Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Trials of the century
WORLD editor Mindy Belz talked to former assistant Attorney General Paul McNulty about the Obama administration’s decision to move the trial of 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to lower Manhattan, just blocks from Ground Zero:
“I have very serious concerns about the wisdom of this decision,” said … McNulty, reached by telephone Friday evening. “I believe bringing KSM in particular and the group as a whole to New York places extremely dangerous circumstances on our legal system and our law enforcement.”
McNulty said his first fear is for the legal risk of a satisfactory trial, given “the uncertainty of this approach and our ability to use the criminal justice system as a vital tool in the fight against terrorism.” His second concern is the physical risk: “These are entirely different detainees from the type of people U.S. marshals are trained to deal with every day. And you are placing them within proximity of the World Trade Center and large populations.” Those factors are compounded by the time that a trial in civil court could stretch over.
Read Mindy’s report in its entirety here.
back to top94 Comments to “Trials of the century”
I think this is a horrible idea and I shudder to think of what can and most probably will happen in NYC during this circus.
Report comment to moderator
The only reason for taking these war criminals to NYC should be to throw them off the top of the Empire State building. They gave no quarter to the victims of 9/11 and none should be given to them.
Report comment to moderator
This can’t be a good idea.
Illinois is considering selling on of it’s northern, under-occupied maximum security prisons to the government as housing for the terrorists. The state is in desperate financial straits and seems quite willing to barter away the security of tomorrow for the monetary gains of the here and now.
Report comment to moderator
What exactly is your fear, Kim? It’s not like these men are super-villains, able to bend metal bars with their minds or shoot laser beams from their eyes. Our prison system safely houses tens of thousands of very dangerous individuals — sociopaths and killers and rapists. Why should these men be any different?
I understand your anger, but we are America, and America is better than that. We are a nation of laws and principles. Given the circumstances of their capture, I believe it would be within our laws and principles to try these men before a military tribunal rather than a civilian court, but in either case they should have their day of fair judgment.
I also see that this could be cathartic for America as a whole. Trying and punishing those responsible will be much better for us than perpetuating a general aura of unreasonable fear.
Report comment to moderator
Obama has one desire to try an paint Bush and our Nation as the bad guys. An bring these evil men to our nation, gives them the format they need to attack our Nation and Bush. Which will give Obama another chance to attack a former President and our Nation, whichn shows the Obama has such disrespect for the office he is sitting in and our Nation.
Report comment to moderator
JJF- Terrorists have no rights, this is a war, not some kind of political protest gone bad. Eric Holder’s decision is a de facto granting of citizenship to these murders. Given the leftward drift of the courts they will plead they were not read their rights (they have none as war criminals), they will call the POTUS as a witness and he has said they were ‘tortured,’ so their confessions were given under duress and ought to be thrown out. I can foresee them getting off.
Report comment to moderator
My fear is that we will see things such as what happened at Ft. Hood only on a daily basis while these trials are going on. What city most represents America as a whole? NYC. I just don’t think it is a good idea and I am entitled to my opinion just like you JJF are entitled to yours. I would much rather see the military handle this. There are some things that insure my safety as an American that I, and you, and others just don’t need to know about. Yes, I really would like to know, but if I know that means some terrorist somewhere has the same access to the same information and I would rather be safe.
Please, JJF do not try to engage me in any dialogue on this. My mind is made up and I do not wish to debate my choices with you.
Report comment to moderator
JJF – the fear is that as #6 writes, these are TERRORISTS, they are not criminals. Terrorists and war criminals are tried before tribunals, not before a jury of their peers. American citizens are tried before a jury, not men who are at WAR with America. Trying these men in an American court is an absolute joke.
Do you liberals really think that by trying these men in an American court that the next American soldier captured in Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or any other country where the jihadists caputre soldiers will ensure that American soldier will get a “fair” trial?
Do you understand that when a jihadist captures an enemy it is their honor to CUT THE HEAD OFF THEIR CAPTIVE?
If I knew how to bold that I would. Many of the Hadiths (these are like a biblical commentary) interpret Islamic law (especially Sharia law which is what Osama bin Laden follows) as saying that an enemy soldier or perceived soldier (remember soldier to them is anybody not fighting for them) if captured can only be silenced by their head being CUT OFF.
I just can’t believe people don’t understand that just because President Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are at war with jihadists that they don’t acknowledge that. As long as there is an America there will be jihad. Jihad doesn’t get rescinded just because we have a president who wants to talk with them and bow to them. Jihad is a lifetime and it does not end. The sooner we all understand this the better off we will be in fighting the position of trying these jihadists in American courts.
Report comment to moderator
JJF – “Our prison system safely houses tens of thousands of very dangerous individuals — sociopaths and killers and rapists. Why should these men be any different?”
In order to break these men out of jail today. The enemy would have to invade Cuba, then attack our Military Base, then attack the prison and get out. Compares to going to New York attack a court house that does not have the man power to repeal an attack.
I can see a far left wacko Judge, who views the way Obama does. Throwing out all the evidence. Because he disapproves with the way the military went about getting the evidence need to bring these evil men to justice.
Report comment to moderator
One wonders if the O-bow-ma and the AG should be impeached for treason during war for giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Report comment to moderator
Ok. I’ll still be responding to the other posters (later this afternoon when I have some time), but please know that I respect your desire not to talk about it, so I won’t engage you directly.
Report comment to moderator
Is “O-bow-ma” a “hateful” way of speaking about the President of the United States?
Is advocating that the President of the United States be impeached for President a “hateful” message?
Report comment to moderator
Preventive detention of terrorists captured in combat is acceptable and legitimate, as Eric Holder has admitted. Further, he has asserted that in the unlikely event of an acquittal, the US would continue to detain the terrorists, rendering any trial a pretense, a sop to leftist critics.
Holding a trial in the civilian court system for the detainees necessarily entitles them to all the evidence against them, a veritable treasure trove of intelligence. It is the height of irresponsibility to expose valuable intelligence, and by that exposure give clues to the methods by which it was maintained, just to cater to international and domestic critics of Bush’s foreign policy, especially so when the fact of the terrorists’ captivity will not be affected.
Report comment to moderator
“What exactly is your fear, Kim? It’s not like these men are super-villains, able to bend metal bars with their minds or shoot laser beams from their eyes. Our prison system safely houses tens of thousands of very dangerous individuals — sociopaths and killers and rapists. Why should these men be any different?”
In the words of the crazy Irishman in Braveheart “Able to get a dagger past your guards, old man.”
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 11.16.09 AT 12:56 PM
Is “O-bow-ma” a “hateful” way of speaking about the President of the United States?
yes
Is advocating that the President of the United States be impeached for President a “hateful” message?
No
Report comment to moderator
Random 12 – Ask Pres. G.W. Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Folks,
also remeber Obama and his party need the money they will get from the Special Intertest Groups for doing this.
Report comment to moderator
Why it’s a bad idea to hold these men in New York:
They are explicitly at war with us whether we would take them at their word or not. It’s a bad idea to hold prisoners of war in heavily populated areas anyway because of the activities of various agents on their side who are yet free who would attempt to free them by some violent act of war.
Why it’s a bad idea to try them under the US judicial system rather than a tribunal:
While it is true that they are human beings accorded God-given rights that are protected in our judicial system, it has been recognized throughout the history of the US that military tribunals are appropriate for prisoners of war and I believe the practice is recognized as legitimate by the Geneva Convention. One reason is that a person’s peers are the enemy. It’s ludicrous to invite the enemy to try their own soldiers in our court of law or claim that suitable peers may be found among us.
As such, trial by jury for prisoners of war may be turned into a venue of propaganda for the enemy. It is well-known that the purpose of terrorism is to adversely subvert the rationale of policies and legislation of a government. An offensive military strike has essentially the same purpose. A military tribunal has the effect of removing judicial action somewhat from affecting national policies and legislation and prevents legitimizing military action against us.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that trying them in civilian court is a bad idea. It has less to do with security (come on, really? They won’t escape) and more to do with intellegence.
There is a lot of information he can request now as a defendent in a civil trial. List of suspected co-conspirators, for example. How the evidence was gathered. All sorts of things we don’t want our enemies to know. Sure he’ll probably be found guilty and all that, but at what cost?
Report comment to moderator
I am not worried about them escaping. I am worried more about what “free” people on the outside who will come into the city will do. This is a security nightmare for the average person walking down the street. NOT for those in the courthouse.
Report comment to moderator
All men have God-given rights. If “this is a war” justifies ignoring those rights, then you entirely unmoor your moral compass and excuse all manner of abuses — from Japan torturing American soldiers in WW2 to African dictators slaughtering entire villages.
In the responses against this, I see two recurring themes.
One, mistrust of our justice system.
Two, inordinate fear.
Many of you seem to believe that these men are criminal masterminds of superhuman capabilities. They will manage to engineer an escape, you seem to think, or bomb the court where they’re being tried. If I may conjecture a bit, I imagine scenes from “24″ are running through your minds.
Can we agree on this? It seems the trial will take place regardless of your fear. When it goes off without the grand escape, without the blasted court room or mushroom cloud over NYC or whatever it is you fear, will you then concede that you were wrong to be so afraid? That terrorists are, after all, only men?
Conversely, if there is a rescue or a terrorist attack, I will freely admit that I was wrong to view terrorists as mere mortals. I — and the majority of the country, I’m sure — will align myself more with your “24″ / Dick Cheney mentality and will admit that if we want to be safe, extraordinary measures must be taken against terrorists.
But for now, I have seen no reason to believe anything other than this: a group of ignorant fanatics exploited a loophole in our airline safety system to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. This wasn’t a particular elegant attack. It didn’t require great skill, and not even a minor mutation (like web-slinging or adamantine claws). They were men. Criminals, monsters, but men. Not gods. Not devils. Not supervillains. Handcuffs and secure cells hold them just like any other man.
Report comment to moderator
21: apparently, if you can’t refute an argument, just ridicule it.
Perhaps JJF was hard at work on his epistle while KIM offered the explanation that deflates his entire jest.
Report comment to moderator
jjf – “One, mistrust of our justice system.
Ivan: Given the leftward drift of the courts they will plead they were not read their rights (they have none as war criminals), they will call the POTUS as a witness and he has said they were ‘tortured,’ so their confessions were given under duress and ought to be thrown out. I can foresee them getting off.
Pastor Roy: I can see a far left wacko Judge, who views the way Obama does. Throwing out all the evidence. Because he disapproves with the way the military went about getting the evidence need to bring these evil men to justice. ”
It is not mistrust of our justice system, it is the mistrust of far left wing judges who do not obey our justice system in their rulings.
Report comment to moderator
“Many of you seem to believe that these men are criminal masterminds of superhuman capabilities.”
Well then we are just plain idiots if they arent pretty intelligent, because they sure got almost 4 planes simultaneously on our soil and turned them into effective weapons…
Your right they are just men though, they shoulda been tried and hung years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Two, inordinate fear.
ItsAboutFreedom: Do you understand that when a jihadist captures an enemy it is their honor to CUT THE HEAD OFF THEIR CAPTIVE?
Pastor Roy: In order to break these men out of jail today. The enemy would have to invade Cuba, then attack our Military Base, then attack the prison and get out. Compares to going to New York attack a court house that does not have the man power to repeal an attack.
Thorn: In the words of the crazy Irishman in Braveheart “Able to get a dagger past your guards, old man.”
Many of you seem to believe that these men are criminal masterminds of superhuman capabilities. They will manage to engineer an escape, you seem to think, or bomb the court where they’re being tried. If I may conjecture a bit, I imagine scenes from “24? are running through your minds.
–
If the enemy of our nation want to break these people out it is far easer to do it in New York then in Cuba.
Report comment to moderator
RR:
Kim asked me not to respond to her, and I said I wouldn’t.
What is the argument you believe I failed to refute? Make it, and I will respond.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you. It is important to me to hear recognition of that.
I agree. I would have no problem with seeing these men tried before a military tribunal. I would not say that doing so would be any infringement of their rights.
However, I also have no problem with seeing them tried in a civilian court. And symbolically, the civilian court will be more beneficial to the American people. I think it will prove to America and to the world that we trust and respect our laws, our principles, and our traditions. We do not need to “work the dark side” (as Dick Cheney said) in order to defend ourselves. It will also be a trial for the public to watch, to rally around, and to see justice publicly done. That will be much better for the people of New York and of America than just hearing that KSM was shot in the back of the head behind the trash heap in Gitmo.
I don’t follow you. How will the trial by jury be a propaganda tool for terrorists?
I think precisely the opposite — torture, secret prisons, and closed tribunals are propaganda tools. They allow the enemy to paint us as “the Great Satan” who tramples on the rights of free men.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name & Pastor Roy:
With pictures of the POTUS bowing deeply to the emperor of Japan, in Japanese culture the sign of an inferior giving obeisance to a superior, how is a tongue in cheek reference to “O-bow-ma” hateful?
Report comment to moderator
No, we’re not idiots. We had a security loophole. Namely, pilots should be given basic security training and be allowed to travel armed. But that doesn’t mean idiocy.
Don’t buy into the fear. What they did was not ingenious, it was unthinkably low. It required no criminal mastermind.
I agree.
Report comment to moderator
” I think it will prove to America and to the world that we trust and respect our laws, our principles, and our traditions”
we do not need to prove anything to Our Nation or the world.
“I don’t follow you. How will the trial by jury be a propaganda tool for terrorists?
I think precisely the opposite — torture, secret prisons, and closed tribunals are propaganda tools. They allow the enemy to paint us as “the Great Satan” who tramples on the rights of free men.””
So but the enemy pained us as “the Great Satan” who tramples on the rights of free men.” way before Bush took office.
Report comment to moderator
Ivan the Terrible 11.16.09 AT 2:41 PM
Random Name & Pastor Roy:
With pictures of the POTUS bowing deeply to the emperor of Japan, in Japanese culture the sign of an inferior giving obeisance to a superior, how is a tongue in cheek reference to “O-bow-ma” hateful?
—-
I just do not like people take someone name like that.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (#4) writes:
“What exactly is your fear, Kim? It’s not like these men are super-villains, able to bend metal bars with their minds or shoot laser beams from their eyes. Our prison system safely houses tens of thousands of very dangerous individuals — sociopaths and killers and rapists. Why should these men be any different?”
As you say, what these prisoners themselves may do is of little consequence. We have more than adequate facilities and personnel to keep them under control.
However, JJF, you miss a couple of obvious points. First, a major concern is about what their allies may do and how that puts the citizens of NY at risk. History makes it very clear that trials such as these are like blood in the water to circling sharks. They are counter productive to justice and safety in that they provoke incidents. Terrorists view them as a personal challenge to their cause, as an opportunity to strike a highly visible blow to promote their cause, and as an opportunity to exact vengeance upon their enemies—us. City-wide, state-wide, and nation-wide security precautions are going to have to be extensive and expensive for these trial to proceed without serious incidents.
If there was something significant to be gained by a trial in this venue, then it might be worth the obvious risks. But, there is absolutely nothing to be gained in terms of justice. Justice can be served equally well at Guantanamo before a military tribunal. The only thing to be gained here is political—the political posturing of the Obama administration that seeks to validate—AT PUBLIC RISK—their view that this whole conflict is a crime problem rather than a larger war. They are going to risk the lives of the citizens of NY and of the nation to validate their politics. I find that reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
The second point is a little more philosophical, but equally valid. Once a nation decides to go to war, the debate should be over as to the justice of the cause. The time for talking has passed and the decision has been made that those who support the cause are correct and those who oppose it are wrong. Once a nation goes beyond that decision point and into the realm of war, it enters into a another environment where different rules apply. That is why enemy soldiers are not routinely given trials when they are captured. They are NOT presumed innocent; the decision has already been made when the gavel went down to go to war; they are automatically presumed guilty and they will be imprisoned without further trial until the conflict is over. That is the only sensible and practical way to proceed in the handling of enemy combatants in a time of war.
However, when we proceed as the Obama administration is now doing, we take a step backward and act as though we have never gone to war. We act as if the debate is still going on. We bring these prisoners into our civil justice system where they are automatically presumed innocent of everything, as if their case of fighting against us may have some merit. Of course, that is what every terrorist wants. He tells us from the get-go that his cause is just and we concede the possibility that he is right the minute we bring him into our civil justice system. We will endlessly revisit the debate with every prisoner we try in this manner.
But this is the logical extension of Obama’s original opposition to the war and his refusal to abide by the congressional decision to go to war. So, he will have his way, regardless of the previous decision of the majority of Congress, regardless of the possible decision that some of these killers may go free on legal technicalities, regardless of the risks to our present security, and regardless of what this tells our current servicemen and women about the justice of their cause and sacrifices.
He will have his way. Period. That is what this is really all about. It is consistent with his monstrous ego and the Chicago way of doing things. This is the “change” that he brings to America, and it is evident in everything from the Stimulus bill, to Obamacare, to his Czars, to his redistribution of wealth, to ACORN, etc, etc. There is more to come. What our nation will look like after three more years of this egotistical lunacy is not pleasant to contemplate.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry but the enemy painted us as “the Great Satan” who tramples on the rights of free men.” way before Bush took office
Report comment to moderator
Just happened to read this on TPM:
Well said, gentlemen.
Report comment to moderator
#31, Pastor Roy
“I just do not like people take someone name like that.”
So what you dislike is hateful?
Report comment to moderator
We had a security “loophole” because we failed to either A. Examine the potential issues thoroughly or B. We called the enemy ignorant and stupid.
They are at least smart enough to find the next “loophole”. Dont make the same mistake twice.
Their nationality, the fact they are terroists, or their religion does not make them ignorant or unintelligent.
Like I quoted, they are smart enough to get a dagger past your guard. And if you underestimate them, theyll do it again.
Report comment to moderator
And as Kim and Michael note, most criminals in our prisons arent backed by a fanatical sect bent on destruction. It would be less expensive and more secure to send your civilian court down to Guantanamo…not to mention more secure.
Report comment to moderator
Ivan the Terrible 11.16.09 AT 2:50 PM
#31, Pastor Roy
“I just do not like people take someone name like that.”
So what you dislike is hateful?
–
in this case yes
Report comment to moderator
Thorn 11.16.09 AT 2:56 PM
And as Kim and Michael note, most criminals in our prisons arent backed by a fanatical sect bent on destruction. It would be less expensive and more secure to send your civilian court down to Guantanamo…not to mention more secure
—
Obama and those who view the way he does. Do not care, they only care about painting our nation and Bush out to be the bad guys.
Report comment to moderator
These aren’t average offenders. The only thing that remotely compares to their networking and loyalty is that of organized crime in it’s heyday which was often just as difficult to deal with behind bars as it was out among the populace.
Report comment to moderator
We should distinguish what we can do and what we want to do. Bradford Barenson, one of GWB’s associate counsels under Alberto Gonzales and a big player in terrorism policy, says that federal prosecutors can succeed in the federal court system. He doesn’t want to succeed there, however. The only reason he gave this weekend was weak — military commissions would be cheaper, as if cost should be any kind of a consideration in the greatest criminal act in US history. The trial of the 9/11 masterminds should be worth the equivalent of any number of Hollywood blockbusters.
The opposition of Bushies to trials in federal court is purely political. A successful prosecution would pull the rug out from under the notion that criminal law can’t deal with terrorism.
Bushies didn’t want any of their people to be put on trial for war crimes. Obama gave in to them. He did not promise that there would never be a trial by proxy. Federal prosecutors in NY will show that we don’t in fact need the information that some claim we got through torture.
Report comment to moderator
There will soon be no such thing as a U.S. citizen, not in ANY distinctive sense of the term. And that is by design.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with Holder’s poor decision here, but overall I am thankful that saner heads prevailed in the years since his capture in Pakastan when we were able to keep him in custody and get vital intelligence from this murderous piece of inhuman scum and that information helped to save innocent human lives. That is more important to me than where and how he is tried (which IS also important, of course).
Report comment to moderator
I do not fear that these men will be broken out of prison nor do I fear that another terrorist act will take place in NYC.
I am against using a criminal court to try war criminals, people who are at WAR with us despite the constant denial of that FACT.
WAR is not a criminal act and the jihadists do not view this WAR as something criminal.
When this case ends up in court I believe that they will be acquitted the first time tried because the defense team (most likely to be led by a bunch of anti-American ACLU lawyers) will play the race card, the torture card and the sympathy card and that a jury that is hand picked by Eric Holder to make justice happen will acquit these men and we will end up in the same place we are now.
Jihadists are at war and they do not give American soldiers the same rights you would like to afford them. They do not give American journalists that right (anybody remember Pearl?). They do not give missionaries that right (in the past 5 years 8 missionaries from the U.S., Singapore and Korea have been beheaded and those are the ones that I know of).
You want to give them rights, they do not recognize your rights. They do not agree with your rights. They do not agree with our Secretary of State lecturing them while offending them by not covering her head and by wearing pant suits. They do not recognize that our weak president bows in subservience to them. They only want to DEFEAT us, they want to KILL us, they want to EMBARRASS us and they want our country to be overrun by Islamists.
Report comment to moderator
The insistance on trying these terrorists as U.S. citizens is purely political.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “A successful prosecution would pull the rug out from under the notion that criminal law can’t deal with terrorism.”
Huh? What is a “successful” prosecution, Scroop Moth? One that comes out the way you or others think it should? No matter how it comes out, there will be SOMEONE who calls it “successful.” Please define your terms.
Report comment to moderator
“Federal prosecutors in NY will show that we don’t in fact need the information that some claim we got through torture. ”
So your saying that this isnt about their trial/war crimes at all, but about the politicizing of torture? Your only dragging them to America to make a point?
Ah yes, just pawns in your political shinanigans. Your no better than Bush for leaving em at Gitmo
Report comment to moderator
What is a “successful” prosecution for the left it is if they can show the Bush, CIA, FBI Military has broken some law.
Report comment to moderator
In this war, there is probably no factor or resource that is more vital than human intelligence. We did get that from KSM. Our gratitude is owed to those brave soldiers and others who kept us safer by getting (through a well vetted legitimate process) all the intelligence they could.
Report comment to moderator
Will these trials take place before or after next’s year elections? If before how could these trials impact the election?
Report comment to moderator
I truly wish the terrorists would have a miltary tribunal over at Gitmo. The place is wired for such a thing already. I think the decision was a purely policitical decision by the President. It was his gift to his left wing of the party. Perhaps these were picked because the evidence is so strong no court in the US would give them a get out of jail card for free.
I feel sorry for all the NYorkers who feel strongly that this is a slap in the face. Everyone in NY will be inconvenienced beyond imagination. It will be painful for the witnesses who lost family members to hear what I imagine would be terrorist propaganda.
Just like the subject of closing Gitmo is controversial this one splits our country deeply.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 11.16.09 AT 4:10 PM
In this war, there is probably no factor or resource that is more vital than human intelligence. We did get that from KSM. Our gratitude is owed to those brave soldiers and others who kept us safer by getting (through a well vetted legitimate process) all the intelligence they could.
–
Yes, these people put their lives on the line. but I am sorry to say the man in the white house will through them under the buss first chance he gets
Report comment to moderator
Some victims of these dirtbags disagree with Obama. It’s apparent this is all for show, nothing more. Why give them the recruiting tools this trial will provide?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67801-daniel-pearls-family-opposes-justice-decision-to-try-ksm-in-federal-court
“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.
“A statement provided to The Hill late Saturday night, signed by the foundation created by Pearl’s parents, Ruth and Judea Pearl, said:
“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.”
Report comment to moderator
the real Aj – Obama does not care about Pearl’s parents. He only care about how this will help him.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see if we have at least some of the arguments out in the open.
The setting:
1) NYC is bad because it is populous.
This of course argues that a setting in Wyoming or Arkansas would be preferred.
2) Guantanamo is better because it’s surrounded by Cuba.
An interesting argument, implicitly arguing for a totalitarian state as the only possible way of holding prisoners. Hmmm. There is a sense there.
Underneath, there also seems to be some confusion as to why a trial is necessary at all. I mean, if they were without rights then wouldn’t a convenient disappearance solve the problem? That is, why keep them alive at all? Isn’t disappearance the standard practice in the totalitarian regimes of S America?
But wait! we aren’t totalitarians, are we? How then do we conduct our business? What standard do we bring? The idea that the military is a better method than the civilian is plainly out of sync with the Constitution of the United States; it certainly lies at a great distance from the Founding Fathers.
So perhaps the first step is to ask what values you intend to uphold. This is another way of asking what makes it all worth while? What, in fact, are we asking our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters to put their life on the line to defend?
Report comment to moderator
What does the Constitution say regarding non American citizens, Harris?
Why should they be granted, default, any of our rights/laws?
I do agree we can uphold a better standard, but how does making a circus out of this as we have, accomplish upholding anything either way? They will only get a fair trial as much as the next Manager of the Mets gets…and all the hoopla to go with it.
Putting these terrorists through the political nightmare is just as much torture as waterboarding is…
Why cant we extend the same ideals to them off shore? Try them there, fairly, out of spotlight, and then deiliver justice accordingly?
There is no point to American soil or the criminal court, its merely political nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
Harris – “if they were without rights then wouldn’t a convenient disappearance solve the problem? That is, why keep them alive at all? Isn’t disappearance the standard practice in the totalitarian regimes of S America?”
where did anyone say that? We beleive they should stand trail but but in the Courts with our far left judges. How will most likly throw out all the evidence, because this judge disaprove of the methody used.
They should stand trail right where they are at.
Report comment to moderator
who will most likly throw out all the evidence, because the judge disaprove of the methody used.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy — It really is unfair to slam all courts for “far left” judges; The Second Circuit in New York is very different in its decisions from that of the Ninth in California. More importantly, the Second has had experience trying other terrorist cases. Questions of law, procedure, balancing the rights of prisoners and those compelling interests of national security — these have all been successfully dealt with.
If you are going to try a terrorist, this is the court you want.
As to the military tribunals — I can sympathize with the rationale for their creation, for the problems the government sought to solve vis a vis the detainee’s legal status. That said, the formal construction of these courts and their rules were so prejudicial against the defense as to raise legitimate concerns about their justice.
Behind the controversy, of course, lies the uncomfortable problem of prisoner abuse. This abuse was at such a level that even one of the prosecutors in the original military tribunals resigned his commission rather than prosecute. Having crossed a line I believe we should not have crossed in the first place, we must come back, back to our “better selves.”
The risk of civil trial is worth that if it means a return to a commitment to fundamental (or inalienable) human rights and the cause of justice.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #43 writes:
“…from this murderous piece of inhuman scum…”
This reminded me of a quote from the Gulag Archipelago:
“Confronted by the pit into which we are about to toss those who have done us harm, we halt, stricken dumb: it is after all only because of the way things worked out that they were the executioners and we weren’t.”
KSM and his ilk are as human as you or me. I’ve harbored murder in my heart every bit as despicable as his. There but for the grace of God go I.
Report comment to moderator
IAF #44 writes:
“Jihadists are at war and they do not give American soldiers the same rights you would like to afford them.”
You’re right. They don’t. On the other hand, should that be our basis for acting in the same way? Allied POWs were treated horribly by the Japanese during WW2. Should we have reciprocated and treated Japanese POWs similarly?
Matthew 5:38-48 might have some bearing here. In it we see both the repudiation of “eye for an eye” mentality and a command to love one’s enemies.
Clearly this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t held accountable for their crimes. But to me it certainly seems to imply that we, as believers, shouldn’t be the ones urging our representative government to respond “in kind” to the abuses committed against us by terrorists.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm… I still fail to see real discussion on the biggest issue here:
Not secure trial – not “will they break out” – but instead one that really is vital to national security, on an ongoing basis:
Information. The way in which evidence must be publically presented, and this is evidence that our enemies can use. Who do we suspect as “co-conspirators”? How do we obtain information regarding suspected terrorists? Who are we watching now? Lots of this information would be necessary to disclose to the defendant in a civil trial.
This is why a military trial works better in these cases – and why it is necessary in war-time trying of enemy combatants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #45 writes:
“The insistance on trying these terrorists as U.S. citizens is purely political.”
You sort of imply here that trying non-citizens in U.S. criminal courts is out-of-the-ordinary. As far as I know it really isn’t. The difference here is that instead of shooting someone in a robbery, these guys flew a plane into a building and killed 3000 people.
War tribunals are for war criminals. To be a war criminal there must be a war. Wars exist between nations. Terrorism is essentially just politically motivated crime.
Here’s a hypo for you. Suppose Joe is living in the U.S. on a Visa. He’s a muslim originally from Kuwait. He’s also unstable. He starts listening to some radical Imams and decides he hates the United States. He consequently purchases a hand gun and shoots the next American he sees. When captured, he makes abundantly clear that his motivation for committing this crime was political.
Is Joe a terrorist? If the 9/11 bombers are terrorists, then I see no reason why Joe shouldn’t be considered one as well.
Now consider Bob. Bob is also living in the U.S. on a Visa and is a muslim from Kuwait. Bob has a short temper, and already owns a hand gun. He gets into an altercation with a male relative and, in the course of that encounter, shoots and kills him.
Is Bob a terrorists? Or just a run-of-the-mill murderer? If the latter, then the only thing that separates Bob from Joe is his motivation.
So it’s interesting that the conservative rhetoric around hate crime legislation is that it punishes “thought crimes”, and yet the defining difference between “regular murderer” and “terrorist” seems to be motive.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn #56 writes:
“What does the Constitution say regarding non American citizens, Harris? Why should they be granted, default, any of our rights/laws?”
The Constitution and Bill of Rights use consistent language throughout. Where they mean “citizen” they mean “citizen”. Where they mean “all people” they use “person” or “persons”. For example:
If we replaced “person” with “citizen” here, then the later requirement of citizenship would be redundant. So clearly “person” means “anybody”. It’s used consistently elsewhere in the document. Now consider that the 5th amendment refers to “persons” and the 6th refers to “the accused” with no requirement of citizenship.
It certainly seems like those rights were intended to extend to non-citizens as well.
Report comment to moderator
To begin with, we invaded another country on questionable grounds.
We have a system of justice that we like to showcase to the world as the best that can be done. Here is our opportunity to show it off, and all of a sudden we are suffering from stage fright?
Is anybody serious?
By the way, what happened to Jon Rowe?
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass wrote; “KSM and his ilk are as human as you or me.”
I disagree, unless of course you are using the word “human” in a purely biological sense with zero connotations of the decency that real humans are capable of. I still think the word “inhuman” fully applies to KSM, far far far better than the word “human.” .
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass wrote; “I’ve harbored murder in my heart every bit as despicable as his.”
Then you and I are very different. I have never harbored anything in my mind or heart to even remotely compare with what those inhuman terrorists harbored in their hearts and acted upon.
But we can be different and still respect each other as long as you never act on such evil motives.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, Glass,
Whether trying non-citizens in U.S. criminal courts is out-of-the-ordinary or not was not my point. What Obama decided was unwaise and wrong, in my view. But from what I have heard reported, it is also out-of-the-ordinary.
These jihadists were well supported with millions by bin Laden, they had access to tons of money and training. They were part of a long-term war-plan to use airplanes as lethal missiles and aim them into buildings that symbolized what they are at war with — idolatry & worldly unbelief and they had zero concern over the innocents that would be incinerated by their actions. They forced innocent people to leap to their deaths in great numbers. This was mass murder of innocent civilians in the name of a war they had declared on us. Jihadists are by definition at war, Buddy.
These guys are war ciminals in all the worst and most obvious senses of that phrase.
As to your hypothetical, Joe sounds like a jihadist.
KSM was captured in Pakastan, NOT the USA. He’s not Joe or Bob. You are comparing apples with gold clubs.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
Isn’t there a tension between this notion of “at war” and “mass murder”? If one is at war, death of civilians, though regrettable, is also allowed. Murder, otoh, has the element of personal intention, of malice. If 9/11 is fundamentally an act of war (let’s say as an extension of the bombing of the USS Cole), then the measure of prosecution fades. If we look at the loss of life however, it looks more like a criminal act, thus subject to courts.
The point is not to rehash 9/11 or the previous administration, only to note a tension. On that, two articles today, from opposite sides, seem to offer some insight.
On the conservative side, George Friedman has an interesting piece: Deciphering the Mohammed Trial.
On the liberal side, Josh Marshall picks up some of the questions raised here, in Why Is That a Problem?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark in #66, #67, #68 writes:
Then I’d argue you have a profoundly unbiblical view of humanity and its capacity for sin.
If that’s true, then good for you. Personally, when I look at verses like Matthew 5:21-22 I can’t help but feel my sin is not so far removed from theirs:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
And yet they’re not. It’s right there in the word. War criminal. There is no war. There are terrorists committing crimes.
So should he be tried by a military tribunal as a war criminal? If so, why not Bob as well?
His crime, however, was committed in the United States. When foreign nationals commit crimes here, then flee, we extradite them. Since there was no functional government in Afghanistan which could comply with an extradition, we captured him ourselves and brought him back.
Report comment to moderator
A few observations.
Terrorists are not in any army. The Geneva conventions do not apply to them.
If someone in a time of war fights against an army they are only accorded Geneva Convention rights if they are wearing the uniform of the opposing army. If someone fights out of uniform the are summarily shot.
#69 Harris
“If 9/11 is fundamentally an act of war (let’s say as an extension of the bombing of the USS Cole), then the measure of prosecution fades. If we look at the loss of life however, it looks more like a criminal act, thus subject to courts.”
There is a third choice, “Piracy”. The acts of the terrorists are more in the line of pirates than anything. None of them represented a nation. They just attacked people and property.
Report comment to moderator
I am sure the government will not publicly offer sensitive intelligence as evidence. To my chagrin, the Obama administration has been just as secretive as the Bush administration in the courts — they’ve used the “state secrets” defense when sued for illegal wiretapping, they’ve had cases thrown out on the argument that defending itself would compromise national security. Given the precedent, I don’t think we need to worry about the government being “spilling the beans.”
Report comment to moderator
Deftly done, sir.
Anyone care to answer that?
This evinces a deep misunderstanding of the ideas our country was founded on.
Conservatives used to know this, but they’ve quite forgotten it since the neo-cons took over:
Rights are not granted by your government. They are granted to all men by God. A government exists to protect those Natural Rights. When it ceases to do so, or when it infringes upon them, it is the right of people to abolish that government and set up another one that will better protect their God-given rights.
So men have a right to fair trial not because they were granted that right by the American constitution. In fact, some of the Founders argued against putting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution exactly to avoid that confusion — they did not want people thinking that the rights listed therein were (a) exhaustive, or (b) granted by a document. The right to fair trial is a Natural Right granted by God to all men, regardless of nationality. When any government, including our own, infringes upon that right, it does so tyrannically.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (73) (re. “our” rights),
Hear hear … well said.
Report comment to moderator
Bob writes
In many ways, I would agree with you — the actions of non-state actors certainly seems to fall into this category. But that said, where do we presently send those captured Somali pirates? We prosecute them in our civilian courts, not military. Again, the judicial remedy seems to fall on public, or civilian side.
That said, the other argument for civilian courts is that these are fundamentally public in nature — they express our public or civic ideals. For all their failings, these courts are where we get to express our standards; the military is always (in philosophic terms) a special interest, an implementation of civic ideals, if you will. Even more important than the question of punishment is the question of Justice itself, and our conviction that Justice is anchored not in political considerations but from what God has commanded us to pursue.
Report comment to moderator
If that is the case JJF, and I agree with you, then our rights are certainly independent, not only of the document, but also the land. Thus, there is no reason to close a Gitmo, or bring terrorists to the USA, when the same principles apply whereever they are currently standing.
By bringing them to NY, you make a circus out of it.
Report comment to moderator
JJF 72 – It’s not a matter if they want to – it’s a matter of what civil rights mean, as applied to criminal justice.
We have the standard (and rightly so) that the defendant has rights to the information compiled against him. We’d rather see the prosecution (the state) lose than there be a chance that we convict an innocent man. So, the defendant actually has the rights to that information. That’s what a civil trial actually means. It’s what happened in the trial of the “blind shiek” behind the first WTC bombing.
And that is why this right cannot apply to an enemy combatant during a time of war.
Report comment to moderator
I posted in #34 about three leading conservatives who argued for trying the terrorists here and/or holding them here on American soil.
Add Judge Napolitano of Fox News to that list. He argues that the Constitutional requires them to be tried here, despite Bill O’Reilly’s impatient, “I don’t care about the Constitution!”
We had noticed, Bill.
Report comment to moderator
But why NY? None of these men committed an actual crime within the state did they? Those who actually committed the crimes within the state, were all killed via plane crash.
So why NY? They could also be tried in Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Boston…any location where they are accused of criminal activity, even Florida…
If they are accused of terrorism against the USA, we can try em whereever we want.
And I can find another 3 liberals who agree more than likely JJF..even the governor of NY didnt like the idea. It’s a circus, plain and simple.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn – how about Puerto Rico – are they not part of our nation. That way we can say we did trie them in this Nation and also keep them out of the Nation
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Kim that they should be tried by the military. This was an act of war, not a crime. And I agree with Ken that the intelligence that will come out of this puts us all at risk. And it gives these clowns a forum they shouldn’t have.
The people of New York City don’t deserve this. Within the past year when Obama’s plane was sent over the city and fighter jets showed up, they panicked. I won’t be going over there, that’s for sure.
Report comment to moderator
Kim and I are probably constitutionally wrong, that’s true. Napolitano is correct that the situs of the crime is NY, there was no declaration of war by a nation state, but I would counter that with it’s 2009! and bin Laden has said he is at war with us. He has his little army, and as far as I am concerned, he has set up his own little “country” out there is the wilds of Pakistan. For all intents and purposes, that’s a government, maybe not technically, but…
Still not going to NYC.
Report comment to moderator
Harris,
Yes, there can be a tension between this notion of “at war” and “mass murder.” But tension does not necessarily mean contradiction. The mass-murdering jihadists are indeed at war with us.
I do think they are a sort of “army.” It may be a rag-tag army and their organization and connections are not conventional at all, but that is not an accident. They are at war with us.
I could accept that 9/11 was “a criminal act of war.” That’s a both/and approach. Some of the distinctions and definitions we apply to such things lose their meaning after a while. My point is that I believe that a military court would be the far better choice for their prosecution.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Harris.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass,
Thanks you for your response.
The view of humanity that I expressed is entirely biblical. Scripture attests to the sacredness of human life from cover to cover, but it steadfastly commands that human life be lawfully destroyed when the human involved is proven to have acted in an unhuman manner–shedding human blood unlawfully. See Genesis 9:6 and many other related passages. Thus, the qualities that make human life sacred are clearly nullified and forfeited, in the biblical view, when the human in question commits certain atrocities and murderous acts.
I never denied our capacity for sin. But I also do not deny our accountability for it either.
I reiterate; I have never harbored anything in my mind or heart to even remotely compare with what those inhuman terrorists harbored in their hearts and acted upon. While the Matthew 5 passage does touch upon the pervasive struggle we all have with our sin nature, I do not think that it approaches the sort of UNIQUE depravity that was perpetrated by the 9/11 jihadists. The Bible does speak of God giving some evil peop0le up to their own depravity–to an irredeemable point, for which they alone are responsible. I think the Matthew 5 passage is dealing with redeemable struggles.
“War criminal” is a fine phrase. Technical theorists and Legalists may try to parse it out of existance, but it does represent a reality in the real world–as seen in the 9/11 jihadists.
Don’t you know there is a war on?
I already dealt with your hypotheticals. Those cases are obviously quite different from the 9/11 war criminals.
KSM’s ‘act of war’ or ‘crime’ (or whatever phrase you want to use) was NOT just committed in the USA. The conspiring and planning and training took place on foreign soil too. The financing came from multiple foreign sources too. KSM’s terrorism was in the conspiring itself. He enabled the perpetrators to do it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #84 writes:
You deny the capacity to sin when you state that certain types of sin render one “inhuman”.
It’s odd too that in responding to me you decided to defend the death penalty and the idea that people should be held accountable. Odd because I never argued against the death penalty or insinuated that KSM et. al. should not be held accountable for their actions.
You’re missing what I understand to be the “point” of those verses. The listeners would have thought “hateful anger” to be “not as bad” as actual murder because murder was contrary to the Mosaic law while “hateful anger” wasn’t. Ditto for “looking at woman lustfully” vs. “actually committing adultery”. Jesus’s point, then, was that sinfulness isn’t simply a matter of the Law, it’s a matter of the heart; actually acting on sinful thoughts isn’t really a requirement.
Now, have I seriously plotted killing 3000 people? No. Of course not. I’ve never even seriously considered a single person. But I have, for instance, wished bodily harm on drivers who I view as having mistreated me on the road. As a child I bullied those weaker than me for no other reason than that I hated the weakness they represented.
Solzhenitsyn’s point in that Gulag Archipelago quote is that every man bears within him the capacity for incredible atrocities, and that before we draw a line between “us” and “them”, we should consider that it’s only by the grace of God that we’re not the ones standing accused.
Different in what way? What are the criteria for trying someone as a war criminal?
As far as I know we don’t prosecute people for crimes committed on foreign soil, because that’s not the purview of U.S. courts. KSM is not on trial for whatever he did overseas, he’s on trial for what happened in NYC.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass writes; “You deny the capacity to sin when you state that certain types of sin render one ‘inhuman’”.
This makes no sense to me, Buddy. Please explain.
It was the extreme reality of their sin and the extent of their evil that indeed renders them inhuman. I am applying a moral dimention to the word human.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, I used the death penalty point, which was rooted in Scripture, to respond to your notion (which I believe to be incorrect) that my view of in inhumanity of the 9/11 terrorists was somehow not biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus’ comments in the Sermon on the Mount to his disciples about the problem of hating and lusting were addressed to those who actually struggle with their weaknesses related to sin. The 9/11 terrorists are far beyond any application to those discipling passages. They do not “struggle” with their sins at all–but celebrate & glorify them and consider them the highest form of godliness. That perverted point of view takes them beyond any application to Jesus’ teaching to his disciples in Matthew 5.
Report comment to moderator
You asked, “Different in what way?”
I have explained that already. He was picked up in Pakastan and he did his horrific evil as acts of war. He did the planning and conspiring and training not in America but in the Middle East — as an enemy combatant.
This is a job better given to our military courts.
Buddy Glass wrote; “As far as I know we don’t prosecute people for crimes committed on foreign soil, because that’s not the purview of U.S. courts.”
RIGHT! You have made my point. However, acts of war like those of KSM do indeed come under the perview of our military courts.
Report comment to moderator
What you’re essentially saying is that humans aren’t that bad. We do bad stuff, sure, but we’re not that bad. People who do really bad stuff aren’t like us; they’re “inhuman”.
What this ignores is the extent of man’s depravity. You’ve decided, seemingly arbitrarily, to reclassify those humans whose sins are sufficiently “spectacular” as non-humans. Thankfully, God doesn’t do this.
I still don’t understand how the death penalty is relevant to what we were discussing. That I’m arguing for their humanity doesn’t necessarily mean I believe they shouldn’t be put to death. Whether or not they should be put to death just seems like a total non sequitur.
Though, you’ve said something that’s interesting. Is this whole “you’re inhuman if you do something really bad” idea the basis for your support of the death penalty? That is to say, if you thought they were still human you might have a problem with executing them? But, since they’re not, you don’t?
Where you plan the crime is not relevant, since planning isn’t a crime. Actually committing a crime is. That still isn’t enough to distinguish this as a war crime. Another hypo:
I was born in the U.K and live in London. For whatever reason, I hate America. I consider myself to be at war with America, though nobody in America has ever heard of me. Because I’m not very bright, I decide that great work of anti-American aggression will be to kill Alex Rodriguez. Because, to me, he represents everything that’s despicable about America. So I meticulously plan out how I’m going to do it. Then I hire some guys to put my plan into action. They succeed. I’m them captured in London by CIA agents and whisked away to U.S. soil.
Am I a war criminal? I’m not a U.S. citizen. My planning was done overseas. I’m not a member of any nation that’s at war with the U.S., though I personally viewed myself as being at war. I was captured overseas. I orchestrated the murder of a civilian.
Uh…no. Here’s the relevant portion of the U.S. code. Specifically, section (b)(2) concerning co-conspirators. Some things to note about this:
1. The language starts out with “Whoever…”. Meaning “not just U.S. citizens”.
2. The language specifically states “conduct transcending national boundaries”. Meaning, some portion of the crime (possibly the planning) took place overseas, but the actual violence occurred in the U.S.
3. Section (b)(2) grants U.S. federal jurisdiction over any co-conspirators and principals.
I’m not a lawyer, but this section of law seems to deal specifically with cases like 9/11 and KSM.
By the way, this section was added in 1996 by H.R. 2703 and S.735, both of which were sponsored and pushed primarily by Republicans. The vote on H.R. 2703 was mainly partisan, with Republicans for and Democrats against.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass:
You raise some good points. (And, as an aside, your comments about the sin nature are spot on.) I said above that though I see the benefit of trying these men in the US and I think it’s a good decision, I would have no problem with them being tried before a military tribunal. I find your arguments compelling, though, so I want to poke at them a bit and see what they do.
You are arguing that 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war, so the men cannot be tried as enemy soldiers. Is the distinction that the men involved were not agents of a foreign nation on whom we had declared war? If the government of Afghanistan had ordered that attack, and we subsequently declared war on Afghanistan, then we could try those responsible before a military tribunal, right?
Now let’s change the scenario one variable at a time. Let’s assume for a minute that a nation can be at war with an international organization. If after 9/11, Congress made a formal declaration of war against Al Qaeda, then could we try the perpetrators in military courts?
And the last change is how it actually happened. Shirking their Constitutional responsibility, Congress instead passed an “Authorization of the Use of Force” granting the President broad authority to do pretty much what he pleased in combating terrorism. But no formal declaration of war. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq were covered under that Authorization.
This is entirely hypothetical, but what if Iraq actually had been involved in 9/11 in some way? Since we never formally declared war, if we captured on the battlefield an Iraqi general who conspired in the 9/11 attacks, would we be obligated to give him a civilian trial as well?
I’m trying to find the key distinction. Is it the formal declaration of war? Or that the accused must be the agent of a foreign nation?
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass (#90):
The U.S. Code you cited indicates that, according to U.S. law, civilian courts CAN certainly exercise jurisdiction over many of those prisoners now at Guantanamo. It does not however, state that civilian courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
There is obviously legal ground for trying these prisoners before military tribunals. In many cases, this has already been done; it is a fait accompli which has plainly stood up to legal challenges. With the military tribunals there is no injustice, no denial of human rights, no lack of adequate legal counsel for the prisoner, etc. Whether a prisoner is tried before a civilian court or a military tribunal, justice is served. So, basic justice is not the issue being debated here. To contend otherwise is, in my opinion, merely a defensible cover to disguise the politics that are at the root of the Holder decision.
The decision of the Obama administration to bring these trials to NY is a political decision made for political purposes. There is no wisdom in doing this IF your goal is objective justice. However, if your purpose is political, as I believe it is, then it does make some sense in a callous sort of way.
As I said in #32, Obama is willing to put the citizens of NY at risk for the sake of validating his personal politics on the war and its conduct. This completely unnecessary risk taking represents a callous disregard for the safety of American citizens. It is also irresponsible on the part of the man elected to provide for the defense and safety of our citizens.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass wrote; “What you’re essentially saying is that humans aren’t that bad.”
Buddy, you are clearly not willing to converse intelligently with me. You willfully distort my point in the most extremely opposite ways possible. Obviously, we are using the word “human” in totally different ways–yours is purely sterile and biological. Mine includes a moral aspect to it. It’s a common manner of speaking. Please don’t be so obtuse.
But my main point remains that is it unjust, wrong, ill-advised, overly political, and unnecessarily expensive & dangerous to try enemy combatants as if they were U.S. citizens with the rights and privileges that go with such a status.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy G wrote; “Where you plan the crime is not relevant, since planning isn’t a crime.”
Nonsense. Conspiracy to commit atrocities and crimes as well as support for those atrocities most certainly is not only a crime, but is in this case, an act of war.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!