The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein , getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures of his execution .
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they simply dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
_____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
doggy, take a deep breath and stop and think. Get beyond your hysteria, read this and tell me what is wrong with this article written by a very prestigious politician.
Are we at war -- or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies -- that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?
Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?
How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?
Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?
And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?
There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.
If the trial is held in lower Manhattan, how much security will be needed to protect against a car bomber who wants the world to see a mighty blow struck against the Great Satan? And if, as some suggest, the trial should be held on Governor's Island, would that not make the United States look like a nation under siege?
What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?
In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.
The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.
> The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein , > getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures > of his execution .
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
> DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
> The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they simply > dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
> Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
> Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and > does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
there was a time when I placed you in the wacko pile. That is when you insisted you knew me. BTW when are you going to admit you don't?
Well in the case of this trial I must move you into the braindead pile. Do you not really see how no good can come from this? This matter 100% should stay a military issue. There is zero reason to move him away from the military courts and less reason to transfer him NYC.
Come on even you should know this has nothing to do with party issues.
________________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
> The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein , > getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak > pictures > of his execution .
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
> DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
> The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they > simply > dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
> Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
I'm positive the anti-death penalty movement will get a flood of followers as the right wing moves and maneuvers its spineless shape shifters to destroy this trial and its inevitable outcome.
K9way wrote: > The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein , > getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures > of his execution .
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
> DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
Um... That was a military tribunal. An accounting of facts, not a trial of innocence, or presumption of innocence.
The accounting was made, a retribution required, and carried out.
This was NOT what the right is complaining about.
The right is complaining about giving a trial based on presumption of innocence to prevent the tyranny of government. That the tyranny is so aweful, that sometimes the guilty go free. That our entire process is constantly under scrutiny to prevent tyranny. Because it continues to exist (the judge that was sending kids to the corporate prison because of kickbacks), and the tyranny must always be looked for, even if the guilty walk free.
That is NOT what the trial in IRAQ was, it is NOT what we should be doing with KSM. KSM, should have a good ol Nuremberg/Iraq accounting, and retribution. This is what countries do in cases like this.
> The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein , > getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures > of his execution .
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
> DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
> The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they simply > dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
> Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
> Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and > does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
> _____________________________________________________________________ > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
Agreed it is very smart and the only fair thing to do. It is going to finally be shown that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. He was railroaded in the beginning and then tortured and tortured until he finally confessed. It’s time for some of the Bush/Cheney crimes to come out into the light of day.
> On Nov 21, 7:29 am, "K9way" <ad14...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > > The Bush administration made a huge deal out of capturing Hussein , > > getting him on trial , and then they even set up a system to leak pictures > > of his execution .
> > NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN , THIS ISNT ACCEPTABLE FOR KSM ?
> > DOES THE RIGHT HAVE ANY STANDARDS?
> > The righties arent concerened about security or the costs . they simply > > dont want Obama to have this victory on his resume
> > Just one more thing thay can fear !!!
> > Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and > > does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
> Agreed it is very smart and the only fair thing to do. It is going to > finally be shown that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. He was > railroaded in the beginning and then tortured and tortured until he > finally confessed. It’s time for some of the Bush/Cheney crimes to > come out into the light of day.
Even if a confession was obtained by torture and even if he is innocent he would get convicted in an American court. Are you kidding? He's an Arab.
In any case he's claiming responsibility for 9/11. And, apparently, every other act of terrorism in the last 10 years.
_____________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Once again we find the right-wingers gagging; retching; flopping around on the floor; convulsing because Obama and Americans Democratic representatives moves forward with his promised changes and a show trial for the world to see. The best the wounded neocons can do is bitch venue.
Hate Sarah? Hell Sarah and the neocons hate America and what she stands for. They hate the facts of justice.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Racist is Politically Correct. Politically Correct is racist.
>Once again we find the right-wingers gagging; retching; flopping around on >the floor; convulsing because Obama and Americans Democratic representatives >moves forward with his promised changes and a show trial for the world to >see. The best the wounded neocons can do is bitch venue.
>Hate Sarah? Hell Sarah and the neocons hate America and what she stands for. >They hate the facts of justice.
>Jerry 'n Vegas
>- Racist is Politically Correct. Politically Correct is racist.
Jerry! Jerry!
While I'm not a medical professional, I do recognize the signs.
You need to immediately go and get a wet washcloth, lay down in a dark room, and place the washcloth on your forehead.
If you don't do that, you are in great danger of having your head explode.
Thats right, it's all about Obama. nevermind the people and families who were actually involved. Eric Holder's Baffling KSM Decision The attorney general's Senate testimony this week did nothing to reassure the families of 9/11's victims. a.. By DAVID BEAMER On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Attorney General Eric Holder about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. As the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93, I was able to attend that hearing. What transpired caused me great concern and shook my confidence in our current administration.
The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the division in our country not only visually-the Democrats were seated on the left and the Republicans on the right-but in every aspect of the proceedings. I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and that others would have challenging questions about his decision. What I did not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the majority party. It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty is trumping concern for America's security interests.
In his opening remarks, Attorney General Holder acknowledged that these defendants could have been brought to trial in civilian court or before military tribunals. But he made the argument that trying them in our criminal courts would restore the integrity of our judicial system. He assured us that the trials would be quick, that the safety of New Yorkers would be paramount, that classified information would not be revealed, that the evidence was overwhelming, and that justice would be served.
Then he said that the USS Cole attackers would be tried in military courts since they attacked our military. So how does Mr. Holder categorize the Pentagon? Inexplicably, he offered up the body count of 9/11, the fact that civilian deaths outnumbered military ones, as a rationale for his decision.
Then the Republican members proceeded to ask Mr. Holder thoughtful questions. Some examples:
How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty? Given that criminal courts are now the presumed venue for those captured on the battlefield, will soldiers need to read them their rights at the time of capture? Since you wish to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the presumed civil venue, don't all those captured need to be read their rights and have the opportunity to remain silent? Won't this venue expose intelligence to our enemies? Can our classified information really be secured? Can we in fact predict how the judge will rule? If these people are brought into the country will they get additional rights under immigration law? What if they claim asylum?
The attorney general seemed bewildered in the face of these inquiries. Recurring themes in his responses included "I think," and "I can't imagine," and "I am not an expert in immigration."
Has our attorney general not considered these issues, or imagined the possible unintended consequences that will arise from his historic decision? It certainly seemed that way. If he had, he would have had better answers.
A second shocker: Mr. Holder said that he and his boss had not spoken in person about this decision. This matter only involves upholding the constitutional rights of Americans, establishing a precedent with battlefield impact, and the safety and security of our citizens in a time of war. What are the criteria to make something a priority with President Barack Obama? How can it be that this matter didn't make the cut?
The Democrats used much of their questioning time to heap praise upon Mr. Holder. They all repeated the same trope: We'll show the world that America can conduct these trials openly in criminal courts. And we'll be successful, even as we convey rights to the defendants that are not warranted.
Since when has "show the world" been a primary objective?
No thoughtful questions from the majority party regarding this decision were forthcoming. Their questions mostly addressed other matters. They discussed overcrowding in our prisons (too many drug criminals being sentenced), asked why none of the $500 million in appropriations have helped the rape-kit processing backlog, and inquired about when recommendations for additional staff would be presented for confirmation. Their lack of attention to the pressing matter at hand suggested apathy.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) did ask a question about how much the trials will cost. Clearly there will be expense incurred if this does go to trial in New York City. The early, and by no means complete, estimate is that it will cost $75 million for the first year. Mr. Schumer did not express any concern about the costs involved but only asked the attorney general for assurance that all would be covered by federal funds. This question was promptly and explicitly answered in the affirmative by Mr. Holder. After all, this is a rather modest amount by Washington standards.
Our enemies must be thrilled. We are willingly handing them an opportunity to inflict economic harm on New York City, keep their cause in the headlines, gather new intelligence, create new terror strategies, stimulate recruiting, celebrate new-found rights, and foist a fresh round of pain and suffering upon their victims.
This decision is September 11, the sequel. It is my hope that Mr. Holder will reconsider.
A final observation: During the proceedings a young lady, dutifully attentive, sat with a stack of paper about 15 inches high on her lap. The papers contained names, single spaced, of some 100,000 people who signed a letter in opposition to this decision. This young woman, Jill Regan, lost her dad, Donald J. Regan, FDNY of the Bronx, who died trying to save others on 9/11. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Al.) asked that those names be entered into the record at the end of the session. It was agreed, but by that time the chairmen and most of the Democrats were already gone. I grieved for her-and for all of us-anew.
Mr. Beamer is the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11.
> Thats right, it's all about Obama. nevermind the people and families who > were actually involved. > Eric Holder's Baffling KSM Decision > The attorney general's Senate testimony this week did nothing to reassure > the families of 9/11's victims. > a.. By DAVID BEAMER > On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Attorney > General Eric Holder about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed > and four others in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. As the > father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93, I was able to > attend that hearing. What transpired caused me great concern and shook my > confidence in our current administration.
> The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the > division in our country not only visually-the Democrats were seated on the > left and the Republicans on the right-but in every aspect of the > proceedings. I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and > that others would have challenging questions about his decision. What I did > not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the majority party. > It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty > is trumping concern for America's security interests.
> In his opening remarks, Attorney General Holder acknowledged that these > defendants could have been brought to trial in civilian court or before > military tribunals. But he made the argument that trying them in our > criminal courts would restore the integrity of our judicial system. He > assured us that the trials would be quick, that the safety of New Yorkers > would be paramount, that classified information would not be revealed, that > the evidence was overwhelming, and that justice would be served.
> Then he said that the USS Cole attackers would be tried in military courts > since they attacked our military. So how does Mr. Holder categorize the > Pentagon? Inexplicably, he offered up the body count of 9/11, the fact that > civilian deaths outnumbered military ones, as a rationale for his decision.
> Then the Republican members proceeded to ask Mr. Holder thoughtful > questions. Some examples:
> How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty? Given that > criminal courts are now the presumed venue for those captured on the > battlefield, will soldiers need to read them their rights at the time of > capture? Since you wish to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the > presumed civil venue, don't all those captured need to be read their rights > and have the opportunity to remain silent? Won't this venue expose > intelligence to our enemies? Can our classified information really be > secured? Can we in fact predict how the judge will rule? If these people are > brought into the country will they get additional rights under immigration > law? What if they claim asylum?
> The attorney general seemed bewildered in the face of these inquiries. > Recurring themes in his responses included "I think," and "I can't imagine," > and "I am not an expert in immigration."
> Has our attorney general not considered these issues, or imagined the > possible unintended consequences that will arise from his historic decision? > It certainly seemed that way. If he had, he would have had better answers.
> A second shocker: Mr. Holder said that he and his boss had not spoken in > person about this decision. This matter only involves upholding the > constitutional rights of Americans, establishing a precedent with > battlefield impact, and the safety and security of our citizens in a time of > war. What are the criteria to make something a priority with President > Barack Obama? How can it be that this matter didn't make the cut?
> The Democrats used much of their questioning time to heap praise upon Mr. > Holder. They all repeated the same trope: We'll show the world that America > can conduct these trials openly in criminal courts. And we'll be successful, > even as we convey rights to the defendants that are not warranted.
> Since when has "show the world" been a primary objective?
> No thoughtful questions from the majority party regarding this decision were > forthcoming. Their questions mostly addressed other matters. They discussed > overcrowding in our prisons (too many drug criminals being sentenced), asked > why none of the $500 million in appropriations have helped the rape-kit > processing backlog, and inquired about when recommendations for additional > staff would be presented for confirmation. Their lack of attention to the > pressing matter at hand suggested apathy.
> Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) did ask a question about how much the trials > will cost. Clearly there will be expense incurred if this does go to trial > in New York City. The early, and by no means complete, estimate is that it > will cost $75 million for the first year. Mr. Schumer did not express any > concern about the costs involved but only asked the attorney general for > assurance that all would be covered by federal funds. This question was > promptly and explicitly answered in the affirmative by Mr. Holder. After > all, this is a rather modest amount by Washington standards.
> Our enemies must be thrilled. We are willingly handing them an opportunity > to inflict economic harm on New York City, keep their cause in the > headlines, gather new intelligence, create new terror strategies, stimulate > recruiting, celebrate new-found rights, and foist a fresh round of pain and > suffering upon their victims.
> This decision is September 11, the sequel. It is my hope that Mr. Holder > will reconsider.
> A final observation: During the proceedings a young lady, dutifully > attentive, sat with a stack of paper about 15 inches high on her lap. The > papers contained names, single spaced, of some 100,000 people who signed a > letter in opposition to this decision. This young woman, Jill Regan, lost > her dad, Donald J. Regan, FDNY of the Bronx, who died trying to save others > on 9/11. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Al.) asked that those names be entered into > the record at the end of the session. It was agreed, but by that time the > chairmen and most of the Democrats were already gone. I grieved for her-and > for all of us-anew.
> Mr. Beamer is the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight > 93 on 9/11.
You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the abortion doctor to be prosecuted .
That doesnt make it right !!
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
------ RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the abortion > doctor to be prosecuted .
> That doesnt make it right !!
And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered not wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release them? Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have said that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though the outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty General?
>> Once again we find the right-wingers gagging; retching; flopping >> around on the floor; convulsing because Obama and Americans >> Democratic representatives moves forward with his promised >> changes and a show trial for the world to see. The best the >> wounded neocons can do is bitch venue.
>> Hate Sarah? Hell Sarah and the neocons hate America and what >> she stands for. They hate the facts of justice. > Jerry! Jerry!
> While I'm not a medical professional, I do recognize the signs.
Just another thing you think you know, where, again, you don't.
> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will > release them? Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. > Was all the evidence collected under our legal rules? > I don't know.
Are they guilty? You don’t know. Nor does the rest of the world.
> > You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the abortion > > doctor to be prosecuted .
> > That doesnt make it right !!
> And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered not > wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release them? > Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence > collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have said > that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you > proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
> Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though the > outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty > General?
all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what is going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " is so afraid of everything that moves
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
________________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>> > You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the >> > abortion >> > doctor to be prosecuted .
>> > That doesnt make it right !!
>> And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered not >> wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
>> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release >> them? >> Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence >> collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have >> said >> that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you >> proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
>> Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though >> the >> outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty >> General?
> all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what is > going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
> I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " is so > afraid of everything that moves
we are never going to agree here.
Forget the possibility of it getting thrown out of court - take that off the line. (this, for your sake)
How anyone, right left middle neutral could think that a bogus kangaroo court is a symbol of something other than idiocy is ridiculous. The outcome has been predetermined. No one is stupid enough to not put 2 and 2 together when O and Holder have already PROMISED the outcome.
> > Thats right, it's all about Obama. nevermind the people and families who > > were actually involved. > > Eric Holder's Baffling KSM Decision > > The attorney general's Senate testimony this week did nothing to reassure > > the families of 9/11's victims. > > a.. By DAVID BEAMER > > On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Attorney > > General Eric Holder about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed > > and four others in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. As the > > father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93, I was able to > > attend that hearing. What transpired caused me great concern and shook my > > confidence in our current administration.
> > The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the > > division in our country not only visually-the Democrats were seated on the > > left and the Republicans on the right-but in every aspect of the > > proceedings. I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and > > that others would have challenging questions about his decision. What I did > > not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the majority party. > > It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty > > is trumping concern for America's security interests.
> > In his opening remarks, Attorney General Holder acknowledged that these > > defendants could have been brought to trial in civilian court or before > > military tribunals. But he made the argument that trying them in our > > criminal courts would restore the integrity of our judicial system. He > > assured us that the trials would be quick, that the safety of New Yorkers > > would be paramount, that classified information would not be revealed, that > > the evidence was overwhelming, and that justice would be served.
> > Then he said that the USS Cole attackers would be tried in military courts > > since they attacked our military. So how does Mr. Holder categorize the > > Pentagon? Inexplicably, he offered up the body count of 9/11, the fact that > > civilian deaths outnumbered military ones, as a rationale for his decision.
> > Then the Republican members proceeded to ask Mr. Holder thoughtful > > questions. Some examples:
> > How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty? Given that > > criminal courts are now the presumed venue for those captured on the > > battlefield, will soldiers need to read them their rights at the time of > > capture? Since you wish to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the > > presumed civil venue, don't all those captured need to be read their rights > > and have the opportunity to remain silent? Won't this venue expose > > intelligence to our enemies? Can our classified information really be > > secured? Can we in fact predict how the judge will rule? If these people are > > brought into the country will they get additional rights under immigration > > law? What if they claim asylum?
> > The attorney general seemed bewildered in the face of these inquiries. > > Recurring themes in his responses included "I think," and "I can't imagine," > > and "I am not an expert in immigration."
> > Has our attorney general not considered these issues, or imagined the > > possible unintended consequences that will arise from his historic decision? > > It certainly seemed that way. If he had, he would have had better answers.
> > A second shocker: Mr. Holder said that he and his boss had not spoken in > > person about this decision. This matter only involves upholding the > > constitutional rights of Americans, establishing a precedent with > > battlefield impact, and the safety and security of our citizens in a time of > > war. What are the criteria to make something a priority with President > > Barack Obama? How can it be that this matter didn't make the cut?
> > The Democrats used much of their questioning time to heap praise upon Mr. > > Holder. They all repeated the same trope: We'll show the world that America > > can conduct these trials openly in criminal courts. And we'll be successful, > > even as we convey rights to the defendants that are not warranted.
> > Since when has "show the world" been a primary objective?
> > No thoughtful questions from the majority party regarding this decision were > > forthcoming. Their questions mostly addressed other matters. They discussed > > overcrowding in our prisons (too many drug criminals being sentenced), asked > > why none of the $500 million in appropriations have helped the rape-kit > > processing backlog, and inquired about when recommendations for additional > > staff would be presented for confirmation. Their lack of attention to the > > pressing matter at hand suggested apathy.
> > Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) did ask a question about how much the trials > > will cost. Clearly there will be expense incurred if this does go to trial > > in New York City. The early, and by no means complete, estimate is that it > > will cost $75 million for the first year. Mr. Schumer did not express any > > concern about the costs involved but only asked the attorney general for > > assurance that all would be covered by federal funds. This question was > > promptly and explicitly answered in the affirmative by Mr. Holder. After > > all, this is a rather modest amount by Washington standards.
> > Our enemies must be thrilled. We are willingly handing them an opportunity > > to inflict economic harm on New York City, keep their cause in the > > headlines, gather new intelligence, create new terror strategies, stimulate > > recruiting, celebrate new-found rights, and foist a fresh round of pain and > > suffering upon their victims.
> > This decision is September 11, the sequel. It is my hope that Mr. Holder > > will reconsider.
> > A final observation: During the proceedings a young lady, dutifully > > attentive, sat with a stack of paper about 15 inches high on her lap. The > > papers contained names, single spaced, of some 100,000 people who signed a > > letter in opposition to this decision. This young woman, Jill Regan, lost > > her dad, Donald J. Regan, FDNY of the Bronx, who died trying to save others > > on 9/11. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Al.) asked that those names be entered into > > the record at the end of the session. It was agreed, but by that time the > > chairmen and most of the Democrats were already gone. I grieved for her-and > > for all of us-anew.
> > Mr. Beamer is the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight > > 93 on 9/11.
> You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the abortion > doctor to be prosecuted .
> That doesnt make it right !!
> Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and > does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
> >> > You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the > >> > abortion > >> > doctor to be prosecuted .
> >> > That doesnt make it right !!
> >> And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered not > >> wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
> >> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release > >> them? > >> Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence > >> collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have > >> said > >> that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you > >> proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
> >> Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though > >> the > >> outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty > >> General?
> > all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what is > > going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
> > I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " is so > > afraid of everything that moves
> we are never going to agree here.
> Forget the possibility of it getting thrown out of court - take that off the > line. (this, for your sake)
> How anyone, right left middle neutral could think that a bogus kangaroo > court is a symbol of something other than idiocy is ridiculous. The outcome > has been predetermined. No one is stupid enough to not put 2 and 2 together > when O and Holder have already PROMISED the outcome.
does that rebuttal bolster your point or mine ?? you say you are worried about them somehow escaping justice , yet in the next sentence you say the outcome is predetermined
he is going to be convicted , then he is going to be executed ..great fopr symbolism and great for our country .. i hope they schedule execution for Oct 2012 ..lol
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
> > Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will > > release them? Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. > > Was all the evidence collected under our legal rules? > > I don't know.
> Are they guilty? You don’t know. Nor does the rest of the world.
Obama knows. In a televised interview a few days ago he said KSM was guilty and that the American people can be assured that he will be found guilty and that "he will have the death penalty applied to him". So what does that show the world? It shows them that the American president has declared KSM guilty before the trial begins and has assured the American people that he will get the death penalty. There's no difference between that and one of the show trials conducted in China, Iran or North Korea. Obama's decision to try KSM in a civilian court for purely political reasons is a travesty for the families of the 9/11 victims and a disgrace for America.
Irish Mike
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war against Fox News.
------- * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> > >> > You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the > > >> > abortion > > >> > doctor to be prosecuted .
> > >> > That doesnt make it right !!
> > >> And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered not > > >> wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
> > >> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release > > >> them? > > >> Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence > > >> collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have > > >> said > > >> that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you > > >> proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
> > >> Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though > > >> the > > >> outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty > > >> General?
> > > all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what is > > > going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
> > > I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " is so > > > afraid of everything that moves
> > we are never going to agree here.
> > Forget the possibility of it getting thrown out of court - take that off the > > line. (this, for your sake)
> > How anyone, right left middle neutral could think that a bogus kangaroo > > court is a symbol of something other than idiocy is ridiculous. The outcome > > has been predetermined. No one is stupid enough to not put 2 and 2 together > > when O and Holder have already PROMISED the outcome.
> does that rebuttal bolster your point or mine ?? you say you are worried > about them somehow escaping justice , yet in the next sentence you say the > outcome is predetermined
> he is going to be convicted , then he is going to be executed ..great fopr > symbolism and great for our country .. i hope they schedule execution for > Oct 2012 ..lol
The only "great" thing about this trial is the propaganda and recruiting tool it provides for muslim extremists all over the world. Obama has made a decision to hand al Queada exactly what it wants. Full color, prime time non-stop media coverage which will be shown through out the muslim world. It will give KSM and his lawyers an opportunity to spread their propaganda while they put America, President Bush, our military and our CIA on trial. It will force the court to release classified information and/or throw out evidence that we can not use because of the security risk it poses. Obama made a stupid, unnecessary decision to try this in civilian court at a cost to tax payers of $75 million for the first year. And for what? So Obama can sling some more mud at President Bush, our military and our CIA.
Irish Mike
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war against Fox News.
________________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>> >> > You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the >> >> > abortion >> >> > doctor to be prosecuted .
>> >> > That doesnt make it right !!
>> >> And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered >> >> not >> >> wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
>> >> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release >> >> them? >> >> Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence >> >> collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama have >> >> said >> >> that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are you >> >> proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
>> >> Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even though >> >> the >> >> outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty >> >> General?
>> > all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what is >> > going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
>> > I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " is >> > so >> > afraid of everything that moves
>> we are never going to agree here.
>> Forget the possibility of it getting thrown out of court - take that off >> the >> line. (this, for your sake)
>> How anyone, right left middle neutral could think that a bogus kangaroo >> court is a symbol of something other than idiocy is ridiculous. The >> outcome >> has been predetermined. No one is stupid enough to not put 2 and 2 >> together >> when O and Holder have already PROMISED the outcome.
> does that rebuttal bolster your point or mine ?? you say you are worried > about them somehow escaping justice , yet in the next sentence you say the > outcome is predetermined
actually it shows that I am capable of seeimg more than one way unlike you who only see things in black and white.
>>> >> > You could get 100,000 signatures that dont want the killer of the >>> >> > abortion >>> >> > doctor to be prosecuted .
>>> >> > That doesnt make it right !!
>>> >> And that has what to do with the familys of those who were murdered >>> >> not >>> >> wanting the trial in NY? You do know who Todd Beamer was, don't you?
>>> >> Not wanting even the slightest chance that some glitch will release >>> >> them? >>> >> Were they properly Mirandized? I don't know. Was all the evidence >>> >> collected under our legal rules? I don't know. Holder and Obama >>> >> have >>> >> said >>> >> that he will be convicted, will be sentenced to death, so what are >>> >> you >>> >> proving by having a kangaroo trial in NY?
>>> >> Or are you actually saying that this will be a real trial, even >>> >> though >>> >> the >>> >> outcome has been determined, without doubt, by the POTUS and the Atty >>> >> General?
>>> > all pointless , mindless fears spread from the right to tarnish what >>> > is >>> > going to be a tremendous "SYMBOL"
>>> > I have often wondered why the right being "the party of protection " >>> > is so >>> > afraid of everything that moves
>>> we are never going to agree here.
>>> Forget the possibility of it getting thrown out of court - take that off >>> the >>> line. (this, for your sake)
>>> How anyone, right left middle neutral could think that a bogus kangaroo >>> court is a symbol of something other than idiocy is ridiculous. The >>> outcome >>> has been predetermined. No one is stupid enough to not put 2 and 2 >>> together >>> when O and Holder have already PROMISED the outcome.
>> does that rebuttal bolster your point or mine ?? you say you are worried >> about them somehow escaping justice , yet in the next sentence you say >> the >> outcome is predetermined
> actually it shows that I am capable of seeimg more than one way unlike you > who only see things in black and white.
|
