Sunday reads 11-15-09

UPDATE, 1:15p: "Owens may have to be removed" ~ The Gouverneur Times

[HT: Mary Q.]
_______________

axelrod, cnn, obama, abortion, stupak, healthcare.jpg

  • "Axelrod signals Obama will try to strip abortion language from health care bill" ~ Fox News reporting on White House senior advisor David Axelrod's appearance on CNN this morning. ("I believe that there are discussions ongoing to how to adjust it accordingly.")
  • "Abortion exposes divisions among US Democrats" ~ Reuters
  • "Dems risk losing Catholics over abortion" ~ Politico
  • [HT for Fox article: Dougy, Matt Lewis, Greg Mueller; photo via CNN]


    Comments:


    See, I told you that frozen smile on Nancy's face did not result from a Botox overdose. I think I also mentioned something about a Trojan Horse and PL people had better quickly dispense with celebrating our "victory". This whole bill is a major anti-life monstrosity and Nancy pulled a fast one on us to get it passed.

    Most important I mentioned that one should never forget when one is up against a sociopath. Playing these people at their own game is extremely difficult.

    Am I crowing? No, not any more than Cassandra did when Troy was destroyed.

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 1:02 PM


    This is why we don't trust people who kill children.

    Posted by: Lauren at November 15, 2009 1:05 PM



    Fool me once shame on you,

    Fool me twice same on ...

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 1:23 PM


    What is the news here? Did anybody ever actually believe Obama would support this amendment? But they don't have the votes to get rid of it so what is the news here except that Obama and his pro-abort allies are gonna lose this fight. And they better get used to it cause the longer this is publicly debated the more people will get eductated about this monstrosity. Somebody should ask Obama if he now feels this life question is now within his pay-grade.

    Posted by: truthseeker at November 15, 2009 1:36 PM


    "Somebody should ask Obama if he now feels this life question is now within his pay-grade."

    Posted by: truthseeker at November 15, 2009 1:36 PM

    I agree. And let's not stop asking until the answer is "yes". I wonder what his daughters' answers would be?

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 1:58 PM


    Hi ts,

    The two most important rules of love, war, and politics are:

    1.NEVER underestimate your opposition.
    2.NEVER predict, or expect, a quick and easy victory.

    Don't believe Obama has lost this fight until he actually loses it.

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 2:00 PM


    Joe Wilson was right. Period.

    Posted by: Jennifer at November 15, 2009 3:07 PM


    This is off-topic, but what do you all think Obama has to gain by moving the 911-Conspirators' trial to NYC? It scares me to death and I don't live anywhere near NYC. Maybe some one who lives in NYC could give their perspective, especially if they think this is a good thing. With my limited knowledge of the situation, I'd think it would be much wiser to have a military tribunal at Guantanamo. These guys could be set free in NYC and who could stand for that??

    I understand this NY trial is not set in stone...those of us who oppose it should voice our opposition to our Congressmen and Senators loud and clear.

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 3:08 PM


    Janet.... I don't live near New York city either but fell the same way you do. Once again Barry is pandering to the far left of the Democratic party, and I also believe it's really about indirectly putting Bush and Cheney on trial.

    Regarding NY 23.... well even with ACORN it seems the Democrats are having trouble stealing elections now. How happy I will be if Doug Hoffman ends up winning that seat!

    Liberal heads will really explode. Liberal bloggers were having such a good time blaming the loss on Sarah Palin... now if it turns out that Hoffman indeed did win that race will they give her the credit? Of course not, but it's fun to think of how they will react.

    Posted by: Joanne at November 15, 2009 3:22 PM


    Hi Janet and Joanne,

    I have to agree about about the terrorist "trial" in NY. This is disgusting. Or we're showing the world what nice guys we are. We are practicing our ideals.
    Earth to Barry, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are laughing themselves stupid at you...and us.
    All these world tyrants giving you the finger and you still don't get the message? You still can't figure out these tyrants and terrorists do not respect your efforts to be their friends, to "understand" them?? They see you exactly for the weak, ineffectual, inexperienced, incompetent that you are, which unfortunately too many Americans don't.

    What they'll do is dress these guys up like college professors, portray them as "victims" then some damned bleeding heart jury will let them go.
    Or perhaps these guys will escape. Nice thought isn't it?
    BTW, did you hear about the guard in the "maximum security" prison these dirtbags will be in that was blinded by one the previous terrorist prisoners? Gee, ya mean these terrorists actually do things like this??

    The SOBs admitted their guilt and wanted to be executed. So why didn't they just shoot the SOBs and get it over with?

    Don't get me started.

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 3:45 PM


    Janet and Joanne,

    Go to Michaelsavage.com for an account of the guard who was blinded. Its horrific. I'm certain if the guard had just made more effort to truly "understand" this terrorist or taken the time to talk to him, this would have never happened.(SARCASM!)

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 3:56 PM


    Joanne,

    Good point about putting Bush and Cheney on trial. What our President is doing to our economy is almost criminal, but that's another story. The trial being in the news now is a well-crafted diversion from healthcare, i believe. NY23 will be an interesting story to follow.

    Mary,

    I haven't heard the account of the guard who was blinded. I'll check it out. Hopefully there will be enough backlash against a NYC trial that it will be nixed. I wonder whose trial will come first. Hasan's in Texas, or the 911 terrorists... I'm glad Hasan survived. No martyrdom for him.

    Thanks to both of you for your comments.

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 5:13 PM


    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 2:00 PM

    Back to the topic at hand. You give good advice, IMHO. I couldn't begin to guess how this Healthcare debate will end. Too many variables to consider. The best chance pro-lifers have (to at least keep the status quo) is for the whole bill to go down in smoke.

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 5:31 PM


    Hi Janet,

    His survival means we will be taking care of him as he may be paralyzed. In prison he will get the care he needs. I don't know if he will have a military tribunal but hopefully it will be short and to the point. He may still get his martyrdom, which is fine with me, just so long as it means the death penalty.

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 6:06 PM


    This is off-topic, but what do you all think Obama has to gain by moving the 911-Conspirators' trial to NYC? It scares me to death and I don't live anywhere near NYC. Maybe some one who lives in NYC could give their perspective, especially if they think this is a good thing. With my limited knowledge of the situation, I'd think it would be much wiser to have a military tribunal at Guantanamo. These guys could be set free in NYC and who could stand for that??

    I understand this NY trial is not set in stone...those of us who oppose it should voice our opposition to our Congressmen and Senators loud and clear.
    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 3:08 PM

    Should definitely be a public trial in NYC, so all the world knows we're not afraid to trust our system of justice. Either we have the evidence against these guys or we don't. If we don't, they should be set free. If we do, they can rot in prison like they deserve.

    Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2009 7:02 PM


    Just look up what "reprobate mind" means and there will be a picture of Obama next to it or there should be.

    I will continue to pray for this very misguided person.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at November 15, 2009 7:31 PM


    Hal,

    They already admitted they are guilty and wanted to be executed for Allah. So why don't we just oblige them?? These are not American citizens entitled to any kind of rights, they're enemy combatants.

    This trial is a farce. Its purpose it to put US on trial, not the terrorists.

    Our system of justice? We will be respected? Hal our enemies are laughing at us, they're giving Obama the finger. Unlike too many Americans, they recognize an ineffectual and inexperienced incompetent when they see one.

    Open your eyes about your idol Hal, see him for what he is. He could have prevented this farce. He is putting the government and the CIA on trial. These thugs will be dressed like college boys, sob sisters will feel sorry for them, bleeding hearts can be put on the jury. You know, like the Menendez Brothers. How do you feel about the possiblity of these terrorists going free? That is a possiblity Hal and you can thank your idol.
    Oh, they may escape too. Maybe terrorists will blow up the courthouse. The possiblities are limitless.

    BTW, did you get to read about the prison guard that was blinded by an imprisoned terrorist in the same "super maximum" prison these terrorists will be housed in? Imagine a terrorist being so mean.
    Go to michaelsavage.com for a full account.

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 7:36 PM


    Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2009 7:02 PM
    -----

    Hal - terrorism is an act of war. It was not conducted in any civilian sense whatsoever, so giving them any kind of civilian trial is flat out wrong. All this effort does is undermine the seriousness which we are held in the eyes of the world. Ultimately, such actions are not only wrong, but evil. This is not a matter of merely disagreeing.

    Such idiocy demoralizes our troops significantly, because despite great efforts to capture the enemy, they are being dismissed and made a mockery of by their own commander-in-chief.

    I don't know if you ever served in the US military, however, the impact is taking place right now.

    Given the continuous stream of gaffes, stupidity and outright condescension, it's becoming less likely that President Obama is naive to the point of imbecility and more likely he is attempting drive the US into the ground in a very systematic fashion.

    Those who went to Washington DC a week ago Thursday were treated to marching group of Obama "Jugend".

    Is this the replacement military Obama discussed?

    Do you honestly think such groups would be loyal to the US or to Obama?

    Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 15, 2009 7:55 PM


    Hal:

    Once again, as a Liberal, you are in denial that there is a whole cadre of Muslims who are bent on destroying you, me, and the rest of us Americans and Jews. They are unlike any past enemy as they do not fear death and their goals are other-worldly being puppeteered by a god of hate and manipulation of their own making. You also fail to realize that their timeline is no timeline at all. They will accept only one outcome, the destruction of America and Israel. Therfore our goal can be only one goal, their complete and utter defeat.

    The key point here is that the President, Mr. Obama, does not understand the enemy at all and therefore, is doomed to be defeated by them as a result. Unfortunately, innocent Americans and Jews will suffer greatly from his gross error.

    Until the terrorists give up and surrender and until Osama bin Laden is brought to justice by capture and execution, we will be at war independent of how you want to PC package it. You will understand this more clearly when we are hit again.

    My prayer and pleas is that the loss of life is minimal.

    The question is: Will Liberals find a way to cast blame on someone other than themselves, not unlike this manufactured economic crisis we currently find ourselves in, when another act of Jihadist war is perpetrated on our country? Mr. Barney Frank, are you listening?

    In reality I'm not sure who to be more terrified of, or I should say, be in pity of, American Liberals or Muslim terrorists. Seems like their goals are in sync.....wretching freedom out of our hands and destroying Yahweh, the God of Christians and Jews. Both will be unsuccessful and pay dearly for their misguided thinking.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at November 15, 2009 8:06 PM


    I think Abby Johnson is Coll! She's up their with the lkes of Carla, Angele, Sycloria, and Jill! Thanks for having the guts abby to stand up for the unborn! RJ

    Posted by: RJ Sandefur at November 15, 2009 8:06 PM


    Regarding Mr. Axelrod's statement: President Obama continues to push to expand government support for abortion, behind smokescreens of deceptive rhetoric. When Obama ran for president he claimed he would seek 'common ground' on abortion. We said at the time that this was just a phony marketing strategy, and now President Obama is proving we were right. By margins of two-to-one or three-to-one, Americans do not want the government to subsidize health insurance coverage for abortions, but Obama is fighting to achieve such subsidies. The House vote to remove abortion subsidies from the bill, by adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, was bipartisan, with one-fourth of all House Democrats supporting the amendment and not a single Republican opposed. Senators can stand with Obama and the abortion industry on this or they can stand with the great majority of their constituents, but they won't be able to do both.

    Douglas Johnson
    Legislative Director
    National Right to Life Committee
    http://www.nrlc.org

    Posted by: Douglas Johnson at November 15, 2009 8:16 PM


    Hi Chris 7:55PM

    Are you referring to the militarily armed "civilian security force" that Obama talked about in addition to our military? People actually cheered in the video where he talked of such a force. I thought you morons, the guy is talking about stormtroopers and you cheer?! Listen to him for heaven's sake!
    Dictators always have their own private "security forces" to keep the people in line.
    No question, they would be loyal to Obama.

    People open your eyes and ears. He's telling you exactly what he plans to do.

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 8:20 PM


    Should definitely be a public trial in NYC, so all the world knows we're not afraid to trust our system of justice. Either we have the evidence against these guys or we don't. If we don't, they should be set free. If we do, they can rot in prison like they deserve.
    Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2009 7:02 PM

    Classic liberal response. These are TERRORISTS and this was an ACT OF WAR. You do not try them in civilian courts!

    Not only that, but as has already been pointed out, they ADMITTED it.

    They do NOT belong in a NY court where they would be entitled to the same protections as US citizens.... presumption of innocence, etc


    The security costs alone would be horrific, and the "trial" would be nothing but a circus.

    There is no reason for a trial in NY or anywhere else on US soil and THEY HAVE ADMITTED THEIR GUILT.


    Posted by: Joanne at November 15, 2009 8:23 PM


    Oh and Chris,

    Let's not forget the lapdog media that is also at Obama's disposal. They don't even have the excuse of having no option but obedience as is the case under dictatorships. They are willing lapdogs, and that is even more frightening.

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 8:25 PM


    Janet and Joanne,

    Go to Michaelsavage.com for an account of the guard who was blinded. Its horrific. I'm certain if the guard had just made more effort to truly "understand" this terrorist or taken the time to talk to him, this would have never happened.(SARCASM!)
    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 3:56 PM


    Thanks Mary.

    Posted by: Joanne at November 15, 2009 8:26 PM


    My sister lives in Manhattan. This move by O and Holder has now painted a big, fat, bright, red target on NYC. Why don't they just put up a sign at the courthouse that says, "Bomb us already!"?

    Mark my words, this trial will result in an attack on New York. Perhaps not on the scale of 9-11, but there will be injuries and/or loss of life.

    These criminals are pulling fast ones on us. They take advantage of our justice system in order to tie our hands, ridicule us on the global stage, mock the victims and their families, and all the while we're muttering, "Yeah, we'll show them we're not afraid of them, ya big bullies!"

    Think about it: if the fool gets out on a technicality, say, his Miranda rights weren't read to him, boyfriend walks free, and terrorists the world over salivate at the thought of attacking our nation knowing full well they just need to play the system. Code Pink and Company will run to their defense.

    What an insult to the veterans who have fought against enemies such as these.

    Posted by: carder at November 15, 2009 8:43 PM


    Hi Carder,

    The point is these dirtballs wanted to be executed. Its Holder, on Obama's orders who is setting up this farce, not the criminals themselves. Just off them like they requested in the first place and we'll save a lot of time and money. These are enemy combatants for heaven's sake, not purse snatchers.

    Al-Qaeda and the Taliban must be having the biggest laughs of their lives. Surely Allah blessed them by putting this stumblebum in office, and with the blessing of the American people yet!

    Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 8:56 PM


    And lest anyone think for a moment that Obama hasn't flipped his promise on this, here's video footage of him announcing on the senate floor how he expects KSM and the gang to get "full military trials" with "all the bells and whistles".

    Click on the link and scroll down a bit to play the youtube bombshell.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/14/flashback-obama-pretty-happy-about-ksm-getting-a-full-military-trial/

    Posted by: carder at November 15, 2009 9:41 PM


    "Should definitely be a public trial in NYC, so all the world knows we're not afraid to trust our system of justice. Either we have the evidence against these guys or we don't. If we don't, they should be set free. If we do, they can rot in prison like they deserve."

    Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2009 7:02 PM

    You can't be serious. You of all people know the system.

    Which part of the world thinks we are afraid to trust our own system of justice???? Where do you even get such an idea?

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 9:51 PM


    I think the trial should be in some obscure part of the Pacific Northwest. What do you think, Hal?

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 9:53 PM


    The terrorists cannot wait to go on trial in NYC the location of their massacre of "the infidels", where their radical, Muslim extremist brothers will rant and laugh at us. The bomb threats alone that will ensue will cost the government millions. The closing arguments, the exposure of our national security secrets and the lecture by the terrorists about their hatred and disdain for our nation and how we deserved 9-11, if they are convicted and allowed to make a statement to the court will be the most pathetic, devastating spit in the face this country we have ever seen. This will destroy the morale of our troops, the CIA, and will embolden our enemies, who will laugh in our faces.

    Posted by: Prolifer L at November 15, 2009 9:59 PM


    Posted by: carder at November 15, 2009 9:41 PM

    "It's good that we are going to provide him with some procedure and process..."
    (Referring to KSM)

    HUH??? What a bizarre speech by then Senator O.

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 10:06 PM


    Should definitely be a public trial in NYC, so all the world knows we're not afraid to trust our system of justice. Either we have the evidence against these guys or we don't. If we don't, they should be set free. If we do, they can rot in prison like they deserve.

    Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2009 7:02 PM

    Hi Hal!

    Sure. As long as your side PROMISES not to bring up waterboarding. please? I won't hold my breath, though. no pun intended :)

    Posted by: Marie at November 15, 2009 10:18 PM


    So we have the terrorist trials in NY, and the Gitmo detainees coming to Thomson, IL - 150 miles west of Chicago. (Illinois stands to gain a billion or so in Fed $, and the politicians are corrupt, Obama's home state, etc...but that's not the point of this post)

    We have two cities that are already targets of terrorists due to their size, so let's add the above to the mix for good measure. Is this some sort of bad, bad joke? Seriously, what the heck is going on here?

    Can an "Obama fan" please enlighten me as to what the thinking process behind this is?

    Posted by: Marie at November 15, 2009 10:34 PM


    I'm not sure who to be more terrified of, or I should say, be in pity of, American Liberals or Muslim terrorists. Seems like their goals are in sync.....wretching freedom out of our hands and destroying Yahweh, the God of Christians and Jews. Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at November 15, 2009 8:06 PM

    Good observation about their goals, HisMan. Speaking of taking away freedom, what about the citizens who sit on KSM's jury? They (and their families) will need security for the rest of their lives regardless of the verdict. Seems like a high price for a citizen to pay in exchange for granting terrorists "rights."

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 15, 2009 10:46 PM


    Hi Marie,

    Maybe some Obama lapdog should consider the possiblity of these terrorists influencing impressionable young convicts who will eventually be released. Maybe the terrorists will teach the convicts the best way to blind and brain damage prison guards or other prisoners, or teach them the most efficient way to throw their body waste on guards, like they do in Guantanamo.

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 6:45 AM


    The only family I have living in NYC is my liberal sister-in-law who LOVES Obama! I'm sure she doesn't mind the trials being held there and would gladly lay down her life for her idol.

    I am an American citizen. This is MY country. I pay taxes. And now the same rights I have are being handed over to maniacs who have cursed America and declared war on us, and killed my fellow countrymen? Of course Hal doesn't have a problem with it! I am not surprised in the least.

    Posted by: Sydney M at November 16, 2009 9:07 AM


    Hal lives on the opposite coast. I live near Philly. I shudder to think of the trials being held so close. Obama will probably make sure they're found innocent and set free too. Afterall, they are his Muslim brothers. So what if their actions or rhetoric killed some people? Never seems to bother Obama.

    Posted by: Sydney M at November 16, 2009 9:10 AM


    I think the trial should be in some obscure part of the Pacific Northwest. What do you think, Hal?
    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 9:53 PM

    Fine by me. We had a terrorist trial here in Federal District Court. please read Judge John Coughenour's op-ed about it.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/opinion/01coughenour.html?_r=1


    "In 2001, I presided over the trial of Ahmed Ressam, the confessed Algerian terrorist, for his role in a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. That experience only strengthened my conviction that American courts, guided by the principles of our Constitution, are fully capable of trying suspected terrorists."

    And to all of you who pointed out that they have "admitted their guilt." We'll see. All we know is the government has said some have admitted their guilt. If they wish to plead guilty they can. If they wish to go to trial, we'll see what evidence there is against them. Sorry, you so called conservatives, that's the American way.

    I've never seen such a cowardly bunch of Americans as you guys. A trial will show the bums to be what they are. Fear not, my friends.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 10:04 AM


    Which part of the world thinks we are afraid to trust our own system of justice???? Where do you even get such an idea?

    Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 9:51 PM

    Paging Hal......


    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:04 AM


    Janet:

    "At a time when our national security is so intimately linked with our ability to forge alliances and secure cooperation from countries that share or aspire to our fundamental values, we can ill afford to send the message that those values are negotiable or contingent. I recently participated in a seminar in Russia, where I have worked for 20 years to promote judicial reform. The seminar culminated in a mock trial with law students serving as jurors. Sharing the virtues of our independent judiciary and Constitution with those who represent Russia's future felt like a personal privilege. But I know this is also in our country's strategic interest. I cannot help wondering if I will be able to speak with the same authority in the future if we lose confidence in the institutions that made us a model of reform in the first place"
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502759.html

    But let's not take the word of someone who actually presided over a terror trial, right?

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 10:08 AM


    Hal,
    That was fast.

    "Cowards"? Because we don't want another 911?

    So it is your impression that Americans don't trust their own judicial system? Again, where do you get that idea?

    Judge Coughenour's opinion is irrelevant to this upcoming trial.

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:12 AM


    " Afterall, they are his Muslim brothers"
    ------------------------------------

    I beg to disagree...on the one hand, Obama will throw his own daughters under the bus to achieve what he wants...on the other hand, he will cuddle and smooch his way up to anybody's butt IF he believes they will support him and will be a big boost to his plans/ image...

    In short, Obama will do anything and everything to anybody just to get his way...and then throw them under several buses and a tank once they've served their purpose.

    Posted by: RSD at November 16, 2009 10:12 AM


    Judge Coughenour's opinion is irrelevant to this upcoming trial.
    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:12 AM

    You actually made me laugh out loud at that one. OMG. And your opinion is the one I should substitute to a Senior Federal Judge (Reagan appointee) who actually conducted a terrorism trial?

    If Bush did this you'd all be singing from the hilltops and carving his face on Mt. Rushmore. I can't take this conversation seriously any more. But, let me just point out, the way to avoid another 9/11 is to hava a fair and open trial of the people who we think are responsible for the last one. They're not super-villains, they're a bunch of thugs

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 10:25 AM


    Hal,

    I hadn't read your 10:08 post when I commented at 10:12.
    but it doesn't change my opinion.

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:29 AM



    Hal,

    Judge Coughenour's opinion is irrelevant to this upcoming trial.
    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:12 AM

    "You actually made me laugh out loud at that one. OMG. And your opinion is the one I should substitute to a Senior Federal Judge (Reagan appointee) who actually conducted a terrorism trial?"

    Glad I could give you a laugh. Hey, I'm giving MY opinion, at least. You're relying on one judge's opinion.
    Different case, different facts. And your case was decided pre-911. Apples and oranges.

    "They're not super-villains, they're a bunch of thugs"

    Where do I find "super-villain" in the criminal code?

    Thanks for the laughs, Hal. Have a good, liberal-minded day. :)


    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:35 AM


    "If Bush did this you'd all be singing from the hilltops and carving his face on Mt. Rushmore."

    You mean it isn't already there?

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:38 AM


    Hal, Are YOU Judge Coughenour????

    OK, I'm done teasing you.... byeeee.

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:40 AM


    You have a great day too, Janet.

    Hal

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 10:44 AM


    But, let me just point out, the way to avoid another 9/11 is to hava a fair and open trial of the people who we think are responsible for the last one.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 10:25 AM

    Oh, that's how we do it? Gee, and all along I thought it was a jihad that was motivating them.

    So we just have a fair and open trial and peace will immediately follow.

    Now I'm the one LOL-ing, Hal.

    Posted by: Marie at November 16, 2009 10:46 AM


    So let me get this straight, Hal.

    We give these non-super villians a "fair" trial, which will most assuredly force the the government to give up a bonanza of intelligence in order to prove that this maniac is a maniac, and that is supposed to scare the other thugs??

    All the while, the suicide bombers-to-be are besides themselves with glee because the US is literally giving away the methods by which we were able to nab these bums and protect our country.

    I must correct you: individuals who flew planes into buildings, killed 3,000 people on sunny autumn day, have vowed to destroy us and CONQUER THE WORLD, have sworn to behead the infidel (that includes you,btw), and relesntlessly continue plot to carry out exactly what they set out to do on a global scale are super villians, Hal.

    Hands down, they are.

    Even Obama, back in May, has promised that he wouldn't let these freaks walk free if they pose a threat to our national security. So if that's the case, if he's made the decision, then WHY GO THROUGH ALL THE HASSLE? WHY PUT THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES THROUGH THIS ANGUISH? WHY FORCE NEW YORKERS TO DEAL WITH THE SECURITY HEADACHE IF IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY??

    Don't want to sound like I'm yelling at you over the internet, Hal, but this should be so obvious to the common middle-schooler, it is stunning that there are folks out there who simply don't get it. Simply don't.

    If my sister dies because of a terrorist attack in Manhattan during the course of this disaster, I will hold our Commander-In-Chief and all those who hail this bone-headed move responsible for her blood.

    Posted by: carder at November 16, 2009 11:03 AM


    Carder, I completely disagree with you. I'm a big fan of justice. I would think the victims' families would want those killers convicted and sentenced.

    They're not going to CONQUER THE WORLD. Stop letting Fox scare you so much. Shine the light of justice on them and they'll look like the common thugs they are. Which, in turn, will make it harder to motivate and recruit more thugs in the future.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 11:29 AM


    Debra Burlingame (sp?), sister of one of the 9-11 pilots that was murdered, begs to differ. So much so that her petition to the president to reverse this decision has collected thousands and thousands of signatures.

    Read the writings of Al-quaeda, the testimony of former islamists, the words of the islamists themselves. Democracy is anathema to them. We're Big Satan to them, remember? Isreal is Little Satan. They have a holy obligation to destroy us.

    And we have shed the light of justice on them. The Blind Sheikh being one example. He got his sentence. So did Moussaui. Where's the decrease in terrorist activity? Have they scuttled away in fear due to the light of justice? I don't exactly see them turning in their Kalishnokovs.

    Posted by: carder at November 16, 2009 12:12 PM


    Here's Daniel Pearl's dad, who I would think has the moral authority to criticize a move like this. From The Hill:

    "The family of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl expressed disappointment with the Obama administration’s decision to try the professed killer of their son, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a civilian court. …
    “We are sorry to learn of the Justice Department decision to try KSM in a NYC Federal Court.
    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, inviting them in essence, to resort to violence and cruelty in order to gain publicity.
    We believe that justice is better served if the trial of KSM, the confessed murderer of Daniel Pearl, be held in closed session.”

    Posted by: carder at November 16, 2009 12:20 PM


    Carder, I like my justice open and public. I don't like secret trials in dark rooms with no rights.

    Every time a country goes down that road, bad things happen.

    Democracy can be messy. Trials can be messy. But, I'm proud that our nation is taking the high road and standing up for our values. A generation ago, all Americans would be in favor of fair trials. Sad how far some of you have fallen.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 12:22 PM


    Hal,

    They already admitted their guilt and wanted to be executed. What more proof do you need?
    They're thugs? Hal, purse-snatchers and muggers are thugs. Mass murderers are super villians.

    Oh and Hal, AG Holder says he made the decision to move this farce to New York and just ran this by the president, Obama had no say in this. Really? Isn't Obama Holder's boss? Holder did say he discussed it with his brother, a former Port Authority Officer, and his wife. Well, that should put our minds at ease.
    Does the secretary of defense make military decisions and run them by the president? Does Secretary Gates consult his wife and brother on major decisions?

    If this is such a profound and brilliant move, why doesn't Obama proudly proclaim his role in it?

    Hal, open your eyes, please.

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 12:25 PM


    I'm stunned by the opinions of those who don't want terrorists put on trial. Wow.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 12:29 PM


    Thinking a military tribunal for the terrorists might fill the bill.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at November 16, 2009 12:32 PM


    Hal,

    They aren't American citizens! They are enemy combatants. Huge difference.
    I'm all for military tribunals, which btw were used exclusively by Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt in WW2 where enemy combatants were concerned. German POWs on American soil were in POW camps. They were ENEMY combatants. Get that Hal, ENEMY COMBANTANTS!

    Thank God we had FDR in charge or we'd all be speaking German, with Japanese as a second language. And I am not a great admirer of FDR!

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 12:41 PM


    I read that Eric Holder's law firm, Covington and Burling, represents the Gitmo detainees. That explains a lot doesn't it?
    * * * *

    Hal, Your buddies at the ACLU are with you on this NYC trial.

    From http://angrywhitedude.com/?p=2898
    (Quote by Anthony Romero, ACLU)

    "The ACLU actually supports moving the trial trial of one of the worst humans to pollute this Earth and wants the other 300 murderers released if Muhammad is acquitted! Romero said this week:
    “The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems.”

    Charles Krauthammer has a good take on the NYC trial. See video at the above link.

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 12:48 PM


    Hi Janet,

    Why am I not surprised??

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 12:53 PM


    This quote's for you, Hal. It's from the article The Intelligence Mess: How the courts forced me to give sensitive information to Osama bin Laden.

    "In 1995, just before trying the blind sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven others, I duly complied with discovery law by writing a letter to the defense counsel listing 200 names of people who might be alleged as unindicted co-conspirators--i.e., people who were on the government's radar screen but whom there was insufficient evidence to charge. Six years later, my letter turned up as evidence in the trial of those who bombed our embassies in Africa. It seems that, within days of my having sent it, the letter had found its way to Sudan and was in the hands of bin Laden (who was on the list), having been fetched for him by an al-Qaeda operative who had gotten it from one of his associates."

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 16, 2009 2:11 PM


    In my America, we don't have secret trials. I don't care if they're enemy combatants or men from Mars, I want the bastards on trial and convicted in a fair and open trial.


    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 2:13 PM


    I understand you want transparency, Hal. But so does al qaeda. We're playing right into their hands.

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 16, 2009 2:20 PM


    Hal,

    The purpose of tribunals is to provide a fair trial and protect national security. That means keeping some secrets. Tribunals have been around since the Revolution. FDR tried American spies and saboteurs with tribunals. They have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

    KSM wants to be his own attorney. That means he will have access to whatever he deems necessary for his defense. He can get the info he needs and will be of value to him and Al-Qaeda. Its weakening our defenses. He may be found "innocent" on some technicality.

    Let's see, your idol Obama either:

    1. Allows his appointees like Holder to make major decisions without consulting him, just running it by him if Holder is to be believed(which I don't),

    2. or he just doesn't want his fingerprints on this decision, you know, let the underling take the flack. If that's the case, why doesn't he want to take credit for such a brilliant decision?

    Which do you suppose it is Hal??

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 2:28 PM


    FedUp,

    You are so right. Transparency is a double edged sword. Yes we are playing right into their hands. Does anyone believe these terrorists around the world will look upon us with a new found admiration and respect because of this trial?

    FedUp, these people are laughing themselves stupid at us. Sorry, but in this world being the nice guy doesn't win you respect, it makes you a target. They respect only one thing, that you are as dirty as they are. These terrorists on our mainland makes it easier to spring them, sets us up for more terrorist blackmail, and endangers our national security.

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 2:37 PM


    You are so right. Transparency is a double edged sword. Yes we are playing right into their hands. Does anyone believe these terrorists around the world will look upon us with a new found admiration and respect because of this trial?

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 2:37 PM

    Why yes, Mary...HAL DOES!!!

    But, let me just point out, the way to avoid another 9/11 is to hava a fair and open trial of the people who we think are responsible for the last one.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 10:25 AM

    Mary, don't you see? A transparent trial will end all jihad. If this trial happens we will never ever have to worry about an attack on our soil again.

    (I often get dizzy reading Hal's comments.)


    Posted by: Marie at November 16, 2009 2:46 PM


    Hal,

    I say this from the perspective that I am very fond of you.

    It frightens me that a man of your caliber reminds me of the mesmerized followers of tyrants who remain tranfixed and devoted, oblivious to the destruction "the leader" brings on their people and country.

    For some reason you remain oblivious to what danger Obama places this country in and I think you are blinded by your devotion to him.

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 2:48 PM


    Hal,

    Fair and open trials were given to previous terrorists, the Blind Sheikh and Moussaoui. We played cops and robbers with these "thugs", they saw we weren't taking them seriously, so they figured out they could get away with more. Which they did. (Read: 9-11)

    We're doing that all over again even though we have a mountain of evidence that fair and open trials don't make them stop what they're doing and run for the hills.

    As a matter of fact, they get more intelligence because of these fair and open trials.

    They're lovin' it, man.

    Listen, they attacked the Pentagon. That's a military act of war. Therefore, they deserve full military trials, which even Obama supported in the spring.

    Why's Obama changing his tune now?

    Good grief, this is simply BEGGING for another swift attack.

    We'll agree to disagree, Hal. I just hope I'm wrong in my predictions. I honestly do.

    BTW, Gov. Paterson of New York is not takng this well, either.

    Posted by: carder at November 16, 2009 2:50 PM


    Hi Carder,

    Neither is former NYC mayor Giuliani.

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 2:57 PM


    You don't convince the terrorists we're all their friends, you prevent the "not yet terrorists" out there that those who are trying to recruit them a low lifes, not warriors.

    See below:
    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/criminals-and-warriors.php

    In political terms, the right likes the war idea because it involves taking terrorism more “seriously.” But in doing so, you partake of way too much of the terrorists’ narrative about themselves. It’s their conceit, after all, that blowing up a bomb in a train station and killing a few hundred random commuters is an act of war. And war is a socially sanctioned form of activity, generally held to be a legally and morally acceptable framework in which to kill people. What we want to say, however, is that this sporadic commuter-killing isn’t a kind of war, it’s an act of murder. To be sure, not an ordinary murder—a mass murder—but nonetheless murder.

    After all, do we really want to send the message to the world that a self-starting spree killer like Nidal Malik Hasan is actually engaged in some kind of act of holy war? It seems to me that we don’t. A lot of people in the world are interested in glory, and willing to take serious risks with their lives for its sake. Insofar as possible, we want to drain anti-American violence of the aura of glory. And that means by-and-large treating its perpetrators like criminals.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 2:59 PM


    After all, do we really want to send the message to the world that a self-starting spree killer like Nidal Malik Hasan is actually engaged in some kind of act of holy war? It seems to me that we don’t. A lot of people in the world are interested in glory, and willing to take serious risks with their lives for its sake. Insofar as possible, we want to drain anti-American violence of the aura of glory. And that means by-and-large treating its perpetrators like criminals.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 2:59 PM

    Hal,

    THEY DON'T CARE! You don't understand this jihad, because you don't understand the threat of this evil. You follow Obama who minimized this threat by refusing to call it what it is: a WAR on terror.

    What's the difference whether it's one person who is on a "holy jihad" killing spree or twelve? It is what it is...terrorists, murderers, suicide bombers, homicide bombers..whatever you want to call them. They, individually acting as part of a larger group known as radicals, have many years ago declared war on us.

    To ignore or not understand this threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it, as put spot-on by Carder in her November 16, 2009 11:03 AM post. I agree with Mary that I hope this doesn't happen, but Obama continues to open the door and practically welcome another attack. Ignorance and inexperience at its finest. ugh.

    Posted by: Marie at November 16, 2009 3:13 PM


    But in doing so, you partake of way too much of the terrorists’ narrative about themselves.

    Conversely, it's possible you are ignoring what they're really telling us. Perhaps Mary, Carder et al can recall the details better than I can. But I seem to recall a few years ago that an al qaeda operative was taken into custody with materials explaining how to exploit the US justice system. Do you guys remember the details on this?

    we want to drain anti-American violence of the aura of glory

    If the problem is anti-American violence, why are countries in Europe dealing with terrorism? Nice spin, Hal, but the hatred isn't because of America but because of the west and what it represents.

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 16, 2009 3:21 PM


    "Nice spin, Hal, but the hatred isn't because of America but because of the west and what it represents."

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 16, 2009 3:21 PM

    Excellent point, Fed Up. And the terrorists could care less about our judicial system of which you are so proud. The rest of the Western world knows it too.

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 3:28 PM


    Clarification:

    "Excellent point, Fed Up. And the terrorists could care less about our judicial system of which you, Hal are so proud. The rest of the Western world knows it too."

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 3:31 PM


    Mary, I'm not blind to Obama's shortcomings. I'm not 100% in his camp and do not support everything does. Nor did I expect to.

    I do admire most of what he's done, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on some of the rest.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 3:34 PM


    As I stated, the terrorist don't care. The potential terrorists might choose a different path, however, if we act according to our ideals and principles.

    Sorry guys, if you want your rights, other people get to have their rights. You might not be a terrorist, but you know what, they might not be either.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 3:40 PM


    Hal,

    Its all in the perception. These people see themselves as holy warriors. Their supporters see them as holy warriors. We see them as enemy combatants. You see them as criminals.

    Whatever you call these people they are not American citizens and are engaging in a terror war with us. They are not entitled to any constitutional rights. They are our enemies. They have chosen this fight. They are very capable of bringing their holy war here.

    This trial will severely compromise our national security and intelligence gathering. What more can our enemies ask? We are setting ourselves up for terrorist blackmail and efforts to free these killers. There's the likelihood they will be freed. Hal, this is a terrible idea all around.

    Tell me Hal, when you enter a courtroom is your first thought to come across as a nice guy to your opponent? Is your first concern what that opponent thinks of you? Are you worried that you will offend him/her? Do you respect an opponent in the courtroom who gives you a good fight or one who just wants you to like him/her?

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 3:40 PM


    Hal,

    What has Obama done that is so deserving of admiration? Please don't say it standing up to our enemies.

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 3:43 PM


    Hal, would you have given Bush the benefit of the doubt if his AG was a senior partner in a law firm representing more than a dozen gitmo detainees? I wouldn't have, and I can't imagine you would have either.

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 16, 2009 3:43 PM


    Guys, it's been fun. No more today from me. I leave you with one thought. I am an American. That means something. I'm proud today to be an American and see my country doing the right thing in a world where most people don't.

    You, of course, may disagree.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 3:46 PM


    Hal, 3:40PM

    Puh-leeze. These terroists will look upon us like a shining beacon and suddenly become nice guys? Hal, that's as ridiculous as suggesting that all black people had to do was be nice and the KKK would toss their robes and leave them in peace.

    Tell me Hal, speaking of rights, was FDR wrong to try saboteurs, spies, and foreign combatants in military tribunals? Weren't the Nuremburg trials military tribunals? Was justice not served?

    Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2009 3:48 PM


    Mary,
    When the next bomb goes off, I'm sure we'll have the answer.

    Posted by: carder at November 16, 2009 4:14 PM


    You might not be a terrorist, but you know what, they might not be either.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 3:40 PM

    Sure, Hal. Because it's only a total coincidence for these people who "may not be terrorists" to yell "Allahu Akbar" before they kill.

    hmm...

    Posted by: Marie at November 16, 2009 4:34 PM


    Carder, 4:14,

    They'll blame it on Bush.

    Posted by: Marie at November 16, 2009 4:41 PM


    "I am an American. That means something. I'm proud today to be an American and see my country doing the right thing in a world where most people don't."

    "You, of course, may disagree."
    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 3:46 PM

    I think most people do try to do the right thing. It's governments that tend to mess things up. Is this NYC trial the "right thing" for Obama to do now, or it what's politically expedient for him?
    I agree with Marie. This is about blaming Bush and the Republicans.

    And how do moral relativists know what the "right thing" to do is? Are these trial decisions above Obama's pay grade? Something to ponder.

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 5:59 PM


    And how do moral relativists know what the "right thing" to do is?

    Excellent question, Janet!

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 16, 2009 6:15 PM


    Fed Up,
    Thanks. I hope I get an excellent answer.

    Hal.....??

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 7:46 PM


    And how do moral relativists know what the "right thing" to do is?

    Excellent question, Janet!
    Posted by: Fed Up at November 16, 2009 6:15 PM

    Well, that's a big question. But in terms of the right way to handle prisoners, I'll use the U.S. Constitution as my guide. For things like sex, drugs and rock and roll, we'll have to continue this discussion another day.

    Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2009 9:52 PM


    But Hal @ 9:52,

    Doesn't it make a difference that these "prisoners" are not U.S. Citizens when one is determining whether they have certain rights granted under the U.S. Constitution?

    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:35 PM


    Hal, I appreciate your comments on this topic. I don't really know much about it all and you have said a lot of things worth hearing.

    FWIW I live in NYC and lost more than a few people in the World Trade Center.

    Posted by: Alexandra at November 16, 2009 11:50 PM


    Doesn't it make a difference that these "prisoners" are not U.S. Citizens when one is determining whether they have certain rights granted under the U.S. Constitution?
    Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2009 10:35 PM

    No, not to me. People are people no matter what country they come from. (and let's not forget, Bush even tried to "tribunal" a US Citizen once) You guys should appreciate more than anyone, the Constitution explains the rights of "persons," not citizens.


    Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    We're either going to live up to our principles are we're not. No one said it would be easy, but I would think the greatest country on Earth could at least try without saying "we're too afraid to do it right."

    Posted by: Hal at November 17, 2009 7:36 AM


    If such is the case, Hal, then answer the question I have asked more than once on this thread:

    If then Senator Obama stated that KSM would be given "due process" in a full military tribunal, why is he now changing his mind?

    If other Guantanamo prisoners are getting military tribunals with Obama's blessings, why are we selecting only 5 of those prisoners to go to NYC?

    Posted by: carder at November 17, 2009 12:27 PM


    Carder, those are good questions. I don't know the answers.

    Posted by: Hal at November 17, 2009 3:44 PM


    Hal: a few questions for the attorney in you,

    Don't you worry that the US government would be on trial as well?

    Won't previously classified docs become unclassified in discovery?

    How do you think the waterboarding description KSM or his attorney will give will go?

    Do you know the attorney for KSM yet?

    Will the attorney be a radical islamic sympathizer?

    Will this attorney, while trying to defend his client, use motives by design of islamic sympathizers to open "Pandora's box" to make us look even worse to the world than we do already, or open something that the inexperienced Obama administration is not in any way ready to handle?

    Is there even the remote chance that this public trial, opposed to a miliary tribunal, somehow can have a negative effect on our this country that both you and I love so dearly?

    Posted by: Marie at November 17, 2009 6:55 PM


    Honestly, my take on the situation is this: Correct me please where I am wrong:

    In a military tribunal or in a public trial, a death sentence for KSM can be handed down. HOWEVER, in a military tribunal, Obama has to make that decision, but in a public trial, a jury does.

    I truly feel that Obama has his roots and heart in Islam, knows that KSM will be handed the death sentence if found guilty by a jury, so he washes his hands clean of "killing a fellow Islamic brother" by avoiding a military tribunal, because in a military tribunal, the final decision on carrying out a death sentence is taken by the US president.

    Posted by: Marie at November 17, 2009 6:57 PM


    If such is the case, Hal, then answer the question I have asked more than once on this thread:

    If then Senator Obama stated that KSM would be given "due process" in a full military tribunal, why is he now changing his mind?

    If other Guantanamo prisoners are getting military tribunals with Obama's blessings, why are we selecting only 5 of those prisoners to go to NYC?

    Posted by: carder at November 17, 2009 12:27 PM

    Carder:

    For both questions, please see my post at November 17, 2009 6:57 PM.

    For your question #1: Then Senator Obama was too inexperienced to realize at the time that in a military tribunal, the final decision on carrying out a death sentence is taken by the US president.
    Or, he said whatever he NEEDED to say to get votes. (He'd NEVER do that now, would he?)

    For your question #2: Obama has probably studied their cases, and decided that the other Guantanamo prisoners would probably not be given the death penalty for their alleged crimes. The other 5 that are going to NYC instead have been studied as well, and even a 5th grader would hand down the death penalty to them. In fact, I believe that's what they want anyway so they can die as martyrs.

    Hal knows the answers to these questions. Don't let him fool you.

    Posted by: Marie at November 17, 2009 7:09 PM


    Interesting theories, Marie.

    I think you missed your calling as an attorney.

    Posted by: carder at November 17, 2009 7:44 PM


    Marie, how the heck would I know the answers to why Obama changed his mind or why he hasn't ordered public trials for the other prisoners.

    I'm not part of his inner circle, despite what you may suspect.

    As for your other questions:

    "Don't you worry that the US government would be on trial as well?"

    No, although I'm sure they'll make an effort. To some extent, the tactics of our government should come to light, so I'm okay with that.

    "Won't previously classified docs become unclassified in discovery?"

    Courts can deal with that.

    "How do you think the waterboarding description KSM or his attorney will give will go?"

    Fine.

    "Do you know the attorney for KSM yet?"

    No. If it's been announced, I missed it.

    "Will the attorney be a radical islamic sympathizer?"

    Could be, but probably just a regular Federal Defender from NYC.

    "Will this attorney, while trying to defend his client, use motives by design of islamic sympathizers to open "Pandora's box" to make us look even worse to the world than we do already, or open something that the inexperienced Obama administration is not in any way ready to handle?"

    Could be. I wouldn't worry about it. Don't be so afraid.

    "Is there even the remote chance that this public trial, opposed to a miliary tribunal, somehow can have a negative effect on our this country that both you and I love so dearly?"

    perhaps, but there is a greater chance of hurting our country by holding secret trials. Freedom, Justice, and Transparency are not without costs. We strive for these because they're right, not because they're easy. It's always easier just to lock up people who disagree with you or who you suspect might harm you, but it's beneath us as a nation to take shortcuts with justice.

    Posted by: Hal at November 17, 2009 7:52 PM


    there is a greater chance of hurting our country by holding secret trials. Freedom, Justice, and Transparency are not without costs. We strive for these because they're right, not because they're easy. It's always easier just to lock up people who disagree with you or who you suspect might harm you, but it's beneath us as a nation to take shortcuts with justice.

    Posted by: Hal at November 17, 2009 7:52 PM

    Based on your response above, do you oppose ALL military tribunals? If not, what types do you not oppose.

    Thanks, Hal.

    Posted by: Marie at November 17, 2009 8:21 PM


    Marie, I really don't know enough to say I oppose "all military tribunals." My gut reaction is to say, yes, I do. But I'd be willing to keep an open mind and learn more, and if there are circumstances where the basic rights of the accused are protected I might be willing to accept the process. At minimum, the accused needs a hearing before some independent judge or panel so that the basic right to be incarcerated can be challenged. I am deeply troubled that someone could be 100$ undeniably innocent of any wrongdoing and held in Gitmo for 8 years. It is not too much of a burden for the U.S. Military to be asked to establish some factual basis to hold each prisoner. After that, i think they need a right to have a lawyer, know the evidence against them, and present evidence in their own defense. Once you do that, I don't see why you can't have a trial in federal court. But, like I said, I'm not an expert and I'll keep an open mind.

    Posted by: Hal at November 18, 2009 7:08 AM


    "I am deeply troubled that someone could be 100$ undeniably innocent of any wrongdoing and held in Gitmo for 8 years."

    Are you referring to any terrorist in particular? What are the odds ANY of them are 100% innocent?

    Do you think Holder might be more concerned with going after the Bush Administration than protecting the citizens of the US from possible harm? I'd bet the odds are better than 0% that something could go terribly wrong if the trial is on U.S. soil. God forbid.


    Posted by: Janet at November 18, 2009 5:51 PM