Security threats inside and out for 9/11 trial

[Buzz Killington]

Would you be ok with being imprisoned yourself without trial, if we decide that people who look like you are a threat?

barfo

I'm a master of disguise.

 

[barfo]

I'm a master of disguise.

Those are exactly the people we think are threats.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Buzz Killington]

Our friend, Pat Buchanan's take:

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

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.

A jaw-dropping expose on the six-month undercover operation that revealed the true terror-supporting nature of CAIR: "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." It's also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.

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 nearly 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 Fort 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 told that his family would be killed and he would be waterboarded if he refused to talk?

 

[Sug]

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

 

[yakbladder]

I'm a master of disguise.

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?

 

[Buzz Killington]

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.

 

[yakbladder]

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

such as planning and executing a terrorist attack

.

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?

 

[BlazerWookee]

LoL @ people who still think that terrorists flying planes knocked down the towers.

That's a joke, right?

 

[Buzz Killington]

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?

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.

 

[PapaG]

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?

US citizens are afforded Constitutional rights. I think you're confused on how this would make trying a normal citizen in a tribunal illegal?

Hint - KSM is not a citizen of the USA.

 

[Buzz Killington]

US citizens are afforded Constitutional rights. I think you're confused on how this would make trying a normal citizen in a tribunal illegal?

Hint - KSM is not a citizen of the USA.

He was referring to me directly, where I said that if a US Citizen were to be in Al Queda and plan, should they be tried in a military court. I said "yes" since they are treasonous. Its basically a red herring for him to try to prove some kind of point, which I haven't seen yet.

 

[barfo]

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.

You constantly rant about the "road to serfdom", and yet you are fine with the government imprisoning US citizens without trial? You don't trust the government to provide health care insurance - but you want to believe anyone who the government seizes is guilty and thus deserves whatever is coming to them?

barfo

 

[Buzz Killington]

You constantly rant about the "road to serfdom", and yet you are fine with the government imprisoning US citizens without trial? You don't trust the government to provide health care insurance - but you want to believe anyone who the government seizes is guilty and thus deserves whatever is coming to them?

barfo

When they commit acts of treason, yes.

 

[barfo]

When they commit acts of treason, yes.

How do you know when they've committed an act of treason?

barfo

 

[yakbladder]

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.

I was asking you to specify your criteria, hence why I asked to clarify.

My point is that you've already specified that you are okay with US citizens being denied of their constitutional rights if they are considered a threat to the US government. And that if they are denied of these rights that allow them to expose the fact that this threat is not-real, then what is to prevent the government from simply producing unsubstantiated, trumped-up charges against US citizens, yourself included, because they don't like your politics?

This happens all the time in Third World countries and why we seek to protect our rights here. But apparently that's trivial to you.

 

[yakbladder]

He was referring to me directly, where I said that if a US Citizen were to be in Al Queda and plan, should they be tried in a military court. I said "yes" since they are treasonous. Its basically a red herring for him to try to prove some kind of point, which I haven't seen yet.

Psst..a red herring means to throw off the trail. I'm actually following along the exact line of wording you're providing. I'm not even asking about the guys being held in Cuba right now because I'm more intrigued by how you came about this mindset concerning US citizens.

 

[yakbladder]

How do you know when they've committed an act of treason?

barfo

The government says they do.

 

[Buzz Killington]

How do you know when they've committed an act of treason?

barfo

If they are planning to overthrow the government, cause terror and attack the country, killing lots of people

 

[Buzz Killington]

Psst..a red herring means to throw off the trail. I'm actually following along the exact line of wording you're providing. I'm not even asking about the guys being held in Cuba right now because I'm more intrigued by how you came about this mindset concerning US citizens.

The trail is that KSM is not an american citizen and should be tried in a military court.

 

[Buzz Killington]

I was asking you to specify your criteria, hence why I asked to clarify.

My point is that you've already specified that you are okay with US citizens being denied of their constitutional rights if they are considered a threat to the US government. And that if they are denied of these rights that allow them to expose the fact that this threat is not-real, then what is to prevent the government from simply producing unsubstantiated, trumped-up charges against US citizens, yourself included, because they don't like your politics?

This happens all the time in Third World countries and why we seek to protect our rights here. But apparently that's trivial to you.

And again, its when they are considered more than a threat. When they commit treasonous and terrorists acts.

 

[barfo]

The government says they do.

That might be good enough for someone like me, who thinks that our government is generally a force for good rather than evil, but it certainly couldn't possibly be acceptable to Buzz, who thinks our government is absolutely incompetent and/or corrupt in everything they do. Why, I'm sure he'd be bitterly opposed to such government "death panels".

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So, let me ask two questions.

1) What do you think of Japanese internment camps used during WWII?

2) What if we found a citizen who was planning to kill 3,000...or let's say, God forbid, that they accomplished their nefarious plan. Would you still support a trial in the standard courts, or would you recommend a military court for them?

The internment camps were almost as horrible as universal health care. One of the greatest blights on this country, right behind slavery.

Does it occur to you that if the police arrest someone, they should be tried in a court and that if the military arrests someone on the battlefield, they should be tried in a military court/tribunal or held like a POW until the hostilities are over?

 

[Denny Crane]

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

I think your beef is with the AP, no?

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd be all in favor of an international tribunal, or the world court, but for two things.

1) There's no death penalty, and it's absolutely warranted in these cases
2) They put Milosevic on trial and he died of old age before they finished. Justice should be swift, and people are entitled to a speedy trial.

 

[barfo]

The internment camps were almost as horrible as universal health care. One of the greatest blights on this country, right behind slavery.

So is it 1. Slavery, 2. Universal health care, 3. Internment camps, or
1. Universal health care, 2. Slavery, 3. Internment camps?

Does it occur to you that if the police arrest someone, they should be tried in a court and that if the military arrests someone on the battlefield, they should be tried in a military court/tribunal or held like a POW until the hostilities are over?

And this guy - he was captured by the Pakistani ISI. Not exactly police, not exactly military. And not exactly the battlefield.

And how do we tell when the hostilities are over?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I think your beef is with the AP, no?

And the guy who sells child porn says "your beef is with the photographer".

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'd be all in favor of an international tribunal, or the world court, but for two things.

1) There's no death penalty, and it's absolutely warranted in these cases
2) They put Milosevic on trial and he died of old age before they finished. Justice should be swift, and people are entitled to a speedy trial.

He was captured in 2003, and we are just now getting around to a trial. I think the chance of giving him a speedy trial has pretty much passed.

I think if you are going to have a death penalty, this is certainly a case where you'd want it to apply, however.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

He was captured in 2003, and we are just now getting around to a trial. I think the chance of giving him a speedy trial has pretty much passed.

I think if you are going to have a death penalty, this is certainly a case where you'd want it to apply, however.

barfo

His tribunal trial was fought in our courts, which delayed the trial he should have received.

As for being arrested by the ISI, that would be on the battlefield and certainly the ISI isn't some US town's police force or one of our federal police agencies (BATF, FBI, etc.)

 

[barfo]

As for being arrested by the ISI, that would be on the battlefield and certainly the ISI isn't some US town's police force or one of our federal police agencies (BATF, FBI, etc.)

Well, it would be pretty hard for a US town's police force to arrest someone in a foreign country. The ISI certainly isn't the US military, either.

barfo