Webb needs to change parties.

This all fear all the time shit from these clowns has gotten really old.

kinda disappointing about Webb. I thought he had bigger cojones than that.

blanche, well, I could channel Rahm and have a few choice words for her, but I gotta watch my blood pressure and she’s not worth it.

Yeah, what’s the matter with Webb on this issue?

Listen to the people only matters when the people are Blackwater, AIG, BC/BS, etc., etc.

Webb’s a neoliberal. We should have expected this. I also think he’s more warmonger than not.

It all depends on who Blanche defines as “her constituents in Arkansas”.

Webb at least has the figleaf that Michael Bloomberg has. But Blanche? Terror trials in Little Rock? Not likely unless there are some arrests of domestic terrorists who are roaming free in the heartland.

Finally we get the bipartisanship we’ve all be clamoring for.

Isn’t that where “Pastor” Phelps and his homophobic family and supporters are home based?

Heh heh.

So that would make Webb a triple politician if I my Le Carré is correct.

Much like the other scares of the day we need to be saved because the Joker is loose once more on Gotham City. No jails can hold them. No legal system is prepared for their devious manipulation. We need the Dark Knight, whom I believe actually is Webb in his civilian guise.

Dear Blanche, You seem to be from a bizarre white-wing world, where the eight long years of torture, treason and tyranny provided by the gangster Cheney and the gangster Bush provided us, along with the Diebolding of our democracy in two Presidential Elections was fine and dandy with you.

No “rule of law” for you, huh? You seem to prefer dictatorship, tyranny and torture instead. Give it up, Blanche, white-wing fascism dictatorship just lost the election bigtime in November, 2008.

I’ve figured out that he’s a warmonger & neolibrul, but why is he scared to hold trials in the U.S. Does he want military commissions instead?

Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is on board too?

This all fear all the time shit from these clowns has gotten really old.

Roger that.

All that hair dye is seeping into his brain?
Just a guess.

Yep. IMO the calls for military commissions are to protect Shrub/Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld et al.

How do commissions protect the last admin that trials don’t? Are they held in secret?

Glenn Greenwald today on a related topic:

On the claimed “war exception” to the Constitution

pointing out how progressive sites were up in arms about the Constitutionality of a Republican President eavesdropping on Americans, but are rather quiet when a Democratic President claims the power to extra-judicially kill Americans, anywhere, anytime.

But Obama’s presidential assassination policy completely short-circuits that process. It literally makes Barack Obama the judge, jury and executioner even of American citizens. Beyond its specific application, it is yet another step — a rather major one — towards abandoning our basic system of checks and balances in the name of Terrorism and War.

oh, but this Arkansan politician on Fox is a much bigger issue, and fascinating as well.

Pretty much and, for all practical purposes, make up the rules as they go along. MCs almost guarantee a conviction. Kangaroo courts are what they are.

I think the biggest question is, why would you want to extend the protections of our constitution to the persons least deserving of them??

Why don’t we try that O’Keefe joker by military trial. After all, tampering with communications equipment in a US Senate office is a terrorist act, right?

Know how that is, I have to watch mine, too. But I do wonder what is it she’s smiling so broadly about.

Yeah, let’s just figure out who is deserving & who isn’t. Then we don’t need to have trials at all.

Dunno. Some silliness about “rule of law” and “all men are created equal” and other such claptrap.

These are not soldiers – they are criminals.

That’s snark, right?

These clowns can’t have it both ways. I like the way you think.

Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, indicated he didn’t support the request for $200 million for civilian trials, saying he favored trying terrorism suspects safely, quickly and inexpensively.

“If there’s somewhere we can try them without spending that money, why spend the money? We’ve got a lot of other fiscal problems,” Bayh said.

For starters we can show the world that our values are different than those of, say, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or Soviet Russia. East and West have different visions of what human rights are. When we say that some people are not deserving of being treated under the rules we live by whose value system takes the hit?

They’re in Topeka, Kansas

o/t breaking: b of a charged with duping shareholders.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d0110e8-11af-11df-bceb-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

I can’t help believing that O’Keefe and his ilk are the least deserving among us.

Ah, Bloody Kansas. Thanks.

Who could ever have imagined…. :)

When we say that some people are not deserving of being treated under the rules we live by whose value system takes the hit?

Uh, the Rhodesians? /s

And why does Webb care about protecting W admin people?

Deserving of a foot up his ass for bein’ such an ignorant, arrogant punk.

[modnote: please, not so violent, thank you.]

I’ve bitched about Webb from day one.

I think it’s more the “system” he’s protecting. To do that he has to protect the actors.

The reason that civilian trials aren’t appropriate for terrorists is that they aren’t civilians. They are “unlawful combatants” under the Geneva Conventions. The rules for them, like the rules for lawful combatants (or “Soldiers,” as we are known) are that you don’t have to try them at all, you simply detain them for the duration of hostilities, but if you do try them, it is for war crimes, such as deliberately targeting non-combatants.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other Gitmo detainees were caught outside of the US in ongoing combat operations. Abdulmutallab is an unlawful combatant who deliberately targeted civilians in support of a war declared on the United States by al Qaeda. They have no more right to US Constitutional protections than the German, Japanese or Italian military personnel captured during WWII, even if they were operating in the US.

The good news is that Ms. Lincoln, D-Walmart, will soon lose her cushy public employment job in the US Senate. The bad news is that she’s still there, like Dodd, working to enrich her retirement years as a lobbyist. The worse news, for Arkansans, is that she’s so bad, they are likely to pick a Republican to replace her.

Ms. Lincoln is so afeared that the rights of the accused will tear down the Republic that she preemptively tears down the Republic. Which makes her different from violent terrorists how, because she works with a pen instead of fiery underwear? I’m sure there are more differences, and that the violence Ms. Lincoln espouses is indirect, often financial and secretively punitive – like those tortured – not publicly or physically explosive.

Ms. Lincoln is Joe Lieberman in a skirt. Get thee to the GOP.

From Webb

To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). In the early 1970s, this small organization — never more than 7,000 veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million — became the darling of the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the positive feelings most felt after serving.

Kerry and his VVAW compatriots portrayed their fellow veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their service.

I do seem to recall that.

And FWIW, a lot of folks were of the “Yeah, he probably is bad but he’s better than Macaca Allen” school of thought

I have a hint for good old Blanche…missy you need to worry what democrats in Arkansas think of you cuz you will not win re-election without them and nuther hint precious..the GOP in Arkansas doesn’t care for you much either. So…carry on carry on..because you can rest assured girlfriend your ass is headin home to the cows come Jan 2011.

Actually, I think he’s more of an arrogant twerp than a punk. I’ve got a little too much respect for the punk type to put O’Keefe in that category.

As for the foot business, yes, a size 13 would be good. Clad in a steel toe boot. I wonder what size his father’s foot is?

Where did the term “unlawful combatants” originate? Can you show where the term is used in the Conventions?

does cheney blog?

I got this, pups.

Rights are not deserved. that’s why they are called rights. If we as a society believe people (not just citizens) but people have the RIGHT to habeas corpus – or know the charges – then it naturally extends to all people. Please note that this applies to serial killers, child molesters, all parties guilty or innocent. the guilty or innocent part comes after the trial. That’s why we have trials, y’know? AFTER. if guilty AFTER the verdict comes in AFTER the trial, then you throw ‘em in jail.

That’s what rule of law means. We use laws for fairness, not opinion for power. But hey, that’s just me, another American citizen who believes all people have rights, even a serial killer.

He has no more right to US Constitutional protections than the German, Japanese or Italian military personnel captured during WWII, even if they were operating in the US.

Of course any Germans, Italians, or Japanese operating within the US during WWII were classified as spies. Since we were in the middle of a war that was actually declared officially by the Congress of the US. Even then, spies were generally charged as having committed a crime, during a time of war.
Why are you so afraid of them?

Back to work.

Namaste

Git yer bipartisanship riiiight here folks!! The Democrats joining the Republics AGAINST Obama. Not *exactly* what O had in mind. But, hey, it’s not all bad: it will make Rahm f*&^%ing NUTSO!

“My country, right or worng” kind of thing? I once told my son that if you believed & acted on that, it was a surefire way of getting a “wrong” country.

Actually I’m still in that camp. Lesser of weevils still going to Webb.

I noted earlier that there is majority rule in the senate (& probably the house too). It consists of Rs and R wannabes.

Webb was Sec Navy under Rayguns

safely, quickly and inexpensively

Yeah, like that whole Gitmo thing with the quasi-judicial facilities is so cheap and all. And, lordy, it’s quick as spit. Riiight.

Whoa. I guess civilization isn’t quite dead yet.

you’re on a roll today! I’m stealing this one and your #51.

Now that is a great quote.

Justice isn’t blind, it’s just too darn expensive. Once you know ahead of time that the accused is going to be found guilty the best path is to save a couple of dollars. Then we have more to give the banks that deserve it.

The phrase “Unlawful Combatants” doesn’t appear in the Conventions, but Article 4 of the third Convention defines who is protected under Prisoner of War (POW) status. Of those, irregular forces are protected only if they comply with the conditions stated, which are:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Did any of the 9/11 hijackers, or Abdulmutallab carry their arms openly? Did they conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war (i.e., avoiding non-combatant targets)? Did the men who sent them on their missions, such as KSM, do so in the knowledge that they were acting contrary to the laws of war? If you answer these questions honestly, then you come to the conclusion that they are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. However, since they are engaged in a war against the US, they are not civilian criminals, they are combatants, just not lawful ones.

Be my guest. *g*

How about U.S. special forces & CIA operatives?

well, I could have predicted what the banks would do…but what gets prosecuted? I have no idea.

Yikes. Write that in the ’60s did he? When he was 15?

This is a sad attempt to stop the terror trials fine if we don’t try them give them to the Hague Bush and Blanche would blanche at that precedent.

Dick!!! Dick? Is that you?

Military Commissions Act of 2006, that unconstitutional POS that also accords the President final cut on the extent and applicability of treaties, in direct contravention of the Judicial Clause.

You left some words out:

he favored trying terrorism suspects safely, quickly and inexpensively

And your comparison to Gitmo, Gitmo is a detention facility, not a trial.

However, since they are engaged in a war against the US, they are not civilian criminals, they are combatants, just not lawful ones.

Since it is apparently their greatest wish to be seen as soldiers of doG against the Great Satan aka the United States, why do you wish to pander to their wishes?

Treat them as the common criminals that they are. We’ve charged, tried, and convicted numerous terrorists over the years, both foreign and domestic.

Are you afraid of the competence of the DoJ? Ya know, I might be as well if it were still fully populated with all the BushCo moles with their degrees from Regent and Liberty. But I think there might actually be a few competent attorneys once again being brought into the DoJ.

For a “major” you seem awfully afraid.

“Unlawful Enemy Combatants” are, by any rational definition, criminals. Period.

Many people forget also that during WW2 pows were housed on American soil. Not on the fringes but in the heartland. Americans were less afraid of actual enemies than the imagined or fabricated that terrify most today. Todays fearmongering is $$$$ related. As a veteran I am very disappointed in Jim Webb.

I thoroughly enjoyed the response from Obama given at yesterday’s Senate Q & A to Senator Blanche Lincoln’s question. Just an aside note.

On this matter, does the good Senator from Arkansas believe that the United States of America is not strong enough a nation to actually put persons detained for high crimes on trial? Should they be detained indefinitely without trial? Is it that torture thingy that is causing issues? High crimes indeed.

What party does Senator Blanche Lincoln belong to again? Which constituents’ interests does she serve? What is her job and who is her boss? Do you know? Does she know?

I’ll tell you my thoughts… I’m anxious to see how the 2010 Democratic primaries in Arkansas turn out. Her seat is definitely in jeopardy, and she won’t beat Republican candidates by trying to be more Republican than they, which I must say is the stupidest strategy employed by so-called “centrist” “Democrats”. The jig is up and that game is over. Massachusetts was a message to those types of “Democrats”.

You want to be elected as a Democrat? Act like one, and serve the peoples’ interests. Else you will be tossed out like last week’s newspaper. That goes for you too, Senator Evan Bayh. You cannot win over your own base by pissing on them, so you can either act like a Democrat and serve the peoples’ interests or sit back and watch the Republicans install exactly what you have represented thus far anyways. At least the Republicans are easily identifiable if they wish to be associated with their craziness.

It’s amazing to me that in today’s so-called Democratic experience that it seems that there is only one side who compromises (especially on the important issues), and they compromise way too often.

“Americans were less afraid of actual enemies than the imagined or fabricated that terrify most today.”
____

Well, though, there is an upside, Given that these Terrists are all 50 ft tall, our troops are able to inflitrate them undetected.

Yeah, something about that “Unlawful” word.

SF and other unconventional forces have to abide by the same rules. If they are caught out of uniform, they run the risk of trial for espionage or sabotage. They know and accept that risk, and any US military personnel are bound by UCMJ. Terrorists who deliberately seek to kill non-combatants are not comparable to US military personnel.

it seems that there is only one side who compromises (especially on the important issues), and they compromise way too often.

Compromising on important issues? That makes the other side sound virtuous and principled.

Notice that the current political discourse has dropped the “unlawful” prefix. An adversarial soldier is, by definition, an “enemy combatant.” If you are outside the laws of wars codification, you are a “criminal.”

Yes, I have a German (now US citizen) gf, whose Dad was a POW in Pennsylvania (amongst the German-speakers of PA, many of whom were my family members). Her dad served under the Nazi regime (although was just a soldier), and yet, he mingled somewhat with US citizens, and then was sent home after the war.

Agree, the fear-mongering is mostly all about filthy lucre for craven Senators willing to whore themselves out for it. Also about keeping the populace cowed into being constantly fearful and hence much more easily manipulated.

IMO, we no longer have a two-party system. It is solely a one-party system being run under the Rovian playbook. What’s the point of voting? It ends up being the same thing, different day.

Who cares if Lincoln is primaried & a teabagger replaces her??? What’s the effen difference? There is none.

Some pilots, people running drones and employees of Xe might not actually meet your criteria as well as those in the CIA and some special forces operations. Certainly if we fall back on the Geneva Conventions as the standard then any form of currently condoned torture, physical or psychological, is absolutely out of bounds as well.

As so many other people pointed out, the catch-all is to try anyone in a who is not military as a criminal. Whether we think the accused invented a new crime or just did an old one the judicial system is more than capable. If it’s not easy to deal with then laws can be introduced to cope with any new issues. We need to be a nation of laws.

There is an entire military trial complex and staff at Gitmo. They have been going around in circles for years. Everytime they start a trial, the judge stops it for *some* reason. There have been a number of whistleblowers. There hase been exactly 1 conviction: the Australian who *confessed* in a deal to be returned to Australia.

Completely OT:
Dollar General to Add 5, 000 Jobs, Open 600 Stores

Who says things aren’t looking up?

trial for espionage or sabotage

So they get trials? But unlawful combatants don’t? You are getting your panties in a twist with all these special categories you love.

I get your point but respectfully beg to differ. The Dems are not “compromising.” They are following what their leader, Rahmbama, wants them to do.

On another level, they are just sell-outs. It is capitulation full-scale to values not held by their constituents.

Compromise implies that both sides are negotiating in full faith, and that both sides are making changes and/or giving up something. That is not happening here at all.

A more general objection to your categories is the asymmetry issue. The U.S. and developed countries have large uniformed militaries. The only way to fight against such formidable forces is via insurgencies. So the large developed countries make self-serving rules that declare insurgents are terrorits and are illegitimate.

I am vaguely recalling that one of the judicial challenges to the enemy combatant status led to the tinkering around the edges of the term. The courts didn’t like the idea so BushCo changed the label just a bit. Orwellian.

How about the term “unprivileged belligerents”?

It is my understanding that President Obama prefers that designation.

One imagines that Professor Sunstein may have suggested that such a description would sound better in the authorized version of THE “official” US History.

(Presumably this new term would, hopefully, be broad enough to audaciously encompass anyone (and everyone) who is more than a little unhappy with the state of affairs (as they apply to almighty America) and is not among the money-power privileged “class”.)

Maybe this is all a class act?

DW

Are you basing your comment on some Yoo-like legal document or the stuff you hear from Fox?

If you ever find yourself accused of something, can I just pontificate on your fate and decide your future that way? It’s kind of hard to defend humanitarian principles with inhumane actions.

An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.

International Committee of the Red Cross
Legal Analysis of the Geneva Conventions and unlawful combatants.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/%24File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf

How about the term “unprivileged belligerents”?

In the case of the underpants bomber, I think the technical term would be, “overprivileged, snot-nosed, belligerent wannabee.”

That’s just a guess, however.

Who cares if Lincoln is primaried & a teabagger replaces her??? What’s the effen difference? There is none.

That’s where I’m at. Not even a concern anymore.

How do we classify whiny little twits who bug the offices of US Senators?

Then all those who are apprehended as we fight “the War on Drugs” and “the War on Cancer”, etc should automatically be declared “enemy combatants” and sent to Gitmo to await (or not) Military Commission proceedings? This “War on Terror” is a misnomer, used to enduce the MSM to shill for the MIC . . . give it a break.

Natch. Odds are better than even that she’s already got her Wal-Mart gig lined up…and it ain’t a “greeter” position, either…

We have a winnah!

Well, since a clear majority of Arkansans favor the public option, I guess this “listen to the people” thing is pretty selective.

In her case, it means “listen to the people who finance my campaigns“.

As it stands now, unless/until the MCA is struck down, it remains the linchpin for keeping people in the jurisprudential netherworld of the “unlawful enemy combatant.”

Some point out that the current national and international laws, having not foreseen the extant circumstance of violent stateless “terrorist” actors, are inadequate to the task. I disagree. These people are criminals. Maybe someday we’ll establish a 3rd standard to deal more effectively with the evolved anomaly, but criminal law seems to suffice, in light of the prosecutorial track record thus far.

“Unlawful enemy combatant” supporters whining about our using the criminal law system, really just want show trials lacking any substantive due process — because they can’t get away with simply advocating what they really want, which is to simply torture and then execute/murder everyone we collar. They want blind vengeance.

oderint dum metuant

All that Chinese milk, toothpaste and the Chef-Boy-R-yee that fell off the back of the truck has to be sold somewhere.

IMO, we no longer have a two-party system. It is solely a one-party system being run under the Rovian playbook. What’s the point of voting? It ends up being the same thing, different day.

Who cares if Lincoln is primaried & a teabagger replaces her??? What’s the effen difference? There is none.

Exactly…but you are way ahead of most people in understanding this, imho. I think the point of these kinds of posts is a. to enlighten people to the lack of difference between a D and an R and b. maybe, just maybe the Ds and Rs will suffer a consequence at the polls if they do lie too much. It’s really to bring along low info folks.

Calling terrorists unlawful combatants doesn’t afford them respectability. The Geneva Conventions define Soldiers, and they don’t make the cut. Trying them in military venues is appropriate.

The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is an example of why you don’t want to try terrorists in civilian trials. First, Moussaoui refused legal representation for years and entered conflicting pleas, which delayed the trial. He used that time, and the trial itself, to attack the US. He had, for example, the right to represent himself, which meant that he had the right to view all documents pertaining to him, regardless of security classification. That meant that he had access to information regarding ongoing operations involving agents who had provided information that led to his capture. KSM and co. will use that to identify people that we have turned, as well as to identify how we operate. That information will get back to their allies, with deadly results.

As for the competence of the Justice Dept., I decline to violate Article 88 of the UCMJ, but you may draw your own inference.

And, yes, I am afraid. I’ve seen what these guys do, and what they want to do, and if you aren’t afraid, then you don’t know what we’re up against.

OOOOOH, goody! *clap,clap* I can haz new bucket?

CNN covering Scott Brown’s rock star arrival on Capitol Hill for his swearing in. Dana Bash interviewing him on the snowy wet street. Journalism coup! It must be the Cosmo pictures.

yes, yes, god yes!

I find that neo-cons are quite comfortable with their sense of unfairness.

Webb wants military trials because he is a military guy from a military heavy state. The military can’t wait to take over these trials. Publicity, promotions, more money from Congress. It’s a win, win for them.

As for Lincoln, she is simply a female Lieberman that is going to loose her seat. At least with a Republican in her seat, the opposition can call them out as being a Republican. Howard Dean was right about his 50 state strategy and right about running REAL Democrats even it takes several cycles to make headway. Winning a seat if you get a bluedog is worse than getting a Republican. All you do is allow the enemy into your tent with a bluedog.

What are you, as a soldier, defending, if you are not defending the right to due process?

Sorry but I will have to disagree with you completely.

We have a system of justice that is supposed to be applied to all. We don’t do “military tribunals” Or at least we used to not do them when we had balls.

But I guess, no matter what order you’re given, you’ll “salute smartly and charge up the hill” as Ollie North stated was the duty of a good marine.

So I assume when the CinC says this is how we’re going to proceed, you will follow the example of Lt Col North?

The military should only be allowed to try their own people, and only then with civilian supervision.

I believe you have the “spirit” of the thing as actually ’tis, ShotoJamf.

;~DW

OOOOOH, goody! *clap,clap* I can haz new bucket?

Actually, there was quite a bit of fear of enemy POWs, which explains the barbed wire, towers and other means of keeping them penned up, not to mention that the laws of war permit summary execution during escape attempts.

As for the “imagined or fabricated” enemies that you cite, I’d be happy to buy you a drink in the restaurant of my choice and talk it over with you. How does Windows on the World sound?

You’re saying that Moussaoui was given classified information about our “war on terror” because he was entitled to it? That sounds ludicrous.

It indeed IS ludicrous.

The Geneva Conventions define Soldiers, and they don’t make the cut. Trying them in military venues is appropriate.

That’s quite the Triple Lindy of Logic there.

First, the GC does define other actors besides uniformed soldiers, fgs. Second, you say they are not soldiers, but should therefore be tried where soldiers are tried. Again, you should read up on the actual law and conventions.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other Gitmo detainees were caught outside of the US in ongoing combat operations. Abdulmutallab is an unlawful combatant who deliberately targeted civilians in support of a war declared on the United States by al Qaeda. They have no more right to US Constitutional protections than the German, Japanese or Italian military personnel captured during WWII, even if they were operating in the US.

Actually almost of them were detained as a result of a combat operation. Or maybe you can tell me what military unit was involved in the capture of KSM. Your use of unlawful combatants is pretty loose. You know you sound like a bit of an unlawful combatant to me. So should I dump your Constitutional and Geneva protections as well?

Saddam’s palace would be more compatable to the topic. The U.S. still controls it, right?

I defend my country, all of it. And military tribunals constitute due process.

I assume you’re aware that Italian and German POWs were allowed to work in the US during the war and help to alleviate labor shortages?

Those Civilian Conservation Corps camps came in quite handy as well.

Prisoner of War camps.

Blanche Lincoln is clueless and too compromised by her own confusion and lack of intelligence to serve in state or federal government in any capacity.

She’s about as irrelevant as irrelevant gets.

So why do you want us to be afraid of providing that due process? Why are you so afraid? I know when I was in the USAF and we knew the Russian missiles were pointed directly at us, we weren’t as afraid as you seem to be of people with no where near the level of being able to damage the country.

Had a prisoner of war camp in my town. They were allowed to come in and work. Did a lot of yard work for the homeowners who liked them.

Did any of the 9/11 hijackers, or Abdulmutallab carry their arms openly? Did they conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war (i.e., avoiding non-combatant targets)?

Where is the declaration of war, junior? The Constitution says nothing about AUMFs.

It’s our country.

You remind me of George Bush. He must have created many times more enemies for us than he could have dreamed of defeating.

It was ludicrous. But, that didn’t keep Moussaoui from demanding it. Eventually, the presiding judge ruled that he couldn’t have the documents that he requested, but that he could interview other al Qaeda members that were in custody. However, because Moussaoui had not been able to interview those witnesses, the judge ruled that he could not face the death penalty. Although that was reversed by the Fourth Circuit, the fact is that the judge gave Moussaoui the right to cross-examine prisoners who were a threat to national security. And yes, there is such a thing as legitimate threats to national security.

The people who will be on trial did not come into this country and do harm. They were fighting (perhaps) in their own country which I assume that we would all do if our country were invaded. Are we trying to make a rule that people can’t fight back when they are invaded?

There’s a difference in being afraid and being aware of potential risks. Being afraid clouds judgment. Controlling one’s fear in combat is one thing, being afraid of the unknown is another.

Hugh, you mustn’t confuse majmike with facts.

He is struggling fearfully already.

But he is a “true believer”.

In something.

I’m just not certain what particular part of “his” country isn’t being “defended”, since he mentioned “all of it”.

We spend more on “defense” (or killing people) than the rest of the world combined.

But, apparently, it still ain’t enough …

Ding! Another winnah! That’s exactly what the U.S. self-serving rules aim to do. It’s not enough to have this overwhelming military, all the rules have to be stacked in the U.S. favor.

I’ve already stated that, under the Geneva Conventions and United States law, military courts constitute due process. My concern is that terrorists tried in civilian courts will use their absolute right to represent themselves (something not found in military courts) to abuse the discovery process in order to identify threats to their organization. I am also concerned that they will use the very public venue of a civilian court to attack the US. Finally, I am concerned that, due to the radical differences between military and law-enforcement operations, so much evidence will be thrown out and so many legal hurdles imposed that the possibility of acquittal on technical grounds becomes far more likely. In short, I am afraid that justice will not be done, that the people who fight to protect you from enemies that you don’t believe in or understand, despite the obvious, will be hamstrung in doing that job, and I am afraid that people will die as a result.

There ya go, Twain …

“Truthin’” us … again.

;~DW

Sometimes you do what’s right just because it’s right. If we are so weak that we can’t have trials out in the open, we are indeed in trouble.

Actually, there was quite a bit of fear of enemy POWs, which explains the barbed wire, towers and other means of keeping them penned up, not to mention that the laws of war permit summary execution during escape attempts

Relatives in upstate New York used to tell stories about the POWs who were brought out to work on their farm. The guards would fall asleep and the POWs would hide their guns. Really scary stuff.

OMG!!!!!!!! You’ve convinced me!!!!!!!

Military tribunals would solve all these problems.

I’d love to hear some facts, although at least buckinnm has tried. So far, it’s been ad hominem attacks; The old stereotype about Soldiers being unable to think for ourselves, comparisons to various political boogie men and, of course, the dreaded neo-con label.

This will teach me to try to reason with people who put their own feelings ahead of reality.

Sorry but your eyes must be a deep dark brown…

UCMJ allows the accused to be present for all depositions I believe so how does this differ from “abusing the discovery process?”

(Note: I assume you had a whole, one hour course on UCMJ as part of your ROTC program, so that’s why you know so much better about the legal system than the attorneys who are there everyday?)

But you haven’t brought any facts. You’ve provided your opinion only. Your facts are as suspect as they were when the Appeals Courts tossed them back in Bush’s face on Padilla and others.

Hey, DW. HOw are you?

In the case of KSM as you like to cite, there was enough evidence to convict.

In other cases, there is not enough evidence to detain, much less convict, these unlawful combatants. We’re still talking about the Gitmo detainees, right? How is that serving national security, to hold a bunch of taxi drivers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

BTW, our system of justice is based on the principle that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent one. Like it or not. And I know you don’t.

Your knowledge of the Moussaoui trial is deficient. The prosecution mishandled the case so badly that if Moussaoui had not decided, on his own, to plead guilty the government would have lost on most of its charges. It nevertheless pushed for the death penalty in the penalty phase of the trial but the coaching of witnesses by a government attorney, not part of the prosecution team, destroyed a major prong of the government’s case. It was also obvious to all that Moussaoui was a sad, pathetic man with mental problems. So the verdict was a correct one.

you are the one who is citing your fear as justification for your actions and arguments.

I see you have completely ignored the detailed discussion I cited above re Geneva Convention.

The Real Blanche Lincoln
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjRaufGIhow

I am afraid that justice will not be done, that the people who fight to protect you from enemies that you don’t believe in or understand, despite the obvious, will be hamstrung in doing that job, and I am afraid that people will die as a result.

And as I stated, I served in the USAF when the missiles were still pointed directly at our heads. I understand that we have an “enemy.” I just refuse to bow to the fear that you seem to want me to feel so that you can justify destroying two hundred plus years of constitutional government.

You waltz in here knowing virtually nothing of the history of this place or all the issues that we have covered in excruciating detail from CSRTS, to the Commissions, from the DTA to the MCA, from Geneva, the ICC, the Constitution, criminal statutes, the AUMFs, from Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan, Boumediene, to the current habeas cases and Bivens actions and you think that you can determine who is and who is not a combatant, what kind of a combatant they are, what rights they have, where and how they should be tried, and on and on. If you want to make an argument, fine. But expect us to question your assertions and analyses because that is what we do around here to everyone.

That’s pathetic.

That applies to american citizens on American soil, you can’t just arbitrarily extend constitutional protections to anyone in the word, so try to argue with your head instead of your heart.

There was summary executions ,down in Gitmo, of SUSPECTS while under our care, custody and control during questioning. So much for your laws of war.

The last administration did away with the rule of law as well as the laws of war.

Cold war: annihilation of every living thing on the planet with 20 minutes notice. Duck and cover!

WOT: Guy with homemade explosives hidden under his balls.

Yeah, it’s not really the same thing, is it?

Doing well, Twain;

Appearances suggest you are your feisty, wonderful self, as always.

Appreciated your story about WWII POWs; jibes with all I’ve heard.

[Them what know the actual facts are often less sanguine in their assertions of their own ( or their country's) virtue ...]

Always great to “see” you.

DW

We need to get back to the time when Congress had to look Americans in the eye and declare war. I’ll bet we would have fewer wars.

Do catch up, will you?

You’re gonna hurt his feelings SD.

(He is, apparently, of the opinion that only those who have been “there” have any business saying anything.)

Let ‘er rip!

;~DW

That truthin’ business, again … Twain?

Well, I’ve got the same advice for you as I purveyed to SD, “Let ‘er rip!”

;~DW

Here’s a fact. The term -unlawful enemy combatant- is a made up term by the previous administration (Dubya) in order to circumvent international law and other legal precidents.

Does that hurt your feelers on your percieved reality? Do you really want reality? By torturing “unlawful enemy combatants” and/or holding them indefinitely without due process, you pose a greater threat to national security than by placing these suspects on trial for high crimes.

Does that meet your qualifications for reasoning, major? Oh, and don’t try your little “stereotype about soldiers” bit with me. I do think for myself.

By torturing “unlawful enemy combatants” and/or holding them indefinitely without due process, you pose a greater threat to national security than by placing these suspects on trial for high crimes

It not only damages our values but has been a major recruiting tool for jihadis.

Oh, but us enlisted guys don’t know wtf we’re talkin’ about, dontcha know.

OT – the 10 Baptist folks have been charged with child kidnapping in Haiti.

I don’t drink. Do you truly think that that misguided young man who fried his groin could be considered an enemy of anyone other than himself. I was indoctrinated along with the rest of my generation. At one time I considered myself to be a young American warrior, after quite a few years I began to grow up. Remember, Gen. Smedley Butler who said that war is a racket. Yes imagined as well as created. Burn a few more of their holy books, rape and murder any that you feel like, strike without warning. Ambush from above is still bushwhacking. Juan Cole reports that out of over 700 women, children, old men 18 turned out to be ememy. Winning friends and creating democracy wherever we venture.

But of course as we’re devious:

The enlisted man is stupid,

However he is clever and sly,

And bears considerable watching

Army Officer’s Guide

This is my response to the contention that detainees “don’t deserve” protections of civilians. Whatever. Even stupid rednecks with guns who take the law into their own hands have legal protection. IOW, criminals of all stripes have legal protections even though they may have broken laws. Get it?

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/%24File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf

As this article has shown, it can hardly be maintained that unlawful
combatants are not entitled to any protection whatsoever under international
humanitarian law. If they fulfil the nationality criteria of GC IV’s
Article 4, they are clearly protected by that convention. The fact that a person
has unlawfully participated in hostilities is not a criterion for excluding
the application of GC IV, though it may be a reason for derogating from certain
rights in accordance with Article 5 thereof. The specific protections of
GC IV depend on the situation in which such persons find themselves in
enemy hands. They are most extensive if unlawful combatants are in enemy
hands in occupied territory. For those in enemy hands in enemy territory the
protections of international humanitarian law are also quite well developed,
whereas on the battlefield, where no actual control is established — depending
on the interpretation of occupation — they may be the least developed.
The guarantees contained in Article 75 of PI constitute the minimum protections
that apply to all persons, including unlawful combatants, in the
hands of a Party to an international armed conflict, irrespective of whether
they are covered by GC IV or not.

When is that from? Too funny. IIRC is was us enlisted guys who kept a lot of the freshly minted officers from gettin’ their asses shot to pieces.

Methinks our fearful Major has fled the field.

Military courts constitute due process for military personnel, not for civilians. Criminals caught are not warriors because the president wants to mistreat them; they are still criminals. In any case, the Bush administration insisted (wrongly) that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to alleged “illegal” enemy combatants – nor to anyone else it wanted to detain and terrorize with torture. It just did it and played “find the pea” with its shifting and incredible purported rationales for its actions.

The sad, indeed cruel, thing about Obama is that he wants to continue many of those actions, while finding a credible justification for them, when it is the actions themselves he should stop.

We are not in a global “war” and it is as impossible “to war” against a tactic like terrorism as it is against a condition such as poverty or organized crime, such as the trade in illicit drugs.

I found it here, but if you can find a copy of the Army Officer’s Guide, it was still included (if only for historical reference) in the Guides they were publishing in the early ’70s.

I was aware of it as I did the ROTC thing all the way until the very last semester before flunking out. Wound up doing a whole lot better as an USAF enlisted than I ever would have been as an Army officer (I was targeted for Supply or Adjutant General Corps if I had continued on)

No, just had work to do. Comes from having a real job. But I won’t be bothering with you clowns again. As I said, no point in trying to argue with people who can’t think beyond their own talking points. Sad, really, but the fun part is going back into the box knowing that I’m fighting to protect your right to your ignorance.

A thought from ole Henry Louis, Major …

“Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.”

Yeah, I’m at work too. Xin loi, hero.

As a taxpayer, I do appreciate you doing your job (assuming you are in fact a major)

Too bad your training didn’t include handling office resources in a manner reflecting the highest standards.

As far as insulting taxpayers cuz they disagree with you? I’m sure your zealousness will be appreciated.

And:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless supply of hobgoblins, all of which are imaginary.”

It may be said, one terrorist can go a long way.

Considering the way you think, I don’t believe I want you “protecting” me. We are a diverse nation and I hope we keep it that way. Do you dislike all people who are different in race, religion, and color? Or just some?

A hero in his own eyes. And, doubtless, a legend in his own time.

You know what they say about legends, don’t ya?

“Legend: A lie that has attained the dignity of age.”

And about time:

“Time stays, we go.”

H. L. Menchen, for those times when the absurd becomes ubiquitous …

DW

During that farce/Democratic pep rally yesterday, likely set up by Rahm and Reid, Obama sat and watched as Bayh and Lincoln got to slam the non-Moderates of the Left and the ‘few words’ by Harry Reid rambled on to glorify all of their accomplishments.

When Obama spoke he not only encouraged them to continue on, he chose to once again glorify ..Joe Lieberman.

The Dems have already lost control of both houses of Congress, and the Moderates can smell it.

Our (Pentagon directed) tax dollars at work, protecting us from the rule of law.
Awesome.

And, doubtless, a legend in his own time mind.

Forgive the correction please.

God
Damn
America

Rev. Wright was right

I notice the major didn’t refute my points re geneva conventions…just begged off on how ignorant we all are.

I just want to know the source of his opinions. what does he read or watch that tells him he’s right?

Military wannabe talking points tattooed on the inside of his eyelids.

So you confirm SouthernDragon’s assertion that you will have “fled the field” in order for you to get “back in the box” in order to… fight for our ignorance? Why don’t you enlighten us from on high, oh majorsty? How will you protect us from international laws and legal precidents? Those darn pesky law type things keep getting in the way of what, major? What is it that you are trying to accomplish, major?

Mr. Mike, I am more afraid of people who think like you in positions of power than I am of terrorists, and I don’t like terrorists (if that helps you understand better). When I consider your line of thinking, I am reminded of the Nazi regime, and no, I’m not saying that just for argumentative points. Terrorists without power are like mosquitoes (which suck), but the terrorists who actually have power and influence are very scary indeed, and I demand that we as a nation not act like terrorists who condone torture and prevent due process.

So, please enlighten us, major, if you are still there in all of your fearlessness and your real job having busy time schedule and whatnot. I just know that YOU would never repeat just some old talking points without thinking for yourself despite the stereotype that you put forth of soldiers
not being able to think for themselves. What say you? What is your goal to, as you say, protect us?

What if they are innocent? How will anyone ever know if evidence is refused because of “national security”?