Security threats inside and out for 9/11 trial

How does President Bush need to be vindicated?

 

No, the blah blah blah line was tried in the 90's and didn't work. I think they made it into a car commercial.

 

1. I was not around during that time and I do have friends who's parents were in them. In retrospect, they were probably unfair. At the time with that political climate though, they may have been appropriate.

2. If it was a lone citizen, then I would say standard court. If this citizen was part of a large terrorist organization, I would say that their aggression is an act of war and they should be tried as a war criminal.

 

The facts are that we have to work within our legal system in order to prosecute these terrorist because that is the system we have built. We can't just skirt the law any time we feel like it. That is pretty much akin to forming a lynch mob and stringing folks up.

Now the other thing I would bring up is, that the Obama administration most likely would not be bringing this to a civiliian trial unless they are sure they would win. Taking these criminals down in a trial in the USA actually sends the message that we want to send to the terrorist. We want the terrorist not known as freedom fighters in a war, but we want them to be known as vile criminals.

We are not at war. We are using our army to fight a vast organized crime organization because our police have no power there. If you go through Afghan towns, you cannot tell between civilizan and Taliban/AlQaida. That is what criminals do. Hide in plain site, and comitt their crimes. When fighting a war, you face troops backed by another government. That is not the case here.

 

1. Well I don't expect you'd be around during that time, I doubt most people were. Perhaps Denny can enlighten us? So, because of the political climate, they were appropriate? Let me just clarify here because this is an important point. If I'm reading you correctly you're saying that if people in the country feel, politically, like there is a danger from any group of citizens, then it's appropriate to "jail" them up en masse, without trial, in a makeshift camp in the desert?

2. "Part of a large terrorist organization"...hrm, ok, so what level are they part of it to where they deserve that? If they are a common grunt, or just the leaders? Again, to clarify, you're saying that US citizens who commit criminal acts who also coincidentally are part of terrorist organizations (as defined by what you don't specify) should be tried in a military court outside of the standard justice system afforded citizens?

 

Our military were holding these detainees. Other terrorists have been prosecuted and will be prosecuted in military tribunals. They asked for coverage under the Geneva Convention, which covers war crimes.

That's immaterial. What is material is that KSM won't be on trial, but the Bush Administration and the CIA.

That's a stupid message. The message we should be sending to terrorists is that if you commit a terrorist act, no matter where you are, we will capture you, interrogate you harshly and then kill you.

We are at war. We were attacked as a country. It doesn't matter there isn't a nation state behind it. They are not simple criminals; these people have declared themselves soldiers in a war against the West.

 

At that time, perhaps. Again, I do not know enough about that time period to make a conclusion. It was vastly different than it was now and we were engaged in a world war. I supported additional security screenings for all middle easterners after 9/11 because I believed in the mantra of "if the shoe fits". It sucks, but if it keeps things safe, I'm fine with it.

 

Yes. If they commit acts of treason, such as planning and executing a terrorist attack, I feel they should be tried outside of the standard justice system.

 

Yea those are all great thoughts, if you live by redneck law. By giving the terrorist trial in the military you legitimize their force, and recognize them as a politicial force. By treating them like criminals, you don't give them any legitimate credentials and show them as the criminals they truly are. Political movements gain support. Criminal movements do not. By blackening their image through out the world, you are able to drain off of their support.

2ndly. If the CIA and George Bush didn't do anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. If they did, then they really should have thought over the way they handled things. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. We are no better than them if we sink down to their level. What do they do? Terrorize people. Kidnap people. Torture people. If we do the same, we are no better. If we didn't want them to get to trial, we should have killed them in combat.

Lastly, my statement wasn't immaterial. You can try to dismiss it all you want. It is valid. You may not agree with me, and you can state that. But that doesn't make my statement immaterial.

 

I'm a master of disguise.

 

You and I have very different ideas on how terrorists should be treated. I admire your naivete.

Oh, dear. At least you've put your hatred for the previous Administration on the table. My guess is you would be fine with a lengthy discussion of our tactics, methods and confidential sources being revealed in an open court. I prefer to thank our military and the CIA for keeping us safe for all these years. It's not like the terrorists stopped trying to attack us.

As for the "we're no better than the terrorists" line, do you really believe that? When did we indiscriminately attack positions where only civilians were? When did we seek to maximize casualities? When did we seek to terrorize for the sake of terror? When did we cut off the heads of innocent civilians on video? We're a damn sight better than those people. I'm sorry you don't agree.

Tough luck for you. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, said several times today in testifying to the US Senate, "I know we are at war". Hmm, who do I believe? You or our Attorney General, who would benefit greatly from playing down the idea that we're at war? If even he admits it, it pretty well must be true.

 

Our friend, Pat Buchanan's take:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268

 

Nice poopaganda Crane. Terrorist armed with honey bears are coming, watch out.

 

Do you see the slippery slope that one could be on if you allowed US citizens to be tried by military courts because the government arbitrarily found them dangerous or a threat?

How is this not corresponding in your opinion with various totalitarian governments that have operated in the world?

 

There's nothing arbitrary about killing 3,000 people and planning in a terrorist organization to continue these activities.

 

I'm just going to presume you weren't following my question, so let me re-state again.

You have agreed that US citizens, not just foreign citizens, should be subjected to military tribunals if they are part of a "larger terrorist organization" or involved in activities

.

So, if these people are going to be tried by military tribunal and the normal laws of evidence need not apply, then what's to stop the government from holding citizens who the government arbitrarily decides are a threat and have them tried and punished by the military?

 

That's a joke, right?

 

Nothing is going to stop them, I suppose, except common sense and the discretion of the Attorney General and/or other branches of the government.

You seem to be stuck on the train of thought that just because someone is anti-goverment and a perceived threat, that they would somehow fall under this umbrella.

My criteria fell under treasonous acts and mass, organized plots to overthrow and disrupt the government while killing thousands of citizens, in which my view is a group waging war against the U.S. Government.

You, on the other hand, try to trivialize it into someone with a blog with anti-government sentiment being dragged away into some draconian system of justice.