Oh, geez, when have the victims of crimes had anything to say about how the crimes are prosecuted? After the crime, a govt juggernaut takes effect. And whether they catch the criminal and how s/he is handled is completely up to the PTB. The victims and survivors might get a weak statement at some point far advanced in the process, i.e., the victims & families are irrelevant in real time. Let’s discuss this matter in how it actually happens, not some fantasy world.

Yeah but isn’t it also absurd for someone like Contessa Brewer to badger her for actually believing the DoJ could prosecute criminals just fine?

For some reason, I wound up at MSNBC just as this piece started and was amazed at how Brewer kept trying to get all the Republican talking points in.

And FWIW, a number of states (and I believe the Feds) have been allowing the families of victims to have a say. Is it given any more credence than any others? Probably not.

But they allowed the families in Oklahoma City to have special viewing theaters for those who couldn’t get to the trials. On the big issue trials, it’s as much a PR move as any but it is an effective PR move.

The poignant, otherwise tough-talking and fearless Repu’ublicists keep calling them “Enemy Combatants,” whereas the full legal appelation is “Unlawful Enemy Combatants.” It’s not a trivial semantic distinction. An adversarial soldier engaged in hostilities is — in the lexical/historical sense — of course, an “enemy combatant.”

In other words, on the other hand, these collars are CRIMINALS.

(once convicted)

We have an effective system for dealing with criminals. And, it’s not the military system.

isn’t it also absurd for someone like Contessa Brewer to badger her for actually believing the DoJ could prosecute criminals just fine?

Given the DoJ problems, any kind of anti-DoJ badgering seems reasonable.

Getting in R talking points is simply a function of system failure and Rs in control of the media.

I take your examples of victim participation seriously, and find it inadequate, if that’s all there is.

Why are enemies all of a sudden unlawful? Just because we say they are? Do they not have a POV?

But I don’t think that’s all there is.

MSNBC and Contessa Brewer asked this young woman to appear. Someone seemed to thinks she’d be a good representative of the families AND I have an idea whomever booked her anticipated that she would agree with Contessa and turn it in to a Bash Obama moment.

Are there most likely still a lot of moles from BushWorld embedded in the DoJ? Of course there are. But what this young woman is saying is that all we are dealing with is a common criminal not some Oogity Boogity Bad Guy that we need to be so very afraid of. Try him in civilian courts and be done with it.

Have you read Marcy’s post at Emptywheel on the letter that Holder sent to Mitch McConnell?

It does explain things quite nicely.

“Why are enemies all of a sudden unlawful?”
____

Because WE say so.

The political discourse has simply dropped the “unlawful” prefix, begging a serious question. Of course, Bu’ush just wanted this additional category simply to put these people beyond the reach of both Geneva and U.S. criminal law. But, rational legal nuance was both beyond his comprehension and his patience.

Fair enough. But my criticism was deeper. Doesn’t matter who’s on TV. Doesn’t matter what happens in the courtroom. Govt is in charge, and has not been trustworthy. A lot of the “guilties” have been pleas because victims (i.e. alleged criminals) realize they haven’t a snowballs chance. Best example is John Walker Lindh, who didn’t do a single wrong thing against the U.S., but realized he couldn’t fight the force of the govt, and so pleaded to 20 years.

Not. It rationalizes govt. Not my POV.

I wouldn’t even call al-Qaeda criminals. They’re waging war, a crusade in fact. Their methods differ, but they’re fighting a war. Nevertheless, legally, they’re criminals that need to be prosecuted, convicted on the weight of evidence, and justly sentenced.

Cynthia, i must respectfully ask you this question. How do you know whether “AlQueida” even exists at all? I’ve only heard about it from the American MSM… Commenters #8 and #9 are definately on the right track, #9 is sadly a victim of propaganda and it shows.

Ask the Jersey Girls about this. Or Manny Badillo or Donna Marsh O’conner. How about “last man out” William Rodreiguez? They will all explain in excruciating detail the facts that show that the official story about 9/11 can’t possibly be true. These folks lost their loved ones and friends and suffer every day. The whole media circus around the KSM trial is just to reinforce the 9/11 myth, and the resistance to a public venue is because of all the folks who have woken up to the deception that are sure to be there working to educate their fellow Americans about the truth so that we may all demand a proper investigation and justice for the victims.

eCAHN, I could not disagree with you more.

After Jennifer Levin was Killed in Central Park and the defense for the “preppy Murderer” made the case all about discrediting the victim. Her mother came to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (CitiBar) and asked if there was not something that could be done to protect the victims of crime.

They created and Ad Hoc Committee on the Rights of Crime Victims ably headed by a wonderful guy named Paul Griffith Garland. I had the honor of doing some work for that committee.

We produced training materials for judges AND prosecutors about taking the rights and welfare and preferences of crime victims into account in both charging decisions and strategic decisions.
We passed Legislation that mandates that.And that mandates that Parole Boards take into account the opnions of crime victims.
We did training for lawyers wishing to represent crime victims. I was one of the trainers.
And we produced videos and pamphlets.

Sadly, other than allowing crime victims impact statements to be read at sentencing, many of the state court judges don’t seem to take that law very seriously.

The good news is that prosecutors to an extent I had not expected at the time, DO seem to take the desires and welfare of crime victims and their survivors much more seriously than I anticipated.

We succeeded beyond my expectations in changing the prosecution culture.

As, BTW, is evidenced by the justifications given by AG Holder for his decision.

It’s not PR.

It’s in the rules by which prosecutors of many jurisdictions now operate, including the feds.

Taking the rights, concerns and welfare of crime victims into account is a GOOD thing. Not the only thing, there are other considerations that go into the process, and properly so.

Why do I think Al Q exists?

Because there have been upteen trials in SDNY and truckloads of physical and documentary evidence and more witnesses than you can shake a stick at.

All in open court. With transcripts available for anybody who care to schlep to the closed file facility (it used to be in Bayonne NJ, not sure if it still is–I have’ been there in well over a decade)and sit in a cubby to read them.

In order for all of that to be fake, you would need a conspiracy of THOUSANDS of people from many walks of life, over more than 20 years.

Remember, it’s not just Al Q, there was also el Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Abdel Rahman’s al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya.

Although 3 separate groups, they and elements within them combine and recombine into what are essentially “joint ventures” to pull off attacks.

Ad to that the growing movement in Yemen, which MIGHT mean that Al Q has set up it’s new HQ there, or might be a homegrown effort–I dunno.

No one could maintain operational information security (keep the secret) of such a large conspiracy for so long a time, if this was all fake.

Too many people would have to know, and somebody was bound to spill the secret.

Sorry, to burst your conspiracy bubble.

I fully agree with you about commenter #9.

As far as the reason the chickenhawks-a good word since Vietnam war(one helo pilot wrote a book about his experiences called “chickenhawk”, a good war bio)-want to dignify alQaeda by not calling them criminals is that they fear them

Thanks Cynthia, I appreciate the reply to the first part of my comment.