorist nation.

Before anyone says "war was declared", that's the difference, would have to note that Japan attacked us with no declaration, and I believe the only country Germany actually DID declare war on was the U.S. They were still tried at Nuremberg.

The problem, Slesh, is that a tribunal could be done quietly. A civilian trial is going to be a media circus. It will allow KSM the opportunity to get on his soapbox and rail against this country. But really, the worst thing is probably the discovery process. In a civilian trial, classified information will have to be revealed. Interrogations techniques, spying techniques. I am not upset about this because of how the Islamic world is going to view it. They hate us. End of story. No amount of appeasement and kowtowing will make them like us. In fact, it will probably only embolden them. No, the precendent of giving rights to these terrorists that are not warranted is a huge mistake. It was like all the talk of Geneva Convention protocol for combatants who by that very convention, did not qualify for those protections.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

Ham, if we are afraid of using our own justice system due to any reason, then I state to you this great expirement of a Republic has failed. Remember the words "There is nothing to fear but fear itself".
The discovery process will be handled with the best of intentions. And the classified material you speak of is 8 going on 9 years old now. The entire strategy of the war on terror has changed since then and the players have as well.

My question is if not in New York infront of a jury, then what system do you recommend? A military tribunal? That still accords them certain rights consistent with the UCMJ. As for a "soapbox" to spew from, man, I don't think you give credit to the stregnth of the American people. No matter what any of these guys say in court, we will be in the same danger that we were and are in if he never spoke infront of a jury. Once you acknowlege this as the truth (becuase it is Hammy) you begin to see the irrelavince of the very subject itself.
I wore a uniform for this great nation, I fought in some of the very battles against these criminals that have brought them into the position they are in now. To me, its a slap in the face as a veteran who has had to bare a portion of that burden to do things "quietly" or behind closed doors. What in the fuck did I fight for then? A secret government? No thanks Hammy, I'd rather stand tall and have a system of transparency where I can see what the fuck is going on. I would like to see public executions for these criminals (and they will be convicted). We, the public do not have access to all the government has on the evidence, I would think releasing that information would quell the anger on this. Remember, the jury pool is already tainted towards guilty (that tends to happen when the people in the jury already realize the defendants are out to murder you).

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but the Nuremberg trials were military tribunals for war crimes.
It was not a civil court and the defendants were not given civilian rights.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

The Nuremberg trials were a series of military trials, or military tribunals, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany after its defeat in World War II. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1946, at the Palace of Justice. The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which tried 22 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany. It was held from November 21, 1945 to October 1, 1946. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT); among them included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial.
The International Military Tribunal was opened on October 18, 1945, in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. The first session was presided over by the Soviet judge, Nikitchenko. The prosecution entered indictments against 24 major war criminals and six criminal organizations – the leadership of the Nazi party, the Schutzstaffel (SS) and Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Gestapo, the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the High Command of the German armed forces (OKW).

The indictments were for:

1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

More proof Eric Holder is a moron.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091122/D9C4RM3O1.html



So, the only reason they're going to plea not guilty is so they can grandstand on the soapbox given to them by the Obama administration.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

hayta say I tolzya so - but I tolzya so.

Well said. While I don't agree with you that it is permissible to go to war for oil supplies, I admire your honesty in admitting it. Let's call a spade a spade. Iraq is and always was a bullshit war.

As far as the trial goes, openness is best and I agree with you totally. The danger will be the same whether it's done as a tribunal or civilian trial, and what's to be gained from keeping proceedings "quiet" except the possibility for even more misunderstanding between the US and the Muslim world?

Those of you who say terrorists don't "deserve" the rights afforded everyone else, on what grounds are you basing this? I know many of you say that we are "at war with Islam" (something I've read a number of times of this forum). I, from such a statement, would often assume the author to be Christian. Well, my question to you is "what would Jesus do"? Would he treat someone of a different religion differently? Would he demand a pound of flesh, or would he tell us to "turn the other cheek"? Anyone who believes themselves to be Christian ought to know the answer to that one.

Is the justification for giving these men less rights in a military trial based on some sort of belief that such an action fits in with American ideals? If so, I would say that according to the document that founded this country, "all men are created equal", not all American citizens are created equal.

As slesh quoted earlier "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Terrorists try to use fear to make people live their lives differently. If we as Americans allow this fear to alter our justice codes, to make exceptions to the rules we supposedly hold dear and are fighting to defend, then how have we not played right into the terrorists' hands?

Please read my previous post.

That's why they don't deserve a civil trial.
They're guilty, they would just as soon plead guilty and be turned into martyrs. They've said so.
Since we're giving them a civil trial, they will now plea not guilty so they can piss on America one last time in front of the world.

How is that not playing into the terrorists' hands?

How does that further the cause of justice?

How can you be so certain about a civil trial when the AG himself has no way to explain how to get around Miranda?

Would you be comfortable with these men walking free?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Stuuu or Slesh, could either of you guys explain to me why you believe military tribunals for wanted terrorists captured in enemy territory are immoral or somehow a violation of their human rights? I never heard of this viewpoint before until reading through this thread. I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to understand you better.

Thanks!

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

I am not against it ETC. As you are asking me the why's thats exactly what I am asking all of you.
To date I have seen nothing in the way of evidence that convinces me our nations court system could not handle this. As it affords these murderers a chance to be set free if found not guilty I find this beyond unlikely. As I stated, the jury pool tends to be tainted when the jury knows the defendants very reason for breathing is to kill them, the jury.
Besides ETC, my question lies to the underbelly of a question that Americans love to avoid. It speaks to the real mantra of this great nation, Truth, Justice, And the American Way.

If we hold the moral high ground in this situation, then what do we have to fear?
The families of the 9/11 tragedy suffered greatly, half want the trials in NY, half don't.
What about the men and women in uniform? They don't just suffer 1 life changing incident, they go back to the battlefield time and time again. Do they not have a say in this?
What was the major question with regards to the detainees again? Oh ya, thats right, what label to place on them, the supreme court ruled on this in 04, they are criminals, not prisoners of war. Therefore the Geneva convention did not apply, so what rule of law did then? Was it international war crimes law? If so, why isnt an international court handling this? And the questions can go on and on and on.

The point for me is that they are going to be found guilty and put to death accordingly. Oh, people may say things like "They'll have a chance to walk" and things like this, but in the end, these guys are already dead. Just a formality to go through the court thing now anyways. So we now go back full circle to the question at hand, what difference does it make where they are tried. Why are people so afraid to bring them here and kill them here.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

Got a staff meeting now. If this question hasn't been answered by the next time I look, I'll get back to you.

Slesh, maybe I'm slow, but I couldn't glean from your post what you find immoral or a violation of human rights about military tribunals. I realize you are very proud of our civil court system, but I'm not sure I understand why you aren't equally proud of our military court system. Do you think we should change the constitution to ban military courts because of something you learned or saw in the military?

Again, it's just foreign to me because I always believed our judicial system, both military and civilian, were both vital components of what makes our country great, and both are needed in place to protect our society from injustice. I know why many people are against using civil courts for matters relating to crimes of terrorism and national security, and would also understand why using military courts for civilian crimes by US citizens would be equally misguided.

Am I missing something?

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

ETC, there is nothing immoral about the tribunals, thats not what I am taking issue with directly.
I am merely stating that since the label criminal is now being fully utilized to describe these people then they should be tried in civil criminal court.
You and I most definitely agree these people declared war on the United States, and not on 9/11, this started prior to 1953, its just culminated to this level all of these years later. But, others see it as a criminal act with 3000 + murders to be convicted for. Is it semantics, yes, but the moral compass works both ways and this is where I take issue. You keep them as enemy combatants and try them with the tribunals, fine with me as well. As I stated, in either case, whether it be civil courts or military tribunals, I say put them on TV everyday until convicted. Then when its time to execute the death penalty, televise it.

No, the moral issue I take is that all of the criminals of this war will not be brought to justice and that is exactly what pisses me off. Many and I mean many of the NCO's (myslef included) used to say this all of the time. Bring the traitors that are in this government to trial with these scumbags, lets clean up both sides of the world.

It is pure Hypocrisy to try these men for war crimes or civil criminal crimes of any kind without trying G.W. Bush and his henchmen.

I am a man with Honor, my men respected my leadership because I was honorable. This is the moral compass I speak of. Say what you mean, Mean what you say. Truth, Justice, Honor, Honesty, Integrity....these are the terms American children learn. As I have said, it is only this lack of morals or more to the point "selective morals" that really bothers me. The moment I hear an arguement to the affect that as a nation we shouldn't honor our word I just say the following: "Don't piss on my boots and try to tell me its raining".

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

The real question that should be posed but isn't is this:

How can the Obama DOJ rationalize civilian show trials for some of the most infamous gitmo prisoners while simultaneously continuing to conduct military tribunals?

What's the differentiation?

Military tribunals haven't stopped.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...