Obama's dumbest decision yet, 9/11 conspirators tried in NY - Page 3

Just how many steps do you think they'd make it out of a courtroom door in NYC? The very suggestion would probably make them plead guilty, rather than face a lynch mob.

Which has been one of the points all along. He can enter his confession in criminal court.


You yourself have pointed out that these people are not citizens of the United States.

Terror isn't an enemy, or even a tactic. It's a state of mind. That makes just as much sense as "war on drugs", "war on childhood obesity", or "war on acne".

And I'm very sure they deeply appreciate the assistance they get from having their status as soldiers so validated.

BTW, that also means that we should have been treating them as POW's all this time. Which means, access to human rights and aid groups, and communication with family and loved ones.

Have you not been keeping track of the fact that numerous Gitmo detainees are already getting access to criminal courts, and that steps are taken in every case to safeguard such information while doing so?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...805605,00.html

I really don't CARE whether they Or you feel that is giving them "assistance", I feel that is a lame argument. They are murdering terrorists that attacked this country and we ARE at war against them.

They did a REAL good job when they tried the blind Sheik for the first WTC bombing in 1993 didn't they?

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

But I'm sure it will all be different this time around.

All this trial, in New York, will do is give these terrorists that murdered thousands of Americans a PLATFORM.

For the record, no, WE are not. The military is conducting a police action to help secure a friendly government and round up some fugitives. Now that it looks as though WE (as in US citizens) might actually get to participate, it looks like most of them are eager to scurry away.

So, you feel going on world news and telling everyone that we recognize these terrorists as a formal enemy, and therefore, validating their postion among their followers is lame to you? You seem comfortable in giving them a great deal of credit and status they do not deserve. Korea wasn't a war, nor was Vietnam. They were police actions. How do these murderers attain a higher status than the national armies our soldiers faced in those places?

If they are murdering terrorists, then they are criminals. If we are at war against them, then they are enemy combatants afforded the treatment of enemy soldiers. Being at war would also make 9/11 an ACT of war, and enemy finance centers are fair game. Myself, I see them as criminals, and they should be tried as such.

Hardly. In fact, I'm pointing out that very important definitions are being made light of by others. War, Police Action, and Transnational Dragnet are all entirely different things, with entirely different rules, responsibilities and implications. One of those being, if we are at war, and our soldiers do something that could constitute a war crime and are caught by the enemy, then they can be tried in their systems, quid pro quo.

What was yours? No one was talking about subjecting the US to international courts.


Have you been keeping track of the military tribunal's conviction rate. It's no better. In fact, it's quite lousy, to say the least.

That depends on the evidence.

A platform that I think the world needs to hear. A lot of denial can be dispelled when the words come from the horse's mouth. And a cloak and dagger tribunal will give them martyrdom. Wouldn't that be special.

One thing I learned as a deputy years ago is, that criminals just hate, hate, absolutely hate being constantly reminded of what they actually are. A thief with a "Robin Hood" complex cannot stand being told "nope, you're just a thief". They hate it.

These guys are murderers, common criminals that just had better weapons than most. I want to see them reminded every day that they are just murderers, not warriors, not soldiers, not "combatants"; just murderers. A criminal trial and life in a max prison with all the other common criminals will just a good job of that.

I am only vaguely familiar with the situation, so I don't know how these criminals were caught: why weren't they mirandized?? I feel like that is not Obama's mistake, it is a mistake of the people who charged them without reading them their rights and getting them an attorney...

Although, doesn't the patriot act clear that up: I think under the patriot act, any terrorist, (and the word terrorist is left undefined which I find to be total BS) may be denied basic rights.

IMO, everyone deserves a fair trial.

Prisoners of war aren't read Miranda Rights (they have different rights under the Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants, which is what a thug terrorist is, don't have to be Mirandized. They weren't being Mirandized until Obama ordered the military to read the rights to them. I'm guessing the move was made in case they wanted to try one of these cowards in the court system rather than by military tribunal (which is where I think it should be done). I spent a lot of time a while back talking about the Geneva Convention, unlawful combatants, and similar things. I'm not up to speed at all with the current events and discussions over the decision to try them in the court system so I'll bow out gracefully.

You say we are not at War, tell that to the loved ones of the military that have died in that non-war. Play semantics all you want, they still, to this day, call it, The Korean War and the Vietnam War. I don't give a fig if it is not official enough for some, doesn't change the fact we are fighting a war. But feel free to call it a police action if it makes you feel better.

It's hardly semantics. And what the loved one's think makes no difference. I lost several friends during the non-war (as far as the US was concerned) in Beirut, and a couple more during the non-war on Grenada. The fact that those men died does NOT make it a war.

But, as you want it to be a war, then you have to accept that 9/11 was an act of war, and finance centers are valid targets. It would also make it legal for them to try any US prisoners of war for any perceived war crimes.

Personally, I'd rather think of them as murderers instead of heroes to their "warrior brethren". But, that's just me I suppose.

If the conspirators are brought in, convicted, and sent away forever to prison, this will look like a coup for Obama. If a big truck bomb goes off in NYC, taking down the front of the court building, it will guarantee a Republican majority in the House, Senate, and the White House for the next twenty years.

My guess is that their bet is on the former, but this administration so far has shown a real cluelessness on security issues.

EDIT: Eric Holder says that "acquittal is not an option," and indicates the conspirators will be convicted. How does he know that? Can he buy the jury?

Let's hope that doesn't give any Republican "activists" any surreptitious ideas.

The criminal courts have a far higher conviction rate than the military tribunals. I would guess that using this logic, the tribunals are less than worthless.

I actually have no problem with Holder saying that. He is the prosecutor (or on their side) he is supposed to be optimistic in a conviction and convinced of their guilt. Now Obama needs to shut his yap about it. That doesn't look good for the President of the US himself to be saying they are guilty before the trial.

As I said, I totally agree with you about Obama. But the prosecutors are allowed to say the person is guilty and they will get a conviction. That's their job. So Holder's comments don't bother me in that regard. Now when he said that if the trial doesn't go the way he wants it to, he isn't going to release them........ not sure about that. He chose to go this route. I think he should have to follow the rules for going that route.