E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAlongside Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says he's putting the Obama administration "on notice" for reportedly going around Congress and sneaking the "spokesman for 911," Abu Gaith, into New York City for detainment rather than taking the alleged enemy combatant to Guantanamo Bay to await a hearing.
Even as government officials applauded the arrest of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law and an al-Qaida spokesman, his transport to the United States stirred a debate among lawmakers who appeared caught by surprise by the news.
Abu Ghaith was apprehended, transported to New York and charged with conspiracy to kill Americans, according to court documents unsealed Thursday. Abu Ghaith appeared alongside his father-in-law in a 2001 video in which they took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and warned of more.
He is due to appear in federal court in Manhattan on Friday. Abu Ghaith is expected to enter a plea to one count of conspiracy to kill Americans.
Abu Ghaith's trial will be one of the first prosecutions of senior al-Qaida leaders in the United States. Upon taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama said more foreign terror suspects should be charged in American federal courts, as part of his goal to close Guantanamo Bay.
Since September 11, 2001, 67 foreign terror suspects have been convicted in U.S. federal courts, according to Human Rights First, a watchdog group that obtained the data from the Justice Department through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay after the terror attacks, only seven have been convicted by military tribunals held at the base in Cuba, Human Rights First said. Most of them have been sent back overseas, either for rehabilitation or continued detention and prosecution, the AP reported.
Republicans in Congress would like to keep Guantanamo open and have strongly opposed bringing terror suspects on U.S. soil.
"We believe the administration's decision here to bring this person to New York City, if that's what's happened, without letting Congress know is a very bad precedent to set," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who held a press conference with Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H, Thursday.
"And when we find somebody like this, this close to bin Laden and the senior al-Qaida leadership, the last thing in the world we want to do, in my opinion, is put them in civilian court. This man should be in Guantanamo Bay," Ayotte said.
Officials tell NBC News he had been a prisoner in Iran for most of the past decade and is scheduled to appear in federal court Friday. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
"So we're putting the administration on notice," said Graham. "We think that sneaking this guy into the country, clearly going around the intent of Congress when it comes to enemy combatants, will be challenged."
Earlier, in an interview on MSNBC, House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers, R-Mich., strongly criticized the administration for bringing Abu Ghaith to the United States.
Rogers, a former FBI agent, said that reading "Miranda rights" to a top al-Qaida suspect and bringing him to the United States for trial creates a host of problems — as opposed to sending him to the facility at Guantanamo Bay, which was built to handle high value prisoners.
"Al-Qaida leaders captured on the battlefield should not be brought to the United States to stand trial," Rogers said. "We should treat enemy combatants like the enemy. The U.S. court system is not the appropriate venue."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said it was fine with him if Abu Ghaith is put on trial in New York, because key state and city officials had been consulted in advance, unlike in the case of terror suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
"Unlike with KSM, (Police Commissioner Ray) Kelly and others had been consulted ahead of time about this and they gave the green light to do it. As you know, Kelly, Mayor (Michael) Bloomberg and I opposed the trial of (Mohammed) in New York and we successfully made sure that didn't happen," said Schumer.
"On issues like this, I defer to Commissioner Kelly, and I think the mayor does as well. And he thinks it's OK to do it here, and I'll go by that," he added.
NBC News' Becky Bratu and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Related:
Bin Laden son-in-law arrested, whisked to NYC on terror charges
Exclusive: Iran was holding bin Laden son-in-law, US officials say
This story was originally published on Thu Mar 7, 2013 7:19 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
This is the United States of America people. We should show the would that we can do this in an open forum. Besides, we have him on video. We don't need to waterboard him.
@Dale, he is an "enemy combatant," not a local felon.
NYC: NO to big sodas, NO to salt, NO to right to bear arms, YES to importing enemy combatants for inappropriate 3 ring circus.
Is there anything Republicans don't oppose? They really are the party of fear, it's one single terrorist not an army of them. Yes terrorists may try to attack during the trial, and I'm sure New York will have to beef up security. And tempus, technically Ghaith was out of Iraq and out of operational contact with al-Qaeda before we invaded so he may not be able to be legally prosecuted by a war council anyways. But this is America and we can't be afraid to take challenges head on when we know it's the right thing to do, even if there is a threat. We've been over this debate before, New York wants to prosecute al-Qaeda members in New York, it is very significant to them. Republicans should take a page out of their own book and tell the Federal Government to stop getting involved in state issues.
Just posted this, but I want to make sure tempusfugit1 sees it.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation..."
Why must the new Republicans be as chickens**t as the Democrats they say they hate. Pinko is now a term that should be applied to Republicans who wear skirts and bawl at the thought of justice.
Leave it to Republicans to lower their standards to Democrat levels when the cultists start preaching. Reagan would call current Repukes little ****s.
I didn't know Republicans liked Carter administration enforcement policies. Good job, little cowards.
Dana
The Bill of Rights applies to American citizens
Not enemy combatants
Open up a history book. Google it for all I care. The Bill of Rights applies to EVERYONE. Just because George Bush and other notable Republicans danced around it and bent it to fit their policies (i.e. - torture) doesn't make it a fact.
@tempusfugit1 - NYC was the site of his crime on 9/11/2001. Seems like a perfect place to hold a trial. I wouldn't mind holding it in Virginia or Pennsylvania either. Then everyone should get big sodas and lots of salt.
@Witchking, show me that exact line in the Bill of Rights that says it's for U.S. Citizens only?
US Secretary of State John Kerry will
honor on 10 women on Friday including Egyptian activist Samira Ibrahim with the
Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award on the occasion of
International Women’s Day on 8 March. First Lady Michelle Obama will attend as
a special guest at the U.S. Department of State.
In a statement on
Tuesday, the State Department’s award “recognizes women around the globe who
have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women’s rights
and empowerment, often at great personal risk.”
Ibrahim became known after taking the government to court
over so-called "virginity tests." She was amoung seven women
subjected by the Egyptian military to this abuse in March 2011 after they were
detained during a protest in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Ibrahim is the coordinator
of the Know Your Rights movement, which works to raise political awareness and
advocate for women’s rights in Upper Egypt
Not too fast friends of the Islamic Broherhood
Victoria Nuland spokewoman for the State Department, said
the department was made aware of tweets she described as anti-Semitic and
celebrating terrorism just 24 hours earlier and that US officials were
conducting “forensics internally” to figure out how her offensive tweets had
been missed. Nuland noted that Ibrahim is a prolific Twitter user who has sent
out some 18,000 messages.
Ibrahim’s tweets, translated from Arabic in The Weekly
Standard, included one welcoming the news of last July’s bombing of Israeli
tourists in Bulgaria, calling it “a very sweet day, very sweet news.” She also
referred to the family of the House of Saud as being “dirtier than the Jews”
and another time quoted Hitler blaming the world’s crimes on Jews.
In response to several of her tweets, others sent out digital statements
calling for her to retract her comments and avoid inciting hatred against Jews,
to which there appear to be no responses from Ibrahim.
Republicans = Party of whine.
tempusfugit1
Democrats don't know the difference, don't get upset
When you stop using pull-ups you can join the conversation.
So don't drone them and don't bring them to justice in court? Perhaps just hide them indefinitely in an offshore concentration camp? We are supposed to be better than that. Our Bill of Rights is for all citizens, residents and visitors of our great nation. And I'm quite confident we can handle these criminal creeps in our federal courts and prisons.
Stop whining.
I'm not.
"Radical Muslim chaplains, trained in a foreign ideology, certified in foreign-financed schools and acting in coordination to impose an extremist agenda have gained a monopoly over Islamic religious activities in American state, federal, and city prisons and jails."
The so-called "shoe bomber" and Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber", are two of the most famous Muslim convert/prisoners turned would be terrorists.
I have a bottle for you.
Why are ReThugs so scared? We caught every one of the terrorists in the 1993 WTC bombing, brought them to trial in NYC, convicted them in open court and they are all serving life sentences in Federal prisons. Gitmo has been a failure. Terrorists are criminals, not soldiers, and should be tried in criminal courts.
Grow a spine, Republicans!!
This guy aided in a crime against America - a horrible crime, which cost thousands of American lives. So Americans caught him, and Americans will try him in America (and convict him, and execute him, etc.). Somebody has a problem with that? Really?
I'm glad somebody is finally bringing these guys down. Here you go New York: after having to wait around for more than a decade while the last administration bumbled around in an unrelated war and let these guys go free, this administration has another gift for you...
Good move. Now a jury trial with the jury composed of NYFD members.
@oskar-1391552 - I'm not a Democrat, so screw off.
I got a bad feeling about this
This lunatic should be tried by a military court and executed just like the Nazis
If these idiotic rightwing wads of puke say this now, how can they and their online talking-points parrots later complain about Obama not closing Gitmo?
Ahh, but I forget: Ridiculous Romney explained all this: "I don't remember what I said but whatever it was I stand by it until I say something else because somebody else wants to hear something else."
Proving for the thousandth time my point: Republickkkans lie all the time about everything.
After reading this article for some reason I had a horrible picture in my mind of boener being born and screaming to the doctor, ' NO NO NO WHAAAA'
Were Benjamin Franklin alive today his famous quote would read:
" ...but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes and Senators Ayotte, Graham, and McCain rushing to stand before any microphone and TV camera that they can find to bemoan that the current president exhaled, without seeking their approval."
I wonder if these '3 Stooges' have any idea how ridiculous they appear to most thinking Americans?
While the dems complain and point fingers about the lack of partisanship the gop displays what do they do? They sneak around them! Now THAT is such an act of partisanship if ever! lmao!
Laughing your ass off? Really, 'ProFreedom'? Is that how 'grownups' talk? I know that my 16-year-old uses expressions like that, but I don't hear grownups express themselves that way.
"Since September 11, 2001, 67 foreign terror suspects have been convicted in U.S. federal courts,"
Wow, it was ok 67 times between 2001 and 2009. But it's not ok now, because?
I know. Go back to my comment it was for tempus. Chill out.
Maybe Ayotte and Graham don't have the faith in American jurisprudence to get the job done. Is there something wrong with our criminal justice system they're not telling us about? I think Mr Graith will find the inmate population at Riker's Island a little less friendly than that at Gitmo.
Holy Schnikeys, just what is it the GOP wants?
One day it's "Close Gitmo now!" Then next day it's "Bring bin Laden's body back here so we can see it!"
Now it's, "Al-Qaida leaders captured on the battlefield" -- which abu Ghaith wasn't! -- "should not be brought to the United States to stand trial."
F'chrissakes, make up your alleged minds already!
Oh, wait, I remember now; you already have a mindset: Obama wants it = knee-jerk GOP opposes it.
Republicans are worrying about small things.
They should worry about serious "human rights" violations in Syria and "dangerous" WMDs in Iran.
As oil prices have not reached the peak of $145, they should see that sanctions on Iranian oil work better.
If they get any doubts, they should consult rulers of House of Saud, Qatar and oil rich Sunni Araba League nations.
I'd l;ike to see just one public trial in which there is sworn testamony about what happened on 9/11. GW Bush and Dick Cheney refused to testify under oath or even to let notes be taken on their "comments" which could only be taken in the White House. Why? Please bring just one democratic trial against a terrorist and let us read sworn testamony.
Look at this. Twelve years of Patriot Act and waterboarding the norm and some of us consider a court of justice in America a three ring circus. Fear...thy name is Conservative.
Ham sandwich crammed down his throat for a last meal, castrated, and tied to the post, Ready, Aim, FIRE!!!! End of discussion!
What? You want the Republicans yelling about bring him to the US before he's even captured...I'm sure that would work out well. Hell, they would leak it just so they could claim Obama blew it.
in the old days townspeople would storm the jail, take the guy and hang him on the spot.
just sayin... hint hint...
Some people just can't get passed the 19th Century.
Wow, this takes the cake! Only in the Obama/Holder bizarro world can US citizens be executed without benefit of due process, but a sworn enemy combatant, who has no rights under our constitution, will be granted a jury trial. I CANNOT FUC&ING BELIEVE THIS! We have no money for White House tours, but we'll spend $10's if not $100's of millions to give this slime a jury trial by the time its all said and done. Who the hell does Obama think he's impressing with this? Is he naive enough to think our enemies will stop hating us now? What a delusional, narcissistic a$$hole!
Hard
Where in the constitution does it say that he has no rights?
inapsin, by definition, he is an enemy combatant, there are rules in place that govern the prosecution of these individuals. If he were apprehended on our soil I would tend to side with the jury trial and give him all th same protections granted you and I, unless of course we are SUSPECTED of giving aid to the enemy, then Obama/Holder have no qualms with killing us on the spot. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?
We dont need to water board him just hold him under until the bubbles stop.
This was a double post, same as 1.40, not sure how that happened. Good Night All.
NYC wants it then by all means let them have the traial in NYC and watch what happens. the DOJ will have just brought the arch enemy to NYC and see the results.
he is an enemy combatant and deserves not to be water baorded but held under water until the bubbles stop.
Jonathan-1982062
as i recall it was John mccain that called for the US to arm the Syrian rebels, not Hill or Obama.
Dictastors don't need a congress they suck it without anyones approval and make everyone else watch them do it. Freaking communist, here in this nation we have a policy that requires a Congressional voting, not a mayors approval. This has to be a Federal crime of some sort.
Fantastic. Let's charge this foreign terrorist in criminal court so that he has the very rights to due process that Odumbo would take away from US citizens.
Take him to the Washington Monument and hold a military tribunal. He is guily of engaging in an act of war against the United States of America. Ask him if he has any last words before we carry out the sentence. First draw and quarter him, then gut out his intestines then decapitate him. Then send his remains to be on permament display on the National Capitol. end of story and message well sent unfurl the banner and finish it once and for all time.
the Congress needs to read their "Constitution" that their Gift Shop sells to the tourists. Gitmo is a MILITARY base and therefore under the direct command of "the commander in chief of the armed forces" which is the President of The United States. That means Congress does not get to decide who goes to off shore bases like ours in Cuba or anywhere else. They should worry about their job of representing the people who elected them and get our economy going instead of acting like they are the only power in Washington.
Lindsey Graham and the rest of the GOP chicken hawks can go suck on it. They shoved it up Obama's butt four years ago - now its their turn. I hope they steam up real good.
1. "Terrorism", or attacking civilians in order to influence public opinions about political policy, is a CRIME, not an act of war. The tactic, if performed by a soldier, is a war crime. The tactic when not performed by a soldier (performed by civilians instead) is a crime, but not a war crime. As a side note, international law allows civilians to attack soldiers, even using suicide bombing, legally. It's not the specific tactic itself that makes it terrorism, it's the tactic combined with who it targets. It must be targeted at civilians for the goal of influencing public political policy, otherwise it is not "terrorism". We have redefined "terrorism" to mean anything, and that serves no purpose in a legal discussion.
2. You cannot have a "war" against "terrorism". Wars are declared things, one nation-state to another. If there is no nation-state on one or the other side, it is not a "war". So the "War of Terror" is like the "War on Drugs"...it isn't a real war. What we have is a criminal group so large and aggressive we need a military to defend us from it. This is not new in American history (look up our struggles against piracy in past centuries). And piracy can be just as brutal and dispersed as modern terrorism.
3. Since terrorism is a crime, and the action we're taking against it is a WINO (War In Name Only), we have but one more major point to make: The Constitution does not grant rights...it recognizes inalienable individual rights. Inalienable, or unalienable (depending on which version of the hand-written copies of the Declaration of Independence you are reading) , rights are rights you DO NOT get from being a citizen; you get those rights from being an adult human being. The Founders were very clear in all their extensive writings, and the philosophers who came before them that they often quoted were also crystal clear...rights are not subject to border or law...they are inalienable. "Alienable" means "transferable, or able to be restricted by law and border; separable from the person". "In-" or "Un-" are logical negations of the words they precede. "Inalienable" or "Unalienable" were two spellings of the same word in the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson wrote "inalienable" using incorrect English and spelling, and in 3 of the hand-written copies it remains that way, but Adams hand copied from those original versions and caught the error, changing the spelling to the correct "unalienable"; eventually legal dictionaries would claim "inalienable" was now a real word - which it wasn't until after the Constitution was made law - and that it had a slightly different meaning than "unalienable"...although the definitions are so similar even today that they have a difference without a distinction). Those words both mean the same thing: "not subject to statute (law of the government) or border, inseparable from the individual person, non-transferable".
4. So ALL human beings deserve a trial. If you are captured in a place outside the nation and are not a citizen it makes no difference (assuming we're the ones who captured you). The only "exceptions" aren't really exceptions at all...if you put those in fear of their life who are sent to apprehend you, then they can defend themselves even if that means your death. That applies in U.S. law in policing and military actions. It is illegal to assassinate. It doesn't matter what the enemy does, and if it did we'd all be savages.
Terrorists are criminals (9/11 was an act of air piracy and mass murder for the purpose of political gain), the "War on Terrorism" is not a real war (because it is not a declared state of things between two nation-states), and since all individuals (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof) are entitled to the same rights (according to classical liberal philosophy of both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Founders - so all of them - and the Dec. Of Ind. and the Constitution), then it follows historically, philosophically, ethically, and legally that if it is at all possible to capture terrorists we have an obligation to do so. If they cannot be captured feasibly, or resist capture to the point the would-be captors are in fear of their lives, then they can be killed as a last resort. They MAY NOT be assassinated as a policy, and they may not be tortured as a policy. If you do those things you had better be sure it was necessary, or face charges.
This is where neocons and some progressives get this wrong...they think terrorism is an act of war, or that you can declare war on a non-nation-state, or that rights are something you win a birth lottery and only apply to Americans. None of those things are true...it's an ahistorical bunch of revisionist nonsense.
By U.S. law, wherever the crime is committed is where the trial must be held. The only exception is if you can't get a fair trial by jury there (a change of venue). That's likely the case in NYC...or the State of New York in general. For that reason, if you don't want the trial there it is because you realize no fair trial can be had, and all potential jurists are tainted by the crime itself or media influence. That's in defense of the trial system and the DEFENDENT, not the victims of 9/11 or New Yorkers in general. It's not important in a fair trial system that people's feelings are spared. If that's the case we need to go back to lynching and not have trials, since every victim's family (or most of them) want a death penalty without trial. Is that what we want? If not, then try these criminals, preferably outside NYC. Then convict them (since the evidence is overwhelming) and do what you will with them (I'm against the death penalty, but I'm not here to argue that).
I'm a Republican. I am libertarian by philosophy (not the same as being in the Libertarian Party). Not all Republicans are neocons. We're not all ignorant. By the same token, not all people on the left are real liberals (many are a totally separate philosophy called progressivism, which despite media BS is not the same as neo-neoliberalism), and not all them are super-geniuses. Many on both sides are ignorant, violent, stupid, and unaware of it. I have no personal problem with ignorant people, I only have a problem with the character flaw of having strong opinions rooted in nothing but ignorance (usually unaware of it).
To the idiots that want this guy on trial here... in the U.S., HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. He is an enemy combatant, and is subject to MILITARY inarceration. If you set a precedent like this for one scumbag you open it to all....GET IT??? Damn you people are stupid if you dont.
He DOES NOT have the same rights as Joe Scumbag arrested for a felony crime in the borders of the U.S.. understand the situation people, if the president of North Korea attacks a U.S. city, with a bomb, and kills 3000-30,000 people, are you going to go over, arrest him and advise him of his "constitutional rights" and bring him to trial here, or are you going to declare war........ its the same thing... when 3000 + civilians are killed by coordinated attacks, by people outside of this country, well I would say that is an act of "War", plain and simple, which puts it in military hands.
It wasnt the NYPD running around Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for this guy the last time I checked. Sorry Pro individuall, thats not ignorance, thats a fact...maybe your definition of ignorance differs far from mine.
To the people claiming that foreigners are not entitled to the same Constitutional rights and protections that an American citizen is, sorry but the Supreme Court says they are.
So you can hate it, bitch about it or make whatever claims you like. But it is in fact the law.
@Jim-952823 Just you just love when after making all your capitalized assertions like you did, the truth jumps out and kicks you in the teeth?
" ... requires a Congressional voting ... "
So if THIS President needs to take a piss, Congress needs to vote on it? Or at least the Republicans in Congress need to?
Huh. Imagine that.
"Since September 11, 2001, 67 foreign terror suspects have been convicted in U.S. federal courts,"
Maybe the news media thought he said "bad precedent" when what he really said was "bad president". After all he is from South Carolina ...
Oh and Graham "putting the Obama administration on notice". What a laugh. Do you think Barack (the-Bin-Laden-killer) is losing sleep over Loopy Lindsey challenging his authority as head of the Executive Branch? Pres went to State and City officials to have it cleared because it's their State and their City. New York doesn't belong to Congress, Senator (Guantanamo) Graham. You have no authority to tell the President of the United States how to handle Executive or military matters.
Perhaps Graham's forgotten he's in the Legislative Branch. Perhaps if he concentrated more on doing the work of Congress we'd have a properly funded budget. I'm pretty sure the Justice Department of the United States can do a better job than the Dysfunctional Congress of the Broken Legislature. And since the Commander in Chief is the head of the military as well as the executive branch, he gets to decide military matters. Not congressional senators.
Party of no just says no to anything.....unless they are doing..... whatever it is.... they are against.
I am not what I am for , when I was for, what I was for. I am for what I was against, when I was against what I was not for. Now I am against, whatever I should be for being against, and am for whatever I shouldn't be against that I was for.
Meanwhile President Bush reads "My Pet Goat" while veterans commit suicide at a record pace, and we have spent over 725 billion in Iraq......Thousands of our soldiers were killed and still dying of their wounds, thousands more disabled because of their wounds.......and we want the advice of republicons.....why?????
Oh that's right...because war profits for the rich are good for the greedy 1%...even when lies about WMD's have to be told to get it...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
John Q Public: Yes I agree.
McCains and co and to some extent Hillary (mainly Jewish lobby) jump and dance on oil rich Sunni rulers' directions.
geee...the Republican party motto must be "Criticize everything, sooner or later we'll be right about something".
@ Chris from Yucaipa
Thanks...first time I've ever agreed with you...lol.
@Jim-952823
You haven't a clue about current law, natural rights (which are RECOGNIZED, not granted, by the Constitution and have NO RELEVANCE to citizenship or lack thereof), and American history. Not ONE Founder agreed with you, that rights are ours by citizenship and not by virtue of being human adults. I can quote them all day, and Chris has already quoted the modern Supreme Court. And your hypothet about a STATE attacking us is an act of actual war because it's nation-state to nation-state. Reread #2 in my post #1.51
The USA may not assassinate. We may not torture. We may not detain indefinitely without trial. We MUST uphold all people's natural rights...or we cease to be America as it was Founded and become an Evil Empire like every other Empire in history. Cheerlead for evil if you want, blinded by nationalism, but I will not.
And you were EXACTLY what I was complaining about when I said "Many on both sides are ignorant, violent, stupid, and unaware of it. I have no personal problem with ignorant people, I only have a problem with the character flaw of having strong opinions rooted in nothing but ignorance (usually unaware of it)."
You're totally unaware of it, but your entire opinion was based in ignorance. If you keep it up it's willful ignorance, which is worse. Look, I'm not diesel mechanic, so I don't presume to know the best way to fix a diesel engine or the history of diesel engines. You are not an expert on American law, history, philosophy, or original intent of the Constitution (clearly)...so stop being so opinionated on those issues...or at least accept it into your egocentric self-perception when we criticize you for that character flaw.
Everyone thinks they know so much...but in reality we all know very little. It's denying that which makes us dogmatists. Avoid dogma and doctrine wherever they are false.
Maybe because of the Republican sequester we might only have enough money to put a bullet in this guys head.... But even that probably won't be enough to stop Republicans from bitching about everything. It sure would be nice if they would just get the hell out of the way and let the adults run the country.......... These GOP whiners make me sick.
I don't see the phrase "if found guilty", so yes, I suppose what you advocate is just like the behavior of the Nazis, who weren't concerned with guilt or innocence, either.
I guess you guys don't get out much. New York put the bombers who blew up the wtc. when Clinton was president. Guess what? the wold didn't end, they got life without parole and it does serve justice that they suffer in isolation. Why should it be any different for this guy. Why don't republicans trust American courts? This guy is on Video. there is no wiggle room. simple conspiracy charges will get him life in prison with that kind of evidence. Treating them as criminals is better then enemy combatants.
If a person is an enemy combatant, you have to let them go when he war ends. Is that what you right wingers want. Freedom for terrorists instead of Americans?
more wasted money! let them bury him in the motherland!
This guy should be at Gitmo, not New York. Obama is bent to do any and all to undermine this country and our security. His lack of understanding of reality will be our undoing. Thank you, low-information voters for bringing this on us.
I wish you guys would stop throwing around "Republican" like a stereotype. I'm Republican and agreeing with you that they should try these terrorists. The world doesn't work in a false paradigm of DemoCrip vs RepubliBlood. Some things should transcend partisan politics. There will be plenty of time to hate each other as collective groups when it comes to economics...lol.
All the Republicans subverting the Constitution by denying all humans are entitled to a trial are just ignorant to history and the philosophy of the Founders and Framers, let alone the current modern law. If they read the comments Chris and I left before they put their two cents in print online, they'd know that already.
The posts on this sight are disgusting. Everyone is so concerned that the terrorist might be "tortured" or not have his fair day in court. I am sure that the 2900+ people that burned, jumped or were crushed that day were not tortured in the least. Bleeding heart liberals so afraid someone might get their feelings hurt. Waaah.
Today it cost $45,924 per year - per inmate - to house them. Not to mention what the court costs, security, lawyer fees, food for jury, etc will end up being. $45,924 - that is a strong faithful American's salary for a year. I would rather see that money go to someone deserving of it.
This man is used to living in squalor - put him back in it. Otherwise - for the next year or ten - he will have better medical and dental care than most Americans get in a lifetime. Are you really ok with that - all for the sake of letting your hatred be know for conservatives?
People wake up - your hatred should not be for your own people but for those that are out to destroy this country. I am so ashamed for you all because you apparently don't have the grace to be ashamed of yourselves. And people wonder what is happening to this country? Look no further than your mirror.
Again...disgusting.
DaleP - "This is the United States of America people"
Muslim Radicals like Ghaith know all too well that New York is the United State of America (remember 9-11?). They should never be allowed to lay their head to rest on our soil and to avail themselves of our domestic court system.
You see, this is why we should have elected Robme... he would have kept him offshore with all his money!
No, we're concerned about natural rights and the law of the land. According to you we should let emotion rule us, throw the Constitution and the rights it ACKNOWLEDGES (not grants) right out the window, and just torture, indefinitely detain, and possibly murder these criminals. I find THAT disgusting.
And don't throw " " around TORTURE...it is torture to water board someone. Here's a clue: if you can't do it to a burglary suspect IT IS TORTURE. But I bet it wouldn't bother you a bit to take a fat steamy deuce right on the Founders' graves and torture burglary suspects too.
Thank God you are the past of the Party, and finally in the next few years the libertarians like myself are replacing you neocons.
PS. If cost is a reason to throw the Constitution out the window why are you only attacking fair trial natural rights? Why not attack the right life, property, etc.? What a horrid argument you make by acting like negative, inalienable, natural, individual rights are something that are up for a cost-benefit analysis. The word "inalienable" or "unalienable" (both used in various prints of the hand-written Declaration of Independence) literally means "not subject to law or border; not separable from the individual; not dependent upon citizenship or lack thereof". And YES, that is what the Founders thought it meant.
We don't hate our own people...we love the original American philosophy of natural individual rights (at least on this issue...some of us are inconsistent on that point). What is destroying this country is people like you cheerleading for tyranny when it's convenient or you're scared. Read the Founders and stop acting like they would side with your nonsense.
He helped to Kill and destroy over 2900 people and families..and took this country to it's knees....Natural rights???? Are you kidding? Go sit with a wife of a fallen fireman..or children that never got to meet their fathers...see how they feel about "Natural Rights". I stand by what I say and how I feel - emotional - dang right!!
A crime committed on American soil is tried in American courts in the part of the country that the crime was committed as they have the jurisdiction. Unless you're arguing that someone who comes over from another country and robs, rapes or murders someone should NOT be tried in America. But then where would that robbery, rape or murder be tried?
We were not in a declared war on 9/11/2001. The people who planned it were NOT "enemy combatants" since we WERE NOT (and still technically are NOT) in a DECLARED WAR. Therefore, they can't be tried by a military tribunal but MUST be tried in American CIVILIAN courts. That is OUR LAW and I would think that the Republicans who are crying about it right now in Congress would remember our CONSTITUTION and our LAWS since they are the ones who continually trumpet them.
Lindsey's upset because he didn't get a photo op with bin Laden on the ground and him urinating on him.
@ProIndividual-3906907
Thank you sir. Maybe my post was too long for some of them to read, so I'll condense it down.
The Supreme Court says our Gitmo detainees are entitled to all the same rights and protections that the Constitution gives to American Citizens. End of the debate on this subject.
Ok you wish to try him in a court of law do it in Washington,D.C. at least then if they decide to make him a martyr it will help to clean up the mess in Washington.
ProI & Chris: *applause*
thank you for being islands of reason in the Sea of Insanity
Dear DaleP1653887,
We do not need to water board him? Maybe or maybe not.
Lets do it anyway just for fun.
I am waiting for DHS to order him release becuase of the sequester. This is going to be a 3 ring circus that the taxpayers will fund and for what. if you want to do something useful then put a bullet in his brain to reslove the obvious lead deficency that he suffers from
dog and pony show.
No!
Diversions to oil and arms' industry money and favors show!
A diversion to the dow hitting record highs? or the trade deficits fall of 20%? or the fact that the banks have PAID BACK the bailout money? or the fact that we are now producing more oil right here in the good ol USA then ever before. Of which diversion do you speak? :P
Dam liberals lol. why can't they just leave things broken Like bush left them? lmao.
george pauljohn
LOL the record high stimulated by the federal reserve, and the oil production demanded by the republican party to end oil dependence. Geez the liberals do SOOOOOOOOOOOO good.
Oh by the way you forgot Ringo
The 911 conspirators were no more cold and calculating than were those who, entrusted with our national security, allowed them to make a major freaking score on us.
..You mean Uncle Bill right, he had a chance to take Osama out and didnt, you were alive to remember this....right??
" ... You mean Uncle Bill right, ... "
No actually he means your Uncle George. You remember him. He's the guy that Uncle Bill, more then once, told that Osama was planning something. And your Uncle George blew it off and let it happen anyway.
That's the guy he means.
" ... you were alive to remember this....right?? ... "
Huh. Imagine that.
Jimmy...try a little search on missle strikes by President Bill Clinton.......Tomahawk cruise missles......
Bush's answer to terrorists was to sit and read "My Pet Goat " while he froze and did not know what to do until his aides snapped him out of it........DOH!
how do you crush a square tube? the foundation and super structure of the wtc was a square steel tube. The dynamics just don't fit. how does something that big fall perfectly down in a line? look up the design and Think.
Starsailing. Bush knew what was going to happen. in that moment, reality of what was done and it's magnitude struck him. he was probably thinking "oh sht, we really did it, can't wait to kill Saddam." his brain was chanting "oil oil oil oil"
IF Bush's IQ was much lower it would be a negative number, really hard to say what he should be held accountable for. And the IQ's of everybody who voted for him (twice!, freaking twice!, and voted for McCain/Palin, and Romney) are even lower than his.
Hand it to the Teabaggers....they never miss an opportunity to complain, even when its getting a bad guy off the streets.
hey blutoski
need some cheese and crackers to go with your whine?
stop while you're head: you're embarssing yourself...your Rush Oxicontin Limbaugh enduced ignorance is showing
zero point zero
blutowski
Hmmm, it sounds almost like the last guy in the WH. It was 4.0% when he got in and 7.8% when he left. No wonder people like you want to forget him.
blutowski
You do realize that that Obama is part of the Executive branch that enforces the laws right? He didn't need to inform congress about this arrest all. Why should he have? He doesn't need permission from congress to do his job.
It never ceases to amaze me how the tough talking keyboard warriors of the right act like such little wusses when it comes to trying terrorists in our courts. I guess they mumble or choke on the part about "home of the brave" during the national anthem.
Republicans focus on real time issues.
9/11 is too old an issue even to remember.
Saudis and Pakis were real culprits in 9/11.
All of a sudden, they (most brilliant Bush and his team) forgot them and attacked Iraq and Afghanistan.
Republicans are right in blasting from all sides on Sulaiman Abu Ghaith. They should ask: who is Osama?
Randy-2925150
Just like with bin Laden...they're pissed because they couldn't do it. Every National Security success by Obama shows them to be failures, at least in their minds.
Bluto, are you trying to be thick headed? More jobs? Just how much money do you think Barry can pour into GE (The Other Welfare) with everybody breathing down his neck over the deficit?
Hey Dexter, speaking of ignorance Im willing to bet it shows up big time in your DNA.
Do y'all realize that it is a security nightmare, it will cost 1 million usd per day. DOJ has done such a good job in other prosecution of terrorists right? They have a great track record of getting a conviction tht they will be gring him into the greatest potential target of high importance. They are facing a government shutdown, DHS releasining prisoners and you expect them somehow to provide adequate security. Morons.
All you knucklehead libbies only spout crap when it suits you, but lets see, your boy Clinton had Osama in his sights and FAILED to take him down.....hmmmm dare I say 9-11 would not have happened if he had done HIS job. And BULHEATH......what you dont get is this, the NYPD wasnt running around the middle east tracking this guy down, our military was.
I know its a lot to take in for a bunch of libtard cronies and sheep, but if you stop, and THINK for 2 seconds (impossible I know from reading these posts) you might understand WHY people are objecting to this crap in the first place.
I know exactly why... because conservatives are basically cowards who operate from fear. Everything is a threat to them; like two men showing affection for one another or even change itself. They bark loud in anonymous posts, but shiver all the while shivering like Chihuahuas.
Most people aren't at all afraid of letting the justice system deal with the terrorists, just the hair-on-fire, armed-to-the-teeth paranoids of the right who ignore the fact that the US has already successfully tried and convicted 100's of terrorists.
Hi Cul.....yeah.....Fox news has been breeding the righties that way for years now. Fear and then making the righties think they are the same as the 1% greedy rich...and convince the mddle class righties even to vote against their own self interests.......Funny yet sad...to watch how Fox news breeds them that way.
hey, starsailing
Dam it, you liberals keep catching all the bad guys. Don't you understand, that if you catch them all, the world could break out in peace. dam liberals. lol
it feels so good to see Obama do what bush could not, succeed.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
-Sixth Amendment, US Bill of Rights
Do the God-given rights and values that make this country great no longer apply? If we abandon our own morality, we are no better than them.
human have...its made for humans, dummy!
Ask the answers from politicians first, who are supposed to know and follow them!
They know only wars outsourced by others (oil rich rulers, oil companies and their lobbyists) and budget cuts for the needy!
Sorry: they know how to add more debts serving others!
I do not know Blutoswki. Have you read this before?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
You can say this guy is a terrorist, and I am sure he is. Do you think our court system is too weak and fundamentally flawed to figure it out?
What makes this country great and strong is that we stick to our principles and not cave at the slightest threat or fear.
No...in criminal cases it applies to foreign nationals as well.
Just not if you're an American Citizen, then expect a cruse missile or drone up your ass, right Some Guy & Ol_Doc. The logic of this administration and the left as a whole, is breathtaking in its stupidity.
I fought in Iraq, too bad I didnt have a chance to have this SOB in my sights.
Some Guy-2030417
So how come FDR (a tru progressive) had the Japaneses put into internment camps?
John Q. FDR did so through an egregious usurpation of our principles. There was no proof or any real indication of an enemy within. I do not care if you are liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, or anything else. IT IS WRONG! And it makes us weak as a people. The lesson is that fear controls and it is used with great affect. It is used by terrorists, governments, and religious leaders (and I am not talking just about the historical human manifestations of Christianity).
We are strong when we stand up to this fear-mongering and decide not to be controlled by it.
If Blutowski isnt right, then ask yourself this:
Who held court for the the hundreds of Japanese Officers, at the end of world war 2. Shouldnt we have brought them all back here to "stand" trial and give them their "constitutional" rights? According to the comments above, we should have.
We are creating a "circus" again with the decisions made by the idiot in charge, and the terrorists of the world are not cringing, they are laughing. And that, is a damn shame.
Congratualtions= maybe he falls under the 3 strikes rule....right? YOu people are morons.
Jim,
Flinging insults does little to further your case and never is an indication of reasoned and intelligent consideration.
Are you insinuating that the current situation is anything like that of World War II? You may also want to look up some of the history of the IMTFE trials in regards to what crimes they addressed and the conditions surrounding it. The situations are hardly synonymous.
Jim: You don't see the difference between enemies after a conflict has ended and a terrorist still at war with us? Of course you don't. You're an idiot. I very much doubt the terrorists are laughing with so many killed by drones, Bin Laden killed and now this guy captured. Maybe they were laughing under Bush when they could cross back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan untouched.
The "left"? It is the Republicans who are praising the Administration's foreign drone policy. I think the "left" is appalled by it.
The War Crimes trials after World War II were held on territory controlled by the the Allies, so there was no need to bring them to the US for trial. In addition, the trials were PUBLIC, unlike these so-called "tribunals." All the world could see WHY these individuals were found guilty.
We rail against secret, extra-judicial trials when they're held by other countries, but now we're engaging in that activity ourselves. It is shameful.
You're right, FDR did do that. And, now, looking back on it, that is hardly one of our proudest moments as a nation. In fact, an official apology has been issued. So, I wouldn't use that as a precedent for our treatment of terrorism suspects.
Please tell me when we declared war on Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban/Al Quada. Also tell me what country trained and supported as well as OWNS the Taliban/Al Quada. The trials at the end of World War II were trials held for crimes committed during a declared war. Military trials of enemy combatants have to be treated differently than trials of civilians who commit crimes. A person can not be an actual enemy combatant unless they are captured on a field of battle fighting against your country or are military leaders in a declared war. Please tell me which country we have declared war on. Wars are fought between countries, and thus can not be actually fought between individuals and a country. The individual in this case was not captured on a field of battle and he is not a commander of national troops in a declared war against that country. Therefore by definition he is not an enemy combatant. This is not by American definition alone, this is an INTERNATIONAL definition and unless we want to alienate the entire rest of the world we must stick to International definitions of what a war is, who can be declared an enemy combatant and how and where non-enemy combatants must be tried.
Just take him out back into the alley and put a bullet in his head.
Would that make you feel safe?
Ol-Doc, no but it would put a smile on my face.
Fn A right.
Should have shot him right at the moment they saw him.
Nice to see the same people who claim (incorrectly) that the Constitution only applies to Americans are the same people who are cheerleading for lynch mobbery.
At least you're consistent...consistently wrong and unethical. History class and an ethics class would do you some good guys. Hell, you have the internet, just go read the Founders and Framers for free, and read some philosophy while you're at it.
You guys were the exact same kind of sheep that cheered on witch burnings and Christians being fed to the lions in Rome.
Repubs, so what!? Just say we told you so and let NYC and all those Dummycrats spend all their money keeping this guy under wraps....unbelievable!
@KansasBob,
That would happen if he went to gitmo. But I guess we could expect that from a lap dog of the low informed base people. They can't see the truth if it hit them square in the nose. Some real dumb lap dogs running around.
Just taking a stab at this, but being from Kansas and all... are you a Christian? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Jesus would approve of letting a man rot in a detention center for his entire life without being sentenced or tried for the crimes he is guilty for. Silly me, up here in the northeast we're brought up to show compassion and believe that every man has a right to liberty, even for those who commit the most heinous of crimes. By no means am I condoning his acts, but it is a disgrace to call yourself not only a Christian, but an American, if you don't believe liberty and the right to defend oneself against a jury. Shame on you.
Jesus said no to abortions? I must have an old version of the New Testament. Where can I get the teabagger version?
"Where can I get the teabagger version?"
it's easy..call Michelle Bachman's office and they'll mail you one.
Speaking of low information morons, SallyAnn it would cost far less to keep him in Gitmo. The miltary is well prepared to handle these high profile terrorist, NY is not.
...and just a quick clue for the libbies, it wasnt the NYPD running around the middle east tracking this clown down, it was the .........U.S. military.....ssshhhhhhh, dont tell anyone.
" ... Jesus also wouldn't approve of abortions ... "
Oh look another person that speaks for Jesus. And what he would or wouldn't approve of.
Huh. Imagine that.
Can you really make an argument where Jesus would have supported abortion? Really?! Not everything requires a snarky comment, George. I could care less about Jesus, abortion, or the comments above, but you acting like Jesus would in any way, shape, or form have supported abortion is just goofy...lol.
This guy should go to Gitmo with all the other terrorists.
This will be a circus if left in NY.
I'm convinced this administration is completely insane or incompetent or both.
We have something in America called due process... Sentencing this man, and others responsible, in the public eye is the ultimate triumph after a decade of hunting these people down. It sends a powerful message not only that these people can't run from justice, but the fact that we had the courage and integrity to be the better man and give them the liberty that they deny themselves.
First the Republicans wanted to close Gitmo. Then they want to stop drone strikes. Okay then, lets just take the fools to court. The Gop is still not satisfied. they never will be.
Bluto: So did McCain.
The Administration wants a side show. He is for the first time feeling heat about all the lies he told during the BIG sequester and shutting the Whitehouse down for kids. Mainstream media have even questioned him, it is amazing. Why do you think he is having dinner with the Republicans. Not because he really wishes to hear their thoughts, he is just trying to get that approval rating back up before he hits everyone with his next brilliant idea!
Sure Gary, let's sneak him into Gitmo preferably in the dead of night so no one will see us. Then we can crawl under our beds and cower for the rest of our lives...so much for the Land of the Brave.
Danna, so how do you square the fact that Obama/Holder will drop a bomb on your a$$ if SUSPECTED of aiding our enemies, you know, denial of that "due process thingy. Yet you rejoice that this slime will be given a jury trial. Just who is Obama trying to impress? The terrorists? It only inflames their contempt.
Tommy...., it was your boy wonder Obama who pledged to close Gitmo, republicans have never advocated doing so. Get it right sheeple. I'm happy to say I support Obama on his flip-flop
Ol-Doc, did you ever serve? You talk about bravery but I would have liked to have seen your sorry asssss in Iraq when the bullets where flying.
stop freeloaders,
you cant argue with these clowns, thank God they werent running the show in WW2, they would sent some girl scouts into Berlin, to arrest Hitler and bring back to advise him of his rights, just to let him go because he didnt have 3 strikes.
Ignorance is Bliss, they dont read history.
I guess you never heard of the Nuremberg trials? They were military trials but they had attorneys and weren't simply detained indefinitely without charges like Gitmo. It sounds like you approve of the way it was done after WW2 with a fair trial. Maybe because like today they had a Democrat as President. You may approve of the Republican way of jailing forever with no charges but most Americans don't agree.
so let me get this straight:
Obama, again, caught one of the 9/11 terrorists (which GWB repeatedly failed to do in spite of spending billions of $$$) and the neocons are b!tching about it.
to be clear, GWB got us into two extremely expensive wars, lied about the reasons, didn't have a way to pay for them, accomplished nothing (other than enriching his defense contractor buddies) and the righties were okay with it. Obama keeps catching the terrorists responsible and the righties get their undies in a wad over it---okaaaaaaaaay.
Illogical, Captain
Sorry, I was already retired from the Army before 9/11. But thank you for your service, and you're welcome to kiss my "sorry asssss".
Look...if Lindsey Graham is against it it must be the right thing to do. That guy seems to come down on the wrong side of just about everything, IMO...
For a group of people who were so concerned about upholding the constitution 24 hours ago, they sure seem eager to keep someone from being protected by it today.
The GOP is opposed to this? They think he should go to Guantanamo? Aren't these the same guys that bitxx-slapped the President in the last election for failing to close Guantanamo like he wanted to do? The good old GOP..... They'd complain about a wet dream..............
@John
Are you sure they can have wet dreams? But yes, very good points you made, and it is the TRUTH. Sure love the comedy these lap dogs are posting here.
Who wanted to close GITMO again, you better stop breathing that ferry dust John, its distorting your memory, just a tad.
Yes they criticized him for not closing it even though he tried and congress blocked it with almost unanimous Republican opposition. They blame him for failing even when they caused him to fail.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/#ixzz2MwEAjU75
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Ah, now ain’t this a complicated issue? After all if this guy is a combatant, then effectively you’re saying he had a cause and even some legitimacy to conduct his acts. Whereas, if you say he’s a criminal with no legitimacy, then why not try him in a court for criminals and not soldiers? Hmmmmmm I think I have a win, win solution here. After all, the White House want to try him in a civil court, but Congress don’t want him in the US, why not send him to the International Criminal Court? That way both sides get their wish.
Let's send Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld with them to make it four of a kind!
northbayraider1964
Now that’s not really fair, after all if you want to send Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld then you’d have to send Blair and Brown too. Hmmmmmm, That’d be a very interesting trial, I wonder out of all the defendants who’d start playing the blame game first?
I think a "pair" with Biden and Obama is the upper hand in the libtard game of cards here. Obama poker, just stick the card on your head, only fool who cant see what card he has is obama himself.
“libtard game of cards here”
Is that what you think is happening on this thread Jim? That two “libtards” are playing a game of cards and blaming the republicans? Only, the names I bought to the list were Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, both of which represented the political left in the UK for most of the last decade.
I am against letting him see the damage he and his terrorist counterparts were able to do. Giving him the satisfaction of seeing the new towers being built due to something he had his hand in planning is not good. He does not deserve that satisfaction. If he goes to NY for anything, it should be to tie him up to a pole and let NY residents stone him to death. I say send him to Guantanamo, but thats just me.
I disagree. I think it is entirely appropriate. Yes, they knocked the Twin Towers down. But in our country's darkest hour, we persevered. We didn't build the Freedom Tower to simply provide office space for the companies that lost so much more. We did it to show the world that they may wound us, but they will never beat us. He was on the run for over a decade; I can't conceive of a more appropriate place to hold him responsible for his crimes.
I can, the UCMJ can take care of this just fine, they found him, not the NYPD. Let him get some real justice, not a circus show.
Lets see, how many times have the low informed lap dogs of the gop base screamed about Obama trashing the constitution. I can't count that high anymore, because it's more than the don't matter deficit. But now, because he is bringing a criminal to trial, they are mad?
They want him in gitmo? Sorry lap dogs, take your arf arf's someplace else, we as a country, are a country of laws. Yes, I realize that you got used to the previous administration bending and breaking laws, but that didn't make it correct.
What it boils down, Obama got another ranked terrorist, and Bush is still looking into the bottom of the bottle for them.
Guantanamo has always been a travesty against American values that should never have been set up.
He should go to Gitmo or if they're going to try him in the US, do it in Texas
best solution.....just execute him. Does not deserve a trial. He admitted his role in 9/11 already, why try him?
Because we as a country are better than that.
exectution would be a bonus....for him. virgins waiting for him, plus a herd of camels.
no, put him in isolation in ADX Florence in colorado with Ramzi Yousef, Zacarias Moussaoui, Ted Kaczynski, and Teabagger Eric Robert Rudolph. out of sight for life, never heard from or seen again.
that is a punishment far worse than execution
Because we're not the freaking Taliban! You want to wrap your wife in a burka knock yourself out. Personally I feel that American Justice as one of those things that separate us from them.
Ol-doc did you ever serve or are you jsust all wind?
he is wind John Q.....the wind from obamas A$$.
20 years Mr. Pubic...how long did you serve?
Jim, why are you obsessed with Obama's a$$...you creep me out.
We dont want that POS down here in The Great State of Texas.Y'all keep em up north with the other terrorists in the labial party,and the attacks sure to follow.
That's what a good American would say.
Duane2011
Great State of Texas? Your scared of this guy and you're a "great state"...more like wimpering 5 year olds.
New bumper sticker campaign: Republicans Against __________.
Hint: fill in the blank with anything and everything.
Is there ANYTHING the Republcans won't protest? As a basic conservative, I am constantly irritated by the nonsense of these glory-seekers
Spend some more money you ignorant azzes. Probably a billion dollars for security. Sure glad most of the poster's on this blog aint in office....however you have learned from the King of Spending your provider Oblaaahma
Who brought us into the two longest and most expensive wars in our history, all in the name of "national security?"
Tell us Dana. Still have troops overseas from the Serbian war where Clinton sided with the Muslims. Obama is still shipping troops to the African Continent. Obama is "refocusing" military assets to Asia; a foolish, expensive, worthless, meaningless endeaver. All parties are involved. Obama has been president over 4 years and a war still going on in Afghanistan. The voters are to blame for being sheep.
You're not serious, right? If you lived on the West Coast you would understand what's going on in the Pacific Rim right now. Let's see; China is in ascendency as a dominant economic and military power, challenging our allies on the open sea. North Korea is threatening to attack the United States with nukes. India is taking a huge chunk of our employment. The Pacific is where the sh!t is likely to hit the fan next...but you go ahead and go back to sleep.
Fear,fear,fear. That's about all the conservatives seem to know. It's their answer to everything. I'm almost 60 and I refuse to live the rest of my life in fear.
There was actually an article about 3 weeks back that shows how liberals tend to activate the part of the brain that controls emotion and compassion (can't remember which region...), whereas conservatives activate the amygdala, which is responsible for for fear and anger. Pretty fitting.
Here's one:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
Just about the dumbest thing we could do. Poke the bear!!!Send him to Gitmo. So bright ! lets bring all the terrorists here, Dumb A$$ idea.............JMHO
Bush and Cheney's house was out of the question since they'd just let him escape if he showed up.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
When people choose to undertake declared acts of war on America using the the cloak of a global religion - bombing embassies, killing sailors, engaging in acts of guerilla warfare - the extension of rights afforded them should not extend to the right to a trial by jury in American courts with due process afforded them as we would for non-combatants.
These foreign residents operating outside the United States are bent on the collapse of the US government and all of its institutions and the destruction of us as a people. To engage in the charade of a trial to enforce our criminal laws on non-residents who proclaim that nothing we might do holds any moral or legal authority over them is a waste of our collective time.
Not only that, but by extension, if we choose to treat them as garden variety criminals, we would not be permitted to take any offensive action in any foreign jurisdiction to protect ourselves against their actions until they have already committed bad acts. Failing any intervention, we then would be forced to take our lumps, to try and capture them in hostile countries, extradite them under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction, or kidnap them and bring them all back to the US for trial.
This is the height of legalistic nonsense. The equivalent of the British wearing red uniforms with white crosses on their chests as they marched into guerilla attacks from American forces during the Revolution.
Should they have some hearing to establish who they are and what they have done? Sure, but it should be like Nuremberg. They need to be tried as the enemy combatants that they are, in military style, in keeping with the gravity of the matters at hand. Our national security is different than our civil security and we need to acknowledge this very important difference.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, and by your definition, an enemy combatant. Same as Ted Kaczynski. Both of whom were tried and convicted by a jury. Yes, this country has in our past abandoned habeus corpus before, but that doesn't make it right. Only the President has the power to do so, but the Supreme Court has an obligation to determine if it violates the Constitution, which they have in the past. Liberty is what makes our country great. If we abandon it all in the name of security, then we have voided our most basic human right.
And if they are foreign agents, then torturing these men at Gitmo is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Even John McCain spoke out against the country labeling water-boarding and other torture procedures as "enhanced interrogation techniques" simply so we can use these methods that are immoral and illegal.
Timothy McVeigh was not an enemy combatant engaged in a declared war on the US on behalf of a foreign force. Neither was Ted Kaczynski. These guys were domestic anarchists.
Habeus corpus is not a concept extended to foreign threats because it deals with arrest powers which are jurisdictional in nature. The country in which the person is apprehended holds the person with a crime pursuant to that country's treaty or because of some violation of its criminal code.
POW's are entirely different, and are taken into custody with only treaty rights to protect them IF they are engaged in an action COVERED by a treaty. Here we don't have a treaty in force between aggrieved nations, though as a country we do adhere to certain standards of conduct pursuant to international law. Our enemies adhere to no such standards. Accordingly, the two circumstances are wholly different. So the process can and should be different.
As to Gitmo, I said nothing about it, nor about torture. In fact, I said quite the opposite, that they should be tried by a military tribunal. In contrast to summary execution, a military trial - or any meaningful opportunity to address the charges - should conform to standards of moral fairness. Not the rights afforded under the US Constitution because these are not domestic crimes. Which is really my point.
We are extending largesse to those who would do us harm. The fact that we would extend any courtesy at all is sufficient to justify moral standards. The legal standards we have don't address the matter thoroughly, but as a matter of course, we can create standards on the fly to react to circumstances that have never been addressed before.
Ultimately, our notions of fairness for national security in a state of war need not toe to a standard of civil security without a war. After we win the conflict and preserve our way of life, we can then make apologies for any slight or unfairness.
@Rick-307058
You have posted a rational, logical and unemotional thought as it relates to the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 and have engaged us on battlefields in the years since.
I fully agree that we have a moral obligation to treat enemy combatants in a humane manner, but I, like you strenuously object to the extension of our Constitutional protections to a foreign enemy combatant.
All I can say is THANK YOU for an exceptional post.