Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
Legion is exactly right in his last post. Recall that I started this discussion by noting that the Obama administration is trying to do a backpedal on the issue, and they are doing so for political reasons.
His is a political calculus: how do I please the majority of Americans who know we are in a war situation against an extremist enemy, while placating the left wing that is my base (and that had a large part in electing him)? In this latter political calculus, his main guiding principle is “Do not give Bush credit for anything, do not use Bush terminology, etc. (even if I am carrying out the same exact policies)”.
Want proof of this? Remember how the left railed against the Patriot Act? Well, the Democrats have been in control of Congress for four years now, and what has happened on this front? Answer: nothing – the Patriot Act is still in place.
The irony of it all is that President Obama, who was a brilliant campaigner, now has a political tin ear. Folks in the center see his political calculations on this terror issue, and they are not pleased. When you are in a war, you’re in a war. It’s serious business – not a political campaign.
Finally, I ask folks to ponder one issue. With Iran trying to go nuclear, what kind of situation do you think the Mideast would be in right now if Saddam Hussein had not been removed? I believe a nuclear race between Iran and Iraq would have been a distinct possibility, akin to India and Pakistan.
I predict that the Iran situation will be solved – by Israel. Iran is laughing at Europe and Obama’s bluster (what are we up to now – the 49th imposition of “sanctions”), but the Israeli’s don’t fool around. They live on the edge, and play for keeps.
—
Lastly, I am not claiming that the Obama administration is “soft” on terror. In fact, it is his strong approach in Afghanistan that tells me he is playing politics with the entire situation. Why would he continue to aggressively pursue the offensive on al quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan while downplaying the role of al quaeda in the attacks at home (the Army Major Jihaadist who was directed by an al quaeda recruiter and the underwear bomber). The answer is that President Obama does indeed know we are facing an enemy in war, or at least he has quickly learned that fact, but he still wants to play the left-leaning reformer at home for his political base; so of course all talk of “war” or “islamic radicals” or “terrorists” is replaced by a cynical attempt at Orwellian wordspeak with euphemisms like “man made disasters” or “foreign contengencies”.
Again, what the Right wing is up in arms about is this administration’s attempt to rehash this very real war as a “criminal matter” while pursuing a “war strategy” abroad, which to his credit, has been steadily gaining results (despite his taking 6 months to approve a surge of troops in Afghanistan as recommended by his Generals, God forbid it should look like the Bush strategy in Iraq could be used successfully in Afghanistan!)
Don’t try to fool the American people, we know what we are facing here, and the President has been slow in connecting the dots, the dots connecting the underwear bomber to yemeni al quaeda to the islamic radical army major and back to al quaeda and to Afghanistan and Pakistan all the way back to Bin Laden. A two hundred million dollar show trial in NYC will not help his case either, not with unprecedented deficits and a clear disapproval by Americans towards the idea of bringing foreign “enemy combatants” here to NYC for trials when a simple military tribunal/commission will do and has a clear and set precedent in a time of war.
ok, now I’ll get back to watching the biathalon. skiing and marksmanship in one sport! Those crazy Europeans sure are funny. They need to add an American version of that to the summer olympics, something like drag racing and pistol sharp-shooting in one.
—seconds or the Russian army at Stalingrad which was triumphant over the Germans at the cost of a million young men). Dangerous for the complacency that comes with fiddling while our civilization is under attack.
Sure we will attempt to process enemy combatants in the most efficeint manner, but not a single second or dollar more should be spent for the sake of making them more comfortable or more at ease with our system of justice. Where does it get us? I’ve already posted before that at least 80 Guantanamo detainees were caught again in actions against the USA. Most recently, the trainers for the underwear bomber and the Islamic Army Major, yes, their trainors were Yemeni jihaadists previously released from Guantanamo Bay.
You mention that the FBI states that interrogation gets equal or better results than more aggressive measures like waterboarding. I have read reports by the director of the CIA, Tenet that clearly stated crucial information was obtained from Khalid Sheik Muhammed after coerced interrogation. Information that stopped additional plots from London. Please read more on this. He clearly states that KSM had no intention or talking or cooperating. The plan foiled was set to kill hundreds in a single day of plane explosions.
Next you state that many of these terrorists were released by the Bush administration to act again, as I’ve stated about the Yemeni terrorists. That is the point in itself. The Bush administration, at pains to follow the rules of war to a letter, were left with no other options but to release enemy combatants under the increasing weight of a left wing media accusing him of torture and murder. Again, put this in perspective with FDR carpet bombing the city of Dresden full of civilians, some historians still consider this act a war crime. But still, you want to rake Bush over the coals for invading Iraq when Iraq had clearly violated a cease fire agreement in effect since the first gulf war, Saddam Hussein was clearly provoking this nation at it’s weakest hour while reeling from the 9/11 attacks and every major intelligence agency in NATO knew he had chemical and biological weapons, including British, French and Isreali intelligence. Please do not deny, that fact since there are myriad picture os dead Khurds and Iranians who suffered from Sarin gas attacks curtesy of S. Hussein.
By the way, Iraq is now a functioning democracy in the middle east, it borders Iran which longs for such a democratic state. So you see, why Vice President was on television recently touting the “success” of Iraq, and clearly taking credit on behalf of the Obama administration.
No Bush was not mentioned, nor the fact that the democratic party had already written Iraq off as a complete “loss”.
Thank God for the internet and youtube video access to remind our leaders of their past words.lol.
First off you state that Republicans and the GOP are taking the Obama administration to task for trying criminals in civilian courts while ignoring the Bush administration’s terrorist trials in civilian courts.
Not at all, just look back to my previous post to see where I clearly state that the Bush administration chose to try those terrorists caught in the USA in civilian courts (Millenium plotters, Buffalo conspirators and Fort Dix conspirators to name a few). The Bush administration, during the same period captured hundreds of “enemy combatants” in Iraq and Afghanistan and chose to set up a military commission to try them through Guantanamo.
Despite what the left says, there was a method to the Bush administration’s actions, a method rooted in 200 years of military conflict and justice which is why I included the experiences of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in such matters. Yes, their administrations were conflicted in the same matters. They just didn’t have left wing zealots jumping all over them calling them war mongerers and killers at every opportunity. The Guantanamo bay detainees were delayed justice because of a constant flow of lawsuits by ACLU types looking to make a name for themselves in a time of war and at the expense of an administration that they were all too eager to take down. Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well today as you will clearly see if you watch MSNBC any given evening.
FDR detained American citizens of German, Italian and Japanese ancestry against their will in detention camps for fear of collusion with our enemies, but let’s not even go there, as his legacy has been well padded by 70 years of denial. As I’ve stated before, every President has made mistakes, it just seems that the liberal ones get a free pass on history at the academic institutions of higher learning. Until one reads further between the lines! When you get a chance, look up Woodrow Wilson’s distinguished history as President of Princeton University where he resisted integration of Americans of color to that institution or as President of the US where he re-segragated the national government.
You state that our ongoing struggle against radical islamists and jihaadists does not rise to the level of armed conflict against “soldiers” or “enemy combatants” as part of a larger war. You prefer to downgrade these people to common criminals and gangsters. This is THE fundamental mistake of the Obama administration in terms of the psychology of this ongoing conflict, for a fundamental principal of any successful undertaking, be it war or peace, is to properly acknowledge the problem at hand. By treating this conflict as a “criminal matter” as the Obama administration is doing, we are being asked consciously and subconsciously to take a less active and more defensive stance in this conflict. For example, the ongoing efforts against organized crime is a legitimate “criminal matter”, we as a population are not asked to actively engage in this matter any more than to report a suspicious activity. The rest is left to the feds with their undercover activities and operatives to periodically take down the organized crime families.
You cannot do this against “enemy combatants” in an actual war. Here are the reasons:
– common criminals are not targeting innocents for massive casualties and mortalities, enemy combatants are. Look at London, Madrid, Jakarta, Mombai and of course NYC for clear evidence.
– common criminals are not supported by entire nations and those nation’s intelligence resources (al quaeda had Afghanistan and many say Pakistan. Hamas, Hezbolla and Islamic Jihaad have Iran, the Islamic Brotherhood has Syria, just to name a few). Irish gangsters do not have the nation of Ireland backing them, Italian mobsters do not have the nation of Italy backing them, Mexican mobsters do not have the Mexican government sending them a steady supply of arms here in the USA.
– common criminals do not have access to massive ordinance explosives. Islamic radicals have been routinely supplied with high level explosives manufactured in Iran.The IED and suicide bomber has been al quaeda’s main method of operation throughout this war, and quite successfully, both methods require military grade explosives.
By the way, Iran has now declared itself a “nuclear state”, think of the implicatons of that for Israel when we consider that it is a known fact that Iran has been handing our enemies explosives for proxy war against the US and Israel for nearly 30 years now. And the Obama administration is still silent as thousands of brave Iranians are attempting to change Iran from within. Thousands in the streets of Iran this past week looking for a lifeline of support for their cause in Iran which is headed by a holocaust denier!
– common criminals do not act out of a calling to destroy this nation, but simply for monetary gain. Common criminals are more akin to parasites relying on their host for their own survival, enemy combatants are akin to a cancer which ultimately destroys it’s host.
-common criminals do not have an army of suicide bombers to implement their destructive plans.
-common criminals do not employ strategies of sustained terrorist activities against this nation.
I can continue, but do I really need to?
The difference between an organized enemy of the United States and common criminals like the Mexican, Russian or Italian Mob are clearly self-evident.
Your next point is about the moral ambiguity of military tribunals and coercive interrogation.
This is another fundamental difference between a left wing view and a right wing view on the issue of crime and punishment. Simply stated, in a time of war, my last concern is the enemy trying to kill me and my fellow countrymen. New Yorkers in particular are keenly in touch with this notion. Attempts to hold ourselves head and shoulders atop a moral highground are both ridiculous and dangerous. Ridiculous for the idea that there is any morality in war (think Truman incinerating two entire cities and their citizens within
DH, Rye was extremely enjoyable. But I feel they should consider using actual gas lighting in their converted gas lamps. Edison bulbs are just so common now.
Prepare yourself, Legion- its going to be a long one 🙂
so basically- what you’re saying is it was all right for the Bush administration to give terrorists expensive trials in civilian criminal court, giving them a public platform for their own agendas, but suddenly the Obama administration is doing the wrong thing by doing what the Bush Administration was? It is the Republican interpretation that says the Obama administration is soft on terrorism because they are trying terrorists in civilian court.
The GOP is playing semantics to make gotcha points by pulling out certain words and trying to use them against Obama. Terrorism is a criminal act, in every sense of the word. Calling terrorism an act of war gives terrorist more stature than they deserve. You now make them soldiers in a vast undertaking for some “greater good.” Certainly that is how they see themselves but in fact, they are criminals and murderers and I am not willing to let them puff up their chests by calling them soldiers, or implying they have some “cause” they are fighting for. Terrorists think they are special but they are common criminals, gang members- beneath contempt. Vermin to be crushed.
So what is the problem with tribunals:
• The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them. The Presiding Officers are authorized to consider secret evidence the accused have no opportunity to refute.[4]
• It may be possible for the commission to consider evidence that was extracted through coercive interrogation techniques before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act.[5] However, legally the commission is restricted from considering any evidence extracted by torture, as defined by the Department of Defense.[6]
• The Appointing Officer in overall charge of the commissions is sitting in on them. He is authorized to shut down any commission, without warning, and without explanation.[citation needed]
• The proceedings may be closed at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, so that secret information may be discussed by the commission. [7]
• The accused are not permitted a free choice of attorneys, as they can only use military lawyers or those civilian attorneys eligible for the Secret security clearance.[8] (WIKI)
This is not a problem but for one thing- there were many innocent people caught up in Guantanamo who have been sitting there for years with no trial and no means of recourse. Tribunals also allow hearsay. We allowed torture and even sent detainees overseas, to countries that do not have such strict laws- subcontracting out torture as it were. So how come we didn’t declare Timothy McVeigh and his pals were terrorists and try them in a tribunal? Every card is stacked against detainees- guilty and innocent alike. We have little reason to crow about our moral or societal superiority when we run tribunals like Hitler. And the FBI has testified that interrogation gets equal or better results than torture. Gee- wonder why?
So what’s wrong with Napolitano’s comment that terrorism is a man made disaster? Should we blame wolves or moose? Fish didn’t do it. She was not changing the definition of terrorism- she was explaining the result. (I could go into the psychological impact of terrorism, having worked for 7 years on just that issue and first responders but I’m taking pity on you :). The GOP is grasping at semantic straws to score points. It’s not about real issues, this is about trying to destroy an administration by obstruction, hypocrisy and deceit.
Under Bush terrorists were tried in criminal courts. The grandstanding lawyers and the lawyers who smuggled out messages for their clients, the detainees released to Yemen (who now have a 20% recidivism rate), all took place under Bush. Homeland Security was set up under Bush- the same system that let the underwear bomber slip through its fingers. Note also, the handling of the underwear bomber was no different than the handling of the shoe bomber by Bush, including the delay of several days to comment. In fact, Bush waited longer.And the single, most egregarious act of war since Hitler invaded Poland? We invaded Iraq. Who are the terrorists now?
I’m not soft on terrorists- quite the opposite since terrorism has has such a direct and ongoing impact on my life. I don’t care if they are tried by tribunal or trial so long as this country remains true to its constitutional principles and I can still hold my head up when I watch them carted off to jail or execution. And I suggest you get more information from other sources than Fox News re anti-terrorism under Obama before you claim he is soft on terror.
noki, thanks for reminding me,
I just remembered I have a six pack of Bud
in the fridge!
Hope your son is doing better, keep him away
from those craft beads.
Legion is exactly right in his last post. Recall that I started this discussion by noting that the Obama administration is trying to do a backpedal on the issue, and they are doing so for political reasons.
His is a political calculus: how do I please the majority of Americans who know we are in a war situation against an extremist enemy, while placating the left wing that is my base (and that had a large part in electing him)? In this latter political calculus, his main guiding principle is “Do not give Bush credit for anything, do not use Bush terminology, etc. (even if I am carrying out the same exact policies)”.
Want proof of this? Remember how the left railed against the Patriot Act? Well, the Democrats have been in control of Congress for four years now, and what has happened on this front? Answer: nothing – the Patriot Act is still in place.
The irony of it all is that President Obama, who was a brilliant campaigner, now has a political tin ear. Folks in the center see his political calculations on this terror issue, and they are not pleased. When you are in a war, you’re in a war. It’s serious business – not a political campaign.
Finally, I ask folks to ponder one issue. With Iran trying to go nuclear, what kind of situation do you think the Mideast would be in right now if Saddam Hussein had not been removed? I believe a nuclear race between Iran and Iraq would have been a distinct possibility, akin to India and Pakistan.
I predict that the Iran situation will be solved – by Israel. Iran is laughing at Europe and Obama’s bluster (what are we up to now – the 49th imposition of “sanctions”), but the Israeli’s don’t fool around. They live on the edge, and play for keeps.
—
Lastly, I am not claiming that the Obama administration is “soft” on terror. In fact, it is his strong approach in Afghanistan that tells me he is playing politics with the entire situation. Why would he continue to aggressively pursue the offensive on al quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan while downplaying the role of al quaeda in the attacks at home (the Army Major Jihaadist who was directed by an al quaeda recruiter and the underwear bomber). The answer is that President Obama does indeed know we are facing an enemy in war, or at least he has quickly learned that fact, but he still wants to play the left-leaning reformer at home for his political base; so of course all talk of “war” or “islamic radicals” or “terrorists” is replaced by a cynical attempt at Orwellian wordspeak with euphemisms like “man made disasters” or “foreign contengencies”.
Again, what the Right wing is up in arms about is this administration’s attempt to rehash this very real war as a “criminal matter” while pursuing a “war strategy” abroad, which to his credit, has been steadily gaining results (despite his taking 6 months to approve a surge of troops in Afghanistan as recommended by his Generals, God forbid it should look like the Bush strategy in Iraq could be used successfully in Afghanistan!)
Don’t try to fool the American people, we know what we are facing here, and the President has been slow in connecting the dots, the dots connecting the underwear bomber to yemeni al quaeda to the islamic radical army major and back to al quaeda and to Afghanistan and Pakistan all the way back to Bin Laden. A two hundred million dollar show trial in NYC will not help his case either, not with unprecedented deficits and a clear disapproval by Americans towards the idea of bringing foreign “enemy combatants” here to NYC for trials when a simple military tribunal/commission will do and has a clear and set precedent in a time of war.
ok, now I’ll get back to watching the biathalon. skiing and marksmanship in one sport! Those crazy Europeans sure are funny. They need to add an American version of that to the summer olympics, something like drag racing and pistol sharp-shooting in one.
have a good weekend. over and out. 😉
—seconds or the Russian army at Stalingrad which was triumphant over the Germans at the cost of a million young men). Dangerous for the complacency that comes with fiddling while our civilization is under attack.
Sure we will attempt to process enemy combatants in the most efficeint manner, but not a single second or dollar more should be spent for the sake of making them more comfortable or more at ease with our system of justice. Where does it get us? I’ve already posted before that at least 80 Guantanamo detainees were caught again in actions against the USA. Most recently, the trainers for the underwear bomber and the Islamic Army Major, yes, their trainors were Yemeni jihaadists previously released from Guantanamo Bay.
You mention that the FBI states that interrogation gets equal or better results than more aggressive measures like waterboarding. I have read reports by the director of the CIA, Tenet that clearly stated crucial information was obtained from Khalid Sheik Muhammed after coerced interrogation. Information that stopped additional plots from London. Please read more on this. He clearly states that KSM had no intention or talking or cooperating. The plan foiled was set to kill hundreds in a single day of plane explosions.
Next you state that many of these terrorists were released by the Bush administration to act again, as I’ve stated about the Yemeni terrorists. That is the point in itself. The Bush administration, at pains to follow the rules of war to a letter, were left with no other options but to release enemy combatants under the increasing weight of a left wing media accusing him of torture and murder. Again, put this in perspective with FDR carpet bombing the city of Dresden full of civilians, some historians still consider this act a war crime. But still, you want to rake Bush over the coals for invading Iraq when Iraq had clearly violated a cease fire agreement in effect since the first gulf war, Saddam Hussein was clearly provoking this nation at it’s weakest hour while reeling from the 9/11 attacks and every major intelligence agency in NATO knew he had chemical and biological weapons, including British, French and Isreali intelligence. Please do not deny, that fact since there are myriad picture os dead Khurds and Iranians who suffered from Sarin gas attacks curtesy of S. Hussein.
By the way, Iraq is now a functioning democracy in the middle east, it borders Iran which longs for such a democratic state. So you see, why Vice President was on television recently touting the “success” of Iraq, and clearly taking credit on behalf of the Obama administration.
No Bush was not mentioned, nor the fact that the democratic party had already written Iraq off as a complete “loss”.
Thank God for the internet and youtube video access to remind our leaders of their past words.lol.
bxgrl,
Let’s take your arguments on, one by one.
First off you state that Republicans and the GOP are taking the Obama administration to task for trying criminals in civilian courts while ignoring the Bush administration’s terrorist trials in civilian courts.
Not at all, just look back to my previous post to see where I clearly state that the Bush administration chose to try those terrorists caught in the USA in civilian courts (Millenium plotters, Buffalo conspirators and Fort Dix conspirators to name a few). The Bush administration, during the same period captured hundreds of “enemy combatants” in Iraq and Afghanistan and chose to set up a military commission to try them through Guantanamo.
Despite what the left says, there was a method to the Bush administration’s actions, a method rooted in 200 years of military conflict and justice which is why I included the experiences of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in such matters. Yes, their administrations were conflicted in the same matters. They just didn’t have left wing zealots jumping all over them calling them war mongerers and killers at every opportunity. The Guantanamo bay detainees were delayed justice because of a constant flow of lawsuits by ACLU types looking to make a name for themselves in a time of war and at the expense of an administration that they were all too eager to take down. Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well today as you will clearly see if you watch MSNBC any given evening.
FDR detained American citizens of German, Italian and Japanese ancestry against their will in detention camps for fear of collusion with our enemies, but let’s not even go there, as his legacy has been well padded by 70 years of denial. As I’ve stated before, every President has made mistakes, it just seems that the liberal ones get a free pass on history at the academic institutions of higher learning. Until one reads further between the lines! When you get a chance, look up Woodrow Wilson’s distinguished history as President of Princeton University where he resisted integration of Americans of color to that institution or as President of the US where he re-segragated the national government.
You state that our ongoing struggle against radical islamists and jihaadists does not rise to the level of armed conflict against “soldiers” or “enemy combatants” as part of a larger war. You prefer to downgrade these people to common criminals and gangsters. This is THE fundamental mistake of the Obama administration in terms of the psychology of this ongoing conflict, for a fundamental principal of any successful undertaking, be it war or peace, is to properly acknowledge the problem at hand. By treating this conflict as a “criminal matter” as the Obama administration is doing, we are being asked consciously and subconsciously to take a less active and more defensive stance in this conflict. For example, the ongoing efforts against organized crime is a legitimate “criminal matter”, we as a population are not asked to actively engage in this matter any more than to report a suspicious activity. The rest is left to the feds with their undercover activities and operatives to periodically take down the organized crime families.
You cannot do this against “enemy combatants” in an actual war. Here are the reasons:
– common criminals are not targeting innocents for massive casualties and mortalities, enemy combatants are. Look at London, Madrid, Jakarta, Mombai and of course NYC for clear evidence.
– common criminals are not supported by entire nations and those nation’s intelligence resources (al quaeda had Afghanistan and many say Pakistan. Hamas, Hezbolla and Islamic Jihaad have Iran, the Islamic Brotherhood has Syria, just to name a few). Irish gangsters do not have the nation of Ireland backing them, Italian mobsters do not have the nation of Italy backing them, Mexican mobsters do not have the Mexican government sending them a steady supply of arms here in the USA.
– common criminals do not have access to massive ordinance explosives. Islamic radicals have been routinely supplied with high level explosives manufactured in Iran.The IED and suicide bomber has been al quaeda’s main method of operation throughout this war, and quite successfully, both methods require military grade explosives.
By the way, Iran has now declared itself a “nuclear state”, think of the implicatons of that for Israel when we consider that it is a known fact that Iran has been handing our enemies explosives for proxy war against the US and Israel for nearly 30 years now. And the Obama administration is still silent as thousands of brave Iranians are attempting to change Iran from within. Thousands in the streets of Iran this past week looking for a lifeline of support for their cause in Iran which is headed by a holocaust denier!
– common criminals do not act out of a calling to destroy this nation, but simply for monetary gain. Common criminals are more akin to parasites relying on their host for their own survival, enemy combatants are akin to a cancer which ultimately destroys it’s host.
-common criminals do not have an army of suicide bombers to implement their destructive plans.
-common criminals do not employ strategies of sustained terrorist activities against this nation.
I can continue, but do I really need to?
The difference between an organized enemy of the United States and common criminals like the Mexican, Russian or Italian Mob are clearly self-evident.
Your next point is about the moral ambiguity of military tribunals and coercive interrogation.
This is another fundamental difference between a left wing view and a right wing view on the issue of crime and punishment. Simply stated, in a time of war, my last concern is the enemy trying to kill me and my fellow countrymen. New Yorkers in particular are keenly in touch with this notion. Attempts to hold ourselves head and shoulders atop a moral highground are both ridiculous and dangerous. Ridiculous for the idea that there is any morality in war (think Truman incinerating two entire cities and their citizens within
Noki, glad your son is feeling better.
DH, Rye was extremely enjoyable. But I feel they should consider using actual gas lighting in their converted gas lamps. Edison bulbs are just so common now.
Prepare yourself, Legion- its going to be a long one 🙂
so basically- what you’re saying is it was all right for the Bush administration to give terrorists expensive trials in civilian criminal court, giving them a public platform for their own agendas, but suddenly the Obama administration is doing the wrong thing by doing what the Bush Administration was? It is the Republican interpretation that says the Obama administration is soft on terrorism because they are trying terrorists in civilian court.
The GOP is playing semantics to make gotcha points by pulling out certain words and trying to use them against Obama. Terrorism is a criminal act, in every sense of the word. Calling terrorism an act of war gives terrorist more stature than they deserve. You now make them soldiers in a vast undertaking for some “greater good.” Certainly that is how they see themselves but in fact, they are criminals and murderers and I am not willing to let them puff up their chests by calling them soldiers, or implying they have some “cause” they are fighting for. Terrorists think they are special but they are common criminals, gang members- beneath contempt. Vermin to be crushed.
So what is the problem with tribunals:
• The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them. The Presiding Officers are authorized to consider secret evidence the accused have no opportunity to refute.[4]
• It may be possible for the commission to consider evidence that was extracted through coercive interrogation techniques before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act.[5] However, legally the commission is restricted from considering any evidence extracted by torture, as defined by the Department of Defense.[6]
• The Appointing Officer in overall charge of the commissions is sitting in on them. He is authorized to shut down any commission, without warning, and without explanation.[citation needed]
• The proceedings may be closed at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, so that secret information may be discussed by the commission. [7]
• The accused are not permitted a free choice of attorneys, as they can only use military lawyers or those civilian attorneys eligible for the Secret security clearance.[8] (WIKI)
This is not a problem but for one thing- there were many innocent people caught up in Guantanamo who have been sitting there for years with no trial and no means of recourse. Tribunals also allow hearsay. We allowed torture and even sent detainees overseas, to countries that do not have such strict laws- subcontracting out torture as it were. So how come we didn’t declare Timothy McVeigh and his pals were terrorists and try them in a tribunal? Every card is stacked against detainees- guilty and innocent alike. We have little reason to crow about our moral or societal superiority when we run tribunals like Hitler. And the FBI has testified that interrogation gets equal or better results than torture. Gee- wonder why?
So what’s wrong with Napolitano’s comment that terrorism is a man made disaster? Should we blame wolves or moose? Fish didn’t do it. She was not changing the definition of terrorism- she was explaining the result. (I could go into the psychological impact of terrorism, having worked for 7 years on just that issue and first responders but I’m taking pity on you :). The GOP is grasping at semantic straws to score points. It’s not about real issues, this is about trying to destroy an administration by obstruction, hypocrisy and deceit.
Under Bush terrorists were tried in criminal courts. The grandstanding lawyers and the lawyers who smuggled out messages for their clients, the detainees released to Yemen (who now have a 20% recidivism rate), all took place under Bush. Homeland Security was set up under Bush- the same system that let the underwear bomber slip through its fingers. Note also, the handling of the underwear bomber was no different than the handling of the shoe bomber by Bush, including the delay of several days to comment. In fact, Bush waited longer.And the single, most egregarious act of war since Hitler invaded Poland? We invaded Iraq. Who are the terrorists now?
I’m not soft on terrorists- quite the opposite since terrorism has has such a direct and ongoing impact on my life. I don’t care if they are tried by tribunal or trial so long as this country remains true to its constitutional principles and I can still hold my head up when I watch them carted off to jail or execution. And I suggest you get more information from other sources than Fox News re anti-terrorism under Obama before you claim he is soft on terror.
By the way, I miss the evening OT. What happend to it???
Noki;
I did the same thing when I was a kid.
Now I have planted your worst nightmare in your mind….your son will grow up to be a redneck conservative like me!!
Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!
Hope everything is ok and you have a good weekend.
…oh, and good night Noki and DH.
noki, thanks for reminding me,
I just remembered I have a six pack of Bud
in the fridge!
Hope your son is doing better, keep him away
from those craft beads.
Aurevoir.