• Mike, this is just a few reasons I don’t care for this President.

    November 17, 2009 at 8:07 a.m.

  • waterboarding may be a mild form of torture but our own military uses it on our own troops in training our troups, so that in the event of capture they have been exposed to these forms of intel gathering and know how to deal with them. should we quit this form of training as well! These people have one thing in mind, to kill americans, so if dunking them in a tank of water gets us valued information then by all means do it. as far as bringing them here for trial, in my opinion, it's a huge waste of tax payer money and ties up an already overburdened court system. Who cares what the world thinks!!! they were not the ones attacked. We need to quit trying to please them anyway. They will still hate us even if we treat them with kid gloves. We need to quit bending over backwards trying to get the world to like us. Our only real concern should be the safety of our people. If that means a few terrorists get mistreated tough. Who cares about their rights as far as i'm concerned they have no rights except the right to DIE!!!!

    November 17, 2009 at 7:19 a.m.

  • Holly1
    I follow that logic to point…. In the first days of the Iraq war, we had to let go over 78% of the people we suspected of being insurgents in Iraq. This led them to be the terrorist but we will always detain prisoners for intelligence. Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan is our Guantánamo Bay of the Middle East but it we are going to water board them or use any other method in violation of the Geneva Convention; we might as well bury our mistakes, rather than bringing them to the United States to make a mockery out of our justice system.

    November 16, 2009 at 4:38 p.m.

  • the best thing to due would be to quit taking them prisoners in the first place a dead terrorist is a good terrorist. no need to keep them locked up or try them. problem solved.

    November 16, 2009 at 4:10 p.m.

  • itisi
    Sorry for the misinterpretation but I was mocking your need to define Miranda… Using sarcasm, I said that anyone that has watched one episode of “Law and Order”knows the definition of Miranda. It is understood that it comes under American jurisprudence…. One more time, for the record, and for the third time, I am saying that the fact that he was not given his right to remain silent is not important in this case, you may be trying to belabor the point because you have nothing else.

    You obviously did not read the post I submitted whereas I said David Brooks brought up that subject.. You are the only one trying to tie in a battle field situation with American civilian due process.

    Okay, I'm going to try to explain one more time, put you in an environment that will make you comfortable… Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol said 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be tried in a civilian court where he will be subject to the rights and privileges of America law and due process…Mr. Kristol said the federal prosecutor will probably have to have a special hearing for the defense motions such as the lack of a Miranda and change of venue at the time of his arrest… As I've posted before that might not even come up but it is something that the Attorney general and federal prosecutors are ready for.

    I am done ..Interpret as you wish(you will) but ditto on have a nice day.

    November 16, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.

  • Come on Mike you can do better than that. “Law & Order”, as an example please give me a break…

    The President has pro-claimed him self as a professor of constitutional law… If someone is captured on the battle field he wants the Miranda warning read to them. You have to be kidding me!!!!!!! It appears that he is some what confused as to the definition of Miranda (Bill of rights)… Does not apply in other countries, it falls with the guide lines of the constitution here in the United States…

    Have a nice day

    November 16, 2009 at 2:06 p.m.

  • Itisi, you used b/s and Obama several times for emphasis just because a good defense lawyer might bring in these motions..I think everyone who has watched a least one episode of “Law and Order” knows the definition of Miranda…When someone sees everything as an Obama issue then it leads me to believe they let their hate cloud the issue…I have written several words in this blog alone; without mentioning Obama…Now I contend that I am not am not nor have I ever been in the medical field, so my opinion carries very little weight.

    This is another view from the conservative side…Yesterday, George Will agreed with the AG’s decision.

    Three prominent conservatives warned in a joint statement against Republican "scaremongering" on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying the prison in Thomson, Illinois would be fine to handle them.
    Former Republican Congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, have teamed up to urge the Gitmo detainees be taken to the U.S.

    "The scaremongering about these issues should stop," Barr, Keene and Norquist wrote.
    "Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases," they wrote. "Civilian prisons are the safe, cost effective and appropriate venue to hold persons in federal courts."
    "Likewise the federal prison system has proven itself fully capable of safely holding literally hundreds of convicted terrorists with no threat or danger to the surrounding community," they wrote. "We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries."

    November 16, 2009 at 11:41 a.m.

  • Mike,
    My point on the Miranda warning should not be an obstacle. Miranda evolved from a domestic case in 1963 with Ernesto Miranda vs Arizona which went before the Supreme Court in 1966 which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda, thus we now have the Miranda warning.

    Hate is a strong word Mike. I dislike this President for good reason, I don’t hate him.

    November 16, 2009 at 11:23 a.m.

  • Itisi
    The ACLU does not have any influence over the administration the Defense Department or the Department of Justice. Now if they are operating outside the law, the ACLU and other advocacy groups will call them on it.

    I was alluding to what David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times, was saying that might be a hindrance when giving a war criminal civilian rights. Reread my post, I was not advocating Miranda rights but merely restating some obstacles such as a change of venue, Miranda rights given to defendants in a civilian court that might not even come up...They were discussing things the defense attorney will bring up in motions.

    Don't let your hate of the Obama administration; twist my words, to suit your political agenda.

    November 16, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    November 16, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.

  • Mike, I didn’t say anything about a conspiracy by the ACLU, although ACLU is the driving force behind the AG to move KSM to the U.S…. You might check ACLU web page or just go to the circuit courts web page and look t all the filings by the ACLU…

    As far as the Miranda warning that is BS, there is no requirement for oral or written Miranda warning in WAR. I don’t know where you came up that nonsense, other than the Obama administration. Why would you read the Miranda warning to someone in another country, does not even apply, that is stupid?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:54 a.m.

  • reyrey

    You are 180° off, on your summation of my words…. I am not advocating for rights to be given to the 9/11 hijackers, what I've said is that I am not afraid of them getting a trial in New York. The high ground would be to the civilized nations of the world, not those harboring terrorist. So it is just as easy to sit there and characterize my words and thoughts, for a political agenda.

    I was alluding to the heads of state, when I mentioned regaining our allies and trust in the world, not people trying to come to America…You may
    I don't know anyone that wants to aid and abet the enemy with sensitive information, but to my understanding (I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one) a writ of habeas Corpus is to bringing a person to court so it can be determined if the person will be imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.

  • Itisi
    A very good summation with some valid points and I would not have been disappointed if they were tried in a military tribunal. I think after the third try, Rudy Giuliani finally got it right when he said a civilian trail might be a good alternative but it was unnecessary. You see he had to backtrack because in 2006 when we put the 20th hijacker on trial (Massaoui) he said " I was in awe of our system, It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

    Attorney General Eric knows were where KSM was captured and the fact that he was not given his Miranda rights when he was captured in Pakistan.

    I think the best round table discussing this subject was This Week with George Stephanopoulos… Bob Woodward said the decision did not have much to do with the White House but more to do with the Defense Department and the Federal prosecutors. He alluded to the fact that if KSM were to get off by some miracle, there is still the murder of Daniel Pearl and several others cases he could be tried for. He also said that KSM has already pled guilty in a military hearing, so he might not even get a trial, it might be just a formality. After 6 1/2 years there is not too much sensitive material to be had because much of the information on KSM has been written about in magazines and books. A federal judge is well equipped to keep order in the court and evaluate sensitive material. The safety of the jurors? Are we supposed to roll into a fetal position with every high profile case that comes before us? If you can understand complexity of the situation, I believe I can.

    The ACLU has to abide by the same laws and Constitution, they don’t strike fear in my heart. I think you have to redo your conspiracy theory.:-)

    Jon Meacham, Managing Editor of Newsweek, said the attorney general's decision may have to do with our new foreign policy and making a clean break from the Cheney era of “anything goes” to as Rudy Giuliani says “we are a nation of laws”…. I forget the pundit’s name but his words may be true… He said another way of looking at it, the terrorist will be martyred if they take their punishment in a military trial but they might lose some of that luster if they are tried in a civilian court, as a common criminal.

    In a city of over million 8 million people, I understand that New York will have varied opinions, the families of the victims of 9/11 are split but Congressman Anthony Weiner D-NY said many people in New York want the trial in that city, so they can finally get some closure...The Congressman jokingly said that acquittal and turning KSM over to the people of Brooklyn would be the ideal sentence.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:43 a.m.

  • To start with these detainees have to be paroled into the United States; once that document is stamped, they have been afforded all of the privileges of the constitution, because they are now on U.S. soil…

    The master mind of 9/11 was captured in Pakistan not the U.S... These detainees do not deserve the same rights that you and I have under the constitution. They are military war criminals. They should be prosecuted in a military tribunal, nothing more or nothing less.

    There is for to much sensitive and classified information which does not need to be displayed in an American court room.

    The cost of this dog and pony show will be enormous; from security to detention facilities, man power. What about the safety of the jurors? I just don’t think you under stand the complexity of this dog and pony show that is about to happen…

    If you think for one minute that the ACLU will not have a field day with this dog pony show you are sadly mistaken. The only reason the Gitmo detainees are going to be moved and tried here in the United States is because of the ACLU along with the Obama administration do to the fact that it has Bush’s name on it…

    This President and his administration since they do lack common sense along with good judgment, truly, they need to re-think their decisions on these Islamic terrorist…

    November 15, 2009 at 9:52 a.m.

  • How many weak minded people here in America will be swayed by the platform that will be given to these terrorist to join their hateful and deadly cause towards Americans, will this breed more of the same? I am not sure why it is so important they be brought here to be judged if it will cause the spread of their evil agenda, cause grief and possibly danger to Americans. These terrorist do not have the right to be on American soil or use our judicial system so they can spread hate.

    November 15, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.

  • Mike, it is easy to sit here and be an advocate for rights for people that have no regard for Americans. You talk about taking the high ground, these people do not care about high ground. You talk about our standing within the international community, screw that. I am sure that you read a few weeks ago that the country where most people want to move, is the good Old US of A. You mention Habeas Corpus, would you be willing to give up secret information in order to fulfill the requirements of Habeas Corpus? You talk about Mayor Bloomber and NYC Chief of police. I have family and friends that are cops in NYC and not even they trust those two clowns. The whole purpose of a military tribunal is simple, to not divulge secret information. Last time I checked, we were still fighting a war. Kind of naive of your part to quote someone stating that NYC has always been a target, mmmm, maybe the fact that there is stuff that we are doing but are not discussing, is keeping NYC from being hit again, just a though. Ideals are great in an idealistic world, you know, like academia. A professor can get in front of a class and give this great lecture about our Constitution but how many of them are willing to die for it? How many of them are willing to spread our ideals aways from their safe jobs in America? I am sure that we as a nation, could handle a few years if some of them left the country for a few years and go to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other countries and teach about the 1st,4th,5th,6th,the 14th ammendments. As far as the AG, wasnt this the man that recommended that 16 Puerto Rican terrorist be given clemency by President Clinton? Perhaps you remember Mr. Rich, who left the USA in order to avoid prosecution for evading taxes and get this,, violating trade embargo with Iran. So you my friend, might trust the AG, I dont. Just in case, I am half Puerto Rican, so yes, I can talk about the FALN, yes I am a New Yorker and yes, I have served. What about you?? Would you be willing to put your family's safety in jeopardy just to prove a point. Bring the body might work when you are dealing with regular criminals but my friend, when Habeas Corpus might expose how we gather stuff on terrorists, I rather not. Safery before psychological comfort.

    November 14, 2009 at 11:32 p.m.

  • Itisi
    I have heard all the talking points but are the needles more lethal at Gitmo?

    I don’t think Mr. Holder would ruin his reputation, so he has an ironclad case but there is still a jury to convince….Of the 800 detainees the Bush administration only convicted 3,it is high time to get this show on the road.

    Like I said, I have a lot of confidence in our justice system (although not perfect) that they will be ready to go….We disagree..Once again.

    November 14, 2009 at 10:44 p.m.

  • Well Rollingstone,I for one (although not possible) would love to serve on that jury…Mayor Bloomberg and the NY police chief welcomed the trial and said security will be first class. What are we afraid of? It will be costly but so will keeping them indefinitely.

    Yes they will have a platform for their nonsense but are we that weak that we can’t give them their last hurrah before we execute them?

    As for Bush/Cheney, they dug that hole…Perhaps now we can close that chapter and go back to rule of law and the Constitution.

    November 14, 2009 at 10:31 p.m.

  • Well Alton, just because you are a true right-wing ideologue does not make you superior but you are still uninformed..First of all, Super Max is operated by the federal government and is part of the Florence Federal Correctional Complex (FCC). ADX houses the prisoners who are deemed the most dangerous and in need of the tightest control. It is the highest level security federal prison in the United States, and generally considered to be the most secure prison in the world.

    You might check and see who is housed there.

    I have a lot more confidence in the United States Attorney General than I do in a paranoid blogger that does not have confidence in our justice system, rule of law or the Constitution...I am positive they have done their homework and are ready to show it.

    Like Legion, I hope everything goes well and the terrorist get their due punishment but I realize there might be some bumps in the road but overall that courthouse has a great conviction rate.

    November 14, 2009 at 10:19 p.m.

  • This has to be the stupidest thing yet. Who would want to serve on that jury? They might as well sell tickets to every suicide and truck bomber in the world for this show. The cost of the security for this trial will be enormous.

    And why give them a chance for more grim and bloody publicity - more shock and awe? Need I remind you these people are crazy they don't care if they die. This is stupid very stupid - just to poke Bush and Cheney in the eye, go figure.

    November 14, 2009 at 6:37 p.m.

  • Yep, Mike you are a true liberal, showing the world how soft we are on none-military terrorist with the belief that it will earn respect for the United States around the world.

    The big deal in treating these individuals as common criminals gives them the rights of American citizens for discovery, right to request bail, right of suppress evidence, right to have hearsay evidence suppressed, right of appeal if convicted, right to sue for monetary compensation if found innocence, right to demand witnesses from outside the United States, and etc.

    By the way the Super Max prison in Florence, Colorado is a prison not a jail. It will be another court battle to have them imprisoned waiting trial and before conviction.

    November 14, 2009 at 6:32 p.m.

  • Mike,
    FYI this is a WAR, not some dog and pony show for Holder to play Obama politics. These Islamic nuts started this war; they’re not entitled to the same rights under the constitution. They should be tried under military law, they’re war criminals. These ole boys didn’t rob the local 7-11… This country was attack just like Pearl Harbor.

    Holder stated “ I think we have enough evidence to prosecute these people…” He thinks there is enough evidence, that is a hell of a statement coming from the U.S. Attorney General… Just another display of Obama’s puppets on a string…

    November 14, 2009 at 5:10 p.m.

  • Didn't I post the nationalities of the 9/11 victims on another blog, some months ago? No, I'm not going to look them up again.

    Anywho, the way I understand by various news outlets, the terrorists in this group to be tried, although terrorists, are not considered exactly main players.

    Mr. Holder left future trials, whether in a civilian court or a military tribunal, undecided, depending on which terrorist was on trial. He also stated that the DOJ had enough evidence even without any obtained by "enhanced interrogation" to convict this group of terrorist, I hope he is right.

    One other point, I believe I am correct, that the courtroom in NYC is the same one were the 93 Trade Center bombing suspects were tried and convicted.

    November 14, 2009 at 4:16 p.m.

  • If you would take the time to read the names of those that died not only in New York, but at the Pentagon and that isolated country side in Pennsylvania, you will find several foreign names. The cowardly acts by those individuals influenced many foreign nations to join us in our fight against extremists, making this an international incident..IMO

    The ACLU will is always be a right wing boogieman but in fact only they are just a group of lawyers… We have some great federal prosecutors that have been preparing for several months...Bring it on….

    We cannot be afraid of technicalities and loopholes and expect just to accept a mockery of justice to suffice…. I don't believe you will find a jury in New York to acquit these terrorist’s.

    I believe when national security is at risk, the military tribunals should be used because if left alone without pressure, the military court of law is fair and just with very competent lawyers.

    November 14, 2009 at 3:11 p.m.

  • First off this is not an International issue, this involves terrorist that committed crimes against the US on US soil...then, they became combants on the field of battle and were caught...

    The military court of justice does not have all the loop holes / appeals process as does the civilian courts in the US...

    I can see the ACLU taking sides on this one before the decision was ever made...just anything to bring the US further down is priority...

    November 14, 2009 at 2:53 p.m.