Gitmo detainees want to stay there

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, that's not what I said. Nice try, though.

Sure you did. You said:

Another: what happens if KSM is found not guilty? What then? You think Obama and Co. are going to let him go? Not a chance in this world ... he'll continue to be detained/under arrest in some form or another, again mocking the system.

Pray tell, if there is zero chance of him walking free in a military court trial (and you seem to favor the military court trial), remind me why that isn't a sham if he can't actually be acquitted?

[Tex]

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column on this debacle this morning. I'd like to paste the entire text (but I won't) ... well worth your reading time.

He highlights the key complaints about this travesty:

1. The "show trial" nature of the civil trial

What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

2. The concerns about protecting national security secrets

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York — what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury, and spectators into fresh victims? — it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That’s precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. “Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,” wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”

3. The incoherent reasons for trying some civilly, and some militarily

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his November 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime — an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform — everything but your own blog.

I had not thought of that last point, and it's disturbing in the extreme. If a civil trial is considered superior to a military tribunal, then Holder's reasoning incentivizes attacks on innocents on American soil.

All this nonsense reflects a deeper problem with this administration: a lack of seriousness about national security. You can see it in this KSM decision. You can see it in the indecisivness about Afghanistan.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column on this debacle this morning. I'd like to paste the entire text (but I won't) ... well worth your reading time.

He highlights the key complaints about this travesty:

1. The "show trial" nature of the civil trial



2. The concerns about protecting national security secrets



3. The incoherent reasons for trying some civilly, and some militarily



I had not thought of that last point, and it's disturbing in the extreme. If a civil trial is considered superior to a military tribunal, then Holder's reasoning incentivizes attacks on innocents on American soil.

All this nonsense reflects a deeper problem with this administration: a lack of seriousness about national security. You can see it in this KSM decision. You can see it in the indecisivness about Afghanistan.

Wow. You guys will complain about anything no matter how baseless. Holder said "failure is not an option" and you took that to mean it is literally impossible that the prosecution fail? No wonder you were so excited when Bush said "Mission Accomplished." You thought it had to be true. "Failure is not an option" isn't a prediction on the outcome of the case. It is a statement that it is imperative that the US obtain a conviction. Whether or not the US WILL obtain a conviction is up to the regular judicial process. People use this phrase all the time. Do you really believe every time it is uttered it means the outcome of the event in question is predetermined? I guess I know where your money will go when an NFL player says that about his team's need to win to make the playoffs. Bet on that team! The outcome is certain!

As for fear that the courts will be blown up in NYC, well- I guess I just have more faith in NYC police than you do. I think they are pretty competent.

And the argument that if we do the trial in NYC, perhaps bin Laden will know we think he is guilty too... well, sucks to let that cat out of the bag.

[Tex]

These are the kinds of folks that support American civil jurisprudence for terrorists caught on foreign soil.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

These are the kinds of folks that support American civil jurisprudence for terrorists caught on foreign soil.

So because they will say something vile and rude at trial, they don't get a trial? Since when did that become a factor?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So because they will say something vile and rude at trial, they don't get a trial? Since when did that become a factor?

Oh, I never said that. That you even have a job is evidence our justice system accommodates vile and rude people.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh, I never said that. That you even have a job is evidence our justice system accommodates vile and rude people.

So you disagree with O'Reilly?

The problem, Tex, is you never say anything. You don't stand for anything. You post a lot but say less than any poster I have ever come across. When challenged on what you believe, you recite a generic statement that could have been pulled off of LDS.org and that is rarely on point.

YOU posted O'Reilly's video. If you disagree with what he said, then say so when you post the video. Otherwise, surely you can't be surprised when people view your post as an endorsement of his views.

I honestly wonder if even you know what you believe. Certainly none of us do.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you disagree with O'Reilly?

The problem, Tex, is you never say anything. You don't stand for anything. You post a lot but say less than any poster I have ever come across. When challenged on what you believe, you recite a generic statement that could have been pulled off of LDS.org and that is rarely on point.

I honestly wonder if even you know what you believe. Certainly none of us do.

Heh, you are such a whiner.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

YOU posted O'Reilly's video. If you disagree with what he said, then say so when you post the video. Otherwise, surely you can't be surprised when people view your post as an endorsement of his views.

Sure I can. I don't necessarily agree with every link or video I might post. If you make stupid assumptions about what I think, that's your own fault.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, you are such a whiner.



Sure I can. I don't necessarily agree with every link or video I might post. If you make stupid assumptions about what I think, that's your own fault.

My only stupid assumption is that you think.

[Tex]

This just gets more bizarre. On CNN, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has again commented on the presumed guilt of KSM, saying this:

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told John King on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning.

"He's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed," he added.

If the White House is out there practically guaranteeing both the outcome and the sentence, what is the purpose of trying them in a civil court in the first place?

I thought the reason we were doing this is to "show the world" how American jurisprudence works: habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. All of this is out the window. What you have here is an American show trial.

This is so amateurish it's embarrassing.