Originally Posted by ptownrob

I've got to agree with Chelsea- if we put these animals on trial as "enemy combatants" then we elevate them to the status of martyrs- just what they want and what we DON'T need.

If we treat them like the slime they are and downgrade their importance, they'll still die- but they won't be any bigger in life due to the trials.

Think about it- David Koresh & Ruby Ridge became martyrs to the right wing- and emboldened Timothy McVeigh to commit this nation's second worst massacre.

Capone was tried on income tax evasion- he still spent his life in jail, even if they couldn't prove murder.

The Iraqis kiled Saddam straight out, without affording him the "status" of a state execution- made it harder for him to become a martyr to the Sunnis or Baathists.

I think keeping these small men small will still result in justice, but without us puffing out our chest in vengeance, and thereby making ourselves targets for the next round of would-be martyrs.


Ultimately, are we looking to punish them for the entire radical Islamic movement, which of course will not go away just because they are executed, or are we looking to punish criminal murderers for the crime(s) they committed on 9/11/01? Your view of this will determine the method in which they will be seen in history.

I personally think the military tribunal would give you what you want...a quick and relativly press free exection.

BUT...this is going to be YEARS AND YEARS of on going legal moves.....and eventually, they will get what they want....to put the USA on trial and at the end we we will go into a political squabble while they laugh and preach !

You are going to be hearing about this for years and years and it WAS a political move totally as this is what the WH wants. I cant prove that for sure, but in my heart it is true. There have been so many outright lies from this administration thus far and this particular story is rampant with lying from all sides...from the atty general not consulting with the President (but the Gov of NY was told this would happen months ago BY the WH )

This atty general and President are pure and simple politicians. They refuse to prosecute over career litigators protests those Black Panthers in Philly who terrorized voters but will use this stage.....

Last night it was another case of "spot the flip flop".

Tonight's "guest" - none other than Rudy Giuliani.

Cutting back and forth from Giuliani 2006, taling about the trial of the "20th hijacker", Zacharaia Moussasoui (sp?) - and then to 2009 about KSM being brought to NY for trial.

Paraphrasing:

Rudy 2006 [on the ZM trial]: This is to show the world that we are a nation of laws and will give this man a fair trial no matter how heinous the crime and how much the desire for vengeance. This robs our enemies from being able to use this for propaganda. This a triumph of the American Way.

Rudy 2009 [on the KSM decision]: This is the worst thing we could have done. This trial will allow him to spout his views, etc, etc.

Does it get any more nakedly partisan than that?

Originally Posted by djplong

Last night it was another case of "spot the flip flop".

Tonight's "guest" - none other than Rudy Giuliani.

Cutting back and forth from Giuliani 2006, taling about the trial of the "20th hijacker", Zacharaia Moussasoui (sp?) - and then to 2009 about KSM being brought to NY for trial.

Paraphrasing:

Rudy 2006 [on the ZM trial]: This is to show the world that we are a nation of laws and will give this man a fair trial no matter how heinous the crime and how much the desire for vengeance. This robs our enemies from being able to use this for propaganda. This a triumph of the American Way.

Rudy 2009 [on the KSM decision]: This is the worst thing we could have done. This trial will allow him to spout his views, etc, etc.

Does it get any more nakedly partisan than that?

And your point is ? That both parties play politics ? Oh....trust me I am aware of that as are all americans.

This WH is by far...not even close...the most politically motivated WH I have seen in my many many years !!!

Originally Posted by Bucco

I personally think the military tribunal would give you what you want...a quick and relativly press free exection.

BUT...this is going to be YEARS AND YEARS of on going legal moves.....and eventually, they will get what they want....to put the USA on trial and at the end we we will go into a political squabble while they laugh and preach !

You are going to be hearing about this for years and years and it WAS a political move totally as this is what the WH wants. I cant prove that for sure, but in my heart it is true. There have been so many outright lies from this administration thus far and this particular story is rampant with lying from all sides...from the atty general not consulting with the President (but the Gov of NY was told this would happen months ago BY the WH )

This atty general and President are pure and simple politicians. They refuse to prosecute over career litigators protests those Black Panthers in Philly who terrorized voters but will use this stage.....

Bucco: Once again you are correct. Rather than the terrorist being on trial it will turn on our gov . Hey since OBama changed his mind on Gitmo again why not give them a trial there?

Originally Posted by djplong

Last night it was another case of "spot the flip flop".

Tonight's "guest" - none other than Rudy Giuliani.

Cutting back and forth from Giuliani 2006, taling about the trial of the "20th hijacker", Zacharaia Moussasoui (sp?) - and then to 2009 about KSM being brought to NY for trial.

Paraphrasing:

Rudy 2006 [on the ZM trial]: This is to show the world that we are a nation of laws and will give this man a fair trial no matter how heinous the crime and how much the desire for vengeance. This robs our enemies from being able to use this for propaganda. This a triumph of the American Way.

Rudy 2009 [on the KSM decision]: This is the worst thing we could have done. This trial will allow him to spout his views, etc, etc.

Does it get any more nakedly partisan than that?

Yes, I saw that. Interesting debate between Giuliani and Giuliani, just three years apart!

My opinion of Rudy Giuliani couldn't be lower. I think he's one of the most smarmy individuals to come down the pike. He looked like an ass giggling like a school girl at the RNC about Obama being a community organizer. Now, I giggle every time I think of him having to call that "community organizer "Mr. President." Add to that his family values of marriages X's 3 and his fallout with his children... yep, just the kind of guy you want in the WH! He's a hypocrite and an opportunist.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Yes, I saw that. Interesting debate between Giuliani and Giuliani, just three years apart!

My opinion of Rudy Giuliani couldn't be lower. I think he's one of the most smarmy individuals to come down the pike. He looked like an ass giggling like a school girl at the RNC about Obama being a community organizer. Now, I giggle every time I think of him having to call that "community organizer "Mr. President." Add to that his family values of marriages X's 3 and his fallout with his children... yep, just the kind of guy you want in the WH! He's a hypocrite and an opportunist.

And your personal attack on someone, while not surprising, has what to do with the trial of the terrorists in NY !

Originally Posted by Bucco

And your point is ? That both parties play politics ? Oh....trust me I am aware of that as are all americans.

This WH is by far...not even close...the most politically motivated WH I have seen in my many many years !!!

Politically motivated? How so? About the best I can come up with is that the trial will highlight the abuses of human rights in keeping him locked up for so long without access to a lawyer, official charges, etc., and the political points could be from pointing out that all this happened under Bush/Ashcroft.

or continue to be an elected official in the US government.......no matter the party.

"...hypocrite and an opportunist..." (borrowed from Chelsea's post).

First objective: get elected
Second objective: do, say or promise what ever we the people want to hear to get re-elected.
Lessor objectives: accountability, responsibility, we the people, honesty....

btk

Trying KSM and the others is entirely different from trying Zacharia Moussaoui. Even Jon Stewart should be intelligent enough to figure that out. The differences between Zacharia Moussaoui and the five Including, most importantly Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are:

Zacharia Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota by the FBI while KSM was captured by the Pakistani ISI in Pakistan and turned over to the US Diplomatic Security Service. Anyone arrested in the United States must be tried in the United States – an enemy combatant captured in another country is properly tried in a military tribunal.

Moussaoui was a throwaway operative intended to commit suicide during an act of terror. KSM was one of al-Qaeda inner circle and a valued leader who could never be considered expendable.

Moussaoui never accomplished a single act of terror for al-Qaeda. KSM, in addition to planning the attacks of 9/11, murdered Daniel Pearl, arranged the Bali Nightclub bombing among many other acts of terror over the years both as a member of Qaeda and other radical groups.

Moussaoui was tried in Alexandria, VA an area not known to be a hotbed of terrorists while KSM is scheduled to be tried in Manhattan, the primary target of terrorism in the United States.

It should be noted that Moussaoui was indicted in December 2001 and not until May 2006 was he transferred to the ‘supermax’ in Colorado, a period of 4 ½ years. If the trial of KSM and the others goes on for even one-third the time (18 months), the needed security will bring lower Manhattan to a halt and destroy many of the businesses located there.

Interestingly, today I saw an interview with Obama in which he claims it was the decision of the Attorney General to try them in our criminal courts. Maybe he's starting to get some bad vibes from public opinion poles and seeks to deflect blame for this idiotic move.

Originally Posted by djplong

Politically motivated? How so? About the best I can come up with is that the trial will highlight the abuses of human rights in keeping him locked up for so long without access to a lawyer, official charges, etc., and the political points could be from pointing out that all this happened under Bush/Ashcroft.

READ WHAT YOU TYPED and then tell me again how it is not politically motivated !!!

PS: Your post is ALL political. I am not pro or anti Bush....I could care less about party. I STRONGLY AND WITH ALL MY HEART OPPOSE this Presidents social agenda and have since well before he became the candidate even. I say this so you understand, I am not like you party hacks who think your way is the ONLY WAY and the other party is the devil. ALL your posts are pretty much consistent and not suprised this would be turned around to the previous administration !

Sorry if you take this the wrong way but tired of trying to discuss what is happening now and hear nothing except about the previous administration. Sure, everything is relative and I accept that, however, it cannot be the ONLY justification for any actions.

"AG Eric Holder's Law Firm Represented 18 Gitmo Detainees After Volunteering to Give Them Free Legal Assistance, Filed Endless Lawsuits in US Courts..."

"These lawsuits filed against the American people led to the delay of Bush's military-trials, accounting for the "eight years of delay" the Obama administration has used as justification for the 9/11 plotters being tried in civilian court."

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/20...e-legal-a.html


Just interesting information on this thread subject !!!!

And given the tone of your post, it's like you want to forget that the abuses of the last 8 years ever happened. You ask "why do this" and don't like the answer when it's "because it rights a wrong done by the previous administration".

There's a new President so OF COURSE things are going to be done differently. OF COURSE there are going to be comparisons. OF COURSE some of the justifications are going to be "we don't do things the way 'they' used to".

But there IS one thing that I have to address - where you said, and I quote:

I am not like you party hacks who think your way is the ONLY WAY and the other party is the devil

I am FAR from a "party hack". In the Presidential elections in which I've been eligible to vote, my ballots were cast for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Marrou (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Badnarik (Libertarian), and Obama.

Yeah, I know, it looks strange. Why, might you ask, did I vote for Obama? Because the race was so close that I felt I had to vote the "lesser of two evils" and couldn't afford to "vote my conscience" in case my state (NH) would go for John "I'm not the guy I was in 2000 - now I'm more-of-the-same" McCain and his VERY inappropriate sidekick/VP candidate Sarah Palin.

If my posts "seem consistent" it's because it was Bush (the latter) who turned me off of the Republican Party. They were no longer the 'small government' party - they'd sold out to their own batch of special interests. They invoke "Reagan" on one hand like he's their deity and, on the other hand, pass legislation that would have him spinning like a lathe in his grave.

I would LOVE to reign in the government - but given the evils of 4 years of Obama vs 4 years of whomever it would have been pulling the strings of McCain (as I believe was done to Bush), I chose Obama. Yeah, I held my nose and voted.

Originally Posted by djplong

And given the tone of your post, it's like you want to forget that the abuses of the last 8 years ever happened. You ask "why do this" and don't like the answer when it's "because it rights a wrong done by the previous administration".

There's a new President so OF COURSE things are going to be done differently. OF COURSE there are going to be comparisons. OF COURSE some of the justifications are going to be "we don't do things the way 'they' used to".

But there IS one thing that I have to address - where you said, and I quote:



I am FAR from a "party hack". In the Presidential elections in which I've been eligible to vote, my ballots were cast for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Marrou (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Badnarik (Libertarian), and Obama.

Yeah, I know, it looks strange. Why, might you ask, did I vote for Obama? Because the race was so close that I felt I had to vote the "lesser of two evils" and couldn't afford to "vote my conscience" in case my state (NH) would go for John "I'm not the guy I was in 2000 - now I'm more-of-the-same" McCain and his VERY inappropriate sidekick/VP candidate Sarah Palin.

If my posts "seem consistent" it's because it was Bush (the latter) who turned me off of the Republican Party. They were no longer the 'small government' party - they'd sold out to their own batch of special interests. They invoke "Reagan" on one hand like he's their deity and, on the other hand, pass legislation that would have him spinning like a lathe in his grave.

I would LOVE to reign in the government - but given the evils of 4 years of Obama vs 4 years of whomever it would have been pulling the strings of McCain (as I believe was done to Bush), I chose Obama. Yeah, I held my nose and voted.

Impressed with your post actually !

I voted EXACTLY as you but chose the least evil as McCain because if you read both of Obama's books (amazing two AUTO biographies at such a short age and they even agree on some issues), and looked into ALL of past training and associations, you will see what I saw and what we are seeing JUST THE BEGINNING OF.

Where we disagree is that while I had many many problems with Bush, and agree he sure was not the small government guy he professed to be, he was also NOT the evil doer that folks make him out. That Bush was a figment of the media and MOVEON type in my opinion. Actually this President agrees with much of what Bush did and is maintaining much of what was done relative to Patriot act, etc.

My fear of this current President is real and justifiable. I am reserving judgement as he has done very little in the area of foreign affairs, but I am 100% opposed to all of his social programs. His background is so full of radical friends, associates and training he has only way to go.

I might also add that if you read about his background, he is the opposite of what he and his supporters say...he is SO VERY MUCH POLITICAL..so much more than the guy you folks like to demonize !

I could care less about the party labels....think that generalizing people because of the R or D on their voter registration card is just wrong to do !

Originally Posted by Bucco

Where we disagree is that while I had many many problems with Bush, and agree he sure was not the small government guy he professed to be, he was also NOT the evil doer that folks make him out. That Bush was a figment of the media and MOVEON type in my opinion. Actually this President agrees with much of what Bush did and is maintaining much of what was done relative to Patriot act, etc.

To me, I think Bush eventually got controlled by the people around him. By the end, he seemed quite the puppet.

I used to defend him quite vociferously when they'd call him a moron or worse. You can't learn to fly a fighter jet if you're a moron.

My attitude was "If you don't like Bush, come up with something of SUBSTANCE - not this schoolyard name-calling penny-ante crap"