This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
1) Who cares what KSM has asked for? He's subject to the US justice system's whims, not his own. Since when do we let the criminal dictate the trial.
Hmmm - well, let's see. Barbary pirates from Morocco seized an American ship in 1784, and the first Barbary War began in 1801. I'd say that's pretty close to being at the time of the Founding Fathers. Did they demand that the pirates captured during that conflict be brought to the United States and tried in US Criminal Courts? No, they did not.4) Your ACLU fixation is stupid. So is your own muling for the Bush administration. A fair trial is the cornerstone of our legal system, and I'll say again it was put in place by people far smarter than yourself. Where does your arrogance come from that you know more about how the legal system in this country should work than the Founding Fathers? I'm going to need a little more convincing on this one.
And our enemies will see a Federal Court case differently? I don't think so.
Similarly, they can't enter into a plea with the arresting officer for example, it has to go through the proper channels - as in...wait for it...a plea entered in court.You need to go back to watching porn full time and staying off political threads. If a defendent wants to accept the death penalty for a non capital crime, you don't give it to them "because that's what they asked for".
So you're saying that a US military tribunal is, in fact, a "kangaroo court?" And it's not just that it would be perceived that way by our enemies? That's a pretty low blow to the people who work in our military justice system...
Who cares where they're housed? If a US soldier were captured in France in 1941 and then shipped to a POW camp in Germany, should he have then been subject to a criminal trial in Nazi courts just because his feet touched German soil? Absolutely not. POW prisons are, by definition, "far from the battlefield," or they wouldn't be very secure, now, would they? An enemy combatant's status is a lot more like a POW than a common criminal - he doesn't belong in civil court.
All of this rant is based on irrelevant BS and your own warped opinion.
Lets take a few points:
1) Who cares what KSM has asked for? He's subject to the US justice system's whims, not his own. Since when do we let the criminal dictate the trial.
2) What does a civilian trial have to do with the Fort Hood situation? Desparate attempt at a strawman argument there.
3) Who says lawyers muling for a terrorist is a trivial matter? Lawyers have to interract with all kinds of insavory defendents and if any of them break the law there's a system in place to deal with them.
4) Your ACLU fixation is stupid. So is your own muling for the Bush administration. A fair trial is the cornerstone of our legal system, and I'll say again it was put in place by people far smarter than yourself. Where does your arrogance come from that you know more about how the legal system in this country should work than the Founding Fathers? I'm going to need a little more convincing on this one.
5) Lastly, this has nothing to do with KSM's rights. What it has to do is what the United States stands for. A kangaroo trial at Gitmo isn't what this country is about. Putting people in court, regardless of how obviously guilty they may be, is how the system works, a system that's withstood far more serious crisis than this one. That's something the righties have never been able to figure out, and something a conservative court has repeatedly rebuked them on (you can't just hold people indefinitely forever at the President's whim). Much like how this country doesn't sanction torture. Its not out of sympathy for the criminal, its because that's not what the country was founded on. The problem is that due to actions taken previously, and subsequent court rulings, these idiots are now in limbo. The best solution is to send them through the legal system like previous terrorist prosecutions before them and close Gitmo because its doing far more harm than good.
. I care what the right way to do things is. 
1) I have no idea what Eric Holder's talking point are, but my opinion on this has remained the same on this. I have no problem with holding them for a time while they have intelligence to provide. 8 years after capture however in some cases I really doubt there's much more to be learned here, so now its time for a trial. Who the AG is doesn't matter, nor his public performance. You're spending too much time turning this into a Bush admin vs Obama admin beef, when its a lot bigger than that.
Regarding KSM, he probably is looking for martyrdom. Why give it to him by letting him dictate the terms? He can go through the process like any other murderer and if ultimately (and most likely) he gets his wish to be executed, it'll be on the US justice system's terms, not his own. Again how he's not the focus here, our system of laws is. I don't care what the "sure bet" is
2) Again, you're focusing on terrorists. I'm focusing on the what the United States stands for. I don't give a rat's @ ss what enemies think of us, or the trial. I'm more concerned with upholding the principles this country was founded on.
3) Implied nothing of the sort. Moving on...
4) I don't care what the ACLU's angle is here, as this is far more important than them, Judicial Watch, or whoever else wants to file a brief in this matter. For the umpteenth time, its about how the United States of America operates, not some ulterior motive the ACLU might have to embarass a previous administration. Who cares aside from themselves and their opposing partisans (yourself apparently)?
5) The problem with military tribunals, and its been a problem that has plagued both administrations, is how to set them up to pass legal muster. There's already been some starts and stops in this regard as again what was thought to be legal in the previous admin's eyes (which to be charitable can be described as pretty much anything) turned out not to be so. So, instead of creating a whole new system of rules, why not just prosecute them based on the existing rules in the civil court system that have already been used to convict terrorists?
Not only would you get a quicker verdict in that case as there'd be less appeals on the grounds that the whole set up was flawed, but you'd also have iron clad legitimacy from the friends of the US (again, who cares about what the enemies think) as the proceeding took place with 200+ years of the country's legal precedent as the guiding principle.