Re: ObamaRama 8
You two have a strange take on reality. If the Obama admin was seeking to generate positive headlines, they'd stage a public execution by claming that Presidents have unlimited power to preserve order in a time of war (don't laugh, that argument has been made before).
The problem in all of this is how these idiots were treated initially. Was the thought process to just keep them locked up for 50 years with no trial? Even after there was no actionable intelligence to be gained anymore.
![Confused :confused: :confused:](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png)
There's no good options here, but they're no longer on a battle field, they're in US custody. That means they have to be treated by the laws of the country, and that means a trial. Even the worst, most dispicable mass murders had to face the US justice system. Other terrorists have had to face it. Personally, I feel better trusting the wisdom of the Founding Fathers when they set up our rule of laws than a bunch of right wing ideologues any day of the week unless you people suddenly know more than Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, etc.
BTW - if any lawyer is caught breaking the law while serving as their defense, put them on trial too. If we stopped the justice system over that, we'd need 1000 Gitmo's around the country to hold all the inmates who have sleazeball lawyers.
You really should reread your high school civics book. These people are "enemy combatants," a designation Eric Holder agreed with before the Senate. That means, among other things, they are NOT entitled to trials in civilian courts. They aren't citizens and they were captured on foreign battlefields by our military. If military tribunals are an unacceptable way of providing justice for these people, I believe your phrase was "bunch of right wing ideologues," then please tell me why they're okay for some terrorists but not others. And the "right wing ideologues" to whom you refer must include several supreme courts of the United States, all of which have upheld the consitutionality of military tribunals over the years. And Holder told the Senate yesterday that even if they're acquitted, they'll be returned to custody because THEY'RE ENEMY COMBATANTS.
I shouldn't have to point it out, but nevertheless will, that John Wayne Gacy was a U.S. citizen. Thus his status and that of every other native born mass murderer in our history is irrelevant to this discussion. Other terrorists faced civilian trials prior to 9/11 and Moussaoui (sp) after, he was captured on US soil.
The president and attorney general AREN'T interested in positive headlines, IMO, just the opposite. I assume that despite all the evidentiary problems
trying these people in civilian courts, that we'll get them convicted, eventually, and executed long after I'm dead.
But the ACLU ultra lefty lawyers defending them will put the government on trial. Not just any government. The government of George W. Bush. And the headlines will be about waterboarding, renditions, and all the rest. And will be the basis, these lawyers hope, for some sort of indictment against Bush/Cheney, probably in Spain or before the World Court. The ACLU plans to spend millions of dollars defending these killers, and their hope of getting Bush/Cheney indicted isn't paranoia, it is what they've publicly advocated.
It would certainly be appropriate to prosecute any communist lawyer like Lynne Stewart who would mule messages from KSM to his jihadi buddies, I'd prefer not to wait 'till that horse out of the corral. You evidently think that's a trivial matter, I disagree, and so does the judge who put that communist cow behind bars for her treachery.
KSM has confessed and has asked to plead guilty before a military tribunal after which he would be sentenced to death. Is there some possible better outcome from a civilian trial that I'm missing? And please don't feed me that horse collar about "setting an example" and that military tribunals will help jihadi recruitment. See my previous argument, if that were true then we shouldn't try any of 'em in front of tribunals. So the argument is "if only we had announced a civilian trial for KSM earlier, then "Dr." Hasan wouldn't have murdered 14 people at Fort Hood?" Strikes me as a bit naive.