A triumph of justice?
Those accused of planning the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people in the attacks on 11 September 2001 will be tried a few blocks away from where the twin towers once stood in New York.
Attorney general Eric Holder says that it's a "fundamental tenet" of American justice that a trial takes place where the crime happened. They will face the death penalty.
One of Obama's first acts as president was to sign the order closing Guantanamo Bay.
For opponents around the world, the prison had become a symbol of the Bush administration - representing a disregard for human rights and the international rule of law. For supporters at home, it was equally a symbol, standing for an uncompromising ruthlessness with America's enemies. So this is a significant moment.
One expert on Guantanamo, Ken Gude from the Center for American Progress, told me that it was "the best news we've had for ages. Its exactly the right move".
He said that the military tribunal the accused had faced was a "symbol of Bush era mistakes, second class justice, if not show trials. But now the emphasis can be on their crimes, not whether they will get a fair trial."
Not everyone will agree, including some of the families of the victims of 9/11. I hope to be able to reflect what they say here later in the day.
But the plan to close Guantanamo has not gone smoothly.
The attorney general has repeated today that it was unlikely to be closed by the president's self-imposed deadline of the end of January 2010.
The administration will not abandon the much criticised military tribunals, and indeed Mr Holder announced at his news conference that five people would still be facing trial by military tribunal.
Then there are those prisoners, perhaps around 70 of them, who some say are too dangerous to be released even though they can't be brought to trial.
That of course begs the question why, if there isn't enough evidence to try them, there is enough evidence to make that judgement.
Lt Cdr Rick Federico, the military lawyer representing one of those accused of plotting 9/11, has welcomed the New York trial.
He told me that "we don't pick and choose who gets justice". So I asked him how he felt about the possibility of some never being tried, but never being released either.
"It's extremely difficult. It's most difficult for Americans to wrap our heads around how it is we can have these men in detention for so long and not provide a forum to adjudicate their case."
Update
Some of the families of those who died think this is justice at last.
Adele Welty, whose son was killed in the attacks on 9/11 thinks "it's of the utmost importance that they face a court". And John Leinung says that it's very important to him "that the right people are punished or held to account for what happened on 9/11", when his stepson was killed.
But not Mr and Mrs Santora, whose son Christopher - a firefighter - died in the twin towers. They say the accused should never step foot in America.
Surrounded by pictures of her son, Maureen Santora told the BBC:
"They do not belong on American soil. They stood in the court room when we were there (for the military trial). They stood up, praised Allah. They said they were happy to have been part of the planning and they said if they had the opportunity again, they would do it again. So these are not individuals who should be on our soil. We are protected from them, we need to be protected from them. These are very dangerous, I think, diabolic individuals.
New York Republican congressman Peter King also worries that the trial will turn into a circus, and turn his city into a timebomb. He'd rather they were kept in Guantanamo.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I wonder if they will use 'evidence' ascertained by the use of torture.
We do love a show trial. I take it that it's going to be on tv?
Complain about this comment
Yes. At last.
This is how a democracy should respond.
Adherence to the rule of law is to reaffirm and strengthen the institutions of democracy.
Complain about this comment
But is not all the evidence somewhat tainted?
Complain about this comment
And if evidence not tainted by the methods used to obtain it exists, why has it taken this long to bring the accused to trial?
Complain about this comment
Lord YES.
Sorry but the usual over zealous american responce has made the trial a fiasco to even think about. unfortunately.
What evidence, what un bias jury.
Not possible.
Complain about this comment
Well not possible and still maintain america is "just" and" fair", a" country of laws"
Complain about this comment
These men are as good as dead, regardless of how good the evidence against them may be and how it was obtained. They are, in effect, guilty until proven innocent...which will never happen.
We need "closure", and the only way to achieve that in our society is to punish whomever was believed to be guilty of the crime. Punishing an entire culture on the premise that they are guilty by association is quite nebulous and does not satisfy everyone. The idea of seeing someone in a court room, sentenced, and heading to the execution room in a circus-like atmosphere to get his lethal injection is more consistent with the expectations of our "Christian" society.
The Romans understood the value of distraction and human sacrifice and built coliseums to satisfy their blood-thirsty crowds, and so did the Aztecs, we have evolved in the way we reach our means, but the end result remains the same.
Complain about this comment
It seems odd to me that A. G. Holder would say that trying a case in the jurisdiction of the offense was a "fundamental tenet" of American jurisprudence. Certainly, it is the rule, but it is one that is often waived in high-profile cases. For example, Timothy McVeigh was tried in Colorado for federal crimes committed in Oklahoma.
Complain about this comment
"That of course begs the question why, if there isn't enough evidence to try them, there is enough evidence to make that judgement." (from Mardell, above)
Not a hard question. Because the standards of evidence are different in the two cases.
Complain about this comment
Even though I have no sympathy for Al Qaida, I do agree with GH1618 [#8] that there is a problem in locating the trial in the shadow of [the ghost of] the Twin Towers. If a jury is likely to be too prejudiced, a change of venue is sometimes granted.
However, there are Arab and non-Arab residents of NYC in the jury pool along with other citizens. This could be a double edged sword, though, as Islam adheres to an eye for an eye justice and those Muslims might have reason to want that kind of justice, in this case.
Another problem, where would they be likely to get a less prejudicial trial? I don't think it would be easy to find an American jury totally unbiased against the accused. Most Western countries, who also witnessed the attacks on TV, would be likely to be less than unbiased.
I expect a certain military [or at least militant] blogger to suggest putting them on trial in a Muslim country. I could even go along with turning them over to a court in Kuwait [and maybe Saudi Arabia]. But that won't happen.
Complain about this comment
It will be a show trial all right, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will use it to denounce the US - what else has he got to loose?
Complain about this comment
Typical delusional Liberal mindset. Honestly, had he been around at the time, Obama would have put "Police Line Do Not Cross" yellow tape around the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor and issued warrants against Hirohito. What happened on 9-11 was a predmeditated act of war against the United States of America. It was not a crime. This is madness. We deserve to be crushed by the Jihadists for our delusional foolishness if nothing else.
Complain about this comment
The Bush administration liked to play fast and loose with the law. These men should never have been held in a place like Guantanamo Bay. They should have been turned over to the FBI and properly questioned by experienced, competent agents. Frankly, I don't think the Bush administration wanted to bring anyone to justice. They just liked having that indefinable, color coded terror "out there" so as to keep the population off balance and themselves in power.
And for those of you worried about a fair trial: Chances are there will be no juries in the non-military cases. No defense attorney would be stupid enough to go for that. They'll be bench trials and the judge will be scrupulously honest, because the whole world will be watching. Also, I doubt he'll invoke the death penalty. It'll be life in prison without possibility of parole. No one wants to make martyrs for the cause.
Complain about this comment
On one hand:
Fantastic. The USA is supposed to ensure a 'fair and speedy trial' and we have been negligent for these folks. It's about time something conclusive come to fruition on this matter.
On the other hand:
-- Oh dear. Now, exactly how are we going to select 'A Jury of Peers'?
High profile cases in the states are very tricky, because the jurors need to be picked from folks in the vicinity of the crime and are interviewed for their 'knowledge of the case'. The Jurors (preferably) should not have foreknowledge of the case that could sway their opinion in the matter.
Therefore, as the common assumption runs, the jurors for high profile cases must be people who live under rocks - perhaps with their heads in the sand.
Good lord. Is there ANYONE in NY who could sit this Jury with objective fairness?
Wow. That's a tough one...
OR - is this going to be a Circus of a case fit for the Roman Amphitheater?
Will there be lions involved?
Eww. Gross.
I will now refrain from making further correlations until I've had more coffee.
Complain about this comment
I do not believe that McJakome was serious when he suggested that a man like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be turned over to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.
The crimes of which KSM is accused were crimes against America and were perpetrated in America - and if America has prima facie evidence against this man, the last thing she should do is to hand him over to another jurisdiction.
A very blinkered and bunkered political mindset caused these detainees to be incarcerated in a small area of Cuba (Cuba, no less) and if there is a case to be made against them it should be made in America, by the American judicial system and open to the scrutiny of the world.
By doing this, America can put the shame of Guantanamo with its secrecy and its tortures behind her and demonstrate that once again she stands firm for her democratic constitution and for the rule of the law.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and:
"we don't pick and choose who gets justice... It's extremely difficult. It's most difficult for Americans to wrap our heads around how it is we can have these men in detention for so long and not provide a forum to adjudicate their case." --Lt Cdr Rick Federico
Ahem. No kidding.
By letting a suspect rot in jail, our Lt. IS deciding who get justice. Wouldn't you think?
I find it ironic that we say that people are 'Innocent until proven guilty' - and yet we've incarcerated these folks on suspicion alone.
Yes. I have a very hard time wrapping my head around that.
Complain about this comment
Oh, yes, let's spare a thought for these two and indulge in some more handwringing about ensuring they have a "fair trial" and finding 12 delusional, moronic imbeciles who haven't a clue as to what happened on 9-11 and cannot comprehend two individuals who admitted and indeed boasted of their part in an act of war and aggression against the US which killed 3000 people. Oh yes, let's start the handwinging and the wailing, shall we? This is precisely the kind of woolly-head weakness that emboldens these people in the first place. They are not impressed by our sanctimonious pieties, they are out to kill us. Or haven't you noticed yet?
Complain about this comment
12. At 8:12pm on 13 Nov 2009, Rather_Be_Cycling wrote:
Typical delusional Liberal mindset. Honestly, had he been around at the time, Obama would have put "Police Line Do Not Cross" yellow tape around the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor and issued warrants against Hirohito.
Pearl Harbor was an attack by an actual government with an actual army on whom we could declare an actual war. Your apples and oranges comparison is just silly.
What happened on 9-11 was a predmeditated act of war against the United States of America. It was not a crime.
No, it was a terrorist attack carried out by a group of individuals funded by a fanatical billionaire.
That said, apparently we Liberal New Yorkers have more spine than some people in America, because we demanded this. We are not afraid to try individual terrorists for murder. We've done it before and imprisoned them for their crimes. Go read up on the first Trade Center bombing by al Qaeda operatives. Your sort weren't screaming "act of war" then, were they?
If you and the rest of the conservative cowards want to hide in your suburbs and small towns, keeping these men in your illegal dungeons and ruining America's good name as a nation where the rule of law supersedes all else, then cower away. New Yorkers are not afraid to stand up for what is right. We are already in the cross-hairs as the number one target in the nation. What's a little more expense and a few extra security precautions to us? We'll see justice done. Finally.
Complain about this comment
Well, this "conservative coward" resides in Washington, DC, which if you Liberal New Yorkers missed it, was just as much in the crosshairs on 9-11 as I recall. And still is. But go ahead, have your little trial if self-delusional sanctimonious postering makes you feel good. I don't recall us having to prove "we were better the enemy" in World War Two or Korea. And I don't think our enemies then or now really care what we do or feel. They hate us for who we are, not for what we do. With ourselves. Or with them.
Complain about this comment
Philly-Mom (#16) "I find it ironic that we say that people are 'Innocent until proven guilty' - and yet we've incarcerated these folks on suspicion alone."
We (some of us) do say that, but it's not an official term and not an accurate substitute for the "presumption of innocence." Here's an interesting discussion of the presumption of innocence from the free dictionary.
Complain about this comment
Right on Gavrielle.
Complain about this comment
Dear Rather_Be_Cycling: (12)
Pearl Harbor was a military attack ordered by an active government. 9/11 was the mass murder of many civilians my an organized group of civilians. Yes, the criminals were from a foreign country, but they were not ordered to attack by an active government. Your critique doesn't... um... float. sry.
If Che had attacked the states...
Or if Jim Jones had dropped a bomb somewhere...
Wow. I actually can't think of examples of anything like 9/11 in recent history.
I keep having to reach back to the protestant reformation for examples of religious groups staging large organized attacks on villages and cities. Even then, I don't recall any crossing national borders.
-- Anyone have any better examples?
Complain about this comment
15. At 8:35pm on 13 Nov 2009, wanderingangus wrote:
"By doing this, America can [[begin to]] put the shame of Guantanamo with its secrecy and its tortures behind her and demonstrate that once again she stands firm for her democratic constitution and for the rule of the law."
________
Exactly. This is where the great and enduring strength of a democracy resides. Jefferson, and Franklin, and Adams all knew this.
Complain about this comment
At 9:00pm on 13 Nov 2009, Philly-Mom wrote:
"Dear Rather_Be_Cycling: (12)
Pearl Harbor was a military attack ordered by an active government. 9/11 was the mass murder of many civilians my an organized group of civilians. Yes, the criminals were from a foreign country, but they were not ordered to attack by an active government. Your critique doesn't... um... float. sry. "
It floats with the jihadists, madam. Ask them if they are not at war with us. Ask them. Or better still listen to them. On their websites, videos, instructional manuals. They think they are at war. They commit warlike acts. They don't care about the past or your historical definitions or the Geneva Convention or trials. All they know is they are at war. With us. Or isn't that enough to convince you?
Complain about this comment
19. At 8:49pm on 13 Nov 2009, Rather_Be_Cycling wrote:
Well, this "conservative coward" resides in Washington, DC, which if you Liberal New Yorkers missed it, was just as much in the crosshairs on 9-11 as I recall. And still is.
If DC were a city to which you were really attached, and where 3,000 of your fellow residents had died (not counting those who have died, and are still dying, from the effects of the bombing) or nearly died, like maybe your New York City fireman brother-in-law, who was dug out of the rubble, you'd want to see real, physical justice too.
I don't recall us having to prove "we were better the enemy" in World War Two or Korea.
It is officially called the Korean Conflict. Like Vietnam (and Iraq and Afghanistan now) it was a "police action" not a declared war. And there's nothing to prove in war - except that you can kill more "enemy" combatants than they can.
And I don't think our enemies then or now really care what we do or feel. They hate us for who we are, not for what we do. With ourselves. Or with them.
Maybe so, but it does matter how we deal with their hatred for ourselves and our way of life. If we become like them, we might just as well be them. Hating for no other reason than culture or religion. That sort of behavior only gives the enemy more ammunition. If nothing else, stop giving them that.
Complain about this comment
Rather-Be-Cycling says "I don't think that our enemies care what we do or feel."
I think they certainly cared how you feel otherwise they wouldn't have perpetrated 9/11. And as for what you do, they may well have delighted in the Bush administration's post 9/11 abandonment of the democratic conventions. They may even have found it to be a good recruiting tool.
Complain about this comment
24. At 9:13pm on 13 Nov 2009, Rather_Be_Cycling wrote:
It floats with the jihadists, madam. Ask them if they are not at war with us. Ask them. Or better still listen to them. On their websites, videos, instructional manuals. They think they are at war. They commit warlike acts. They don't care about the past or your historical definitions or the Geneva Convention or trials. All they know is they are at war. With us. Or isn't that enough to convince you?
You attribute more power to them than you ought. What they say and what they have the power to do are two different things. And no Jihad, no legitimate Jihad, has actually been declared. If it had been the whole of the Muslim world would have risen up and there'd be fighting in the streets of every city where Muslims across the planet lived.
America has always been hated, mocked or derided for simply existing. Whether it be smug Europeans calling us "Colonials" or Soviet era Russian politicians telling their people we were planning a nuclear attack. Nothing has changed except for the languages being used to do the name calling. Get a grip and stop letting the fear rule you.
Complain about this comment
24. At 9:13pm on 13 Nov 2009, Rather_Be_Cycling wrote:
"... Ask them if they are not at war with us. Ask them. Or better still listen to them. On their websites, videos, instructional manuals. They think they are at war. They commit warlike acts. They don't care about the past or your historical definitions or the Geneva Convention or trials. All they know is they are at war. With us. ..."
__________
You are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.
What you have said is a measure of their character, not ours.
If you would have justice, you must do justice. No matter what evils others may do, you cannot be a just man if you descend to that behaviour.
It is the gift of our forefathers that we believe that a free and open society that protects civil liberties, that seeks truth, and that stands for free, fair and impartial justice, permits men and women to have the opportunity to realize their potential in life; to live in peace, security and prosperity.
These may be eighteenth century ideas, but they are ideas of awesome and enduring strength and power. They are what immigrants and the children and the grandchildren of immigrants perceive when they gaze upon a statue in New York harbour. They are the rock upon which America was founded, and they have served her well through thick and thin.
Be not so hasty to turn your back on your inheritance. Civil rights are the crown jewels of a democracy.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 12, Rather_Be_Cycling
"What happened on 9-11 was a predmeditated act of war against the United States of America. It was not a crime."
We don't execute POWs. We do execute criminals.
Are you sure you wish to maintain that it wasn't a crime?
Complain about this comment
I'll be honest that I don't see why all there is all this fuss about where these suspects are tried. I believe New York City is more than capable of hosting this trial and giving the suspects a fair trail. Legally, New York City is the first place that should be considered because it is where the crimes took places. It is how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. Otherwise, it would be a bit like trying Jack the Ripper in Glasgow, when the crimes took place in London.
AS for shiek MOhemded, can see the logic in trying him seperately in a military base. The reason it clear. He is accused of mastermining the bombing of the USS Cole. Because this crime took place onboard a military vesel the Military should have jurisdiction over where this trial takes place. This is the way that it should be.
Complain about this comment
#28 IF
Three cheers. Thank you.
#17 & 19 Rather_Be_Cycling wrote "They are not impressed by our sanctimonious pieties, they are out to kill us." [....] "But go ahead, have your little trial if self-delusional sanctimonious postering makes you feel good...And I don't think our enemies then or now really care what we do or feel."
Your comments reek of fear. A trial by law is not sanctimonious piety; is it not self-delusional posturing. Rather, it is the bedrock principle of a civil society. Why on earth should it matter whether we "impress" our enemies? The point is, who are we as a country going to be? Will we stand up for the rule of law, even for those who commit despicable crimes? Or will we cut and run and abandon our principles because we feel threatened?
Complain about this comment
I've heard several US 'military lawyers' speak on this subject today. None of them have pointed out the fundamental question: was 9/11 was an Act of War or a Criminal Act?
If an act of war, then all the associated 'laws of war' apply and KSM and all the others in detention camps are prisoners-of-war and they get released at the end of hostilities.
If a criminal act, then KSM and all the others in detention camps are innocent until proven guilty, and get to have a proper trial in a federal court. They will have a counter case for torture and brutal treatment, and for undue delay in being held without charges etc. All the interviews without access to a lawyer, without due process are null and void, as are the 'military tribunals.'
Complain about this comment
Interested Foreigner you are so very right.
And there have been no howls of outrage in the wider world at the proposal to try KSM in the very city that he is alleged to have tried - unsuccessfully - to destroy. The only howls are coming from posters who are happy to declare themselves a "conservative coward".
America has many faults. But taking the line of least resistance advocated by so-called conservative cowards has never been one of them.
Complain about this comment
Actually it could not have been a better decision.
Justice should be served and be seen to be served in this case.
When it comes to the death penalty, Manhattan is probably the most anti in the USA, as well as having some of the most liberal members of the establishment. The Mayor of New York (Bloomberg) and the DA (Robert Morgenthau) both 100% oppose the death penalty.
I think AG Holder has been very clever in his choice of venue in oreder not to;
create matyrs, offend America's many friends, upset himself (as his stance o the death penalty does not seem to be pro).
Complain about this comment
During the first attack on the World Trade Center. The blind sheik/cleric's defense forced the US government to surrender all the names under current investigation under discovery. The US government surrendered those names, one of them of many, was Osama Bin Laden. Six of the perpertrators of the 911 bombing (the second one, and more murderous) had drivers licenses issued, even though they had overstayed their visas to be in the US. Lastly they were also registered to vote in the US, thru driver/voter laws. The problems of illegal immigration and insecure borders.
So how many names will be rendered up in this discovery process of this trial? How many undercover operatives will be spotlighted, intelligence compromised? How much evidence will be thrown out due to the nature it was obtained? Did anyone read them their Miranda rights? A Bronx jury will be in place no doubt. Could jury nullification set them free? It has happened in New York on numerous occassions. Could this backfire in Obama's face, you bet. How much will this cost the US government? Lastly if freed what lawsuits will be levied on the US government? Justice? I will be pleasantly surprised if there is any. I mean 3000 people, from 80 different countries lost their lives that tragic day. In an attack that would have led any country to war due to its heinous nature. Children, women, and men murdered. So the US will get the blame, the bill, and the injustice of a flawed system in when the rights of the victims are forgotten, as the lawyers take over the spin.
"The law in all equality forbids the rich as well as the poor, from stealing a loaf of bread and sleeping under bridges." Anatole France
Complain about this comment
"usual over zealous american response"
Response to what?
Describe an appropriate response after you have answered that question.
They should be released and sent to a kingdom and country where they will not be made uncomfortable.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the US government have enough evidence to prove that these men were actually involved in horrendous atrocities of 9/11 or was it someone else? Surely, admissions of these men achieved through inhumane torture shouldn't stand in a legitimate court of law?
Complain about this comment
This is one more dumb move by the Obama Administration. You can be sure the defense will pull out all of the stops to prove that the confession, the capture, even the whereabouts of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were obtained by torture and that without torture, they never would have accused or even captured him. As the "fruit of the poisoned tree" theory has it, all of the evidence obtained that way and anything derived from it should be thrown out of court under America's criminal justice system.
This demonstrates the lunacy of treating this act of war as thought it was only one of domestic crime. These are not ordinary criminals in the usual sense, these are irregular combatants whose goal is to wage war to overthrow the government of the United States. As such they are not protected by the Geneva conventions or by American law. As for GITMO, it was a valuable prison to keep such people until their execution and a symbol of American defiance against a world that wishes America harm. It should be kept open for business. Bad move. If this guy goes free, serious talk about Obama's impeachment should begin.
Complain about this comment
Being unequivocally opposed to the use of torture even against terrorism suspects and known terrorists, i would like to see all evidence developed during the investigation -- including evidence collected through the use of extreme tactics and outright torture -- presented in the courtroom.
I cannot share the Republicans' view that some kind of secret tribunals, or even worse indefinite incarceration without any legal process, would be a better approach.
And even if some of the evidence is of dubious quality, or obtained through methods I abhor, I do believe, to be fair, we have all (and not just Americans: everyone) paid such a high price in our lives, and in the quite possibly irreversible changes that have been imposed on communities everywhere, that we are all entitled to get a full, transparent, uncensored, thorough, carefully weighed and analysed public legal process for the prosecution of persons who by their own admission are amongst the most active of all preachers of hatred and advocates calling for terror attacks on unarmed, powerless and exceedingly vulnerable populations.
Even more than the rest of us, those who have actually been victims of the hell these monsters have unleashed on civilised society, the bereaved family members or the forever injured & traumatised need to have the opportunity to see these wretches for themselves, and to be seen by them, and to know there evil has been thrown into chains, never to be free again to do harm.
Certainly, those whose taxes have paid for massive military campaigns and security operations, those whose economic prospects have fallen victim to these dread events, all have a right to see, hear and follow these proceedings. How much more important they must be than some of the most notorious cases that have engaged our attention in recent months & in years past!
As for 9/11 and the "act of war" debate: only nations may declare war against each other. Bin Laden's "declaration of war on Crusaders" is nothing more than cheap posturing by a risible narcissist. Bush declared "war on terror" in the same way that others declared a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs." These are all catch phrases. Attaching some kind of political significance to the toxic illogic of militaristic sociopaths only makes them seem, somehow, like another "version" of reality, doctrine, philosophy or social structure.
They are nothing of the sort. They are murderous kooks, that is all they are. They are sadistic, impulsive extreme narcissists who out of great selfishness imagine they get to blow, maim, abduct, torture, decapitate, dismember, terrorise others just because They Feel Like It.
Searching for "reasons" (as in when prosecutors say: "We cannot comprehend how a human being could act with such malevolent intent" or words to that effect) is actually an insult to our intelligence. It is obvious the man who shot a mother of three with a bolt gun simply wanted her to suffer an agony before ceasing to exist, for the entire reason that she had a different opinion of him than he had of himself.
And that is all there is to it. The former friends who set fire to American teen Michael Brewer: they decided he deserved to die because they did not like him walking around, safe and sound, alive and well.
When we hate someone just for being there, that is a Hate Crime. It underlies all terrorist attacks. People may debate for decades what "ultimately really happened on 9/11 in 2001": but it was, unmistakably, undeniably, a Hate Crime. An act of extreme, cruel, overblown, intricately planned and executed aggression with the intent to kill masses and masses of helpless, powerless, ambushed people. In Beslan, or in Oklahoma City, or in countless attacks in Israel, even the youngest children are believed to merit extreme suffering, just for being who they are, just for being there, just for having a life that matters to someone else...
Terrorists are extreme criminals. From where I sit, they are every bit as bad as Fritzl. The resurgence of terrorism as a way of life (of sorts) for some bandit elements and paramilitary groups during the last third of the 20th century, and its intensification in recent years, while it owes much to all kinds of interested third parties (e.g. arms merchants), actually fits a broader pattern much in evidence everywhere: one of increasing brutalization. Some sociopaths, we find, even subject their own flesh & blood to unforgivable, complex atrocities.
Human beings are becoming more and more vicious, it seems; the frequency of atrocities being perpetrated with nonchalant ease, and even by very young sociopaths, indicates something much more pernicious at work than even "mere" terrorism.
To attempt to examine the problem of intensifying brutality piecemeal will not help us beat it back down. Yes, individuals must be prosecuted for individual incidents. But we must also address the bigger evil: and it is every bit as serious as the climate problem.
Thank God that at least in America they have some severe verdicts available. Because when I read of how little time in prison many serious violent criminals serve in European countries, I want to cry. Really. I don't care how young the perpetrator is: persons who go to some lengths to cause grievous harm, to kill, rape, maim, torture -- to light a house on fire, knowing someone is inside -- sometimes a very young victim, or a frail elderly one -- does need to be separated from the rest of us for the rest of their natural lives.
Yes, 9/11 absolutely requires capital punishment for the authors of that event -- all of them.
Complain about this comment
37. At 11:29pm on 13 Nov 2009, Mohammad Rizwan wrote:
I wonder if the US government have enough evidence to prove that these men were actually involved in horrendous atrocities of 9/11 or was it someone else? Surely, admissions of these men achieved through inhumane torture shouldn't stand in a legitimate court of law?
That evidence will not be admissible in court, but other evidence, interviews with the FBI where there was no coercion used, bank records, travel records, etc. is certainly admissible.
@35 AmericanGrizzly
And what would you have us do instead? Take them round the back of the court house and hang them from a sour apple tree? If Bush and Cheney hadn't been so determined turn post-9/11 America into some sort of unilateral dispenser of world justice and simply done things in the proper, accepted fashion with trials early on, we wouldn't be in this mess. If they get off, remember who it was that really set them free: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales, the Enabler.
Complain about this comment
Prezactly! And a damned fine mess they made of it.
Complain about this comment
Like with many other problems in our evermore complex world,humans have once again shown themselves good at short-term solutions, in this case
Guantanimo Bay, only to face more intactable problems later on. As a Canadian, I full support President Obama in his efforts to close this atrocious and detestable use of an off-shore naval base ASAP. Now, over 8 years after the horrors of 9-11, it is blatantly obvious the Bush-Cheney Administration who opened the place had no long-term plan. These simpletons saw an opportunity outside the US justice sytems for incerating prisoners and went for it giving no thought to the longer term. As for a lot of these prisoners,especilly the 70 who cannot be tried but are "too dangerous to release", if they were not terrorist going in they certainly will be now after being jailed nearly 8 years without trial. As for what to do with such people, well, I understand the Saudis have a rehab. program for potentially violent politico-religious radicals. Perhaps something could be worked out, but probably only courtesy once again of evermore embattled US taxpayers.
Complain about this comment
Mark wrote "New York Republican congressman Peter King also worries that the trial will turn into a circus, and turn his city into a timebomb. He'd rather they were kept in Guantanamo."
According to Wikipedia, Mr King is something of an expert on the subject of terrorism
"In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.” He was branded by a judge in a Northern Ireland court “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”. He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA terrorist activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA terrorism in the UK.
In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of "anti-Catholic bigoted forces."
He stopped supporting the IRA after being offended by Irish public opposition to the invasion of Iraq, labelling it as begrudgery rather than suspicion of and opposition to the war."
It rather reminds me of a comment by the British comedian Al Murray.
"I'd like to thank the Americans for their help in the War on Terror.
If they hadn't funded the IRA for thirty years, we'd never have learned how to deal with terrorists..."
Complain about this comment
Can't remember whether I said at #43 that the data on King comes from Wikipedia, here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King. [#43 is 'still awaiting moderation".]
They have a few more gems
"In the 2008 presidential election, King encouraged candidate John McCain to bring up the subject of William Ayers and Ayers' association with Barack Obama."
"Although he supported John McCain for president, King opposed ...McCain's calls for an end to torture methods used during terrorist suspect interrogations."
As I said, a regular expert on the subject of terrorism...
Complain about this comment
24. At 9:13pm on 13 Nov 2009, Rather_Be_Cycling wrote:
At 9:00pm on 13 Nov 2009, Philly-Mom wrote:
"Dear Rather_Be_Cycling: (12)
" Pearl Harbor was a military attack ordered by an active government. 9/11 was the mass murder of many civilians my an organized group of civilians. Yes, the criminals were from a foreign country, but they were not ordered to attack by an active government. Your critique doesn't... um... float. sry. "
It floats with the jihadists, madam. Ask them if they are not at war with us. Ask them. Or better still listen to them. On their websites, videos, instructional manuals. They think they are at war. They commit warlike acts. They don't care about the past or your historical definitions or the Geneva Convention or trials. All they know is they are at war. With us. Or isn't that enough to convince you? “
Your point is quite clear but begs the question. You believe we are at war with them [and I agree with you] and they believe they are at war with us [their attacks certainly support that]. But where, pray tell, is their capital city for us to bomb, where their infrastructure for us to degrade, and where their military facilities for our brave and competent warriors to take out?
Your comparison to a war between two identifiable nation states is faulty. And because of that fault, some conclusions and remedies are also faulty. They are cowards [to our minds, but clever in their own] who hide among innocent [and not so innocent] civilians, use sneak attacks and stratagems to attack us.
To separate the innocent from the guilty is the work of courts not soldiers. They wore no uniforms and belonged to no national army. They could [and you and I might agree should] have been executed on the field of battle as provided for under international law. Having been captured they are entitled to a fair trial, I am prepared to trust the justice system that handled the first NYC attack to handle the follow up attack.
Success to the President, and success to the United States of America.
Complain about this comment
32. At 10:14pm on 13 Nov 2009, Richard_SM wrote:
All the interviews without access to a lawyer, without due process are null and void, as are the 'military tribunals.'
Oh dear!!! Do mean to ask if they were read their Miranda Rights, told that they were entitled to a lawyer and informed that if they could not afford one the state would provide one? Talk about opening a can of worms! I believe embeded reporters in the Gulf War reported that every unit was assigned a military lawyer. I am struggling to imagine the battlefield implications...............
35. At 11:12pm on 13 Nov 2009, AmericanGrizzly wrote:
Lastly if freed what lawsuits will be levied on the US government?
Do you remember the OJ Simpson case? The victims’ families could keep them busy for generations with wrongful death suits, and IMHO should begin filing them immediately.
39. At 11:56pm on 13 Nov 2009, maria-ashot wrote:
“They are nothing of the sort. They are murderous kooks, that is all they are. They are sadistic, impulsive extreme narcissists who out of great selfishness imagine they get to blow, maim, abduct, torture, decapitate, dismember, terrorise others just because They Feel Like It.”
OMG is the opening wedge of either the insanity defence or the Twinkie defence?
40. At 00:05am on 14 Nov 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
37. At 11:29pm on 13 Nov 2009, Mohammad Rizwan wrote:
“If they get off, remember who it was that really set them free: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales, the Enabler.”
NO, no, it wasn’t a sex crime or lie about sex, so the republicans among us would never go for impeachment [er, I mean trial].
Complain about this comment
29. At 9:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"We don't execute POWs. We do execute criminals.
Are you sure you wish to maintain that it wasn't a crime?"
Nonsense. What do you call the Nuremberg trials?
Complain about this comment
maria-ashot;
"Being unequivocally opposed to the use of torture even against terrorism suspects and known terrorists, i would like to see all evidence developed during the investigation -- including evidence collected through the use of extreme tactics and outright torture -- presented in the courtroom."
That is why you and people who think like you are as great a threat to the security of the United States and to the people of the United States as the terrorists themselves. I think President Bush got it exactly right when he said if you aren't with us, you're against us. It's clear to me you're not with us.
paul;
"What do you call the Nuremberg trials?"
A waste of taxpayer money.
Complain about this comment
Moving the accused to mainland under civilian court jurisdiction means that most of the confessions or accusations by other prisoners that were obtained under duress that is commonly acknowledged as torture should be inadmissible. Thus the remaining evidence, obtained or corroborated by others under similar conditions, could be questioned and probably significantly diluted. That presents a danger to how others could look at our judicial system. If the main accused who was subjected to over 183 cases of water boarding will firmly deny any involvement in planning of 9/11 event and the case, after dismissal of his torture induced admission, will become very weak then how the world will look at our justice system if it declares death penalty in his case? If we do not want to be compared to Tutsis rendering justice to Hutus then we must adhere to a blind justice honorable dictates, even if that means letting Mohammed and others go free. Imagine, if you can, being subjected to 180 water boarding experiences. You either would die during those imposed "attractions" or began firmly to believe (upon suggestion by your interrogators) that devil is your closest relative.
Regardless, in my opinion this is a healthy move on the part of authorities. Civilized nations should not cage their enemies indefinitely like animals in zoos. Any human being deserves his/her day in court. And we should strive that our courts are unbiased but fair in rendering their verdicts.
Complain about this comment
Ref 47 paul
"Nonsense. What do you call the Nuremberg trials?"
An international military tribunal held in Germany.
Complain about this comment
48. At 02:15am on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"What do you call the Nuremberg trials?"
"A waste of taxpayer money."
___________
Laughed, and laughed, and laughed.
A true Marcus Classic.
Ja. In ze old country ve chust uzed to schoot zem first, und vorry about ze trial later.
There is a certain irony that Stalin thought exactly as Marcus now says.
Stalin's idea, (at Yalta ? I believe) was to round up the 50,000 highest ranking German Officers, and execute them summarily. It appealed to Stalin as rapid and practical. Churchill stormed out of the room, refusing to have any part of such infamy. The Americans assumed that it was merely another one of Stalin's little jokes to needle Churchill, and laughed it off.
Of course, 12,000 corpses of the Polish Officer Corps turned up at Katyn Wood, each with a bullet through the skull.
Yeah, that Stalin.
What a joker.
A real barrel of laughs.
You're in good company, Marcus.
Complain about this comment
There is no such thing as international law. The only time it's trotted out is when the European left wants an excuse to punish someone it doesn't like. All other times it goes back in the drawer out of sight, out of mind. And you know the drawer is kept double locked when the criminals are socialists and communists. We wouldn't want to have seen the Castro brothers, the dearly beloved leaders of North Korea, of Vietnam, or Mao and his gang in prison for their crimes. Not one word about an international tribunal for the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad who are responsible for the murders of countless dissidents protesting the election all over Iran. Never.
Complain about this comment
47. At 01:56am on 14 Nov 2009, paul wrote:
29. At 9:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"We don't execute POWs. We do execute criminals.
Are you sure you wish to maintain that it wasn't a crime?"
Nonsense. What do you call the Nuremberg trials?
________
Well what if they are both prisoners of war and criminals, i.e., war criminals?
You can't hold them as prisoners of war AND try them for war crimes quite independently? Since when? When 20 Nova Scotians were murdered by an SS Officer in the courtyard of a boarding school just across the road from Carpiquet Airfield, he was hunted down by counter-intelligence, tried and convicted, even though he was also a prisoner of war.
I like the wrongful death suit suggestion. There are treaties that prevent this kind of suit between national governments, but these accused have not so far alleged that they were acting on behalf of a sovereign state. So far, they were private individuals acting in a criminal conspiracy.
And then there are the class action suits ...
And if the US doesn't obtain convictions, are the accused then going to be subject to 80 odd extradition proceedings on behalf of each country whose citizens were killed on September 11, 2001? Those countries may have varying standards of proof and varying standards with respect to the admissibility of evidence. What is "shocking to the conscience" in one country may not be in another.
And for those who suggest that they are prisoners of war, well, that really is a kettle of fish.
If they make a claim to be prisoners of war, the traditional rule is that the US is entitled to keep them as prisoners until the cessation of hostilities. When will that be? Well, when someone responsible for their actions (typically, but not necessarily, a sovereign) signs a peace treaty. Their beards might grow pretty long and white before that day ever dawns. Hey, Osama ! Yoo hoo! Over here! Could you sign this for us ...
And, alternatively, if they are persons found on a battlefield, allegedly claiming to be combatants, but for whom there is no sovereign prepared to stand accountable for their actions or to sign a peace treaty on their behalf, the old rule used to be that they were considered hostis humanis, in essence pirates or highwaymen, and the party capturing them had the right to execute them on the spot summarily or later at pleasure. Whatever rule now applies, it is unlikely that pirates or brigands would be entitled to better treatment than prisoners of war.
Yeah, there are going to be lots of billable hours on these files.
Complain about this comment
I'm impressed by the number of posters who support raising these trials to the highest standard of justice. I also see it as confirmation of Mr. Obama's commitment to restore America's integrity before the world.
In our anger, several of us begin with a determination to see these accused prisoners executed, and then proceed to discuss the trials as a 'legal' means to take our vengeance for the insult (yes, a vicious attack is an insult) to the nation.
But which is the greater injury - to be attacked on our own soil and some 3000 innocents killed, or to ourselves loose our commitment to civil conduct, to civilization, by suspending our tradition of fair, open and honest trial of the accused and to the rule of law, because we smart from the blow?
I suggest that W and Dick and their supporters are really the cowards and enemies here - their lack of confidence in our institutions led them to abandon our precious traditions when they were under attack, and jump immediately to extraordinary and illegal means to 'protect' the country. I am with those who say that we cannot expect justice if we do not act with justice. Those who give away our principles are the true destroyers of our nation and its future among the nations of the world.
Obama is the patriot here. If one or other of these accused escapes execution because the law says he must, it will be to the strength and honor of the American system.
Come to think of it, both times they struck these attackers' goal was to bring down our financial system and our influence in the world by attacking the World Trade Center. But now this has actually happened, and the damage to the American people and to those who trusted in us is real and immense. Wrong was done: our principles of fairness, openness, and law were violated. What should we do to those who engineered that attack?
KScurmudgeon
hurting
Complain about this comment
I prefer to wait and see if they are convicted and sentenced first to judge whether this is a triumph of justice or not.
I my option they deserve nothing less than life without the possibility of parole.
If the adm. had continued with the military tribunals like every other adm. in US history faced with such an issue (FDR & the saboteurs) then they wouldn’t have to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt for the death penalty. For all non-Americans unfamiliar with the term, it is a layman's legal term in the US for a unanimous guilty jury verdict; the judge actually handles the sentencing, but no judge in a civilian court of law can give the death penalty without it.
However, military tribunals only require a 2/3 majority guilty verdict for a judge to issue the same sentence. Again, I will wait and see how this case plays out before I call this justice.
Complain about this comment
Ref 54 KScurmudgeon
"But which is the greater injury - to be attacked on our own soil and some 3000 innocents killed, or to ourselves loose our commitment to civil conduct, to civilization, by suspending our tradition of fair, open and honest trial of the accused and to the rule of law, because we smart from the blow?"
Yes. We can bring about a greater injury to ourselves, and our nation, by setting terrible precedence in our laws by allowing convenient deviations to the rules of evidence so an awful vengeance can be extracted from the accused; as some have suggested. If the rule of law can be deviated for one defendant, can it not also be deviated for another? Might that deviation be used against you or I even in a less emotion-charged legal trial? Who is to choose when deviations from established laws and rules of procedure are appropriate?
Looking beyond the trials to the appeals process; is the venue that has been chosen not a liability? Will the proximity to the gripping, emotion-charged site of devastation have an undue influence on the jury? Or the judge?
I think if I were a prosecuting attorney in any of these trials, I would file for a change of venue to take that risk out of what, no doubt, will be a very complicated equation. As an attorney for the defense I would also file for a change of venue, in the best interest of my client.
Complain about this comment
If the guy is released on some legal technicality, I can't image that he'd ever make it to the airport alive. I can't imagine any cop risking his life to protect him. I can't imagine any jury convicting his assassin. I'm glad I'm not the judge in this case. If he dismisses the charges, I don't think he'd be safe another day in his life either. I'll bet his defense attorney will also receive threats.
Complain about this comment
This can't be welcome news for Moslems living in the US. All it will do is stir up anti-Moslem sentiment. Anyone who was here after 9-11 knows how intese those feelings were among a large segment of the population. All a trial will accomplish is to stir those feelings up again. Bad move, very bad move. These people from GITMO should not be brought on to American soil. Nobody here wants them. What if the guy got a life in prison sentence? How would the guards protect him? Who will protect him from the guards? Guards in prisons are not like soldiers subject to military discipline. They are low paid people usually of relatively low intelligence who might do almost anyting. Inside the prisons, half of them are probably criminals themselves. Sooner or later one will want to make a name for himself.
Complain about this comment
Ref 55 BienvenueEnLouisiana-
"I my option they deserve nothing less than life without the possibility of parole."
How do we even know we are accusing the right defendants until there is an examination of evidence and testimony of witnesses in an open trial? How would you, your family, your neighbors react to your own conviction for a crime you did not commit; though you signed a confession under extreme duress?
Our legal system has been developed over a period of 233 years. Should we just scrap essential elements of our successful, well-developed legal system to accomplish a singular goal of blind vengeance? The previous Administration chose to be inventive with their interpretation of established law and international agreements that have left our nation this dreadful conundrum to solve. Should we continue on the line of extra-legal inventiveness, which has so terribly failed us? Or should we right ourselves and face the consequences of allowing our government to run with a free hand and rough-shod tactics against the Constitution of these United States of America?
The time has now come to steer the Ship of State back to the course that follows our principles enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Or "We the People..." lose our liberty so that we can assuage our anger, pain, and frustration.
What kind of nation do we pass on to our children? A nation that seeks blind vengeance without due process? Or do we pass on to them a nation that has the courage to follow their own, well-established laws and legal procedures?
No matter how terrible the devastation caused by a singular event and our desire to bring retribution to those responsible; these are the questions we face and must answer.
Complain about this comment
This is asinine! These men should have been convicted by military tribuneral and executed. This was not a "civil crime" but a terrorist attack. The very special and peculiar nature of the attack justifies a special judicial treatment. This treatment was provided by the establishment of the military tribuneral system.
There is no justification for a massively expensive "show trial" other than this Administrations continued disire to think and act like a massive public relations firm. "A sense of closure!" RUBBISH!
Since this was a crime against our NATION, not just the city of New York, there is no justification for holding a trial in New York. It could be held in...well Guantanamo Bay comes to mind as it is sovereign US soil!
What we are seeing here is POLITICS not justice. What we are seeing is indecision, not leadership. What we are seeing is another Kabuki theatre show by this administration that so delights in deceiving the American public.
Complain about this comment
Ref 60 shiveringofforgottenemies-
"This was not a "civil crime" but a terrorist attack."
What is a "civil crime"? I am aware of criminal misdemeanor and felony acts that are against the law. There are civil disputes that are taken to court for resolution when two, or more parties cannot come to agreement.
This "civil crime" is new to me. I have not run across it in extensive reading of the laws of our land.
What is proving "asinine" is the way in which former Attorney Generals to the United States were so creative in interpreting our written laws and international agreements; and how the former Administration agreed to act under those creative interpretations. We are suffering the consequences of their irresponsible folly.
We are now beginning to see politics acting in accordance with justice; instead of administrators creating their own laws to suit their immediate purpose and unique agenda.
Are you proposing that our nation return to vigilante law so prevalent in the sparsely settled territories of the West, before those Territories became parceled into regions that were able to attain Statehood so they could have a system to effectively support law and order?
There was a "terrorist" act that took place in Oklahoma City. Was the Federal Government wrong in trying the defendants in Federal Court? Should the defendants been tried by a military tribunal for their act of terrorism against our nation?
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Yeah (or Ye Ha) lets torture and kill the suspect its the american way. Funny how those who are the most god-bothering are the most viscious and bloody. I dont think my contempt for the USA can increase any more without physical damage happening.
Complain about this comment
Ref 54, KScurmudgeon
"I suggest that W and Dick and their supporters are really the cowards and enemies here - their lack of confidence in our institutions led them to abandon our precious traditions when they were under attack, and jump immediately to extraordinary and illegal means to 'protect' the country."
The decision to abandon our traditions and constitutional rights in favor of a facile solution to a complex political and social problem was influenced by fear, but there was also a deliberate move by our government to satisfy the thirst for revenge that most Americans felt after 9/11. In reality, the neocons used 9/11 to achieve goals that would have been difficult to accomplish with a semblance of legitimacy had it not been for that perfect excuse.
There are many that in spite of all the investigations and reports on the subject still believe Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11, and believe Afghanistan had a major role in planning and executing the attack. In reality, the overwhelming majority of the terrorists that attacked us, including the planners and financiers of that operation, were from Saudi Arabia, had no formal ties to any government, and members of the Wahhabist movement continue to benefit from our special economic relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Our reaction and determination to punish the Islamic world is further exacerbated by our inability - or unwillingness - to differentiate between a state-sponsored attack and a terrorist act carried out by a group of fanatics. It is also aggravated by our special relationship with Israel, and the influence of that country in US foreign policy. As a consequence, we see absolutely nothing wrong when our government decides to lash out against anyone that remotely looks or sound like the people that attacked us - regardless of how limited or tainted the evidence against them may be - to give the illusion that our leaders are intent in protecting the security of our country and preserving our way of life.
In reality, the decisions made by the ultra conservative elements that decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were simply designed to achieve socio-economic and political goals that would have been difficult to justify without 9/11. W was a convenient buffoon used by Dick Cheney and his neocons to pursue their goals, with the complicity of the US media and a naive and ill-informed populace inclined to believe anything our "leaders" tell us.
Complain about this comment
19 rather-be-cycling
"They hate us for who we are, not for what we do."
I believe that I am not alone in suggesting that you have it back to front. They hate us for what we do .... and they use it to motivate new under-educated young jihadis.
Whatever started it all it is undeniable that our own actions over the past 8 years have exaccerbated the situation and enabled easier recruitment of easily indoctrinated men and women.
And then judging by some of the comments on this and other threads it is people among us who often hate them precisely for who they are.
----------------------
Regarding the trial...
While it may stir up a rats nest of legalese arguments in their defense, this is the price to pay for having a decent legal system.
Others have said more eloquently than I, but if we become the enemy then what are we really fighting for?
We'd just better hope that there is some real evidence against them and that the whole house of cards isn't based on torture.
And to those who would "hang 'em high" with no trial, or at best a kangaroo court, I would reiterate PubliusDetroit's point that once a precedent is made in law it can then be applied in other cases .... not really what we want.
Where now your championning of the constitution?
I know the right has no faith in government (except when they're running it) but it seems they have no faith in the law either. What sort of country do they want ot live in?
Complain about this comment
57. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"If the guy is released on some legal technicality, I can't image that he'd ever make it to the airport alive."
Marcus, Bravo!!!
It's important to think of the worst....
What you are saying really is "If the guy is released because ALL the evidence is so tainted by torure or other illegal activity ....."
And if this did turn out to be true who would be responsible ..... the Bush administration for messing up a dead-cert slam-dunk of a case, or the Obama administration for following US law?
I ask again "What sort of country do you want to live in?"
Complain about this comment
PubliusD & Gary
Glad to see you both on board .... the more facts we "regular Joe's" have at our disposal the better.
Thanks for your input.
Complain about this comment
In all likelihood, those methods proven effective that are used to discover, capture, and interrogate terrorists do not fall within the restrictions of American criminal law as they exist today. That is one reason why they should not be tried as criminals in American courts but as irregular enemy combattants which is what they are. How is this different? They committed acts of war including conspiring to violently overthrow the government of the United States. In an era of WMDs, the methods used to discover, capture and interrogate ordinary criminals when applied to terrorists is nothing short of national suicide.
Another reason not to try them as criminals is that revealing the particulars of the methods used and the individuals involved would jeopardize the future efficacy of those methods, jeopardize the lives and careers of those who cooperated secretly with American intelligence, and deter any further cooperation by others wishing to prevent acts of terrorism against the United States by revealing their knowledge to American and friendly authorities. This is what America's European enemies and internal treasonous enemies on the left including many Democrats want. This is why an politicaly tyro lawyer whose life's experience is limited to community organizing and editing a law journal makes a lousy commander-in-chief of the United States Armed forces. Military actions transcend all laws, there is no way to draw a line around what is legal and what is illegal in war if you want to win.
Complain about this comment
Lord Nathan #'s 3 & 4: I have included a link to an interview with Michael Isikoff (sp?) from last night's Rachel Maddow Show, which answers your questions regarding the tainting of the evidence via torture and the length of time it has taken to build the cases against the defendants so that such evidence is not necessary to present at trial. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33922877
I have mentioned before in this forum that it is a monumental job to "unwind" the Bush Administration's damage before the Obama Administration can move forward with something constructive: these trials are a case in point.
PS: thank you for your compliment from the other day.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius II perceives humanity through a mirror darkly, or perhaps I should say he is one heck* of a devil’s advocate. In these two posts [57 & 58] he reveals the dark side of human nature [and American history BTW] as it is and not how we would wish it to be.
Trial by jury indeed does have it’s through the looking glass parallel of hanging judge, vigilantes and lynch mobs. There is at least a possibility that his predictions could come true.
Nevertheless, we must do what is right while fearing the worst and hoping for the best.
65. At 12:56pm on 14 Nov 2009, RomeStu wrote:
19 rather-be-cycling
"’They hate us for who we are, not for what we do.’
I believe that I am not alone in suggesting that you have it back to front. They hate us for what we do .... and they use it to motivate new under-educated young jihadis.”
If you think about it, this is a false dichotomy, both propositions are true. They have made demands such as that we must accept Islam, veil our women and discontinue freedom of speech. They do indeed hate us for what we are [Al Qaeda and jihadis] as well as for what we do [the aggrieved masses].
*Fearing misadventure by moderator, I have altered the idiom in a politically correct way, but you know what I mean.
Complain about this comment
Stewed in Rome;
"I ask again "What sort of country do you want to live in?""
One that exists in a world where terrorists and would be terrorists know for certain that they will be found, caught, tortured for their knowledge, and that they and those who harbor and support them as well as their cause will die without in any way achieving their goals. I also know what kind of world YOU want to live in. I'm sure it is one where the terrorists win, especially if they are fighting to bring an end to places like America and Israel. After a lifetime of watching and listening I know your kind. That is why I have no qualms about telling you what I think of you. Aren't you lucking I'm not running things. There would be drastic changes for the better...at least for my side.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to see the rule of law reappearing from an unexpected quarter. It would be welcome to actually see the evidence and how it was obtained. I think NYC is a large enough venue that twelve people and some alternates can be found who would set aside their prejudices and judge the evidence on its merits. It has been done before.
A co-worker's family member died in those buildings, so I have no personal sympathy for the defendants in this case.
If the US justice system isn't up to the task, perhaps they can be deported to Saudi as undesirable criminal aliens. Their native justice system doesn't condone wholesale murder of innocents either. At least that is my understanding.
Complain about this comment
71 marcus
"One that exists in a world where terrorists and would be terrorists know for certain that they will be found, caught, tortured for their knowledge, and that they and those who harbor and support them as well as their cause will die without in any way achieving their goals."
Well, you're honest, I'll give you that. However as ever you fail to address the issue of who decides whether someone is a terrorist or not. What you seem to be proposing is some sort of dictatorship regarding legal issues, which is odd considering you normally champion the constitution and bill of rights as evidence of the USA's innate superiority.
Now in this case the men are not US citizens, but take the Major from Fort Hood, and you would simply remove his rights as a citizen on only your own say-so.
----------
"I also know what kind of world YOU want to live in. I'm sure it is one where the terrorists win, especially if they are fighting to bring an end to places like America and Israel. After a lifetime of watching and listening I know your kind."
Yeah Marcus - I want the terrorists to win .... can you not for a second look at this accusation and not see how ridiculous you are.
If you look beyond your eternal knee-jerk reaction you would realise that we really want the same result - the end of terrorism .... just that I do not want torture and summary execution to be part of it.
Complain about this comment
At least in the selections above, it is gratifying to see commo sense and respect for the great American traditions of justice as the rule rather than the exception.
Makes one rather proud. Thanks to Stu, Curmudgeon, IF, Publius, Carolina Lass, and others. This mess was created by the Shrub and his evil colleagues, and I thank Heaven for the wisdom of my countrymen and women in electing a man who is doing his best to clean out a poisoned chalice.
May the God(s) smile upon our efforts to reclaim America the Just.
Complain about this comment
Twenty guys go on a training course. One is a bully. It's no surprise when one of them 'gets him back' when he's asleep.
Complain about this comment
#71. MarcusAureliusII,
"Aren't you lucking I'm not running things."
If you were running things, you'd progressively kill everyone, and then you'd kill yourself!
Complain about this comment
Ref. 47, paul:
"What do you call the Nuremberg trials?"
That was the international community. The crimes took place outside of U.S. jurisdiction. We took part, though, yes.
Complain about this comment
#57. MarcusAureliusII,
"If the guy is released on some legal technicality..." Murdoch would sign him up for exclusive interview on Fox News. Premium rates apply.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 74, Lord Nation:
"It is gratifying to see common sense and respect for the great American traditions of justice as the rule rather than the exception."
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.
I must admit I was a little worried for a while, there. I really should have had more faith in my countrymen.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 1, dceilar:
"I wonder if they will use 'evidence' ascertained by the use of torture."
I doubt it, but I'll be watching for it along with you. It's clearly inadmissible. It's would constitute grounds for appeal. I can't imagine AG Holder allowing this to go to trial if he didn't have enough unimpeachable evidence to get a conviction.
Complain about this comment
Stewed in Rome;
"What you seem to be proposing is some sort of dictatorship regarding legal issues"
The US military like every other military in the world is a dictatorship out of necessity. A democratic military would not be effective in performing its mandate of protecting the country. Nor would applying common criminal law against enemy combatants, especially irregulars. The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact. It was never intended to protect the imagined rights of people who clearly want to destroy the country. They do not get or deserve the benefits of constitutional protections. It is also clear that in every war, there will be non combatants who get caught up in the conflict and are injured or killed. The more intense the war, the more of them are likely to become victims. This is not a war America initiated but it is one that must be pursued until the enemy is eliminated completely, something the US hasn't done since WWII. It had better remember how if it wants to ever resume normal existance. Instead of President Bush trying to pretend everything was fine and going to be alright again like it was, the US should have been placed under marshall law on 9-11 and stayed there. Congress should have declared war against Islamic jihad. We should have been attacking Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia starting that very night. Forrays into Egypt to wipe out the Islamic Brotherhood that gave birth to al Qaeda should also have been on the agenda. It wasn't that President Bush's policies were too strong that caused them to be ineffective, it's that they were much too weak.
Little Lord Fauntleroy;
To say that I detest the European values you express is to misuse the word detest because it badly dilutes the intensity of my feelings of hatred for your civilization and its inhuman values. To see the truth of it one only has to look at the sorry history of Europe to appreciate the folly of its words and how the sentiments behind them inevitably lead to an unending string of disasters. It surely will again. This time will be no different, especially when the US pulls all its forces out. Were it up to me, we'd start that process this very minute and be completely out by sundown.
Complain about this comment
57. At 05:52am on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
If the guy is released on some legal technicality, I can't image that he'd ever make it to the airport alive. I can't imagine any cop risking his life to protect him. I can't imagine any jury convicting his assassin. I'm glad I'm not the judge in this case. If he dismisses the charges, I don't think he'd be safe another day in his life either. I'll bet his defense attorney will also receive threats.
_________
Ah, so the reason he should not be tried, we should ignore the law, and we should not allow the basic institutions of a democracy to function, is because we already live in a society of anarchy and mob rule.
Sure, nothing wrong or troubling about that proposition.
Nothing at all.
The very time when it is most important to defend the institutions of a democracy is when they are unpopular.
Complain about this comment
58. At 06:16am on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
“This can't be welcome news for Moslems living in the US. All it will do is stir up anti-Moslem sentiment. Anyone who was here after 9-11 knows how intese those feelings were among a large segment of the population. All a trial will accomplish is to stir those feelings up again. Bad move, very bad move. These people from GITMO should not be brought on to American soil. Nobody here wants them. What if the guy got a life in prison sentence? How would the guards protect him? Who will protect him from the guards? Guards in prisons are not like soldiers subject to military discipline. They are low paid people usually of relatively low intelligence who might do almost anyting. Inside the prisons, half of them are probably criminals themselves. Sooner or later one will want to make a name for himself.”
_________
Ah, how very thoughtful. So now, first, he should not be tried out of pure consideration for our Moslem minority, in view of our own impliedly latently violent prejudice against Moslem citizens of the US. Because, of course, the problem is that they are Moslems, rather than that there is a problem with prejudice that needs to be faced in the mirror?
Perhaps too then, they ought not to have tried, say, John Gotti, for fear of offending Americans of Sicilian descent?
- - - - - - - -
“Nobody wants him here”, you say.
Well, that may very well be true. But might be said about almost anybody serving time at Her Majesty’s pleasure, or enjoying a sojourn at Con College, whether state or federal, and that doesn’t stop them from being tried all the same.
I’m sure lots of us have neighbours about whom this might be true, even without criminal charges.
Why, come to think of it, even some of your neighbours might know that feeling.
That’s why the UK has developed a growth industry in ASBO’s.
- - - - - - - -
And, ever thoughtful again, now he shouldn’t be tried out of concern for his own safety should he be convicted. (Of course posting 57 related to a concern about his safety if he isn’t convicted, so it seems its “no-win” either way.) Let’s summarize your commentary:
Prison guards are incompetent.
Prison guards are murderous rogue elements.
Prison guards are undisciplined.
Prison guards are stupid.
Prison guards might “do anything”.
Half of prison guards are “probably criminals themselves”
Ok. So not only is the law no good; not only are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights no good; but the prison system isn’t any good either.
Who knew?
Marcus as Jeremy Bentham.
Why you Socialist Reformer, you! Didn’t know you had it in you.
Of course, your (newfound?) zeal for prison reform does not seem to have been spurred on by the fact that every other prisoner in these institutions is subject to the same conditions you find deplorable, and that cause you such touching concern for the fate of the accused.
Complain about this comment
61 Publius:
Exactly.
There was no suggestion at the time that Timothy McVeigh was “at war”, or that he should be treated as a “prisoner of war”, or that somehow the law should be suspended.
If the September 11 attacks had been carried out by a homegrown all-American wacko, like Timothy McVeigh, or David Koresh, or Jim Jones, instead of a bunch of Islamic wackos, nobody would be saying that it was an “Act of War”, and that the law should be ignored. So why now?
Complain about this comment
66. At 1:05pm on 14 Nov 2009, RomeStu wrote:
“And if this did turn out to be true who would be responsible ..... the Bush administration for messing up a dead-cert slam-dunk of a case, or the Obama administration for following US law?
I ask again "What sort of country do you want to live in?"
_________
Precisely.
Can it be, that Americans are so pathetic that a few handfuls of misguided religious nut-cases can so easily cause the populace to discard the priceless legacy of their forbears, to throw out the law, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
If that is so, what a terrible victory they have already wrought upon us all.
Complain about this comment
What strikes me is how many people here, and in the news, seem not to believe in the US Constitution, and who are ready to abandon it at the first excuse.
How feckless.
It’s stunning, really. You call yourselves Americans, but when the time comes to stand up for her, to defend everything she stands for, you turn your backs and run. Americans, my foot. Cowards more like.
Where are all these protesters who scream about the Constitution when they don't want public health care?
Where are all these protesters who demand that the right to bear arms under s. 2 be inviolate?
Yet when it comes time to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to defend the basic civil rights, the very purpose for which the need for the "well armed militia" of s. 2 is justified, these people are silent, or, worse, loudly disclaim the idea that the law should be followed and obeyed, and that the Constitution should be upheld.
Hypocrites.
Feckless hypocrites.
- - - - - - - -
There are things in this world, and in this life, that are valuable and important.
The US Constitution is one of them.
Under Article II, Section I, each President recites the oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Well that is what President Obama is doing, and what George W. Bush so singularly failed to do.
President Obama is showing that he has the courage of his convictions. At last the President of the United States is standing up for the Constitution. That is what a President is supposed to do. It is his sworn duty.
Those of you who criticize him for doing so have forgotten your own allegiance and your own duties. If you are not prepared to stand up for and defend the Constitution, you should be ashamed.
Maybe it is time for you to renounce your citizenship and slither back whence you came.
Complain about this comment
How does the resignation of White House Counsel Gregory Craig, who was handling Guantanamo policy, fit into this story?
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/11/13/09/obama-aide-who-guided-guantanamo-policy-resigning
Complain about this comment
Not forever, it seems, but the danger as evidenced by the Shrub Years shows the need for eternal vigilance. Patrick Henry comes to mind.
Indeed, bt we must not allow that to happen - We are warned against despair.
Complain about this comment
81. At 3:09pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"...The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact. It was never intended to protect the imagined rights of people who clearly want to destroy the country. They do not get or deserve the benefits of constitutional protections."
__________
On the contrary. It was designed to protect the rights of everybody, be they ever so reviled, whether John Brown, or Jefferson Davis, or Timothy McVeigh, (or future Benedict Arnolds, really). Our own civil rights are assured when we know that they apply not on the basis of whether we are well like, or whether we "deserve" those right.
Again, you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
We define civil rights under our laws by our own standards.
We do not define our civil rights by standards set by mass murderers.
__________
__________
"... the US should have been placed under marshall law ...."
Which marshall?
Marshall Dillon?
Marshall Faulk?
George Marshall?
Complain about this comment
#84 InterestedForeigner
"If the September 11 attacks had been carried out by a homegrown all-American wacko, like Timothy McVeigh, or David Koresh, or Jim Jones, instead of a bunch of Islamic wackos, nobody would be saying that it was an “Act of War”, and that the law should be ignored. So why now?"
Honestly, the comparison is not even close to valid. Timothy McVeigh was an individual, not part of an organization. Islamic terrorism is a huge problem, they will not stop trying to kill us until we convert or kill them - that simple. You cannot afford them our protections, it makes no sense. After McVeigh was in prison, there was no credible sustained threat to security. The same, obviously, cannot be said after even *everyone* who was even partially responsible for 9/11, the 7/7 bombings, Mumbai, etc (list is pretty long, no?). That is why the two are not even remotely comparable.
Complain about this comment
"Our own civil rights are assured when we know that they apply not on the basis of whether we are well like, or whether we "deserve" those right."
This has nothing to do with the rights of a US citizen. It has to do with extending those rights - earned and preserved with blood - to non-US citizens who are actively trying to undermine our way of life (and our lives, period). That is foolish.
Complain about this comment
unInterestingForeigner;
Protecting enemies of the United States by conferring constitutional rights on them and trying them as common criminals is NOT American law. Prisoners of war are not treated as criminals. The Geneva conventions have proven a farce. We should abandon them altogether, write them off as the naive prattlings of simpler times by well meaning fools. You can be sure that American captives of al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations will not be afforded the rights under the Geneva convention or any other civilized law those who rail against America's treatment of terrorist prisoners think they should be afforded. Law has no meaning in this war because it is only applied to one side.
From the American Declaration of Independence;
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..."
The government does not own the people here and the people know it. That is why when people in government forget that they are temporarily entrusted with a privilege granted to them that can be rescinded at any time, they have sealed their fate. When the government institutes policies that are destructive to the rights of ordinary Americans to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by allowing terrorists to go free on the pretext that this is somehow construed in our laws, then the people have not just a right but an obligation to sweep the government aside and take the actions they deem necessary to restore them. Europeans called that "mobocracy" when Americans first asserted their inalienable rights but that is who and what we are. If the courts, the police, the military can't protect us even in our own country, we will take the power away from them and protect our rights ourselves. You can call it lynch mob mentality or whatever else you like but that is who and what we are and should make no apology for it.
As a religion, Islam practiced peacefully in the US is no threat. As a political movement whose goals are to overthrow the government of the United States by force it is not acceptable. If Moslems living in America cannot make the distinction clear to the rest of America and that they want no part of this politics of Islam, it may be time for us to rethink what we will tolerate in the way of religious freedoms. It does have its limits and bringing about the downfall of our society clearly exceeds them. Separation of church and state does not give religion the right to conspire to destroy the government or society.
Complain about this comment
58. At 06:16am on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
How would the guards protect him?
In the same way they protect others who have committed heinous crimes. They suck it up and do their jobs.
Who will protect him from the guards?
What makes you think New York corrections officers are not professional in their behavior?
Guards in prisons are not like soldiers subject to military discipline. They are low paid people usually of relatively low intelligence who might do almost anyting. Inside the prisons, half of them are probably criminals themselves. Sooner or later one will want to make a name for himself.
Marcus, I think you've been watching too many low budget prison movies and TV shows, where the jail house guard has become a staple baddie, because it's convenient and adds drama. Try watching "Lock Up", the documentary series on MSNBC instead. It's like "Cops" in prison, where you can see the real guards in action. You'll quickly find out that the vast majority of corrections officers aren't sadistic sub-criminal psychopaths waiting to look the other way while someone shanks you in the yard, shoot you in the back while you make a break for it to escape the evil warden, nor are they generally willing to take a payoff to hear nothing, see nothing and say nothing when you drop the soap in the shower.
If anything, they are often overly solicitous of their prisoners needs and genuinely kind men and women. The "rotten eggs" generally don't last long in today's prisons. If the prisoners don't get them, their fellow guards will. No one wants to work with someone who makes their job harder. Keeping dangerous prisoners pacified by not provoking them needlessly, while maintaining strict rules on what the guards and the prisoners are required to do in any potentially dangerous situation, is what the job calls for these days.
Besides, chances are these men will be kept isolated from the general population in special facilities, where they will not be allowed to mingle either with each other or the other prisoners. Facilities where there are always security cameras watching - both the prisoners and the guards.
Complain about this comment
Ref #71
Marcus,
Security over freedom, and liberty? Security over our ideals? Pericles had something to say about that. So did Ben Franklin.
And it's lucky for all of us Americans that no one person is running things.
Complain about this comment
The liberals simply live in a pre 9-11 world and think you can fight global jihadist terror in courtrooms. It matters not what we think. The jihadists say they are engaged in a Holy War against us. And they mean it. In words and deeds. They are at war. And we want to put yellow crime scene tape around the battlefield whilst deluding ourselves that self-validating pious pronouncements that "we're better then they" will stop them from killing us. This isn't about our self-esteem. It's about our survival. And you people are going to get us killed with your nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Ref 89 InterestedForeigner-
"Our own civil rights are assured when we know that they apply not on the basis of whether we are well like[d], or whether we "deserve" those right[s]."
Thank you for introducing this very basic legal concept that is a cornerstone of our successful legal system here in the United States of America. It is a difficult concept for those who have not spent much time learning the basis of our legal system and leave it to others to serve watch over that system until such time as now, when passions come to a boil. It is these times that the sunshine patriots rush to the fore with arms flailing and faces contorted in rage demanding their passions be satisfied without giving clear thought to the full impact of their lusty demands of the moment.
Our system of justice, as it is today, will serve us and survive; as it has through other troubled times in our past when the sunshine patriot has risen from lethargy to take notice of an event. But only if it is protected and guided by a well-informed citizenry willing to stand against those too passionate to reason, and too quick to judge and condemn.
Will be away for a few days, so am unable to contribute further on this topic. Keep up your very informative work.
Complain about this comment
Tino;
"Honestly, the comparison is not even close to valid."
That is correct. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are much more like a foreign country than a group of individuals even though they don't have a fixed geographical territory or population to defend. This makes them an even much more illusive and dangerous enemy, one that should be pursued as vigorously and relentlessly as the US is capable of. They should be given no quarter on any account as is constantly being proposed. Military tribunals and executions are the correct procedures for defending ourselves.
Nobody except for one privately run outsource prison in Montana wants them in the US. There is no reason why they should be here. If this goes wrong, Barack Obama will be a one term President for sure and if it goes very wrong, he could be impeached for it. I'd like to be the first to sign the petition.
Complain about this comment
GLP, you live in some dream world. Gang warfare, collaboration between guards and prisoners, all kinds of things go on in prisons behind barbed wire and iron bars. Nobody will protect these people if they are merely jailed even for life, nobody will convict their assassins. I know I wouldn't. If those who kill them ever went to trial, you'd see jury nullification without a doubt. Fox News and other media would paint them as heroes, Ameican patriots. The government is treading on very thin ice here, it's taking a big and foolish gamble against the overwhelming wishes of the American People.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think it's class. we get two trials for the price of one.
Sure the defendants will be on the stand.
Maybe a few questions about 9/11 never asked before will come up;)
maybe we will start getting the full picture.either way here is the trial that may include GW and dick some of us have been waiting for.
Will the "witnesses" claim presidential rights? not any more.
Holding the trial in New york is a foolish move though.
wrong venue.
too many emotions.
tainted evidence involved jury no jury impartial at this stage.
fiasco.
But a trial that is needed.
unless we just shout "mulligan" and release all remove our troops and pretend for a day America was never attacked.
say to the world"look GW was an ass, we see that now."
If we go back can we start again.
appalling as it seems we would probably be better off.
release them all.
IF they agree to pardon us for our blatant imperial aspirations.
LOL yep it's Saturday so don't expect "common" sense.
Complain about this comment
Maureen Santora told the BBC:
"...these are not individuals who should be on our soil. We are protected from them, we need to be protected from them."
I've been wondering about this comment for a while now, as well as the notion that "enemy combatants" are too dangerous to be safely contained on American soil - the reasoning behind GITMO and other "containment" facilities. My question is: When did Americans lose their backbones? It's not like we haven't held enemy prisoners in the US before. During WWII we had around 400,000 German, Italian, Austrian and Japanese prisoners of war being held on military bases and in small communities around the country.
I'm sure some of them were very dangerous men - and the entire country was conditioned by propaganda films to hate most of them solely because they were the enemy. But our parents and grandparents never flinched at the prospect of keeping them on "our soil" and scrupulously followed the Geneva Conventions while they did it. Were our progenitors made of some sterner stuff than we? Why are people these days so terrified of a few hundred enemy combatants as opposed to several hundred thousand?
Complain about this comment
93 Gav . prison abuse is rife in the USA.
How many are scared of loss of freedom and how many fear the showers.
despite what you say there are numerous cases of abuse in prison. Deaths even.
remember the prisoners towed by their hair? maybe not.
the reason Gitmo happened was precisely because they were mostly "correctional facility officers" who joined the war ,the army.
Gitmo happened because it is seen as acceptable to treat prisoners that way in the states.
Sure most areOK same as Cops. but the casual acceptance of the others is sickening.
Hell in our town we have ac op who raped 20-30 women. many complaints about him. witnesses galore,,
Nothing done. Sure he is in jail now.(rapist in uniform) but those that let him do it for 15 years.
They are promoted.
Correctional and law enforcement has serios steroid issues in the states.
Little know fact.
Most cops receive NO drug testing.
same correctional.
An no one checks for steroid abuse anyway.
that said. I doubt Marcus' fantasy will happen. If someone tries another innocent cop will "take the bullet".
duty to the good cops is real. and unswerving.
Complain about this comment
fluffbrain, a military tribunal is a trial. But it is conducted under different rules that take into account the legitimate security interests of the American People as well as the defendant's rights.
It must seem strange to Europeans who sit passively by every time their governments walk all over them, trampling them with indifference and impunity to see average Americans standing up to their government and warning it that it can be removed if it fails to comply with its most basic Constitutional obligation, to protect the Americans from foreign attackers. We have the legal means to get rid of the government at any time and we will not hesitate to use it if we have to.
dp, there is legal precedent for suspending parts of the Constitution during times of war and other national crisis such as during floods and power blackouts. Not only did Lincoln suspend habaes corpus during the Civil War, Japanese AND Italian and German Americans were summarily interned in camps during WWII for the protection of the nation in case some of them were sympathetic to the enemy. Apology for it many decades later is entirely misguided, it was seen as necessary at the time because it was.
Complain about this comment
rather be cycling.
"Act of war."
typical american.
If it were an act of war all their prisoners would have been treated as Prisoners of war and would be off the books for being killed.
Rules of war."don't kill prisoners"
comparing these people to those that set up the holocaust is pretty sick and disrespectful to the victims of genocide.
to say we can try them like the genocidal maniacs of the third rich is demeaning. And frankly is verging on the holocaust denial level.
Rules are rules. IF there was an "act of war" they are prisoners of war.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 95 Rather_Be_Cycling:
"It's about our survival. And you people are going to get us killed with your nonsense."
There, there, poor dear. You sound frightened. Those nasty terrorists scared you, didn't they? Run, then, run and hide.
Al Qaeda is welcome to come after me if they want to kill an American.
I am not terrorized. I will not back down from my ideals.
Complain about this comment
100 Gav good point about bases around the USA.
what with all the guns outside are they not pretty well contained.
I'm sure the minute men will set up around the compound and wait for an escape plan to foil.
At least if they escape they will not get far and can be brought to justice.
if they escaped elsewhere they may find sympathy and help in getting further.
29 anypost I just got to that one.
;)
lol
I would have to say you put it better than I.
but the cyclist likes things to turn in circles .
Complain about this comment
98. At 4:35pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
GLP, you live in some dream world. Gang warfare, collaboration between guards and prisoners, all kinds of things go on in prisons behind barbed wire and iron bars. Nobody will protect these people if they are merely jailed even for life, nobody will convict their assassins. I know I wouldn't. If those who kill them ever went to trial, you'd see jury nullification without a doubt. Fox News and other media would paint them as heroes, Ameican patriots. The government is treading on very thin ice here, it's taking a big and foolish gamble against the overwhelming wishes of the American People.
If that were the case, every Muslim in our prisons would be dead already. Especially the terrorists already tried, convicted and being held in our prisons. Apparently, they are still very much alive and, in some case, because of the good treatment they've gotten, being very helpful in other terrorism related investigations.
And who cares what Fox News might do? Or what a bunch of ignorant cowards might think of the government actually doing its job vis a vis enforcing the law?
Complain about this comment
PS if he gets off with a technicality mayhe not then sue for damages ,increasing his stay as he buys a place in the hamptons?
Complain about this comment
It's easy to see here how the American left aligns itself with America's European enemies. If Congress had the guts to declare war on al Qaeda, treasonous statements like those made here would be crimes by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They would also be prosecutable. But all of America's trators are safe, the government doesn't have the spine to stand up for America anymore. Just look at how they allowed all of America's industries and jobs to be exported overseas to people who work for a dollar a day under conditions not seen in the US for 130 years. Small wonder our unemployment rate is so high and we have so few industries left. Good thing they can't export the land or we'd have lost our agriculture too. 420 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves and a 200 year supply of coal the government sets policies that transfers what money we have left to foreign governments who sell us their oil at $57 a barrel. Talk about a sellout. It's hard to know which government official to impeach first.
Complain about this comment
Ref#102
Marcus,
I am surprised that the moderators allow you to directly insult another forum member.
"It must seem strange to Europeans who sit passively by every time their governments walk all over them, trampling them with indifference and impunity to see average Americans standing up to their government and warning it that it can be removed if it fails to comply with its most basic Constitutional obligation, to protect the Americans from foreign attackers. We have the legal means to get rid of the government at any time and we will not hesitate to use it if we have to."
Some Europeans do have a history of removing governments that have trampled them with indifference.
And regarding the suspension of habaes corpus, and the internment of people living in the US I refer you to my earlier post (#94) relating to your earlier comment.
Ref#103
Fluffy,
They killed a slew of civilians. While not on the same level as the Holocaust it could still be considered a war crime. Did we demean and deny the Holocaust during the Tokyo war crimes tribunal?
Complain about this comment
Brad, I wouldn't be too concerned about the collective european ego. They have far more than enough arrogance to tolerate legitimate criticism of their vastly inferior civilization, so much in fact that they refuse to even recognize just how badly flawed it is and in so many ways to boot. Actually, many of them individually who had no problem dishing it to us scream like Banshees when the rocks are thrown in the other direction. And they have thoughtfully provided us with so many of them, it's often hard to decide which one to pick up and throw next.
I'm not concerned about temporary suspension of some civil liberties during times of war. I'm far more concerned about failure to recognize that we are in a war and we'd better be fighting back hard if we are going to win. A lot harder than we have been so far. Clinton, Bush, and now Obama are all to blame. So are those useless Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. But what do you expect, they are mostly only lawyers, what do they know about the world?
Complain about this comment
@ fluffytale
I agree that abuses do happen, but I will not condemn the majority of corrections officers, just like I won't condemn the majority of police officers, who are wrongly tainted by having criminals in their ranks. They do a hard job that most people refuse to do or acknowledge with any kind of respect. Of course more needs to be done to weed out the bad apples. And there are good psychological tests (B-scan comes to mind) which can identify sub-criminal psychopaths hiding in plain sight, and which ought to be used more frequently.
And the women who were assaulted, were they prisoners? Is this not another case of men protecting men because they devalue women? And is this not one of the reasons why the feminist movement was started? Are you planning to vote against the officials who "swept it under the rug" or looked the other way? Are you planning to support any challengers against them in the next election? Will you give, not just a donation, but your time as well, in order to go door to door and tell other women not to vote for these men who treat women like objects? If not, you cannot complain about the conditions of the society in which you live. After all, by doing nothing you are accepting them as the status quo.
As for the "minutemen" they will have a long wait. And the regular Army who man those bases will not take kindly to citizens assuming that they cannot keep their prisoners firmly under lock and key. How very insulting!
ref 108
If Congress had the guts to declare war on al Qaeda, treasonous statements like those made here would be crimes by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Marcus wants to live in a fascist country where freedom of speech is only for those who freely speak in support of the government's view. Unfortunately, and I hate to tell you this, but if we lived in your world, these days you'd be the one being arrested and charged with treasonous speech. As it is, we Liberals actually believe in that Constitution you claim to love, but do everything in your power to destroy. In that way, you are good spokesman and disciple of neo-con principles.
Complain about this comment
# 81 - ie rant number 7,693,472 [approximately] from Macho Autisticus II
"Instead of President Bush trying to pretend everything was fine and going to be alright again like it was, the US should have been placed under marshall [sic] law on 9-11 and stayed there. Congress should have declared war against Islamic jihad. We should have been attacking Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia starting that very night. Forrays [sic] into Egypt to wipe out the Islamic Brotherhood that gave birth to al Qaeda should also have been on the agenda. It wasn't that President Bush's policies were too strong that caused them to be ineffective, it's that they were much too weak."
I've taken to skipping over Macho's interminable rants, as they are largely predictable, but this was an especially good one.
GWB's only problem? Apparently, he was such a liberal softie.
Mind you, Macho has previously explained how the US should have invaded the USSR and China, so declaring war on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Eqypt, as well as the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, is really small potatoes.
There has been much speculation as to who or what Macho really is. Popular suggestions have included a vampire, a Dalek, a janitor living in a mobile home in New Jersey, and in particular a group of Muslim fanatics trying to make the US look bad.
My theory - it's Dick Cheney. He's thinking 'I'll post all these ultra-right-wing, bizarre, venomous, xenophobic rantings - and compared to them, even I will start to look reasonable'...
And Macho - here's some help with your retort - 'Doubled Over In Dublin, Guinness, Pubs, Priests, tired Stereotypes, I hate Europe, I hate everyone, I'm always right, rant, spleen etc etc'
[Not of course that one could ever expect a rational answer from Macho, but there is one rather glaring anomaly that he's never quite explained. He rants on at interminable length about how wonderful and perfect the USA is and how superior to all other countries, especially those inferior Europeans.
Yet I'm not sure there's any politician emerging from this perfect system he likes, respects or agrees with. While he clearly despises Obama, he seems to feel the same for GW Bush. And indeed any American to the left of the KKK.
He's rather like the man of whom it was said 'he loves humanity - it's just people he can't stand.'
Similarly he 'loves' America - or so he claims - it's just Americans he can't stand. [And Europeans, Africans, Asians and Australians , of course.]]
Complain about this comment
GLP;
AHA, so you admit you are a liberal! Now we're getting somewhere. Frankly I knew it all along. It's no surprise.
Insiders tell me that they mental health experts here in the US have identified a new mental disorder called "euripiosis." It's an atrophy of that part of the brain which controls the will to survive and to assert oneself. It seems to have affected most of europe's population and some on America's political left (which is why they become left to begin with.) There are pockets of resistance in the UK but for the most part, the disease in the EU is universal. It isn't clear whether it is due to a contaigen, is hereditary, the result of environmental stress, or a combination of factors but it is very dangerous. In all other respects the brains of those afflicted appear to function normally for the most part. Behaviour is erratic and thought processes are chaotic among victims. For example one minute they will be agitated about global warming resulting from burning fossil fuels, the next they will be worrying about where they will get enough fossil fuels from and if they can rely on Russia. Russia was badly afflicted itself for the longest time and seems to be in a termoinal state of decline as a result, the state the rest of europe seems headed for. There is no known cure or even treatment for it yet.
Complain about this comment
90. At 4:02pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"Honestly, the comparison is not even close to valid. Timothy McVeigh was an individual, not part of an organization. Islamic terrorism is a huge problem, they will not stop trying to kill us until we convert or kill them - that simple. You cannot afford them our protections, it makes no sense. After McVeigh was in prison, there was no credible sustained threat to security. The same, obviously, cannot be said after even *everyone* who was even partially responsible for 9/11, the 7/7 bombings, Mumbai, etc (list is pretty long, no?). That is why the two are not even remotely comparable."
________
No, not so much.
Even if everything you have said is true, you have got it completely backwards.
There is an ideological contest here, or sorts:
The twisted ideology of these murderers is based on hatred;
Our ideology is based on justice.
I'm willing to take my chances that over the full distance most people will like our ideology a lot more than theirs.
- - - - - -
When I was a kid we were threatened by a "world-wide communist conspiracy". Reds under every bed. They were our implacable foes.
It may have taken a while, but we eventually saw them off. It took a combination of military preparedness and America's ability to assemble a coalition of more-or-less like-minded open market liberal democracies. The post-war growth of the western economies then left communism in the dust - "on the ash heap of history", as might be said.
The communist ideology was as morally bankrupt as their economies were (eventually) financially bankrupt.
The hate-filled ideology of the AQ bombers is just as morally bankrupt, if not more so.
Clearly we need to take appropriate military, intelligence, and policing steps to defend ourselves, as we did against Stalin. But that does not mean we should discard our civic institutions. That is a false choice.
It was those liberal civic institutions that permitted and fostered such vigorous economic growth, and also that made our general view of the world attractive to most of the roughly 600M people living in the other relatively like minded liberal democracies that made up the OECD. We should never forget that the victory in the cold war was a huge "hearts and minds" victory.
For a brief while McCarthyism presented an ideological threat to our rights. Joe McCarthy eventually showed himself to be an hysteria-spreading idiot, and we moved on. But civil rights came under attack then, just as now. Remember the play "The Crucible"? When we look back, it was a shameful time.
So, in the current hysteria, let's not forget the lessons of the "Red Scare": Let's keep an even keel.
- - - - - -
If you would have justice, you must do justice.
All the protections that exist in our law have been developed through experience, including the experience of McCarthyism. Those protections exist to prevent injustice.
Whether people are US citizens, or not, makes no difference whatsoever to the logic and experience that underlie, for example, the law of criminal procedure, or the law of evidence.
Why, under any circumstances, would we show that we don't really believe in those rights by saying "well, we don't like this guy and his friends. We already know he's guilty. You know what ? Let's cut corners here. They aren't citizens, so let's use this second (or third) rate system of justice that we reserve for people we don't really like, and that we use when we are trying to pretend that we have fair trials but we've already decided the guy is guilty, and we're afraid that if we use our real laws he won't be convicted."
Is that an acceptable proposition to you?
- - - - - -
You have identified that we are fighting a battle of ideologies.
The thing is, the fundamental difference between your position and mine is that I really believe that our ideology is the better one. But in your heart, you don't. You're not really sure. So you are afraid to place trust in the very institutions that define our rights.
The strongest weapons we have in this fight is belief in our civic institutions, and the principles upon which they are based. But you want to throw those weapons away. It seems to me that you don't recognize then for what they are - like someone at a garage sale selling a dusty old painting from the attic, without understanding that it's a Rembrandt.
In your heart, you just don't believe in civil rights, and you don't understand their central role in our society, our history, and our economy. That's just plain sad.
Let me put it differently:
Think about the society in which you live. Is there any place that you would rather live that doesn't have the civil rights that you now take for granted? Why is that?
Now think about the society that spawned these men.
Which one would you prefer to live in?
Why?
Ok.
So if you can make that choice, what makes you think that millions of other people aren't smart enough to make the same choice, and for the same reasons?
_ _ _ _ _ _
It may take a while, but these nut-cases will eventually be defeated by the injustice of their own ideology.
Complain about this comment
92. At 4:10pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"... If Moslems living in America cannot make the distinction clear to the rest of America and that they want no part of this politics of Islam, it may be time for us to rethink what we will tolerate in the way of religious freedoms. ..."
Sure, if you're going to trash one set of rights and freedoms, why not trash another, like Freedom of Belief?
You're not usually in favour of half measures. So, while you're at it, why not hit for the cycle, and trash Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Speech, too?
_________
"... Separation of church and state does not give religion the right to conspire to destroy the government or society."
And so now we're back to abortion, prayer in schools, evolution, and the humiliating spectacle of candidates for high office kow-towing at the Saddleback? So much for abolishing torture.
Complain about this comment
unInformedForeigner;
"It may have taken a while, but we eventually saw them off. It took a combination of military preparedness and America's ability to assemble a coalition of more-or-less like-minded open market liberal democracies."
You must be hallucinating. Europeans had to be dragged kicking and screaming to fight the cold war against the USSR's evil empire. We didn't know it then but it was a manifistation of Europiosis (spelled it wrong last time) just as the unwillingness to confront Hitler was before it was too late to avert the disaster of WWII, just as it is with their unwillingness to actually parricipate fully in the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.
Interesting program I think on PBS (might have been on the history channel) a year or two ago about Joe McCarthy. New revelations from the US government archives released under the sunshine law and from Soviet archives during the period they were accessible between Gorbachev and Putin showed that by and large, McCarthy was right. The media, the liberals, and others sympathetic to Communism demonized him and that's how I learned it too but I was shocked to see how many of his claims about Soviet Communist infiltration of American government, private industry, and other vital organizations were right on the money. And how telling that even more than 50 years later, many Americans lament the well deserved execution of the Rosenbergs for their role in giving away secrets of the atom bomb to the USSR that nearly resulted in the annihilation of the human race more than on one occasion. What will you say when al Qaeda gets their hands on one?
Complain about this comment
I want to know what all you wannabe legal eagle experts on the US Constitution who say this should be treated as a criminal case think the judge should say when the defense points out that the defendants were not read their Miranda rights when they were apprehended, did not have access to legal council, were apprehended where the US had no jurisdiction and where necessary paperwork to transfer them to US custody or even an extradition treaty didn't exist? Should he dismiss the case which would be open and shut in any real criminal trial? Should he just let the perps go free?
Complain about this comment
113. At 6:11pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
GLP;
AHA, so you admit you are a liberal! Now we're getting somewhere. Frankly I knew it all along. It's no surprise.
Sweetie, I've never denied I was a Liberal. Never denied I've been a life long member of the Democratic Party. In fact, I've stated it on numerous occasions, right here on this very blog.
As for the rest of your nonsense, sticks and stones. But don't count on me not asserting myself. You forget that it's the liberals and lefties who tend to riot in the streets. Conservatives don't have revolutions unless they are funded by astro-turfers, paid shills and cowards who never served in the military.
@ John in Dublin
Dalek. Definitely a Dalek. Every sentence might as well end with, "Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!"
Complain about this comment
116. At 7:11pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
You must be hallucinating. Europeans had to be dragged kicking and screaming to fight the cold war against the USSR's evil empire. ...
________
Well, you may say that. Two comments:
First, right up until the end, that numerically largest force facing the USSR in central Europe was the Bundeswehr.
Second, the rock-crusher that eventually brought down the Soviet Union was economic. And there, I think American strategy was brilliant.
Somewhere in "On War", Clausewitz says something like "the truly successful general is the one who compels his opponent to surrender without fighting."
In August 1945, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were the only allied economies that were in good shape. Britain was bankrupt. France was a shambles. Germany was a bombed out, burnt out hulk, as was Japan. Italy was a basket case. There were large and highly subversive Moscow-directed communist parties in both France and Italy. Western Europe faced the largest land army on the planet - well armed, well trained, and (in my view) very well led, directed by a shrewd, cunning and ruthless political leader.
The US paid the cost of facing down Stalin in central Europe. America assembled a chain of allies around the periphery of Russia, and established a defensive position sufficient to deter physical aggression.
Under that military umbrella, America (i.e., George Marshall) then set about raising up the economies of its weakened friends and fallen foes alike.
By 1980, the combined population, and, most critically, the overwhelming economic dominance (and therefore correspondingly overwhelming potential ability to wage war) of America and its friends put the possibility of any challenge by the Soviet Union far out of reach.
The centrally controlled Soviet economy was mot providing the consumer goods wanted by its own population, and still couldn't keep up militarily. The last gasp came over US medium range missile deployment in central Europe in the early 1980's.
It was a brilliant strategy based on sound military theory. Properly executed. Perseverance over many years. A potential bloodbath avoided: Not a single combat death on the North European plain. The former enemy changing its own regime, and not being humiliated, occupied, or defeat in battle.
This must rank as one of the greatest military victories of all time.
Complain about this comment
Could I refer Mr. Marcus Aurelius and his remarks at No. 116 to the Sinews of Peace speech made by Winston Churchill at Fulton, Missouri on 5 March l946.
Mr Marcus Aurelius seems to take a very insular intellectual view of the small world in which he lives.
Complain about this comment
116. At 7:11pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
New revelations from the US government archives released under the sunshine law and from Soviet archives ... showed that by and large, McCarthy was right.
... I was shocked to see how many of his claims about Soviet Communist infiltration of American government, private industry, and other vital organizations were right on the money.
And ... the Rosenbergs ...
What will you say when al Qaeda gets their hands on one?
_________
I will say that those who would have justice must do justice.
The bigger point is that the great strength of the western democracies was, and is, so resilient that it could sail on regardless. Yes, the Rosenbergs did injury. So did Kim Philby. In the end, it really didn't matter. On the intelligence front we won some, and we lost some. The ones we won have perhaps not been broadcast quite so loudly.
Truman had the opportunity to start a pre-emptive nuclear war with Russia, and didn't do it. Looking back, does anyone really think that was the wrong decision? Truman was made of a lot tougher metal than he was given credit for, and turned out to be a pretty good President.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Marcus Aurelius raises questions at 117.
I believe that one of the issues that the highly qualified lawyers in the current administration have been scrutinising over the last months is that of detainees and their constitutional rights.
It is likely that these lawyers will have addressed the matter of the detainees and their Miranda rights - but if it should transpire that such elementary constitutional matters were wilfully overlooked there would be a whole lot more people in the dock. And these people wouldn't just be suspected terrorists from the Middle East. They would include those who achieved some of the very highest offices in America.
Mr. Marcus Aurelius may yet see the whole lot of them banged up.
Complain about this comment
uninformedforeigner;
"The last gasp came over US medium range missile deployment in central Europe in the early 1980's.
It was a brilliant strategy based on sound military theory. Properly executed."
The facts in case you have forgotten is that with Soviet backing, Europe went wild in protest over deployment of the Pershing II missiles. There were constant demonstrations everywhere denouncing President Reagan as a war monger. Now you say he was brilliant. Europeans were wrong then, you are wrong now.
Me; "What will you say when al Qaeda gets their hands on one (an atom bomb)?"
_________
You; "I will say that those who would have justice must do justice."
So you admit that you would like to see al Quaeda detnonate a nuclear weapon against an American city. Which would you prefer, New York, Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. I said in prior postings we know who our friends aren't. The Europeans and the American left. In addition to having Europiosis, they have Eurosis of the Fliver (see my prior postings on that affliction.)
"Truman had the opportunity to start a pre-emptive nuclear war with Russia, and didn't do it. Looking back, does anyone really think that was the wrong decision?"
Yeah, among others Patton and MacArthur. Had we done it, we could have averted the cold war that cost Americans trillions of dollars, adversely affected every human being on the planet, and nearly resulted in the extinction of all human life on earth more than once. A very very bad mistake.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell:
Well, this is not a triumph for justice; But, for Peter King
and others that don't support this idea...They are simply not
going to have much to change the minds of the President of the United States!
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
120. At 7:58pm on 14 Nov 2009, wanderingangus wrote:
Could I refer Mr. Marcus Aurelius and his remarks at No. 116 to the Sinews of Peace speech made by Winston Churchill at Fulton, Missouri on 5 March l946.
A good choice!
And I would also refer Marcus to the wisdom of his namesake, the original Marcus Aurelius:
"How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it."
and
"Let it be your constant method to look into the design of people's actions, and see what they would be at, as often as it is practicable; and to make this custom the more significant, practice it first upon yourself."
Complain about this comment
wangus;
Nothing about the process that began after 9-11 to the point the perps are at now, not the investigation, the discovery of who, how, where, or when, the finding of the perps, their arrests, their transfer, their incarceration, their interrogation conformed to American criminal law by any stretch of the imagination. To think it will all stand up to the test of a criminal trial in an American criminal court now is ludicrous. Either the system will be shown to be a fraud not applied equally to other criminal defendands or the perps will walk. These defendants can't be convicted by any stretch of the imagination under fair application of our criminal justice system. Had the process not gone forward the way it did, not only would they not have been apprehended, but other terrorist schemes that were uncovered and thwarted as a result of their capture and torture would have materialized and been executed. This is the dumbest thing an American president could do. At his impeachment trial, President Obama's protests that he was just pandering to world public opinion will not go down well. If this thing blows up as it likely will, he will be seen as a traitor himself. If you think there was a reaction to the release of Magrahi, just imagine what the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have on the American public. We'd have another American Revolution on our hands. This time the bad guys will be all of the Democrats in the country.
Complain about this comment
GLP;
"Let it be your constant method to look into the design of people's actions, and see what they would be at.."
I have. They are irredeemably criminally insane. The would destroy our civilization using every means at their disposal, every device of destruction available to them, no restraint or restrictions on them, not even at the cost of their own lives or in the case of the lunatics running Iran the destruction of their entire nation. This is why they must be stopped using every means at our disposal and used relentlessly until the threat is over. If we want to survive as a society, as individuals, we have no other choice. To ignore that inescapable if unpleasant conclusion is to condemn us all to our demise and destruction.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is lose ..not loose...I see this so much ...
rant, rant, rant...
um... it bothers me..."lose" is the correct way to say lose..not "loose}
:)
Complain about this comment
Can't figure out what was offensive in 128. Nimitz' assessment of MacArthur perhaps?
123. At 8:28pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The facts in case you have forgotten is that with Soviet backing, Europe went wild in protest over deployment of the Pershing II missiles. There were constant demonstrations everywhere denouncing President Reagan as a war monger."
__________
Yes, I remember it well, and I supported the deployment.
I was right then, and I am right now.
No, I never thought Reagan was brilliant. Still don't. I think he is one of America's somewhat over-rated Presidents, just as Truman was for a long time under-rated. But all he had to do was stay true to the course established by better men many years before. Which he did.
Complain about this comment
#114 Interested Foreigner
"The thing is, the fundamental difference between your position and mine is that I really believe that our ideology is the better one. But in your heart, you don't. You're not really sure. So you are afraid to place trust in the very institutions that define our rights."
No. The difference is I do not think some personal idea of right and wrong or better and worse matters here. We could have a great civilization, but if they can continue to operate because we lack the will to fight...we will still lose in the end. It is like saying because a charity worker is in a war-torn country they should be invincible because their intentions are good.
"Why, under any circumstances, would we show that we don't really believe in those rights by saying "well, we don't like this guy and his friends. We already know he's guilty. You know what ? Let's cut corners here. They aren't citizens, so let's use this second (or third) rate system of justice that we reserve for people we don't really like, and that we use when we are trying to pretend that we have fair trials but we've already decided the guy is guilty, and we're afraid that if we use our real laws he won't be convicted.""
It is saying: "well, these people are not US citizens, so why don't we use the cheapest and most efficient means are our disposal to carry out justice." To be quite honest, I don't want to pay for the circus their trial will be.
"It was those liberal civic institutions that permitted and fostered such vigorous economic growth, and also that made our general view of the world attractive to most of the roughly 600M people living in the other relatively like minded liberal democracies that made up the OECD. We should never forget that the victory in the cold war was a huge "hearts and minds" victory."
Again, the comparison is wrong. You cannot compare a method of government with a religion. You cannot argue with religion, you cannot prove it wrong. I mean, wouldn't that have already happened what with Islam being the only religion involved in massive bloodshed in its name on a global level? We already out competed them economically, militarily, and socially (much more free). We cannot win a battle of hearts and minds. We simply need to systematically destroy every Islamic terrorist group and country that chooses to harbor them or interfere with them being brought to justice.
The best start would be assassinating terrorist leaders - based on the relaxation of EO 12333, this should be legal.
Complain about this comment
sorry for my outburst:)
Complain about this comment
123. Marcus
What ever makes you think I want AQ or anybody else to obtain the bomb? Of course not. What a bizarre idea. Where were you thinking?
My position on civil liberties will not change, however. Civil liberties are our great strength, and we abandon them at our peril.
America had the sympathy of the world on September 12, 2001. It was squandered in an amazingly short time. Why? Because the people in charge threw away their most valuable assets by behaving as if the law didn't matter anymore. Anything they did was excused by September 11. So they rode roughshod over everyone and everything. If they had defended the Constitution, as they should have instead of regarding it as an impediment, we would be far, far better off today.
- - - - -
As for Patton and MacArthur.
Well, you've made my point.
History has not been particularly kind to either man, especially not MacArthur. There was a man who had significant difficulty understanding civil rights, and deference of the military to civilian authority.
I was going to refer to Nimitz' assessment of MacArthur, but I am wondering if that is what caught the moderator's attention above. Let's just say it wasn't favorable.
I was going to say something unkind about Patton too, but I think I'll just leave it. He was a good general. But he was not well equipped for dealing with larger political issues.
The preemptive use of nuclear weapons in Europe, without actual military attack, would have had profound, long lasting consequences.
It would certainly have lowered the bar on the use of such weapons.
It would have shown a ruthless disregard for the loss of innocent lives (You may say the same about Nagasaki, but there the countries were already at war, Japan was itself an aggressor, and there had already been horrendous loss of life. Starting a brand new war by first strike nuclear attack would be a whole new subject.
)
It would have made countries even more secretive about clandestine nuclear programs.
It would have put an even greater premium on the ability to use such weapons without the source of the weapon being detected.
It would have further spurred even more widespread development of biological, chemical, and nerve agents, and lowered the bar against their use, too.
It would have been a terrible, fateful decision.
_________
Finally, on Patton: were you aware that Patton had represented the United States in the Olympics in shooting?
Complain about this comment
# 118 Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote: [of Macho Autisticus]
"Dalek. Definitely a Dalek. Every sentence might as well end with, "Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!""
Gavrielle, you make a good point - but yet, I have my doubts.
Granted, his views are just as predictable as theirs, but, I wonder - does MAII really have the wit, the charm and the compassion to be a Dalek?
;-)
Complain about this comment
Is this trial a show? Is its goal to fulfil some political agenda? Is this a popularity drive?
Or is the idea that JUSTICE should be done? Not Vengeance, Justice. Because if Justice is the goal, then all actions that interfere with a just procedure, like illegally detaining and torturing the accused (note: ACCUSED, as its innocent until PROVEN guilty by law), should be disallowed.
If these people are guilty, and it is likely that they are, then they should face the full might of the law. But to try them in NY amid a media circus indicates that Justice is very low on the agenda here.
One should also note that this should have been done many years ago. You cannot try and punish someone for a crime while also kidnapping, humiliating and torturing them for many years. If they were on the tortured and held illegally, that is a crime as well and the people guilty of those crimes should also be punished.
After all, it is Justice we seek. Isn't it?
Complain about this comment
uninformed foreigner;
"History has not been particularly kind to either man, especially not MacArthur. There was a man who had significant difficulty understanding civil rights, and deference of the military to civilian authority."
After the war, the Japanese revered MacArthur like a god. He invented modern Japan just the way Nixon and Kissinger invented modern China. He was fired by Truman because he wanted to use nuclear weapons to defeat the North Koreans. Patton and MacArthur won WWII. Montgommery was a crybaby spoiled brat prima donna. Zhukov and his armies only existed to throw as many bodies as they could in front of German tanks while the US destroyed the Wehrmacht at its heart in Germany. Once that was done, the whole Nazi empire crumbled and Zhukov was able to walk to Berlin. The Russian effort was highly overrated but it was useful to divert German forces from the west. Russia's chief assets were that it was large, cold, snowed in in winter, a marsh in spring. A horrible place to fight a WWII style ground war with an army that was unprepared and unequipped to do it.
"No, I never thought Reagan was brilliant. Still don't. I think he is one of America's somewhat over-rated Presidents, just as Truman was for a long time under-rated. But all he had to do was stay true to the course established by better men many years before. Which he did."
President Reagan was elected as a 180 degree change of course from the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter and his weak ineffective micromanaging cadre of losers. There SB, I got it right, Carter=loser. He did then and he still does like the crazy old uncle you wish was never seen in public.
Europeans will never forgive President Reagan for destroying their beloved USSR and their dream of a communist utopia throughout Europe on one hand but will refuse to acknowledge his crucial role in destroying it on the other. I think it is important to distinguish between the two delusional maladies Europiosis and Eurosis of the Fliver. I've explained Europiosis above and I think this is a case of it here while I explained Eurosis of the Fliver here in posting number 17;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/05/french.html
Complain about this comment
131. At 9:29pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"The best start would be assassinating terrorist leaders - based on the relaxation of EO 12333, this should be legal."
__________
No. No. No. To quote Ronald Reagan "There you go again."
Israel is widely acknowledged to be one of the most intelligence savvy and militarily adept countries on the planet. It has been assassinating terrorist leaders for probably forty years or more. For all that skill and competence, I don't see the supply of terrorists or of terrorist leaders growing any smaller. Quite the contrary.
For every one you assassinate, you will create ten more recruits, and a hundred more sympathizers.
Terrorists feed on the over-reaction of the state. The more violent and indiscriminate the state response, the faster the terrorist problem grows, and the bigger it gets.
Each time you kill one of these [[guys, let's say]], the remaining ones are driven further underground. Their thirst for vengeance increases. They become even more de-sensitized to violence, so becoming both more ruthless and more violent. The ones who survive learn how to avoid the fate of their former colleagues, and so become both harder to find and harder to kill.
The become better at identifying your informants, who soon turn up dead, and your sources of intelligence dry up. Anyone who seems less than totally committed to the cause becomes suspect, so more moderate colleagues are likely to be killed. Thus the survivors themselves are the most extreme, and any voices that might moderate their thoughts or conduct are silenced.
The local population now lives in fear, so ordinary people who might warn the police or come forward as witnesses stay silent, or shelter the terrorists.
The terrorists find that their skills are transportable to other endeavors: shaking down the terrified population for "taxes"; smuggling drugs, arms, cigarettes, and young women; tunneling; electronic surveillance and signalling. They learn to make or acquire more powerful weapons, or greater range.
In essence, the disease becomes more virulent.
It is the cockroach problem Gary and I were discussing yesterday.
It is the history of the insurgency in Gaza, and elsewhere.
This is the treadmill of ever escalating violence. It doesn't work. No anti-terrorist campaign of which I am aware that relied upon this tactic has ever succeeded because of it.
And while you are doing it, you are undermining the rule of law in your own society. You are inviting retaliation against your own leaders and their families.
The only successful anti-terrorist campaigns of which I am aware are ones that have relied upon removing the causes that create new recruits, and on careful, patient, relentless, painstaking, intelligence and police work, backed up by quiet military support when required. It is hard, dull work, and it may take a long, long time.
Complain about this comment
Doubled over in Dublin;
"does MAII really have the wit, the charm and the compassion to be a Dalek?"
Whatever the answer there is no doubt you have all the wit and charm it takes to be a derelict.
Complain about this comment
Bill Bryson: The lost Continent.Describing Mr Piper.
'The only person I ever knew in Des Moines who wasn't serene was Mr Piper.
Mr Piper was my parents neighbour,a leering cherry faced idiot who was forever getting drunk and crashing his car into telegraph poles. Mr Piper was the nearest possible human equivilent to Fred Flintstone, but less charming.He was a shriner and a republican, a Nixon republican and he appeared to think he had a mission in life to spread offence. His favorite past time, apart from getting drunk and crashing his car, was to get drunk and insult the neighbours, particulary us because we were Democrats.
Eventually I grew up and moved to England.This irritated Mr Piper almostt beyond measure. It was worse than being a Democrat.
Whenever I was in town Mr Piper would come over and chide me,'I don't know what you're doing over there with all those limeys', he would say prevocatively, they're not clean people'.
'Mr Piper,you don't know what you are talking about',I would reply in my effected British accent,'you are a cretin.'You could talk like that to Mr Piper because,No1 he was a cretin and no2, he never listened to anything that was said to him.'Mr piper, the English are a paragan of cleanleness.It is a well known fact that they use more soap per capita than any one else in Europe' Mr piper would snort derisively at this, that doesn't mean a diddly squat ,boy, just because they are cleaner than a bunch of Germans and Italians, my goodness, a dog is cleaner than a bunch of Germans and Italians'.
Marcus,have you ever lived in Iowa?
Complain about this comment
131. At 9:29pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"No. The difference is I do not think some personal idea of right and wrong or better and worse matters here. ..."
__________
Well, if you think it doesn't matter, you are very, very wrong.
Leadership is 10% - 20% intellectual, and 80% - 90% emotional. You can rally your troops to a cause they know is just, and they will fight to the death for it.
But if you show a lack of honesty or integrity, if you are corrupt, if your are untrustworthy, your support will disappear like snow drifts on a Spring day.
Why do you think the Whites lost the Russian Civil war? Ever read about Peter Wrangel and the evacuation from Odessa?
Why do you think the Nationalists lost in the Chinese civil war?
Why do you think the Afghan government is losing now?
Why do you think the South lost in 'Nam? America won every purely military engagement. But no amount of military firepower couldn't overcome the failings of a weak, corrupt civilian administration.
The moral quality of your cause is crucially important.
_________
Complain about this comment
divided;
You are dangerously confused;
"After all, it is Justice we seek. Isn't it?"
No, it's survival, that's what counts.
"If they were on the tortured and held illegally, that is a crime as well and the people guilty of those crimes should also be punished."
Under British law 233 years ago, the American Revolution was illegal. How lucky we are those Revolutionaries broke the law. If they hadn't, we'd all be watching cricket and drinking warm beer. Life would be a living hell.
Complain about this comment
uninformed foreigner;
"Israel is widely acknowledged to be one of the most intelligence savvy and militarily adept countries on the planet. It has been assassinating terrorist leaders for probably forty years or more. For all that skill and competence, I don't see the supply of terrorists or of terrorist leaders growing any smaller. Quite the contrary."
Actually, the number of Israelis being killed by terrorists is declining. Between the killing of the masterminds, the cauterization, the wall, and other measures, Israelis are more secure now than they've been in awhile at least insofar as the threats from Gaza and the West Bank are concerned. There is still a steady barage of rockets though.
"For every one you assassinate, you will create ten more recruits, and a hundred more sympathizers."
Nobody said it would be quick or easy. The replacements are not as well trained, not as savvy, not as dangerous at least at the beginning. The alternative is to surrender or not fight back which amounts to the same thing. That's what we did under Clinton's failed presidency. They attacked and we did not respond. In the embassies in Africa, on the ship Cole in Yemen. 9-11 became inevitable because the enemy saw we would not fight back, left our society unguarded, pretended the threat didn't exist, took no real measures against it. And you want to take us right back to where we were. Since we began fighting back, there hasn't been another attack on the US yet but if Obama continues to let our guard down it will surely happen again. That would also be his undoing. The subsequent government whatever form it takes will be completely unrestrained by anyone or anything in its pursuit of the enemy. Perhaps that's what it will take to finally wake America up to its danger, another attack. How tragic if that is true.
"It is the cockroach problem Gary and I were discussing yesterday.
It is the history of the insurgency in Gaza, and elsewhere."
What an odd comparison, Palestinian terrorists and cockroaches. How daring of the moderators to allow that to be published.
"The only successful anti-terrorist campaigns of which I am aware are ones that have relied upon removing the causes.."
So you are resigned to becoming a Muslim and living life according to the Taleban's view of how society should be organized. I haven't and I'll bet there are a lot of others who haven't either.
Complain about this comment
131. At 9:29pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"... You cannot compare a method of government with a religion. You cannot argue with religion, you cannot prove it wrong."
_________
Well, that didn't seem to stop Martin Luther.
I think you overestimate the extent to which the followers of Islam can be brainwashed, and underestimate their intelligence.
Religious groups wax and wane because people can, and do, change their minds.
And if you think methods of government and religions have nothing in common, and can't be compared, then I would say you haven't read much history pertaining to the last 1500 years.
At the risk of re-starting the 30 years war, I think you'll find that democracy took hold earliest and most strongly in countries with a Norse and then protestant religious history, and rather slower elsewhere. If you look at the belief systems, it isn't that hard to see why.
Or consider contraception and women's rights. The rigid hierarchical teaching of the Catholic church on these subjects drove away followers by the millions.
Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience are different in theory, but they merge seamlessly into one another all across the political spectrum.
Complain about this comment
131. At 9:29pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"... Islam being the only religion involved in massive bloodshed in its name on a global level?"
I have been accused (I think wrongly) here of being prejudiced against Islam, but even I can see that many followers of Islam might take exception to this statement.
Although WWII was not a "religious" war, it certainly resulted in bloodshed beyond anything known before, as had the Great War before it. And, to the extent that it was a religious war, that particular aspect involved the systematic extermination of one religious group, the total death toll of Jews (6 million) being greater than the total death toll in any of Europe's previous wars except WWI and WWII. As we have seen here, some Moslems regard these wars, perhaps somewhat oddly, as being "Christian" wars.
Further, there had been somewhat over a century of religious wars in Europe at the start of the reformation that had soaked the continent in blood. Large regions of Germany were effectively de-populated in back and forth rounds of religion based ethnic cleansing. Why do you think so many of the early American colonies were started by dissentient religious groups?
More could be said, but this is enough.
Complain about this comment
59 and others:
These people are not me, you, or our neighbors and that is exactly the point. The people who will be going to trial in this case were 911 master minds and accomplices. At this point there is no question of guilt or identity, and sense they confessed their lawyers will be trying to keep them from getting the death penalty. Do yall realize the difference between a tribunal and a civilian court? If these people's lawyers are smart, they will request a change of venue, throw out the confessions, and argue that the case should be tossed because of the way information was gathered from them. Civilian rules require a reading of their Miranda Rights, and Warrants for arrests and searches of apartments and computers, etc. These men got none of those protections because they were caught on the battlefield, not by law enforcement.
The Federal Attorney General is risking our lives and the lives of these men if they are acquitted, and if they are convicted by invoking exceptions to the normal rules of civilian courts then we are all in danger of having our rights in civilian courts vanish by way of such exceptions. Cases like these are the reason for military tribunals which go back to FDR, Lincoln, Jackson, and Washington; they protect civilian law and prevent sensitive information regarding national security from being leaked.
And one more thing, our military tribunals are not show courts like those in dictatorial nations; they have juries, and appeal processes, etc. If they were unconstitutional they would have been outlawed long ago by the Supreme Court or Congress. I know Obama has stated that he wants to be like FDR, but with this decision by his Attorney General, it is clear that he is no FDR.
Complain about this comment
131. At 9:29pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"We cannot win a battle of hearts and minds. We simply need to systematically destroy every Islamic terrorist group and country that chooses to harbor them or interfere with them being brought to justice."
_______
Well, I consider the first sentence to be rather defeatist, to say the least. It also betrays a somewhat discouraging lack of faith in the institutions of your society.
We very well can win a battle of hearts and minds, and we can start to do so by re-dedicating ourselves to upholding the laws and values that have served us so well for so long, and that have been the envy of people living in undemocratic countries for many years.
Democracy and civil rights have always been an intoxicating brew, and it seems reasonable to think that they will continue to be so. People come to our shores from many different cultures, and after one generation it is inconceivable to them and to their children and grandchildren to live in a society that lacks the rights we take for granted.
If we dedicate ourselves to upholding justice, and we do not tolerate injustice by or to others, we will win this campaign.
There is no need to be so pessimistic.
_________
As for the remainder of your paragraph, well, consider the discussion the other day with Gary about cockroaches.
Perhaps it might be an idea to find out what is creating so many terrorists, and then to stop creating so many?
As for hunting them down and killing them, well it may sound easy, but, as noted above in light of Israel's efforts, it is far, far more difficult than it sounds.
Finding them is difficult.
Killing them tends to create more problems.
Making mistakes and killing innocent people causes the problem to explode like compound interest on a credit card.
Spain with Eta, and the UK with the IRA were dealing with forces that were numerically relatively small, but it has taken well over thirty years - and the UK didn't succeed at systematically exterminating them. The problems in Ireland lessened when the UK and Irish governments started seeing eye to eye, as respectful equals, and when people sat down and started talking.
Complain about this comment
Marcus wrote:
"So you are resigned to becoming a Muslim and living life according to the Taleban's view of how society should be organized. I haven't and I'll bet there are a lot of others who haven't either."
_______
Hardly. The most successful counterinsurgency operation was actually in an Islamic country.
As noted above, while I regard the Taleban (or Taliban) as a scourge, I am not in the least worried about losing any long-term hearts and minds campaign to them. We have seen what they are like when they run a government. It speaks for itself.
There are over a billion Moslems (Mulsims) on this planet, and I'm willing to wager that the vast, vast majority of them want nothing to do with the Taliban or anyone like them.
Again, like Tino, you seem to think that people who believe in Islam are necessarily brainwashed idiots, who have no ability to observe or to think for themselves. That seems just a little unlikely to me, and certainly at odds with the moslems with whom I work, and have worked, on a daily basis.
Complain about this comment
142. At 11:08pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Actually, the number of Israelis being killed by terrorists is declining. Between the killing of the masterminds, the cauterization, the wall, and other measures, Israelis are more secure now than they've been in awhile at least insofar as the threats from Gaza and the West Bank are concerned. There is still a steady barage of rockets though."
________
I said there was no shortage of terrorists and terrorist leaders.
Of course there are fewer killings. The wall, which was first tried, (and successfully, too) by the French in Algeria, is effective.
I dispute the allegation that Israel's overall security has improved.
Israel's overall security situation has grown worse - consider the failed attempt to dislodge Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. Maybe I'm wrong on this, because I don't follow these events that closely, but it seems to me that Hamas is intransigent, and part of the reason that Hamas is so intransigent is because it thinks it has time on its side.
Israel may have intercepted two freighters carrying arms, but smugglers eventually succeed.
No, I do not believe Israel's overall security situation has improved.
Complain about this comment
"Further, there had been somewhat over a century of religious wars in Europe at the start of the reformation that had soaked the continent in blood. Large regions of Germany were effectively de-populated in back and forth rounds of religion based ethnic cleansing. Why do you think so many of the early American colonies were started by dissentient religious groups?"
Regardless, this is all history. The only religion *CURRENTLY* carrying out violence in its name is Islam.
Complain about this comment
At #134 I asked "Granted, his views are just as predictable as theirs, but, I wonder - does MAII really have the wit, the charm and the compassion to be a Dalek?"
And at #138 he provided the answer.
[Well - strictly speaking, everything he writes provides the answer. It's just that at #138 he did it rather more concisely than usual.]
Complain about this comment
134. At 10:24pm on 14 Nov 2009, John_From_Dublin wrote:
Granted, his views are just as predictable as theirs, but, I wonder - does MAII really have the wit, the charm and the compassion to be a Dalek?
Good point. Cyberman then? Realizing the truth of his programmed existence might make his head explode.
Complain about this comment
uninformedforeigner;
"Again, like Tino, you seem to think that people who believe in Islam are necessarily brainwashed idiots, who have no ability to observe or to think for themselves. That seems just a little unlikely to me, and certainly at odds with the moslems with whom I work, and have worked, on a daily basis."
I'd bet that until recently, that's what most of the people who knew Major Hasan, the Fort Hood Islamic terrorist said about him too even if they didn't think much of his professional skills.
"The most successful counterinsurgency operation was actually...."
Israel defending itself against Moslems inside and outside its borders over the last 61 years. The more force Israelis used, the more effective they became. Once they recognized that negotiating peace was impossible and resigned themselves to the fact that they would have to keep fighting they had more success. They still haven't gone the last mile of completely vanquishing their enemies though. But it could come to that if they feel sufficiently threatened by Iran.
BvEnL
Wouldn't it have been easier to just copy and paste my postings like #126 then reword them and type it over again?
If President Obama's policy fails to successfully defend the United States from attack, there will an entirely different government, maybe a different kind of government such as a military dictatorship for awhile that will wage all out war on militant Islam both domestically and internationally and it won't care at all who gets hurt by mistake. A lot of people seem to have forgotten how angry most of America was just after 9-11 and how justifiably frightened Moslems living in the US were. A more severe attack could be a thousand or a million times worse. There wouldn't be a safe place on this planet. Now that is reason to worry.
Complain about this comment
uninformedforeigner, I said that Israel's security had improved with regard to the threats from Gaza and the West Bank and it has. But overall, Hezbollah still is a real threat and Iran is a far greater threat. Isreal understands that its very existance is at stake. If the data I've seen is right, Israel has the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world only behind the US and Russia. If it feels sufficiently threatened it can destroy any enemy. If it destroys one, it may feel it has nothing to lose by destorying all of its other enemies at the same time as well...no matter what continent they happen to be on.
Complain about this comment
141. At 10:49pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"... If they hadn't, we'd all be watching cricket and drinking warm beer. Life would be a living hell."
_______
Absolutely true.
Bitter goes with skittles, draughts, and snooker. Definitely not with cricket.
Complain about this comment
Bartender, make mine another double in Dublin;
Do you fancy yourself an Irish poet? It is my experience that all Irishmen fancy themselves to one degree or another as Irish poets if not in fact then in spirit. Even if they can't string three words together to form a coherent sentence they see themselves as linguistic wits. So where does your inspiration come from? Harps? Guinness? Old Bushmills? A combination of such imbibements perhaps? Damned derelict Dalek from Darby. Ever think of becoming a cop? New York City cops make pretty good money and get great benefits and a pension too if they stay on the force long enough. Got an Irish brogue? That's a prerequisite for foreign applicants. Don't try to fake it though. They know how to test for the real thing and they'll find a fraud every time. You can't fool them, especially the ones from the Bronx.
Complain about this comment
86. At 3:29pm on 14 Nov 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
“...Where are all these protesters who scream about the Constitution when they don't want public health care?...”
Sorry, IF, I agree with most of what you say, but you went over the edge with this.
I think those people are idiots myself, but being an idiot is quite “constitutional.” I even believe in England the right to be eccentric, if not completely daft, is respected. I wish they would stay home and not vote if they can’t first educate themselves about the issues, but I am compelled by my respect for that very Constitution to defend their right to have their cockeyed opinions and to vote for them. [Sigh!]
90. At 4:02pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
#84 InterestedForeigner
“...Honestly, the comparison is not even close to valid. Timothy McVeigh was an individual, not part of an organization.” You seem to forget the other conspirator, Terry Nichols. Are you COMPLETELY sure there were only two, I’m not entirely sure I am because the execution put an end to the investigation?
91. At 4:03pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
91. At 4:03pm on 14 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
‘"Our own civil rights are assured when we know that they apply not on the basis of whether we are well like, or whether we "deserve" those right.’
This has nothing to do with the rights of a US citizen. It has to do with extending those rights - earned and preserved with blood - to non-US citizens...”
The wording is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...”
NOT all citizens are created equal. The Constitution prohibits the government from depriving any PERSON of life, liberty and property, NOY any citizen.
This country and its founding documents are great because the ideas were universal and not specific. Do not misquote them. Do not disrespect them Do not belittle them.
122. At 8:25pm on 14 Nov 2009, wanderingangus wrote: “Mr. Marcus Aurelius may yet see the whole lot of them banged up.” As Churchill said, we are two nations divided by a common language. In American usage ‘banged up’ means roughed up or beaten up [which Marcus might like]. So I suspect you mean locked up.
Gavrielle, welcome to the fray. I like your logic. Keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
Marcus wrote:
"After the war, the Japanese revered MacArthur like a god.... "Montgommery was a crybaby spoiled brat prima donna."
"Zhukov and his armies only existed to throw as many bodies as they could in front of German tanks while the US destroyed the Wehrmacht at its heart in Germany. Once that was done, the whole Nazi empire crumbled and Zhukov was able to walk to Berlin. The Russian effort was highly overrated but it was useful to divert German forces from the west."
_______
For the sake of other posters, we are not going to re-fight WWII again.
I agree with you on Montgomery, and then some. A royal pain. Greatly overrated. Contrast with Bill Slim, a true genius.
But from a US Navy point of view, MacArthur was a vainglorious pain like Montgomery, or possibly worse. It is not helpful to disdain the efforts of any of the forces that fought in the Pacific Theatre, or in the CBI. However, the campaigns that were crucial in bringing Japan to her knees were the US Navy submarine campaign, and the US Navy island hopping campaign.
It was Nimitz, Spruance and Fletcher who set up the ambush at Midway.
The bomb brings the war to an end from Tinian whether MacArthur crosses New Guinea or not, and whether anybody lands at Leyte Gulf or not.
Unlike the puffed-up Generalissimo, without fanfare Nimitz quietly, diplomatically, and efficiently went about his task of putting Japan's key strategic weapon, the Imperial Navy, out of business. You may well disagree, it's my view nonetheless.
And as for Zhukov,
from Normandy to Potsdam the western allies fought the Germans for 336 days. Zhukov's army fought them for three years, 321 days. The Russians kept 141 German divisions busy. Tell me again how many Patton faced? How many was it?
Patton won the war did he?
When did he learn Russian?
I didn't know he was in the suburbs of Moscow in 1941.
I didn't know he was at the Tractor plant in Stalingrad in 1942.
I didn't know he was in charge at Kursk in 1943.
I didn't know the Cherkassy pocket was "in the heart of Germany" in the American zone.
Normandy must have seemed so dull after all that.
But Marcus, you are such a font of useful information.
Tell me more.
Complain about this comment
149. At 00:04am on 15 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"Regardless, this is all history. The only religion *CURRENTLY* carrying out violence in its name is Islam."
_______
Well, while that may or may not be true, (depending, for example, on your view of the so-called Jewish settlers in the occupied territories,) I'm thinking that on the look-I'm-not-really-defending-hypocrisy red face test, telling our Islamic interlocutors that what we did doesn't count because that was then and this is now is going to be a bit of a hard sell.
Complain about this comment
Not a single Guantanamo detainee should be allowed to set foot in American prisons. I believe this because they will spread radical Islam within and this disease will infect more.
Just several months ago, a man in Illinois converted to radical Islam in prison. When he was released, he tried to bomb the Springfield Court House, as well as a Repub. rep.'s office. This is exactly why bringing Guantanamo detainees to USA is dangerous. Not a single state wants them.
President Obama and the White House are looking into setting up a state prison near Chicago for the Guan. Bay detainees. If this happens, Chicago should expect radical Islam to spread rampant in their prisons and terrorists possibly coming after Chicago, as they would be the number one target city, due to them being the host of the terrorists.
We need to release all of the Guantanomo detainees with or without evidence back to their home countries to be tried in their systems- all but the most dangerous, which should be executed. These would be the worst of the worst, the ones who had a direct hand in murder.
I feel for New Yorkers, because if I was them, I would not want the people who hate America most in the world only a few blocks away, as they will only draw more terrorists to them, as well as terrorist acts by cowards who want to have revenge on NY for hosting them. If New York is attacked before, during or directly after the trial for the 9/11 masterminds, NY will blame Holder. I don't like Holder, he has bad judgement and is slightly prejudiced toward white people. Obama never says anything bad about white people, but Holder has made comments that are derogatory, blaming not everyone who is racist, but only the white people that are racist. The truth is, people of all races are racist. Everybody is a racist and everybody isn't a racist. But you can't just blame one race. I don't like Holder and I think he is a poor example.
If President Obama brings the Guan. Bay detainees here, it will be the biggest mistake of his career. The people of this country will not let him forget it.
Complain about this comment
156. At 01:31am on 15 Nov 2009, McJakome wrote:
Sorry, IF, I agree with most of what you say, but you went over the edge with this.
I even believe in England the right to be eccentric, if not completely daft, is respected.
_________
Well, indeed.
You know those things in life that are really important?
An Englishman's inalienable "right to be eccentric" is an expression of civil rights on a par with the US Constitution. In a quirky way, they are sort of two ways of saying the same thing.
I think I may not have made my point well. What I was trying to say is that there are all sorts of nuts who complain about infringement of non-existent Constitutional rights, but when it suddenly comes to real flesh-and-blood, core civil liberties that really do raise fundamental Constitutional issues, they haven't a clue.
Oh, it is to laugh.
Well, it's been a day. I don't think I've ever made so many postings in one day before. Better stop before I turn into a troll.
Goodnight all, even Marcus.
Complain about this comment
I'm not a lawyer so I'm asking....how is the government going to explain the discovery process when it was the CIA who apprehend, transported, and questioned KSM prior to the involvement of the FBI? The CIA has no jurisdiction inside the U.S. and would not be recognized by the court as having any law enforcement powers. How will the government explain it's custody of KSM and it's chain of evidence to a Federal judge? Would a judge refer the case back to the military tribunals, throw the case out, or only accept portions of the evidence which might weaken the Federal prosecutor's case?
Complain about this comment
161. At 02:00am on 15 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
"I'm not a lawyer so I'm asking....how is the government going to explain the discovery process when it was the CIA who apprehend, transported, and questioned KSM prior to the involvement of the FBI? The CIA has no jurisdiction inside the U.S. and would not be recognized by the court as having any law enforcement powers. How will the government explain it's custody of KSM and it's chain of evidence to a Federal judge? Would a judge refer the case back to the military tribunals, throw the case out, or only accept portions of the evidence which might weaken the Federal prosecutor's case?"
You ask some very good questions. President Obama is a lawyer and he has many other lawyers on call. I assume [hope] he has taken these things into account. I will be quite disappointed in him if this happens not to be true.
I didn't vote for him, but I am willing to give him at least as much of a honemoon as GWB got [about another 3 years, maybe?] before I decide he isn't up to the job. Of course if the GOP puts up Sarah Palin or other members of the narrow minded rejection front I will be left with no alternative but to vote for him no matter how things have progressed [or not].
Complain about this comment
At the risk of sounding somewhat deluded, Some of the Families of the victims of the nazi regime (and their atrocities) would have also wanted justice to be carried out on the scientist and other never prosecuted conspirators. Yet Not only did the US accept them here and gave them work, but other countries as well did the same thing. But only one of them bombed Japan. That with the help of some of these same geniuses. Looks like the ends want to justify the means.
The rich part of it is that the liberty of some, whom have not committed a crime is already being judged by the US. It happens all the time in America. People you know are going to commit a crime, and have sworn to do so, serve a few years in jail and then when released, they do it. We can make 50 trillion laws and we would still have crime. Right now almost everyone is jittery about something.
Many are struggling and praying for guidance, so that in their hour of dire need, they don't turn to dishonest methods. Knowing that every single tax dollar they pay is helping to kill someone somewhere. The rest of it, the few we will have left will go for some kind of health care. The rest will go into the political petty cash fund. Mercy on a rodeo trial is not to be.
They will kill most of the accused if it takes a doing it by accident.
The real problem still is where is Bin Laden, where is Bush looking for him? Its alright we gave his parents a rife home that day. They had an alibi, they were in the US at the time. If I were one of the lawyers defending the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, I would have a precedent, I would say that even George Washington signed a treaty under duress, because he didn't speak Canadian French.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, tone it down. You will have them posting French soon.
Andy, spare the denigration. Your arguments are not that strong.
The trial will be a circus. It will be a forum for a lot of differing opinions and ideologies. TV ratings and blogs will do very well.
Sorry gav. I never found it took any intelligence to be liberal or be in New York. I really do not see why you feel the two somehow make your views credible. Obnoxious and opinionated do seem to work well, though.
rather-be-cycling. I bet you feel like you are on a treadmill here. I commend your effort, but the scenery here does not appear to change.
The trial will be a success for Obama. He can focus on keeping global warming, the national debt, and unemployment rising while the rest of the nation is distracted.
I do find it curious that some have already positioned themselves to blame the previous administration for any failings of Obama in regards to Gitmo. I am curious when Obama will be ready to take responsibility for his actions/inaction?
Whoever it was that did not speak highly of Glen Beck, I agree with whatever you said.
We have that darn "case" law system, just like England. We never adopted, "drawn-and-quartered". Darn! It would make the trial more interesting.
Complain about this comment
"telling our Islamic interlocutors that what we did doesn't count because that was then and this is now is going to be a bit of a hard sell."
We don't need to convince them. We just need to A.) kill them or B.) convince them to leave use alone. It doesn't matter if they think we are right or wrong. Their position (convert or die) either changes - not happening - or they are destroyed. There is literally no alternative, as anything else is simply suicide.
Complain about this comment
"The Constitution prohibits the government from depriving any PERSON of life, liberty and property, NOY any citizen."
Then we are entirely correct in engaging in war with *any* Muslim country. Otherwise, through inaction, we would be depriving them of those things. Even in the UAE, freedoms are restricted and punishments are draconian. In Saudi Arabia women cannot drive. Are women not people?
Either it applies to US citizens only, or we should be a nation at war 100% of the time until every country follows our constitution. You cannot have it both ways. It was not set out to cover the whole world, and I imagine you honestly knew that...
Again, the *United States* Constitution. For the United States.
Complain about this comment
159. At 01:47am on 15 Nov 2009, Illinoisan: "If President Obama brings the Guan. Bay detainees here, it will be the biggest mistake of his career. The people of this country will not let him forget it. "
*************************
How true. This will be one more reason for people to vote against incumbents.
Complain about this comment
164. youngasterix: "Sorry gav. I never found it took any intelligence to be liberal or be in New York."
****************************
Don't spread that around. They like to present it all as a package deal.
Complain about this comment
145. At 11:35pm on 14 Nov 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
The Federal Attorney General is risking our lives and the lives of these men if they are acquitted, and if they are convicted by invoking exceptions to the normal rules of civilian courts then we are all in danger of having our rights in civilian courts vanish by way of such exceptions. Cases like these are the reason for military tribunals.
------------------------------
Two thoughts - This discussion illustrates one reason it has taken so long to bring these terrorists to trial - although we have various traditional legal remedies international non-national terrorism on this scale is a strange animal - popular democracies really haven't had to deal with it until now. It is, I think, the consequence of our victory over all our nation-state rivals. For a while there was no other great power for people who were angry with America to go to for shelter and encouragement. Bush/Cheney, having little imagination for how to deal with the new order of things, needed an opponent to stimulate fear and loathing, and Obama and Holder have actually moved rather quickly in sorting through the available options.
Second, if these men are acquitted and yet are considered too dangerous to set free, we can always refuse to release them unless there is a nation willing to receive them and take responsibility for their good behavior.... might never happen.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Want to guess who is monitoring this site?
Complain about this comment
# 151 Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote: [of MAII]
"Good point. Cyberman then? Realizing the truth of his programmed existence might make his head explode."
[a] We can dream...
[b] Unfortunately, your expressed desire to blow up MAII's head makes you a terrorist.
[c] Perhaps you hadn't heard but MAII has just launched a military coup, introduced "Marshall Law" [sic], and pushed through the 'Everyone I Don't Like Is A Terrorist' Act. Therefore, please report to Gitmo tomorrow at 800, wearing an orange jumpsuit.
[d] Also, since it appears you and a lot of the Liberal 'Enemy Within' live in the USA, it will be necessary for the USA to invade, and probably to nuke, the USA, to root you out. "We had to destroy the country in order to save it..."
Complain about this comment
# 166
Tino posits a dichotomy which is so ridiculous I can scarcely believe that he believes it himself.
As I read it, he claims that the only possible options are that either [a] the US Constitution applies to only US citizens, or [b] it applies to the whole planet, and the US is entitled [or indeed obligated?] to invade any country [and in particular any Muslim country] that does not adhere to its provisions.
Tino, look again at the quotation which begins your posting. "The Constitution prohibits the government from depriving any PERSON of life, liberty and property, NOT any citizen."
The Constitution applies to the US government. It must adhere to it.
Following your logic, it appears that, say, Tony Blair could land in the US tomorrow, be [falsely] accused of murder, and be quickly executed without trial or representation, because - 'hey, he's not a citizen'.
Or would that only apply to Muslims?
Complain about this comment
Ref 167, AndreNY
"This will be one more reason for people to vote against incumbents."
A clear majority of Americans voted the "incumbents" out last November for precisely the opposite reason. We rejected, among other things, the abandonment of our laws and principles, including the indifinite incarceration of suspects without trial, the use of torture to extract information and confessions of little real value to our security or the application of foreign policy, and the use of illegal means to monitor the conversations and correspondence of Americans on US soil.
I doubt most of us will vote for a return to the world according to the GOP agenda any time soon.
Complain about this comment
Ref 159, Illinoisan
"I believe this because they will spread radical Islam within and this disease will infect more."
Do you honestly believe Americans are going to be lining up outside mosques after listening to whatever KSM and the other suspects have to say about the blissful world of Islam?
Complain about this comment
166. At 04:52am on 15 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
‘"The Constitution prohibits the government from depriving any PERSON of life, liberty and property, NOT any citizen.’
Either it applies to US citizens only, or we should be a nation at war 100% of the time until every country follows our constitution. You cannot have it both ways. It was not set out to cover the whole world, and I imagine you honestly knew that...
Again, the *United States* Constitution. For the United States.”
Are you being deliberately perverse, perhaps thinking that it is funny? The Constitution is the fundamental law of the US it does not claim to be the law of nations and the process by which it was accepted is quite clear about that. To some, including myself, the Constitution is more like holy writ than mere legal document. Those who would twist, denigrate, or disrespect it are traitors. Your misrepresentation is NOT funny or clever. If you actually believe what you said then, to be polite, your opinions are worthless.
169. At 05:48am on 15 Nov 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
“...Second, if these men are acquitted and yet are considered too dangerous to set free, we can always refuse to release them unless there is a nation willing to receive them and take responsibility for their good behaviour.... might never happen.”
Bravo, that is, after all, more or less what would happen if they were recognized as prisoners of war rather than common criminals. We could also see to their detention while numerous personal injury, wrongful death and class action suits from the victims’ families make their way interminably through the courts.
Complain about this comment
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed because of the america-led invasion (not war - invasion). The kind of devastation that makes 9/11 look like a misdemeanour. No justice for them; not today, not tomorrow, not ever. No trial for the instigators of this atrocity, bush, blair, cheney, rumsfield and their ilk - they have a future of wealth and security to look forward to. I sometimes find myself hoping that Hell is more than just a myth.
Complain about this comment
139. UKW
That was very funny.
There is a book to add to the Christmas list.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
176. At 1:21pm on 15 Nov 2009, HabitualHero wrote:
"I sometimes find myself hoping that Hell is more than just a myth."
________
Be careful what you wish for.
Complain about this comment
142. At 11:08pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"9-11 became inevitable because the enemy saw we would not fight back, left our society unguarded, pretended the threat didn't exist, took no real measures against it."
__________
No, I believe that the world trade center attacks took place because the AQ leadership had contempt for GWB and his unquestioning support for Israel. Reading the news reports of the time, it seemed they thought was an loud mouthed, ignorant, cowboy, not up to the job. They wanted to show him up for an incompetent buffoon.
Wow, did they ever.
If Al Gore had been elected, I very much doubt if the attacks of September 11, 2001 would ever have taken place.
It's all speculation. We are never going to know the truth.
Clinton wisely refused to behave like an enraged bee-stung bull. He avoided rising to provocations. He let properly qualified investigators quietly do their jobs. He let the military learn from its mistakes and take better precautions. That was wise and cautious policy. Terrorist groups thirst for publicity, and Clinton gave them almost none. This, too, was wise and cautious policy.
But the election of GWB changed all that.
Bin Laden needed only two more things. One was a political trigger - some public act to outrage supporters. The other was a safe bolt-hole.
The first he obtained when the American delegation walked out of a human rights conference in South Africa when a resolution was presented equating Zionism with racism. To this day I believe that was a set-up, and the country behind that resolution ought to be near the top of the list of suspects.
The second he obtained by finding a regime that had suitable religious rigour, in a poorly accessible, landlocked country, about as far from US forces as it was possible to get. The only problem there was the Lion of the Panshir. So he was assassinated. His death was the green light.
Complain about this comment
Bartender...another double, this one is for the leprechauns;
"Tino posits a dichotomy which is so ridiculous I can scarcely believe that he believes it himself."
This is the dilemma created by the fact that Congress refused to declare war and that President Bush refused to ask for that declaration. A declaration would have conferred emergency powers on the President allowing him to suspend certain Constitutional rights until the war was over. The problem will be compounded by bringing the terrorists on to American soil where they will enjoy those rights too. If they are convicted after having easily proven that their rights were frequently and flagrantly violated, it will completely discredit the system. If they are released, then dangerous people who should never be set free will be unleashed on our society. Not only will they be released but they will be let go on American soil to possibly disappear from view. What's more, if they are released, this creates a new problem about what to do with the remaining prisoners in GITMO. Won't they all have the right to demand immediate trials too or to be released? Obama will not get a second term. In fact by this time next year he may lose control of both houses of Congress. He might be impeached...by his own party. He has done so much damage to the CIA and the rest of America's intelligence community already that this alone will mark him as the worst President in living memory, worse even than Carter.
Complain about this comment
uninformedforeigner, you are so wrong it is beyond belief that anyone could be so uninformed. What's more, you statement proves you hate the Jewish state of Israel and America's support for it without which it would have ceased to exist long ago.
"No, I believe that the world trade center attacks took place because the AQ leadership had contempt for GWB and his unquestioning support for Israel."
The attacks were planned a long time before 9-11-01 and long before Bush ever ran for President. In fact the earlier attack in 1993 which failed was so long before George Bush became president, few outside and inside the US had ever even heard of him. In Osama Bin Laden's own words, he attacked the US because American troops were stationed on sacred Islamic soil in Saudi Arabia, a dessecration. They were there since Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait to protect Saudi Arabia from being invaded and taken over by Iraq too. Osama Bin Laden's statements about Israel didn't come until long after 9-11. President Clinton was very much aware of the threat of al Qaeda but did nothing about it. He refutes widely held beliefs in reports that the Egytian government begged him to take custody of Bin Laden three separate times but it is an indisputable fact that Clinton would not take any definitive actions to thwart al Qaeda's efforts either in the US or around the world even after the US had been attacked twice in Africa and once in Yemen. Nor is the US Congress off the hook. They sat around and played games over Monica Lewinsky and how they were going to impeach Clinton during his entire administration. They also ignored countless warnings by experts in sworn testimony before their committees. Congress refused to allow the FBI and CIA to come together to work in unison while within those organizations, there was strong rivalry and discord between them. Nor would Congress fund the technical tools such as modern computer networks to help both of them fulfill their missions. As with the financial collapse, the aftermath of hurricaine Katrina and most other American disasters, there is plenty of blame to go around to a lot of people and institutions. But the one place there is no blame for 9-11 is Israel. As with Iraq, 9-11 would have happened even if Israel had never existed. Israel is used as a canard, a fake argument to blame everything bad that happens in the middle east on by those who hate Jews and use them as a scapegoat. And it never surprises me when those people are Europeans. It is among their common thousand year plus history history of shame and disgrace. They are a blight on humanity.
Complain about this comment
To multiple people:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble for the constitution. Giving these people a civilian trial is going against so much of that. So yes, I am entirely serious when I say our rights damn well shouldn't be given to them.
Complain about this comment
"No, I believe that the world trade center attacks took place because the AQ leadership had contempt for GWB and his unquestioning support for Israel. Reading the news reports of the time, it seemed they thought was an loud mouthed, ignorant, cowboy, not up to the job. They wanted to show him up for an incompetent buffoon."
Already been said but it is worth repeating. '93 WTC bombings + many other military targets were hit by them prior to 9/11. Had nothing to do with GWB whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
142. At 11:08pm on 14 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"... Since we began fighting back, there hasn't been another attack on the US yet but if Obama continues to let our guard down it will surely happen again.
" That would also be his undoing. The subsequent government whatever form it takes will be completely unrestrained by anyone or anything in its pursuit of the enemy."
________
No, there has been no major attack on the US mainland yet, but there have been 6,000 more military deaths overseas, and have caused the US to spend $ Gazillion in a wild goose chase.
AQ and its cause get wall to wall free publicity in the press virtually everyday; and have become the global No.1 brand name in terror. The guy has better brand recognition than "Oprah".
ObL has become a mythic and hugely popular figure to many in the Islamic world - a combination of Robin Hood and the voice of the prophet, thumbing his nose at the bully. In that culture, he is Zorro; we are Sgt. Garcia. The more money the US spends, the more US deaths, and the longer the chase is futile, the bigger the aura. You can't buy that kind of cachet. For a terrorist, it just doesn't get any better.
He doesn't need another US attack. Right now he has nothing to gain by making one, and much to lose.
All it would do would be to give the US back all the world-wide sympathy and good will that GWB so foolishly threw away. It would make it possible to convince friends and allies to commit more troops and money: The world doesn't see this as President Obama's problem, but rather one left on his plate by his unlamented predecessor that President Obama is now stuck cleaning up.
No, an AQ attack on the US homeland right now would be a bad blunder.
- - - - - -
And as for successful attacks, I note you have limited them to "on the US". There have nonetheless been three hugely successful attacks on US allies, with negative consequences for the US effort.
ObL and friends are clearly avid followers of the news, and have been rather good at manipulating the news services.
The attack on the Madrid subway was a huge success for ObL. The timing was masterful. It resulted in the electoral defeat of an otherwise eminently re-electable pro-US government, and a consequent withdrawal of forces and support. And, as a bonus, it made every other pro-US country gun shy. Talk about a successful terrorist attack.
The attacks on the London Transit system were likewise very effective, and led to another change in government, and, less volubly, a change in government policy.
And, (bonus!), it resulted in a Police response in which an entirely innocent Brazilian man was summarily executed in the middle of a crowded tube station. This is all grist to the terrorist mill.
Note that both Britain and Spain have long experience in dealing with terrorists, and sophisticated policing, yet the attacks were successful nonetheless.
And then there was the Bali bombing. Not AQ you say? Might as well have been. Where did the Howard government disappear to?
- - - - - -
Finally, on the subject of unrestrained pursuit:
Yes, the world would accept a very thorough reaction, and much more aggressive steps against foreseeable threats. It would mean the end of patience with the Hermit Kingdom. It would mean the end of patience with Iran. And Syria, and Hezbollah, and Heaven only knows what else.
Great evil would flow.
And if we ever engaged in pursuit "unrestrained" by law, we would end up right back where we are now, or worse: Financially weakened, and despised by the rest of the world.
Strong nations come and go, wax and wane.
"The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy is a very good text.
We should conduct our policy on the basis of our interests, in a manner consistent with our laws and justice - because the day will come when we are not so strong, and others will remember our conduct.
Complain about this comment
Ref 179. IF
"No, I believe that the world trade center attacks took place because the AQ leadership had contempt for GWB and his unquestioning support for Israel."
I have nothing but contempt for the Bush Administration, and W in particular, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The 9/11 attack took place, in my opinion, because of our military presence near Mecca and Medina, because of our economic and socio-political influence in some Islamic countries, and because of our unconditional support to Israel. Bush just happened to be the man in charge at the time, the same way Carter was when the U.S. embassy was overrun by Islamic zealots.
Islamic fundamentalists, especially extremists such as the Wahhabists, are intent on preserving their values and traditions and will go to any length to keep us out of their homeland. Their goal is not to come here, but to keep us and our cultural influences out of their countries.
Complain about this comment
181. At 2:53pm on 15 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"... What's more, you statement proves you hate the Jewish state of Israel and America's support for it without which it would have ceased to exist long ago."
________
Well, last week I was being accused here of being prejudiced against Islam and blindly biased in favour of Israel.
Go Figure.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Piper @ 170 writes "Europeans ....... are a blight on humanity".
If that is how Mr. Piper feels, may I suggest that he takes his bile off this European blogsite paid for by European people. Or could it be that there is no home tolerant enough to print his nonsense in his own country?
Complain about this comment
Upon leaving allied forces turned over Iraqi prisoners to the Arab forces at the end of the Gulf war. While Iraqi's surrendered to Coalition forces, the biggest problem was keeping the different groups, from attacking, harming, and killing each other while being held. There were numerous problems due to this tribalism, religious differences, and ethnic, etc. After turning over the prisioners to the Arab coalition forces you could hear the gunshots that night as new rules were imposed by the new jailers. I don't think justice will be served in New York, I hope I am wrong. Perhaps turning them over to their breathren may be better, who knows.
Complain about this comment
wangus, how European to ingnore endless unjustified and unjustifiable incessant America bashing by Europeans yet express utter indignation that even one American speaks out against the endless litany of crimes against humanity that Europe has been guilty of throughout history and continues to be responsible for. That is one reason, reason enough all by itself for me to continue speaking out. It is further reason enough for me to continue to point out that in what by European standards is barely a flick of time, the civilization of the United States of America has come from literally nowhere to far eclipse Europe in every meaningful way a long time ago. From our point of view, even if European countries somehow manage to glue themselves together and hold fast with the exertion of great tyrannical force against their natural proclivity for mutual repulsion, they still can't compare to America in any way that matters.
When speaking of payment, I remind you that Europe's debt to the rest of the world cannot even begin to be paid off even if only the material theft is taken into consideration. For example, when I looked at all that gold in Toledo many years ago, it occurred to me that most of it was probably stolen from South America by the Conquistadors. Practically everything material thing of value Europe has or ever had was stolen from someone else by its military imperial empires. This includes the theft of human beings into slavery on an industrial scale. When non material crimes like genocide are considered, Europe has no equal anywhere. I remind you that it was barely ten years ago that Europe stood by paralyzed as genocide was being committed on a daily basis in the Balkins right within Europe's own borders. Dutch troops for example just stood there around thousands of people were murdered in cold blood by Serbians. It took the United States government to finally put an end to it. Of course you don't like hearing it. It's a painful truth Europeans would like to ignore and forget just like it would like to forget the holocaust of WWII. I'm here to see that doesn't happen.
Complain about this comment
"
I can't speak for IF and "hatred", but if the State of Irael had "ceased to exist long ago", or even better, never existed as a racist colonial adventure, we would all be a whole lot nearer the goal of Word Peace. A Fine bunch of American Jews in 1919 predicted just the sort of trouble we've seen. Would that they had been heeded.
Complain about this comment
181. At 2:53pm on 15 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The attacks were planned a long time before 9-11-01 and long before Bush ever ran for President. ..."
183. At 3:32pm on 15 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"Already been said but it is worth repeating. '93 WTC bombings + many other military targets were hit by them prior to 9/11."
_______
Yes, that is undoubtedly true.
It was careless and wrong to stick the anti-Israel label on it - Dominic pointed that out before, and I had forgotten it.
And, maybe I'm wrong: maybe the attacks would have occurred on September 11, 2001 even if Kermit the Frog had been President.
But it's a quiet Sunday, so let not the temptation wisely to move on to another topic prevent me from tendentiously pouring more fuel on this fire ...
Even well planned events also await just the right opportunities. ObL is nothing if not a master of propaganda. He is very good at picking his timing - whether for new videos or for attacks, including attacks that must have taken fairly lengthy planning and preparation. And you can tell from his propaganda tapes that he watches the news and follows US politics like a hawk.
If the assassination attempt on Mahsoud had failed, presumably the attack would merely have been postponed until another opportunity: These folks don't lack for patience.
To take advantage of opportunities, things must be in place before those opportunities arise, possibly before you even really know whether those opportunities are going to arise at all. Sometimes preparations are made as speculative investments against the possibility of future events. Of course the planning took place long ahead of time.
Think how many different "special operations" the British contemplated in WWII, and how many were actually carried out successfully. Think how many never got off the drawing board, were overtaken by events, were scrubbed part way along, or failed. Dozens, and dozens, and dozens.
We know that many terrorist plots are uncovered beforehand. They range from the staggeringly stupid to the chillingly sophisticated. We don't know how many were planned. We don't know how many were funded. We don't know how far preparation advanced, or how many were scrubbed for any of a thousand reasons.
There are almost certainly preparations ongoing, today, for further attacks. We don't know where. We don't know how many. We don't know how far they have advanced in their planning or funding. But we do know that opportunities can't be seized unless the preparations are already in place. Was that not true on September 11, 2001, too?
It seems to me that their perception was that George-the-Younger represented a much more attractive target, opponent, and opportunity, than Al Gore. If you are telling me they didn't have contempt for him, dating from well before the Republican nomination, I need to dig out some pre-September 11 news reports.
Yes, the AQ desire to attack America, and previous attacks on American targets, predated George-the-Younger. But you can also tell from the taunting in the subsequent videos that they relished it all the more.
Would the same thing have happened with Al Gore? Maybe. And maybe not.
Complain about this comment
170. At 06:17am on 15 Nov 2009, seanspa wrote:
Want to guess who is monitoring this site?
__________
Remind you of the Summer, does it?
Complain about this comment
164. At 03:56am on 15 Nov 2009, youngasterix wrote:
Sorry gav. I never found it took any intelligence to be liberal or be in New York. I really do not see why you feel the two somehow make your views credible. Obnoxious and opinionated do seem to work well, though.
Bravo. Next time, why don't you simply stick out your tongue and make childish hand gestures? I'm sure it would be more in keeping with your natural inclinations.
and AndreaNY wrote:
Don't spread that around. They like to present it all as a package deal.
Suburbanites. They love to say they're "New Yorkers" to anyone and everyone, but haven't got the guts to ride the subway after dark or stay in the city if the theaters and shops are closed.
Complain about this comment
The poster formerly known as Marcus Aurelius has not disputed that he is, in fact, Bill Bryson's Mr. Piper "a cretin and ..... never listened to anything that was said to him".
I think that we can also thank Bill Bryson for solving the Dalek-or-not-up-to-being-a-Dalek argument when he tells us that "Mr. Piper was the nearest possible human equivalent to Fred Flintstone."
So there we have it. Every time we see a post from Mr. Piper we will remember that he is the nearest thing to Fred Flintstone and give thinks to ukwales for reminding us all that Bill had it fingered years ago.
Complain about this comment
171. At 11:10am on 15 Nov 2009, John_From_Dublin wrote:
Also, since it appears you and a lot of the Liberal 'Enemy Within' live in the USA, it will be necessary for the USA to invade, and probably to nuke, the USA, to root you out. "We had to destroy the country in order to save it..."
First they'll have to root all the liberals out of the military - and they are Legion. And, unfortunately for Marcus, his masters didn't have the wit to immediately declare Marshall Law, round up the opposition and start the political revenge killing prior to attempting to turn the US into a Third World country. They actually believed that Democrats and Liberals would eventually come to accept a second class status as a "permanent minority" and allow themselves to be deprived of a voice in government. Seriously, the core of the Republican party actually thinks they're entitled to rule - not just America, but the world.
Complain about this comment
On the subject of MAII, I knew there was something familiar about his political views. Archie Bunker? Perhaps. Davros? A definite similarity. Cheney on steroids? Could be.
Then it came to me. 'Political Science' by Randy Newman, written in 1972.
As Wiki says, "The narrator of "Political Science" is a U.S. nationalist who complains of worldwide ingratitude toward America and proposes a brutally ironic final solution."
Of course, the song is a parody of ultra-conservative, militaristic jingoism, favouring mass murder as a substitute for foreign policy.
But then again, so is MAII....
"No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.
We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.
Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.
Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.
Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now."
Complain about this comment
Interesting Justice.
so the "terrorists" killed 3000 people. and we know what happened since.
Justice americn style. americans hurt, america cares.
Ever hear of Warren Anderson.
responsible for 3000 deaths in one day and 25 ooo since as a result of his deliberate actions.
He knew a problem was there and he ignored it in the plant in India (but did fix the one in the USA where americans would die)
3000dead but could america extradite him to India to face charges. Could interpol find him.
Not easy when he is busy having fun at his Hamptons house.
American Just US.
Who's the terrorist?
Those that threaten and do. or those that pretend to be your friend, to be there for your good and still kill as many by their deceit.
Equality in Justice?
Not when America or Americans are involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Anderson_(chairman)
Sure " it was an accident".
Pathetic excuse.
still the did fix the plant in the USA so it can't be so bad.
No justice when it is Just US.
Complain about this comment
Nice one, John from Dublin.
But the line "We may not be perfect" is one that would never pass Mr. Piper's lips.
Complain about this comment
Disinformingforeigner;
"It was careless and wrong to stick the anti-Israel label on it"
You mean this time your lie was so blatantly obvious even you realized nobody could believe you. So save your lies for something that's not so self evident as being just plain wrong. We already know your sentiments about Jews and Israel and those of like mind to you. You've revealed nothing new there.
Perhaps those who don't like my views should consider that when it comes to war, I don't disagree with President Obama in regards to whom to fight, only how to fight. In light of his oath of office, any restraint in using force to protect America from its enemies does not conform to what he swore to. I've had the same problem with every president since Johnson lost the war in Vietnam. If a war is important enough for America to fight at all, it is important enough to win no matter what the consequences and at the least cost in American lives. To an American President, the worth of American lives had better be more valuable than the lives of non Americans.
Complain about this comment
I have been seeing many using Wikipedia as expert facts. When lately there has been investigations in bias in wiki and the web in general. With all this talk about passing laws to prevent this on the web as factual. It said that Wikipedia would be left vunerable to charges along with lawsuits should this come to be. Has anyone else heard about this? Because I see a lot of facts being used here from Wikipedia. How is terrorism listed in Wikipedia, and justice?
Complain about this comment
199. At 8:52pm on 15 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"We already know your sentiments about Jews and Israel and those of like mind to you. You've revealed nothing new there."
_________
Yes, you do. I have supported Israel for many, many years, as you well know. And have been criticized here for it by other posters, also as you well know.
And, indeed, have been criticized by you when you misunderstood the origin of the cockroach analogy, and wondered how the moderators had let it by.
You can support Israel without agreeing with current Israeli government policy. Millions of Jewish Israelis do. Plenty of people voting for opposition parties in Israel would be in the same boat as I am in that regard. Or maybe you think they all hate Jews and Israel too?
However, that would be consistent with your view of civil rights: kill everybody who doesn't agree with us (meaning you).
__________
"To an American President, the worth of American lives had better be more valuable than the lives of non Americans."
Abraham Lincoln signed on to that proposition did he? Thomas Jefferson?
Strange, I thought that somebody, somewhere, wrote something about "all men being created equal", and about holding "these truths to be self evident."
Where could that have been?
_________
"If a war is important enough for America to fight at all, it is important enough to win no matter what the consequences and at the least cost in American lives. To an American President, the worth of American lives had better be more valuable than the lives of non Americans."
"No matter what the consequences."
Hmph.
Now, suppose we:
(1) replace "America" with "Der Vaterland";
(2) replace "an American President" with "der Fuhrer"; and
(3) replace "American" and "Americans" with "Aryan" and "Aryans"
Shazam! Look at that: a justification of genocide.
Congratulations.
Yesterday you were in good company with Stalin, who also viewed war crimes trials as "a waste of money".
Today you are in good company with that great civil libertarian, Adolf Hitler.
Why not go for the hat trick?
Make the trains run on time with Mussolini? Too wishy-washy for you?
Cultural Revolution with Mao to re-educate the New York intellectuals?
Or Socialism plus rural electrification with Lenin and Trotsky? Not that bad, and you like electrical engineering - might as well go for it.
__________
The President's duty is to defend the Constitution of the United States.
War crimes, (i.e., "no matter what the consequences") are complete anaethma to everything for which the US Constitution stands.
It is remarkable that a country based on the "Rights of Man" can so easily have its Constitution converted into a license blindly and indiscriminately to slaughter foreigners.
Complain about this comment
#197 Fluffy
I believe India issued an arrest warrant for Anderson and he has still escaped justice. This is despite India and USA having an extradition treaty and everyone knowing where he lives! Now why is that I wonder. Union Carbide said that they were not under Indian jurisdiction and the US Supreme Court has refused to view the case.
For fear of compounding their legal liability, Union Carbide would not identify the chemical agents that fuelled this catastrophe, leaving doctors to treat victims without an answer to their agony. Choking, with violent convulsions, many Bhopal residents drowned in their own body fluids. Thousands died that night.
The people of Bhopal know exactly what American justice is!
We all live in Bhopal!
Complain about this comment
"Wikipedia may be a fantastic resource, but any savvy Internet user is aware of its limits. Edit wars, entries made and modified for PR purposes, hoaxes, and basic inaccuracies all creep into (and back out of) the system, meaning that any use of the information there for purposes that might be considered significant should require some serious fact-checking. And, accordingly, many academics don't accept references to Wikipedia, and its entries have been rejected as evidence by US courts. So, it's a bit of a surprise to find out that one Wikipedia hoax, perpetrated by a sociology student, managed to appear in a variety of news reports, and has stayed there even after the hoax was revealed." John Timmer
The hoax trace to a student at Irelands University College Dublin it went on to say. So I often wonder about the content of these often cited listings. So like Lennon said,"just gimme some truth, all I want is the truth." Watch and see what happen with this trial, some of you here have made good points, and the nullification done in past trials in New York is extraordinary. It will come to an end, but what end.
Complain about this comment
165. At 04:42am on 15 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
"We don't need to convince them. We just need to A.) kill them or B.) convince them to leave use alone."
"...Their position (convert or die) either changes - not happening - or they are destroyed."
________
Just took a second look at this.
All right.
Lets suppose we call America something like "The Caliphate".
Lets suppose we call these Islamic terrorists "infidels".
So what you are saying is that either the "infidels" should stay out of the holy land of the "Caliphate" and leave us alone, or they should conform, or maybe "convert", to our views (which you say is "not happening"), or we should kill them.
Ok. Now everybody can see how the policy by which you propose to protect our open and tolerant society is completely different from their policy of "convert or die", as you put it.
Complain about this comment
Misinformedforeigner;
You know something, you're even uglier when you're mad.
"And, indeed, have been criticized by you when you misunderstood the origin of the cockroach analogy, and wondered how the moderators had let it by."
You know what your trouble is mis-? Like all you lefties in general and Euros in particular....you have no sense of humor, nope none at all. You can't take a joke. No way no how.
I know I'm to blame, well ain't dat a shame, Bill Baily won't you please come home (we really mean it) Bill Bailey won't you place come home (one mow time) Bill Bailey won't you please come hooooooo-um.
Dere ain't nuttin like dat song.
Complain about this comment
dceiler.
Yep. the reason I brought this to this thread is to illustrate how when 3000" american "(weren't) lives are lost we start two wars, killing many thousands , destabalise the middleeast, ruin the economic base and trash the american constitution, torture maim slaughter.
But when one of Our jurisdictions' mass murderers wants to holiday in the hamptons and have Nothing done about it or him, we say OK.
No wars. The only reason t is not more terrorising to the american people is the vast ignorance of the fact that many such plants exist in their local areas.
When these plants leak, when the trains carrying the chemicals crash (look up US train safety,not lol) they create situations as bad and possibly way worse than any number of terrorist activities we have seen so far.
Yet americans remain terrified of some guy in the hills hiding in a cave..
And they think they have a sense of perspective as well. that's funny.
Look IF you so happy with MA , different shoe when it's you.
Complain about this comment
205. At 11:21pm on 15 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"You know what your trouble is mis-? Like all you lefties in general and Euros in particular....you have no sense of humor, nope none at all. You can't take a joke. No way no how."
_________
I must have missed the humour in being told I hate Jews and Israel. Maybe you can explain where the joke was in that.
Odd though. I often see humour in much of your writing.
Like being described as a "lefty". That really is funny.
Perhaps compared to the Klan, or Genghis Khan.
No, I am a Conservative, always have been.
Classical believer in Liberal (i.e., free market) economics. Hate wasting taxpayers' money. Hawk on defense. Not quite the war-monger I used to be, though.
Complain about this comment
Charge and try them for the crime. That is our way.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PlayingForChange#p/u/21/fgWFxFg7-GU
Complain about this comment
Oops I think I meant to link here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWFxFg7-GU
Complain about this comment
From the Oxford English Dictionary, "rogue":
1. a. One belonging to a class of idle vagrants or vagabonds.
2. a. A dishonest, unprincipled person; a rascal.
3. One who is of a mischievous disposition.
5. a. An elephant driven away, or living apart, from the herd, and of a savage or destructive disposition.
6. b. Something that is inexplicably faulty or defective.
6. c. That which lacks appropriate control; something which is irresponsible or undisciplined.
rogue state n. a state perceived to be flouting international law and threatening the security of other nations.
Complain about this comment
A town in Illinois wants the prisoners at Gitmo transfered to their maximum security prison.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/ill-town-optimistic-about-arrival-of-gitmo-detainees.html
"News that the federal government seems interested in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Thomson Correctional Center was greeted warmly in this small, rural farm town along the Iowa border."
""I don't want (enemy combatants) walking the street, so they have to go some place," said Harris, 64. "Might as well come here.""
""A murderer is a murderer no matter where he's from," Hebeler said. "That's the way I look at it.""
Complain about this comment
Try the people who have murdered innocent civilians as traditional criminals and make it a fair trial, then send the guilty to prison.
Peaceful Tomorrows is an organization of people whose relatives and loved ones were killed on 9/11.
Their site is here:
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?list=type&type=64
and they want Gitmo closed and the trials in America.
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?id=944
"True justice is all about the rule of law. The United States has not, nor should we become, a nation that makes up the rules as we go along. "
"Close Guantanamo. Transfer those charged to the U.S. criminal courts. Try them and work like hell to get a conviction. And remember what Judge William Young said to "shoe bomber" Richard Reid at his sentencing, “You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of the government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view; you are a terrorist …You’re no big deal.”"
Complain about this comment
The greatest danger to America's homeland is coming from within, not from terrorists..
http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&tab=wm#sent/124e8f0522fc8f84
America’s Defining Choice
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
"lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?"
"As many people die every three weeks from lack of health insurance as were killed in the 9/11 attacks." [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
The correct link for the Nicholas Kristof article is :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/opinion/12kristof.html
Complain about this comment
Has anyone in the US press tried to engage in a debate over what should happen to prisoners who should not be allowed on US soil? Surely it follows that Guantanamo remaining open is an unavoidable consequence of this line of thinking.
Surely this is the time for America to out faith in its own justice system and show the world that it does not have to sink to the depths of those who would destroy it to maintain its own security.
The existence of Guantanamo, in addition to being a recuitment poster for terrorist groups is a tacit admission that America does not have sufficient trust it its own system of justice.
Complain about this comment
Don,
Indeed.
Complain about this comment
lol look at the tompson correctional facility.
It's empty near enough.
Why.
the prison industry is so alive and well they just keep building , no wonder they want it filled.
speculative prison building.
( Don there's some cynicism;)
DON yea I did.
I said lets have a do over. mulligan. let em all go home and declare amnesty.
Not because I think anyone would but because there is little else to do without wasting all that money we don't have.
If not tried they should be released.
If the trial can't be held where there is a fair trial then it shouldn't be held.
The proper place was at the UN. (if indeed it was a war crime as some say).
But America doesn't want that. they loose control (and liability?) .
By seeking the death penalty they force people like me to object.
Create a technicality, go for the death penalty.
forget the death penalty and the trial will be easier.
(PS I know there will be no "do over" all)
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon (215) "The existence of Guantanamo, in addition to being a recuitment poster for terrorist groups is a tacit admission that America does not have sufficient trust it its own system of justice."
I don't agree with that statement. The essential problem at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is the methods of interrogation used there under the previous administration. The mere existence of the detention center admits nothing of the sort.
The detention center is a prisoner-of-war camp. The question for each prisoner is whether they are to be treated as prisoners of war or as criminals. This determines how they are handled. Prisoners of war can be held until the end of hostilities, which for a group like al Qaeda can be a very long time indeed.
The administration has decided that a few of the people they are holding should be tried in a federal court. I expect that they have considered the issues very carefully, and I will wait to see how it turns out. As for the others, if they are being treated properly, and if the camp is open to inspection, I don't have a problem with it.
Complain about this comment
GH was gitmo set up in cuba specifically to allow torture and mistreatment of prisoners.
Why was it not set up on an american Island?
Because it would be in breach of american laws etc etc.
I would say the essential problem was the last administration, (not just the torture ) Until we deal with them there are always going to be un answered questions.
But then that's why the trial is being held in the USA. see the right moan now.
ON enemy combatant vrs prisoner of war.
Most prisoners of war do not get tried , they get released.
As I say
"do over"
Complain about this comment
"So what you are saying is that either the "infidels" should stay out of the holy land of the "Caliphate" and leave us alone, or they should conform, or maybe "convert", to our views (which you say is "not happening"), or we should kill them.
Ok. Now everybody can see how the policy by which you propose to protect our open and tolerant society is completely different from their policy of "convert or die", as you put it."
Not even close? It is not us setting out some policy, we are responding in defense. If an enemy states you can either change your life or die, not alternatives - then you either change, fight, or die. Only 3 choices. I prefer fight. They do not even have to turn democratic/westernized. I do not care. The problem is when they decide that them being Muslim isn't enough because their book calls for a holy war to convert the world.
I am not saying all Muslims must convert - as an atheist I would take particular exception with this - or die. I am saying either they change their ultimatum to us, or they die first. Failing to see what is morally wrong with defending myself and family from an obvious and known threat.
Nice try though.
Complain about this comment
GH,
Shhhhh! Don't tell Shrub and colleagues!
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle_LaPost #18, Interested Foreigner #28, and PubliusDetroit #59. . .
As one who wholeheartedly and enthusiasticly agrees with each one of your very eloquently expressed statements of elation at the news that the major 9/11 attackers will at long last be tried in a civilian court near the scene of the crime and the subsequent expressions of the fact that it is our constitution and our belief in the true rule of law that is our nation's best asset in the international comunity, nevertheless I feel it important to inform you that, as Mark brilliantly reported above, we are still continuing on with military tribunals, and the remaining Guantanamo Bay prisoners, it seems, are soon to be sent to a maximum security prison in Thompson Illinois, with no plans, as of yet, for trial, be it civilian or military tribunal.
So for all the justifyed happyness at the return to the rule of law in this one major case, it sadly seems that the administration is adamant on the necessity of continuing the Bush administration's policy of trying to skirt around and evade the constitution at all causts. What say you on this?
Complain about this comment
It is not necessary that a trial be conducted only in a "civilian court" (see post #222) in order for it to be in accordance with "the rule of law." For a better understanding of the issues, see the US Supreme Court Case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) which dealt with the rights of an accused about to be tried by a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. The ruling was not that military courts were not Constitutionally acceptable, but that such courts must adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and to the Third Geneva Convention, which is incorporated in the UCMJ.
I see no evidence that the Obama administration has ever attempted to evade the rulings in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Complain about this comment
#223 Gary
The ruling was not that military courts were not Constitutionally acceptable, but that such courts must adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and to the Third Geneva Convention, which is incorporated in the UCMJ.
Isn't the point that these prisoners were held outside the Geneva Convention? If they are not PoWs then what legal system do they fall under? Moreover, it's not the job of the US Supreme Court to decide whether the Geneva Convention applies or not.
Complain about this comment
dceiler (#224) " ... it's not the job of the US Supreme Court to decide whether the Geneva Convention applies or not."
Whether you think so or not, that is what they nevertheless did:
"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions." (From the Stevens opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld)
Hamdan was ultimately tried by a reconstituted military commission in conformance with this ruling which invalidated the original commission. He was tried under the legal system of the United States in accordance with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court.
Complain about this comment
210. At 02:33am on 16 Nov 2009, smileytm303 wrote:
“From the Oxford English Dictionary, "rogue":
1. a. One belonging to a class of idle vagrants or vagabonds.
2. a. A dishonest, unprincipled person; a rascal.
3. One who is of a mischievous disposition.
5. a. An elephant driven away, or living apart, from the herd, and of a savage or destructive disposition.
6. b. Something that is inexplicably faulty or defective.
6. c. That which lacks appropriate control; something which is irresponsible or undisciplined.
rogue state n. a state perceived to be flouting international law and threatening the security of other nations.”
Smileytm303, you are very cruel, Sarah Palin is not an elephant [except for the Republican Party mascot she adheres to] and really does not resemble one! As to the rest of the charges, well that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Complain about this comment
215. At 12:54pm on 16 Nov 2009, PartTimeDon wrote:
“Has anyone in the US press tried to engage in a debate over what should happen to prisoners who should not be allowed on US soil?... The existence of Guantanamo, in addition to being a recuitment poster for terrorist groups is a tacit admission that America does not have sufficient trust it its own system of justice.”
I agree 100%, all too many of my countrymen [and women] are operating on emotion and ignorance of the history and laws, not to mention the Constitution, of the US. Some of the diatribes are irrational as well as showing ignorance of the foregoing.
George Washington recommended peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none, not searching abroad for dragons to slay and, above all, not entrusting the republic to a class of professional politicians.
217. At 3:52pm on 16 Nov 2009, fluffytale wrote:
“If the trial can't be held where there is a fair trial then it shouldn't be held. The proper place was at the UN.”
Perhaps a tribunal of Iran, Syria, Cuba and others would strike you as fair? This trial could be as fair as the Nuremberg trials, but I agree that holding it in New York City presents fairness issues.
I repeat myself but, the present Constitution of the US predates all other written national constitutions, all international agreements, so-called international law, the World Court and the UN. It is the “supreme law of the land” and as it does not recognize any of these they are effectively null, void and of no force in the US.
The US is also the oldest federal republic and is more nearly confederal than other federal states. If this were a simple murder, the federal government would have no more influence on the case than the above mentioned. Grouse, whine or whinge about it as you will, Americans are unlikely to change it because you or all of the above wish it changed.
224. At 9:58pm on 16 Nov 2009, dceilar wrote:
#223 Gary
“Moreover, it's not the job of the US Supreme Court to decide whether the Geneva Convention applies or not.”
Yes, it is. International laws only apply to the US if they are legally imported into the body of US law, and the Supreme Court has every right to rule on them. If they are unconstitutional it is the right and duty of the court to so rule. If international law contravenes the laws of a US state, then the Supreme Court might just recognize that their right supersedes that of even the US government [see above].
Complain about this comment
#112, 125, 192
Comments appreciated. I have no idea who's monitoring the site myself as I am new here; but I can only assure you that you have an infinite amount of patience as compared to this Southern US female. Glad I made it to your comments because I had also an idea that MA was actually Dick Cheney ...no surprise there). The reference to Montana nailed it. Did you realize that even the people of Montana can't stand him?
He wants to argue and pontificate as befits a self-appointed emperor. I would be more inclined to attempt to reason with him only it reminds me too much of arguing with the SO when he's had too much to drink...there's really no point, once you start there is no end to it; I can only postulate that the moderator finds him amusing though it's been exhausting this evening trying to wade through his comments to get to some of the more intelligent ones.
What can I say? You can choose to wrestle in the mud with a pig if you want to; you'll both get muddy. However, likely only the pig will enjoy it. (remember you can paint lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig...hyuck hyuck)
Complain about this comment
Funny how wars become 'religious' 'innit.
'Revolution Justified by God'
"Many Revolutionary War clergy argued that the war against Britain was approved by God. In this sermon Abraham Keteltas celebrated the American effort as "the cause of truth, against error and falsehood . . .the cause of pure and undefiled religion, against bigotry, superstition, and human invention . . .in short, it is the cause of heaven against hell--of the kind Parent of the Universe against the prince of darkness, and the destroyer of the human race."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
'terrorist' v 'revolutionary' may just depend on which side wins...
Complain about this comment
An Islamic terrorist attack on New York City during the trial would be the end of the Obama presidency. I think he'd be forced to resign within weeks.
Many of us feel he is mismanaging the economy especially with regard to the health care bill. We think the House version of the bill will reduce the benefits of medicare and will increase overall costs, a direct contradiction to what Obama promised during the campaign. The people who administer Medicare agree and have said so publically now. Senator Reed has kept the Senate version of the bill bottled up in his office for six weeks. He's the only one who knows what's in it. If he thinks he'll ramrod it through the Senate the way it was ramrodded through the House, he'd better guess again. The Senate's rules of debate are very different. As it was, it barely made it through the house.
Bad as that is, if President Obama demonstrates he mismanaged the war against terror, he will be unacceptable to the majority of Americans. His political career would be at an end. President Joe Biden. And after him if he doesn't serve a full term President Nancy Pelosi. Talk about fear mongering.
Complain about this comment
ClownJaWeeD
How can you possibly compare me to Dick Cheney? Do you think if I was vice president on 9-11 I would have let George Bush sit around passively for a month while al Qaeda slipped through his fingers escaping to Pakistan? I'd have taken care of it that night if I'd had to fly a B-2 over there myself. By the time I was done, problems with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea would have evaporated, even if I'd had to have staged a coup to do it. Do you think I'd have wasted 5000 American lives trying to protect the Iraqis from each other. All that American blood and treasure spent and we don't have one drop of oil out of them to show for it. What kind of war is that I ask you? We'd own Iraq by now if I was elected VP. We'd own Venezuela too. At least the part below the ground.
Complain about this comment
Now, there ya' go again, Dick, exaggerating; all this "what might have been."
My grandpa used to say if the rabbit hadn't shat the dog wouldn't have ate it.
It's always the rabbit's fault, that darn rabbit.
Have a great night, time to turn in myself.
Complain about this comment
230. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"An Islamic terrorist attack on New York City during the trial would be the end of the Obama presidency.
Many of us feel he is mismanaging the economy especially with regard to the health care bill."
Still, with the very small number of sinister muslims in the US and the very large number of well-armed anti-Obama loonies New York is in more danger of another McVeigh or Unabomber, than another 9/11.
Complain about this comment
231 marcus
"I'd have taken care of it that night if I'd had to fly a B-2 over there myself. By the time I was done, problems with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea would have evaporated, even if I'd had to have staged a coup to do it."
Eureka (don't mod that - it's another quite well accepted term in english)! I now know who the "real Marcus Aurelius" is ..... no, it's not Dick Cheney or Karl Rove's kid brother ..... it can only be....
Steven Seagal. Only the "Big S" could put down 5 evil regimes in one night with only one bomber. Busted, Marcus.
How do you have time to blog so much while making 25 movies a year too?
Complain about this comment
"How do you have time to blog so much while making 25 movies a year too?"
The same way I can nuke five countries on one mission. I plan my route carefully followed by perfect execution. Efficiency and focus, those are the keys. There's no mission too tough, no mountain too high for someone from the Bronx. If Everest had been 59,000 feet high instead of 29,000 feet, Bronx bombers would have been the first and only ones to climb it and Hillary Tensing would have been forgotten by time.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, hello.
You mean alpinists from the Bronx thumbed their noses at Everest as it was too small to present a real challenge?
Them Bronx Bombers sound too tough for me!
Complain about this comment
231. At 02:55am on 17 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"How can you possibly compare me to Dick Cheney? Do you think if I was vice president on 9-11 I would have let George Bush sit around passively for a month while al Qaeda slipped through his fingers escaping to Pakistan?"
[[ So there it is at last, the long awaited admission that Cheney was the Edgar Bergen of the White House - albeit a wimpy and ineffective one, according to Marcus ]]
"I'd have taken care of it that night if I'd had to fly a B-2 over there myself. By the time I was done, problems with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea would have evaporated, even if I'd had to have staged a coup to do it."
[[ To quote Jack Nicholson, "The Joker": "Where does he get those toys?"]]
"We'd own Venezuela too. At least the part below the ground."
[[ Because that's the only part that wouldn't be glowing with radioactive fall-out ]]
235. At 11:41am on 17 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The same way I can nuke five countries on one mission. I plan my route carefully followed by perfect execution. Efficiency and focus, those are the keys. There's no mission too tough, no mountain too high for someone from the Bronx."
[[Wow. In the Bond movies it was an RAF Vulcan, but, hey, a B-2, close enough. So it's Mr. Big, Blofeld, Spectre, Smersh, The Joker, The Riddler, and KAOS all at once.
Yes, there's nothing like the secret life of Walter Mitty.]]
Complain about this comment
#227 McJakome
I repeat myself but, the present Constitution of the US predates all other written national constitutions, all international agreements, so-called international law, the World Court and the UN.
I have a feeling that you are using a very narrow definition of 'constitution'. Britain became a constitutional monarchy in 1688 with the Bill of Rights in 1689, the Act of Settlement in 1701, and the Act of Union 1707. As far as Britain is concerned its national constitution can be dated back to the Magna Carta (which introduced habeas corpus) in 1215. So in theory the national constitution of Britain predates the US Constitution. The UK is bound by international law; the USA refuses. Does that make the USA a rouge State?
Complain about this comment
"Does that make the USA a rouge State?" (from dceilar at #238)
The US has fifty states (and the District of Columbia). Some are considered "rouge" (Republican) and some "bleu" (Democratic). In the last election, a majority were "bleu."
Complain about this comment
Rouge is an abrasive material, so that fits.
Complain about this comment
McJakome (#227), your attempt to quote dceilar who was quoting me in your post at #227 is rather muddled. Better to respond to only one post at a time, or make a better effort to distinguish who wrote what and to whom you are responding. Readers who wish to understand this correctly should read posts #222 through #225.
Complain about this comment
"New York Republican congressman Peter King also worries that the trial will ...turn his city into a timebomb."
fyi - Peter King represents part of the Long Island suburbs, not New York City; it's inaccurate to refer to NYC as "his city."
Complain about this comment
#241 Gary
I can't keep up myself!
I'm off to put some rogue on!
Complain about this comment
dceilar (#238) "The UK is bound by international law; the USA refuses."
This assertion could use some backing up with specific examples.
The US and the UK are sovereign states. The US, from time to time, enters into treaties with other sovereign states, which are then "binding." The US may also choose not to enter into a treaty, in which case it is not.
I'm not familiar with the situation in the UK with regard to international law. Can you give one example in which the UK has surrendered its sovereignty in the absence of a treaty?
Complain about this comment
dceilar (#238) may have been referring to this, with respect to the US: International Court
Even if President Obama reverses Bush's policy, I doubt the Senate would ratify it.
Complain about this comment
re. Rather_Be_Cycling (multiple posts)
I think you are missing the point of a criminal trial here. By putting them on trial in a criminal court the US is saying that these are not soldiers, they do not represent any legitimate authority, they are common criminals. And by implication, the US is saying that Al-Qaeda is a band of criminals not deserving of the status of an enemy nation according to international law. Keeping them locked up as enemy combatants in Gitmo was only elevating their status in the eyes of jihadists and confirming Al-Qaeda's self-proclaimed standing as a pan-Islamic nation.
Everyone on the planet knows that these guys are never going to get out of jail. How that is accomplished is the important part.
Complain about this comment
#244 Gary
The USA rejected the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice re: the formers involvement in Nicaragua when the Court condemned the U.S. for the "unlawful use of force," ordering Washington to cease its international terrorism, violation of treaties, and illegal economic warfare, and to pay substantial reparations, the Democrat-controlled Congress reacted by instantly escalating the crimes while the Court was roundly denounced on all sides as a "hostile forum" that had discredited itself by rendering a decision against the United States. Source here!
In the UK European Law is the highest. The UK is bound by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The UK surrendered this sovereignty upon membership of the EEC in 1971. The 1952 Treaty of Paris is now part of the UK constitution.
Complain about this comment
#246 Tim
Experience of terrorism in Northern Ireland has shown that these people need to treated as criminals and not as political prisoners or as PoWs. It's been noted a few times in the posts above that it's important the rule of law prevails against terrorism.
Complain about this comment
As for treaties (see #238, #244, #245, #247), the US and the UK differ somewhat where ratification of treaties is concerned. In the US, the Senate is a co-equal branch of government relative to the Administration (President), and it changes slowly, only one-third seats being open to election every two years. Also, a minority of the Senate (41 out of 100) can block action. The independence of the Senate is real, not merely theoretical. Treaties presented to the Senate are sometimes not ratified.
In the UK, when the government of the day signs a treaty, the Commons will certainly approve it, as the PM is the creature of the Commons. The Lords must also approve, and the Sovereign must sign, but are either of these able to block a treaty in practice? Have the Lords ever blocked a treaty in modern times? Has the Sovereign ever refused to sign anything approved by both houses of Parliament?
A recent example of a controversial treaty is the Lisbon Treaty: news item on UK ratification
Anyone reading Hewitt's Euroblog knows that this treaty is somewhat controversial in the UK. It is not clear to me whether the promised (but not held) referendum would have passed. Nevertheless, the UK has ratified it.
Complain about this comment
249 gary
"The Lords must also approve, and the Sovereign must sign, but are either of these able to block a treaty in practice? Have the Lords ever blocked a treaty in modern times? Has the Sovereign ever refused to sign anything approved by both houses of Parliament?"
Easy one first - the last time a sovereign refuses to sign a parliamentary law in the UK was 1707 when Queen Anne was on the throne .... can't tell you what it was that so offended the old dear though.
Still she had a pretty bad life (14 pregnancies, no children lived past abou 5 years!) so she have been simply being difficult!
Second the LORDS - I believe it was David Lloyd George's budget was being blocked by the Lords (in those days all very right wing) so the King threatened to create enough liberal Lords to pass the bill unless the Lords capitulated .... which they did.
Since then (1909) the Lords can refine, revise but not refuse a law.
The issue? The introduction of a higher rate of income tax for those earning over £3000 - alot of money in 1909, and probably affecting the Lords and not many others!!!!
Complain about this comment
#249 Gary
Yes the US is quite unique in that regard of the power of the Senate. I'm not sure if it is more then a hinderer though. Regarding the UK's PM I think you underestimate its power. The PM can sign treaty's and declare war without Parliament. The PM has the Royal Prerogative.
The EU is also quite unique. I think its roots can be found in the Zollverein (the customs union of various German states in the 19th century) which promoted closer ties between the disparate German states ultimately playing an important role in German unification. It's no surprise that the EU started life as the European Economic Union in the fifties with more and more Treaty's appearing that are slowly ebbing away the sovereignty of its member states into what Churchill called the United States of Europe. The EU is not NAFTA, nor the OAS, but a different beast altogether.
Complain about this comment
timOhio (#246) "I think you are missing the point of a criminal trial here. By putting them on trial in a criminal court the US is saying that these are not soldiers, they do not represent any legitimate authority, they are common criminals."
Except that military courts are still in the picture. These may be conducted at the Thomson, Illinois prison.
It is not clear to me how the choice is made to have a civilian trial, but here is a link to a discussion of the question:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/11/the-alleged-plotters-of-the.html
Complain about this comment
dceilar (#251) "It's no surprise that the EU started life as the European Economic Union in the fifties with more and more Treaty's appearing that are slowly ebbing away the sovereignty of its member states into what Churchill called the United States of Europe. The EU is not NAFTA, nor the OAS, but a different beast altogether."
I agree with this analysis. The United States did the same thing, when the original 13 states joined under the Constitution "in order to form a more perfect union." They realized that, individually, they were pretty small players on the world stage. The European states are in the same boat. Individually, they are much smaller than the US, and with the emergence of China, along with other large economies such as Brazil and Japan, it is advantageous to work together, at least economically. The EU is the world's largest economic bloc, today.
What I don't fully appreciate is the motivation in Europe to move beyond a merely economic union.
Complain about this comment
253 gary
"What I don't fully appreciate is the motivation in Europe to move beyond a merely economic union."
This is a problem for many Europeans also.
I am pro-EU in principle, but would like to change it's unrepresentative form of wielding it's power, and the enormous and seemingly unaccountable troughs of euro-slush that are knocking about....
...Mark are you pining for Brussels yet .....
..... however as it stands we have a similar bi-polar situation as the US has with healthcare - you are either in or out, for or against - no shades of grey/gray and this is a problem because as in the US situation the fringe extremists deter genuine debate.
Also, rather cunningly I suppose, they have made themselves sort of invisible, so that quite genuinely the vast majority of people really don't give a monkey's uncle.... or understand the issues.
However the idea of the EEC and ECSC in the 1950s was a brilliant plan to stabilise Europe. Where it's going now I don't know, but please don't let Tony B become president. Next step is deification.
Complain about this comment
#254 Gary
What I don't fully appreciate is the motivation in Europe to move beyond a merely economic union.
I agree with your sentiments. I'm no longer sure what the motivation is. I was brought up to believe that it was to prevent war in Europe, now it seems to be creating divisions. I have nothing against the notion of a United States of Europe because I dislike nationalism yet enjoy the diversity of Europe's nations. Yet what we have is a bureaucratic gravy train with pointless and irrelevant democratic institutions. In short, the EU is good in theory, but a disaster in practice.
Complain about this comment
229. At 01:57am on 17 Nov 2009, frayedcat wrote:
“...'terrorist' v 'revolutionary' may just depend on which side wins...”
“Vae Victis,” loosely translated, “to the victor belong the history books.”
230. At 02:27am on 17 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
“An Islamic terrorist attack on New York City during the trial would be the end of the Obama presidency. I think he'd be forced to resign within weeks. “
It is more likely that the accused would be lynched and that Obama would start sounding more like GWB. After which the US military would change their venue to whichever foolish country allowed Al Qaida to launch the attack.
If this last were not to happen, the MAII scenario would actually become more likely or, if very close to the election, the results of the election would tilt decisively against the administration. Even the supreme dilettante and know-nothing, Sarah Palin, might win at that point.
Complain about this comment
#254 RomeStu
I agree.
It's a defeat of, not just the European ideal, but of the human spirit.
Complain about this comment
238. At 4:02pm on 17 Nov 2009, dceilar wrote:
#227 McJakome
“As far as Britain is concerned its national constitution can be dated back to the Magna Carta (which introduced habeas corpus) in 1215. So in theory the national constitution of Britain predates the US Constitution. The UK is bound by international law; the USA refuses. Does that make the USA a rouge State?”
First: I said “written constitution” singular, and I can show you a single document, the preamble of which reads, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I will humbly admit my error upon your presenting a single British document or law so titled. [Hodgepodge of numerous documents, acts and customary usages not accepted as those constitute the well known and admittedly older “British constitution.”]
Second: How can our fundamental law, as written, and which most Americans regard as almost holy writ, possibly be bound by subsequent foreign inventions unless put into the constitution by the amendment process? Can’t be done, that’s unconstitutional.
Third: Cambridge MA is sometimes called “the People’s Republic of Cambridge,” but rouge is relative. Most Americans think the democrats are left of center, whereas most Europeans consider them well to the right of center.
Fourth: If you meant to say a rogue state, since most countries’ constitutions are based on ours [or on one of the French ones which came after and were influenced by ours] and since the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man was based on our Bill of Rights, I’d say we were rather the founder than a rogue, “n’cest pas”?
241. At 4:33pm on 17 Nov 2009, GH1618 wrote:
“McJakome (#227), your attempt to quote dceilar who was quoting me in your post at #227 is rather muddled.”
I have reviewed the posts mentioned and do not see any muddlement [other than the "attempt to quote decilar who was quoting me" part]. Perhaps you could be more specific about what was muddled and how.
It may be true that [as above] I answered too many different posts at the same time, but making many individual posts seems rather trollish to me.
If you think it would be clearer, I will certainly consider doing so, since your short and to the point posts are nothing if not clear.
Complain about this comment
McJakome (#258) "How can our fundamental law, as written, and which most Americans regard as almost holy writ, possibly be bound by subsequent foreign inventions unless put into the constitution by the amendment process? Can’t be done, that’s unconstitutional."
But treaties can be ratified and become part of US law without explicitly being added to the Constitution. For example, the Third Geneva Convention has been incorporated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See my discussion of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in #225, above.
Complain about this comment
McJakome (#258) "Perhaps you could be more specific about what was muddled and how."
In your post #227, where you wrote "Yes it is," you appeared to me to be attributing dceilar's words to me, and contradicting me, when you should have been contradicting him (as we were in agreement on the point).
Complain about this comment
McJakome (#258) "It may be true that [as above] I answered too many different posts at the same time, but making many individual posts seems rather trollish to me."
And by the way, I was not objecting to responding to multiple posts with one, which is clear enough, but to the combining of two levels of quotes, as you noticed.
Complain about this comment
#258 McJakome
I think you are referring to a codified Constitution, as Britain too has a 'written constitution'. Those Acts I mentioned @238 are written into law. I also believe that the US constitution has also had various amendments over time so nothing is set in stone.
I sense a contradiction in your argument though:
Your fourth point was: most countries’ constitutions are based on ours [or on one of the French ones which came after and were influenced by ours] and since the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man was based on our Bill of Rights, I’d say we were rather the founder than a rogue
Second: How can our fundamental law, as written, and which most Americans regard as almost holy writ, possibly be bound by subsequent foreign inventions unless put into the constitution by the amendment process? Can’t be done, that’s unconstitutional.
Well my point was that most countries have signed up to the World Court and accept the legitimacy of the International Court of Justice. They have done it with a similar constitution as yours (as you claim).
Complain about this comment
257. dceilar wrote:
"#254 RomeStu
I agree.
It's a defeat of, not just the European ideal, but of the human spirit."
Yes, it's a big problem .... but is it worse than dissolving the EU and going back to the old ways?
Lose-Lose scenario.
Complain about this comment
The argument about "written" vs. "codified" constitutions is one of those pointless semantic distinctions, I think. I expect almost everyone here knows the difference between the US and UK way of handling the constitution. At least in general, if not all the particulars.
dceilar's point about the International Court of Justice is at the heart of the substantive question. The US could ratify the treaty, in which case it would become part of US law, but it has not. I do not believe that it will. While most (perhaps all) EU countries have ratified it, is this not because the EU requires it?
The members of the EU have, by definition, chosen to give up some sovereignty to the EU for the advantages of being a part of the largest economic bloc in the world. The US, which is the largest economy after the EU, has no such constraint, and is not inclined to give up any sovereignty except in specific, limited ways. We are a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but that goes nowhere near as far as the EU treaties, and we can opt out anytime we choose.
The 20th century was "The American Century." Perhaps the 21st will turn out to be "The European Century," and the US will fall far behind Europe and China economically. If that happens, we will no doubt find it more difficult to chart an independent course, but we are not there yet.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link to an interesting site on the subject of the UN Security Council veto power and its relation to the International Criminal Court:
globalpolicy.org/security-council/the-power-of-the-veto-0-40.html
Complain about this comment
To: dceilar #262 and #247
and GH1618 in #238 and #259
You both make statements that international laws and agreements were incorporated into the British constitution and laws. My guess is that the apparent disagreement amongst us is the meaning of or means of incorporation and the consequent position of the Supreme Court on said incorporation into the US Constitution and laws.
Firstly, since international law, the UN, etc. are not specifically recognized in the US Constitution, as far at that august document is concerned they do not exist. In order to become binding on the US an amendment to that effect would have to be added to the Constitution [it hasn't].
Secondly, an amendment as above would have to be ratified by a majority of the states and this usually means a majority of the citizens thereof voting for it [no sneaky Brussels/Bruxelles undemocratic alternatives], which is difficult and, in this case, very unlikely.
Thirdly, yes a treaty becomes the law of the land [if approved by the senate], but like all other laws it is subject to the constitution and to the interpretation of the Supreme Court which may declare it, in whole or in part, unconstitutional. Smething becomes an absolute mandate if it is actually IN the Constitution or if the Supreme Court finds compelling reasons to believe the framers intended it to be there.
Finally, the Tenth Amendment states the Constitutional principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people thereof. Thus an international treaty or agreement giving the federal government a responsibility or power reserved to the states would be null and void as unconstitutional. The following is an example of this.
The state of Texas was about to execute a Mexican citizen who had not received certain privileges agreed between the US and Mexico by treaty. This was a case under state jurisdiction in a state court. Mexico tried to stop the execution by appeal to the federal government, and GWB actually asked the Texas authorities to acceede.
Texas refused and the federal government had no recourse in the matter under the 10th amendment, so the execution went forward on schedule. Note that treaties can not be made with states nor can states conduct foreigh affairs [forbidden by the Constitution] and the federal government can not DIRECTLY compel states within their constitutional area of sovereignty.
In terms of sovereignty, I maintain that the US is "sui generis" in that the national government is neither sovereign nor the repository of sovereignty, it is clearly in the States and the people thereof. Only the states and the people have the power to accept international laws nd they would have to accept them directly and not by some constitutionally questionable treaty, be it authored in Brussels/Bruxelles or Washington.
Complain about this comment
I should have noted that the US opposition to the ICC discused in the linked document in post #265 took place under the second Bush administration, which was known for its lack of regard for the UN. (Remember ambassador John Bolton?)
Here's a link to another interesting document on that subject: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1226-04.htm
This falls into the "strange bedfellows" category, because India is now trying to extradite an American citizen, Warren Anderson, the former chairman of Union Carbide Corp.
Complain about this comment
McJakome (#266) "You both make statements that international laws and agreements were incorporated into the British constitution and laws."
No, I have made such statements only with respect to US Constitution and laws.
Complain about this comment
McJakome makes a good point in #266 about the death penalty case in Texas. Many non-Americans who object to the use of the death penalty in the US do not understand that it is a state matter not a federal one, although the US Supreme Court could hold it to be unconstitutional, which would take it out of state hands. Given several opportunities to do so, the USSC has required significant modifications, but has never outlawed it. Several states have abolished it, however.
The state's rights angle is one that is often raised by some who are so inclined, but actually very few federal actions are declared unconstitutional for Tenth Amendment reasons.
Complain about this comment
McJakome (#266) "In terms of sovereignty, I maintain that the US is "sui generis" in that the national government is neither sovereign nor the repository of sovereignty, it is clearly in the States and the people thereof."
This is hypertechnical, I think. The US is a republic, and every state is required to have a republican form of government. In a republic, the people are sovereign." So the people of the US are sovereign with respect to federal matters, and the people of each state are sovereign with respect to matters within their respective states. This does nothing to resolve the question of which matters fall within federal jurisdiction and which are reserved to the states. This can be determined only be reference to the US Constitution and to all US Supreme Court decisions which address the question.
Complain about this comment
268. At 10:53pm on 17 Nov 2009, GH1618 wrote:
McJakome (#266) "You both make statements that international laws and agreements were incorporated into the British constitution and laws."
“No, I have made such statements only with respect to US Constitution and laws.”
You are correct , I misspoke [electronically].
RE #264
“The members of the EU have, by definition, chosen to give up some sovereignty to the EU for the advantages of being a part of the largest economic bloc in the world. The US, which is the largest economy after the EU, has no such constraint, and is not inclined to give up any sovereignty except in specific, limited ways. We are a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but that goes nowhere near as far as the EU treaties, and we can opt out anytime we choose.”
I meant to say that you [on the EU] and dceilar [on the UK] have maintained that.
I believe that we agree in general on the US Constitution and laws, especially with not going nearly as far as the European countries. IMHO the US can NOT go that far because the US government can not relinquish any sovereignty, as it is not sovereign.
Complain about this comment
269 gary
"Many non-Americans who object to the use of the death penalty in the US do not understand that it is a state matter not a federal one"
State or Federal is irrelevent. Many non-Americans simply do not understand why the different states retain the death penalty.
The argument against is the same, whether the Fed Gov abolishes it (it can't, I guess) or whether 50 individual state govs abolish it.
The lack of understanding is not about branches of government, but about state-sanctionned murder and especially the risk of error.
I read that even in texas there are second thoughts...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/19/weekinreview/the-nation-of-all-places-texas-wavering-on-death-penalty.html
Complain about this comment
To GH1618 on my 271
"IMHO the US can NOT go that far because the US government can not relinquish any sovereignty, as it is not sovereign."
This is probably getting way too technical and theoretical for the general blog-public. We could probably spend a couple of evenings at a comfortable and not too noisy pub debating these issues.
The Civil War seems to have settled the issue of total state sovereignty, at least in so far as secession is concerned, but on the battlefield, not in constitutional law [i.e. no amendment]. The reconstruction would seem, as well, and similarly, to have cemented the idea of federal supremacy.
During the 60's I was completely opposed to States' Rights, only to find myself, in the Bush Years, wishing to promote them! [Sigh!]
Complain about this comment
The first president of the US confederacy was, was Peyton Randolph, followed by Henry Middleton...(14th) and subsequently George Washington as the fifteenth president of the new constitution. George was not inaugurated until 1789 though as of 1776 we had a new constitution and bill of rights. In effect Peyton was not born is the US. Washington, was born in the US and fought the Canadians in Ohio.
People and countries have been encroaching on the US for many, many years. During the 1900 up until now. The Irish, Italians, Greeks and some other Immigrants were eager to embark on the US. The Italians who chose sides with Germany and later settled in the US(not all) have quite a history as some of us know. Mafia etc. While some may argue that, that class of people were in effect committing terrorists acts, Gun battles Prostitution, Drugs and hostile take overs, They are here and now not unlike the other immigrants, most only want to live like, and among Americans, as Americans. While people don't always get what they want, we get what ever the alleged servants of the US give us. What is the purpose of seven bases in Columbia? Since that will be under US command, why not send some Detainees there for holding. I am not convinced, that, whether they are guilty or not, that it is a good idea to have them in Chicago.The danger lies in possible disturbances and even bombings. The same could be said of the UN building, for as much as some hate our allies, they hate America the most. Because in my estimation, America wants to be everyone's paid bodyguard. If the prisoners of the alleged 'war' on terror already had a Military tribunal and allegedly confessed and asked for the death penalty, then lets see if in a real court and with ample witnesses they are willing to say the same thing, in which case those who do should be punished. Those who don't should be tried. Judging by some of the attitudes here and also at large, we are really at war with Mexicans/Hispanics, Germans, Italians, Pollacks, Blacks, Japanese, Chinese and all except the puritans or Purists. Well even the bishop made friends with Gays and Homosexual people. The terror seems to be self imposed, looking from that viewpoint. When someone saves my life, I am thankful, if the hand is Black or purple, it is a hand. The concrete jungle has laws, some people just need to evolve.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#272) "The lack of understanding is not about branches of government, but about state-sanctioned murder and especially the risk of error."
Yes, I agree that the fundamental question is the same, either way.
Complain about this comment
Stewed in Rome
"You mean alpinists from the Bronx thumbed their noses at Everest as it was too small to present a real challenge?"
I think from a Bronx point of view the height of Everest has been greatly exaggerated, they've been making a mountain out of a mole hill. Now when we get to Mars, there's a mountain there really worth talking about, I think Mount Olympus there is 70,000 feet and I am certain a Bronx native will be the first in the universe to climb it to the summit. In fact I have it on good authority from insiders at NASA that Bronx born and bred cockroaches have already scaled it to the top and planted an American flag there. However, it is being kept a secret because NASA doesn't want the world to know that the US has contaminated Mars with Terran biological organisms already.
Complain about this comment
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Thomas Jefferson to William sSmith.
Complain about this comment
276 Marcus
I like you much better like this. Humour can be a cathartic alternative to excessive venting of spleen. Keep it up.
;-)) ----- it was humour, wasn't it?
Complain about this comment
McJ
I don't like the idea of the trial being dropped because we can't think it out.
LOOK first move will be to try to get venue changed. New York is involved and it would be near impossible to find a jury that is emotionally detached from the events.
We do want the most rigourous trial so there can be no interpretation of miss carriage of justice.
Don't we.
Even so the reality is if the defendants call GW or Dick to the stand those two will flat out refuse. (on past record) If they bring up torture there is going to be more legal time spent on keeping Dick out of the witness chair than on the defence of those on trial.
If they refuse and other 's are allowed to refuse to testify then the defendants will be able to claim. Witnesses were withheld, jury was bias venue was bias.what Fair trial.
Do you not think it best to address this before we waste millions?
or is a show trial good enough for the mob.
No doubt these guys are guilty.
I THINK IT
so just imagine trying to find a jury that is not preconceived on that.
Complain about this comment
So gary what you are saying s that because it is state law no one can complain?
that feds can't make national laws.
Then why was it so remarkable that the feds said we will not interfere with state pot laws.Because before they did.
state laws are often overridden by federal law.
If not we would still have slavery I suspect.
But as to the state sponsored state paid for executions.
Do go ahead. we can't object.
Oh how america will make so much effort to persecute but none to help.
Complain about this comment
http://www.sacw.net/article1082.html
funny a greenpeace activist found that warren before interplod.
So gary you mention it and link a bit from several years ago.
It s hard finding good research on the Bhopal massacre .
but why? do you think justice is being derved at the mo?
I'm curious.few seemed to notice that point earlier (deceiler did) about bhopal and the thousands of deaths.
glad you did.
Is america a little hypocritical in refusing the extradition request?
just not sure what point you were making
Complain about this comment
#264
"dceilar's point about the International Court of Justice is at the heart of the substantive question. The US could ratify the treaty, in which case it would become part of US law, but it has not. I do not believe that it will. While most (perhaps all) EU countries have ratified it, is this not because the EU requires it?"
There is no way we should ratify it - and I hope we do not. Our country doesn't - in general - even like the federal government having much power. More power locally = good, which means that ceding any power to an *international* body is terrible.
Plus, just look at things like Human Rights Council/UNHRC resolutions on defamation of religion. It seeks to limit free speech, was put forth multiple times by Pakistan, was at first only for Islam. It is akin to their anti-blasphemy laws and it has always passed. This is put forth under some idea of 'Islamophobia', saying people will be incited to violence (when the only ones doing so are Muslims, in response to things like...cartoons).
Why would I want the US to give up power to an international *anything*, when it is likely to be just as ridiculously stupid?
Complain about this comment
"It s hard finding good research on the Bhopal massacre .
but why? do you think justice is being derved at the mo?
I'm curious.few seemed to notice that point earlier (deceiler did) about bhopal and the thousands of deaths.
glad you did.
Is america a little hypocritical in refusing the extradition request?"
No, its not the CEOs fault. The tragic accident was *obviously* not done on purpose. Even if you are so cynical as to believe that they wanted to kill that many people for no reason, it was harmful - again, obviously - to the company.
Many factors contributed to the accident, here are some quick ones (This was a required case study of ours in a class):
-For various reasons, a slum was allowed to develop closer to the plant than allowed. This greatly increased death/injury.
-The plant was not in production mode. Someone decided that meant turning off the refrigeration unit for the 45,000kg storage tanks to save money was a good idea. A flare tower (in the event of a rupture/release of material, it is routed to a scrubber/flare tower or something similar to clean or detox it before entering the atmosphere).
-Somehow, either mechanical malfunction or (this was UC's claim) a disgruntled worker with a hose, water got in the tank.
-Chemical reactions increase temp, pressure gets too high, tank releases (rupture disc, valve, etc) the MIC. This ends up being unchanged before it hits the atmosphere. This stuff is toxic at anything over 0.2ppm.
It was a tragic accident, there were failures at every level, and I can tell you it is well studied now to prevent anything like that from happening again. But the CEO should not be held liable.
Complain about this comment
#281 Fluffy
I think many people pretend Bhopal never happened; those that do know it happened make up hypocritical excuses for not doing anything. Why doesn't the US extradite Warren so he can be put on trial in the place where the offence happened - Bhopal? People are still dying and children are continually born with birth defects. I suppose the lives of people in the 'majority world' don't count for jack to the USA.
Complain about this comment
dceilar (#284) "Why doesn't the US extradite Warren so he can be put on trial in the place where the offence happened - Bhopal?"
It is not sufficient that an extradition request be made. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution establishes a right to a showing of "probable cause" for an arrest. A foreign power which seeks to extradite a person from the US must show that there is probable cause that the person could be convicted of the charged crime if tried in the US under US law. If this were not so, then Americans could be extradited on trumped-up charges and tried in sham trials. The difficulty in extraditing US citizens from the US is entirely a matter of due process, which we value highly.
Here is a link to an article on the dispute over extradition of Anderson (from an Indian point of view):
hinduonnet.com story
Complain about this comment
#283 Tino
You've been misinformed.
It was soon revealed that none of the six safety systems at the Union Carbide plant were functional, and Union Carbide's own documents demonstrate convincingly that the company designed the plant with "unproven" and "untested" technology, cutting corners on safety and maintenance in an effort to save money.
Did they not teach you that? Obviously not!
Furthermore:
In the years following, and to this day, Dow-Carbide has refused to:
* Clean up the factory site, which continues to contaminate the soil, water and much more
* Provide just compensation to victims made ill by these poisons
* Fund necessary medical care, health monitoring regimens and research studies
* Reveal decades of the company's research on the effects of MIC and related toxins
* Offer alternate livelihoods to victims who cannot pursue their work because of exposure-related illness
* Stand trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court in Bhopal, where Union Carbide faces criminal charge of culpable homicide (manslaughter) and has fled these charges for many years
Source here.
Complain about this comment
282. At 6:51pm on 18 Nov 2009, Tino wrote:
on #264
“...Why would I want the US to give up power to an international *anything*, when it is likely to be just as ridiculously stupid?”
I am in agreement with much in this post. As to the above, I don’t think the US government could compromise US sovereignty that way without a constitutional amendment which has an infinitesimal chance of passing.
Thanks for bringing up the UN Human Rights Council. How the ultra liberals here and in Europe can say they like a committee so loaded with ultra right wing, undemocratic and corrupt dictatorships is beyond me. They rant about how GWB was bad but like that bunch! No way the US would agree to sending anything to them, and that committee gives international agencies a bad name [and that includes "international justice."
I don’t think many of the contributors here actually understand how different the US philosophy of government really is. They do keep whining about the death penalty and demanding the US abolish it. They just don’t seem to understand democracy and government by separation of powers. Not surprising as the Eurocrats get their way undemocratically when the voters refuse to comply in votes [Re France, Holland and Ireland].
They just don’t get it that a treaty with Washington to infringe states’ rights is not acceptable, and that any treaty can be modified at any time as a result of a case brought to the Supreme Court. 200+ years of dealing with the US and they still dont get it!
Complain about this comment
An English cartel led by Lord Cornwalis attacked America during the 1770s. This country refused to be terrorized by a business force. The United Kingdom generally opposed that war. The World Trade Center was destroyed by an oil cartel and their thugs. American blood is not cheap.
Complain about this comment
"They do not belong on American soil. They stood in the court room when we were there (for the military trial). They stood up, praised Allah. They said they were happy to have been part of the planning and they said if they had the opportunity again, they would do it again. So these are not individuals who should be on our soil. We are protected from them, we need to be protected from them. These are very dangerous, I think, diabolic individuals.
New York Republican congressman Peter King also worries that the trial will turn into a circus, and turn his city into a timebomb. He'd rather they were kept in Guantanamo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not as if these individuals will first be freed, then captured
and then pur on trial.and its not as if they will be found innocent. And if people in usa and new york republican are worried and think that these people shouldnt be allowed on usa soil, then why is america looking for ben laden in far away lands, it should have accepted taliban's offer to put him on trial in some muslim country preferable his own..
Complain about this comment
81, Marcus,
I understand your frustration but Europeans are still our brothers/sisters for practical reasons. We need to befriend a lesser evil to eliminate the larger evil.
That's why real work politik is so complicated. We foolishly supported China against Russia without realizing that its the same Communism in both countries.
Now China covertly supports Iran, openly supports Pakistan. THere is a reason why Pak is not so demoralized despite horrible internal affairs. Its because the rich Chinese are their best friends.
As long as China supports Pak(including money) Pak will support Taliban in Afghanistan. As long as that happens US can not get out of the Afghan war, thus bleeding economically.
We are also so lethargic in finding alternative energy(algae based oil gives us some hope). Saudi has been funding Taliban with our oil dollars. Most 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals. We can not act because of our oil dependence.
We need to find alternative and soon.
In the circumstances we already have too countries hostile to us, Europeans are the only friends yet, till of course they become Eurabia, which seems inevitable.
Complain about this comment
"You've been misinformed.
It was soon revealed that none of the six safety systems at the Union Carbide plant were functional, and Union Carbide's own documents demonstrate convincingly that the company designed the plant with "unproven" and "untested" technology, cutting corners on safety and maintenance in an effort to save money.
Did they not teach you that? Obviously not!"
Uh, I already mentioned that? The flare tower and refrigeration system as well as the valves that likely failed were all safety systems. Nothing you stated puts responsibility on the CEO. Operating procedure was not followed properly, still not the fault of the CEO. Nothing I posted, whatsoever, was incorrect. I am decently informed.
What you do not seem to realize is how much BS took place behind the scenes. Bhopal the city did not want the plant there, but the plant got built anyway because people at higher govt levels wanted it. The plant was run entirely by Indians, not Americans. It had little to no contact with Union Carbide in America, and was run solely (after 1980) by their Indian subsidiary.
Please explain to me how the CEO of the company, who would never ever deal directly with these decisions, should be responsible for bad design (fault of engineers...ps design wasn't terrible, if procedures were followed and safety systems were active this wouldn't have happened) or plant management (real culprits).
Complain about this comment
Forgot to add:
They paid $470 million. They also built a hospital which provides free care to those affected for 8 years. You can say they didn't do enough, but they didn't do nothing. The Indian Supreme Court has fielded multiple appeals to the settlement, they were all rejected. Now you think the CEO should be extradited for *criminal* charges?!
Complain about this comment
gary there you go again. listing excuses for a guy that ignored warnings in India that he didn't ignore in the USA. who skipped bail (that alone is a crime in the states is it not).
criminals are not allowed to claim. but I could do it here" as an excuse. And al those pathetic arguments were used for years to say" no we will not return those that terrorise your land" " but we will DEMANd at the end of a barrel that everyone does respect our rights to extradite. Thank GOD the UK is looking at the hacker case again.
Tino you are making up your excuses .
I would note this
"The award is believed to be the largest ever in India and ranks with some of the largest civil damage orders that have been entered against American companies."
but it is the biggest mass killing in the history of chemical plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_disasters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_(BP)#Explosion
On February 4, 2008, U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal heard arguments regarding BP's offer to plead guilty to a federal environmental crime with a US$50 million fine. At the hearing, blast victims and their relatives objected to the plea, calling the proposed fine "trivial." So far, BP has said it has paid more than US$1.6 billion to compensate victims.[1] The judge gave no timetable on when she would make a final ruling.[2]
On October 30, 2009 the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) imposed an $87 million fine on the company for failing to correct safety hazards revealed in the 2005 explosion. The fine was the largest in OSHA's history, and BP announced that it would challenge the fine.[3]
[
1.6 billion to compensate a few american victims, and 470 million to all the people of Bhopal.
equal treatment?
Complain about this comment
"1.6 billion to compensate a few american victims, and 470 million to all the people of Bhopal.
equal treatment?"
It doesn't need to be equal, just legal. Union Carbide has fulfilled its legal obligation as a company. The company is responsible for the damages, they hired the managers and/or operators and anyone else that messes up. The CEO should not face criminal charges for an industrial ACCIDENT. In addition, how do you expect exactly equal treatment using two separate justice systems in two countries?
Again, you may think the company didn't do enough *MORALLY*. You *might* even be right. The CEO is STILL NOT RESPONSIBLE. I cannot be any more clear.
"listing excuses for a guy that ignored warnings in India that he didn't ignore in the USA. "
Like what warnings did Warren Anderson receive? Most likely - absolutely none. The only warnings were from experts who visited the plant (would have been giving these warnings to UCIL, not Warren Anderson) and from local authorities (same thing). The USA plants were built and run properly because the managers of those plants ran things. The people in charge locally are responsible. You really think Warren Anderson is micromanaging one plant in India, or anywhere else?
That is why the managers are being brought up on criminal charges. That is much more appropriate. Now stop crusading against a guy because he is an American CEO - you have literally zero factual ground to stand on here.
Complain about this comment
"The USA plants were built and run properly because the managers of those plants ran things."
Should be "ran things properly." at the end
Complain about this comment
1.6 billion to compensate a few american victims, and 470 million to all the people of Bhopal.
equal treatment?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its like this, first find out which caste those who died and those who still suffer in Bhopal belonged to, if lower castes, then forget the compensation..the lower castes are not even equal in the indian society and you are comparing them to americans...
Complain about this comment
Tino you are making all the assumptions.
You have declared the trial over and said No way should we discuss it.
You are the one saying there is no reason to try this caser. YET India is trying to extredite him so he can go on trial.
but you believe in Innocence even when there is a pile of evidence against him.
infact you say there is nothing to see
.
What Factual basis have you to declare the request by India illegal.
Why do you say forget it they paid and it is over. Interpol wanted him.
but you come on after showing no comprehension on your original topic and now jump on the bandwagon of forget this persecution because he's merican boss.
The reason the plant in the USA was changed was he ran it better than the one in Bhopal.
stop excusing this sack of. Or I will start defending the rights of people murdered in their thousands without a second thought to hit back and kill randomly those that they oppose.
Fairs fair.
Dude.
He knewq what was gong on and ignored it. that is the charge laid against him. Let him, answer it.
Or do you not think it apporpriate to try americans for international crimes.
What part of TWO WARS and trash the constitution of america to get those that did 9/111 and not doing ANYTHING to assist the law in India seek justice for the people of Bhopal.
And colonel yes I am comparing them to americans. I suppose that is fine by you and you are being sarcastic to Tiny but it looks like you might think it real.
Yep they are all equal.
Equal justice for equal crimes.
a mad drunk guy who drives every day drunk and kills a family of four is vilified in the USA despite no one taking their keys away.
as they should be.
well if they drive a poison plant (oh do pretend he didn't know his plant could be dangerous,Tino) and kill thousands peopel should also get upset.
But not if it is an american thinking they better defend americans for no reason.
and again these types of facilities threaten us ALL be we in the states or the UK..
did you hear the 911 calls from that town with the chlorine gas leak?
big one. "stay inside" then the siding started to melt.
the houses started to melt.
So
" RUN" but the roads are blocked by the train and the area so thick emergency crews can't get through .
Get in the shower.
Well even I had an inkling they would get hydrochloric acid produced if they did.
And they did.
this ll happened in the USA when a train didn't go all the way by.
it happens. but those responsible and those consumers that want more chlorine based bleach of gold or whatever it is being used for never complain.
You would if it came with the smell of the decay of the bodies of the dead that were a result.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/justice-for-warren-anderson
Stop assuming innocence only for america's killers
Complain about this comment
PS tino I got the mistake you corrected. but if you think after that pile of rubbish anyone cares about the grammar then you probably confused.
Complain about this comment
And colonel yes I am comparing them to americans. I suppose that is fine by you and you are being sarcastic to Tiny but it looks like you might think it real.
Yep they are all equal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I was not being sarcastic, I was simply telling you to find out if those who got killed or suffered were lower caste hindus...because no matter what you say, the lower caste hindus arent equal to upper class hindus who govern the country...the lower castes are segregated worse than black segregation in usa,before segregation was abolished in that country.
Complain about this comment
Okay, Bhopal is largely muslim city, so you can just forget about your equality and all that..
Complain about this comment
"The reason the plant in the USA was changed was he ran it better than the one in Bhopal.
stop excusing this sack of. Or I will start defending the rights of people murdered in their thousands without a second thought to hit back and kill randomly those that they oppose."
You still, somehow, are not getting this. HE. DID. NOT. RUN. ANY. UNION. CARBIDE. PLANTS.
He is the CEO of Union Carbide. Plant managers run every single plant. They are all different. Revisiting BP, they, like everyone else, have plant managers. After the TX City Refinery explosion you mentioned earlier, BP did a safety review. One of the managers (forget where) had an excellent Process Safety record. They made him in charge of improving safety for BP in North America.
They are individual people, and the plant managers for the Bhopal plant were terrible and made stupid decisions contrary to standard operating procedure - bad idea. You still haven't said how Warren Anderson possibly had any involvement with the Bhopal plant on a level where he would know what was going on before the accident. Your position, that he should be held criminally liable for Bhopal, is ridiculous.
"You are the one saying there is no reason to try this caser. YET India is trying to extredite him so he can go on trial."
Bhopal is wanting to try him. The Indian Supreme Court has already handled the case and denied all appeals since. The matter is resolved on a national level but Bhopal - OBVIOUSLY - wants to still punish him. Like you, they apparently aren't thinking clearly.
The fact still stands. He was not heavily involved - if at all - with the Bhopal plant. I have doubts he saw the safety audit of one plant in India. Your source was GREENPEACE. They aren't biased or anything. They also cite nothing to prove the claim that he saw the safety audit.
Complain about this comment
#301 Tino
Why are you whining about the CEO not being culpable? Of course he is. Why? Because he is the Chief Executive Officer. The buck stops with him.
RE: BP. The company was sued not the plant manager so ergo the buck stopped at the CEO.
Complain about this comment
#301 Tino
The Indian Supreme Court has already handled the case and denied all appeals since. The matter is resolved on a national level but Bhopal - OBVIOUSLY - wants to still punish him. Like you, they apparently aren't thinking clearly.
Union Carbide stated that they are not within Indian jurisdiction so the Indian Supreme Court is irrevelevent as far as they are concerned. The US Supreme Court has so far refused to view the case.
Moreover, considering you do not know the role of a CEO it is you who isn't thinking clearly.
Complain about this comment
Tino
You are thick as can be.
He RAN the company. DCeiler mentions what his job was. he was the Buck stop.
HE claims to be innocent but you think I am radical for thinking it right that he stands trial.
THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL. HE AVOIDED ONE.
Green peace 4 warned of Global warming and endangered animals.
They were not wrong. Tell me exactly what YOUR SOURCE FOR HIS INNOCENCE IS.
The reason Green peace is involved is the contamination. THEY did not bring the charges against him.
They did find out he was hiding in the hamptons though when Interpol the FBI and the americans couldn't.
So dear Tino Greenpeace did rather well.
HE avoided the trial cause he would be found guilty. Not because he was so sure he was innocent.
". The Indian Supreme Court has already handled the case and denied all appeals since. "
Where did the request for extradition come from?
"The fact still stands. He was not heavily involved - if at all - with the Bhopal plant. "
How do you know. The courts in india that you misrepresent seem to think there is enough to bother with exridition.
Tino Wht is your involvement and interest?
By any chance are you bias.
and again One example from you that is not your own words.
Back your claim up.
In america running is almost an admission of guilt.
You run and they all say. "you did it or why run"
but you think Warren was innocent and I am ignorant when it is you that is the one who has had to resort to making it all up.
Complain about this comment
I am telling you, find out the caste and religon of those who suffered and still suffering from this accident, if majority is lower class, and muslims, thats how high they can get..the supreme court gives them the false impression that it has done everything it could..this is how system works..if the higher/est class hindus had suffered, the indian government would have made some sort of deal with americans, which would bring the CEO to india..You have obviously forgotten the scotish justice system releasing the libyan guy in return for some deals..
Complain about this comment
Colonel. I don't care what you are saying. the cast system has NOTHING to do with the exceptional amount of leeway given to Warren anderson by some.
Cast systems are crap. as are Class systems
the Indian courts HAVE asked for extradition. and they are trying to bite back .Hindu or muslim and the scottish Guy has NOthign to do with it either.
So shut up DUD.
go find some of the other million and one examples of anti muslim crap out there.
crapping on while the victims still seek justice and ruining their claim with you bull is about as helpful as a bunch of american soldiers bombing your valley.
Complain about this comment
if the higher/est class hindus had suffered, the indian government would have made some sort of deal with americans, which would bring the CEO to india..
THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING EXTREDITION
The only one who has said they are not is TINO who as it happens seems to be a little bit
Complain about this comment
Colonel. I don't care what you are saying. the cast system has NOTHING to do with the exceptional amount of leeway given to Warren anderson by some.
Cast systems are crap. as are Class systems
the Indian courts HAVE asked for extradition. and they are trying to bite back .Hindu or muslim and the scottish Guy has NOthign to do with it either.
So shut up DUD.
go find some of the other million and one examples of anti muslim crap out there.
crapping on while the victims still seek justice and ruining their claim with you bull is about as helpful as a bunch of american soldiers bombing your valley.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither am i being anti muslim, nor am i so unrealistic to simply start believing in some hypothetical equality system in india..Whether you like it or not, accept it or not, but unless you find out what those hindus were, you will not get the answer as to why indian supreme court is so mild..In india, lots of victims are suffering more than those Bhopal ones..victims of their own society, a society which is based, religiously, on the system that defines them into high to low to lowest to the untouchables..
Complain about this comment
Have read through and tried to internalize everything I can in a few minutes. Here is my two cents (I apologize for the length profusely:)
First, I find it laughable that so many leftist Europeans whinge and scream that cases like these should be brought before the UN and the International Criminal Court. The ICC has chased down Omar-Al-Bashir with little success (ditto, in the past, Slobodan Milosevic) and the UN nowadays routinely gets used by demagogues like Gaddafi and Chávez as a stage to spout venom and lies. It is a nice idea, sure, to have a world tribunal for madmen and evildoers, but thus far it has failed spectacularly. (What good is it to have a court that can only wag its finger at a tyrant? What right does that same body have to decide for a nation a verdict on a crook when the people of the same nation have little voice within the court itself?!)
Second, I would like to point out that other options are limited. Trying these men before a military tribunal is unworkable. The rights of the accused must be respected: that includes the right to an attorney that is not affiliated with the military, and where the role of judge, jury, and jailer must be kept apart. The accused also have the right to the Geneva Convention on torture: Bush did not respect the Conventions and the poor judgment of the military brass in carrying out those orders gives me great pause in allowing them to try any cases like these at all.
Trying these men in a court in New York City is more workable but flawed. Men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed committed FEDERAL crimes, not crimes on the battlefield: he and the others should have been tried in a FEDERAL court from the beginning, not JAG. As the cases fall under the juridiction of the judicial system and not the military, they shall gain all the rights given to the accused, on par with US citizens. The torture at Gitmo will very likely be thrown out in court and, because these rabid extremist Islamists love to view themselves as warriors in a holy battle, it might take them down a peg when the Army does not give them the satisfaction as recognizing them as such. Equally, the accused shall finally face their accusers: I doubt that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has ever had to face his accusers in any capacity before or listened to the words of men he has condemned as barbarians simply because they "reject Islam." (Say what you damn want about war casualties on civilians-indeed they are a terrible, unnecessary tragedy that must be curbed, but the killing is not methodical, cold-blooded assassination as it was with 9/11 or Mumbai.)
Complain about this comment
"Why are you whining about the CEO not being culpable? Of course he is. Why? Because he is the Chief Executive Officer. The buck stops with him.
RE: BP. The company was sued not the plant manager so ergo the buck stopped at the CEO."
No, he does not run the plant! It is that simple. In addition, the Bhopal plant was run by UCIL. In 1980 (this disaster happened in 1984), Union Carbide was asked to leave management to the Indian workforce. Most engineers were Indian. ALL managers and other workers were Indian. They ran the plant, UC was ASKED TO MAKE IT LIKE THIS. Explain to me how the CEO of Union Carbide is responsible for the Bhopal disaster. Would you blame the captain of a ship for an engine explosion because a mechanic destroyed it by not following proper procedures? Of course not.
For a more accurate analogy, would you blame the captain of a ship for the explosion of a neighboring ships engine? Warren Anderson = CEO of UC. UC was not responsible for the Bhopal plant. UCIL was.
In addition, apparently it is both of you (dceilar + fluffy) who have literally no concept of what a CEO of a company that size would be doing. In 1980, UC owned over 500 facilities (plants, labs, mines) in over 130 countries. If he worked 365 days a year, he would be able to look closely at only a fraction of the total facilities they owned. Of course, he has to do many other things - he was also chairman of the board at UC. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY he should be expected to know the intimate workings of one plant in one country, especially not one that UC was asked to hand over management of.
"You are thick as can be.
He RAN the company. DCeiler mentions what his job was. he was the Buck stop.
HE claims to be innocent but you think I am radical for thinking it right that he stands trial.
THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL. HE AVOIDED ONE.
Green peace 4 warned of Global warming and endangered animals.
They were not wrong. Tell me exactly what YOUR SOURCE FOR HIS INNOCENCE IS."
1.) Greenpeace is a terrible - and useless - organization.
2.) Look at his charges:
"Anderson is charged under Section 304 Part-II [culpable homicide not amounting to murder], Section 326 [voluntarily causing grievous hurt], Section 324 [voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means], and Section 429 [mischief by killing or maiming animals etc.] of IPC r/w section 35 of IPC [criminal acts committed with knowledge]. All the said charges are punishable acts with imprisonment ranging from FIVE to TEN years and are therefore extraditable offences under Article 2 of the said Extradition Treaty."
The only one remotely close to being possible is one - if he was plant manager. There is no way that even you could believe he voluntarily killed those people. He is not guilty, they need a scapegoat. Since it would be a joke trial and he would spend the rest of his life in prison I wouldn't go to India if I was him either.
"Where did the request for extradition come from?"
Bhopal magistrate. They have requested it every year (from the Indian CJM). This one is the first to be granted.
"Tino Wht is your involvement and interest?
By any chance are you bias.
and again One example from you that is not your own words.
Back your claim up."
I have interest because I work with chemicals frequently and I had learned of this case specifically in school. I don't think I have bias. What exactly do you want further backed up?
"In america running is almost an admission of guilt.
You run and they all say. "you did it or why run"
but you think Warren was innocent and I am ignorant when it is you that is the one who has had to resort to making it all up."
I think the problem is you two cannot fathom me being disgusted with the decisions that led to the disaster. I am. There is just no way he was involved in making them. I think the managers should be charged with criminal negligence - STILL not voluntary harm/murder. Of course, they already are. Warren Anderson is still innocent.
In addition, you haven't proved he is guilty. Despite nonsense like this:
"but you believe in Innocence even when there is a pile of evidence against him."
What pile of evidence are you sitting on showing him plotting to VOLUNTARILY CAUSE THE BHOPAL DISASTER AND INTENTIONALLY KILL ALL THOSE PEOPLE?
Complain about this comment
The one fatal flaw of the system is the death penalty. The state of New York does not have the death penalty and hasn't used it in eons....but the defense can ask for extradition on the grounds that the accused will not receive a fair trial in the State of New York. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the best known of the defendants, could ask for extradition to Pennsylvania, plead guilty, and become a "martyr", getting his virgins in heaven and riling up jihadists overseas. Personally, I agree with the death penalty only in the most extreme, drastic of situations (this one comes close.) However, owing to the nature of these cases I can only pray for a wise judge to send them to a remote prison in Alaska where they will live a long, bitter life alone and womanless for the rest of their days. (Having a 400 pound boyfriend named Duke, however, may be necessary.)
Last, I have dealt one time too many with an insufferable know-it-all from the other side of the pond; I will be first to admit this. One recently quacked at me statistics on gun violence, how allowing the public the right to defend itself against oppression up to and including arms is unconscionable, said my country bore the most resemblance to the state of affairs in the book Animal Farm, and called me a McCarthyite because I dislike the concept of communism and repeatedly pointed out out the actions of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and the USSR as deadly reminders of its worst aspects.) Because I am sick of it, and of my country being painted as hillbilly hell or Machiavellian heaven, I will close with a story:
Once upon a time, ten British soldiers stood on patrol on a cold night in March; there was still snow on the ground. Because of the unpopularity of the cause of the king and by the fact of their being there, they were not welcome in the city they were in. Eventually, a large crowd gathered around, about 400 people in total. The mob was throwing huge chunks of ice at the heads of the soldiers, taunting them, menacing them, leaving nasty cuts and bruising on them. It continued to escalate until somebody in the crowd shouted, "fire, damn you, fire!..." And when the smoke cleared, five people were killed,some only kids.
Nobody wanted to take the case. The entire city was calling for revenge. The interest of the crown was written all over the men in wigs in the courtroom and the populace though there was a snowball's chance in hell that justice would be done for the dead; so far the king had leaned on the courts in various ways and this case was no exception. It was not until a short, fat, bald guy with bug eyes and an annoying nasal voice went against the advice of his own wife and became the lawyer for the soldiers, even in spite of his personal loathing of the reason why the soldiers were in the city in the first place. He wanted to prove that the law, not vigilante justice, should be the means to resolve the matter, and the city was a city of laws, not men.
The man's name was John Adams. The city was Boston, and the time was 240 years ago.(This same man eventually signed the Declaration of Independence and was on the committee to draft it.) Looking to the present because of this story I still have hope that cooler heads will prevail in the case of the prisoners: Bush's actions were fueled at first by public desire for revenge and now there is a chance for for redemption. For British readers I find it astounding that this lesson is not taught to children in schools overseas (nobody I have spoken to has even heard of it) and only ask for that chance to come....we once extended a hand of clemency to you when you screwed up....we ask for you to return the favor.
Complain about this comment
311. MKEGUSA
I agree that if the 1776 War of American Independence was to be taught in schools, John Adams should loom large and any cross-reading to verify the facts will show that he was always a genuine self-made hard-working man. Farmer to lawyer etc. His logic sound, the facts he said were "stubborn things," and he accurately called the sons of liberty "a mob." But the system that tried the redcoats, that employed the redcoats, was the British Crown and no man was above the law. Their acquittal of murder was the right decision. Their punishment of branding for poor discipline was also the right decision.
Complain about this comment
When the US constitution was penned the age of reason was in full swing.
Can some one check the spelling,to check that the right to"bear arms" was
indeed the right to "bare arms"as short sleeves would have saved so many!..
Complain about this comment
308 Colonel I don't think the gas was particularly selective when it killed people.
Simple really.
Sure the peopel living near by were not the rich ones but i bet a few of higher casts died. and some hindus and muslims.
MKEGUSA
"(Say what you damn want about war casualties on civilians-indeed they are a terrible, unnecessary tragedy that must be curbed, but the killing is not methodical, cold-blooded assassination as it was with 9/11 or Mumbai.)"
Basically this is right.
except when them drones that are used to assassinate people are used.
then the acceptance that a few casualties will occur is the deliberate part, from there once that acceptance is made there is no onus to abort or to 100% guarantee that the right target is hit.
Bit like saying I accept the death penalty even though I know a few innocents will die.
Guilt is there.It is deliberate.
Tino another question seeing as you hardly answered the others.
What is your nationality?
You have a very forgiving attitude to the concept of "running" somethign.
I do know that plant managers do the grunt, and further down the guys at the bottom do the work.
But you claim that there is no reason to hold a trial or allow extradition because you were told at school about it. and you work in a meth lab.
Big deal.
So as to your bias.
'1.) Greenpeace is a terrible - and useless - organization."
really so we would be better off ignoring DDT, Allowing the total destruction of whale stocks.Allowed the oil platforms to be ditched at sea.
Unrestrained pollution.
I think you will find that the success of "sea shepherd" and the anti whaling loby is proof that not all think you are right.
Either way I would say you work for the industry and have a vested interest in seeing CEO left off the blame ladder even though they profit from being IN CHARGE.
But don't do the work.
I would hve thought share holders would be really pissed to learn that his negligence sent their shares throught the floor. but no one should worry.
You have offered nothing but your memories to counter the request by the Indian Gov and you falsely claim that they are not interested in the case.
What Are you. Who do you work for?
"There is just no way he was involved in making them. I think the managers should be charged with criminal negligence "
Show us.?
pass the buck down the line and be sure to shoot the janitor.
Tino I am asking that he be extredited. You suggest NO trial but then say I am beu=ing unfair.
A lot of people would prefer not to go to trial.
You ask for evidence that is part of an ongoing court case.
You say "THERE SHALL BE NO TRIAL" not me.
I am not sying he is to be railroaded but I am asking for a trial. You think that too much, but then we invade 2 countries and kill hundereds of thousands to get those YOU wish could be brought to trial.
Well Show me the evidence TODAY that shows the 9/11 plotters were guilty.
According to your rules we never had the right to go looking for them because they had not been found guilty yet.
we should hold NO trials.because there is no evidence yet.
Well go back and read. I'm on board with that one.
;)
again who exactly(OK don't specify which petrochemical company ) do you work for?
312 and what's more he wasn't american when he got his ideas;)
Complain about this comment
"again who exactly(OK don't specify which petrochemical company ) do you work for?"
I work in a cleanroom facility that has nothing to do with this industry at all. It deals with processing wafers.
"You have a very forgiving attitude to the concept of "running" somethign.
I do know that plant managers do the grunt, and further down the guys at the bottom do the work.
But you claim that there is no reason to hold a trial or allow extradition because you were told at school about it. and you work in a meth lab."
No plant managers don't "do the grunt". This is an example of a job description:
"The person in this position is responsible for the accomplishment of all plant objectives including financial, safety, associate development, quality and customer service. This is accomplished through the leadership, guidance, and coaching given to 2 - 6 supervisory and managerial employees, as well as 20-60 full-time and temporary hourly associates in the production, warehousing, distribution, and/or field operations. This position has considerable impact upon the plant's contribution to the Growing Media division's overall performance and customer relations."
Oh wow! They are responsible for safety! I can't believe someone intimately involved with the plant everyday who is supposed to be responsible for safety should be the one to get the blame for an accident like Bhopal! It makes more sense to hold the person thousands of miles away, whos company was asked to become much less involved - by the same government now seeking to put him on a showboat trial - accountable for the plant managers decisions.
As for the last part, me having learned about it in school has nothing to do with this. You asked why I was interested, that is not why I think he shouldn't be extradited. Meth lab? Lol, fluffbrain is so funny.
Complain about this comment
lol Tino.
now you're frothing. spittle flying spit it out tell us why he should not face trial despite there being a warrant and extradition request against him. tell me why he is not in court contesting his extradition as a young guy in the UK is doing. tell me why he should be let go .
tell us exactly why he should not be extradited you have been asked enough.
don't bleat on about His job isn't when you are not the lawyer prosecuting the case. Give the Justice system a chance.
Or is it as I started with "not a problem because he's an American businessman who just happened to be paid top bucks to take responsibility.
But doesn't have to."
Give us the CEO job description as well.
Complain about this comment