And the article also blames Graham, McCain and Lieberman for gutting Bush’s tribunal plans.
Holder did not consult Obama on trying 9-11 terrorists in NYC. Considering there have already been a number of successful (for us, not the terrorists) trials in the Federal civilian courts, Holder was not making a sudden out of the blue decision as to court, only to location.
TextperV, rent boys shut up when told and happily comply when you tell them to put mouth to other use than talking – isn’t that the best traits you’re looking for right now in your pissy mood?
Recently I’ve become friends again with my college (sort of) girlfriend (no hanky panky folks!).
Yesterday she sent an e-mail to me to listen to the Podcast of the Mark Levin talk radio show. She called in to do a rant about Obama and terrorist trials. I guess that was the basis of the attraction -we’re both rednecks???
I say that she was my “sort of” girlfriend because we never actually dated. She was in my class for 3 years, and we worked together on alot of projects. We became very close. By the time we met, however, she was already going steady with her present husband, and I was already going steady with my present wife. There is no doubt,however, that we felt an attraction for each other during those years. When we were reunited recently, I think we both felt a “what would life have been with you?” type of curiosity. Will never know. Sometimes it’s best to leave these questions unanswered.
Again- a few facts on the problem with military tribunals might be useful.
This is an excerpt from the Atlantic Article, and by the way, it blames Congress, not Bush for the problem. The legislators who today say that men like Mohammed must not be prosecuted in a civilian court can point to no single example since 9/11 where a terror suspect has gotten a break in such courts. They cite no instance where a federal judge has ruined national security by bending over backward to help an Al Qaeda defendant. They offer no proof that veteran federal prosecutors are less competent than the military lawyers who would be prosecuting these suspects before commissions or tribunals.
On the contrary, the record in favor of trying Al Qaeda operatives in our federal court is stunning for its success. Richard Reid, the “shoe-bomber” quickly pleaded guilty and got life in prison. Zacarias Moussaoui, the zany, loquatious terror conspirator who worked for Mohammed, pleaded guilty, begged for a death sentence, and was disappointed when a federal jury in Virginia gave him life. Even Jose Padilla’s criminal trial turned out great for the feds; they got a quick verdict despite an appalling lack of strong evidence against the defendant. All of these trials, I shouldn’t have to add, were directed by Bush-era prosecutors.
Having tried too hard to thwart the rights of terror suspects; having directly delayed justice for Mohammed’s alleged victims; having endorsed (or at least tolerated) civilian terror trials for a Republican president but not a Democrat one, it is nearly comical that these legislators now would be willing to talk crazy about eliminating funding for federal terror trials. I can’t imagine the White House will tolerate such a threat to its executive-branch power. And I don’t expect the courts will look too kindly upon it, either. You can see the headline now: Acting boldly, Congress moves to eliminate startlingly successful terror-trial program administered by able, veteran judges! It’s a joke, right, with a cosmic punchline somewhere? “- Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic
“in your pissy mood?”
ROTFLMMFAO…as if THAT’S new!!!!!!
bxgrl,
wow, are you actually admitting that Bush got this one right?
lol.
And the article also blames Graham, McCain and Lieberman for gutting Bush’s tribunal plans.
Holder did not consult Obama on trying 9-11 terrorists in NYC. Considering there have already been a number of successful (for us, not the terrorists) trials in the Federal civilian courts, Holder was not making a sudden out of the blue decision as to court, only to location.
TextperV, rent boys shut up when told and happily comply when you tell them to put mouth to other use than talking – isn’t that the best traits you’re looking for right now in your pissy mood?
Here is a bit of a funny story.
Recently I’ve become friends again with my college (sort of) girlfriend (no hanky panky folks!).
Yesterday she sent an e-mail to me to listen to the Podcast of the Mark Levin talk radio show. She called in to do a rant about Obama and terrorist trials. I guess that was the basis of the attraction -we’re both rednecks???
I say that she was my “sort of” girlfriend because we never actually dated. She was in my class for 3 years, and we worked together on alot of projects. We became very close. By the time we met, however, she was already going steady with her present husband, and I was already going steady with my present wife. There is no doubt,however, that we felt an attraction for each other during those years. When we were reunited recently, I think we both felt a “what would life have been with you?” type of curiosity. Will never know. Sometimes it’s best to leave these questions unanswered.
Again- a few facts on the problem with military tribunals might be useful.
This is an excerpt from the Atlantic Article, and by the way, it blames Congress, not Bush for the problem. The legislators who today say that men like Mohammed must not be prosecuted in a civilian court can point to no single example since 9/11 where a terror suspect has gotten a break in such courts. They cite no instance where a federal judge has ruined national security by bending over backward to help an Al Qaeda defendant. They offer no proof that veteran federal prosecutors are less competent than the military lawyers who would be prosecuting these suspects before commissions or tribunals.
On the contrary, the record in favor of trying Al Qaeda operatives in our federal court is stunning for its success. Richard Reid, the “shoe-bomber” quickly pleaded guilty and got life in prison. Zacarias Moussaoui, the zany, loquatious terror conspirator who worked for Mohammed, pleaded guilty, begged for a death sentence, and was disappointed when a federal jury in Virginia gave him life. Even Jose Padilla’s criminal trial turned out great for the feds; they got a quick verdict despite an appalling lack of strong evidence against the defendant. All of these trials, I shouldn’t have to add, were directed by Bush-era prosecutors.
Having tried too hard to thwart the rights of terror suspects; having directly delayed justice for Mohammed’s alleged victims; having endorsed (or at least tolerated) civilian terror trials for a Republican president but not a Democrat one, it is nearly comical that these legislators now would be willing to talk crazy about eliminating funding for federal terror trials. I can’t imagine the White House will tolerate such a threat to its executive-branch power. And I don’t expect the courts will look too kindly upon it, either. You can see the headline now: Acting boldly, Congress moves to eliminate startlingly successful terror-trial program administered by able, veteran judges! It’s a joke, right, with a cosmic punchline somewhere? “- Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic
“He should have been shot on the spot. End of discussion.”
Had an air marshal been on board and shot and killed him on the spot, I would’ve had no problem with that.
A military tribunal is different from military court.
If someone is being held simply because their name is associated with someone wanted, that’s a different story.
THIS GUY TRIED TO BLOW UP A PLANE. HE HAD A BOMB STRAPPED TO HIM. It’s the difference between an obvious ACT OF WAR and circumstancial evidence.
He should have been shot on the spot. End of discussion.