[Mr.Kimball]

Attorney General Eric Holden is leaving open the possibility of trying professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military commission instead of the civilian trial originally planned for New York City.


http:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35367199/ns/...s-security



Send him to Gitmo and get this over with!!!

[Hoot Gibson]

Even if Obama wants to try KSM in NYC, which I believe he does, I doubt that he could get funding for the trial approved in Congress. Soon, some of these Democrats like Eric Holder, whose careers are being destroyed by the spineless wimp Obama, are going to spill their guts in a book when they leave office. My guess is that they will not wait until Obama is out of office.

The notion that trying KSM was Holder's decision is laughable. Nobody believes that Obama did not give the plan his stamp of approval. There is no plausible deniability for Obama in this case. Obama's fingerprints are all over the decision.

[Old School]

Even if Obama wants to try KSM in NYC, which I believe he does, I doubt that he could get funding for the trial approved in Congress. Soon, some of these Democrats like Eric Holder, whose careers are being destroyed by the spineless wimp Obama, are going to spill their guts in a book when they leave office. My guess is that they will not wait until Obama is out of office.

The notion that trying KSM was Holder's decision is laughable. Nobody believes that Obama did not give the plan his stamp of approval. There is no plausible deniability for Obama in this case. Obama's fingerprints are all over the decision.

Since Barry is never wrong about anything, Holder will take the fall for this decision.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/12/is...r-the-bus/

[Hoot Gibson]

Since Barry is never wrong about anything, Holder will take the fall for this decision.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/12/is...r-the-bus/

I was always amazed at the dearth of tell-all books about the Clintons from former White House insiders. Whatever their faults were/are, they seemed to inspire loyalty among their inner circle.

I don't get the sense that Obama inspires much confidence or loyalty among his supporters. I suspect that it is related to his inexperience and incompetence. If Holder takes the fall for the botched handling of the KSM trial, I think the floodgates of Obama criticism by Democrats will be opened wide.

[thecavemaster]

According to statistics compiled by New York University's Center on Law and Security, since 2001 the criminal courts have convicted some one hundred fifty suspects on terrorism charges. Only three detainees--all of whom were apprehened abroad-- were convicted in military commissions at Guantanamo.

IN FACT, the makeshift military commission system set up by Bush to handle terrorism cases has never tried a murder case, let alone one as complex, or notorious, as that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will face the death penalty for the murder of nearly three thousand people.

Don't be fooled by Right Wing Flirty Party propoganda.

[Hoot Gibson]

According to statistics compiled by New York University's Center on Law and Security, since 2001 the criminal courts have convicted some one hundred fifty suspects on terrorism charges. Only three detainees--all of whom were apprehened abroad-- were convicted in military commissions at Guantanamo.

IN FACT, the makeshift military commission system set up by Bush to handle terrorism cases has never tried a murder case, let alone one as complex, or notorious, as that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will face the death penalty for the murder of nearly three thousand people.

Don't be fooled by Right Wing Flirty Party propoganda.

There is nothing complex about a trial of a mass murderer who has already confessed before a military tribunal. What is complex, convoluted, and incomprehensible is the reasoning behind this administration's desire to waste money on a civilian trial near ground zero.

[thecavemaster]

There is nothing complex about a trial of a mass murderer who has already confessed before a military tribunal. What is complex, convoluted, and incomprehensible is the reasoning behind this administration's desire to waste money on a civilian trial near ground zero.

Keep America Safe (William Kristol, Elizabeth Cheney) has as its purpose to attack the Obama Administration's national security decisions and to, thereby, vindicate those of the Bush Administration. It's a political advocacy group perhaps best characterized by protester Carolyn Walton, who called Holder a "Marxist mole." She said, "How can someone who is not an American have any right to our rights? Holder wants to help the terrorists."

Ms. Holder does not speak for me. I believe that the American justice system can build a case, put on trial, announce and carry out sentence against Mohammed in a way that makes us proud to be Americans. Why do we fear the words a man such as Khalid Mohammed might speak? He is an insignificant mole when compared to America's commitment to justice.

Holder was born and raised in New York City...his mother still lives in the city. His brother is a retired Port Authority Police Officer who lost many friends on 9/11. Why not bring Khalid Mohammed to New York, to NEW YORK, to answer for his alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood?

I do realize this, as spoken by Bill Martel of Tufts: "When public fear coalesces, it generates forces that are almost uncontrollable by the political leadership." So, Hoot, you and those of your mindset may "win" this debate, but, oftentimes, my friend, there is much more to wrong or right than a showing of hands.

[Hoot Gibson]

Keep America Safe (William Kristol, Elizabeth Cheney) has as its purpose to attack the Obama Administration's national security decisions and to, thereby, vindicate those of the Bush Administration. It's a political advocacy group perhaps best characterized by protester Carolyn Walton, who called Holder a "Marxist mole." She said, "How can someone who is not an American have any right to our rights? Holder wants to help the terrorists."

Ms. Holder does not speak for me. I believe that the American justice system can build a case, put on trial, announce and carry out sentence against Mohammed in a way that makes us proud to be Americans. Why do we fear the words a man such as Khalid Mohammed might speak? He is an insignificant mole when compared to America's commitment to justice.

Holder was born and raised in New York City...his mother still lives in the city. His brother is a retired Port Authority Police Officer who lost many friends on 9/11. Why not bring Khalid Mohammed to New York, to NEW YORK, to answer for his alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood?

I do realize this, as spoken by Bill Martel of Tufts: "When public fear coalesces, it generates forces that are almost uncontrollable by the political leadership." So, Hoot, you and those of your mindset may "win" this debate, but, oftentimes, my friend, there is much more to wrong or right than a showing of hands.

Those of my "mindset" include many Democrats and independents, and certainly a majority of the residents of NYC. The Obama administration should have built support before announcing its decision. Obama does not appear to respect the wishes of the voting public in this matter, just as he does not respect our wishes where health care reform is concerned.

I agreed with Dr. Martel when he told the New Yorker,

.... [INDENT]Holder, having been impervious to the shifting public mood, had been sucked into “a political riptide.” The Christmas Day bombing attempt, he noted, had come only a month after Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who had exchanged e-mails with radical Islamists, massacred thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas. Both incidents had revived public concern about America’s vulnerability to terrorism. Holder’s decisions, Martel warned, had “the makings of a sustained and self-inflicted political hemorrhage.” He added, “I think they’re going to have to give up on civilian trials. And Eric Holder is in for some pretty brutal days.” Indeed, on January 31st, Senator Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, declared on Fox News that Holder should “step down,” for his inability to make “a distinction” between “terrorists who are flying into Detroit, blowing up planes, and American citizens who are committing a crime.... [emphasis added] Link[/INDENT]

Holder has become a political liability for Obama, and loyalty to his friends is not one of the president's strong points.

[Mr.Kimball]

Keep America Safe (William Kristol, Elizabeth Cheney) has as its purpose to attack the Obama Administration's national security decisions and to, thereby, vindicate those of the Bush Administration. It's a political advocacy group perhaps best characterized by protester Carolyn Walton, who called Holder a "Marxist mole." She said, "How can someone who is not an American have any right to our rights? Holder wants to help the terrorists."

Ms. Holder does not speak for me. I believe that the American justice system can build a case, put on trial, announce and carry out sentence against Mohammed in a way that makes us proud to be Americans. Why do we fear the words a man such as Khalid Mohammed might speak? He is an insignificant mole when compared to America's commitment to justice.

Holder was born and raised in New York City...his mother still lives in the city. His brother is a retired Port Authority Police Officer who lost many friends on 9/11. Why not bring Khalid Mohammed to New York, to NEW YORK, to answer for his alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood?

I do realize this, as spoken by Bill Martel of Tufts: "When public fear coalesces, it generates forces that are almost uncontrollable by the political leadership." So, Hoot, you and those of your mindset may "win" this debate, but, oftentimes, my friend, there is much more to wrong or right than a showing of hands.

What case do we need to build? The man has already confessed. Why not spend 200 mil on things like food for the hungry? Perhaps apply that to the National Debt? I can think of a thousand things. Who exactly, is it that you suggest that we try to impress anyways?

[thecavemaster]

What case do we need to build? The man has already confessed. Why not spend 200 mil on things like food for the hungry? Perhaps apply that to the National Debt? I can think of a thousand things. Who exactly, is it that you suggest that we try to impress anyways?

Well, in December 2008, Mohammed and his co-defendents insisted that they preferred to plead guilty without a trial, and be put to death as "martyrs." The defense counsel for two of the defendents protested that their clients were not competent to make such a decision. The cases stalled, as I understand it, while psychological evaluations took place. In the midst of this legal turmoil, Obama took office. You sound like Judas, wondering why the money for the perfume wasn't given to the poor. "Justice," "fairness," ... these aren't just concepts. The American system, the ideal, is something of great value. Khalid Mohammed can't do anything that would make me want to throw that away. If we allow that, we become as our enemies.

[Mr.Kimball]

Well, in December 2008, Mohammed and his co-defendents insisted that they preferred to plead guilty without a trial, and be put to death as "martyrs." The defense counsel for two of the defendents protested that their clients were not competent to make such a decision. The cases stalled, as I understand it, while psychological evaluations took place. In the midst of this legal turmoil, Obama took office. You sound like Judas, wondering why the money for the perfume wasn't given to the poor. "Justice," "fairness," ... these aren't just concepts. The American system, the ideal, is something of great value. Khalid Mohammed can't do anything that would make me want to throw that away. If we allow that, we become as our enemies.

Do you disagree that a military tribunal would accomplish the same thing?

[thecavemaster]

Do you disagree that a military tribunal would accomplish the same thing?

I do not think it's a given, Kimball...no, I don't.

[Old School]

Keep America Safe (William Kristol, Elizabeth Cheney) has as its purpose to attack the Obama Administration's national security decisions and to, thereby, vindicate those of the Bush Administration. It's a political advocacy group perhaps best characterized by protester Carolyn Walton, who called Holder a "Marxist mole." She said, "How can someone who is not an American have any right to our rights? Holder wants to help the terrorists."

Ms. Holder does not speak for me. I believe that the American justice system can build a case, put on trial, announce and carry out sentence against Mohammed in a way that makes us proud to be Americans. Why do we fear the words a man such as Khalid Mohammed might speak? He is an insignificant mole when compared to America's commitment to justice.

Holder was born and raised in New York City...his mother still lives in the city. His brother is a retired Port Authority Police Officer who lost many friends on 9/11. Why not bring Khalid Mohammed to New York, to NEW YORK, to answer for his alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood?

I do realize this, as spoken by Bill Martel of Tufts: "When public fear coalesces, it generates forces that are almost uncontrollable by the political leadership." So, Hoot, you and those of your mindset may "win" this debate, but, oftentimes, my friend, there is much more to wrong or right than a showing of hands.

First let me say that I think our system is the best in the world, however it is not perfect. While our current system has sent many criminals to prison many have also fell through the cracks. How many guilty people have gone free? How many innocent people are serving or have served time for a crime they did not commit?

Am I afraid of what KSM may say in a public trial...hardly, what I am afraid of is what information his defense attorney's may ask for in this trial. My understanding is that KSM's attorney's could and would ask for classified information that would compromise the safety of our troops and citizens.

As Mr. K or Hoot stated, Barry, Joe and Bob have all said he is guilty and will be executed. Wouldn't commits like these cause a mistrial in a public court.

[Matman]

I do not think it's a given, Kimball...no, I don't.

Expand. Why do you not think it would accomplish just that?

[Joe Friday]

These people are terrorists not common criminals. Trying them as civilians would just cause more problems and cost way too much money. Military tribunals are the way these terrorists should be tried - it is the best way to protect American Citizens. Oh, by the way, the terrorists are NOT American Citizens so why would we consider giving them constitutional rights?! Of course, they should be tried at Gitmo, hanged, and fed to the fishes.

Now, if we have to imprison them in one of the states, here is the guy we should hand them over to.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hnq_hK4yDQ"]YouTube- Inside Tent City[/ame]

[Hoot Gibson]

These people are terrorists not common criminals. Trying them as civilians would just cause more problems and cost way too much money. Military tribunals are the way these terrorists should be tried - it is the best way to protect American Citizens. Oh, by the way, the terrorists are NOT American Citizens so why would we consider giving them constitutional rights?! Of course, they should be tried at Gitmo, hanged, and fed to the fishes.

Now, if we have to imprison them in one of the states, here is the guy we should hand them over to.

:Thumbs::Clap: I agree. If we must put them in an American jail, let them eat bologna sandwiches (the cheap stuff, not the fancy all beef variety, on white bread) under Sheriff Joe's watchful eye. Great suggestion!

[Joe Friday]

:Thumbs::Clap: I agree. If we must put them in an American jail, let them eat bologna sandwiches (the cheap stuff, not the fancy all beef variety, on white bread) under Sheriff Joe's watchful eye. Great suggestion!

:rockon: We know that Sheriff Joe would be sure to give them the bologna that contains the PORK in the ingredients. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

:rockon: We know that Sheriff Joe would be sure to give them the bologna that contains the PORK in the ingredients. :biggrin:

I think that is still the cheapest kind available. If not, maybe Obama could add a few extra cents a day to the $1.5 trillion budget deficit to make sure that Joe gets what he needs to operate his prison the way he sees fit. Some fiberglass prayer mats (for the sake of durability, of course) would be a worthwhile investment as well.

[Joe Friday]

I think that is still the cheapest kind available. If not, maybe Obama could add a few extra cents a day to the $1.5 trillion budget deficit to make sure that Joe gets what he needs to operate his prison the way he sees fit. Some fiberglass prayer mats (for the sake of durability, of course) would be a worthwhile investment as well.

:lmao:

[thecavemaster]

So much for the "wrap them up in bacon" crowd. We grant them constitutional rights because we are America: we do not sink to the level of our enemies, we rise to the calling of our ideals. We seek to call forth the highest that is within human nature, not continually bow to the lowest common denominator.

[Mr.Kimball]

You still fail to answer the question of why a military tribunal would not work just as well as a civil trial.

[thecavemaster]

It was answered before: the "special" military commission tribunals set up in makeshift fashion in the Bush years have never tried a murder case... let alone one of this magnitude. I am not suggesting that military tribunals are unjust; however, I am suggesting that trying Khalid Mohammed in a criminal court would be America putting its ideals into the highest practice. Try the man in the long, dark shadow of the atrocity he orchestrated. I really don't think it will happen now. Perhaps we could come up with something like the Nuremburg Trials concept to try terrorists from all over the world.

[Matman]

It was answered before: the "special" military commission tribunals set up in makeshift fashion in the Bush years have never tried a murder case... let alone one of this magnitude. I am not suggesting that military tribunals are unjust; however, I am suggesting that trying Khalid Mohammed in a criminal court would be America putting its ideals into the highest practice. Try the man in the long, dark shadow of the atrocity he orchestrated. I really don't think it will happen now. Perhaps we could come up with something like the Nuremburg Trials concept to try terrorists from all over the world.

Do you think they could ever get a fair trial here in the US?

[thecavemaster]

Do you think they could ever get a fair trial here in the US?

I believe in the highest ideals of American jurisprudence. I think that Khalid Mohammed can get a just trial, yes. Freedom of the press, in conjunction with a camera in the courtroom, go a long way toward helping here.

[Mr.Kimball]

I believe in the highest ideals of American jurisprudence. I think that Khalid Mohammed can get a just trial, yes. Freedom of the press, in conjunction with a camera in the courtroom, go a long way toward helping here.

So, in other words you could care less that American intelligence is compromised and security to American soldiers or other vital American interests are put at risk?

Hopefully someone in your family is not put in jeopardy over your foolish way of thinking if were to take place in this manner.

We are at war, you knucklehead. This guy didn't cut the tops off of parking meters.

[thecavemaster]

So, in other words you could care less that American intelligence is compromised and security to American soldiers or other vital American interests are put at risk?

Hopefully someone in your family is not put in jeopardy over your foolish way of thinking if were to take place in this manner.

We are at war, you knucklehead. This guy didn't cut the tops off of parking meters.

The camera couldn't be operated in such a manner as to be shut off during times deemed necessary for "national security"? Sometimes, Kimball, especially in times of war, adherence to principle is most necesssary, given the bloodlust of human nature. At any rate, this may be a moot debate, as I don't think Khalid Mohammed will be tried in a criminal court at this point.

[Joe Friday]

The camera couldn't be operated in such a manner as to be shut off during times deemed necessary for "national security"? Sometimes, Kimball, especially in times of war, adherence to principle is most necesssary, given the bloodlust of human nature. At any rate, this may be a moot debate, as I don't think Khalid Mohammed will be tried in a criminal court at this point.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGg_dpGhlf0"]YouTube- Jennings & Wallace, reporters first, Americans second[/ame]


Is this the "adherence to principle" you consider "most necessary"? Mike uke: Wallace is dispicable!! Be sure to watch Colonel :worthy: George Connell kick the traitors butts at the end of the video.

[Mr.Kimball]

The camera couldn't be operated in such a manner as to be shut off during times deemed necessary for "national security"? Sometimes, Kimball, especially in times of war, adherence to principle is most necesssary, given the bloodlust of human nature. At any rate, this may be a moot debate, as I don't think Khalid Mohammed will be tried in a criminal court at this point.

I'm not sure I am following you here correctly. I assume you are implying that a person operating the camera is supposed to automaticly know what is confidential information and to also know when he is supposed to turn the camera on and off? Is that what you are suggesting?

In times of war, I would just as soon let our military people deal with our enemy combatants.That methodology has worked fine for 234 years now. I'm not understanding why you would be the least bit concerned with someone else's perception. Personaly, I could care less that what any other nationality or culture thinks of the way we conduct our own business. Why? Because it's our business, not theirs.

[thecavemaster]

Is this the "adherence to principle" you consider "most necessary"? Mike uke: Wallace is dispicable!! Be sure to watch Colonel :worthy: George Connell kick the traitors butts at the end of the video.

For purposes of debate, hypotheticals often impose either/or choices. If "embedded" with enemy troops, who come upon American soldiers, would the reporter yell, "Look out"? Is that it? That question cuts so much deeper than a simple "patriot vs. non-patriot" issue. Would you die to warn your countrymen about an impending ambush? It makes Wallace appear a coward, I guess. I think it is possible to be both an American and a reporter... and in the case of the hypothetical, a dead American reporter.

[thecavemaster]

Does a man have a moral obligation to surrender his own life in order to save another's? In the case of a soldier, or a policeman, the answer might be "yes" because of professional codes and the like. I would say a reporter is under no such professional code. When one assumes the duties of a police officer or soldier, one assumes obligations not placed upon others.