AP says:Gitmo 9/11 suspects to NY for trial - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Steerpike · #46 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

.....
sure it is.

Prove it.

Imperator · #47 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

As has been pointed out to you, innumerable time, yes, Congress did outlaw it. It's one of those rare, black-and-white issues.

really?

Tanngrisnir3 · #48 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

really?

Dance, dance, dance.

Imperator · #49 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Prove it.

thats way OT , go start a thread....but so you won't say I refuse to answer, treatment of animals...

Steerpike · #50 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

thats way OT , go start a thread....but so you won't say I refuse to answer, treatment of animals...

How does treatment of animals prove that ethics is subjective?

Imperator · #51 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Dance, dance, dance.

how so?you need to go read my post agian....then provide the link..thats how it works.

Tanngrisnir3 · #52 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

how so?you need to go read my post agian....then provide the link..thats how it works.

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. We have discussed this many times, in depth, and the specific statutes were given.

Given that you were involved directly in these conversations, your request for links is somewhat disingenuous.

a777pilot · #53 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

Moussaui's trial took 4 1/2 years, this will become a circus, they will be accorded all rights provided a US citizen.

Technicalities abound, his confession et al will be questioned , duress etc etc...

WASHINGTON – Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.

The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning. The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Without confirming details of the decision, President Barack Obama said it was a legal and national security matter. "I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subjected to the most exacting demands of justice," Obama said at a joint news conference in Tokyo with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

It is also a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about notorious terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.

The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

AP Source: Gitmo 9/11 suspects to NY for trial - Yahoo! News

I hear that the Justice Department and the Federal Courts system of the Southern District of New York have rented one of the biggest theaters on Broadway for this "trail". This is going to be the longest running and biggest show trail in the history of this country.

What a joke!

Imperator · #54 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. We have discussed this many times, in depth, and the specific statutes were given.

Given that you were involved directly in these conversations, your request for links is somewhat disingenuous.

You need to refresh your memory as to what I said or didn’t say and what my stance and the stance of the bush admin. was at the time before you accuse me of disingenuousness.

You need to read my post in this thread you are alluding to again.

Sulayman · #55 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jen

I think the people who wrote your constitution, are rotating in their graves..

Jen

You obviously don't know much about the people who wrote our constitution. Military tribunals have existed in the US legal system for 200 years. George Washington established the first American military tribunal.

The use of military tribuals was recently upheld by our Supreme Court in ex parte Quirin. Care to comment, Jens?

a777pilot · #56 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Why are there any trails of these muslim pos at all? Is the war over?

Imperator · #57 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

How does treatment of animals prove that ethics is subjective?

go start a thread if that really what you want to know or discuss.

dblack · #58 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

To constrain ourselves in this way is ceding the field to them, it is providing them a de facto protection that allows them to continue to operate because we are stuck arguing over definitions... and meanwhile?
....
Law enforcement agencies do not have the tools to neutralize these folks...

and the military does?? If we've learned anything it's that invading nations and blowing up bridges doesn't eliminate terrorism. If anything it exacerbates it.

I still think the term "war" is a being used as misguided surrogate for "all out effort". The terrorism problem is deadly serious, and needs all the cunning and attention we can muster, but warfare is the wrong tool.

You seem to be focusing on the lack of constraints that the idea of being at war implies, but when we considered all the baggage and political drawbacks of that approach, and the fact that military might has precious little affect on terrorists, it seems fairly pointless - even counter productive. Our difficulty in dealing with terrorism isn't constraints on our power to act. It's intelligence, both in the sense of information and wise foreign policy.

I agree that terrorism can be a cause for war. A country that willingly, or even through negligence, serves as a base for terrorist attacks is a legitimate target for war. Going to war with Afghanistan was the right thing to do in response to their open support of Al-Qaeda. But the issue with Al-Qaeda itself is criminal in nature. Just because it's an extremely dangerous and serious criminal issue doesn't mean it does us any good to pretend it's warfare.

dblack · #59 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by chassisman

Lets see, 9-11 drew a military response, but it was not due to an act of war?

No, the military response was attacking a country that supported terrorists. We went to war with Afghanistan, not Al-Qeuda. Al-Qeuda were international criminals we were hunting down.

Quote:

Al-Q themselves had declared war against the US, why not [let] them brand it?

That is the salient question.

Why would they want it to be a "war"? I think they want the world to see it that way because it elevates their status from cowardly murderers of civilians to soldiers in a valiant struggle. Calling it a war legitimizes their position. It also goads the US into political positions and decisions that alienate other nations and drum up support for their anti-US publicity campaign.

Treating the terrorism problem as a war is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. It pushes us into a belligerent foreign policy that furthers their aims. It gives them moral cover and lets them pose as fighters for a cause rather than murderers of the innocent. It provides them with fodder for recruitment and galvanizes opposition against the US worldwide. Further it wastes American lives and resources as we stomp around trying to smash flies with a sledge hammer. It doesn't make sense.

chassisman · #60 (**permalink**) 11-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by dblack

No, the military response was attacking a country that supported terrorists. We went to war with Afghanistan, not Al-Qeuda. Al-Qeuda were international criminals we were hunting down.

That is the salient question.

Why would they want it to be a "war"? I think they want the world to see it that way because it elevates their status from cowardly murderers of civilians to soldiers in a valiant struggle. Calling it a war legitimizes their position. It also goads the US into political positions and decisions that alienate other nations and drum up support for their anti-US publicity campaign.

Treating the terrorism problem as a war is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. It pushes us into a belligerent foreign policy that furthers their aims. It gives them moral cover and lets them pose as fighters for a cause rather than murderers of the innocent. It provides them with fodder for recruitment and galvanizes opposition against the US worldwide. Further it wastes American lives and resources as we stomp around trying to smash flies with a sledge hammer. It doesn't make sense.

So what were those jets that were scrambled on 9-11, the civil air patrol?

The CIA will be the ones on trial, the (total) costs will most likely approach a billion dollars before it is over.
What the liberal left is about to witness will be a nationed sickened by justice ideals of their own party. This will bcome painfully apparent to them in 2010. This decision is so poor that I can no longer try to think of Obama as a person of reasonalble intelligence. The best I can figure is he wants to push the envelope like a Texas hold 'em player with a bad hand who pushes his chips all in.
I appreciate Obama sabatoging the dem party, but the costs are truly sickening, both in dollars and in national security. It's like the WH printing Al-Q recruitment posters.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode