This is repulsive [politics]

[Castout]

Republicans push to widen 'war on terror' detention

WASHINGTON (AFP) – One of President Barack Obama's top critics in the US Congress called for bolstering US powers to detain "war on terrorism" fighters -- including US citizens -- indefinitely and without trial.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101116/pl_afp/usattacksjusticepoliticscongress

[Rilder]

"without criminal charges and without trial" for the duration of the conflict,

Then all they have to do continue to insist the conflict isn't over with for the duration of the suspect(Or political enemy's) lifetime. :nope:

[Tribesman]

I wonder if Buck saw about his countries allies having to pay millions to suspected terrorists for dodgy the detention practices?

[Takeda Shingen]

I am failing to see how this will secure the border or reign in government spending, which were the hallmarks of their election, and items that we have heard little on. Instead, we get a largely empty token in the continued and failed war on terror. Perhaps John 'The American Dream' Boehner will weepily elaborate on how this will be the greatest thing to happen since the Declaration of Independence.

Typical Neo-Cons up to their typical garbage. It is becoming clearer that, as I have been saying for some time, these guys have learned nothing.

[mookiemookie]

I am failing to see how this will secure the border or reign in government spending, which were the hallmarks of their election, and items that we have heard little on. Instead, we get a largely empty token in the continued and failed war on terror. Perhaps John 'The American Dream' Boehner will weepily elaborate on how this will be the greatest thing to happen since the Declaration of Independence.

Typical Neo-Cons up to their typical garbage. It is becoming clearer that, as I have been saying for some time, these guys have learned nothing.

Tak, you're forgetting - it's different™ this time.

[Sailor Steve]

Tak, you're forgetting - it's different™ this time.
It always is. :dead:

[tater]

Lock 'em up until AQ unconditionally surrenders. That's what you do with POWs. They are held til the war is over, then repatriated.

[WarlordATF]

I totally agree with locking them up, however either they are POWs or Criminals and if they choose to call them Criminals then they deserve to know the charges against them and have a right to trial.

If POWs then they can be held until the war is over, but i think the war on terrorism will be just like the war on drugs and used as an excuse to keep it going forever.

Will we ever be safe from terrorists? No, but does that mean we should have a war on terror ongoing forever? We need a clear goal to this conflict instead of the aimless "War On" crap that Washington uses to get around the rules.

[tater]

I think we should declare the war vs a constellation of terrorist organizations (AQ and allies).

Criminal combatants (war criminals) can stand trial by military tribunal at any time, or after hostilities have ended (FDR bumped off nazi saboteurs, others were not tried til the wear was over).

[Castout]

War on terror will never stop ever. Al Qaeda didn't bring down only the twin trade center towers but American freedom with them as well.

It almost looked like that 9/11 benefited the agenda of some of these people who are now seeking detention without limit and without trial, a thing that would not be possible before 9/11.

Now who's going to play God and start accusing anybody they dislike as terrorist suspect?

Scary stuffs are developing in USA nowadays. I mean they are going to propose a martial law-like law to hold anybody against their will without proof without time limit and without trial? The Romans too did start with democracy but ended up with an emperor which in the early Christian time demanded to be regarded as God much to their detriment. This is disheartening even when it's just an idea.

[tater]

The simpler solution to stop the whining would be to not take prisoners. I'm fine with that, too. It's not a war we started, so I don't really care how long a few hundred guys get locked up.

Note that for all the whining about holding these jackasses, no one seems to have a problem with using actionable intelligence to put a JDAM, Tomahawk, or Hellfire into their hose/car/cave. The same idiots like Holder who wanted civil trials for these guys, where most evidence will be thrown out (this has already happened in one case by judge Kaplan) seem to forget that when they attack these same people that they grab up, they KILL THEM with no due process at all (as it should be).

Killing with no due process? Just fine. Imprisoning them? What a horror!

I'm fine with a step that works hard to determine anyone falsely locked up, but it cannot go to civilian courts.

[Ducimus]

War on terror will never stop ever.

Unfortunately this is true. At least I think it is. I know this is waxing philosophical, but terrorism in general, is brought about from a belief or ideal of some whackjob or another. Your not going to kill an idea with bullets. Kill one terrorist, another will just take his place.

So long as we treat or react to these criminals like their a sovereign nation instead of the unique type of thugs that they are, we will always be in a perpetual state of war, forever. I can't help but wonder who profits from that. :hmmm:

[the_tyrant]

Unfortunately this is true. At least I think it is. I know this is waxing philosophical, but terrorism in general, is brought about from a belief or ideal of some whackjob or another. Your not going to kill an idea with bullets. Kill one terrorist, another will just take his place.

So long as we treat or react to these criminals like their a sovereign nation instead of the unique type of thugs that they are, we will always be in a perpetual state of war, forever. I can't help but wonder who profits from that. :hmmm:

Kill one idea that uses terrorism, another one would come up to take its place

[tater]

Terrorism is a tactic.

AQ, and other Islamic literalists are the larger grouping we are at war with.

The trouble with the tactic is that virtually everything they do is against the rules of war. The rules exist to mitigate harm to noncombatants. By intentionally hiding among the innocent, they make our task very much more difficult. Since we want to break up threats with intelligence, we grab people up we should by all rights just be killing.

It's just not grandad's war.

Treating it as a criminal justice issue, OTOH, is a huge mistake. Killing 3000 is "professional" killing, and deserves a military response.

[Bubblehead1980]

I would be for this BUT US citizens should be excluded

[Rilder]

I can't help but wonder who profits from that. :hmmm:

The Ferengi.

[Platapus]

"Congress should ensure no court in the land questions the legal authority for our forces to prosecute this war," Republican Representative Buck McKeon, who is likely to become chair of the House Armed Services Committee next year.

That is one deeply disturbing statement for a member of Congress to make.

It is called the Supreme Court of the United States for a reason and it is in a separate branch of our government for a purpose.

Representative McKeon, does the following jog your memory?

"I, Howard Phillip McKeon, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

You will be saying these words in January. Perhaps you need to study them for a bit to make sure you understand these words.... all of them.

[tater]

COngress would do what he suggests by passing laws that would make it more clear. Or they could simply declare war on AQ and her allies. That would certainly be novel, but they would instantly become POWs to be held without trial until hostilities cease.

This does nothing to sidestep the SCOTUS. If the law they passed didn't pass muster, it would be struck down.

It's not like he's saying they should ignore the SCOTUS, just do what it is in their power to do, then the ball goes into the SCOTUS court.

[August]

Well wait a minute Platapus, making sure that no court will question their legal authority could be just another way of saying that they want to pass laws which will stand Constitutional muster.

Isn't that what the Legislative branch is supposed to be doing?

Edit: What Tater said too.

[Ducimus]

Treating it as a criminal justice issue, OTOH, is a huge mistake. Killing 3000 is "professional" killing, and deserves a military response.

Don't get me wrong, i don't think we should push them through the justice system. Far far FAR from it. I just think that strategically, were going about it the wrong way.

[Platapus]

Well wait a minute Platapus, making sure that no court will question their legal authority could be just another way of saying that they want to pass laws which will stand Constitutional muster.



I hope your interpretation is correct. :up:

[August]

I hope your interpretation is correct. :up:

Well if I'm not then the SJC shoots it down and we're back to square one. Our republic is strong enough to withstand it either way.

[TLAM Strike]

The Ferengi.

Ah Rule of Acquisition 34...

I would be for this BUT US citizens should be excluded

I agree I think in such cases they should be tried as traitors and shot...

[Armistead]

I guess a sad fact in any war a percentage of innocent people will suffer so the majority can move on. However, often it's more racism or ideals of the powerful doing as they please over the weak.

In the end we know one thing for sure, Corporations are making billions off these two wars. We fought and won WW2 in 4 years and now we can't defeat two third world nations...,,,something fishy.

Blackwater Corp now Xe is not far from where I live, they made over 150 million in profit alone off Iraq. Not many complain, since they're the only ones hiring around here. You ought to see some of the houses the CEO's have built in the mountains here, I'm talking fortresses. I worked on one. Strange, the CEO's keep more bodyguards than the President. Some of em are nuts, preparing for the second coming to fight the antichrist...

[tater]

Ahmed Ghailani was found not guilty of each of the over 280 counts against him — save one — in the first civilian trial of a Gitmo detainee conducted by the Obama administration.

The Kenya/Tanzania bombings.

WTG team Obama!

The guy had already confessed, and would have been dead by now with a military tribunal. That and other evidence thrown out of court. Guilty as hell, never should have been in civil court.

[FIREWALL]

Republicans push to widen 'war on terror' detention





http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101116/pl_afp/usattacksjusticepoliticscongress

Castout since you know I consider you a friend I won't come back with a kneejerk response.

Just what should my country do to protect itself from terrorism ?

[Aramike]

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I do think there should be hearings to determine whether or not there is ample evidence that each individual is indeed a terrorist fighter or collaborator, and each case should be revisted, say, biannually.

[FIREWALL]

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I do think there should be hearings to determine whether or not there is ample evidence that each individual is indeed a terrorist fighter or collaborator, and each case should be revisted, say, biannually.

Please say who your responding to and explain what you mean.

Your thoughts are important. :salute:

[the_tyrant]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but terrorists don't dress in uniforms
Doesn't that mean they are not protected by laws of war?
can't we just execute them on the spot?

[tater]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but terrorists don't dress in uniforms
Doesn't that mean they are not protected by laws of war?
can't we just execute them on the spot?

The GC has since been reinterpreted. Back in the day it was a reciprocal agreement between Great Powers and their client states. The language still sows this as it enumerates how combatants, POWs and non-combatrants should be treated, but then goes on to define who is a POW worthy of proper treatment. If anyone was, then no need to mention badges of rank, uniforms, etc.

This was at a time where any police force on Earth would have routinely "tuned up" perps to interrogate them. Even in the US, with Constitutional protections, a large number of perps must have "fallen" in their cells and hit the toilet (that's where the black eye came from, really!).

Nowadays, summary execution isn't likely to happen, unlike, say WW2, where it was still common—on the Axis side because they were, well, evil, and on the Allied side because it was widely understood that people that violated the rules abrogated any agreement to reciprocal good behavior.

Bottom line is that the US cannot, and will not summarily execute them. This is a step forward, frankly. That said, there is every reason that ANY trial should be military tribunal because of civilian evidentiary rules. Once you head to civilian court you get in trouble for not Mirandizing these pieces of s***. Dunno what the Administration was thinking. Obama has ordered drone strikes, and other attacks on high-value targets. He has killed people with no due process, yet wants those we bothered to grab up alive (sometimes at a cost in American lives that would not have been incurred with a JDAM) to be tried in such a way that LOSING is a large possibility.

Insanity.

The left should dig military tribunals, they worked for the next most left President, FDR, just fine (course he threw people in camps for the wrong last name, too).

[Aramike]

Please say who your responding to and explain what you mean.

Your thoughts are important. :salute:Important my eye... :O:

Here's my humble opinion: our legal system was not set up to address the criminal who is a part of any massive, ongoing conspiracy designed to cause continuous harm and, ultimately, the complete destruction of the system itself.

Think about that for a moment, if you will - if, outside the context of terrorism, I said that there was an effort to undermine, damage, and destroy our very way of life would you actually find that to be criminal?

Seems like an act of war to me.

However, it really isn't. Terrorists are no more capable of waging war on us than, say, Haiti. Ultimately, this is something new we're facing.

So, it makes no sense to treat this as a traditional war. Furthermore, it makes even less sense to treat this as merely criminal. So what do we do?

My personal suggestion is the creation of a specific code of justice pertaining to terrorism, but alas, that is not on the agenda. However, in the mean time, it seems to me to make sense that we assure that people with a single-minded drive to do harm to us are unable to do so.

Hence, I am in favor of indefinite detention - so long as the cases are reviewed regularly and fairly, until which time we develop a code of justice pertaining specifically to the treatment of known terrorists. All cases should be subject to regular review.

Furthermore, I think our legal system, in cases of terrorism by non-citizens, should adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" policy so long as the charges are able to pass a judicial evidentiary hearing perhaps presided over by a grand jury.

That's what I meant. I doubt you'd want the long, mundane details of how I believe the judicial code should be revised regarding terrorism, but if you do, let me know.

[Castout]

Castout since you know I consider you a friend I won't come back with a kneejerk response.

Just what should my country do to protect itself from terrorism ?



You see sooner or later someone's going to abuse the war on terror and the victims would be innocent Americans. To make sure that the law doesn't get abused the law should be made so that the innocent should be able to defend their case reasonably against the charges brought against them. It's called justice and not purge. If you are being indiscriminate against all terror suspect including Americans who may not be guilty at all or even any citizenship then by what moral authority do you stand against the very terrorist you claim to make war with?

[FIREWALL]

For the two PMs you sent me I'm quite disappointed with you Firewall.


You see sooner or later someone's going to abuse the war on terror and the victims would be innocent Americans. To make sure that the law doesn't get abused the law should be made so that the innocent should be able to defend their case reasonably against the charges brought against them. It's called justice and not purge. If you are being indiscriminate against all terror suspect including Americans who may not be guilty at all then by what moral authority do you stand against the very terrorist you claim to make war with?

I think you misunderstood me. In these dangerous times how do we solve this and, make everyone happy.

Who knows, if we all discuss this we may come up with an answer.

[Aramike]

I think you misunderstood me. In these dangerous times how do we solve this and, make everyone happy.

Who knows, if we all discuss this we may come up with an answer.No such thing as making everyone happy. The best we can do is find a method that works and serves the common good and the core values we have instituted.

[FIREWALL]

No such thing as making everyone happy. The best we can do is find a method that works and serves the common good and the core values we have instituted.

I go along with you Aramike. :yep: What is the best method that most Americans can live with ?

[Tribesman]

Ahmed Ghailani was found not guilty of each of the over 280 counts against him — save one — in the first civilian trial of a Gitmo detainee conducted by the Obama administration.

The Kenya/Tanzania bombings.

WTG team Obama!

The guy had already confessed, and would have been dead by now with a military tribunal. That and other evidence thrown out of court. Guilty as hell, never should have been in civil court.
Way to go, a conviction, 20-life. :woot:
About time this long running farce got a result:up:
Its amazing that you somehow have a wierd faith in military tribunals to get results as despite the whole pile of problems faced with trying to make them actually legal in the first place they have so far managed to get one plea bargain and two failures.

So your grand solution is instead of going for a course which looks likely to hand down a life term is to rather take a course which resulted in two total failures and one plea bargain term of less than a years jailtime.
Is their any particular reason you wish to follow the route of failure?:doh:

Once you head to civilian court you get in trouble for not Mirandizing these pieces of s***.
And there was me thinking the problem with the court and evidence was bugger all to do with Miranda as evidence gained without the reading may still be admissable.
The actual problem here was the use of torture and the fact that most of the "evidence" was obtained by a police force which the US state dept. puts on its yearly list of really dodgy police who make up evidence and force false confessions by torturing people.

[Skybird]

Guilt must not just be assumed or claimed - guilt and/or responsibility must be proven.

"Pressumed innocent as long as not proven guilty" is an inevitable pillar of Western justice systems that separates a police-state's arbitrariness from justice.

Rumours, hear-say and suggestions that a suspect is guilty, is no replacement for proving guilt. Claims that so9mebody would not be held by the military or the police if he were not guilty, are not only circular logic, but illustrate a deeply worrying lack of care and an as deeply worrying, unfounded blind trust in these organisations. But hierarchical organisations like these are runb by humans and thus they are as prone to human flaws, errors and corrupt decisions, like any other - you never should trust blindly.

Holding people in captivcity without being able to prove their guilt, is a sign of a dictatorship both in that it can be done without society and government objecting, and in that the intention is illustrated to act that arbitrarily.

Protecting intel sources which would get compromised if evidence needs to be shown to prove a suspect'S guilt, is not acceptable in that intelligence preventing a fundamental principle of the justice system does not serve peace, freedom and democracy, but tyranny - it is the intel of a policestate, then. That can be a dilemma, yes. But who said life is easy.

Police work done at home, suspects captured in own home nation, is not comparable to a shooting war at the frontline in another country.

Suspects held by the military, also need to be proven guilty within a reasonable timeframe. Else the miliutary behaves as a tyrant and a threat to freedom itself.

"Guilt must be proven". That is as simple a truth as is "Waterboarding and implementing agony on a subject is torture". It is disgusting to weasel around these simple truths.

And some people here give me the feeiling that they have not understood the difference between law-and-order, and revenge.

[Castout]

I agree with your point Skybird.


If US wanted revenge the way would be through CIA and not legal system. And once done it's done imo. Hasn't the war in Afghanistan and Iraq been enough already. And if not then the question then is why? and what kind of retribution that hasn't been done and when exactly would it end?


Going berserk is not a solution it's a desperation and a sign of frustration.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/Twintower.jpg

[the_tyrant]

terrorism would win in the short term, but they would lose in the long term
Why?
because they are indiscriminate
for the US, only some islamic people are considered "bad"
for them, everybody with a different religion is considered "bad"

therefore, terrorists could nuke Washington DC, but the US could not nuke Mecca

in the short term, indiscriminate warfare could work, but in the long term it would only reduce their support and ability to continue the war

therefore, i believe that the US should not detain everybody that has even the slightest ties to terrorism, but instead treat convicted terrorists horribly. A firring squad is too good for them, they should be executed with even worse methods

[August]

And some people here give me the feeiling that they have not understood the difference between law-and-order, and revenge.

Says the guy who once wrote right here on this board that he favored killing the wives and children of foreign potentates in order to teach them a lesson. Why the sudden concern for our enemies rights?

[mookiemookie]

Says the guy who once wrote right here on this board that he favored killing the wives and children of foreign potentates in order to teach them a lesson. Why the sudden concern for our enemies rights?

That ad hominem doesn't address his very well reasoned points.

The justice system, and indeed our entire political system, was originally set up to discourage individual abuses of power. It's the reasoning behind checks and balances. If you institute a justice system that has the right to unilaterally imprison people indefinitely under the assumption of guilt then the individual holds too much power over the system. It becomes subject to the whims and caprices of the individual. It goes entirely against how our country was established.

[Skybird]

I said that potentators must be made feeling the price of sanctions against them, in case of wars against their countries: targetting their families for example (while often civil populations gets bombed or at least "collateralised" without discrimination, while the families of those ruling often get explicitly saved from targetting).

I also said that one should not just ignore family members that can take revenge against yourself in case you killed the chieftain of the gang because he was a leading figure of the regime. At least those who likely have been risen and educated in the same mental attiotude like the - father or husband you had targetted.

And in my previous post in this thread I said that frontline action in a war does not compare to the policework needed to be done in your own nation in order to catch a criminal, since waging war does not compare to the instruments of enforcing law and order by the means of a justice system.

Finally, "potentators" refers to figures whose guilt and record is obvious and proven.

I see you are still good at your favourite hobby, August: turning words & manipulative quoting.

[August]

That ad hominem doesn't address his very well reasoned points.

Perhaps that's because my post wasn't intended to address them mookie. (please note my very clever use of the question mark). All I wanted to know was how his willingness to murder innocent people jibes with his demand that we afford our enemies the standards and protections we afford our own citizens.

Is that really, as he says: "turning words & manipulative quoting", or is it just that he doesn't like it when people point out his contradictions? You decide.

[tater]

He should have gotten 280 counts of murder, and he should be on death row. A minor conviction is not a win.

As for his confession, he was not waterboarded. The other enhanced interrogation techniques are not even close to waterboarding—which is the only EIT that you can even make an argument is torture. BTW, to be torture is has to cause "severe" physical or psychological harm, which is certainly grey enough to be debatable. The other EITs, again, and not even close to waterboarding, though.

Regardless, the same government (Clinton, Bush, then Obama) have killed people with no due process as a matter of course. Actionable intell, cruise-missle/JDAM through roof. Actionable intell, guy grabbed up at great risk to troops... that's "bad." I guess we can learn the lesson not to take prisoners, and simply kill anyone even suspected, instead.

Lower sentences for military tribunals should give lie to the notion that it is some sort of conspiracy to murder them. Bottom line is that virtually all evidence must be thrown out in a civil court, and certainly everything after they were captured since they were not Mirandized.

If these guys deserve constitutional protections, why are we allowed to summarily execute them? Shouldn't we need to convict them before dropping the JDAM?

[mookiemookie]

Perhaps that's because my post wasn't intended to address them mookie. (please note my very clever use of the question mark). All I wanted to know was how his willingness to murder innocent people jibes with his demand that we afford our enemies the standards and protections we afford our own citizens.

Is that really, as he says: "turning words & manipulative quoting", or is it just that he doesn't like it when people point out his contradictions? You decide.

I think it's better to address the argument than to sling mud at the person making it. Even if someone's being a hypocrite, it's still better to take the high road. It's hard to do, but it's something we should aspire to.

[tater]

BTW, as I said in other threads, and up in this one, we should have declared war on AQ, allied terrorist organizations, and any nation abetting them back in late 2001 (when it would have sailed through with 100% support ('cept maybe some idiots like Maxine Waters)).

This was a major failure of the Bush Administration, and the Congressional leadership, IMO.

It would have clarified so many things and it would have been the right thing to do.

[August]

I think it's better to address the argument than to sling mud at the person making it. Even if someone's being a hypocrite, it's still better to take the high road. It's hard to do, but it's something we should aspire to.

I thought I was giving him an opportunity to explain the apparent contradiction. Instead he chooses to act offended and you choose to support the contradiction. Oh well.

[mookiemookie]

I thought I was giving him an opportunity to explain the apparent contradiction. Instead he chooses to act offended and you choose to support the contradiction. Oh well.

I didn't support anything. I said that I think it's best that we avoid ad hominem fallacies and actually address the points of the argument being made. You don't seem to agree. That says a lot about you.

[Tribesman]

As for his confession, he was not waterboarded. The other enhanced interrogation techniques are not even close to waterboarding—which is the only EIT that you can even make an argument is torture.
Same old rubbish with you trying to justify the unjustifiable, its a really simple matter tater. If the US calls it torture when other countries do it then its torture when they do it.
Besides which he was held first by Pakistan and then in secret prisons so your saying anything about what methods may have been used either on him or on any of the others whose testimony was refused means absolutely nothing as on top of trying to justify the unjustifiable to are attempting to justify things you don't even know about.

BTW, as I said in other threads, and up in this one, we should have declared war on AQ, allied terrorist organizations, and any nation abetting them back in late 2001 (when it would have sailed through with 100% support ('cept maybe some idiots like Maxine Waters)).


What a novel concept, a state declaring a war on a non state actor.
How exactly would that work?
Allied terrorist organisations and any nation abetting......wouldn't that mean the US had to declare war on itself?

I thought I was giving him an opportunity to explain the apparent contradiction.
You are going to end up as a member on Skys ignore list:rotfl2:

[tater]

Yeah such a war declaration would indeed be novel, but it's a novel war. Coming up with a formal declaration is clearly superior to waging war with no declaration.

As for water boarding, this guy wasn't, and I don't think he even claims he was. As for the pakis, what they do is not my problem.

[August]

I didn't support anything. I said that I think it's best that we avoid ad hominem fallacies and actually address the points of the argument being made. You don't seem to agree. That says a lot about you.

So your way of pointing out my ad hominem attack is by making your own?

I'll quote myself seeing as how you ignored it:

All I wanted to know was how his willingness to murder innocent people jibes with his demand that we afford our enemies the standards and protections we afford our own citizens

Now either it does or it doesn't jibe but i'd rather have Skybird make his own arguments instead of you trying (and failing) to make them for him.

[Tribesman]

Yeah such a war declaration would indeed be novel, but it's a novel war.
What on earth makes this terrorism any different from a hundred years of terrorism?

As for the pakis,
pakis eh....classy.


what they do is not my problem.
Errrrr....what they and others do is a major part of the problem just as much as what the CIA does is a major part of the problem, which is why you should be happy that any conviction at all was gained as its the long running habit of ignoring legal problems that has been the key element of the farce
Funnily enough its the reason why you are sitting there moaning about the outcome as you support the stupidity that leads to the outcome you are moaning about.

[mookiemookie]

ow either it does or it doesn't jibe but i'd rather have Skybird make his own arguments instead of you trying (and failing) to make them for him.

You're skewing the argument away from the subject at hand (how to prosecute terrorists/enemy combatants) and making it about Skybird. I called you out on it. Deal with it.

[August]

You're skewing the argument away from the subject at hand (how to prosecute terrorists/enemy combatants) and making it about Skybird. I called you out on it. Deal with it.

Yeah whatever.

[Aramike]

I go along with you Aramike. :yep: What is the best method that most Americans can live with ?I made my suggestion. What do you think?

[tater]

Great stuff by Andy McCarthy (who knows more than a little about trying terrorists in civilian court):

Obama officials are now complaining about “torture.” Their spin
today is that we were lucky to get the one conviction we got given that the
Bush administration abused the defendant, resulting in the suppression of
evidence. Of course, this does not match up with statements they’ve been
making for months, expressing complete confidence in their ability to get a
just result. Nor does it jibe with the facts that this case was indicted years
before there was a 9/11 or a Bush administration, and that the government in
2001 managed to get sweeping convictions against four terrorists based on
the case as it existed in 1999.

The brute fact here is that DOJ got unlucky. Jury selection is tricky, and
prosecutors ended up with a bad juror who refused to deal rationally with the
evidence. When that happens, you either get a mistrial or the jurors
compromise in a way that can be unsavory. That is not the Bush
administration’s fault.

Speaking of unsavory, though, the Obama Justice Department took a
calculated risk, they’ve gotten burned on it, and it’s scape-goating to try to
shift the spotlight to the Bush counterterrorism tactics. Judge Lewis Kaplan’s
pretrial ruling, denying prosecutors the ability to call a key witness (who sold
Ghailani TNT), was very questionable. The Justice Department could have
appealed it, but elected not to. DOJ decided to roll the dice with what was left
of the case.

That they lost does not necessarily mean it was a bad gamble. The case they
put on clearly persuaded most of the jurors, and who knows whether the TNT
witness would have brought the loopy juror around? But let’s face it: in opting
against appeal, the Justice Department left itself vulnerable to the claim that
it failed to do everything it could have done to try to bring its best case.

Judge Kaplan’s ruling might have been upheld, but that’s anything but clear.
Ghailani was not tortured by the CIA – in fact, he wasn’t even water-boarded.
He was surely coerced in an aggressive way that would have made his
confession inadmissible. But there’s a big difference between using a coerced
confession against someone (which was not done) and calling a witness the
government learns about by coercion. The witness’s testimony is not scripted
by the confession – the witness has to come to court separately, provide
information from his perspective (not the defendant’s), be subjected to cross
examination, etc. Plus, even if you think the CIA’s tactics (whatever they
were) went too far, Ghailani was later interviewed by the FBI and repeated
the same information, under gentler questioning.

Judge Kaplan assumed that the alien terrorist had a Fifth Amendment
privilege, and the Obama administration does not seem to have contested
that assumption. This led the judge to conclude that the “fruit of the
poisonous tree” doctrine applied. To permit the witness’s testimony, Kaplan
reasoned, would violate Ghailani’s purported Fifth Amendment rights – i.e.,
evidence traceable to the CIA’s interrogation would be introduced against
him. But there was nothing “poisonous” about what the CIA did – they were
not rogue cops kicking down an American citizen’s door without a warrant;
they were gathering life-saving intelligence from a foreign enemy during
wartime. And, again, a witness’s testimony is not really the “fruit” of that
tree; it is related but independent in a way the substance of the confession is not.

I think the administration should have appealed and should not have
conceded Ghailani full Fifth Amendment protection. But reasonable minds can
differ, including about whether the appeal would have been successful,
whether further delay would have damaged the case (given the difficulty of
getting testimony from Kenya and Tanzania about events that happened a
dozen years ago), and whether even a successful appeal and the TNT
witness’s testimony would have made a difference to the juror who needed
convincing. Americans would have a lot more respect for the Obama
administration if it forthrightly explained the difficult choices it had to make
rather than dragged out that grating retread: It’s all Bush’s fault.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253577/one-more-ghailani-mr-president-stop-blaming-bush-andy-mccarthy

McCarthy also says the guy is gonna spend life in prison for that one count, and that some on the right are accusing Holder of stuff he had nothing to do with (the indictment was handed down before 911, after all).

[Tribesman]

the government in
2001 managed to get sweeping convictions against four terrorists based on
the case as it existed in 1999.


Thats the main point of it all, it was easier to btring people to justice before some idiots tried to take shortcuts under the illusion that it would make it easier.
Worldwide there are terrorists simply walking free from court because either the evidence has become screwed by the short cuts some fools introduced, or because the government simply refuses to show the evidence.

[Soundman]

Unfortunately this is true. At least I think it is. I know this is waxing philosophical, but terrorism in general, is brought about from a belief or ideal of some whackjob or another. Your not going to kill an idea with bullets. Kill one terrorist, another will just take his place.

So long as we treat or react to these criminals like their a sovereign nation instead of the unique type of thugs that they are, we will always be in a perpetual state of war, forever. I can't help but wonder who profits from that. :hmmm:

I could not agree more Ducimus. Trying to defeat terrorism is like trying to remove cockroaches from the entire earth. It's not going to happen. However, it is possible to control a population of cockroaches in your home and that's how we need to look at this. I'm a strong beleiver in a good offense, but in this case, stomping on them won't fix the problem. The best approach for us is to defend our borders best we can and keep as many as possible from entering the country and invest more in intelligence.

[Castout]

Trying to remove terrorism is like trying to extinguish crimes.

There MUST be a system put up and NOT anarchy to handle the issue.