Storm in a teacup?

[Brainfade]

By Fox ? :winky:

No, but the other networks more than made up for it. Regardless, it was stupid to rant about these symbolisms then, and it is stupid now. No matter who the President or who the network. But, I'll admit ... holding hands is weirder than bowing (fowards).

[Ram]

(a) It is not a military court. (b) His confession was obtained after waterboarding (the current admin. considers it torture). © Classified information may not be allowed as evidence. In the absence of such evidence, reasonable doubt may enter the minds of the jurors. (d) They were never "Mirandized." So, the govt. lawyers better be damned good.

Even before KSM was captured, he went on Al-Jazeera and openly flaunted in an interview as to how he master-minded the 9/11 attacks. Also, before he was moved over to Guantanamo/water-boarded, he was first interrogated ‘normally’ in one CIA’s secret detention centres where he is said to have accepted his role. And I sure they have a host of other documentary evidence (e-mail/letter correspondence, movement of funds, interaction with other terrorists etc) that they will use to nail his role. And then, there’s also the issue of KSM’s involvement in the Daniel Pearl murder (he is said to have accepted his role in personally ‘decapitating’ Pearl) Simply put, there is no way either KSM or any of the other 5 alleged terrorists to be tried in NY will walk out free.

[Ram]

Btw, a question to all the good men here; Do you guys support or oppose the Obama's administration's decision to move the 9/11 suspects trial to a regular article 3 court in US soil? Or do you think they should all be tried in military courts?

[punjabi_khota]

(a) It is not a military court. (b) His confession was obtained after waterboarding (the current admin. considers it torture). © Classified information may not be allowed as evidence. In the absence of such evidence, reasonable doubt may enter the minds of the jurors. (d) They were never "Mirandized." So, the govt. lawyers better be damned good.

You do realize what would happen to Obama presidency if KSM or any of those accused in 9/11 are released. :hysterical: There is way too much political mileage to be derived from that possibility for republicans..democrats are not going to let that happen.

[Brainfade]

Even before KSM was captured, he went on Al-Jazeera and openly flaunted in an interview as to how he master-minded the 9/11 attacks. Also, before he was moved over to Guantanamo/water-boarded, he was first interrogated ‘normally’ in one CIA’s secret detention centres where he is said to have accepted his role. And I sure they have a host of other documentary evidence (e-mail/letter correspondence, movement of funds, interaction with other terrorists etc) that they will use to nail his role. And then, there’s also the issue of KSM’s involvement in the Daniel Pearl murder (he is said to have accepted his role in personally ‘decapitating’ Pearl) Simply put, there is no way either KSM or any of the other 5 alleged terrorists to be tried in NY will walk out free.

Hope you're right, but I am concerned that there is even a window of opportunity for these scumbags to walk. GWB's admin messed by not trying and finishing the case in a military trubunal right away. On a related note, are you insinuating that the govt would not have moved this to a civilian trial if they didn't have a water-tight case? Just wondering.

[Ram]

Hope you're right, but I am concerned that there is even a window of opportunity for these scumbags to walk. GWB's admin messed by not trying and finishing the case in a military trubunal right away. On a related note, are you insinuating that the govt would not have moved this to a civilian trial if they didn't have a water-tight case? Just wondering.

Not a chance. As PK indicated in one of his earlier post, that’ll be akin to committing political suicide. If KSM manages to walk free, that will be a PR disaster from which the US will find hard to recover from. Btw, here’s another indicator as to why I think the Justice Department has a water-tight case against KSM and other the guys to be tried in NY. Just as the decision to try them on US soil was made, the Obama admn also chose to send 4 more terror suspects to those military courts for trial. Obviously, they’re not sure of a conviction in those instances. So, even though this might like an attempt by the Obama admn to reverse the Bush policies, it doesn’t mean much really, especially when the picking and choosing who gets to go to the civilain court and who goes to the military tribunal.

[Brainfade]

Btw' date=' a question to all the [b']good men here;

Does that disqualify me, then :) ?

[Brainfade]

Not a chance. As PK indicated in one of his earlier post, that’ll be akin to committing political suicide. If KSM manages to walk free, that will be a PR disaster from which the US will find hard to recover from. Btw, here’s another indicator as to why I think the Justice Department has a water-tight case against KSM and other the guys to be tried in NY. Just as the decision to try them on US soil was made, the Obama admn also chose to send 4 more terror suspects to those military courts for trial. Obviously, they’re not sure of a conviction in those instances. So, even though this might like an attempt by the Obama admn to reverse the Bush policies, it doesn’t mean much really, especially when the picking and choosing who gets to go to the civilain court and who goes to the military tribunal.

Doesn't sound too ethical to me.

[Ram]

Does that disqualify me' date=' then :) ?[/quote'] Of course, it doesn’t!

Doesn't sound too ethical to me.

It sure maybe a duplicit, but at least it’s a start. I think what the Obama administration is trying to do is to systematically eliminate the sheer paranoia that previous Bush administration created over this threat of terrorism, labeling people and countries ‘evil’ and ‘bad people’ etc. Not to say that the perpetrators of 9/11 had noble intentions or whatever, but but calling this a ‘War on Terrorism’ and using phrases like ‘We’re a nation at War’, the Bush admn essntially put the entire country in paranoid mode. I think part of what the Obama administration is trying to achieve by trying these alleged terrorists in the U.S soil is to treat this as some sort of law and order problem, so that people come out of their ‘Oh, we’re at War’ mode. The closure of Guantanamo bay was just the start of this process, so was the prohibition of water-boarding and other means of torture. The return of all combat troops from Iraq by the end of next will also help immensely in this.

[coffee_rules]

Btw, a question to all the good men here; Do you guys support or oppose the Obama's administration's decision to move the 9/11 suspects trial to a regular article 3 court in US soil? Or do you think they should all be tried in military courts?

Too much liberal agenda for me. What's wrong with setting up of Military courts for terrorists? They have conspired to kill the citizens of another nation, why should they be entitled to rights that the citizens have? If not for a TADA/POTA/Patriot act kind of law, there is no way to control terrorists. Anyway, in KSM's case he is confessing to all the crimes only to die as a martyr and show to other terrorists how noble his death is. Why should he given a platform to show off his death. He should have been killed like a pig silently in a military base somewhere deep in the pacific.

[Brainfade]

Of course, it doesn’t! It sure maybe a duplicit, but at least it’s a start. I think what the Obama administration is trying to do is to systematically eliminate the sheer paranoia that previous Bush administration created over this threat of terrorism, labeling people and countries ‘evil’ and ‘bad people’ etc. Not to say that the perpetrators of 9/11 had noble intentions or whatever, but but calling this a ‘War on Terrorism’ and using phrases like ‘We’re a nation at War’, the Bush admn essntially put the entire country in paranoid mode. I think part of what the Obama administration is trying to achieve by trying these alleged terrorists in the U.S soil is to treat this as some sort of law and order problem, so that people come out of their ‘Oh, we’re at War’ mode. The closure of Guantanamo bay was just the start of this process, so was the prohibition of water-boarding and other means of torture. The return of all combat troops from Iraq by the end of next will also help immensely in this.

Iraq: No Bush surge = no Obama pull-out. Credit where credit's due.

[Brainfade]

Too much liberal agenda for me. What's wrong with setting up of Military courts for terrorists? They have conspired to kill the citizens of another nation' date=' why should they be [b']entitled to rights that the citizens have? If not for a TADA/POTA/Patriot act kind of law, there is no way to control terrorists. Anyway, in KSM's case he is confessing to all the crimes only to die as a martyr and show to other terrorists how noble his death is. Why should he given a platform to show off his death. He should have been killed like a pig silently in a military base somewhere deep in the pacific.

I agree in principle with you. But, legally speaking, Article III allows the possibility of prosecuting them as citizens would. Just the way it is. Agree with pretty much everything else.

[Ram]

Too much liberal agenda for me. What's wrong with setting up of Military courts for terrorists? They have conspired to kill the citizens of another nation' date=' why should they be entitled to rights that the citizens have? If not for a TADA/POTA/Patriot act kind of law, there is no way to control terrorists. Anyway, in KSM's case he is confessing to all the crimes only to die as a martyr and show to other terrorists how noble his death is. Why should he given a platform to show off his death. He should have been killed like a pig silently in a military base somewhere deep in the pacific.[/quote'] If your current laws are inadequate to prosecute Prisoners of War or Enemy combatants, just write new ones. Why prosecute them in some secret military court? There were no laws regarding cyber crime 10-15 years ago, nor were there laws related to sexual offences a couple of decades ago. Why not not write anti-terror laws too? And anyway, the govt. says they are terrorists, what if they werent? There have been numerous instances of totally innocent people being held in these secret detention centres. Why should they be denied the right to a fair, open trial? And what does it say of you, if you proclaim to be the beacon of freedom and civil liberties, going around the world lecturing other governments on peoples’ rights, if you yourself are indulging in systematic torture, mass renditions and secret trials?

Iraq: No Bush surge = no Obama pull-out. Credit where credit's due.

hmm, I’d say that is an over-simplification. I am sure Obama would have pulled out of Iraq no matter what. Only the time-lines would have varied, depending on the levels of violence. Sure, the surge worked. But generally, the Bush supporters speak as though the Iraq war started with the surge, which is far from the case. The surge followed nearly 4 years of catastrophic management of an invasion that consumed nearly 1,00,000 Iraqi civilian lives. The surge may have quelled the violence, but it still does not address the underlying problems that still plague Iraq and its politics.

[Brainfade]

If your current laws are inadequate to prosecute Prisoners of War or Enemy combatants, just write new ones. Why prosecute them in some secret military court? There were no laws regarding cyber crime 10-15 years ago, nor were there laws related to sexual offences a couple of decades ago. Why not not write anti-terror laws too? And anyway, the govt. says they are terrorists, what if they werent? There have been numerous instances of totally innocent people being held in these secret detention centres. Why should they be denied the right to a fair, open trial? And what does it say of you, if you proclaim to be the beacon of freedom and civil liberties, going around the world lecturing other governments on peoples’ rights, if you yourself are indulging in systematic torture, mass renditions and secret trials? hmm, I’d say that is an over-simplification. I am sure Obama would have pulled out of Iraq no matter what. Only the time-lines would have varied, depending on the levels of violence. Sure, the surge worked. But generally, the Bush supporters speak as though the Iraq war started with the surge, which is far from the case. The surge followed nearly 4 years of catastrophic management of an invasion that consumed nearly 1,00,000 Iraqi civilian lives. The surge may have quelled the violence, but it still does not address the underlying problems that still plague Iraq and its politics.

It is incorrect that there are no laws. Article III does allow for civilian courts to try non-citizens. But, if you were correct, it would mean the govt is putting the cart before the horse. First, write the laws, pass them in Congress and then prosecute. Of course the war was unnecessary and was managed badly. That doesn't take away from the fact that Obama's troop-withdrawal plans would be a non-starter, but for the surge. It is simple, not a simplification. No surge, no relative stability, no withdrawal.

[coffee_rules]

If your current laws are inadequate to prosecute Prisoners of War or Enemy combatants, just write new ones. Why prosecute them in some secret military court? There were no laws regarding cyber crime 10-15 years ago, nor were there laws related to sexual offences a couple of decades ago. Why not not write anti-terror laws too? And anyway, the govt. says they are terrorists, what if they werent? There have been numerous instances of totally innocent people being held in these secret detention centres. Why should they be denied the right to a fair, open trial? And what does it say of you, if you proclaim to be the beacon of freedom and civil liberties, going around the world lecturing other governments on peoples’ rights, if you yourself are indulging in systematic torture, mass renditions and secret trials?

Patriot act is about swift justice. Since, it takes a lot of time and resources to try them out like ordinary criminals, the law allows them to convict them quicker. Whatever Bush was, his anti-terror laws were effective in preventing another 9/11. THe casualties of this are the one's that get convicted wrongly. That's just a collateral you pay for keeping others safe. If India has such laws, it would have prevented another 11/26 to happen after 11/7.

[punjabi_khota]

Patriot act is about swift justice. Since' date=' it takes a lot of time and resources to try them out like ordinary criminals, the law allows them to convict them quicker. [b']Whatever Bush was, his anti-terror laws were effective in preventing another 9/11. THe casualties of this are the one's that get convicted wrongly. That's just a collateral you pay for keeping others safe. If India has such laws, it would have prevented another 11/26 to happen after 11/7.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc B->B-> Plus, have you forgotten about the shoe-bomber ? He failed only because he couldn't light the bomb properly, or else this lame logic of yours would have never been (mis)used.

[coffee_rules]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc B->B-> Plus, have you forgotten about the shoe-bomber ? He failed only because he couldn't light the bomb properly, or else this lame logic of yours would have never been (mis)used.

Whatever it is ..there will be exceptions. But we are discussing if a country needs tough laws to protect itself or not. There may be more people dying from car accidents than terrorism, but after 9/11, boarding an airplane if they don't check your bags on x-ray, I will not be boarding that plane. People always complain about civil rights when they are sitting in offices browsing internet. Somebody in Iraq wants his government to kill all bad guys without involving courts.

[The Outsider]

Patriot act is about swift justice. Since' date=' it takes a lot of time and resources to try them out like ordinary criminals, the law allows them to convict them quicker. [b']Whatever Bush was, his anti-terror laws were effective in preventing another 9/11. THe casualties of this are the one's that get convicted wrongly. That's just a collateral you pay for keeping others safe. If India has such laws, it would have prevented another 11/26 to happen after 11/7.

That's just hogwash which is thrown by right wingers. How many terror attacks happened on US soil before 9/11 for it to be a valid construct in an argument? Fact is America's geographic location makes it impervious to frequent terror attacks. There has been no let down in attacks on American targets outside the US.

[Brainfade]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc B->B-> Plus, have you forgotten about the shoe-bomber ? He failed only because he couldn't light the bomb properly, or else this lame logic of yours would have never been (mis)used.

Understandable argument. Wrong example. Richard Reid was born and brought up in the UK, and boarded an American airplane in Paris in December 2001. He had never been to the US; the Patriot Act did not apply to him until he was arrested on an American plane. Moreover, the Patriot act was signed in October 2001. He got caught in Dec 2001. Hardly enough time to get him. Even if he had succeeded, it does not represent a failure of the Patriot Act. You can come up with other examples - I'll let you do the work :--D

[Brainfade]

That's just hogwash which is thrown by right wingers. How many terror attacks happened on US soil before 9/11 for it to be a valid construct in an argument? Fact is America's geographic location makes it impervious to frequent terror attacks. There has been no let down in attacks on American targets outside the US.

Good point. A counter-argument though is that 9/11 represented a major breach in this impervious-ness (is that even a word?). But, the breach hasn't opened the floodgates. As for attacks on American targets outside the US, does the Patriot Act apply in those countries? It could be an indictment of the intelligence-agencies of those lands.